Indeed, though he could easily connect through JFK (bad idea), Heathrow, Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt or Madrid onto direct flights. Perhaps the fact the Guardian paid for his flights limited his options?

I don't work for the Guardian either, and I'm not a journalist. But I quite fancy a trip to Rio, so I was wondering if the Guardian would pay for my air fares too?

Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 7 of the Act says:

[iAn examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b)[/i



Section 40(1) says:

[i“terrorist” means a person who …

(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.[/i



But paragraph 2(4) gives a bit of wriggle-room to the police to determine (as per 2(1) whether or not the person being questioned appears to be a terrorist ... it says :

[iAn examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)[/i.



Bearing in mind that most people stopped for reasons of P2(4) are released within an hour rather than full nine hours allowed, this case does fall outside the norm ... and as Miranda was released without charge ... and as no-one, including the police, has said that there was any suspicion of him being a terrorist ... it does make the case newsworthy and does raise the issue of whether the law is being used/misused.

I know right!



They stamped it secret and everything, we don’t need to trouble ourselves with worrying about anything stamped secret. Only good things like surprise parties or presents from Santa are kept secret, Or Victoria’s secret, another good thing. Nobody ever did anything nefarious in secret and nobody ever tried to keep their mistakes and wrong doings secret. Especially politicians, the police and army. People in power have always, throughout human history been the most trustworthy ones.

He was stopped under Schedule 7, the act makes clear that police can only detain someone to assess whether they are: involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism. There's not a shred of evidence that Miranda falls under any of those three categories, therefore the stoppage was unlawful. Anything else is fluff and spin.



I have no doubt this will end badly for Cameron, May, The Met and the security services.



Mind you, I suppose Miranda should be thankful, the last Brazilian to fall foul of the Met was executed

Wrong.



The legislation states no suspicion is necessary.

Incorrect.



As Ajw71 has aready pointed out, "the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism". Just for you: [url=http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=379DB3B5D26A772080257A5C0048ABC1an idiot's guide[/url, courtesy of those fine folks at GMP.



[url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231711/why-does-being-a-relative-of-glenn-greenwald-place-you-above-the-law/Another excellent analysis of events and why the detention was not only legal but justified.[/url

Thats why the word "assess"is used, he hasn't used "suspicion" at all, although why the police should be allowed to stop you just in case you are involved in terrorism rather than having at least a suspicion that you may be, I don't know - maybe that means we can all be detained for up to nine hours every time we leave home just in case, but especially if we fit a racial profile in which case the Met would appear to be the ideal force to administer this.

Where did I mention suspicion?

It's only an idiot's guide for an idiot like you.



Try reading the opinion of a man who [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/terrorism-act-david-miranda-detentionhelped draft and present the piece of legislation[/url, Charles Falconer



DJP Hodges is yet another closet tory loon, with as much gravitas as your earlier link, Louise Mensch

That article is bordering on the pathetic. One of the main justifications for the detention is this:



So Miranda arrives at Heathrow. The UK intelligence services are aware of his movements, because that’s what intelligence services do. What’s more, they know he’s potentially carrying highly classified information that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could seriously compromise UK national security.



They [iknow[/i he is [ipotentially?[/i What sort of oxymoron is that?



That is simply guilt by association. Everytime Miranda has to fly through Heathrow or any other UK airport he will have to be detained because he is "potentially carrying highly classified information".



That being so wouldn't this only make sense if it applied to every other Guardian journalist, their partners and anyone associated with them or the paper?



The article also has a Guardian bashing agenda nicely illustrated by this little snippet.



"I’ve long ago stopped trying to get my head around what goes on at The Guardian. But we can safely assume that if Alan Rusbridger agreed to this drastic course of action it wasn’t because the hard drives didn't contain anything more sensitive than Polly Toynbee’s latest polemic against Iain Duncan Smith."



The trouble is Rusbridger has explained that he thought the demand for the drives to be destroyed was farcical because the idea in this digital age the data would only be held on those drives was naive.



Dan Hodges either has an agenda against the Guardian here or is as naive as those who felt they had accomplished something by having the drives destroyed. Either way this calls his position into question.

Did a pretty poor job then, didn't he, to include such a vague clause as "an examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)" in an Act specifically aimed at Irish Dissidents. Fact is, his opinion now means f*ck all. Whether the detention was lawful is the only relevant point - and it was.



Do you therefore think people should be allowed to pass through airports smuggling stolen classified and sensitive information? If you do you're a bigger fool than I had you for. He was a mule, nothing more. He was correctly detained and the information seized.





I forgot, you lack the intellect to see past the author. As always, blinkered and bitter. You claimed there were untruths in the Mensch article. I'm still waiting for you to post them.