I'm sure I had a rocket launcher around here somewhere...

Apparently one guy has been 'let off', and the other is due to appear in court today - don't know where, don't know when, but I'm sure we'll meet again, some sunny day....

http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/index.php?itemid=490

BothRachel and Postman Patel
(here and here) have been on the case too.

The BBC now have it, the first story on the 'North' section under England news. So pretty much a front page splash compared with the original arrests coverage.

The top story in England today? "City schools 'should ban veils'". Nice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6080278.stm

Trial is set for February next year at Manchester Crown Court. Bit quicker than the 21/7 'bombers' trial, which was originally supposed to be this month. What happened to that?

The Preston Enquirer have some footage of the initial failed test of the rocket launcher:

I see Preston hasn't changed since last I visited.

I see we finally found those Weapons of Ass Destruction.

LOOOOOOOL! :D

Lord Patel has Court report from Burnley yesterday and today - but the BNP bombers were at PRESTON Crown Ct. Serendipitously this brought to his attention that the BNP 2 are not the only White Burnley males that make things go bang in the night.

Goto
http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/2006/10/explosives-news-from-burnley.html

for the latest news 8.30 24th Oct.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Blairwatch seems to have been taken over by little boys, who are more interested in showing of their drunken antics than engaging in political discourse.

'Chronicling the Demise of New Labour' - Hmmm, more like chronicling
the demise of good sense and taste.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, and in your case an anonymous dull boy. Presumably you think that Private Eye would be greatly improved if they took the jokes out and concentrated on the exposure of hypocrisy and greed?

Anyway, I've examined your comment for political discourse content, and have come up with 'none'. Must try harder.

Tom,

there is a MASSIVE difference between satire and stupid school boy pranks. And belive me that guy who got burnt is STUPID.

I suggest you grow up. And if you want to get into personal insults than I have to say your post's are the weakest, and often most ill informed I have read.

And you have the nerve to call yourself a 'blogger'?

Good day.

p.s. don't bother replying - I'm not interested.

ROFL. Close the door on your way out.

People who really aren't interested don't ask people not to reply, they don't bother posting in the first place.

It really is not nice to make personal insults at posters, they do after all drive the content of this site.

I think Anonymous had a point. Let's be honest, it was a stupid thing to do, and I personally think it was in bad taste, in fact I found it slightly nauseating looking at those burns - please don't have a go at people for expressing an opinion.

The case is kept up to date on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talbot_Street_bomb-making_haul

Capt. Sensible: I appreciate your comment - thank you.

Tom: Thanks for showing me, and fellow readers, just how immature and juvenile you actually are (again).

crick: Shut the fuck up.

"Presumably you think that Private Eye would be greatly improved if they took the jokes out and concentrated on the exposure of hypocrisy and greed?"

How dare you compare an esteemed organ like Private Eye to your low-brow ranting site.

About a year ago Blairwatch had a place to play in the blogosphere, now it's becoming a sad joke, dare I say, just like New Labour. Is this really the site that appeared on Democracy Now?

Dan - It's time to take control, start moderating and please, please, please no more expletive filled ramblings from someone who's watching too much day-time TV (Tom?).

Not to put too fine a point on it - lighten up guys! Or maybe that's light and up..,

Surely there are more important things than complaining about offensive posts? Heat and kitchens come to mind.

Indeed, lets all unite around our mutual dislike of Tony Blair, New Labour and burnt arse pictures.

How dare you compare an esteemed organ like Private Eye to your low-brow ranting site.

Although I might compare Private Eye to an organ, it would not be an esteemed one: most likely, some kind of wart-like excrescence; an infected pustule ready to burst.

Thank you, Goatchurch, for keeping the thread at least partially on track. To quote the Wikipedia article:
"No charges have been brought under any of the Terrorism Acts"

Strange, when you consider they are loose enough to eject elderly hecklers from the NL conference...

BTW, if those pictures weren't faked, that boy is going to need hospital treatment, and possible surgery. It will need some imaginative explanation.

My contacts in Special Branch pointed me to footage of a similar rocket launcher failure:

Rocket lauch

'White extremists escape terrorism charges and media scrutiny by Elham Asaad Buaras

Despite being accused of possessing the largest sum of chemical explosives of its type ever found domestically in Lancashire, a BNP member and a far right sypmapthiser will not face any terrorism related charges. Instead 49-year-old Robert Cottage, Colne and David Bolus Jackson, 62, from Nelson, appeared at a Pennine magistrate’s court charged under the Explosive Substances Act 1883 . . '

So says The Muslim News story dated 'Issue 210, Monday 27 November 2006 - 4 Shawwal 1427'; read all about it at: http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2632

'White extremists escape terrorism charges and media scrutiny by Elham Asaad Buaras

Despite being accused of possessing the largest sum of chemical explosives of its type ever found domestically in Lancashire, a BNP member and a far right sypmapthiser will not face any terrorism related charges. Instead 49-year-old Robert Cottage, Colne and David Bolus Jackson, 62, from Nelson, appeared at a Pennine magistrate’s court charged under the Explosive Substances Act 1883 . . '

So says The Muslim News story dated 'Issue 210, Monday 27 November 2006 - 4 Shawwal 1427'; read all about it at: http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2632

I don't quite see why people are making such an issue of the fact they've been charged under the Explosive Substances Act. If the allegation is that they were caught with explosives they were planning to use to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, they're looking at life sentences anyway. It has the advantage that you don't need to prove motive, of course.

The main reason for using the Terrorism Act is when there aren't, in fact, any explosive substances recovered -- then the allegation is that people were plotting to use them. But if, as the prosecution allege, the men actually possessed explosives then the Explosive Substances Act is the way to go.

The fact they were charged under the Explosive Substances Act does, though, mean that they were charged within 24 hours rather than held without charge for several weeks under the Terrorism Act. That explains why there was so little publicity -- by the time the press caught up with the story, the standard reporting restictions that apply whenever criminal charges have been brought were in place.

Having read the wikipedia entry, I see what you mean, Notsuassure. However, if this 1883 law is a robust as this, why was the Terrorism Act brought to Parliament anyway? Seems to me that it was just another excuse to use the word "terrorism" to frighten the man on the street.

The Terrorism Act -- apart from giving the police a lot more time before they need to charge anyone -- widens the scope of a conspiracy to cause explosions very considerably. It also creates a lot of new crimes about acts preparatory to terrorism, having information likely to be useful to terrorists and so forth. Essentially, the Explosive Substances Act only comes into play if the defendant is actually in possession of explosives when he's arrested. The two acts do certainly overlap, though.

In general, and bearing in mind that everyone is innocent until a jury says differently, I think the more sure you are of your facts, the more likely you are to use The Explosive Substances Act to charge someone.

http://notsaussure.wordpress.com/