CrisPDuk

If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

The Metropolitan Police 'Service' proving once again that they are nothing more than tax collecting political bully boys

Has the anti-terrorist legislation ever actually been used for it's intended purpose since it was rushed through into law

Miniman

iTrader: (2)

Some of the facts coming out (No 10 knew about the detention and the US government too) appear to show that the police were not acting alone. Possibly requested by someone else?

I don't particularly like the comments coming out from the Home Office to the effect that - if you are questioning this action, you must want terrorism to succeed.

I think we don't want terrorism regardless whether that is a religious bomber blowing up a bus or police detaining someone for many hours with (apparently) no reason.

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

I thought anti-terrorism legislation was used to hold the subject in order to search his PC for offocial secrets...........sounds fair to me if that's the case.

Shaun

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Same with Cameron's **** laws... if you opt in you must support paedophilia.

As Hague said "Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear".

Hmmmmm..... it was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.

This goverment are even worse than the last lot in the population control stakes!

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

It's a sad day for democracy.

To use terrorism laws to prevent/obstruct journalism, and to use them to prevent exposure of potentially-illegal government-sanctioned activities, is shocking and disgusting. This is exactly what people could foresee when these 'anti-terrorism' measures were brought into existence.

The thin end of the wedge just got a bit thicker.

And yet another reason to resist any plans for internet censorship, sorry, filtering.

Chip

It's just the usual storm in a teacup. Hundreds of innocent people are held and questioned for various reasons every week and released without charge.

As his boyfriend has a lot to do with the publishing of Snowden's leaks then maybe they were in some way justified. We don't really know the reasoning behind it, we only assume there was no reason to detain him.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it had nothing to do with terrorism - even if he had Edward Snowden himself hidden down his trousers.

CrisPDuk

Since there is no proven (or even claimed) link between Snowden and terrorist activity, how on earth can any of that be relevant

greenonedave

The full facts are slowly coming out, On this one it seems the police are upholding the law, I can't understand how anybody who after signing the official secrets act feels they are
above the law to pass on information from within that secret area. The boyfriend is a journalist, the guardian paid for his flight,he refused a brief and the information he was carriring was stolen, what more do you need !

Chip

Maybe the fact that published material from Snowden concerning the operations of the US National Security Agency and its co-operation with Britain’s intelligence communications agency, GCHQ has something to do with it.

mrmadcap

I think it should be death by firing squad for treason.

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

Theresa May with her routine 'it's nothing to do with me' stance, again.

Every time... without fail.

ScoobyWon't

Local councils use surveillance legislation to spy in what you put in your rubbish bins. Is this what is was really intended for? Nope. It still happens though. Most laws are abused by people who know how to jump trough the loop holes.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

That's what we are being spoonfed yes, but I'd hope those of us with half a brain realise this is the government protecting itself, and trying to stop the light being shone on their, at best, questionable, and at worst illegal, spying activities on their own people.

And I still don't see how they have made the leap from that to terrorism. It's 1984.

Chip

Spying on their own people?

CrisPDuk

Since when has exposing the highly questionable, and possibly illegal, activities of various government agencies been classified as terrorism

Has anyone told Woodward and Bernstein

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I'm on the fence with this. This has only hit the headlines because its to do with a journalist. And only because "one of their own" has been hard done by (rightly or wrongly...we're yet to fully know), its suddenly a huge scandal and all the government/police's fault. Of course they'd say that; The media being unbiased on a report about one of their own journalists up to no good? Good heavens, I thought all journalists were saints!!

If it were Joe Public the media wouldn't have even blinked.

The press can be worse than the government and police combined, some are worse than terrorists IMO. But don't let that opinion get in the way of the facts, which unfortunately we'll probably never really know.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

For one thing, the guy who was stopped was not a journalist, though he did have access to Snowden's files so by implication this could never be a Joe Public incident, unless Joe Public has access to Snowden's files.

The Police/government used TERRORISM powers to do this - but when Theresa May spoke about it, she tried to justify this by saying it involved state secrets, now two things...

1) If these state secrets involve the government behaving illegally, then they should be investigated, taken to court, not patted on the back.
2) Why is having access to state secrets, equated to TERRORISM?! They are two different and distinct things.

neil-h

It's only equated to terrorism by the media and those who take there reporting at face value. Although that being said terrorism doesn't just cover strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up a bus.

Anyways, tbh I reckon schedule 7 was probably used because it was the easiest way to detain him at the time. Rather than the fact he was a genuine terrorist concern.

CrisPDuk

Really

And you're happy with that, the Police and State abusing the law to suit their own highly questionable ends?

neil-h

Tbh I find it about as questionable as stealing large quantites of classified documentation and then publishing it in the public domain...

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Spot on!

Good on this government for trying to protect its intel.
There are some secrets that should remain secrets to protect this country.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

He was stopped under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

And the Home Office have been quoted as saying that it was done to protect national security. http://news.sky.com/story/1130846/da...dmits-briefing

These are the facts, not the media stirring.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Intel it has no right to have?

neil-h

The point you made was about the link between stealing state secrets and terrorism. My point was that the only link between the two is that he was stopped under schedule 7, no more.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Yes, and clearly the police/government think there is a case to use terrorism powers to detain somone who has no link to terrorism, this is a massive abuse of powers.

neil-h

Tbf the theft and subsequent publication of classified documentation could constitute an act of terrorism against the state.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Yes, but this man did not steal or publish anything. Even then, I still don't see how that creates 'terror'.

This whole story is a shame as it is yet again diverting attention from the real story - the PRISM programme and GCHQ's access to it.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

That's your opinion and I fully respect that.

I personally feel that a country has a right to protect itself.
If that means lots if surveilance, then so be it.

What if the surveilance contained info relating to an informant or an under cover operative who is trying to infiltrate a terrorist cell?

Every government does it and have been doing it for years. Remember old Nixon?

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Of course a country has a right to protect itself, but I do not believe that includes spying on its own citizens. I don't want to live in a world where my every movement and communication is tracked by government. It's a terrible future when we go too far down that road.