Man charged with possession of sugar

[T***@yahoo.co.uk]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html

http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw

[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.

Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.

Police refused to comment on a report in the local Yorkshire Post
newspaper about a man his 20s who was arrested for allegedly planning
to pass classified information to Russia.

The report came days after Jonathan Evans, the head of Britain's
domestic intelligence agency, MI5, warned of "unreconstructed attempts
by Russia, China and others to spy on us" despite the end of the Cold
War nearly 20 years ago.

Hill was charged Saturday and will make his first appearance before
magistrates in Leeds on Monday, said London's Metropolitan police,
which takes the lead on security matters nationwide.

The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

Britain's Press Association news agency said the allegations do not
relate to any suspected "terrorist-related activity", without quoting
sources.

[unquote]

Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

--
x If you have been, was it fattening?
/|\

[Dr Zoidberg]

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings
would turn this into a lethal bomb

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
[unquote]
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility
that the police may have got things right once in a while.

[Palindrome]

Post by Dr Zoidberg

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings
would turn this into a lethal bomb

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
[unquote]
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.

I would suggest that a lot of it is genuine concern as to, "There but
for... go I".


My place, for example. Enough stock and mechanical workshop equipment,
including normal and nc mills and lathes and a forge, to *make* a wide
range weapons, let alone recommission practically anything. Enough
electrical end electronic workshop equipment to make anything a little
Bin Liner might dream of. Literally thousands of books, hundreds of
which would contain material of use to terrorists.

The barn would light up anyone's WMD kit - my neighbour left several
tons of fertiliser there a couple of years ago, when repairing his own
barn.. Lots of chemicals, especially those used with the forge, that
could probably be argued enough to kill half the local population if
dumped in the nearest reservoir.

Then there are my present and expired passports, with stamps showing
months, indeed years, spent in places that few normal people want to go
to. Photographs of me with friends that certainly would put the fear of
GOd in any bus passenger.

All perfectly innocent, of course. But maybe there would be quite a few
people saying that the police had got it right, for a change..

[Alang]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:54:30 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"

Post by Dr Zoidberg

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings
would turn this into a lethal bomb

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
[unquote]
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility
that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Possibly because so many of us have all of those things or
substitutes. I have had all of those in my possession at some time.
Still got most of them except fuel tablets and I'd have to take the
bike apart for ball bearings. Got a box of screws though.

I'll wait for the 4am kick on the door.

Although with luck I will be out of this third rate shithole of a
police state when I retire next year

[Norman Wells]

Post by Dr Zoidberg

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings
would turn this into a lethal bomb

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
[unquote]
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Indeed.

Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially
not in a domestic environment. If you have it in your possession in solid
form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to
make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

Acetone too is not usually found in a domestic environment in any amounts
greater than required to remove a bit of nail varnish. So that may be
suspicious as well.

It's right to ask questions in such circumstances, and it's right to take
further action if the answers to those questions are unsatisfactory.

[TimB]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Dr Zoidberg
I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Indeed.
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially
not in a domestic environment. If you have it in your possession in solid
form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to
make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.
Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
than �200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
legal'.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Dr Zoidberg
I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Indeed.
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially
not in a domestic environment. If you have it in your possession in solid
form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to
make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.

But not highly suspicious.

Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
than £200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
legal'.

Then you're a fool. I think most would say it's more important for the
police to be acting to prevent something major occurring than for
prosecuting those who drop cigarette butts in the street.

[T***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by TimB

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Dr Zoidberg
I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Indeed.
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially
not in a domestic environment. If you have it in your possession in solid
form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to
make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.
But not highly suspicious.
Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
than �200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
legal'.
Then you're a fool. I think most would say it's more important for the
police to be acting to prevent something major occurring than for
prosecuting those who drop cigarette butts in the street.

I see you've cocked up who wrote what.

Fancy that.

--
x If you have been, are you still deluded?
/|\

[Alang]

Post by TimB

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Dr Zoidberg
I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Indeed.
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially
not in a domestic environment. If you have it in your possession in solid
form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to
make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.
Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
than £200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
legal'.

On his other point on sodium chlorate. I only ever buy tubs of
crystals. Get them from at least 5 shops in the town at £2.50 a kilo.
A couple of Kilos does the whole yard and the borders of the house.
Sometimes have to repeat after lots of rain.

[Bruno Panetta]

Post by TimB
Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.
Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
than £200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
legal'.

Shiplifiting stuff for less than 200 pounds is now not criminal - can
get only a spot fine in the supermarket. Not like the olden days.
Years ago in occupied Trieste my father reported his cart (!) missing
at the local Kommandantur. Now you can say whatever you like about
them, and they did do horrible things apparently, but when they cought
the thief they had him strung in no time! Would only get a fine now.
Unbelieveble. Then they wonder why the streets are full of yobs.

[Dave Baker]

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
for at B&Q or the garden centre.

[Palindrome]

Post by Dave Baker

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
for at B&Q or the garden centre.

To be fair, the pp did use the words "hardly ever".

And words like "strictly legal".

So, apparently you can be guilty of an offence if you are merely
"strictly legal".

Perhaps HMG could introduce a system whereby things which are only
"strictly legal" to possess could be identified and a system of permits
introduced. It could be called, say, "licencing".

Until then, all of us with tens of litres of acetone in a bottle next to
our home workshop may just have to hope that we won't get invited to
spend the next 28-96 days explaining why we think "strictly legal"
should be good enough.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Palindrome

Post by Dave Baker

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it
works jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over
the odds for at B&Q or the garden centre.

To be fair, the pp did use the words "hardly ever".
And words like "strictly legal".
So, apparently you can be guilty of an offence if you are merely "strictly
legal".

Well, yes you can. Under recent legislation it is an offence to prepare for
acts of terrorism, which has just that effect.

Post by Palindrome
Perhaps HMG could introduce a system whereby things which are only
"strictly legal" to possess could be identified and a system of permits
introduced. It could be called, say, "licencing".

As with guns, you mean? Or certain chemicals?

These restrictions already exist in many areas.

Post by Palindrome
Until then, all of us with tens of litres of acetone in a bottle next to
our home workshop may just have to hope that we won't get invited to spend
the next 28-96 days explaining why we think "strictly legal" should be
good enough.

It all depends on whether you have a plausible reason for possessing them in
the quantities you have, whether you comply with legal requirements on their
safe storage, and whether there are any aggravating circumstances, such as
the possession at the same time of large quantities of hydrogen peroxide.
If you have no good reasons, why shouldn't you be asked for a bit of
explanation?

Incidentally, we are _all_ liable to be invited to spend the next 28 days
(at present) explaining all sorts of things just on a whim, for no given
reason. You don't have to be in possession of bomb-making materials or
anything at all to make you liable for that. Just existing is enough.

[T***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Palindrome
Until then, all of us with tens of litres of acetone in a bottle next to
our home workshop may just have to hope that we won't get invited to spend
the next 28-96 days explaining why we think "strictly legal" should be
good enough.

It all depends on whether you have a plausible reason for possessing them in
the quantities you have, whether you comply with legal requirements on their
safe storage, and whether there are any aggravating circumstances, such as
the possession at the same time of large quantities of hydrogen peroxide.
If you have no good reasons, why shouldn't you be asked for a bit of
explanation?

How about needing the H2O2 for use in a home-made "hypo" eliminator,
to oxidise thiosulphate to sulphate?

Of course, having a seven-foot tall, 1/2 plate enlarger in the same
room as the peroxide may help.

Post by Norman Wells
Incidentally, we are _all_ liable to be invited to spend the next 28 days
(at present) explaining all sorts of things just on a whim, for no given
reason. You don't have to be in possession of bomb-making materials or
anything at all to make you liable for that. Just existing is enough.

And does that make you feel all safe, secure and protected?

Idiot.

--
x caput tuum in ano est
/|\

[Norman Wells]

Post by Dave Baker

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
for at B&Q or the garden centre.

I'm sure it does work jolly well. But the fact that you have to get it from
'a local chemical company' rather than a garden centre merely emphasises my
point that it is nowadays a somewhat unlikely weed killer to be found
domestically, particularly in solid form.

I suspect too that the suppliers were probably meant to make appropriate
checks to ensure your bona fides, as they are with ammonium nitrate
fertiliser, though it's quite conceivable of course that they didn't.

[Alang]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:16:16 -0000, "Norman Wells"

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Dave Baker

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
for at B&Q or the garden centre.

I'm sure it does work jolly well. But the fact that you have to get it from
'a local chemical company' rather than a garden centre merely emphasises my
point that it is nowadays a somewhat unlikely weed killer to be found
domestically, particularly in solid form.

£1 for 300gms from the local pound shop.
Sold in Wilkinsons too but I can't recall the price

Post by Norman Wells
I suspect too that the suppliers were probably meant to make appropriate
checks to ensure your bona fides, as they are with ammonium nitrate
fertiliser, though it's quite conceivable of course that they didn't.

Nah!

I can even buy bags of sugar and boxes of matches in Netto

[T***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Dave Baker

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
for at B&Q or the garden centre.

I'm sure it does work jolly well. But the fact that you have to get it from
'a local chemical company' rather than a garden centre merely emphasises my
point that it is nowadays a somewhat unlikely weed killer to be found
domestically, particularly in solid form.

Fool - it is simply cheaper to get the stuff from a chemical company
than to get it in pretty packets from a garden centre.

Post by Norman Wells
I suspect too that the suppliers were probably meant to make appropriate
checks to ensure your bona fides, as they are with ammonium nitrate
fertiliser, though it's quite conceivable of course that they didn't.

What a pleasant fellow you aren't.

--
x GFY
/|\

[T***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Dave Baker

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
for at B&Q or the garden centre.

Norman Wells is known for posting any amount of rubbish if it supports
his somewhat authoritarian view of How The World Ought To Be; he is
like Kev, but without the latter's sense of the ridiculous.

Do not expect any of his comments to make any sense and, when he
really gets going, do not expect his attributions or quoting to be
even approximately accurate.

--
x If he has been, is he still ga-ga?
/|\

[Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )]

Post by Dave Baker

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
for at B&Q or the garden centre.
--
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines

Unless someone happens to drop a lit
cigarette, in the vicinity, a few days later,
with no rain in between.
Gets very expensive in that situation.

ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

[Mike]

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )

Post by Dave Baker

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
for at B&Q or the garden centre.

Unless someone happens to drop a lit
cigarette, in the vicinity, a few days later,
with no rain in between.
Gets very expensive in that situation.

The trick is to gather all the dead weeds into a heap away from anything
you want to keep. Then you throw a lit cigarette end in - it'll go up
like a .... ;-)

[T***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Norman Wells
Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially
not in a domestic environment. If you have it in your possession in solid
form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to
make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

As other people have stated, that is simply rubbish; apart from
anything else, solid sodium chlorate will be cheaper than "a liquid
formulation" - one doesn't need to pay extra for water - and may be
rather safer if children are around.

Post by Norman Wells
Acetone too is not usually found in a domestic environment in any amounts
greater than required to remove a bit of nail varnish. So that may be
suspicious as well.

Again, fiddlesticks; acetone is a very useful solvent and has a
variety of uses other than just removing "a bit of nail varnish". For
example, I often use it when degreasing components I have just turned
and/or threaded, especially if I am to use an adhensive or thread-
locking compound in their subsequent assembly. Someone else might use
it to remove natural oils and waxes from certain timbers - such as
Dalbergia nigra or Dalbergia retusa - before applying glue.

Post by Norman Wells
It's right to ask questions in such circumstances, and it's right to take
further action if the answers to those questions are unsatisfactory.

Seig heil!

--
x If you have been, do you have a moustache?
/|\

[Maria]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:54:30 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"

Post by Dr Zoidberg

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings
would turn this into a lethal bomb

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
[unquote]
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility
that the police may have got things right once in a while.

There is never any mention of intent in terrorism cases - doesn't it
matter anymore?

[Jethro]

Post by Alang
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:54:30 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"

Post by Dr Zoidberg

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings
would turn this into a lethal bomb

[unquote]
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility
that the police may have got things right once in a while.

There is never any mention of intent in terrorism cases - doesn't it
matter anymore?- Hide quoted text -

Unfortunately, if you include "intent" in the charge, then you have to
prove it. This then leads to the annoying situation where people get
off charges that we all know they're guilty of.

If you remove intent from the requirements for locking people up, then
justice works much smoother.

Take rape, for example. It's always been a bit of a nuisance that men
accused of rape could not be shown to have *intended* rape, by virtue
of the fact the victim consented quite willingly. So really, we could
do with removing the tiresome element of intent from that law too.

[Francis Burton]

Post by Jethro
If you remove intent from the requirements for locking people up, then
justice works much smoother.
Take rape, for example. It's always been a bit of a nuisance that men
accused of rape could not be shown to have *intended* rape, by virtue
of the fact the victim consented quite willingly. So really, we could
do with removing the tiresome element of intent from that law too.

Yes, but in the case of rape an act has already been performed.
Mere possession of chemicals should not in itself be a crime,
although it may warrant further surveillance depending on the
circumstances.

Conversely, motive alone should not be grounds for prosecution
even if intent could be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case of terrorist acts, there should (imo) be clear
evidence of conspiracy, planning and/or preparation - so not
just the raw chemicals, but also the weaponised agents, notes,
annotated maps, taped conversations etc.

Francis

[Alang]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:37:24 +0000, Maria

Post by Alang
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:54:30 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"

Post by Dr Zoidberg

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings
would turn this into a lethal bomb

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
[unquote]
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility
that the police may have got things right once in a while.

There is never any mention of intent in terrorism cases - doesn't it
matter anymore?

It's too easy now for the police to arrest anyone at all and charge
them with possessionn of articles likely to aid terrorism. As most
posts here show the majority of people are well in the danger zone of
posibility of arrest. With the thousands of stops and searches, the
arrests and the sometimes dubious convictions one would have to be
terminally stupid or naive to trust the security industry.

[TD]

Post by Dr Zoidberg

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings
would turn this into a lethal bomb

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
[unquote]
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Sorry, but it looks a bit suspicious that he was arrested under the Official
Secrets Act but charged with possession of fairly common household goods.

[Jeff]

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

The sodium chlorate that you can easily buy as weedkiller has additives that
stabilize it and prevent it from being used as an effective oxidizing agent.
So I suspect that it was not weed killer that was involved.

Jeff

[Phi]

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.

It's quite clear that his intention was to pass information to the Russians
and Chinese about our new pipe bomb stolen from the IRA, although his
deliberate action to demonstrate the risk of such an advanced weapon was
beyond comprehension.

[TD]

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.

I can't find an Explosive Substances Act 1993 on OPSI or StatuteLaw.

There is of course an Explosive Substances Act 1883, and an Explosives Act
1875.

<snip>

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

Are we talking granulated or castor sugar?

[T***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by TD

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.

I can't find an Explosive Substances Act 1993 on OPSI or StatuteLaw.

I didn't write that piffle; I just quoted it.

Post by TD
There is of course an Explosive Substances Act 1883, and an Explosives Act
1875.

Yes, of course.

Post by TD
<snip>

Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

Are we talking granulated or castor sugar?

For all I know, he could even have possessed icing sugar with intent.

What that intent might be, might depend on whether or not he'd baked a
cake.

--
x If you have been, was it "royal" or "fondant"?
/|\

[TD]

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by TD

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.

I can't find an Explosive Substances Act 1993 on OPSI or StatuteLaw.

I didn't write that piffle; I just quoted it.

Oh I know. Just wondering why AFP wrote it.

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by TD
There is of course an Explosive Substances Act 1883, and an Explosives Act
1875.

Yes, of course.

Post by TD
<snip>

Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

Are we talking granulated or castor sugar?

For all I know, he could even have possessed icing sugar with intent.
What that intent might be, might depend on whether or not he'd baked a
cake.

A Chocolate Bombe?

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
--
x If you have been, was it "royal" or "fondant"?
/|\

[T***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by TD

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by TD

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.

I can't find an Explosive Substances Act 1993 on OPSI or StatuteLaw.

I didn't write that piffle; I just quoted it.

Oh I know. Just wondering why AFP wrote it.

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by TD
There is of course an Explosive Substances Act 1883, and an Explosives Act
1875.

Yes, of course.

Post by TD
<snip>

Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

Are we talking granulated or castor sugar?

For all I know, he could even have possessed icing sugar with intent.
What that intent might be, might depend on whether or not he'd baked a
cake.

A Chocolate Bombe?

Or a Bombe Surprise?

--
x Would it have gone with a bang?
/|\

[TD]

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.
Police refused to comment on a report in the local Yorkshire Post
newspaper about a man his 20s who was arrested for allegedly planning
to pass classified information to Russia.
The report came days after Jonathan Evans, the head of Britain's
domestic intelligence agency, MI5, warned of "unreconstructed attempts
by Russia, China and others to spy on us" despite the end of the Cold
War nearly 20 years ago.
Hill was charged Saturday and will make his first appearance before
magistrates in Leeds on Monday, said London's Metropolitan police,
which takes the lead on security matters nationwide.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.
Britain's Press Association news agency said the allegations do not
relate to any suspected "terrorist-related activity", without quoting
sources.
[unquote]
Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.
--
x If you have been, was it fattening?
/|\

The charge alleges that on November 8, in Skipton, "you had knowingly in
your possession or under your control an explosive substance, namely
component parts including sodium chlorate, sugar, hexamine tablets, matches,
bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone, under such circumstances as to
give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you are not making it or did not
have it in your possession or under your control for a lawful object."
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7067767,00.html>

Was there an actual explosive substance or did he merely possess the
component parts?

[T***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by TD

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.
Police refused to comment on a report in the local Yorkshire Post
newspaper about a man his 20s who was arrested for allegedly planning
to pass classified information to Russia.
The report came days after Jonathan Evans, the head of Britain's
domestic intelligence agency, MI5, warned of "unreconstructed attempts
by Russia, China and others to spy on us" despite the end of the Cold
War nearly 20 years ago.
Hill was charged Saturday and will make his first appearance before
magistrates in Leeds on Monday, said London's Metropolitan police,
which takes the lead on security matters nationwide.
The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.
Britain's Press Association news agency said the allegations do not
relate to any suspected "terrorist-related activity", without quoting
sources.
[unquote]

The charge alleges that on November 8, in Skipton, "you had knowingly in
your possession or under your control an explosive substance, namely
component parts including sodium chlorate, sugar, hexamine tablets, matches,
bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone, under such circumstances as to
give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you are not making it or did not
have it in your possession or under your control for a lawful object."
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7067767,00.html>

The report in the Grauniad specified s. 4 of the Explosive Substances
Act 1883:

[quote]
4. Punishment for making or possession of explosive under suspicious
circumstances. - (1) Any person who makes or knowingly has in his
possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such
circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not
making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control
for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had
it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be
guilty of felony, and, on conviction, shall be liable to penal
servitude for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding two years ... and the explosive substance
shall be forfeited.
[unquote]

None of those items allegedly in his possession is actually "an
explosive substance". Potassium chlorate might be, but sodium
chlorate isn't, no matter how much a non-chemist might wish it were
otherwise. Nor would the celebrated "co-op mix" be any use as an
explosive without the means to set it off, even if that physical
mixture had been prepared; needless to say, I will not comment further
on that mixture other than to say it does not normally involve much
use of candied peel.

The law is plainly old, old-fashioned, out of date and needs to be
changed. Nobody has been sentenced to "penal servitude" for a great
many years and the Australian government might well protest quite
loudly if that trend were to be reversed.

--
x If you have been, did you meet Tony Holland?
/|\

[Mike]

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
None of those items allegedly in his possession is actually "an
explosive substance". Potassium chlorate might be, but sodium
chlorate isn't, no matter how much a non-chemist might wish it were
otherwise. Nor would the celebrated "co-op mix" be any use as an
explosive without the means to set it off, even if that physical
mixture had been prepared; needless to say, I will not comment further
on that mixture other than to say it does not normally involve much
use of candied peel.

Why do you say Potassium Chlorate might be an explosive but not Sodium
Chlorate? I believe Sodium Chlorate has been known to detonate (under
extreme conditions) (BICBW) and I would expect Potassium Chlorate to
behave in a similar manner.

As for "co-op mix" not being any use without the means to detonate it,
the same could be said for just about any modern commercial or military
high explosive.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Mike

Post by T***@yahoo.co.uk
None of those items allegedly in his possession is actually "an
explosive substance". Potassium chlorate might be, but sodium
chlorate isn't, no matter how much a non-chemist might wish it were
otherwise. Nor would the celebrated "co-op mix" be any use as an
explosive without the means to set it off, even if that physical
mixture had been prepared; needless to say, I will not comment further
on that mixture other than to say it does not normally involve much
use of candied peel.

Why do you say Potassium Chlorate might be an explosive but not Sodium
Chlorate? I believe Sodium Chlorate has been known to detonate (under
extreme conditions) (BICBW) and I would expect Potassium Chlorate to
behave in a similar manner.

Chlorates are oxidising agents. They provide the oxygen necessary for the
combustion of something else, and are used in circumstances where the
atmosphere is unlikely to provide enough, quickly enough, to achieve the
desired end result, such as an explosion which requires rapid combustion in
a confined space. Potassium nitrate performs the same function in
gunpowder.

Oxidising agents are not usually explosive substances per se, but are
components of explosive mixtures. It is well documented that the process of
grinding it with sugar can easily cause explosions.