This article is reproduced from Press TV, with thanks.
*****
At 9.32pm local time on the evening of Monday 24 February, I stepped off a plane from Istanbul to Heathrow and into the terminal building.
In front of me were a wide circle of people evidently waiting for someone, perhaps for a number of passengers. I knew right away one of them was me.
One of the SO15 (formerly Special Branch) plain clothes officers of the Counter Terrorism Command, for it was them, asked for my passport and whether I had started my journey in Istanbul.
Of course I knew that they knew this was not the case. In any case, I had done nothing wrong in – as I said to them – visiting Beirut to cover the funeral of Hezbollah leaders Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyed Hashem Safieddine.
This was my first taste of Schedule 7. They started to explain what Schedule 7 was and I said yes, I know about it. From being stopped before? No, because I am a researcher who studies terrorism legislation.
About then, on the moving walkway, I realised that the circle of people had only been waiting for me. I looked round and counted them out loud. I know I’m a big lad, I said, (I am over 6ft) but did you really need eight officers to detain me?
So, we got to the interrogation room, which is, as past detainees will know, immediately behind passport control. Anyone coming out of that door is SO15 or a detainee.
No right to silence under ‘anti-terror’ law
For those who may face this experience in the future, it is worth explaining how the process goes. It’s a bureaucratic procedure.
There is a guidance handbook dictating how the process should be handled. First they have to read out the relevant extract from the Terrorism Act (2000). It’s a whole page (see below), and they will give you a copy, which they will ask you to sign.
The essential bit is that you are being ‘detained’ (as opposed to arrested) in order that the ‘examining officer’ can determine if you ‘appear’ to be a person “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
A couple of other details are of relevance. They can’t hold you for more than six hours after the time they first apprehend you. You are not under criminal investigation or under arrest, and as a result you do not have the right to remain silent. If they do change their minds and arrest you, you do at that point have the right to remain silent and you should do so.
You have to participate in the process, to answer questions and to accept being searched. You don’t have to answer questions that you think they are asking and only need to answer what they actually ask. There is no need to be unduly long-winded!
The other point to note is that nothing you say can be used in evidence in criminal proceedings. (The only exceptions are that if you do not comply, that can be used in evidence, and if you later rely on something in court which is ‘inconsistent’ with what you say, then the contents of your interview can be used.)
You have the right to contact a next of kin/friend and a lawyer, and you should exercise that right. The rules state that if you ask for a solicitor, you cannot be questioned until your solicitor has consulted you.
And your solicitor can participate in the questioning either on the phone or in person – if you can get them out of bed to come to wherever you are detained!
Once in the room, both I and my luggage were searched. They found little of interest. No devices. The only thing that they brightened at was a very small USB drive, which I had forgotten was in there.
I confirmed that I thought it had no security protection and they took it away. Later it was returned, much to my surprise. What was on it, I asked? Only some teaching notes, they said in disappointment.
Later at home, I checked. Hilariously, there was only one file on the drive: a Powerpoint presentation on the zionist movement.
And so we got to the actual interrogation. I estimate that mine started about 11.00pm, so there was a long period of silence while we waited for the solicitor to call back.
This was partly owing to the police deciding that they could not call my first nominated solicitor because he wasn’t on their list, though he should not have needed to be.
Anyway, after I talked to my solicitor, we were off.
Free speech and journalism
What followed was around two hours of questioning about my trip to Beirut. Why did I go? What did I do when I was there? Did I support Hezbollah? And many other similar questions.
There is not space to tell it all blow by blow, but here are some highlights which might be of use to others who, like me, are manifestly not involved in the commission of acts of terrorism – as everybody knows.
First, they wanted to know why I went. As I had already intimated when they first stopped me, I was there to cover the funeral as a journalist. As is public knowledge, I work as a journalist on a freelance basis.
I produce a TV show called Palestine Declassified for Press TV, and write for a variety of other publications such as Electronic Intifada, MintPress News, TRT World and Al Mayadeen English. I mentioned this, as well as mentioning that I used to work at the University of Bristol until I was sacked.
They asked about that. I summarised the story including the four occasions on which I was exonerated of ‘antisemitism’ at Bristol (internal enquiry, two external QC reports and the internal appeal), followed by the ‘landmark’ victory at the employment tribunal in February 2024.
We went on to discuss my trip to Lebanon. What did I do there? I recounted that I had visited the southern village of Maroun El Ras, which is within a mile of the border of occupied Palestine, high on a hill overlooking the (Israeli) colonial settlements of Avivim and Yir’on.
I went with a number of other foreign guests including from Ireland, Yemen, Brazil and various other countries. What was there I was asked? I replied (truthfully) that there was nothing in the village since almost all 600 houses had been destroyed.
The officer seemed confused: Why would I want to visit then? Precisely because it had been destroyed by the zionists, obviously.
Sinister yet farcical face of British political policing
We got fairly quickly to the question of whether I supported Hezollah as a proscribed organisation. I referred back to my employment tribunal, at which similar questions had been asked somewhat ineffectually by the University of Bristol’s counsel Chris Milsom.
There I had said the same thing as I now stated: I ‘support’ the right as given in international law for the Palestinians (and indeed others under occupation) to resist, including by armed force.
In case officers in SO15 or other actors need reminding of this, the relevant text is from the UN general assembly resolution 38/17 of 1983, which states that it: “Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.” (Right of peoples to self-determination)
They went on to see if they could entice me into saying I specifically supported proscribed organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah. So I obviously went on to say that it was not only a question of Hezbollah and Hamas, but also Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the PFLP-GC, which is of course not the same as the PFLP itself, which is not proscribed. It was instructive that my interrogator appeared not to know about PIJ and the PFLP-GC, asking me to repeat each name.
We also visited the topic of deproscription. The officer wanted to know why I thought that all of the four groups should be de-proscribed.
It seemed like he thought this was a valuable concession from me. But, as he is, presumably, aware, the Terrorism Act specifically notes that it is not illegal to call for de-proscription.
I include a list from the Home Office website which gives a list of the charges that can relate to proscribed organisations.
“Proscription makes it a criminal offence to:
- Belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas (section 11 of the act).
- Invite support for a proscribed organisation (the support invited need not be material support, such as the provision of money or other property, and can also include moral support or approval) (section 12(1)).
- Express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation (section 12(1A)).
- Arrange, manage or assist in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation (section 12(2)); or to address a meeting if the purpose of the address is to encourage support for, or further the activities of, a proscribed organisation (section 12(3)).
- Wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation (section 13).
- Publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances (section 13(1A)).”
And then we were on to the question of terrorism. Did that mean that I thought they were not terrorist? At which point I am afraid I referred back to my decades-long record of research on the question of terrorism and its role in propaganda, including my early work on the struggle to decolonise the north of Ireland.
As if the sentiments encoded in the proscribed list or the western use of the term ‘terrorism’ itself are necessarily subscribed to even by most British citizens, never mind the rest of the world. Let’s not forget that the way in which we use the term ‘terrorism’ in the west – in particular ‘islamic terrorism’, has it origin in zionist propaganda operations – as has been shown by, for example, Remi Brulin.
At one point, apparently out of the blue, I was asked: Are you a practising muslim? I expressed some surprise at this question. In his defence, my interrogator said that I had earlier noticed and asked about whether the small pile of folded prayer mats in the cupboard was in fact a small pile of folded prayer mats.
I had noted them earlier and wanted to check that’s what they were. Only the best for their predominantly muslim ‘guests’! As the Guardian has reported, only 20 percent of Schedule 7 detentions are of white people (that’s including ‘white Irish’ and others stopped, like me, for their solidarity activities, so it’s likely that the proportion of white ‘far right’ suspects stopped is lower than 20 percent).
The officer seemed mystified about my attendance at an event in which everyone must have been a supporter of Hezbollah. As if reporting on events and supporting those events is the same thing. He asked if everyone there supported Hezbollah.
I replied that I didn’t feel able to report any great knowledge on the consciousness of perhaps the million people there. But it is certainly the case that there were very many Hezbollah flags.
I did also note that there was a largish contingent from the Syrian Social Nationalist party and made the point that the sheer numbers present suggested that Nasrallah has something of a larger reputation than just among party members and core supporters.
As we talked, the officer started asking about Press TV, for which I work on a freelance basis. He evidently had not known what Press TV was, as it took a long time for him to understand – after I told him that it was the English language TV channel of the Iranian government – the equivalent of the BBC World Service.
Then he wanted to know about whether the people I work with at Press TV are extremists or have extreme opinions. Obviously I had to press him to explain what he meant by extremism. Given that the British government abandoned its efforts to define the term in any legally robust way, he fared no better.
So he asked something about how many were opposed to western society. I was not impressed by this, since, as I said, most people in the world are opposed to the west, and many of them are British citizens.
And then: Does Press TV support the recent ‘terrorism’ in this country?! Which terrorism? I enquired. And do you know what he said? He only said the Southport attack. That was not terrorism I said. Even his colleague butted in and agreed with me!
So we were back to finding specific examples and – put on the spot – he came up with the stabbing and car attack at Parliament in 2017. That, of course, was carried out by an individual who had made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia and appeared to have been inspired by an Isis-related ideology.
Before we got any further, I was asked if Press TV covered incidents like this. The implication, of course, being that covering such activities might be tantamount to ‘supporting’ them.
Obviously, being a news service, Press TV does cover political violence of many types – as does every other news organisation in the world.
But, moving on, I replied that in fact Press TV is opposed to those kind of attacks. I was on the verge of going on to say that this of course was different to the position of their colleagues in MI6 and in the government, and indeed the BBC, who are only too happy to collaborate in supporting Isis/al-Qaeda in Syria if it suits their perception of British foreign interests. But I let that lie.
By now we were winding down, and it was pretty clear they were about to release me, even if I had taken their claim that it would be over soon with the requisite heap of salt. At the end, they asked if I had anything to ask, like we were coming to the end of a job interview.
I made one statement, which was that it was abundantly clear to everyone in the room that I was not a person who was concerned in the ‘commission, preparation or instigation’ of acts of terrorism.
By way of defence of the detention, the officer attempted to justify it in terms of a British citizen’s attendance at the funeral of a “terrorism leader” – a defence which of course worked to deny that they had effectively been instructed by others to stop me. With that, we were done and I was released at 1.00am – too late to get home except via a prohibitively expensive taxi.
Zionists acting as unofficial political police in Britain
It appeared abundantly clear that SO15 did not have any real idea of who I was and had not prepared any case against me. It was just a normal Schedule 7 stop.
Except, of course, it wasn’t. I had openly announced on X that I was in Lebanon for the funeral and had reported from my visit to Maroun El Ras and the Iran garden on its outskirts, both of which had been totally destroyed by zionist bombardment.
I also posted a clip of my visit to Kfar Kila showing mass destruction of civilian infrastructure wreaked by the zionists and my discovery of a US arms firm-manufactured detonation wire used in blowing up civilian houses.
I also posted on the funeral itself, including while I was stuck in traffic on the way, as I arrived in the ‘nick of time’ and as the ceremony started.
Of course, all of this was very triggering for the genocidal zionists who track any deviation from the authorised position of pretending that the genocide is not happening and that those who resist are simply ‘terrorists’.
A wide range of anonymous trolls and zionist regime assets started mass reporting me to the Metropolitan police, calling for me to be arrested and jailed. I know they say that the zionists don’t have much power, but bouncing the Met into detaining a journalist on assignment seems like power of some sort.
Here is a select list of zionist agents and assets who called for me to be arrested:
- Gary Spedding, the zionist asset who poses as being pro-Palestine – 23 February 1.44pm
- Sabrina Miller, Daily Mail journalist and former student at Bristol University – 23 February 2.09pm
- Labour Against Anti Semitism (LAAS) – 23 February 7.41 pm
- Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) – 24 February 1.15pm
All of the above were involved in one way or another in the campaign to have me sacked from Bristol university, a decision that the employment tribunal found to have been flawed and unjustified in its ‘landmark’ decision.
This was all topped off by reports on Monday in the Daily Mail (published at 0.55am just as Monday 24th began) and later (at 5.25pm) in the Telegraph. This latter report cited the fanatical zionist Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who was reported as saying:
“David Miller isn’t even bothering to hide his antisemitism any more. He’s now openly boasting of his support for a proscribed terrorist group. It’s shocking that for so long he held a senior position at Bristol university.”
Of course no actual ‘antisemitism’ was on display, and I said no words capable of being construed as ‘openly boasting’ of ‘support’ for Hezbollah.
Jenrick has form as far as I am concerned. He spent a not inconsequential amount of time trying to have me sacked from my post at Bristol. For example, when he was housing minister, he directly bullied the University of Bristol over my case.
The report ended by saying that the paper had (like the Mail also claimed to have done) contacted me for comment. The facts are that I have had no such query from the Telegraph or from the Mail.
I must say that I did enjoy the column the next day by Stephen Pollard, who presided over a significant number of libel defeats in his role as editor of the Jewish Chronicle. “Opening a communication” from me back then he says was like “ingesting poison”. My parents would be proud.
What, self-evidently, happened in this instance was that the zionist pressure worked its way through and an order to detain was issued. As to whether it came from the top of the Counter-Terrorism Command, the Home Office or elsewhere, we don’t know as yet.
But it is very much of a piece with the general picture post-7 October 2023, which is that there is intense zionist pressure on the counterterrorism and policing apparatus to weaponise both hate crime laws and terrorism legislation.
It is perfectly plain, as I have shown elsewhere, that this pressure from zionist lobby and intimidation groups, and pressure from zionist-aligned politicians like Michael Gove, Suella Braverman, Stuart Polak, Robert Halton and the aforementioned Robert Jenrick, more than adequately explains all of the alleged rise in ‘antisemitism’, as well as almost all of the uses of the many terrorism acts on the statute books to oppress and repress those who will stand with the Palestinians in virtually any way.
And, in recent months, the attacks have widened to journalists, whose historically-recognised craft implies that they can report on all events without being attacked directly by the state.
But now, after Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson, Asa Winstanley and most recently Ali Abunimah, it is clear that journalists, too, are direct targets of the zionists, operating as they do via the allegedly sovereign justice apparatus of western states.
