The Guardian is huffing and puffing about the indignity, the complete unfairness of the stop and search on Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda.
‘Journalism is under threat’….it’s a ‘betrayal of trust and principle.’
Funny how they were completely unconcerned about the arrests of News International journalists…in fact they in effect helped engineer those arrests with the BBC cheerleading all the way…never mind causing the closure of a newspaper and loss of 200 jobs due to Guardian lies.
We should all be worried about the Sun journos’ arrest
by Dan Hodges / 13 Feb 2012 14:51
A free press is a sacred right. Dan Hodges wants to know why we aren’t more concerned about the arrest of five members of that supposedly free press here in the UK…as Amnesty says “Sorry, this one’s not for us.”
The Leveson inquiry long ago passed beyond parody. But the ongoing police investigations are no laughing matter. The liberal left will laugh, of course; “Look at the Tory press getting its comeuppance”. But one day soon, that laughing will stop.
That laughter has stopped now…the principles espoused by Leveson are being used…and Miranda was on the receiving end of the Guardian’s own politicking.
New police powers ‘will curb Press freedom’: Officers will be allowed to confiscate material from journalists
- Sweeping measures allow officers to demand information from sources
- Changes may also see journalists forced to reveal whistleblowers’ identities
- Worries over the affect new rules will have on freedom of speech
Police are set to be given new powers to seize confidential material from journalists.
In a worrying blow to Press freedom, the changes may also mean journalists will be forced to identify whistleblowers to the police.
Critics said the Home Office proposals, which follow recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson, would undermine investigative journalism and free speech.
It is feared that the changes will remove legal protections for anyone who releases material to reporters unless journalists can show their source did not breach confidentiality or act illegally.
‘They grievously undermine the concept of confidentiality between reporters and sources that is essential for investigative journalism.’
In a further attack on PACE, Lord Leveson suggested it could be made easier for the police to seize items belonging to journalists which may be linked to criminality.
The BBC reports our Ambassador in Brazil has been dragged in to explain Britain’s behaviour in detaining a Brazilian citizen….perhaps the Ambassador could raise the question of the……
more than 50 journalists hurt or harassed in Brazil protests
Fierce clashes broke out between protesters and riot police during a demonstration near the Mineirao Stadium in Belo Horizonte on Wednesday. At the time, the sporting venue was playing host to a Confederations Cup semi-final football match between Brazil and Uruguay.
SAO PAULO, Brazil – The Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism says that more than 50 journalists have been injured, harassed or arrested during the protest demonstrations that have swept Latin America’s biggest country since June 17.
The association says in an emailed statement that 34 journalists were the victims of “aggression, hostility or threats by police officers,”
Perhaps the BBC in an example of rounded journalism could mention the hypocrisy of the Brazilian government.
Considering the Guardian’s long history of printing stories that later prove to be false I’m surprised the BBC see it as a reliable source. Anyone would think there was some sort of incestuous mutual support club between the pair.
Its not about being a reliable source, its about getting the message out there. Whether it is a true account or not is irrelevant.
Concisely put General.
Excellent post highlighting gross hypocrisy. Yesterday and today on various sites I have been asking why all the hysterical shrieking: what most people seemed outraged about was that this guy’s partner had been arrested. What they failed to realise is what this partner was doing, who he had met etc i.e. aiding and abetting an ‘enemy of the State’. Who knows the damage Snowden’s leaks have/will cause.
I assume (perhaps naively) that the security forces are doing just that -attempting to keep UK citizens safe. I think that this was what they were doing in this case. In spite of the way the BBC spins this story I have no sympathy. As Alan points out it seems a minor divine retribution for the way the BBC and the Guardian have behaved re Leveson.
And every time I hear the name ‘Miranda’ I think of Clarissa Dickson Wright and Tony Blair.
“In spite of the way the BBC spins this story………………………”
20 August 2013 Last updated at 09:43
David Miranda detention legally sound, says Scotland Yard
“It was responding to claims it misused its powers by holding David Miranda for nine hours at Heathrow on Sunday”
“In a separate interview with the Guardian, he said: “They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn’t co-operate.
“They treated me like I was a criminal or someone about to attack the UK… it was exhausting and frustrating, but I knew I wasn’t doing anything wrong.”
“Mr Greenwald said the British authorities’ actions amounted to “bullying” and linked it to his writing about Mr Snowden’s revelations concerning the US National Security Agency (NSA).”
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has written an article about Mr Miranda’s detention and what it means for journalism
“Have you been detained under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at a British airport? Please get in touch using the form below.”
Like a top old man ,like a top
Very selective (one might say “biased”) extracts Stewart. You could equally have chosen:
“Using the Terrorism Act to detain the partner of a Guardian reporter who covered US and UK security services was “legally sound”, Scotland Yard says.”
“Government sources told the BBC in response to the editor, Alan Rusbridger’s claims that the official approach had not been “heavy-handed””.
“Scotland Yard, which has not revealed on what grounds he was detained, said in a statement on Monday night that the “examination” of Mr Miranda was “subject to a detailed decision-making process””.
“A government sources told the BBC the authorities had not “acted like thugs” and had been trying to ensure the material did not fall into the wrong hands”.
Do you believe that the BBC should only cover one side of a story?
“Do you believe that the BBC should only cover one side of a story? ”
On the issues where both sides get a mention, it is how the BBC presents those sides as to where the clear bias is shown. Thousands of examples on this site.
At least you admit they tell both sides. Something like Fox TV don’t even bother with that.
The far left also think the BBC biased which suggests that they usually get it right.
There’s an interesting analysis of the politics of the guests on Question Time which supports BOTH arguments.
Most of the “examples” on this site don’t exist when looked at. Alan specialises in accusing the BBC of not doing something, there are reviews of programs nobody has watched and there are interpretations which are down to the bias of the listener. Most of the posts are sadly just repetitive rants by a small number of trolls and socks who seem to be on this site all day. I wonder were they get the time!
With the huge output of a news organisation like BBC it’s hardly surprising mistakes happen. That there are so few when looked at is why the BBC still has credibility.
Since Hitler received criticism from both sides about his attitudes to the Jews, ‘some said he was to severe’ whilst others said ‘he was not severe enough’, does this mean Quisling will.duncan agrees that ‘Hitler … just about got it right’ with respect to his policies to the Jews.
Also can you let me know how much you have to pay to Fox news each year.
‘The far left also think the BBC biased which suggests that they usually get it right’.
Like on climate change, you mean, where the BBC have shamelessly and openly aligned themselves with the hardline environmental movement?
And who do you mean by the ‘Hard Left’? Do they have their own website on BBC bias?
(That’s 3 questions, by the way.)
Disingenuous, intellectually lazy handwave of proven (and admitted) left-wing bias from the BBC. It’s not about the BBC “getting it right” or not – it’s that the BBC has repeatedly gone out of its way to only present what it wants the public to believe. Every news source is like this but the difference is the BBC is a state-funded tax-payer licensed propaganda machine that gets away with it by claiming to be impartial.
The fact you mention the far-left seeing the BBC as biased says it all, seeing as it’s the centre-right and even members of the centre-left who can tell the BBC is biased towards the left. Just because some extreme leftists don’t see it as being left enough for their tastes doesn’t mean it’s balanced.
You’re naive if you think the BBC is interested in being factual any more than the Guardian, the Mail, the Telegraph, or any other press outlet. It’s all about making money spinning a story they want people to hear. The BBC is absolutely no different and is in fact the most insidious of the lot because it doesn’t even have the spine of the respect for the audience to admit its leaning.
Completely wrong, how many hours do you watch Fox News? If you watched ANY AT ALL you would know they do present both sides and in a far fairer way than MSNBC etc.
Fox News =/= BBC .:
Fox News = biased
The BBC has little credibility
Yet again a crafty distraction by the BBC-supporting (unequivocally, as always) Albaman using a website report which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the report I heard on Today when they dragged in a Guardian-worshipping journalist who got away with the usual lefty tactic of rubbishing the opposition (in this case, Louise Mensch – ‘what right does she have to opine on this she’s an ex-MP not even living in the UK’) rather than debating her very well-made points.
So another biased item heard by circa 6 million compared to a website report read by……….who knows.
Yours (Albaman), Scott’s, Max’s and whoever else’s continuing use of this tactic, and the sudden way you all pop up together when your pet leftist agendas are being challenged, smacks of a co-operative effort and it stinks.
“…………………. the sudden way you all pop up together when your pet leftist agendas are being challenged, smacks of a co-operative effort and it stinks. ”
You are getting rather paranoid. Surely as advocates of “free speech” this site should welcome dissenting views and counter arguments rather than childishly claiming that it is some BBC conspiracy.
Dissenting views with substance, yes. Dissenting views based on a pathological desire to be seen as anti-conformist, no. Few of your sources are ever relevant, and those which are can clearly be seen as token gestures by the BBC to show how ‘impartial’ it is among the swathes of other reports it broadcasts showing it has an agenda.
‘You are getting rather paranoid.’
No, it’s called ‘recognising one coincidence too many’.
Lets be very clear on this;
Edward Snowdon signed the Official Secrets Act as part of his job.
When he stole and released files relating to Official Secrets he became a criminal and subject to arrest in the USA and her allies.
His actions threaten the security of the USA and her allies.
Greenwald was using his partner as a mule to transport information that would have made him an accessory to Snowdon’s crime and subject to arrest for aiding and abetting a criminal act.
The subterfuge is clear and evident; Brazil and her citizens are not allies of the USA therefore Miranda is a useful idiot for Greenwald.
Therefore this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Greenwald was knowingly committing a criminal act and used his sexuality and connections to engender sympathy for his illegal acts
Albaman and Will.duncan – I looked at BBC online on my mobile earlier after today’s court decision on the application for an injunction – its headline was ‘David Miranda detention ‘unlawful’. Shocked, and thinking the court had actually decided that his detention had been unlawful, I clicked to open the page and find out more, only to discover that that line was merely the view of Miranda’s lawyers. It was misleading at best and far removed from the reality of what had actually happened in court. So what is that would you say? Sloppy journalism? Or bias? Why should the opinion of Miranda’s lawyers be the line to sum up the whole story?
Is this a put on?
A put on? What do you mean?
Which government introduced the Terrorism Act (2000)?
Don’t Rushbridger, Hall and Thompson even accept (recent) laws enacted by their Labour Party?
This happens to be an online reference to Section 7 by Cumbria Police:-
“Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000.”
The liberals don’t like Louise. She raised the killing of the Fogel family and for that will never be persona grata.
That’s not giving both sides that’s regurgitating Rusbridger’s narrative
why else no mention of the two encrypted computer files
Now that’s balanced journalism
The fact is, Albaman, that the BBC continue to make Miranda’s detention as it’s main story. It’s long been said on this site, and ex-employees (Robin Aiken, Peter Sissons, Peter Jay) that the BBC waits until the delivery of the latest edition of the Guardian and takes its main story from the paper’s headlines. Proof positive of that claim with the Miranda story. Sky are hardly mentioning the story.
By the way, I’ve read quite a few American news and blogsites. It appears that Greenwald is viewed with contempt by many U.S. journalists. They cite the many stories he’s broken that he’s exaggerated, manipulated and even fabricated to push both his agenda and overweening ego. They don’t consider Greenwald a genuine journalist – more of a sensationalist.
Got no option have they . It is a fact.
All the problems in security and surveillance have arisen from the events on 9/11.
The problem we have created for ourselves is that we have not declared who the main enemy is in the War on Terror. This is liberalism in action. As liberalism cannot allow the West (US and UK in the main), to name the enemy, it follows that no profiling can be done in selecting the target of surveillance, or stopping and checking at airports and ports. It then follows that every one is spied on, and everyone can be stopped at airports and given the full treatment, including your proverbial “Norwegian grandmother”.
The aftermath of mass surveillance , and stopping nuns at airports while full burqa clad “women” are cleared, will eventually give rise to rebellion. The inept and downright Gestapo like behaviour of the TSA in the USA , is a case in point. People are fed up with the TSA, and sooner or later, they are going to hold the government to account.
Mass surveillance without any justification, is now the issue that citizens will, and must use against US and UK governments, and bring them to heel, or but by bit, our freedoms will vanish.
Security checks have to take place, but they must be undertaken against those who are the enemy in the War on Terror.
This issue is the one that will decide whether liberalism wins, and all of us lose, or the opposite.
Correct in every detail. This is why I continually accuse the liberals of living in a state of unreality. Now they can do so if they wish but I have children and grandchildren and have every right to safeguard their future. This is the reality of the world not some liberal dream world view.
Sooner or later we must end this absurdity and embrace reality or it will embrace us on it’s own terms.
Nice one Dave S. It is the cold truth.
Though the Terrorism Act of 2000 pre-dates 9/11.
“…Funny how they [The Grauniad] were completely unconcerned about the arrests of News International journalists… in fact they in effect helped engineer those arrests with the BBC cheerleading all the way… never mind causing the closure of a newspaper and loss of 200 jobs due to Guardian lies.
The hypocrisy of the toxic Left at work in plain sight. These people truly are the enemy within.
Don’t forget the massive hypocrisy of Labour calling for an investigation of whether Miranda’s detention was justified. This from the political party which introduced the law that enabled the police to do it. At the time insisting brusquely that these powers would only ever be used against terrorists.
I hate the Beeb and Guardian more than most. That they only pick up on this stuff when it affects the gay lover of one of their fellow conspirators makes me despise them all the more.
But the fact of the matter is they may have a point in this case.
Did the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that Miranda was involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism? Those are the grounds under which he was held for 9 hours and they confiscated his phone, memory card, and laptop.
It would be nice if the Beeb would use their position as the dominant supplier of news consumption (over 60%) to bring attention to these abuses all of the time, instead of only when it’s a fellow left wing journalist.
They are the enemy within – just like the political agenda behind ‘climate change’, it’s all about hatred of the West and the capitalist system.
I think Albaman should watch and listen to BBC news with open ears and eyes. Often it is how things are reported, the inflection or the disbelief in the voice etc or even the amount of time given to a very small story. The Mirianda arrest was given the disproportionate amount of time because it was linked with a Guardian reporter and and links to the Snowden story. For most people the fact that a partner of a left wing journalist was held for 9 hours questioning because of his links to illegal activity just isn’t such a big story.
Then there are the girls who have been arrested in Peru. Listen to the way it has been reported by the BBC. Not the individual quotes that can be copy and pasted from the internet – the tone of voice used. Voices full of sympathy which I suggest are because that people working for the BBC are mixing in circles where cocaine use is not unknown. The reporting is therefore with sympathy for these girls caught up in drugs rings – rather than reporting on the huge misery that £1.5 million could inflict on the UK population.
” For most people the fact that a partner of a left wing journalist was held for 9 hours questioning because of his links to illegal activity just isn’t such a big story.”
Strange then that it was a main story on news networks and on the front pages of print media.
You obviously can’t tell the difference between a ‘main’ story and a ‘major’ story. Putting something on the front of a newspaper (presumably with two pages allocated to it on page 8 and 9 of most outlets) or running a small report at the top of a news broadcast is not the same as devoting massive amounts of time and resources on something. Plus there’s the obvious fact that the BBC spun the arrest of News International journalists as being a victory for journalistic integrity, but has spun this as a crushing blow to freedom of the press.
Hypocrisy with no bounds.
False, Albaman. The story was NOT the main story on most of today’s press. I checked the Sky News site which shows photos of all the front pages each morning – and also the newspaper rack in my local supermarket.
So either you are blind – or you are deliberately trying to deceive.
Why are you looking in today’s newspapers for a story which broke on Sunday and was widely reported on Monday?
Because the bloody BBC won’t shut upm na little about it – it is STILL their top story. Piss-poor journalism, just agenda-bashing
…and they’re still not reporting all the known facts: they’re still putting a slant on what they’re saying. Pathetic.
Which was Louise Mensch’s point on Newnight last night, and thus her accusation that the BBC was biased in its reporting of the story.
Albaman you must pay attention to what is being stated on this site and what you deem so.
In my English market town nobody cares. Nobody. I asked a number of people and they seemed bemused. It is a story of outraged liberals nothing else.
The media is out of touch. This is August. The sun is shining .The children are around. Who cares if this poor lad was held for nine hours?
“Strange then that it was a main story on news networks and on the front pages of print media.” It was on day 1 Albaman – but that was before we all discovered that Greenwald had lied and that Miranda was actually working for him as a courier of what is probably stolen material – flights paid for by the Guardian. By day 2, the Guardian was still full of it of course(mainly backside covering), but while other outlets had moved on – except the BBC who parroted the Guardian line. None of the complexity this case involves and no interrogation of the disingenuous actions and statements from Greenwald and Miranda.
“Voices full of sympathy which I suggest are because that people working for the BBC are mixing in circles where cocaine use is not unknown. The reporting is therefore with sympathy for these girls caught up in drugs rings”
No evidence whatsoever for that ridiculous claim of course.
And what about this article:
‘Peru drug arrests: Spanish police ‘doubt’ over women’s claim’
Quelle surprise, another website link. Is that the best you can do?
Is that the only response you can come up with?
It goes against what Deborah claimed.
Anything to say about her ridiculous claim that the BBC supports the girls because they ‘are mixing in circles where cocaine use is not unknown’?
You need to read my post again Chris – I said it is the inflection in the newsreaders’ voice, the disbelief in the newsreaders’ eyes as they report that two girls could be under threat of such long jail sentences etc ie the things that are hard to quantify not a link to a web site.
As it was again on the BBC news tonight, Deborah – blatantly sympathetic tone from our intrepid reporter in Peru. ‘The girls can’t even speak Spanish’, apparently.
‘Is that the only response you can come up with?’
Just pointing out, yet again, that an isolated website article will have been read by many millions less than watch the BBC news, listen to Today etc.
Chris H . As Johnnythefish says. Another link. Grasping at straws aren’t you?
What was Bacon’s drug of choice?
Glad to see press regulation is being used fairly. Both left-wing and right-wing press outlets got away with absolute murder for far too long, but it was only ever the right-wing outlets that were demonised for it (The Guardian has NEVER been held to account for its fictitious ‘cash for questions’ scandal that forced two MPs into resigning). It’s important to not defend News International’s conduct, but it’s also absolutely vital that ALL newspapers and media outlets are held to the same standard if these laws are to be considered fair.
This story still 1st item on BBC Radio 2, not sure if it is on other channels too (usually is the same).
Not particular bias but why is it still top story, especially as the only new bit is that the aider and abettor of leaked secrets, rightly stopped at Heathrow, is going to sue.
That’s why the BBC shouldn’t be taken seriously due to the double standards but I honestly don’t think they can see it. It is just sixth form politics in action and they never seem to grow up and see the bigger picture that usually affects them as well
This sums it up nicely
good link, new site, they have lovely Louise’s take too, which was mentioned elsewhere here earlier today.
That’s the source of the narrative that the BBC have taken up as its own
….and another good link, SO, especially for what the Terrorism Act actually says:
‘Terrorism is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) and means the use or threat of action where –
1.The action –
1.involves serious violence against a person,
2.involves serious damage to property,
3.endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
4.creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
5.is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system AND
2.The use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, AND
3.The use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause
4.Where the use or threat of action as defined above involves the use of firearms or explosives it is always terrorism, whether or not the condition in (2) above is satisfied.’
Meanwhile on the BBC lunchtime news, they reported that the government knew of the police actions as they were happening at Heathrow but can assure us they were not politically motivated.
That’s the BBC holding the government to account, then, on any ‘political motivation’. Anyone else you should be asking BBC, or is that it?
This is nothing new for Greenwald. He’s long been a staunch defender of St. Bradley as well. It’s so easy to confuse “speaking truth to power” with “illegal behavior and abetting the enemies of one’s country”, I know.
But that’s emotion over reason. Sadly, it’s the same reason the BBC wholeheartedly support St. Bradley and St. Edward, and now Greenwald. They see these people as heroic whistleblowers, and the cognitive function ends there. Pure juvenile emotion, David vs. Goliath.
So the facts of St. Bradley’s illegal behavior and intent to cause harm, and then St. Edward’s falsehoods and theft and treasonous act – which is above and beyond the actual whistleblowing about NSA domestic spying – gets swept under the rug, and now Greenwald’s use of his partner to smuggle more documents which could cause harm to the US, all gets subsumed in the childish noise from the BBC about heroic citizens standing up for our rights. It’s disgusting to hear such righteous claims about supporting freedom and liberty from the very people who’d be happy to take it away from us if left to their own devices.
“…It’s disgusting to hear such righteous claims about supporting freedom and liberty from the very people who’d be happy to take it away from us if left to their own devices.“
Spot-on, David. Spot-on.
I really do wonder how the BBC and the Guardian would react if someone within the BBC became a ‘whistle-blower’ (although I still don’t understand why the BBC, a publicly-funded, non-government body, can refuse to release information which surely belongs in the public domain) and released a copy of, say, the ‘Balen Report’ ?
On the other hand, I can probably guess, quite easily…….but I can perhaps ‘console’ myself by remembering that the BBC’s ‘modus operandi’ is to finally admit to the evidence at some point in the future, but point out that it all took place a long time ago, no-one was to blame, things had been changed, lessons had been learned, and that the public denial of any bias at the time was ‘just the way it was back then’, so let’s just all move along now, please…. so we are likely to find out at some time, but whether the BBC would ever commission a new report of this type, in order to publicly provide vidence of any change in its attitudes, is probably a complete non-starter.
How would the BBC react? Probably by doling out hush money .
Good link, Stewart, this sums up the Left’s hypocrisy and the BBC’s arrogant, stinking bias:
‘The real underreported story is how The Guardian, a paper which led the media’s faux outrage against the News of the World hacking allegations, has performed a full about face and now defends hackers and illegal activities, simply because it suits them and their desperate attempts to sell newspapers. Where the Left demands “transparency” and “justice” in politics, finance and lobbying, it wants secrecy, obfuscation and an ability to act with impunity in its own field of journalism.
The BBC last night effectively weighed in on the activists’ side, failing to report the fact that David Miranda, Greenwald’s partner, was not refused a lawyer, as Greenwald first claimed. Miranda refused one himself. Similarly, no mention was made of what kind of documents Miranda was carrying, which are now believed to be worthy of at least some level of suspicion. No attempts were made by the BBC to do anything but regurgitate the Guardian’s own reporting.’
Is the BBC still sticking with the White House story that the US was shocked, shocked to hear that Miranda had been detained, nothing to do with us, guv?
The BBC has continued to update their initial news brief as the story has evolved. Now they’re admitting that the US was given a heads up about his detention, while still insisting that the UK authorities did it of their own volition. So all blame for this correct, legal behavior, which is being spun as tyrannical oppression, is placed on the Home Office. Somebody should claim that allowing Miranda through with all his materials might lead to a backlash against Mohammedans. That would shut the BBC up.
This is so silly. Who put him on the watch list? The Portuguese? Suddenly all the BBC opinion-mongers who usually have no problem speculating and offering wise suggestions have gone all impartial, just the facts, ma’am. Don’t want to say anything that might allow people to think The Obamessiah is acting abominably without having all facts at hand, right? How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya now, BBC?
The issue here is was Miranda “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.”
Given the seriousness of the terrorism, it necessitates very substantial powers to tackle it. This act gives the police those powers, but their scope is rightly limited. The act states: “the powers…should not be used should not be used for any other purpose [other than in connection to terrorism]”.
If you give a person the authority to deprive another of their liberty then there has to be very clear grounds on its use. It can’t be used as a catch-all against people who may be doing things we don’t like.
Others have rightly pointed out the outcry when Walter Wolfgang was detained under terrorism legislation. That was a misuse of the powers.
The issue is not about whether Miranda was carrying classified documents that the government wanted to know about. Without a doubt the government would love to know what Snowden has, but the act does not give them the power to stop people under those circumstances. That would most likely fall under the Official Secrets Act. If so then use the powers granted by that act.
The police will now have to explain on what grounds they detained Miranda, and argue their case based on his links to a terrorist organisation or how he was promoting terrorism. If they can show that, and maybe they have evidence about which we know nothing, then their detention is legitimate. If they can’t then it looks like a serious abuse of power.
Look, there isn’t any question that St. Edward had given at least some info out which would help terrorists and hinder our ability to spy on them. Just telling them how and where we’re spying on them is enough for this activity to fall under anti-terrorism laws. It’s a bit glib to play it down as merely “something we don’t like”. Unless you, like the BBC, are stuck on the heroic whistleblowing about domestic spying on innocent citizens, speaking truth to power aspect, and simply don’t believe anything else happened. Or, it could be that you think anti-terrorism laws are already over-broad or wrong, which is a different debate, even though I suspect many people are trying to conflate the two issues.
Above and beyond the domestic whistleblowing, there has been real (the scale is irrelevant here) damage done to foreign policy and national security, including that of the UK. Obviously if Miranda is known to do work for Greenwald, and it’s known that Greenwald has possession of and is trying to distribute even more documents with harmful info, detaining him under anti-terrorism laws was the correct response.
Giving information that helps terrorists isn’t the same as promoting terrorism. If that were the case then all manner of things could lead us into trouble.
What is at issue here is the right legal process. Police are rightly given very extensive powers for tackling terrorism, but those powers do not extend to other offences. If they want them for other offences it is up to them to make the argument and then up to parliament to decide. They can’t simply use one set of powers to tackle another crime.
The Terrorism Act is reasonably clear as to what constitutes terrorism. It is very hard to see how what the Guardian is doing falls under that act.
Okay, so you’re not really debating the legality of Miranda’s detention and instead are questioning the validity of anti-terrorism laws. I’ll pass, thanks.
I wrote “Police are rightly given very extensive powers for tackling terrorism” and “Given the seriousness of the terrorism, it necessitates very substantial powers to tackle it. This act gives the police those powers,” So no, I am not questioning the validity of anti-terrorism laws.
The issue is was what Miranda doing “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.” as defined by the act. If so then it was a legitimate use of the power; if not then it wasn’t.
I am suggesting it is hard to see that it was a legitimate use of that power.
It’s not hard at all. See what George R has posted below.
I would refer you to this document:
and in particular p9. So for example:
Although the exercise of Schedule 7 powers is not based on an examining officer having any suspicion against any individual, the powers should not be used arbitrarily. An examining officer’s decision to exercise their Schedule 7 powers at ports must be based on the threat posed by the various terrorist groups active in and outside the United Kingdom.
Schedule 7 powers are to be used solely for the purpose of ascertaining if the person examined is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The powers must not be used to stop and question persons for any other purpose.
It would be interesting to see with which terrorist groups Mr Miranda was associated.
We will see what David Anderson reports.
Miranda doesn’t have to be “associated with” any terrorist group in order for his activities to abet their activities. He is a known associate of someone dedicated to distributing information which is known to abet terrorists and their activities, i.e. “concerned with” those acts. Reasonable suspicion to search him.
Also, I’m pleased to see that you have no interest in defending Newsnight (and most BBC reporting) against the charge of bias for being disingenuous in their presentation of the charges against Snowden, and the information he’s published through Greenwald et al.
Didn’t see it
James are you that other journalist then?
James, didn’t see this edition of Newsnight, or you’ve never seen any previous BBC coverage of the issue? It’s been remarked upon here before.
I would concede that the state has stretched the legislation to suite its needs. what’s new ( you don’t seem to mind when their banning some ‘right winger’, even an EU citizen from entering the country )
It probably laziness ,the official secrets act probably requires more work of those on the officials involved.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the BBC/Guardian’s original narrative-
That this was a cynical act of intimidation of the courageous Glenn Greenwald, by harassing his innocent paramour, who was on his way home to see his sainted mother. -Is a croc
The Guardian and therefore Mr Greenwald where employing Mr Miranda (Another another journalist allegedly) to courier ,encrypted documents if not then then, by their own admission, before hand. Now that’s what I call cynical .And if Mr Miranda didn’t know what was in those files that’s even worse
Maybe the Quislings should change their story again – after all what is a bit of fib telling to the proles – and suggest Miranda was carrying skittles and iced tea home to his sainted mother. If they make that case then he would be completely beyond suspicion.
See Section 7 Terrorism Act 2000 of Labour Government:-
“Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000”
Note this, as explained by Cumbria Police, which is the British law, to be obeyed by Guardian, BBC and NYT:-
“Unlike most other police powers, the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism.”
When will Guardian (Rushbridger)- BBC (Hall)-NYT (Thompson) print details exposing Muslim Brotherhood’s global secret agenda against the West?
Some historical background, to assist, in 4 parts:-
1.)”Muslim Brotherhood’s Long-Standing War On The West; Part 1″
by Adrian Morgan
2.)Muslim Brotherhood’s Long-Standing War On The West; Part 2
“The Brotherhood, Nazism And Islamofascism”
3.)Muslim Brotherhood’s Long-Standing War On The West; Part 3
4.)Muslim Brotherhood’s Long-Standing War On The West; Part 4
by Adrian Morgan
“UK Politicians Legitimize The Brotherhood”
Well at least the BBC and it’s small band of unpaid protectors [god how dumb ?] can rest easy that this time a Brazilian came to the UK and wasn’t killed by it’s mates in the government ! well mainly because Labour lost the last election !.
6pm news – and still the BBC is yammering on about the Brazilian. 5 whole minutes of it as the main item in the 6pm Radio 4 news.
The BBC is truly getting this totally out of proportion. Driving the Guardian’s agenda.
Managed to keep this story going for two days, suppose the Gruiad told the bBC that there would be a court case. Also on the 7.00pm news no mention that Miranda has indirect connections with the US traitor Snowden, who also leaked GCHQ information. Good job I don’t get my news from the bBC as I would not know what is happening!!
did you watch newsnight yesterday being fronted by are old mate vicky derbyshire from radio 5 live,oh boy, the former tory mp louise mensch gave it it to vicky accusing her of discracefull bias in her presentation of this case involving these 2 guardian leftie troublemakers,vicky and her hand picked leftie guests looked bit out of depth last night taking on louise mensch.a great watch on i player.
This is the YT version, whether sum is missing, don’t know.
Thanks, Fred. I hadn’t seen that. I can’t help but want to cheer on Louise Mensch! Isn’t it funny how nonplussed and bewildered Beeboids suddenly become when someone has the sheer temerity to challenge them on air regarding their clear bias..? Fantastic!
Brilliant from Louise Mensch, can really hear her suppressed anger at the lies being told by the American chap which was unchallenged for several minutes by the presenter reading from her crib sheet.
What a surprise, the leftie (Appelbaum) when knowing he had lost the argument big time decided to attack the woman, rather than her comments: “[you’re an]….ex-minister for some reason”, etc..
All that decent people need to do is to stand up to these left-wing bullies and they are shown how low on decent argument they are.
Funny isn’t it. The BBC didn’t go wall to wall when the police were abusing their powers when Labour was at the helm. They nicked a bunch of anti-arms protesters at the Excel within weeks of these laws coming in.
The guys wife/husband admits that the guy was carrying encrypted data from Snowden.
Snowden has now threatened to release material damaging to the UK as revenge.
The guy should not have been detained for questioning, he should have been held on suspicion on espionage until the hard disks had been de-crypted.
And there was no similar BBC outcry about abuse of power or laws which need reining in regarding people going to jail for making racist remarks on Twitter.
Talking about Twitter:-
Muslim hacker claims to have compromised every Twitter account”
All, or just the ones that do OAuths? Doing this is probably unnecessary, as most in the media – especially at the BBC – are probably sympathetic to his cause anyway. He could just send them press releases and get results.
good on louise mensch last night,free from the shackles of the politacaly correct conservative party
Now two of my comments have vanished. Strange.
Well done Louise, what a Mensch. And thanks for bitch-slapping the BBC and the vacuous Victoria Derbyshire.
This is still top story for the BBC across all its outlets.
Just to be categoric –
In today’s UK press on;ly the Guardian had this on the front page.
It did not even get a mention on the front page of :
The Daily Mail
The Financial Times
The Daily Express
I cannot think of a clearer example of the BBC being led by the nose, day after day, by the Guardian. Promoting lots of falsehoods, whining about an obvious accomplice in attempts to damage British security. If Miranda has any guts he will stay in Britain, But I expect he will scuttle back under his stone.
Very good point, I wonder if somebody could do this on a regular basis, as John says, they’re being led by the nose.
Rule #1 in evidence here, with the BBC deciding you didn’t need to know that that independent hacker who was brought in as the “appeal to authority” token (regarding how dehumanizing and life-scarring and we’d-violate-Godwin’s-Law-if-you-let-us-keep-talking it is to be detained at the airport when one is suspected of breaking the law) is a WickiHacks maven, an organization which is directly involved in this. He’s not even remotely an innocent bystander, and was not detained by authorities at random. He has an agenda to promote, which is why the Newsnight geniuses decided not to tell you.
the laughter might have stopped from the guardian and the bbc, but for the police, the laughter has only just started
Greenwald: I’ll stamp my foot because of the terrible things you did to my Miranda:-
“Greenwald: I will be more aggressive now”
(2 min video clip).
But that’s not a threat to the government or anything. He holds all the approved thoughts so it can’t be questioned.
And so to bed, with David Miranda leading 5 Lives’s news bulletins, as he has done all evening. Scotland Yard, have you got the message yet? You cannot detain a Guardian journalist’s boyfriend under any circumstances else the BBC will kick up an awful fuss. Think about that the next time you might want to feel a Guardianista’s collar.
Yes, in an earlier piece of Radio 5 propaganda, Labour’s Vaz got 10 minutes on that hyped item, followed immediately by 5 minutes of Labour’s Ms Cooper/Balls saying the same thing.
I spotted this entry on Order-Order written by Engineer. Seems to sum up the situation pretty well, especially liked the bit about the bBC having a wank.
“Snowden pinches spook data, which said spooks may or may not be collecting lawfully. Snowden claims he did this to uphold freedom. Snowden then seeks asylum in Russia, or possibly one of the Central American well-known ‘freedom loving democracies’ like Venezuela.
Journalist receives documents from Snowden. Journalist passes documents to boyfriend. Uk Plod arrest boyfriend on his passing through UK, and retrieve various electronic devices that they claim may hold said documents, or copies thereof.
Guardian prints story about arrest of boyfriend, without saying why boyfriend was arrested. Claims that he wasn’t allowed a lawyer. It later emerges that boyfriend was carrying documents, and that he was allowed a lawyer of his own choosing, who wasn’t available immediately, hence long detention.
BBC wanks itself into frenzy over story. Guardian editor throws toys out of pram because he’s not allowed to keep stolen property.
It’s silly season, peeps. Final Test Match starts tomorrow….”