3 ms·

You really are pushing your own version of events there aren't you? He was offered a lawyer and he refused, confirmed by him in his own appeal and gosh, not 9

by ZenPro 12y ago

You really are pushing your own version of events there aren't you? He was offered a lawyer and he refused, confirmed by him in his own appeal and gosh, not 9 whole hours - oh the horror! Schedule 7 Anti-Terrorism has been now been improved (at the request of the Home Secretary ironically) to reduce the maximum time and provide for legal counsel as standard. Yes. We are so illiberal we voluntarily reduce our legislative powers. Are you seriously suggesting that the United Kingdom should not stop and detain foreign nationals who are carrying our Top Secret data and then relieve them of that data? :-) Good one. I find it satisfying that a Brazilian civilian travelling through the UK was stop, detained and relieved of British property and then allowed to go freely on his way without further incident. I find that an absolute masterpiece of Government restraint in a highly charged situation. To sum up - >>Law enforcement is always executed with a degree of discretionality. That's an interesting word. I assume you mean discretion or one of it's derived terms. >> Afaik, he was not given any chance to contact a lawyer You know nothing Jon Snow. <joke> But seriously, he was offered a lawyer and he felt so threatened that he refused one. >> Foreign national <snip> no right to seize property etc The High Court ruled the authorities could examine the seized material for the defence of national security.. It was perfectly within the law according to UK judges. If you don't want your items seized, don't transit UK classified material.

mike_hearn 12y ago
> You really are pushing your own version of events there aren't you? You mean, unlike you? Ye gods. He was not offered a lawyer by any traditional meaning of the phrase. He was offered a stooge selected by the very same people interrogating him and implying he might be a terrorist. When he asked for his own lawyer, that's when he was refused, rather shooting a hole in the idea that he would have been given good representation if he'd gone with the so generous British offer. > We are so illiberal we voluntarily reduce our legislative powers. These powers were reduced because of the overwhelming evidence that they were being abused: like by detaining people involved in journalism using powers intended for terrorism. Don't try and spin this as the UK being so awesome and democratic. We passed a stupid law that was repeatedly abused by people living in some kind of reality distortion field, and that's why the powers had to be reduced - despite the natural inclinations of many Tories. > Are you seriously suggesting that the United Kingdom should not stop and detain foreign nationals who are carrying our Top Secret data and then relieve them of that data? Whaa? Yes, of course he's seriously suggesting that. Your post speaks volumes about how disconnected you seem to have become from basic common sense. Miranda was working on data that had already been leaked to multiple journalists around the world and was going to go public no matter what. This fact was already public at the time. You can't "take back" information that was deliberately leaked to multiple journalists - at that point under any sensible set of rules the information would cease to be classified, because you can't classify something that's public knowledge. I'm blown away that you find the British government's oafish response a "masterpiece". Let's see what it achieved, shall we? * Nothing of value was obtained from Miranda. * It triggered international outcry from journalists around the globe, making Britain look stupid and illiberal on the world stage. * It pissed off Miranda's partner who then prioritised GCHQ related information for release. * It confirmed what most people already suspected or knew: that the British intelligence apparatus will happily classify anyone as a terrorist if it suits them, regardless of how dangerous they actually are (in this case: not at all). * It means in future journalists working on stories that might embarrass the British government will simply avoid British airports, resulting in the same media coverage with the added bonus that it looks like the UK doesn't care about freedom of the press. Positive outcomes? None as far as I can tell. Some masterpiece!
- ZenPro 12y ago
  Legal stooge? You are living in your own fucking Le Carre novel. Grow up.

by ZenPro 12y ago

mike_hearn 12y ago

> You really are pushing your own version of events there aren't you? You mean, unlike you? Ye gods. He was not offered a lawyer by any traditional meaning of the phrase. He was offered a stooge selected by the very same people interrogating him and implying he might be a terrorist. When he asked for his own lawyer, that's when he was refused, rather shooting a hole in the idea that he would have been given good representation if he'd gone with the so generous British offer. > We are so illiberal we voluntarily reduce our legislative powers. These powers were reduced because of the overwhelming evidence that they were being abused: like by detaining people involved in journalism using powers intended for terrorism. Don't try and spin this as the UK being so awesome and democratic. We passed a stupid law that was repeatedly abused by people living in some kind of reality distortion field, and that's why the powers had to be reduced - despite the natural inclinations of many Tories. > Are you seriously suggesting that the United Kingdom should not stop and detain foreign nationals who are carrying our Top Secret data and then relieve them of that data? Whaa? Yes, of course he's seriously suggesting that. Your post speaks volumes about how disconnected you seem to have become from basic common sense. Miranda was working on data that had already been leaked to multiple journalists around the world and was going to go public no matter what. This fact was already public at the time. You can't "take back" information that was deliberately leaked to multiple journalists - at that point under any sensible set of rules the information would cease to be classified, because you can't classify something that's public knowledge. I'm blown away that you find the British government's oafish response a "masterpiece". Let's see what it achieved, shall we? * Nothing of value was obtained from Miranda. * It triggered international outcry from journalists around the globe, making Britain look stupid and illiberal on the world stage. * It pissed off Miranda's partner who then prioritised GCHQ related information for release. * It confirmed what most people already suspected or knew: that the British intelligence apparatus will happily classify anyone as a terrorist if it suits them, regardless of how dangerous they actually are (in this case: not at all). * It means in future journalists working on stories that might embarrass the British government will simply avoid British airports, resulting in the same media coverage with the added bonus that it looks like the UK doesn't care about freedom of the press. Positive outcomes? None as far as I can tell. Some masterpiece!

ZenPro 12y ago
Legal stooge? You are living in your own fucking Le Carre novel. Grow up.