'Lyrical terrorist' convicted
- Thread starter Brainaddict
- Start date
frogwoman said:
No it isn't (see my post).
Of course many Muslims - just like others, religious and non religious alike - may feel they are "better" than anyone else (the Muslims because they are Muslims, other because they are Christians, atheists, whatever) and hence feel as if they can use a simple word as if it would express insult and denigration.
That is of all times, really.
I could understand why you wouldn't like to be called a swine though
salaam.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
My reference to distasteful was more about someone writing a lyric that praised beheading someone else, nothing at all to do with the context of some other words. Any fuckwit who thinks that this is an acceptable or praiseworthy practice should be shouted at, very loudly and very often, until they realise that this is a barbaric activity that should be resisted on any level.Aldebaran said:
nosos said:What on earth is a "record useful to terrorism"?
Detailed discription of how to behead sounds useful enough to wanna-be terrorists, I would have thought.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
The press report isn't clear on the precise wording of the charge and the complaint or indictment, if that's the correct term, but I inagine that the expression refers to a charge under s58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This section makes it an offence to collect or make a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or to possess a document or record containing information of that kind. “Record” includes a photographic or electronic record. It is a defence to prove that you had a reasonable excuse for your action or possession. It would be very interesting to hear some posters' defence for their possession of the Anarchists' Handbook, right enough.nosos said:What on earth is a "record useful to terrorism"?
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
And easily defensible. The Big Boy's Book to Blowing Up Bits of London along with these items marked-up with the word "boom" in big red letters, less so.nosos said:
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
That's why we have courts and defence lawyers and juries.nosos said:
"It is not a proscribed publication. It is freely available. I wanted to read it." would undoubtedly be sufficient. s.118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 says that if a defendant adduces evidence (which could just be their account) that raises the issue of their "reasonable excuse" then that should be taken as proven unless the prosecution disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.Fullyplumped said:
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Are some publications proscribed?detective-boy said:
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
The jury would be asked in each case to decide whether the excuse was reasonable.TAE said:
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
The fact that you feel that you have no need to own an A-Z of London doesn't mean that it is unreasonable for you to possess it. But you are clearly anxious about this, so it would probably relieve your mind if you didn't bother. I have an A-Z of London I bought a few years ago but I rarely force myself to travel down there. I am not too worried, though.TAE said:That is just insane. I have absolutely no need to own an A-Z of London, yet I might buy one anyway. Am I liable to be prosecuted?
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
It's the word used in the statute. Please feel free to ask the parliamentary draftsman to find a better word.TAE said:
Not that I'm aware of - I was talking in the abstract. Proscription would be the only way that simple possession of a particular item may amount to an offence.Fullyplumped said:
Huge swathes of the law are left to juries to decide - absolutely anything (and there are dozens and dozens of examples, including this one) with "reasonable" in the definition of offence or defence for a start ...TAE said:
I agree that the wording of this particular offence is very wide though - it isn't being applied in such a way at present and I cannot see the courts ever allowing it to be applied - there is always a combination of bits and pieces of possession and activity in all the cases. No-one is simply prosecuted for possession of a single A-Z with no evidence (direct or circumstantial) of why they have it or how it may be of use to terrorists.
The construction you are putting on "excuse" is perverse.TAE said:
If you wanted an A-Z then simply wanting to go and buy one (which you obviously did, or you wouldn't have done it) would be a "reasonable excuse". If you wanted a picture of the Houses of Parliament then simply wanting a picture of the place where your MP works (which you obviously did or you wouldn't have taken or obtained one) would be a "reasonable excuse".
The use of reasonable excuse is not the major issue though - it is a construction used in many, many offence definitions.TAE said:
The issue is the wide definition of "material of use to a terrorist" (which could be anything) and the fact that the offence does not include any need to demonstrate any intent. In this it is different to most offences which, if drawn wide in terms of the things they cover, require some evidence of criminal intent (the reasoning being that lots of people may have the things, but innocently) or, if there is no requirement for intent to be shown, are drawn tightly in terms of the things they cover (the reasoning being that not many people would be having the things in innocent circumstances).
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
So she got a suspended sentence in the end:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130495.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130495.stm
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
Were her lyrics actually any good? She could now get a record deal as Da Lyrical Terrorist feat the Jihad Posse or summit.
Similar threads
