Old Human Rights Thread - new news

  john bunyan 12:56 20 Feb 2014

FE starded a thread some time ago See: Human Rights. It was locked eventually. Carver and Fourm Member were sure that the detention of the journalist whilst in transit at Heathrow was illegal; others argued the contrary. Will these contributors comment on the High Court judgement and admit they were wrong? I bet not...(Nothing personal but do sometimes admit to being wrong - I admit it , occasionally!)

David Miranda

  john bunyan 13:02 20 Feb 2014

A better Link:


  fourm member 13:18 20 Feb 2014

I am always willing to admit if I've got something wrong.

Will you do the same?

In the original thread I said the action was wrong and I said I didn't believe what the Home Secretary and the police were saying about it but I did not say it was illegal.

Now that the High Court has rejected Miranda's claim, I'll go with the line taken by Liberty - if that is legal then the law needs to be changed.

  lotvic 14:21 20 Feb 2014

I wonder how that matches up with the findings on this Thread click here about us customs searching harddrive contents. The given link to Air Travel Forum seems to show that it is/can be standard practice at customs TripAdvisor.co.uk

  Mr Mistoffelees 15:55 20 Feb 2014

The Guardian can protest all they like but, national security must take priority over press freedom.

  john bunyan 16:10 20 Feb 2014

fourm member

I referred to your post of Fri Aug 28th at 1203.

"Will you do the same?"

Of course! I was wrong in expecting a terrorist attack at the London Olympics, for example. I look forward to continuing verbal jousting in this sprit of frankness!!!

  john bunyan 16:46 20 Feb 2014


BTW I disagree with most of Liberty's views, and I have read all 137 pages of their views! Liberty

  fourm member 17:45 20 Feb 2014

john bunyan

You'll have to help me. I can't see anywhere in that post where I said the detention was 'illegal'. I said it wasn't right and I still say that.

You didn't need to say you disagree with Liberty. I think I knew that.

With more and more of those involved in surveillance saying that things had got out of hand it is becoming very clear that what Snowden did was necessary and helpful.

  john bunyan 18:50 20 Feb 2014

" very clear that what Snowden did was necessary and helpful."

Luckily , the court disagrees with you, as do many people who know far more about it than you or I.

I will not nit pick, let us agree that we hold differing views on this matter. I hope that you at least give me credit for reading all 137 pages before commenting. Although the current team at Liberty were not around at the time,their former name was NCCL, whose judgement is being questioned by your favourite paper!


  fourm member 19:58 20 Feb 2014

john bunyan

You keep doing this. The court hasn't disagreed with me. The court hasn't taken a view on Snowden. It has made a decision on a single aspect of the matter.

It has made that decision based on the current law, a law that I say is very wrong. I'll go back to what I said in the previous thread. What would the British government say if a British subject was pulled out of the transit lounge in Moscow and detained?

And your attempt to link what may or may not have happened forty years ago to Liberty's current staff is frankly pathetic.

  Woolwell 19:59 20 Feb 2014

We've had this debate before about whether Snowden was right or wrong. Nothing will persuade fourm member otherwise. But then he frequently shows a distrust of the military or any information gathering organisation. I fail to understand why unless he has had a bad experience. Organisations do get it wrong from time to time but that doesn't mean that the basic principles are illegal or wrong. I suspect that we will continue to differ.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

30 UK artists have created vibrant posters celebrating Pride London

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment connecter un MacBook à une TV ?