BNP Explosives Trial Latest

Why on earth are they dredging up something about the "Anarchist's Cookbook", in much the same manner that it used to be invoked during the Angry Brigade trials in the 1970s? I guess it's the book's name, not that any self-respecting anarchists would want to be compared to the BNP, because anyone with a working knowledge of chemistry will tell you that the "recipes" for bombs therein cannot possibly work.

Anyway, Iain Dale has once again introduced a valid point. How come the trial of the non-existent "ricin" non-existent "plotters", for example, was deemed a "terrorist" trial and this was not? Using the duck test it looks like terrorism to me. Or does that epithet now only apply to bearded Muslims rather than white supremacists from Lancashire?

Why on earth are they dredging up something about the "Anarchist's Cookbook", in much the same manner that it used to be invoked during the Angry Brigade trials in the 1970s? I guess it's the book's name, not that any self-respecting anarchists would want to be compared to the BNP, because anyone with a working knowledge of chemistry will tell you that the "recipes" for bombs therein cannot possibly work.

Anyway, Iain Dale has once again introduced a valid point. How come the trial of the non-existent "ricin" non-existent "plotters", for example, was deemed a "terrorist" trial and this was not? Using the duck test it looks like terrorism to me. Or does that epithet now only apply to bearded Muslims rather than white supremacists from Lancashire?

I know it's been said before, but I think that's rather the point. There's plenty of legislation in place to do you if you actually have rocket launchers. It's the going to weekends away in wales and having a map that all the new legislation was brought in for.
That said, I won't trivialise that too much after what weekenders with dodgy intentions, maps and internet knowledge actually managed to inflict, but by the looks of thiings intellingence and existing legislation should have been absolutely plenty to have stopped them being a menace.

Tell you what though, if it were a Muslim, no way would the BBC put up a picture. They'd also try not to give the name.

These are the first photos I've seen, but there are definitely photos of defendants in other cases.  What's interesting here is that, because one chap has pleaded guilty to one charge we're hearing his mitigation on the first day.  Usually you only hear the prosecution case (logically, they have to put the case first under British legal principles) for the first few days/weeks of a trial, which gets transmuted into 'A court heard today that Mr. X is the biggest bastard on the planet and planned to kill us all sadistically', repeated endlessly, with an occasional qualification that this is the prosecution case, (and thus not objectively ascertained truth).  I'm not sure what you can do about this apart from having more professional journalists.

This applies to all cases, and it's nice to note the BBC being true to form here.

However, the first direct quote from a participant in the case is from the defence brief. Most of the rest of the article is taken up with the prosecution, which presumably occupied most of the day. No problem with that, but the positioning of the story is still low (number six at the moment) considering it's the opening day. Let's see how it moves over the next few days. More from the local press.

For the background of the arrests, check:

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

Best coverage seems to be from the Torygraph.  The police were tipped off by the wife through a social worker when she complained of too many crossbows in the house. 

Just to put you at ease, the police were not tipped off by the unfeasible quantities of bomb making chemicals being bought and carted into this guy's house. 

So much for any surveillance of suspicious purchases, CCTV cameras around our towns, the doubling of the size of MI5, and Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller telling us about all the terror plots their tracking.  Not this one, eh?  Seem to go all quiet about it if it's not part of the war on terror narrative, doesn't it. 

If you examine
www.postmanpatel.blogspot.com
2006 Oct 23/24/25 and some odds and sods (Google Burnley in site)you will find coverage of all the matters, original photographs, coverage of a related trial of Burnely men making firemarms, comparison (which with what has appeared in court today seems highly relevant)with the Soho bomber, Copeland and an examination of the "D" notice issued over the matter at the time resulting in absence of national Press coverage.

A few thunderflashes' worth of material  for scaring off marauding blacks would be a kilo  or two.

Looks like those guys were going to start a war, or seriously mad. And if mad, probably terrists, so to be treated as such. .

When I was a kid, people were let off  by the magistrates if they signed up, and now the prisons are full, how much more appropriate. .

So raise the enlistment age to 75, and give them a chance to serve.

Point man in checking out IEDs for example ?

You don't need to do a 5minute mile for that, and flat feet, bad heart, piles, arthritis  make no difference at all .

Hang on, How old is BLAIR ?

Put that age up to a 100, to be really sure, and maybe we'll get him like Pinochet. His job will be cluster-bomb clearance in Lebanon.

Calm down everyone... Yes, they were right wing nut jobs, and yes they were stockpiling chemicals. The problem is they weren't either planning on doing anything with them - just gobbing off like your average right wing nut job - and b) incapable of carrying out their threats. Ask anyone from the Colne area and they'll tell you both of them were a bit soft in the head.

There's a world of difference in planning to attack financial institutions with viable hydrogen peroxide (and going beyond what is merely preparatory to it) and having a stack of random chemicals under the stairs in case the Muslims take over the world.

As for Copeland - he was charged with the same offense if you check. And he WAS a nut job.

The Army wouldn't want them - they have enough trouble.  They might want Blair to provide top cover in sniper alleys, however.

Soft in the head - a number of recent hyped 'terror' cases are seemingly of either stupid (the chap with the soldier's address) or deranged (Dhiren Bharot), but that didn't stop specialised terrorist charges being thrown at them.  'Just gobbing off' is now, of course, a crime, but conspiracy to cause explosions has been for ages.

Of course, merely being psychologically damaged doesn't mean you aren't dangerous - Copeland proves that.  What is interesting about the Telegraph's report on the Lancashire case is this bit:

A man who talks to God in his head and thinks his community is being threatened and he needs to take violent steps to defend it? Same shit, different skin.

I tried to make the point about the difference in charges on both Iain Dale's and Rachels blogs yesterday but to no avail. Not sure why they would want to censor me so I assume it was a technical glitch.

I can't imagine that the CPS would forgo an opportunity to press terrorism charges against BNP associates, if there was enough evidence. After all. it would given them an appearance of evenhandedness in relation to current trials and investigations involving Muslims. So I assume the fact that the charges are under the Explosives Act is simply because there is insufficient prima facie evidence to support a contention that terrorist acts were being planned.

There was a cryptic point in the report of the defence counsel's statement, which seemed to imply that Cottage pleaded guilty  to possession following a legal ruling. I suspect that that means that there is no requirement for mens rea on the possession charge. If so the prosecution does not have to prove intention in order to obtain a conviction for possession. They would however have to prove intention in order to obtain a conviction on the conspiracy charge.

It will be interesting to follow the outcome of the case. So far the accused sound odd to say the least, but whether thay anything worse than cranks remains to be seen. Fortunately the good old British jury system will be able to evaluate the evidence wisely.

Hi Martin,

I've not had any comment through from you- , but you are welcome to try again.

 I am working out of the house editing all week and so don;t et back to check mail til late, so if you leave a comment in the day and it is not moderated til later, that's why.

But I've had no hotmail pinger that you have tried to comment and it is awaiting moderation: not sure what happened 

So I assume the fact that the charges are under the Explosives Act is simply because there is insufficient prima facie evidence to support a contention that terrorist acts were being planned.

Other way round, I would have thought.  The recent terrorism offences are so broad-brush that they can encompass practically anyone doing anything.  There's probably evidence in my house that, if searched diligently and suspiciously enough, could get me charged with possessing information of use to terrorists - of the top of my head, maps of London, cache on my computer containing stories about Iraq, link to LiveLeak where I was viewing videos that Tony Blair probably doesn't like, bottles of bleach, chemistry books dating back to my A-levels, aerial photographs of the World Trade Centre and the Statue of Liberty*, detailed books on London's transport system**, photos taken on a march against the Lebanon war.  None of this makes me a terrorist, though or even a suspect.

The fact that there's apparently sufficient evidence for conspiracy to cause explosions charges to be brought should automatically mean that there's enough evidence for one of the more recent Acts to be used.  After all, if you're planning to cause explosions, you must have or be planning to obtain explosives or precursors, which are both covered in Terrorism Acts. In a perverse way, the Terrorism Acts are less serious charges than the 1883 Explosives Act, precisely because you must be less sure that anyone caught up in them doesn't have a perfectly reasonable explanation.

My other objection (shared with legal friends and relations) is that there's no need to have the same offence in two bits of legislation, it makes life harder for the CPS.a

* Helicopter trip over New York, Feb 1999

** because I'm a railway nut

We are of course overlooking the fact that Mr Cottage had expressed publicly presumably the desire to kill Mr Tony Balir. Conspiracy to murder anyone ? .... or had Plod/ CPS held off in case they have to charge 56 million other people as accomplices ?

Ha.

Actually, it was in a private diary, apparently, and it was part of the prosecution case, who naturally will put the most suspicious spin on it possible.  That's why I'm holding off on much more coverage of the case (as I notice the BBC are doing, although the Pendle Today website is still manfully churning away).  I'm all for a fair trial, even for loons and Nazis.

Too right, the guy who posted that the terrorism laws are framed so widely that  you could get done on the basis of virtually anything.

But this is merely a reflection  of the great British tradition in law-making, whether common or statute. Which other civilised country has a panoply of laws which includes such gems as :  loitering with intent; insulting behaviour; threatening behaviour; obstruction (useful against pavement demonstrations, this one!); behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, etc etc. ? Not to forget the wonderful conspiracy laws, of course - I especially like "conspiracy with persons unknown".

Truly, we are one of the (potentially) unfree-est countries on earth.

Or arrested for "staring at a building".

But then, we all know why Tone has done it, don't we kids!

Thanks for that link, Lifesastumblingblock! Of course, I'd forgotten the Justices of the Peace Act of 1300-something, the Vagrancy Act of 1824 and so on. Also the heinous offence of "aggravated trespass" (don't you just love it?).

But the picture isn't all black. Admire, for instance, the delicacy and fine sense of discrimination with which the independent boys in blue just somehow seem to know when and when not to act on all those laws. Why, it's as if they could somehow read the government's mind, isn't it!

According to BBC figures, in 2001 there were 8,500 stops and searches under the Terrorism Act 2002.

The following year, there were 21,500 and for the year 2003-04, the last for which annual figures are available, there were 29,407. (what, no figures for 2004-5-6-7?)

Which is somewhere in the region of 100,000-130,000 people stopped under the terrorism act...... If I am not mistaken.

Is this what Tony Blair was referring to in 2001 when he said: "But I emphasise we do need to strengthen our laws so that, even if necessary only in a small number of cases, we have the means to protect our citizens' liberty and our national security".

But he also said that he doesn't want want Britain to become a police state too.... Oh dear!