"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

|
| 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.

But to fall foul of SS's 57/58

57. - (1) A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in
circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession
is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation
of an act of terrorism.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this
section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose
connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of
terrorism.


58. - (1) A person commits an offence if-

(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be
useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind


the criteria of S1 must be met:

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to
intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political,
religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing
the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a
section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an
electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which
involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not
subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.


====
Simple possession per se of an A-Z in no way matches the criterion. I am
safe to stand outside Downing Street A-Z in hand! Mark an A-Z with the route
the PM will take to a Public engagement and quite reasonably I have some
questions to answer.

Ditto the ridiculous suggestion about growing the types of plants mentioned.

pk

In article ,
"PaulK" writes:
|
| But to fall foul of SS's 57/58
|
| the criteria of S1 must be met:
|
| Simple possession per se of an A-Z in no way matches the criterion. I am
| safe to stand outside Downing Street A-Z in hand! Mark an A-Z with the route
| the PM will take to a Public engagement and quite reasonably I have some
| questions to answer.

You haven't read it carefully enough. Look at section 58 again:

(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be
useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind

Nowhere does it say that you have to be the terrorist, know any
terrorists or have any intention of contacting any or passing the
information on to them. It merely has to be "of a kind likely to be
useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". An
A-Z counts, because it is likely to be useful to at least one person
who meets the criteria of section 1.

The onus is now on YOU to prove that you have a reasonable excuse.

| Ditto the ridiculous suggestion about growing the types of plants mentioned.

That is why I posted:

.... 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".

If the courts agree that the evidence is a reasonable suspicion that
you might be a person who meets the criteria of section 1, the
onus is now on YOU to prove that you have a reasonable excuse. If
you fail to do so, you have committed a terrorist offence. The
prosecution does not have to even try to show you are a terrorist,
are associated with terrorists or intend to associate.


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

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...
PaulK wrote:


there is no point in continuing this as we are all guilty of a myriad of
offences - according to your view - simply by possessing a kitchen knife.
(I've just come back from the shops with 3 in my bag, one a very vicious 20
cm cooks knife, perfect for use in a terrorist act) or any of the array of
garden tools I drive around in the back of my car every day.

Get real and stop being ridiculously paranoid.

pk

PaulK wrote:

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...
PaulK wrote:


there is no point in continuing this as we are all guilty of a myriad of
offences - according to your view - simply by possessing a kitchen knife.
(I've just come back from the shops with 3 in my bag, one a very vicious 20
cm cooks knife, perfect for use in a terrorist act) or any of the array of
garden tools I drive around in the back of my car every day.

Get real and stop being ridiculously paranoid.

pk

Nobody is being paranoid. What Nick and I are pointing out is that the
law is exactly as
ridiculously framed as you suggest. I can't see that there is any
question of having
a view on it. The law is quite clear. All that they have to do is have a
suspicion about you
and YOU have to prove it untrue. YES! It is ridiculous, utterly
ridiculous!, but that doesn't change what it says.

Nick and I could both be as mad as hatters but the law will still say
the same ridiculous thing.
It says what it says regardless of OUR personal qualities. I would
concur that it is unlikely that anyone would be charged with an offence
just for possessing a kitchen knife, BUT the law allows them to be.
There can't be any question about this. I know its daft, but it says
what it says. The real problem would come if the person enforcing the
law became authoritarian or dictatorial. It is daft to charge someone
with a kitchen knife under terrorism law, but you can. It is there in
black and white!
To quote Dickens "The law is an hass" (sic)


--
Neil Jones- http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve

"Nick Maclaren" wrote
In article ,
"PaulK" writes:

.... 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".

If the courts agree that the evidence is a reasonable suspicion that
you might be a person who meets the criteria of section 1, the
onus is now on YOU to prove that you have a reasonable excuse. If
you fail to do so, you have committed a terrorist offence. The
prosecution does not have to even try to show you are a terrorist,
are associated with terrorists or intend to associate.


Oh dear - I was, as ever, curious, and did a search and came up with
several sites with 'recipes' for how to make it.
Do you think 'they' will suspect me now ?

It's actually a bit scary that the information was so easy to find.
Jenny

The message
from Neil Jones contains these words:
I would
concur that it is unlikely that anyone would be charged with an offence
just for possessing a kitchen knife, BUT the law allows them to be.
There can't be any question about this. I know its daft, but it says
what it says. The real problem would come if the person enforcing the
law became authoritarian or dictatorial. It is daft to charge someone
with a kitchen knife under terrorism law, but you can. It is there in
black and white!

Quite apart from the terrorism act... in Scotland, at least, I think
there's still a criminal charge of being "equipped to commit a crime".

Janet.

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes

Quite apart from the terrorism act... in Scotland, at least, I think
there's still a criminal charge of being "equipped to commit a crime".

As in having a pair of hands?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , JennyC
writes

Oh dear - I was, as ever, curious, and did a search and came up with
several sites with 'recipes' for how to make it.
Do you think 'they' will suspect me now ?

It's actually a bit scary that the information was so easy to find.

Would it be an offence to try ricin as a slugicide?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article ,
Alan Gould wrote:
In article , Janet Baraclough
writes

Quite apart from the terrorism act... in Scotland, at least, I think
there's still a criminal charge of being "equipped to commit a crime".

As in having a pair of hands?

Pretty close.

There are two problems with laws like the Terrorism Act. One is that
common law has implicit requirements that the prosecution must at
least show that an innocent explanation is implausible - I believe
that Scots law is the same as English here. Statute law does not,
and the requirements in the statute are assumed to be complete (well,
more-or-less).

A more serious one is that they often are left in abeyance for a
very long time, and then used to persecute dissenters or to promote
prejudice. Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act (Clive Ponting) and
the law on blasphemous libel (Scallywag, was it?) were abused in the
first way, and the SUS law and "going equipped" and "carrying an
offensive weapon" were abused in the second.

When I lived in the country, we used to carry shotguns along the road
without being hassled, and some people even posted guns on rarely used
roads! Yes, AT THE SAME TIME, gypsies and others were persecuted for
carrying working tools (e.g. a billhook or crowbar) on the road; in
one case, it was held not to be a defence that he was travelling to
a job where he needed the tool. Yes, really. He was told that he
should have been able to afford a car, and carrying one on a bicycle
was illegal.

All right, this was rare, and such cases were or would have been
overturned on appeal. But (a) such people don't have the 'pull' or
money for appeals and (b) that doesn't compensate for being prosecuted
and possibly convicted.


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

Alan Gould wrote:

In article , JennyC
writes

Oh dear - I was, as ever, curious, and did a search and came up with
several sites with 'recipes' for how to make it.
Do you think 'they' will suspect me now ?

It's actually a bit scary that the information was so easy to find.

Would it be an offence to try ricin as a slugicide?

That depends. If it was part of a growing plant that the slug ate then no
(ditto for aphids). If you start making home brew stuff using ricin and
are even slightly careless they won't need to prosecute you.

There are plenty of very nasty natural poisons. (BTW do they sell ricin
for homeopathy ????)
Botox these days has become incredibly fashionable for that dead plastic
skin look.

Regards,
Martin Brown

The message
from Alan Gould contains these words:

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes

Quite apart from the terrorism act... in Scotland, at least, I think
there's still a criminal charge of being "equipped to commit a crime".

As in having a pair of hands?

Especially red ones.
It's usually something like a door-ram,boltcutters etc. We once had to
explain our possession of a baseball bat to the police.
Janet.

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
Quite apart from the terrorism act... in Scotland, at least, I think
there's still a criminal charge of being "equipped to commit a crime".

As in having a pair of hands?

Especially red ones.
It's usually something like a door-ram,boltcutters etc. We once had to
explain our possession of a baseball bat to the police.

There's an Urban myth about a Yardie who was stopped and questioned
about carrying a hammer late at night - was it for attack or defence
they asked him. 'Oh no' he replied 'I'm just going to put a tack into de
fence' (Apologies if PC is transgressed).
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.