0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Worth reading the small print. The guy was convicted under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act, which is, to say the least, controversial. It could be argued that any scientific or copyright library, or the Patent Office, necessarily "collects or makes a record of information that is likely to be useful to a person involved in terrorist activity". In this case, said material was part of a body of evidence that he held extremist views but I haven't seen any suggestion that he intended to hurt anyone or had the physical material and capacity to cause damage. If the reports are to be believed, the jury convicted him solely on the count of possession of "useful" material, which on the face of it is as bizarre as another jury deciding that the admitted actual destruction of public property was not criminal. The Terrorism Act really needs careful revision. On the one hand it is claimed that police powers granted by the Act have prevented many serious incidents, but on the other hand it supported the arrest of a Labour Party conference attendee who called a politician a liar.