The largest haul of explosives from any raid in UK history was found last week. Two mens houses were raided and the men, one an ex-BNP candidate, were charged with “being in possession of an explosive substance for an unlawful purpose.” The offences are under the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
Where are the headlines? And why were they not being charged under tewwowism laws?
Does the British media only report on Islamic terrorism now?
Search any major national news outlet and there’s not a whisper. Nada. Squat.
I’d have thought this was pretty news-worthy. I mean the BIGGEST HAUL OF EXPLOSIVES EVER IN THE UK! I’d a thunk that would have been the gist of just about every headline last Friday. There’s even mention of rocket launchers in some reports (how true that particular news nugget is is another matter)… Yet the police go to town with a full on media extravaganza at the slightest whiff of busting muslims. Even when they get the wrong guy/s.
Wow that’s really quite hard to believe, I had to check the Guardian website just to make sure, and sure enough there’s nothing there. Plenty of articles about how the media overhypes Islamic terrorism though.
Maybe there is no evidence that they planned a terrorist attack. They have been charged with another crime, linked with having the explosives. But until there is evidence of an actual terrorist plot it would be folly for any newspaper to report it as such or for them to be charged in that way. This has attracted some coverage in papers, as your list demonstrates. But you cannot charge someone with terrorism without some evidence that suggest that to have been their purpose, and maybe that just is not available.
They might have been planning a spectacular bonfire night. No point in the police going in with guns blazing. If they find plans to blow up the Houses of Parliament…then it becomes front page material.
If there is no news of it, how do you know it happened? Why don’t you call the major news outlets and ask them why there is no reports in their publications? Did they have legitimate reason to own this material, or were they going to blow up the parliment? In any case I do find it strange that it isn’t reported even if all the questions asked have good reasons.
Let’s not forget the Heathrow thing where tanks suddenly turned up. Obviously if a suicide bomber got onto a plane they could shoot it down in time before they detonated the bomb/crashed it. Or maybe it was just scaremongering and made good front page photos?
Remeber Forest Gate too?
Jean Charles de Menezes? (I beleive the Sun’s headline was “One Down, Three To Go!”
The reason they have been charged with another (non terrorism related, TA/ATSA) crime is that there seems to be physical evidence, something you don’t need these days when somebody is charged under the new legislation due to the fact that admissible “evidence” is now basically hearsay that cannot be challenged by a defendant in such a trial (may I suggest you research the special advocate system in operation for such trials?)
Let’s not forget we’ve legalised house arrest with appeal though SIAC (joke of a court - look it up)
30 days detention without charge too. Any of this been used a single time against a non-muslim? Or even a muslim against whom there is actual evidence of some sort of crime (that hasn’t been obtained through torture)? Hell no.
"Perhaps Cesare Beccaria, the father of modern criminology often quoted by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, said it best: “An unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
I love the way it assumes that a man is automatically a target for attack, and the salient difference is the ease of which one may attack ones fellow man depending on the armaments they carry.
I salute you Bugman: Hillbilly High Potentate; King of the Rednecks. You are an inspiration to all humanity:D
There is little point in your quoting specific examples, whether they be wrong or right. In this particular case they have some hard evidence. And so far, agreed, they have not made a terrorism charge. They may be biding their time before charging them with terrorism. They may have hard evidence that this is definitely NOT a terrorist plot.
Some of the muslims to whom you refer were not also not charged with terrorism immediately: evidence gathering and being sure I think it is called. I am sure that if terrorism be discovered as the intent then additional charges will be made. It is ridiculous for you to imply that non muslim terrorists might not be charged with terrorism.
There is too much for the authorities to lose if they are wrong again…and too much for the rest of us to lose if they are right but release them prematurely.
You have to be realistic too: most recent terrorists have had muslim connections, and it seems right that people and the authorities should be worried by a group of people who are making threats, rather than those who are not. Taking it to an extreme, you wouldn’t stop pedestrians to check whether they had valid car insurance, sure you may get a few that way, but stopping drivers will get you more prosecutions, and more of the illegal motorists off the road. Targeted intelligence is sensible, it is not an all out attack on muslims, nor anyone else, just a more efficient use of resources. If you have the capability of searching just one in ten, I wouldn’t bother with many kids. But these days, and especially immediately after the recent UK airport threats, not many muslims would get past me unchecked. If you are looking for a needle in the haystack, concentrate on the parts of the field that have haystacks. It is just common sense. Or these days uncommon sense, as such is becoming a rare commodity.
Why are you trying to blow this up as being an unfair attack on Muslims? We all know most muslims are thouroughly decent people, but when the next terrorist attack comes in the UK, who would you bet your money on, in the current climate? Jehovah’s Witneses?
You say you have seen little in the papers, yet on that very little news you have read, you seem keen to brand these people as terrorists without any definite evidence of terrorism. Or maybe you know more than the police do? You are guilty of as least as much prejudgement as those you seek to criticise. These people may be guilty as hell, (or not) but it is not in your remit to pass judgement.
You may not like the detention laws, tough! I don’t like 911 situations. A short loss of liberty for a few suspects is better than loss of life for many innocents. Yes, some mistakes have and will be made. Inevitable. The alternative is to ignore suspects and let them commit their atrocities before giving them community service.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s first arrest was for DWB (Driving While Black), for going one mile over the speed limit, the day before his home was firebombed by the KKK.
50 years later, America has become much more Civil and Right, but being pulled over for DWB is still all too common in the USA.
I love your idealistic eyes, blind to the fact that law enforcement is not always pragmatic, but often biased.
Then why did you bring it up as an issue by saying it would be folly for ANY (my emphasis) newspaper to report it. The point is that parts of the media do jump on such reports when muslims are involved even where no actual evidence exists (also read the guardian article and look up the ricin trial, read the statements the jurors made after) and don’t seem to have here.
Agreed, although with “terrorism charges” they have often ignored the fact that there is hard evidence there is not a terrorist plot. Remember that girl arrested by the cenotaph and convicted (under the ATSA if I remember rightly) for reading out names of dead soldiers in Iraq? Or maybe the journalists outside the Docklands arms fair a couple of years back?
No, they were not charged with anything in the end. No immediately about it since there wasn’t a case to answer then and there never was. Evidence gathering continues once a charge has been made until they are ready to bring the suspect to trial. You seem to think that it only occurs before a charge. This just isn’t the case. Detention without charge is there to stop people being detained arbitrarily. If the police have some evidence, even a small amount, they are entitled to charge a suspect with a crime. Habeas Corpus has been a fundamental right here since the 1600’s and with good reason - you shouldn’t be able to detain someone without any evidence of a crime even you must agree to that. If there is evidence a suspect can be charged, they can be charged no problem. Given the paucity of evidence needed under the ATSA/TA there’s never going to be a problem in charging a suspect in such a case so why have indefinite detention?
I did not imply that non-muslims would not be charged with terrorism offences. I said they hadn’t. Cold hard fact. Of course there are the two or three high profile exceptions (Walter Wolfgang was the other one that made big news) given above, but they were abuses of the law deliberately targeted against people the government didn’t like. I’m sure if the government suspected a non-muslim of a terrorist plot they’d jump at the chance to need the new legislation since the standard of proof needed is so low and the trial is stacked against defendants.
Indeed. Charge em with a crime if there’s something to lose.
Or you could stop piling hay onto the haystack by tageting making whole communities feel alienated and discriminated against by arresting (now shooting too) people that you don’t have a shred of evidence against and holding them for 30 days? I don’t disagree that targeted intelligence is sensible - react to the threats that we know are there. My point is that there is no point targeting people we have no evidence against, and it has been proven to be counterproductive (remember internment in Northern Ireland? Made a low level conflict into a national uprising. Fat lot of good that did and we’re making exactly the same mistakes all over again.
I wouldn’t bet, I’d use intelligence and evidence personally although if you prefer the random gamble approach to crime and punishment and want a banana republic that bad that you take up residence in one:D
I never branded them as terrorists.
Are you seriously suggesting that these laws will stop another 911? Look them up and tell me how? You have made a huge assumption there in that they WILL prevent atrocities yet you haven’t even read the laws. I find that incredibly naive. I suggest you take some time to research. Oh and some of the “mistakes” you refer to were mostly carefully targeted against political opponents although Forest Gate and Jean Charles were especially stupid.
I seriously suggest you do some reading on SIAC, an look up the statements of the special advocates who have resigned in disgust (not many are left now) It’s really quite an eye-opener.