In article ,
"PaulK" writes:
| "Neil Jones" wrote in message
| ...
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| Not to say monkshood and even potatoes :-)
|
| I am pretty certain that the current Terrorism Act makes it a
| crime to grow any of the above, but the Websites are knotted
| enough that I cannot check on whether the wording is as bad as
| I think it is.
|
| Oh without a doubt. The example I usually make about the Terrorism Act
| is it makes owning a London A-Z illegal. For those who doubt me read the
| act!
|
| I just have done on line and cannot identify the section to which you
| refer - could you supply a page/section reference?
|
| The site I used was: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm#1

Section 58. I was referring to section 57.

Note that "a reasonable suspicion" in English law is a VERY much
weaker criterion than even the balance of probabilities used in
civil law, and is essentially the criterion used for when you
cannot sue the police for false arrest. For example, posting a
query or doing a Web search on how to extract ricin and then
refusing to submit to interrogation, could be regarded as being
"circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion".

Section 58 is even worse, in that all the prosecution has to prove
is that the information is "likely to be useful" - e.g. an A-Z.
You then have to prove a reasonable excuse for the action or
possession, which has the "gotcha" that it might not include the
planning of lesser crimes or even civil offences - e.g. arranging
demonstrations. And you would have to PROVE even that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679