Thoughtcrime!!11!!

[fritx]

Now you can get 10 years in prison just for thinking about "terrorism".

[Governmentyard]

Well, you've been able to for eight years, and at least a year prior to the WTC attacks.

Besides which, this is a recognised banned publication which has been 'used' since, by actual bomby bomberists. No-one complains when IRA types are jailed for the same offence. Well, ok, Mickey Rourke does.

But it isn't like people are having their freedom of speech or thought compromised here, really. It'll be a long time coming, the day where you can't say "I wish Thatcher would die" or something equally innocuous without getting pilloried for it.

Wait, what?

[guythp]

Khalid Khaliq, 34, from Beeston, Leeds, admitted to Leeds Crown Court that he owned a copy of the training manual on CD. Police had found the banned work in a raid on his home in the summer of 2005.

See? I thought we all knew it was banned. As Bill Hicks said, "I think I missed that meeting".

I'd start a rant but I fear I may lose my job, home and be mistakenly shot in the head several times, then sent to another country to sit in jail for several years whilst being abused and forced to go against my beliefs.

[hugheverett]

It's all control given by the police state to keep us in the rat-race and not to question anything.

watch this man.

http://digg.com/comedy/Who_Really_Controls_America_3

[beerman]

Well, you've been able to for eight years, and at least a year prior to the WTC attacks.

Besides which, this is a recognised banned publication which has been 'used' since, by actual bomby bomberists. No-one complains when IRA types are jailed for the same offence. Well, ok, Mickey Rourke does.

But it isn't like people are having their freedom of speech or thought compromised here, really. It'll be a long time coming, the day where you can't say "I wish Thatcher would die" or something equally innocuous without getting pilloried for it.

Wait, what?

Huh? How the fuck does banning books not compromise freedom of speech?

[arron]

There's probably a lot more to the story than that, but that's what they nailed him for as it was hard evidence he was up to no good. I think he was also pictured with certain other people involved in the London bombings and may have been part of the planning even if he didn't take part. Unfortunately, as dealings with the mafia have shown..getting a conviction of criminals further up the organised crime chain gets more difficult as they get people beneath them to take the fall. Hence nailing them on tax evasion, unpaid car parking tickets and virtually anything they can to get them sent down.

The conviction is done much in the same way that having a hard drive full of child porn is indicative of being a paedophile despite having no hard evidence that you've been serially abusing children- although you may have 'associates' who do. It is an attempt to take people out of circulation to stop a criminal network from growing back with new recruits.

[gravy]

Well, you've been able to for eight years, and at least a year prior to the WTC attacks.

Besides which, this is a recognised banned publication which has been 'used' since, by actual bomby bomberists. No-one complains when IRA types are jailed for the same offence. Well, ok, Mickey Rourke does.

But it isn't like people are having their freedom of speech or thought compromised here, really. It'll be a long time coming, the day where you can't say "I wish Thatcher would die" or something equally innocuous without getting pilloried for it.

Wait, what?

Huh? How the fuck does banning books not compromise freedom of speech?

He's trying to be funny and sulky all at the same time.

[c64audio]

Be interesting if some middle-aged white celeb stated publicly he owned a copy of the book and challenged the authorities to prosecute him about it Gravy, you up for a little test case?

My first reaction on reading the news was exactly the same as Gravy's: forbidding the act of acquisition of scientific knowledge seems alarming.

Chris

[betamax]

The conviction is done much in the same way that having a hard drive full of child porn is indicative of being a paedophile despite having no hard evidence that you've been serially abusing children- although you may have 'associates' who do. It is an attempt to take people out of circulation to stop a criminal network from growing back with new recruits.

The same methods are used to frame people too. Just a thought.

[amanset]

Show me a western society that doesn't have any banned publications.

[beerman]

Show me a publication that's justified in being banned.

[RageMatrix]

Show me a publication that's justified in being banned.

This should be...

[betamax]

Show me a publication that's justified in being banned.

The Daily mail? I kid! Or do I? Dun dun deeerrr!

[Governmentyard]

Well, you've been able to for eight years, and at least a year prior to the WTC attacks.

Besides which, this is a recognised banned publication which has been 'used' since, by actual bomby bomberists. No-one complains when IRA types are jailed for the same offence. Well, ok, Mickey Rourke does.

But it isn't like people are having their freedom of speech or thought compromised here, really. It'll be a long time coming, the day where you can't say "I wish Thatcher would die" or something equally innocuous without getting pilloried for it.

Wait, what?

Huh? How the fuck does banning books not compromise freedom of speech?

Banning books? This is more of a tool for causing harm to people. If we were banning the Koran, that'd be attacking their freedom of speech, whereas I view this as no different to arresting the guys who wave the threatening islamic banners at the Mohammed cartoon protests.

Gravy - thanks for your kind support

[fritx]

There's probably a lot more to the story than that, but that's what they nailed him for as it was hard evidence he was up to no good. I think he was also pictured with certain other people involved in the London bombings and may have been part of the planning even if he didn't take part. Unfortunately, as dealings with the mafia have shown..getting a conviction of criminals further up the organised crime chain gets more difficult as they get people beneath them to take the fall. Hence nailing them on tax evasion, unpaid car parking tickets and virtually anything they can to get them sent down.

The conviction is done much in the same way that having a hard drive full of child porn is indicative of being a paedophile despite having no hard evidence that you've been serially abusing children- although you may have 'associates' who do. It is an attempt to take people out of circulation to stop a criminal network from growing back with new recruits.

We can't go around locking folk up because they "might" commit a crime. Even if that crime is This Year's Ready-to-wear Paranoia scam.