Do you think because you didn't shoot first that somehow makes you better?

Or would you agree that you're just as bad? (maybe a little less)

Go on, explain that to us, please.

Postbox :lol1::lol1::lol1:

I agree with your both of your statements. I am better and i'm nearly as bad. But not as bad.

Don't worry, if he gets banned he'll be back in a few months as 'Obese Tom'. ;)

:lol:

Shaid, he recognises her name as a raghead name because she has extreme views. If she was his doctor to transplant a new brain cell in him, he wouldn't have said that she had a raghead name. He still would have been free to think that she had a raghead name, though. Bless him.


No wonder some UK Asians feel compelled to Anglify their original names, or they get ridiculed or bullied. But even that goes t1ts up sometimes. I know of someone who's called Satnam Singh. He likes being called Sam Singh so that English people can actually speak his name without asking him how to say it-what it means etc., but the bullies call him Sam Sing. In past tense, say if he's been somewhere or done something, they call him Sam Sung; as Samsung plasma TV. So wrong, but there you are.

The threat so to do would be enough, one hopes.

well because when you boil it down - she has been convicted of expressing her revolting and extremist thoughts on social media

that's fine -I am not defending her thoughts, they should be challenged and ridiculed for what they are

but should the state prosecute people who hold thoughts (and post them) that the government does not like!!, who is the arbiter of such things like "extremism" and "terrorism", is that the states role (governments change, both ours and abroad)

this whole thing started with the ridiculous "war on terror" phrase, a war on ideas and thoughts!!!!!

we may agree on this particular one, who is to say we will always agree with what the state deems are extremist thoughts/post

and the whole Syria thing is a nightmare anyway, we were potentially going to support the Muslim rebels before they seemed to divided

remember the frustrated air traveller a couple of years ago who posted on twitter his "thought" that he wanted to blow up Nottingham airport because it was closed due to snow - was that worthy of the state prosecuting him

there is always a danger that people sleepwalk to tyranny - our freedoms (even to think revolting thoughts) are hard won and easily given away (and they rarely get given back)

just my view as a libitarian

Wrx,are you and justme both retarded? what's what I drive got to do with it? I'm bowing out of this bollocks,shaids clearly a member of Isis

Hodgy, I see your point...and it is a scarey one.

We have now got to the point where people are punished for something they MIGHT do.....where did that become the norm?

And how did Lying Labour get us into a position where we have to incriminate ourselves, or face a huge fine?

How ANYBODY could EVER vote for a party who brought in that piece of nasty bollox is beyond me.

Pre fvck1ng cisely,

as I said "thought crime"

"Thought crime" was she not also giving information worthy of prosecution?

Was this person convicted of what we're referring to as a thought crime? Personally I don't think so. The person has been inciting hatred towards others. I myself have been a victim of terrorism, indirectly I suppose but the effect was terrible all the same. My uncle (police officer) was shot dead by the South Armagh IRA sniper team or whatever the fück they called themselves. If facebook or whatever had been around at that time and the shooter or his supporters had been blabbing about this and that publicly then perhaps it wouldn't have happened, or else subsequent attacks may have been prevented. In this case I feel that prevention is better than cure.

I partly agree with Hodgy, but not sure where you can draw the line between someone living in cloud cuckoo land fantasising and actually doing / encouraging others to commit acts of violence.

To my mind she crossed the line giving information on how to get into Syria presumably un-detected, to an "under cover" cop, but could that also not be seen as entrapment.:wonder:

There is also the very valid point on the other side that we have no business invading these countries because of what they "might" do, same situation really, were the French resistance freedom fighters or terrorists :wonder: the same can be said of many if not all conflicts in history.

If the UK were to be invaded by some Foreign army and the government encouraged us to take up arms and defend our homeland by what ever means available, would that be state sponsored terrorism or defending our way of life and perceived freedom. :wonder:

Is the Uk and it's allies the defenders or aggressors, I sure as hell don't know, one thing for sure I don't much fancy the future of the world when the only solution seems to be to go to war with people that don't agree with you or do as they are told, what gives anyone the right to decide how another country goes about it's business, would we stand for it in the UK if the Chinese or the Russians suddenly decided we've got it wrong.:wonder:

Scary times we live in, and I'm not sure who the mentalists are or indeed if they are not all mental on both sides.:(

Piehole1983, you mention 'prevention'. You're right. Police and law are working towards prevention than the cure for certain things. A few years ago, a police force came up with a very diplomatic term i.e. Community Cohesion with the ethnic and other minority groups. I told them that they were disguising 'Crime Prevention' strategy with their newly chosen term i.e. 'Community Cohesion'. They looked a bit confused, but then they thought for a minute and smiled with an ungestured wink.

I'm all for Community Cohesion. :thumb:

some people are right and some are wrong on this thread -

but yet again its another thread that has resulted in insults and slanging matches.

Please people can we have "arguments" as adults. Everyones opinion counts but theres no need for the nastiness.......

Incitement when involving a criminal offence is an act punishable with a custodial sentence. So, inciting a riot, inciting a child to touch another adult, inciting to commit a burglary are all punishable with prison terms. How is inciting to commit terrorist acts NOT worthy of similar sentencing?

She deserves every minute of the sentence.

Can you articulate the difference between "incitement" and simply expressing a thought

Expressing a thought :brickwall she was giving information was she not.

Funny thread:D

what information was she giving

A quote from The Independant 11th December...
"Khan, from Luton, admitted four charges of disseminating terrorist publications" The same information is quoted in other major newspapers.

Whatever you read into her actions, surely the dissemination of such publications is the same thing as passing on terrorist information.

Doesn't it depend how she arrived at the articles ?

if its there for anybody to read ,were just "protecting" the easily influenced

and where does that end

Why are you searching for reasons to excuse her?

Or are you just one of those who likes to bite the hand that feeds you or in this case protects you?

No I don't think so. She wasn't charged with receiving information, but dissemination of terrorist publications.

She may well have come across it by accident. But even if somebody, like this woman may have done, wants to troll through the net a find out what Jihadist terrorism (for example) means then that is their prerogative.
What matters is what she did with the information she acquired.

If somebody stuck some terrorist propaganda through my letter box, my first thought wouldn't be who can I pass it on to (apart from the police perhaps).
If I were to pass that propaganda on to a friend by way of private discussion between us I think that would be seen as fairly innocent, depending on third party connections and previous history.
If I were to send it on to a whole bunch of people I 'knew' on facebook, I think I'd be setting myself up for a bit of scrutiny by the old bill.
If I deliberately go looking for such information and then set about ensuring other people know about it, I think I would end up in court.

It's not a national secret that involving yourself in the promotion of terrorist activity, however carefully you might do that, is very likely to have serious consequences if you persist. I don't know the actual wording of the law, but I don't need to in order for me to be quite convinced that the propagation of terrorist ideals is an unlawful persuit in this country. I fail to understand why this woman should be excused from that, or have people rushing to her defence when she has admitted the charges levelled against her.

sure, I understand and my point was not specifically aimed at this case

although she seemed to get 5 years for handing out leaflets and giving travel advice - and we have a convicted paedophile on scoobynet who will probably get less

my point was more broad and wide ranging

I haven't seen anything where the content of her supposed terrorist publications has been disclosed. Not having seen a verbatim version of what she was handing out I can't really pass comment other than to repeat what has been quoted in the majority of the 'reliable' media. Furthermore it's not the only questionable activity this woman has been involved in.

As for where the balance lies between terrorism and child molesting, you tell me. Is child abuse more or less abhorrent than murder? It's a close one I think, and probably a ten pager in its own right. :thumb: