Quite surprised to see no topic debating the (un)lawful detention of a 'terrorist'. Nine hour interragation of the partner of a Guardian journalists' partner on the suspicion of 'supplying' information re: Edward Snowden.

Intimidation tactics or legitimate cause?

The paranoia fuelled anti-terror laws have basically given the police carte blanche to do whatever they want so long as they can attach some terrorism aspect to it, however spurious and tenuous the link. It's for our own good according to patronising politicians, and it'll get worse over time. They take away our freedom, in the name of liberty.......

Is there any debate to be had?

The govt are completely wrong to pull that s**t. It should probably be illegal, but hey, the people who will be deciding whether it's illegal are the same people who are pulling this s**t.

Labour could make something out of it, but they did this s**t over the Iraq invasion and they'll be doing more of the same when they're in power, so they'll mumble a few soundbites but generally allow it to disappear.

Oh boo hoo. Who cares? People are detained at airports for hours every single day (the US is notorious for it, the UK has its moments), often turned back and put on the next plane out - but most often released a few hours later. Do we hear about them?

I know of one 50+ year-old man who was denied entry to the USA for receiving a caution for shoplifting when he was 12 years old, a caution that was no longer even on his record yet the US CBP knew about.

These people keep poking governments in the eye and expect to be left alone. Not going to happen. This is a man who has released classified and sensitive (possible dangerous) stolen information into the public domain, and he's somehow surprised and outraged by all this? Give me a break.

The police deemed it necessary to detain him and appear to have sought legal advice prior to the detention. He was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended and he was released a few hours later. Yet of course in this paranoid and cynical age that automatically means devious motives and a spurious explanation on the part of the security services. The detention appears to have been entirely lawful - or are we ignoring the law to suit our own agenda?

Why is this even news?

As far as I know (not much) he was held for the maximum nine hours on the assumption he was importing information detrimental to the security of the U.K.? Why did the U.S.A. have an 'heads up'? Why the need to destroy hard drives at Guardian HQ?

Just seems like plain old bully boy tactics to me. When the free press (and their partners) are subject to this, we are on a rocky road.

It's nothing to do with being paranoid or cynical, and everything to do with not trusting successive governments and their intrusion into daily life, their endless surveilence (Yeah, I know, 'well, if you've nothing to fear' etc. We all know they never make mistakes.) and the regular abuse of power.

They're supposed to serve us, not the other way around.

If you seriously believe the guff that you've written then there really is no hope

Can someone supply a list of all the keywords that Government surveillance software listens for in mobile phone conversations please ?

I just like the idea of some civil servant having to listen in on my phone calls to my mates on a Friday afternoon (PS - for women - males generally tend not to "chat" on the phone for 30 minutes when trying to arrange a night out).

"Aye up"
"Now then"
"You out tonight ?"
"Yep"
"Eight ?"
"Yep"
"OK"
"OK"
"Terrorist"
"Bin Laden"

Agreed, good post.

It's only in the news because the detained was partner of some journo at that left wing rag. They probably see it as a good opportunity to get some publicity - they need it afterall. That paper is on its .

Incorrect.

Its in the news because data collection of private and personal data of individual citizens has been in the news for several years since that left wing rag broke the News International phone hacking story, you may have missed it, basically it was a private organisation who broke the law by using illegal computer and data hacking techniques to collect spurious information on individuals who they wanted to snoop on, including a murdered teenage girl.

You may remember it now ?

Thats why its in the news, because some people feel a tad uneasy about how freely governments of all flavours ignore basic rules on privacy and electronic surveillance whilst using the paranoia of terrorism to cloak their activities - we elect and pay for them, we deserve to know at least the basics of what they are doing in our name.

a) Because the guy was detained under special anti-terrorism laws even though he was not/is not suspected of a terrorist offence.
b) Because, this time, they picked on someone who has friends in the newspaper industry.
c) Because it's not the first time that convenient anti-terrorism laws have been misused (e.g. the Brown government used it to reclaim money lost by UK citizens via Icelandic banks).
d) <Edit> Because No 10 ordered civil servants to contact the Guardian to tell them not to print anything obtained from Snowden.

All newsworthy topics.

HTH.

Theresa May claims that it was a police decision to detain Miranda and had no involvement from government. She also aditted that she was previously informed of their intention to detain Miranda. If so, she seems to have forgotten to ask one simple question: WHY?