It's interesting to read the second page regarding Miranda and his detainment under the Terrorism Act, especially after last week when Liz Truss (which is ye olde English for "Village Idiot") stated they would be getting rid of the European Bill of Human Rights and establishing a British version - exactly what that would entail she never said. While the authorities said that no rules were broken when detaining him, it did infringe on his human rights under the European bill. But it's as clear as the light on the screen I am using that he was taken in to questioning because of the Snowden revelations and the fact his partner documented it all via The Guardian. I also recall their computers being seized under the same Terrorism Act? I think when you remember this case, which I had forgotten about, it's a bit clearer to what this Government wants to achieve with the British Bill of Human Rights. Every one has a right, unless of course we think you've been naughty.
But how does one defend their innocence, under a system of "innocent until proven guilty", without the right to a lawyer or lengthy detention without a court appearance? Readers of The Daily Fail and The S*n, possibily The Torygraph too, won't think like this. But if I come back in to the country after reading a Wikileaks article regarding the Snowden revelations, am I a terrorist or someone who is researching terrorism? Likewise am I more liable to be detained coming from Ireland (for example) because I bought a balaclava in Cork because I want to keep my face warm when riding a Motorbike, because I bought terrorist material? I know the latter is unlikely and it's conjecture, but it's a serious question to ask when the partner of a journalist is detained purely on the basis of what their partner has done has questioned the Government's tactics. Where does the line start and end?
The Government in the UK, the USA, et al are legalising the illegal. They are elected representatives, who we have chosen to represent us and do what's right for us. However, powers like this errode that trust to a point where, unless there's an election every 5 years, how can we hold our MP's to account? These are dangerous days, not for our safety but for our liberty. For the last 15 years this freedom has been curtailed. Not by terrorists, but by countless governments who have sought to "protect" the public from "terrorists", who are they allowing custodians of the law to hold innocent members of the public to account through sheer Government embarrassment? We know all too well that encryption, aparently, helps terrorists - even though it's documented that Al Qaeda tell their members to take the batteries out of their phones and leave them miles apart before attending meeting places.
So who's helping who protecting who from what? Because the older I get, the less I believe there is some big nasty man in a beard wanting to blow me up. Rather some older gentleman in a suit wants to know what I'm doing, a la 1984.