3 ms·

> You say the injunction is worthless, yet the people acting on behalf of Miranda call it a "partial victory". Therefore you have made up nonsense. They have a

by UVB-76 13y ago

> You say the injunction is worthless, yet the people acting on behalf of Miranda call it a "partial victory". Therefore you have made up nonsense. They have an opinion, I have an opinion. You could say their opinion is more educated than mine, but you could also say they have a conflict of interest; it's their job to get a positive result. > Exactly, and the injunction now prevents them from using this for any other reason. This injunction prevents the authorities from doing what, exactly, with the seized materials? By which I mean, what might the authorities otherwise want to do with the materials that they are now prevented from doing?

hahainternet 13y ago
> You could say their opinion is more educated than mine, but you could also say they have a conflict of interest; it's their job to get a positive result. I really don't think it's possible to accuse a solicitor of having a conflict of interest with her own client. If she wanted to try and push for a better result, surely she would have framed it as a travesty of justice and not used the word 'victory' in any way. > By which I mean, what might the authorities otherwise want to do with the materials that they are now prevented from doing? Search them for evidence of other criminal offences? For example if his laptop contained pictures of him doing drugs, or possessing firearms, or any of the myriad potential crimes anyone could have committed.
- UVB-76 13y ago
  > I really don't think it's possible to accuse a solicitor of having a conflict of interest with her own client. If she wanted to try and push for a better result, surely she would have framed it as a travesty of justice and not used the word 'victory' in any way. This is a high-profile case, which could make or break the reputation of this solicitor. She is bound to frame the ruling in a positive light, no matter how ineffectual she knows it to be. She is hardly going to come out and say "This ruling is a disaster; we haven't achieved anything for our client." > Search them for evidence of other criminal offences? For example if his laptop contained pictures of him doing drugs, or possessing firearms, or any of the myriad potential crimes anyone could have committed. All the data stored on the seized devices is going to be closely scrutinised regardless, just under the guise of protecting national security. They are still going to discover evidence of any unrelated criminal activity, and as far as I'm aware this ruling doesn't prevent them launching separate criminal investigations — the police announced today they are doing precisely this.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    > This is a high-profile case, which could make or break the reputation of this solicitor. She is bound to frame the ruling in a positive light, no matter how ineffectual she knows it to be. I remain unconvinced. I don't see that you can infer this soley from her representation. I have seen many solicitors strongly condemn a ruling and admit a complete failure, although not in those words. > They are still going to discover evidence of any unrelated criminal activity, and as far as I'm aware this ruling doesn't prevent them launching separate criminal investigations — the police announced today they are doing precisely this. I have not read the ruling, so it is impossible for me to know for certain what it prohibits. I think it's pretty unlikely that they would make a ruling that prohibited nothing without at least some mention of it by someone with knowledge.
    - UVB-76 13y ago
      The Bindmans website [1] has the wording of the injunction. The national security exemption allows the authorities to continue to do whatever they please (specifically: inspect, copy, disclose, transfer, distribute) with the materials seized from Miranda, provided it is done "for the purpose of the protection of national security" It is trivial for the authorities to seize this exemption, as they have a reasonably held belief the material poses a threat to national security. If they don't use the former exemption, they can use the latter, which allows them to play the terrorism card. [1] http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/court-rule-on-miranda-injunction-application http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/court-r...

by UVB-76 13y ago

hahainternet 13y ago

> You could say their opinion is more educated than mine, but you could also say they have a conflict of interest; it's their job to get a positive result. I really don't think it's possible to accuse a solicitor of having a conflict of interest with her own client. If she wanted to try and push for a better result, surely she would have framed it as a travesty of justice and not used the word 'victory' in any way. > By which I mean, what might the authorities otherwise want to do with the materials that they are now prevented from doing? Search them for evidence of other criminal offences? For example if his laptop contained pictures of him doing drugs, or possessing firearms, or any of the myriad potential crimes anyone could have committed.

UVB-76 13y ago
> I really don't think it's possible to accuse a solicitor of having a conflict of interest with her own client. If she wanted to try and push for a better result, surely she would have framed it as a travesty of justice and not used the word 'victory' in any way. This is a high-profile case, which could make or break the reputation of this solicitor. She is bound to frame the ruling in a positive light, no matter how ineffectual she knows it to be. She is hardly going to come out and say "This ruling is a disaster; we haven't achieved anything for our client." > Search them for evidence of other criminal offences? For example if his laptop contained pictures of him doing drugs, or possessing firearms, or any of the myriad potential crimes anyone could have committed. All the data stored on the seized devices is going to be closely scrutinised regardless, just under the guise of protecting national security. They are still going to discover evidence of any unrelated criminal activity, and as far as I'm aware this ruling doesn't prevent them launching separate criminal investigations — the police announced today they are doing precisely this.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > This is a high-profile case, which could make or break the reputation of this solicitor. She is bound to frame the ruling in a positive light, no matter how ineffectual she knows it to be. I remain unconvinced. I don't see that you can infer this soley from her representation. I have seen many solicitors strongly condemn a ruling and admit a complete failure, although not in those words. > They are still going to discover evidence of any unrelated criminal activity, and as far as I'm aware this ruling doesn't prevent them launching separate criminal investigations — the police announced today they are doing precisely this. I have not read the ruling, so it is impossible for me to know for certain what it prohibits. I think it's pretty unlikely that they would make a ruling that prohibited nothing without at least some mention of it by someone with knowledge.
  - UVB-76 13y ago
    The Bindmans website [1] has the wording of the injunction. The national security exemption allows the authorities to continue to do whatever they please (specifically: inspect, copy, disclose, transfer, distribute) with the materials seized from Miranda, provided it is done "for the purpose of the protection of national security" It is trivial for the authorities to seize this exemption, as they have a reasonably held belief the material poses a threat to national security. If they don't use the former exemption, they can use the latter, which allows them to play the terrorism card. [1] http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/court-rule-on-miranda-injunction-application http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/court-r...