Men convicted over fertiliser bomb plot

[TAE]

Seeing as they weren't farmers or related to farming in any way and they were secretly storing the fertiliser in the city, your comment is baffling to say the least!

We are talking about fertiliser here. Geez, is that really enough to make someone guilty these days? OMG he had fertiliser ! In England !!

Do you think there's any doubt about the verdict then, despite the fact that a jury found them guilty even when they weren't informed of their rather damning connections with the 7/7 bombers?

The fertiliser in itself would not convince me, but I have not seen all the evidence. So I was asking about the jury reaching a majority only verdict.

 

[editor]

We are talking about fertiliser here. Geez, is that really enough to make someone guilty these days? OMG he had fertiliser ! In England !!

Well, that and all the other jury-convincing evidence that was presented at the trial, of course.

But what is your point here? Are you saying that there's been some sort of miscarriage of justice and if so, what are you basing that on?

The fertiliser in itself would not convince me, but I have not seen all the evidence. So I was asking about the jury reaching a majority only verdict.

They weren't convicted on just the fertiliser, so - again - what is your point?

 

[TAE]

editor - I think the time you spend fighting the conspiraloons has taken its toll.

I'm not stating, claiming, implying ANYTHING at all about the case.

I'm saying that the jury took a long time to decide and so I would like to know if the final verdicts were majority only or if all agreed they were guilty.



eta:

Here's a bit more detail about the verdicts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4830322.stm

 

[bigvern]

all that fertiliser for an allottment sounds a little suspicious,
delighted to hear they were tortured as well , tax payers money well spent

 

[In Bloom]

Actually, it's because I can't be bothered to explain the chuffing obvious to someone who's too lazy and/or stupid to work it out for themselves.

But because I'm a considerate fella, I've posted up an informative link for you to fill in the considerable gaps in your knowledge of modern affairs.

Off you go then!

Not that I'm putting down the considerable research skills required to find and link to a BBC news website article, but you still haven't actually given your own opinion.

 

[Psychonaut]

I was under the impression most ammonium nitrate (assuming thats what it is) contains some sort of additive rendering it useless as an explosive. Did the terrorists know this?

And where the fuck were the press last year when a couple of WHITE misantropes were arrested for conspiracy/stockpiling.

 

[editor]

Not that I'm putting down the considerable research skills required to find and link to a BBC news website article, but you still haven't actually given your own opinion.

If you believe that the events of 9/11 had no impact around the world, you're welcome to hold that opinion.

I don't think you'll find many intelligent people to agree with you mind, and I certainly can't be arsed to fill in the woeful gaps in your education, but there you go.

Now go stir elsewhere because the topic of this thread's a little bit more interesting than your posturing.

 

[editor]

I'm saying that the jury took a long time to decide and so I would like to know if the final verdicts were majority only or if all agreed they were guilty.

AFAIR, the judge said he'd take a 11-1 or 10-2 verdict so presumably it was one of them. Why's it so important to you?

 

[In Bloom]

If you believe that the events of 9/11 had no impact around the world, you're welcome to hold that opinion.

I never said that the events of 9/11 had no impact around the world. You're either a liar or illiterate. Not that that's news to any objective observer.

And not everybody who challenges the shallow nonsense you try to pass off as political analysis is a stirrer, you know. I just find your lack of intellectual honesty and a refusal to examine your assumptions distasteful

 

[editor]

I never said that the events of 9/11 had no impact around the world. You're either a liar or illiterate. Not that that's news to any objective observer.

Where did I make that claim? URL please or kindly apologise for this unfounded accusation of "lying".

And not everybody who challenges the shallow nonsense you try to pass off as political analysis is a stirrer, you know. I just find your lack of intellectual honesty and a refusal to examine your assumptions distasteful

Do you think that 9/11 dramatically changed things on a global scale forever or not? YES/NO?

Oh, and quit the unprovoked, off-topic personal abuse NOW please. It's getting very boring.

 

[In Bloom]

Where did I make that claim? URL please or kindly apologise for this unfounded accusation of "lying".

From your last post:

If you believe that the events of 9/11 had no impact around the world, you're welcome to hold that opinion.

Do you think that 9/11 dramatically changed things on a global scale forever or not? YES/NO?

No. I think it was a signifigant event, but not one that represented some kind of unique historical break from everything that went before. Which would be what is implied by "a different world".

Oh, and quit the unprovoked, off-topic personal abuse NOW please. It's getting very boring.

*chuckles*

 

[editor]

From your last post:

Er, I asked you a question. I made no assertion. Learn to read.
Now please withdraw your accusation that I lied because I have had enough of your off-topic, thread disrupting ad hominems.

 

[audiotech]

ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) may be a sinister capitalist conspiracy - but it should not be confused with the even more sinister ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), the Pakistani agency that helped launch the lovely Taleban.

Well it seems there both connected to fertilizer in some way, but thanks for correcting my mistake.

 

[audiotech]

Well, that's hindsight for you. T'was a different world pre 9/11.

It's still the same fucked up one last time I looked.

 

[Dhimmi]

Good result indeed, very thorough summing up by the judge.

Interesting to see the claims expressed on here by some about how they couldn't possibly be guilty of anything, how charges would never be laid, etc when this story first broke haven't been repeated.

Not so interesting to see the claims that all they did was have a little bit of fertiliser, makes even a sun reader look incredibly well informed.

Well done old bill. ;-)

 

[TAE]

Interesting to see the claims expressed on here by some about how they couldn't possibly be guilty of anything, how charges would never be laid, etc when this story first broke haven't been repeated.

Not so interesting to see the claims that all they did was have a little bit of fertiliser, makes even a sun reader look incredibly well informed.

Citations required.


Besides, two of them WERE found not guilty.

AFAIR, the judge said he'd take a 11-1 or 10-2 verdict so presumably it was one of them. Why's it so important to you?

If it were terribly important to me, I would not casually be asking on U75, now would I.

I generally find the idea of majority verdicts questionable, because it means that one or two jurers can have serious doubts about the guilt and yet the person gets convicted. So a majority verdict in this case would be an important event, because it can either mean that innocent people were wrongly convicted or it can mean that guilty people who otherwise would have been let off were put safely behind bars because the majority verdict.

That does not, in any case, mean that I think these people are innocent.

 

[editor]

So a majority verdict in this case would be an important event, because it can either mean that innocent people were wrongly convicted or it can mean that guilty people who otherwise would have been let off were put safely behind bars because the majority verdict.

I'm fairly confident that there would have been no doubt in the juror's minds if they'd been told about their involvement with the 7/7 bombers. But that's only a guess.

 

[audiotech]

The key prosecution witness was Mohammed Junaid Babar. Since his arrest in New York in 2004, Babar has given evidence to prosecutors in four countries.

He was given immunity from prosecution in Britain in exchange for his testimony.

That immunity alone, particularly if you consider other trials that have taken place using such prosecution witnesses not too far from here, raises some questions. Then, proceedings collapsed and convictions were overturned after "supergrasses", as they were known, were shown to have concocted evidence.

Not saying that's the case here, but the defendants always denied there was a plot. Some said they did not know what the fertiliser was, or that they were only interested in sending money to fighters in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

One of the defendants, Salahuddin Amin, handed himself in to Pakistani authorities in April 2004, but was held without charge for ten months before he was flown back to Britain, where he was arrested. Amin told the court that Pakistani interrogators threatened to “drill another hole in his backside”.

 

[TAE]

I'm fairly confident that there would have been no doubt in the juror's minds if they'd been told about their involvement with the 7/7 bombers. But that's only a guess.

Does that include the two they found not guilty ?

 

[editor]

Does that include the two they found not guilty ?

Was there any evidence linking them to the 7/7 bombers then?

 

[TAE]

Was there any evidence linking all those who were convicted?

 

[editor]

Was there any evidence linking all those who were convicted?

Sorry. What's your point about the two found not guilty?

 

[TAE]

I'm asking which of the accused have been linked to the 7/7 bombers, as you were so confident that such a link would convince the jury of their guilt.

(BTW, personally I think such a link would prove very little)

 

[detective-boy]

I'm sorry Ed but a pro-police thread started on Mayday is just not appropriate.

I just love this kind of fuckwittery. Which days would it be appropriate on? And are there any days on which an anti-police thread should not be started? Perhaps you could provide us with a calendar showing all the relevant things to avoid on all relevant dates.

I bet you're the sort of twat who sits in political meetings shouting "Point of Order" regardless of the importance or relevance of the issue being raised.

 

[detective-boy]

delighted to hear they were tortured as well

And what makes you think that?

 

[editor]

I'm asking which of the accused have been linked to the 7/7 bombers, as you were so confident that such a link would convince the jury of their guilt.

Err, the jury was already convinced of the guilt of some of the defendants. As for who was linked to the 7/7 bombers, it was on the news if you're that interested.

 

[Dhimmi]

I just love this kind of fuckwittery. Which days would it be appropriate on? And are there any days on which an anti-police thread should not be started? Perhaps you could provide us with a calendar showing all the relevant things to avoid on all relevant dates.

DB I'd have thought you'd have got the hang of this one by now.

from "Right on Politics" by Dave Spart, chapter four Cyber Activism: Charm Offensive.;

Pro-police/judiciary threads should never be posted, anti-police/judiciary threads should be started every other day, in the days between pro-terrorism threads should be posted.

Anti-terrorist threads can only be posted if the terrorist's are right wing. Left wing terrorists should only be praised because a) They're right and b) They look cool on teeshirts and badges.

Sponsors of state terrorism should also be criticised but only if the nations are generally white, Christian or Jewish. Sponsors of any other state terrorism should be praised with the responsibility for their actions placed on the nearest white, Christian or Jewish sponsor of state terrorism. Two wrongs do make a right.

If any responsibility is admitted it should be the least possible for a left winger and a surplus of guilt for a right winger:
So "Andreas Baader was only ever guilty of taking his library books back late."
while "Richard Snell murdered thousands, feasted on their still-warm corpses and collected their heads to make a macabre zxylophone."

Hope this helps.

 

[In Bloom]

Er, I asked you a question. I made no assertion. Learn to read.

In what way was what you posted a question? You weren't actually asking anything, and you were clearly implying that I was of that opinion. You can admit that you were wrong now and again you know, it doesn't hurt.

In any case, I've yet to see your reasoning why 9/11 represented a signifigant break from what went before, which is entirely pertinent to the subject of how terror suspects are dealt with, as it happens.

 

[TAE]

Err, the jury was already convinced of the guilt of some of the defendants. As for who was linked to the 7/7 bombers, it was on the news if you're that interested.

You didn't answer my question(s).

Also ... given what you just posted there, why did you keep going on about how knowing that link would have made the jurers certain that the accused were guilty?

 

[editor]

You didn't answer my question(s).

Now ... given what you just posted there, why did you keep going on about how that link would have made the jurers certain that 'they' did it.

Funny thing is, I don't recall you answering my question, but I'm sure you'll attend to that shortly, what with all this footstamping,