And...here come the thought police! Student Siddique guilty of angry thoughts.

[Fullyplumped]

He's not a teenager but a grown man. He was charged not with havng angry thoughts - not yet a crime in our country - but with a variety of forms of behaviour which he will have known are illegal and subject to very heavy punishment. These included threats to "blow up Glasgow".

This was no summary trial. He was tried over four weeks in front of a jury, represented by the top defence QC in the country and aided by one of the most high-profile solicitors.

The trial has been well covered in the press right since his initial arrest over a year ago and each day we have heard full reports of the damning evidence given by witnesses, many themselves Muslims who expressed their disgust at his behaviour. The main evidence is listed in the BBC webpage week by week. Even Indymedia and Islamophobiawatch has got involved with the puir wee sowel. No secret trial here.

This was not a one-off bit of internet research, but a consistent pattern of criminality by someone who - to the disgust of his family and many who know him - was engaged on a course of action which needed to be stopped.

He may well have been a deluded idiot but that is no excuse. The jury came to the conclusion that the evidence presented to it required a conviction. He may be lucky, and the Judge might decide to go relatively easy on him, but the High Court has maximum powers and he could go down for a very long time.

 

[nosos]

Only white middle class liberals with wet panties who apologise for the actions of Jihadists; often at dinner parties.

Define an 'apology' in this context? Is an attempt to explain actions synonmous with attempting to justify them in your mind? Or do you know people who actually explicitly set out to justify them? The only people I've ever met who were explicitly justifying terrorist attacks were some Muslims running a stall in Marble Arch a couple of years ago. Plus the very occasional leftie knob you find saying that the people in the twin towers deserved their fate. Maybe you've just met more of these people than I have.

 

[lights.out.london]

Ooh! Semantics and Phil. Lang 101. Not a Monday evening, please.

btw - who is PK?

 

[nosos]

btw - who is PK?

Someone who used to spend a lot of time here proving what a big man he was by talking about physical violence on the internet.

Ooh! Semantics and Phil. Lang 101. Not a Monday evening, please.

I give up.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

He's going to prison. Maybe someone will kick some sense into him. Maybe when he feels the pain of breaking bones, fear and desperation

Christ. Are you Giles in disguise?

 

[lights.out.london]

Someone who used to spend a lot of time here proving what a big man he was by talking about physical violence on the internet.

I give up.

No. Not me. But I won't be weeping for the soon-to-be incarcerated young man if he does get a good hiding, though.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Laws? Who needs laws? He was so obviously a wrong-thinking scumbag, we should be grateful that our police and justice systems are not bound by such trivialities as laws!

As I understand it the central character of this thread was given a jury trial following due process. Evidence was presented in court (if not on the internet) and the jury duly found him guilty.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

These included threats to "blow up Glasgow".

No they didn't, unless you have something more specific than is shown here.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

As I understand it the central character of this thread was given a jury trial following due process. Evidence was presented in court (if not on the internet) and the jury duly found him guilty.

It does not follow from that that he should have been found guilty, as I'm sure you're aware.

 

[xenon]

I could instruct you in critical thinking but it wouldn't necessarily have any impact on your ability to take apart an argument.

Right. That's rellavent how then.Are you saying because some of the wouldbe gehadists might be incompitent, there's no problem in having that kind of instruction and invective, to encourage it's actual use.

Bollox..

 

[nosos]

Right. That's rellavent how then.Are you saying because some of the wouldbe gehadists might be incompitent, there's no problem in having that kind of instruction and invective, to encourage it's actual use

I'm saying that people don't become evil terrorist scourges of mankind simply by reading stuff they find on the internet though of course some terrorists may start that way.

 

[xenon]

Yes you do but that's neither here nor there. What's relavent is that you need evidence to show that training (without us seeing the material I don't think we're in a position to judge whether it constitutes 'training' any more than the anarchist cookbook does) impacts on the likelyhgood of people actually carrying out acts rather than merely being theoretically capable of them.


Er, I've never looked into it myself but I'd be fairly sure there's an easily demonstrable link between terrorist training camps and terror.

But again that's neither here nor there. Firstly because afaik there's been no hint of operationally significant terrorist training camps operating within Britain and secondly because criminalising terrorist training camps is an entirely different matter to criminalising information.

This isn't about criminalising information. That is a distortion of what has been reported. AFAIK A Level chemistry is still perfectly legal. You're deliberately missing the point it seems.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Right. That's rellavent how then.Are you saying because some of the wouldbe gehadists might be incompitent, there's no problem in having that kind of instruction and invective, to encourage its actual use.

Was "its actual use" in fact "encouraged"?

It's amazing (or rather, disturbing) how people are prepared - even keen - to overlook the question of normal legal standards in these cases.

 

[nosos]

This isn't about criminalising information. That is a distortion of what has been reported. AFAIK A Level chemistry is still perfectly legal. You're deliberately missing the point it seems.

So what terrorist act has he been set down for then?

 

[Pingu]

ok.. allowing that no information should be restricted or censored I am curious Nosos as to your thoughs on Chris Langham or more specifically paedos who download images of kids for sexual gratification. should that be censored\illegal or not?

is there a differnece if they not only download them for "research purposes" but also then post them on a web site they design so that otehrs can "resaerch" them too?

 

[xenon]

I'm saying that people don't become evil terrorist scourges of mankind simply by reading stuff they find on the internet though of course some terrorists may start that way.

So encouragement, indoctronation, disemenation of the methods to carry out terrorism, have no part in the end result. Peple being blown up on public transport for example.

Again, we're not just talking about passive information collecting here.

 

[ymu]

^ Ah. Tired and irrelevant.

You tried to sensationalise a thread by using a lie.

He's going to prison. Maybe someone will kick some sense into him. Maybe when he feels the pain of breaking bones, fear and desperation, this young angry man...just doing what all young people do...will realise that glorifying violence and inciting others to kill in the name of 'Allah' is wrong. Maybe.

What is manipulative is how you're trying to tie this man's actions in my country (Scotland) to a war in Iraq.

Your point about deaths in Iraq is vaccuous and morally meaningless.

Your reading comprehension appears limited. I suggest you try again. Slowly this time. Respond to what I wrote, not what your media-addled neurons told you I wrote.

 

[xenon]

So what terrorist act has he been set down for then?

Have you not read the artical? Or does someone have to commit a "terrorist act", meaning blow something up, before their worth stopping?

 

[nosos]

ok.. allowing that no information should be restricted or censored I am curious Nosos as to your thoughs on Chris Langham or more specifically paedos who download images of kids for sexual gratification. should that be censored\illegal or not?

People viewing child porn creates the market for the production of child porn. Hence why I think censorship is justified.

The burdon of proof is on the state to demonstrate the strength of the link when they're trying to introduce censorship.

 

[lights.out.london]

Your reading comprehension appears limited. I suggest you try again. Slowly this time. Respond to what I wrote, not what your media-addled neurons told you I wrote.

Ah. Can't defend your position. So let's start with the personal, eh?

Student guilty of angry thoughts? No. Not so.

You're full of shit. Just like your OP.

 

[xenon]

People viewing child porn creates the market for the production of child porn. Hence why I think censorship is justified.

The burdon of proof is on the state to demonstrate the strength of the link when they're trying to introduce censorship.

I'ts not sensorship. You can find out how to make bombs, use an AK-47 on the internet. Just doing so, is unlikely to see you put in prison.

 

[nosos]

Have you not read the artical? Or does someone have to commit a "terrorist act", meaning blow something up, before their worth stopping?

You said this isn't about criminalising information. If it's not about criminalising information then, presumably, he's done something beyond possessing information. What has he done?

 

[Pingu]

People viewing child porn creates the market for the production of child porn. Hence why I think censorship is justified.

The burdon of proof is on the state to demonstrate the strength of the link when they're trying to introduce censorship.

so the production of child porn is not ok (which I agree with btw) but the production of bombs etc devised to kill or maim others is subject to a different set of rules?

weird moral position you seem to have adopted.

 

[xenon]

You said this isn't about criminalising information. If it's not about criminalising information then, presumably, he's done something beyond possessing information. What has he done?

Read the article. The relevant parts have been quoted on this thread often enough. Page 1.

 

[nosos]

I'ts not sensorship.

Yes it is.

ou can find out how to make bombs, use an AK-47 on the internet. Just doing so, is unlikely to see you put in prison.

Unless you're a muslim and you're seen to collect the stuff in which case that's exactly where you'll go. Which is what prompted this discussion.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You said this isn't about criminalising information. If it's not about criminalising information then, presumably, he's done something beyond possessing information. What has he done?

This is the point of course, which is perhaps why it is being so assiduously avoided.

 

[ymu]

As I understand it the central character of this thread was given a jury trial following due process. Evidence was presented in court (if not on the internet) and the jury duly found him guilty.

Guilty of what?

Your faith in the legal process is touching, but how did it even get that far? It has nothing to do with whether what he did was right or wrong and everything to do with the state having the right to legislate in this area of our lives; that is idle chitter-chatter and contemplation of wrong doing.

If it was a granny locked up for promoting cannabis and setting up a grow-site, but she'd never actually smoked or grown it or sold it, would you be quite so blase? Really?

 

[xenon]

You said this isn't about criminalising information. If it's not about criminalising information then, presumably, he's done something beyond possessing information.

Yes , precisely.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Read the article. The relevant parts have been quoted on this thread often enough. Page 1.

It is perhaps because Page 1 contained nothing even remotely convincing of that nature that we are still asking for it on page 4.

 

[ymu]

Ah. Can't defend your position. So let's start with the personal, eh?

Student guilty of angry thoughts? No. Not so.

You're full of shit. Just like your OP.

No, I was suggesting that you had misunderstopod my position and so I had nothing to defend. You were still wittering on about Islam, so you clearly didn't understand my position or you would have known that you were only proving my point.