I'm sure there's more to come out of it, but I can't be the only one to concerned about our security services methods here? On the face of it, it looks like a trumped-up detention to me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776243

Yes, I'm concerned about this. Scedule 7 denies you some of the basic rights in a very dangerous way IMHO. You have no right to silence and no right to legal representation, both of which violate your Article 6 right to a fair trial, being forced to reveal your passwords breaches your Article 8 right to the privacy of your correspondence, and being required to reveal journalistic sources breaches your Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

Fortunately David Miranda has some support and he may well receive redress, but others who suffer human rights abuse are not so well supported (been denied the right to form an association - Article 11, or victimised for criticising your council - Article 10, or been deprived of your property without a fair trial - Article 6, and Article 1 of the First Protocol), which is all fine if you don't suppose you'll ever want to rely on what the Daily Mail tells you is a charter for "criminals and parasites", but when they come for you, don't be surprised if there's no one left to speak for you.

Hang on. He voluntarily provided the logon and password details, unless the article author assumes they were obtained by torture until he confessed.

He could easily have stood his ground and refused to provide them, gone through the whole criminal appeals process and either won and walk free, or lose and suffer the punishment as a martyr.

Under English and Welsh law, the right to silence was removed under act of Parliament in 1994 and then with certain provisos such as the silence cannot be an assumption of guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_sile...gland_and_Wales

Posted in the wrong thread. Doh.

"David Miranda said his interrogators threatened he could go to prison if he did not co-operate ... Under schedule 7, if someone fails to co-operate they are deemed to have committed a criminal offence and could face up to three months in prison, a fine or both."

'Threatened'? there are certain stages in questioning when the interrogator is obliged to inform the 'suspect' the consequence of a particular course of action they are taking. Telling someone they commit an offence unless they do/say etc something is presumably better than not informing them, then prosecuting them for the failure? especially when the original suspicion proved unfounded/unproveable?

Again, if he held on to his principles and not crumbled when faced with the punishment sanctioned under law, he would have refused to disclose the information, gone to court and let a jury of his peers decide his guilt.

Maximum 3 months in prison, paroled in 6 weeks. Be lucky if he was in overnight.

and -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23780889

How do you know what his conditions were? I suspect that the 'interrogators' are 'professionals' and don't just re-enact the type of questioning you see 'The Bill'. However, this is irrelevant, as mine isn't whether the accused behaved reasonably or not (nor do I think it is reasonable to be expected to to tell your employer you have a 'small' problem with the police and need to take a few weeks impromptu holiday), but whether the security service did. It concerns me that the police can use laws to do things that seem unreasonable or inappropriate.

Again, I'm not sure what the relevance of this is.

everyone has rights.

Agreed, and?

A law that was drafted by the wider legal profession, passed through multiple readings in the Lords and the Commons, then received Royal Ascent as laid down under our Constitutional Monarchy.

To some, the drink-drive legislation is unreasonable or inappropriate, same with the Theft Act and pretty much every other piece of legislation on the books.

You are missing my point. It is not the law, it is how it is being used that concerns me. I think the law is reasonable if used to detain suspected terrorists, or people aiding terrorists, but the suggestion here is that this wasn't the case. My point is, that if it is the case, then we have the HRA as a protection against the state that would wish to missus the law.

We also should be mindful of quickly drafted law that appears to be to protect us, but in real use could be used to politically suppress us.

Yes indeed, and it is indeed inhumane to imprison someone without any possibility of release, no matter how heinous their crime - this was the position under English law until very recently. Of course, for most people convicted of particularly vile crime their parole hearing will be short and they'll be sent back to their cell to rot, but it is only right in a just and civilised society that there should at least be the possibility of parole.

However, what happened with this story is that the mouth-breathing reactionaries got the wrong end of the stick and went off on one about how absurd the Human Rights Act is, like justice Secretary Chrish Grayling: "To be told this breaches human rights is absurd - and an insult to those who wrote the original Human Rights Convention. What about the rights of the victims and their families?".

Well yes indeed, what about the rights of the victims? Actually it turns out that murder is already illegal (and if it wasn't the HRA would oblige the state to make it illegal because Article 2 says that Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law), and while that doesn't actually prevent murder, it's pretty much the best that can be done.

Exactly.

Is that when the Queen goes to bed?

When in doubt get Jack Bauer on the case.

Look at all the terrorist events he stopped single-handedly!

Now imagine if there, say, 8 Jack Bauers in the world
There'd never be another terrorist attack.

And if there WAS he would find the people responsible and shoot them in the face.
What's not to like?