@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
But surely being in possession of stolen material is a crime in any event? And if there was a threat that it would be released that could be argued to endager UK national interests / agents?
Being in possession of stolen material may well be a crime but it is not one that allows the authorities to use section 7 to detain people and remove their right to silence.
I'm out of my depth on the detail of terrorism legislation. But if they believed there was (a) a real prospect of such information being released to the public and (b) that such release would endanger the national security of the UK then doesn't it qualify?
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
It's perfectly possible to be completely against New Labour's terrorism act (even as much against it as to actually favour repealing many aspects of it - if only we had a Government that prioritised that) and still have little time for the Guardian pair.
Not sure why one should be 'against' the Guardian pair. They are journalists doing what journalists are supposed to do (at least in part) which is expose government wrong doing.
That the government response is to misuse anti-terrorist legislation to try and threaten and pressurise journalists in an attempt to prevent embarrassment for the government and its allies seems to me to say much about the government and very little about the journalists beyond the fact they are obviously doing their job rather too well.
Greenwald seems to be conflating PRISM which was a solid bit of whistleblowing by Snowden with doing an Assange and using stolen secrets to destabilise countries he doesn't like including putting their agents at risk.
The first is laudible, buggering off to Russia isn't as that makes Snowden look more like Kim Philby - but Greenwald has like Assnage let his ego run wild.
No that is just your biased view. You have no idea what documents Greenwald was intending to publish nor what his motives might be in doing so. Given that what he has published so far has all been in the public interest and has all been related to misconduct by the UK and US security services there is no reason to assume that prior to Miranda's arrest he was suddenly going to start publishing anything that was helpful to terrorists.
It sounds more David Icke than Osama Bin Laden, but I assume your aim here is simply to defend whatever the govt do while you would obviously have attacked exactly the same position under Labour.
When have I defended it? I don't have a view, because I don't know the facts, something which doesn't seem to stop others commenting in their ignorance.
However, the fact still remains that Greenwald has, as I said, undermined his own argument with that particularly nasty and ludicrously disproportionate threat. You're probably right that it's more David Icke than anything else, though.
Now you are just being silly. What other possible interpretation is there for someone threatening to take revenge and make the UK (we'll gloss over the fact that this Guardian journalist seems a bit confused about which country he is referring to) 'sorry for what they did'?
Embarrassing governments and security services who have been overstepping the mark does not equate with terrorism. It would certainly fulfil the remit of making them 'sorry for what they did' but is a million miles away from being a terrorist threat.
Possibly 2010 Lib Dems might peel off or stay at home unless they are convinced by the leader. But there's nothing in the polls to suggest that's going to happen, with Labour's share so eerily consistent.
Interestingly it's the eerie consistency that makes me think it is vulnerable.
There are basically two explanations:
(1) I hate Nick Clegg and all he stands for. I've hated him since he formed a coalition. I will continue to hate him with the same level of intensity for all time.
(2) I'm pissed off with Nick Clegg so I'm going to tell the pollsters that. But I haven't really thought hard about who I'm going to vote for next time. Could be Ed Milliband, could be Nick Clegg, or may be I just won't bother.
Now I appreciate that lefties have an unusually well-developed capacity for hatred, but (2) seems a more likely explanation for the consistency.
Always saying the same thing doesn't seem a very good explanation for the vague uncertainty that you postulate. I've never met anyone who hates Nick Clegg (or, contrary to your generalisation, many Labour people who hate anyone at all, except possibly the shade of Maggie). But I'm very confident that the LibDem switchers will stay switched: they are (also generalising, but on the whole) among the most politicised section of the electorate and they want a left-wing government. You are on safer ground if you question whether regular Labour supporters will vote in sufficient numbers - I think that's always an issue. But you can say the same of Tories.
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
But surely being in possession of stolen material is a crime in any event? And if there was a threat that it would be released that could be argued to endager UK national interests / agents?
Being in possession of stolen material may well be a crime but it is not one that allows the authorities to use section 7 to detain people and remove their right to silence.
It's schedule 7 rather than section 7 and in law it most certainly does. The schedule is intended to be used when there is something that causes a concern less than suspicion. Possession of classified material qualifies a hundred times over. People have been detained under the terrorism Act for having a map of central London for goodness sake.
It shows most detentions, nearly all, last less than an hour. What I still don't get on the known facts is why this did not progress to charges and detention under suspicion.
Mr Miranda had legal rights - he was detained for the 9 hrs available under the provision of the Act. About 40 people a year are held for this long.
He was offered a lawyer. He turned it down. He was then released and sent on his way to Brazil. I'm totally puzzled by the outrage.
He didn't disappear for 9 yrs. Or end up in a salt mine in Siberia.
Well at least we know where your red lines on civil liberties are now. Putin would be proud of you Plato.
Miranda was not suspected of terrorism. The police had no "reasonable suspicion" he had committed ay crime. He was not even entering the country (which this law requires) - he was in the transit lounge. Yet he was held for 9 hours and told (correctly) that if he failed to answer any question on any subject he would go to jail. That this is happening in the UK, rather than Russia, or China is a disgrace. Our descent to the mid-table of nations economically is being matched only by our descent legally. Shocking.
It is very sad to see that those who have supposedly espoused civil liberties in the past are now the ones trying to claim this is all fine and in order simply because there is different political party involved.
UKIP's one to keep an eye on, conference season has potential for big changes there (certainly the Tories will be hoping so).
I wonder what level of coverage will be given to the UKIP conference this year?
I know they don't have an MP yet, but their consistently higher poll ratings, robust performance in a number of by-elections and haul of councillors in the local elections, provide plenty of reasons for the media to give more prominence to them if they wish.
Now you are just being silly. What other possible interpretation is there for someone threatening to take revenge and make the UK (we'll gloss over the fact that this Guardian journalist seems a bit confused about which country he is referring to) 'sorry for what they did'?
So you're defending the state's actions by using what happened in response to the actions as and excuse. Interesting logic.
So if I bomb a country, and they bomb me back, I can say "Look, I was right to bomb them - they just bombed me!" Nice.
Wasn't the elderly heckler at the Labour Party conference ejected under the same act
It does seems a bit rich for the usual suspects to carp about a measure Labour introduced which allowed this so called‘ abuse of civil liberties’ to occur -then attempt to claim outraged moral superiority when it is used.
Embarrassing governments and security services who have been overstepping the mark does not equate with terrorism. It would certainly fulfil the remit of making them 'sorry for what they did' but is a million miles away from being a terrorist threat.
If he has information which it's in the public interest to publish, he should do so. Threatening to publish things 'which will make the UK sorry', out of revenge because his partner was mildly inconvenienced, is hardly indicative of high standards of journalistic integrity - it's more like a cheap crook threatening a judge.
I'm out of my depth on the detail of terrorism legislation. But if they believed there was (a) a real prospect of such information being released to the public and (b) that such release would endanger the national security of the UK then doesn't it qualify?
No
(caveat: pinched definition from Mensch's blog for convenience)
Terrorism is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) and means the use or threat of action where the action: ...
1.3 endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, 1.4 creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or ...
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
Release of the information would almost certainly qualify under 1.3, possibly under 1.4. Section 2 is at least arguable - probably under intimidating the section of the public. And 3 I guess you could hit under ideological cause.
But as I said, the Met thinks it was justified to use this legislation. I have no particular view - but I have no issue with him being stopped and the stolen goods removed from his possession.
Now you are just being silly. What other possible interpretation is there for someone threatening to take revenge and make the UK (we'll gloss over the fact that this Guardian journalist seems a bit confused about which country he is referring to) 'sorry for what they did'?
So you're defending the state's actions by using what happened in response to the actions as and excuse. Interesting logic.
Blimey, people are stupid. It never ceases to amaze me how they can't understand simple distinctions.
For the zillionth time, I HAVEN'T defended the state's actions. I have expressed no view whatsoever on that aspect of the story, for the very good reason that I don't have any information about it.
Do not underestimate the potential for information terrorism. I have commented before (with my tinfoil hat firmly atop my luxurious mane) that some of the bank outages we have seen may actually have been a result of attempted or successful criminal cyber attacks.
There has been some concern that systems such as power plants are liable to cyber attack. Whist they are somewhat hardened (some have no Internet access in the control room, for instance), they are still valuable targets. And to successfully penetrate them, you need information.
But it is not just power plants: hospitals are becoming increasingly connected, and cyber attacks into a hospital could easily lead to deaths. Or to a railway signalling system (AIUI, this possibility has been designed into ERTMS (1)). Or the police secure radio system.
Whilst this is nothing to do with the Greenwald/Miranda case, we need to start realising that data security is vitally important for all of us.
That USB stick containing data may carry more than company secrets.
Wasn't the elderly heckler at the Labour Party conference ejected under the same act
It does seems a bit rich for the usual suspects to carp about a measure Labour introduced which allowed this so called‘ abuse of civil liberties’ to occur -then attempt to claim outraged moral superiority when it is used.
It seems a bit rich for the usual suspects to have been all outraged about this act when it was used by the last Labour government to silence protest and threaten people and then to claim it is all fine and acceptable when it is used by the current government. for the same purpose.
I think people who are trying to attach the "terrorist" label on somebody practicing journalism with classified materials need to think a bit harder about the effect they're having on national security.
"Terrorist" used to mean someone who tried to hurt civilians, which was something all decent people were opposed to. Do you want to turn it into a word for anyone who opposes authority? Do you want children who sympathize with Snowden - and there will be far more than the number who sympathize with bin Laden - to grow up thinking they want to be terrorists?
Whatever you think about Greenwald and Snowden, the line between a terrorist and somebody who peacefully opposes authority strikes me as one that it's important to preserve.
PS. It's incredibly depressing to actually need to say this.
Possibly 2010 Lib Dems might peel off or stay at home unless they are convinced by the leader. But there's nothing in the polls to suggest that's going to happen, with Labour's share so eerily consistent.
Interestingly it's the eerie consistency that makes me think it is vulnerable.
There are basically two explanations:
(1) I hate Nick Clegg and all he stands for. I've hated him since he formed a coalition. I will continue to hate him with the same level of intensity for all time.
(2) I'm pissed off with Nick Clegg so I'm going to tell the pollsters that. But I haven't really thought hard about who I'm going to vote for next time. Could be Ed Milliband, could be Nick Clegg, or may be I just won't bother.
Now I appreciate that lefties have an unusually well-developed capacity for hatred, but (2) seems a more likely explanation for the consistency.
But that's not remotely the message they're giving to pollsters. Even accounting for certainty to vote, Labour's share is consistently in that 35+ bracket (40 in the last Mori)
The message a large chunk of people are sending is "I'm absolutely certain to vote, and vote Labour, even though I'm not entirely convinced by Ed Miliband".
I see no reason to disbelieve or try to second guess them.
Wasn't the elderly heckler at the Labour Party conference ejected under the same act
Yes. And RIPA is used to spy on our bins. I have a big problem with the surveillance state legislation - but I really can't drum up any outrage here.
Not quite. - He was ejected from the conference because he was an embarrassment – The Terrorist Act was used to prevent him re-entering the conference,
I think people who are trying to attach the "terrorist" label on somebody practicing journalism with classified materials need to think a bit harder about the effect they're having on national security.
"Terrorist" used to mean someone who tried to hurt civilians, which was something all decent people were opposed to. Do you want to turn it into a word for anyone who opposes authority? Do you want children who sympathize with Snowden - and there will be far more than the number who sympathize with bin Laden - to grow up thinking they want to be terrorists?
Whatever you think about Greenwald and Snowden, the line between a terrorist and somebody who peacefully opposes authority strikes me as one that it's important to preserve.
PS. It's incredibly depressing to actually need to say this.
That's true, but there is an intermediate category of people who (maybe with good intentions) damage national security or endanger lives by releasing classified information which, for example, compromises the identify of undercover agents or makes it easier for terrorists to penetrate computer systems. Some of the Assange leaks seemed to cross that line; as far as I know (but I'm not an expert) the Snowden ones haven't crossed that line, although the US government would say they have.
Duncan Weldon @DuncanWeldon 5m Gross mortgage lending soaring. Lending to firms falling. And yet government priority at the moment is supporting mortgage lending. Madness.
And real wages are falling. F*cking insane from the Boy Osborne
Insane in economic terms of course, the Master Strategist thinks it will boost the Tory vote repeating the same mistakes we've been making for forty years
BTL mortgages up 22% as well, and remortgaging, yippee.
What are you wittering on about, tim?
Here are the Council for Mortgage Lenders figures published today:
Mortgage Lending £m 2007 Year 362,758 2008 Year 253,980 2009 Year 143,825 2010 Year 135,342 2011 Year 141,290 2012 Year 142,981
2013 Jan 11,637 2013 Feb 10,631 2013 Mar 11,580 2013 Apr 12,152 2013 May 14,712 2013 Jun 14,841 2013 Jul* 16,600
Cumulative* 92,153
Year end* 157,977
*=estimate
You will note that the current rate of mortgage lending is only 43.5% of 2007 levels and that is in nominal terms before inflation is taken into account. Hardly evidence of "lending soaring".
What the figures do tell us is that mortgage lending has only just begun to rise from the post recession trough. In real terms mortgage lending is still at all time lows.
On your other two points, the most recent figures for both lending to business and real incomes both indicated a rise and turnaround in trend.
If I were you, I would check your twitter feeds and do a bit of late summer weeding.
I think people who are trying to attach the "terrorist" label on somebody practicing journalism with classified materials need to think a bit harder about the effect they're having on national security.
"Terrorist" used to mean someone who tried to hurt civilians, which was something all decent people were opposed to. Do you want to turn it into a word for anyone who opposes authority? Do you want children who sympathize with Snowden - and there will be far more than the number who sympathize with bin Laden - to grow up thinking they want to be terrorists?
Whatever you think about Greenwald and Snowden, the line between a terrorist and somebody who peacefully opposes authority strikes me as one that it's important to preserve.
PS. It's incredibly depressing to actually need to say this.
^ Excellent post. "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has become literally true. This is not a good thing.
I think people who are trying to attach the "terrorist" label on somebody practicing journalism with classified materials need to think a bit harder about the effect they're having on national security.
"Terrorist" used to mean someone who tried to hurt civilians, which was something all decent people were opposed to. Do you want to turn it into a word for anyone who opposes authority? Do you want children who sympathize with Snowden - and there will be far more than the number who sympathize with bin Laden - to grow up thinking they want to be terrorists?
Whatever you think about Greenwald and Snowden, the line between a terrorist and somebody who peacefully opposes authority strikes me as one that it's important to preserve.
PS. It's incredibly depressing to actually need to say this.
I broadly agree. However 'terrorist' is surely someone who not just tries to hurt civilians, but also someone who instils fear for their lives in the public? Many terrorist bombing during the Troubles were designed not necessarily to kill, but to instil fear. They were still terrorist acts, as a significant threat lay behind the act.
Neither of which applies to Snowden and Greenwald.
I think people who are trying to attach the "terrorist" label on somebody practicing journalism with classified materials need to think a bit harder about the effect they're having on national security.
"Terrorist" used to mean someone who tried to hurt civilians, which was something all decent people were opposed to. Do you want to turn it into a word for anyone who opposes authority? Do you want children who sympathize with Snowden - and there will be far more than the number who sympathize with bin Laden - to grow up thinking they want to be terrorists?
Whatever you think about Greenwald and Snowden, the line between a terrorist and somebody who peacefully opposes authority strikes me as one that it's important to preserve.
PS. It's incredibly depressing to actually need to say this.
Hmm not sure about that. For example the attack on the USS Cole. That wasn't an attack against civilians, so was it a terrorist attack or not?
We live in a increasingly complicated world, where the lines between what the 'state' is, and those which appear to 'attack; it are becoming blurred. It's not like the old days of state vs state, but state vs group/individuals etc. We live in an information age, and information has power, and consequences for security and safety.
At what point does an journalist with a clear agenda cross the line into being activily an agent working against the state and putting it's agent and people at risk?
I don't have any answers on the above, just a whole load of questions.
I think people who are trying to attach the "terrorist" label on somebody practicing journalism with classified materials need to think a bit harder about the effect they're having on national security.
"Terrorist" used to mean someone who tried to hurt civilians, which was something all decent people were opposed to. Do you want to turn it into a word for anyone who opposes authority? Do you want children who sympathize with Snowden - and there will be far more than the number who sympathize with bin Laden - to grow up thinking they want to be terrorists?
Whatever you think about Greenwald and Snowden, the line between a terrorist and somebody who peacefully opposes authority strikes me as one that it's important to preserve.
PS. It's incredibly depressing to actually need to say this.
People detonating bombs in public places = terrorism.
Exposing state secrets = offence under the Official Secrets Act. (May have a public interest defence, but would think that police could arrest and this could be tested in a court of law if they wanted to do something that would look like due process rather than intimidation).
When New Labour was passing all their anti-terrorism laws it was precisely the potential for misuse - against peaceful protesters (I have been searched under the Terrorism Act in such a situation) and journalists, etc - that the usual suspects complained about at the time.
I think people who are trying to attach the "terrorist" label on somebody practicing journalism with classified materials need to think a bit harder about the effect they're having on national security.
"Terrorist" used to mean someone who tried to hurt civilians, which was something all decent people were opposed to. Do you want to turn it into a word for anyone who opposes authority? Do you want children who sympathize with Snowden - and there will be far more than the number who sympathize with bin Laden - to grow up thinking they want to be terrorists?
Whatever you think about Greenwald and Snowden, the line between a terrorist and somebody who peacefully opposes authority strikes me as one that it's important to preserve.
PS. It's incredibly depressing to actually need to say this.
I think that is a valid point although it is impossible to be definitive without knowing what is on the memory sticks. The most obvious offences here were breaches of s1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 which allows detention. S.1(2) would probably deem an offence had been committed simply by possession of such material.
UKIP's one to keep an eye on, conference season has potential for big changes there (certainly the Tories will be hoping so).
I wonder what level of coverage will be given to the UKIP conference this year?
I know they don't have an MP yet, but their consistently higher poll ratings, robust performance in a number of by-elections and haul of councillors in the local elections, provide plenty of reasons for the media to give more prominence to them if they wish.
I'd think that the fact that it's being held in Westminster will help them - some journalists are lazy and budgets are tight but every media organisation will presumably feel they might as well have a few people pop down the road to see what's happening. It's literally 5 minutes' walk from the TV/radio broadcasting centre on Millbank/Great Peter Street.
"Most women can find the mustard in the pantry quicker than a man and most men can reverse a car better than a woman - although my wife can reverse a horsebox through a narrow passageway better than most men.
"My female French colleague is a phenomenal car parker in tiny spaces in French cities. But it is not the norm."
********* went on to describe himself as an alpha male who "would not be caught dead at a birth of a baby" and would be "happy to punch the first man who tries to steal my beer".
He argued that women are more interested in making beds and keeping bathrooms tidy than getting on in business.
He also suggested that feminism is a passing fashion created by "shrill, bored, middle class women of a certain physical genre"
On terrorism - like Richard N I don't have a firm view on the specific cases, and I've supported anti-terrorist legislation in the past so I'm in no position to lecture about its evils in principle. There is a general issue, though. As others have noted, there are broadly three cases: 1. People who try to kill innocent people. They are terrorists. 2. People who behave recklessly in a way that might endanger the public interest. They are, well, reckless. They need to be reined in, within reason, but the problem is defining the public interest. 3. People who are merely a bit inconvenient to politicians. They should of course be legal.
The difficulty is that governments tend to legislate against 1 and 2, but to get public support they call it anti-terrorism when it's not. It's legislation against both terrorism and other behaviour that they think is against the public interest. That's a long, not very catchy, description for which it's hard to get public support.
From what I read of the Snowden revelations, their main function to date has been to show incompetence in the US security forces rather than anything else.
The BBC says thatbreaches of US privacy laws were perpetrated mainly by accident rather than through any sinister attempt to spy on the population at large illegally (things like wrong numbers being entered in tracking systems etc).
The security forces seem to be reacting out of little more than petty professional pique in this case. And Snowden comes across as a rather vain attention seeker (initially his approaches to the Graun were ignored).
"Most women can find the mustard in the pantry quicker than a man and most men can reverse a car better than a woman - although my wife can reverse a horsebox through a narrow passageway better than most men.
"My female French colleague is a phenomenal car parker in tiny spaces in French cities. But it is not the norm."
********* went on to describe himself as an alpha male who "would not be caught dead at a birth of a baby" and would be "happy to punch the first man who tries to steal my beer".
He argued that women are more interested in making beds and keeping bathrooms tidy than getting on in business.
He also suggested that feminism is a passing fashion created by "shrill, bored, middle class women of a certain physical genre"
Who was the UKIP bloke who said something about women should focus on cleaning behind the fridge? Godfrey Bloom?
I must say it's amusing to see Yvette Cooper being so concerned about nine hours' questioning. I can't help feeling that her stance would have a tad more credibility if she hadn't been part of a government which tried to introduce 90 days detention - a measure which she voted for - not only without trial but also without the person or his lawyers being informed even in general terms about the nature of the suspicion.
Hmm not sure about that. For example the attack on the USS Cole. That wasn't an attack against civilians, so was it a terrorist attack or not?
The attack on the USS Cole was not a terrorist attack by any sane definition. The people who did it happened to have a history of terrorist attacks, but that is all. It wasa military attack by an military entity on another, who have both declared war on each other (Al Qaeda & USA)
I think people who are trying to attach the "terrorist" label on somebody practicing journalism with classified materials need to think a bit harder about the effect they're having on national security.
"Terrorist" used to mean someone who tried to hurt civilians, which was something all decent people were opposed to. Do you want to turn it into a word for anyone who opposes authority? Do you want children who sympathize with Snowden - and there will be far more than the number who sympathize with bin Laden - to grow up thinking they want to be terrorists?
Whatever you think about Greenwald and Snowden, the line between a terrorist and somebody who peacefully opposes authority strikes me as one that it's important to preserve.
PS. It's incredibly depressing to actually need to say this.
^ Excellent post. "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has become literally true. This is not a good thing.
Quite. Glenn Greenwald being a wanker does not justify the UK Government treating his partner as a terrorist. Anti-terrorist legislation should be used against terrorists. I don't think that's particularly difficult.
Terrorism is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) and means the use or threat of action where –
1) The action – a) involves serious violence against a person, b) involves serious damage to property, c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or e) 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.
Quite a bit wider than I expected, and I can see why many offences or activities can be caught up in it. It would be interesting to see definitions before TACT 2000.
@taffys - IMO, yes. However, others would I think argue that the UK state had not "declared war" on the IRA in any serious manner, unlike the USA wrt Al Qaeda.
''Glenn Greenwald being a wanker does not justify the UK Government treating his partner as a terrorist. ''
Why is he a w*nker? Initially Greenwald ignored Snowden's advances, the guardian reports. Snowden was so keen to leak information he made a number of attempts to create press contacts.
Did Snowden raise his concerns with his employer before going public on what in the end are just cases of accidental transgressions of laws??
Spa and Suzuka will be the toughest on the tyres, he says, so there may be the possibility of delamination during the race. Perhaps something to consider when betting.
''That depends on whether you would like your government and its agencies to uphold the rule of law or sink to the level of terrorist organisations.''
It certainly looks that way in the cold light of 2013, but at the time of the shooting public opinion was arguably in a very different place to where it is now.
Less than two years away from a GE, and both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are hiding away from the media, presumable in separate Labour bunkers. That doesn't bode well for the Labour party in a GE campaign, and it will also add to the perception that Miliband is weak and dithering while disloyal Balls is on manoeuvres.
Tim Walker @ThatTimWalker Jim Naughtie just said on #radio4today he couldn't get @Ed_Miliband on the show to talk.Tell me about it.The really tough nut is @edballsmp
Comments
However, the fact still remains that Greenwald has, as I said, undermined his own argument with that particularly nasty and ludicrously disproportionate threat. You're probably right that it's more David Icke than anything else, though.
This detention is extremely unusual because of its length. There is a useful Liberty paper which welcomes this government's promise to review this legislation: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy12/liberty-s-response-to-the-consultation-on-the-operation-of-schedule-7-dec-20.pdf
It shows most detentions, nearly all, last less than an hour. What I still don't get on the known facts is why this did not progress to charges and detention under suspicion.
I know they don't have an MP yet, but their consistently higher poll ratings, robust performance in a number of by-elections and haul of councillors in the local elections, provide plenty of reasons for the media to give more prominence to them if they wish.
So if I bomb a country, and they bomb me back, I can say "Look, I was right to bomb them - they just bombed me!" Nice.
If he has information which it's in the public interest to publish, he should do so. Threatening to publish things 'which will make the UK sorry', out of revenge because his partner was mildly inconvenienced, is hardly indicative of high standards of journalistic integrity - it's more like a cheap crook threatening a judge.
Terrorism is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) and means the use or threat of action where the action: ...
1.3 endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
1.4 creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
...
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
Release of the information would almost certainly qualify under 1.3, possibly under 1.4. Section 2 is at least arguable - probably under intimidating the section of the public. And 3 I guess you could hit under ideological cause.
But as I said, the Met thinks it was justified to use this legislation. I have no particular view - but I have no issue with him being stopped and the stolen goods removed from his possession.
For the zillionth time, I HAVEN'T defended the state's actions. I have expressed no view whatsoever on that aspect of the story, for the very good reason that I don't have any information about it.
Ms Mensch on R5 about Greenwald - apparently the thumb drives were confiscated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01fgm1h
Do not underestimate the potential for information terrorism. I have commented before (with my tinfoil hat firmly atop my luxurious mane) that some of the bank outages we have seen may actually have been a result of attempted or successful criminal cyber attacks.
There has been some concern that systems such as power plants are liable to cyber attack. Whist they are somewhat hardened (some have no Internet access in the control room, for instance), they are still valuable targets. And to successfully penetrate them, you need information.
But it is not just power plants: hospitals are becoming increasingly connected, and cyber attacks into a hospital could easily lead to deaths. Or to a railway signalling system (AIUI, this possibility has been designed into ERTMS (1)). Or the police secure radio system.
Whilst this is nothing to do with the Greenwald/Miranda case, we need to start realising that data security is vitally important for all of us.
That USB stick containing data may carry more than company secrets.
(1): http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/1522/
"Terrorist" used to mean someone who tried to hurt civilians, which was something all decent people were opposed to. Do you want to turn it into a word for anyone who opposes authority? Do you want children who sympathize with Snowden - and there will be far more than the number who sympathize with bin Laden - to grow up thinking they want to be terrorists?
Whatever you think about Greenwald and Snowden, the line between a terrorist and somebody who peacefully opposes authority strikes me as one that it's important to preserve.
PS. It's incredibly depressing to actually need to say this.
The message a large chunk of people are sending is "I'm absolutely certain to vote, and vote Labour, even though I'm not entirely convinced by Ed Miliband".
I see no reason to disbelieve or try to second guess them.
Here are the Council for Mortgage Lenders figures published today: You will note that the current rate of mortgage lending is only 43.5% of 2007 levels and that is in nominal terms before inflation is taken into account. Hardly evidence of "lending soaring".
What the figures do tell us is that mortgage lending has only just begun to rise from the post recession trough. In real terms mortgage lending is still at all time lows.
On your other two points, the most recent figures for both lending to business and real incomes both indicated a rise and turnaround in trend.
If I were you, I would check your twitter feeds and do a bit of late summer weeding.
At least Miranda has lived to tell the tale.
New Labour was more robust in its treatment of innocent Brazilians ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
Neither of which applies to Snowden and Greenwald.
We live in a increasingly complicated world, where the lines between what the 'state' is, and those which appear to 'attack; it are becoming blurred. It's not like the old days of state vs state, but state vs group/individuals etc. We live in an information age, and information has power, and consequences for security and safety.
At what point does an journalist with a clear agenda cross the line into being activily an agent working against the state and putting it's agent and people at risk?
I don't have any answers on the above, just a whole load of questions.
Exposing state secrets = offence under the Official Secrets Act. (May have a public interest defence, but would think that police could arrest and this could be tested in a court of law if they wanted to do something that would look like due process rather than intimidation).
When New Labour was passing all their anti-terrorism laws it was precisely the potential for misuse - against peaceful protesters (I have been searched under the Terrorism Act in such a situation) and journalists, etc - that the usual suspects complained about at the time.
If a lawyer did turn up he did a pretty good job!
Nope. I just don't care. Not often I agree with Mr Dodd. That episode was an outrage.
The absolute hysteria during that period shamed the nation.
Blair and his cronies have a lot to answer for.
1. People who try to kill innocent people. They are terrorists.
2. People who behave recklessly in a way that might endanger the public interest. They are, well, reckless. They need to be reined in, within reason, but the problem is defining the public interest.
3. People who are merely a bit inconvenient to politicians. They should of course be legal.
The difficulty is that governments tend to legislate against 1 and 2, but to get public support they call it anti-terrorism when it's not. It's legislation against both terrorism and other behaviour that they think is against the public interest. That's a long, not very catchy, description for which it's hard to get public support.
The BBC says thatbreaches of US privacy laws were perpetrated mainly by accident rather than through any sinister attempt to spy on the population at large illegally (things like wrong numbers being entered in tracking systems etc).
The security forces seem to be reacting out of little more than petty professional pique in this case. And Snowden comes across as a rather vain attention seeker (initially his approaches to the Graun were ignored).
OT. I've just watched Dan Hodges on News 24.
What a depressing specimen. I'm glad he's a Tory.
That means it was perfectly legitimate for the SAS to shoot dead IRA operatives on Gibraltar?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/ctd.html Quite a bit wider than I expected, and I can see why many offences or activities can be caught up in it. It would be interesting to see definitions before TACT 2000.
Why is he a w*nker? Initially Greenwald ignored Snowden's advances, the guardian reports. Snowden was so keen to leak information he made a number of attempts to create press contacts.
Did Snowden raise his concerns with his employer before going public on what in the end are just cases of accidental transgressions of laws??
Spa and Suzuka will be the toughest on the tyres, he says, so there may be the possibility of delamination during the race. Perhaps something to consider when betting.
It certainly looks that way in the cold light of 2013, but at the time of the shooting public opinion was arguably in a very different place to where it is now.