Journalist working on NSA spying story held at Heathrow under UK terror law

With all the media spin removed - does this still not seem a tad suspicious? Almost all uses of this power ended within one hour, his lasted the full nine hours. And they appeared to question him about his partner's journalism - what relevance does that have if true? And would they not think this would blow back on them especially with what seems to be no just cause?

Those stopped under schedule 7 have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence.
Click to expand...

Seems a tad strong? So remaining silent until you have legal advice is a criminal offence?

Stinks of us doing anything America requests.
 
Last edited:
Xordium said:
Those would be the same MPs who are members of the Labour party that started this whole ball rolling, were complicit in illegal detention and torture, wilfully joined and propagated war in the Middle East despite direct and unanimous opposition from the public and the international community.

I do think what occurred was wrong and a pathetic attempt at intimidation but for the Labour MPs to come out with this holier than thou attitude is pathetic when their previous party leaders would be on war crime charges if their nationality was different.
Click to expand...
Indeed, well said.
 
RDM said:
How exactly are the police to blame for this one?

Edit: Seems I was wrong as it was the police and not UKBA that detained him. Why would they stop the boyfriend rather than the journalist?
Click to expand...

If the article is as cut and dried as is then serious questions need to be asked, absolutely.

It wouldn't be the first time the Rt Hon member for Leicester has jumped on a bandwagon though and his party tightened both anti terror laws and the noose around the neck of civil liberties.
 
It's a funny world isn't it.

GCHQ were revealed to be more invasive than the NSA in terms of data collection, and adding to that, the government allegedly issued a D-Notice relating to the whole situation.

I understand the need for an element of secrecy relating to certain national security matters but suppressing information like this is getting a little close to the line?
 
Whatever your opinion of anyone involved, the Guardian, Keith Vaz or anyone else the facts of the matter remain that the police detained him under suspicion of terrorism. They must now explain why they suspected him of terrorism, I'm all ears as to what their reasoning will be!
 
It's very important here to note that the UK Border Agency, or whatever they are called this week, are not the same as the police.

Edit: Now some reports are talking about the Met. Was he handed over or something? I'm confused.
 
Last edited:
Caged said:
It's very important here to note that the UK Border Agency, or whatever they are called this week, are not the same as the police.

Edit: Now some reports are talking about the Met. Was he handed over or something? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

I think he was detained by the police and not the Border Agency, using the anti-terrorism laws which grant them extra powers at airports and docks.
 
Its a massively dodgy step, obviously done at the behest of the US. Im not anti-US (like some rabids here) but this was well dodgy and needs to be dragged through whatever body has oversight of this nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom