dodgy brazilian

Do you really care if a dodgy Brazillian who was clearly being used to transport classified information which could impact on national security to his boyfriend who happens to be a journalist of a national paper is stopped and detained. 

I would expect nothing less of the police/intelligence agencies and they should be given a pat on the back. 

As for the journalist/his boyfriend/ and the national paper they knew what they were doing and got caught. Get over it and grow a pair !

«1

Comments

  • He may or not have been carrying stolen data but either way the police had to act if they had infomation suggesting he did. They'd have been in deep doo doos if they hadn't stopped him.

  • "Dodgy Brazilian", I thought you meant something else...image

  • Step away from the razor!

  • Runnin man wrote (see)

    Step away from the razor!

     Wax is far better image

  • Hair is far better image

  • Only on your head.

  • What's dodgy about him?  No one's dodgy because they may or may not be carrying encrypted data.  It was merely the US & UK flexing their muscles because Greenwald is a thorn in their sides.

  • Slowfoot Going Goofy wrote (see)

    Do you really care if a dodgy Brazillian who was clearly being used to transport classified information which could impact on national security to his boyfriend who happens to be a journalist of a national paper is stopped and detained. 

    I would expect nothing less of the police/intelligence agencies and they should be given a pat on the back. 

    As for the journalist/his boyfriend/ and the national paper they knew what they were doing and got caught. Get over it and grow a pair !

    What's dodgy is that it was clear harassment because they're pissed off. Plus the fact that they're avoiding national laws by detaining him in the 'outside the law' area of the customs area at an airport. It's actually very worrying and completely disgusting, not least because we are simply acting as a puppet to our American masters.

  • The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to move to a secure messaging platform, or start looking in to using something like PGP.  Then again, I can't be arsed.

  • Detaining people unethically (but lawfully) is no more dodgy than what they are doing, which is effectively transporting and releasing damaging information, both actions are wrong but both are within the legal frameworks, you can't cry ethics when what you've originally done is just as devoid of ethics.

    I would be more critical of our intelligence and police if they stood by taking this. 

  • Runnin man - what damaging information was he transporting, and what damaging information has he released?

  • Investigative journalism that uncovers law-breaking by governments (which is what the Snowden thing is all about) is not unethical. And one of the points about this is that it's a pre-emptive strike against all journalists who dabble in this area, saying 'we shall hassle you and your family'. Disgusting.

  • He was interviewed in the belief that he had highly sensitive or stolen information. He stayed with a known film maker who was working on this issue, and is the boyfrind of the guardian reporter, he admitted carrying journalistic materials, and so there was more than reasonable suspicion that would allow him to have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act or some other legislation.

    Fair play to the security servcies

  • Runnin man wrote (see)

    He was interviewed in the belief that he had highly sensitive or stolen information. He stayed with a known film maker who was working on this issue, and is the boyfrind of the guardian reporter, he admitted carrying journalistic materials, and so there was more than reasonable suspicion that would allow him to have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act or some other legislation.

    Fair play to the security servcies


    except that if you do hold someone for any time you should be very sure what legislation you do it under. You cant just hold someone and then pick and choose your grounds after. It was anti-terror legislation they used.

  • David Miranda's detention had no basis in law, says former lord chancellor

     

    So, yes, it does bother me that the police use anti-terror legislation to detain people who are clearly not terrorists. If they thought he'd broken the law (Official Secrets Act or anything else) then they should have arrested him.

  • MuttleyMuttley ✭✭✭

    A lot of the stuff being published by the Guardian is about surveillance of communications. If blowing the whistle on how it is done could help terrorists evade surveillance, then anti-terrorism legislation is appropriate here, yes?

    In any case, given the company he keeps and the stuff he was carrying, he was pretty dumb to fly via the UK.

  • Runnin man wrote (see)

    He was interviewed in the belief that he had highly sensitive or stolen information. He stayed with a known film maker who was working on this issue, and is the boyfrind of the guardian reporter, he admitted carrying journalistic materials, and so there was more than reasonable suspicion that would allow him to have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act or some other legislation.

    Fair play to the security servcies

    No he wasn't. If he had that stuff on him, it would have taken them much less time to find it. It was a clear misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, a warning shot to the media and harassment of someone involved with the journalist who is working on the story. We should all be very clear how dangerous this move is.

  • Tom77 wrote (see)
    David Miranda's detention had no basis in law, says former lord chancellor

     

    So, yes, it does bother me that the police use anti-terror legislation to detain people who are clearly not terrorists. If they thought he'd broken the law (Official Secrets Act or anything else) then they should have arrested him.

    Quite.

  • Runnin man wrote (see)

    He was interviewed in the belief that he had highly sensitive or stolen information. He stayed with a known film maker who was working on this issue, and is the boyfrind of the guardian reporter, he admitted carrying journalistic materials, and so there was more than reasonable suspicion that would allow him to have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act or some other legislation.

    Fair play to the security servcies

    No he wasn't. If he had that stuff on him, it would have taken them much less time to find it. It was a clear misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, a warning shot to the media and harassment of someone involved with the journalist who is working on the story. We should all be very clear how dangerous this move is.

  • Muttley wrote (see)

    A lot of the stuff being published by the Guardian is about surveillance of communications. If blowing the whistle on how it is done could help terrorists evade surveillance, then anti-terrorism legislation is appropriate here, yes?

     

    No. Miranda is not a terrorist (see Terrorism Act 2000), it is inappropriate to use anti-terrorism legislation to harass him.

    The government has DA-Notices for preventing publication of sensitive material. Or it can take out an injunction against The Guardian.

  • MuttleyMuttley ✭✭✭

    Miranda is not a terrorist but he might be involved with people or with activities that could assist terrorists. Like showing them how their comms can be monitored.

    And too late for injunctions etc. The Guardian has already published.

    The more the Snowden story drags on, the less sympathy I have. There's a line to be drawn between exposing government wrongdoing and disclosing information simply because you have it without regard for the consequences. At first I thought he was in the right but now I'm less convinced.

    And it looks bad that he's hiding in Russia, a country not known for its respect for the rule of law.

  • I notice that the whole bandwagon is off to the Courts today, not doubt with the same camera crew that just happened to be at Heathrow when Miranda popped out in the Arrivals area at the weekend.

    9 hours to get out of Heathrow is pretty good - when you're in the queues at this time of year it sometimes feels that you're never getting out !!        image

  • So, does anyone think that journalism / free speech is important in a democratic society?

    I know most newspapers these days are more Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster than J'accuse, but surely it's vital that the government is held to account for its actions and the press have an important role to play in that.

  • I think the problem though is that the press aren't unbiased and have their own agenda. They can be trusted even less than the government!

    Whistleblowing can be used as a way to highlight illegal/immoral actions but the people that seem to be doing it are not thinking about the fallout of it and are justifying their actions with their own moral superiority when I would question what their real motivations are - self importance for one possibly?

  • Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

    Manning has just got 35 years, Assange and Snowdon can't move, good enough in my book. Detention for someone like this is small fry, disclosing sensitive information that may be used against the military, or that hinders them is akin to assisting terrorism and they get what they deserve.

    I've seen it all now. This was as clear a case of harassment of a person who's done nothing wrong as could be. Still, the state needs useful idiots to parrot its excuses.

  • I might have a bit more sympathy for the Guardian's moral indignation if it had, at any point, defended any of the tabloid journalists being arrested and  harassed by the Police on much flimsier grounds.

    David Miranda was carrying classified material he wasn't entitled to have and that had been stolen. I thought stopping smugglers was very much part of the responsibilities of the various border agencies.

  • "Lord" Falconer was Tony Blair's best mate and one of his chief apologists and he is hardly in a position to lecture anybody on unethical use of dodgy information.

     

    i say, let the law take its course. So they may have got it wrong - holding somebody up for 9 hours is hardly Guantanamo Bay is it.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.