Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

1169170172174175210

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭ Witcher


    otmmyboy2 wrote: »
    Hadn't read the bill, just the article as it was, which said:


    Suspect in a crime therefore suspected of committing an offence, thus what I said was accurate with the information to hand.
    Therefore not misinformation - false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive
    Since it was not false or inaccurate given the information I had to hand.

    Searched for and read the bill now and amended my earlier post, happy :P

    Still a despicable invasion of privacy, but less than the warrantless search the article led me to believe was the case.

    As I stated earlier...the Gardai already have this power under certain warrants, this Bill just extends it to other warrants including warrants which would be utilised when investigating sexual offences etc. and they always had the power to seize the devices and open them themselves. This power saves everyone time and the taxpayer their money as there will be no more two year+ remands for cases while devices are examined.

    This change was suggested by both the Law Reform Commission and the Garda Inspectorate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ Richard308


    otmmyboy2 wrote: »
    Hadn't read the bill, just the article as it was, which said:


    Suspect in a crime therefore suspected of committing an offence, thus what I said was accurate with the information to hand.
    Therefore not misinformation - false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive
    Since it was not false or inaccurate given the information I had to hand.

    Searched for and read the bill now and amended my earlier post, happy :P

    Still a despicable invasion of privacy, but less than the warrantless search the article led me to believe was the case.

    It’s meant for serious crime ie murder, drug trafficking, fraud, child abuse etc. I would safely say I think it won’t affect 99.99% of the population and if it would assist solving serious crime then I’m happy with it.

    So what they look at your browsing history, some weird WhatsApp videos etc. mostly have a boring laborious root through your photos. Would be a waste of Garda resources.

    I’ve nothing to hide, don’t think it will affect many


  • Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭ otmmyboy2


    Witcher wrote: »
    As I stated earlier...the Gardai already have this power under certain warrants, this Bill just extends it to other warrants including warrants which would be utilised when investigating sexual offences etc. and they always had the power to seize the devices and open them themselves. This power saves everyone time and the taxpayer their money as there will be no more two year+ remands for cases while devices are examined.

    This change was suggested by both the Law Reform Commission and the Garda Inspectorate.

    My problem with it is largely the compelling to provide passwords.
    That, to me, is an affront to the right to not incriminate oneself.

    Sure that right can be waived(by choice) but I disagree with a new offence seemingly with the aim to compel someone to incriminate oneself, or assist in that effort.

    I am also very much in favor of implementing some of the reforms suggested by the commission, but I think these powers should be rather further down the list of priorities by comparison to several other suggested reforms.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,126 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    .

    I’ve nothing to hide, don’t think it will affect many[/quote]

    FAMOUS LAST WORDS!!!Of many who trusted the State...How do you know what you have today in your computer or possesion is going to be illegal tomorrow?
    Or let me put it another way if you believe this...You would have no problem then if AGS,the Revenue ,Tusla,and any other welfare or law enforcement organisation ,dropped in tomorrow at 3AM with no warrant,no excuse,or other plausible reason to search your house,your private papers,and your bottom sock drawer.Question you,your family and underage children without any legal counsel,you present on any topic they fancy ,and for as long they want?Take any documents,papers ,or anything they want as "evidence of a crime"not spe ified
    Then leave with no explanation or reason?
    You would object?But if you have done nothing wrong,what have you got to hide?

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ Richard308


    No Grizzly.
    That would be unlawful, but if they’ve a warrant they can work away. And would be happy to help. Revenue, ags, Tusla, customs and excise, anyone once a court issued warrant. And you’re entitled to a copy of the warrant.

    But if some clowns turned up without a warrant obviously that’s a different story.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,126 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Richard308 wrote: »
    No Grizzly.
    That would be unlawful, but if they’ve a warrant they can work away. And would be happy to help. Revenue, ags, Tusla, customs and excise, anyone once a court issued warrant. And you’re entitled to a copy of the warrant.

    But if some clowns turned up without a warrant obviously that’s a different story.

    But why would they need, a warrant?After all you are a "good and loyal citizen"who has nothing to hide . Right?...This is the point...If you believe you have nothing to hide in your private life ,then surely you would have no problem with govt types showing up like that warrantless.as when they need a warrant you must have something to hide from the state?

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ Richard308


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    But why would they need, a warrant?After all you are a "good and loyal citizen"who has nothing to hide . Right?...This is the point...If you believe you have nothing to hide in your private life ,then surely you would have no problem with govt types showing up like that warrantless.as when they need a warrant you must have something to hide from the state?

    You’re being facetious, The law is with a warrant, the point the poster made was that it was overreach and infringing on privacy even with a warrant. I’m saying if there’s a warrant I’ve no issue. I don’t believe I’ll ever be the subject of a warrant as I don’t engage in criminal behaviour.

    “Govt types” what does that even mean?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,126 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Richard308 wrote: »
    You’re being facetious, The law is with a warrant,
    At the moment...Says who that it will be like this in 2,5,10 years time for something like this? You???


    < MOD SNIP>



    Rule #2


    Ok in view of a GODWINS LAW infringement .Please replace all of the previous examples with the STAZI of the German Democratic Republic for the examples of intimidation,and deportment,arrest and imprisonment of "good citizens" who thought they had done "nothing wrong " under a Communist regime, which was just as bad as the overthrown Nazi regime..
    I don’t believe I’ll ever be the subject of a warrant as I don’t engage in criminal behaviour.

    Well done you...
    Seriously! are you that naive that you can ab-sol-utely say that whatever you do in the future or posses now will never be construed as criminal /dissident behaviour or contraband?
    By anyone or govt in the future? Where people today are mob judging others for tweets written 10 years ago?Whats to say this entire board will be considered "dissident writing by animal abusers and gun fanatics"

    We've already seen where some guy in the UK, while having beliefs and views on Nazism has been jailed because he had "nazi memobrillia" and some "banned books"[freely available on Amazon.co.uk and in your local bookshop]

    Been a couple of cases of this happening where the British police thugs have arrested people for having under Sect 50 of the counter-terrorism act."literature or documentation likely to be of use to a terrorist group."
    IOW that means.If say they found a manual in your house on say operating a LAW rocket launcher[" and PA Lutys improvised machine pistol book and a copy of the Turner diaries[you are an author doing research on a post apocalyptic resistance movement run by a right extremist]
    You are NICKED Mate! Under that Sect 50 as you are obviously a Nazi[Turner diaries],manufacturing firearms[PALuty book] and training on how to use artillery[LAW manual]
    Still think you have done nothing wrong...baaa ,baaa,baaa?
    “Govt types” what does that even mean?
    Take a WAG...:)

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    .

    I’ve nothing to hide, don’t think it will affect many
    I have an uncle who decided to head to the pub one night for a jar, while there the pub was unusually quiet and he got chatting with a lad at the bar about racing and football and all that rubbish. Two mornings later at about 6 am his front door was taken off the hinges and a couple of car loads of branch men piled in, he was nicked in handcuffs etc and taken off to the station while the house was ransacked.

    Turns out the guy, who he didn't know, was involved with a republican group, the chatting and passing the time of day was enough to get someone a warrant and his privacy invaded and him arrested.

    This "It'll never happen to me" line is in the famous last words top ten.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    This bill introduces "Thought Crime" and allows them to stop, detain and arrest you, IF THEY THINK THAT A CRIME IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED, whether it is child abduction, trafficking or A TERROIST OFFENCE (no definition), WITHOUT A WARRANT and with NO RECOURSE.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭ Witcher


    This bill introduces "Thought Crime" and allows them to stop, detain and arrest you, IF THEY THINK THAT A CRIME IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED, whether it is child abduction, trafficking or A TERROIST OFFENCE (no definition), WITHOUT A WARRANT and with NO RECOURSE.

    Did you know THE GARDAI ALREADY HAVE THOSE POWERS? Do you think the Gardai have to wait until a crime is committed before they can act? lol

    All this Bill does is amalgamate the existing powers of arrest, search and detention and put them in one single piece of legislation instead of spreading them across several acts going back decades.


  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    YES. They cannot act until A LAW IS BROKEN.

    That is why, when they tell you to move on, they cannot do ANYTHING UNTIL YOU REFUSE, THEN THEY TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.

    They have, once again been given the power to MAKE UP THE LAW, as they see fit.

    This might be the "Off Topic" chat on a firearms thread, but how many people here have been subjected to the ( I can do what I want, It dosn't matter what the law states, I'm the authority on this not some judge)

    And we have been proven to be THE MOST LAW ABIDING plebs in the country, yet we still suffer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭ Witcher


    YES. They cannot act until A LAW IS BROKEN.

    That is why, when they tell you to move on, they cannot do ANYTHING UNTIL YOU REFUSE, THEN THEY TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.

    They have, once again been given the power to MAKE UP THE LAW, as they see fit.

    This might be the "Off Topic" chat on a firearms thread, but how many people here have been subjected to the ( I can do what I want, It dosn't matter what the law states, I'm the authority on this not some judge)

    And we have been proven to be THE MOST LAW ABIDING plebs in the country, yet we still suffer.

    Section 8(2) of the Criminal Law Act, 1976 disagrees with you. This section will be replaced by Head 10 of the new bill.

    This new bill grants no new powers in regards to the stopping, questioning and arrest of people. These powers already exist, they're now being consolidated in a single act.

    Where a member of the Garda Síochána who with reasonable cause suspects that an offence to which this section applies has been, is being or is about to be committed requires a person to stop a vehicle with a view to ascertaining whether—

    (a) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about to commit the offence, or

    (b) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,

    he may search the vehicle, and if (whether before or after the commencement of the search) he suspects with reasonable cause that any of the facts mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle.

    (3) A member of the Garda Síochána may use reasonable force in order to compel a person to comply with a requirement to stop a vehicle, and such force may include the placing of a barrier or other device in the path of vehicles.

    (4) Any reference in subsection (1) of this section to an offence includes a reference to attempting or conspiring to commit the offence.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/32/enacted/en/print#sec7


  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    Witcher wrote: »
    Section 8(2) of the Criminal Law Act, 1976 disagrees with you. This section will be replaced by Head 10 of the new bill.

    This new bill grants no new powers in regards to the stopping, questioning and arrest of people. These powers already exist, they're now being consolidated in a single act.




    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/32/enacted/en/print#sec7


    Except the above RELATES TO PERSONS IN CUSTODY (already arrested) and omits REASONABLE CAUSE AND VEHICLE HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭ Witcher


    Except REASONABLE CAUSE AND VEHICLE HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT

    Left out of what?

    The new bill?

    Here's the text of Head 10 of the new Bill which will replace Section 8 of the Criminal Law Act, 1976;
    Where a member of the Garda Síochána who is in—
    (a) a public place, or
    (b) any other place under a power of entry authorised by law or to which or in which he
    or she was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be,
    has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under Schedule 2 has been, is being or is
    about to be committed,
    her or she may require a person to stop a vehicle with a view to
    ascertaining whether—


    (i) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about
    to commit the offence
    , or
    (ii) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any
    person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,
    and the member may search the vehicle, and if whether before or after the commencement of
    the search, he or she suspects with reasonable grounds that any of the facts mentioned in
    paragraph (i) or (ii) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle.

    Section 8, Criminal Law Act, 1976 for comparison;
    Where a member of the Garda Síochána who with reasonable cause suspects that an offence to which this section applies has been, is being or is about to be committed requires a person to stop a vehicle with a view to ascertaining whether—

    (a) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about to commit the offence, or

    (b) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,

    he may search the vehicle, and if (whether before or after the commencement of the search) he suspects with reasonable cause that any of the facts mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle.

    (3) A member of the Garda Síochána may use reasonable force in order to compel a person to comply with a requirement to stop a vehicle, and such force may include the placing of a barrier or other device in the path of vehicles.

    (4) Any reference in subsection (1) of this section to an offence includes a reference to attempting or conspiring to commit the offence.

    Tell me again which part was left out.....
    Except the above RELATES TO PERSONS IN CUSTODY (already arrested)

    No it doesn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    "Where a member of the Garda Síochána who is in—
    (a) a public place, or
    or to which or in which he
    or she was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be,
    has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under Schedule 2 has been, is being or is
    about to be committed, her or she may require a person to stop a vehicle with a view to
    ascertaining whether—

    (i) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about
    to commit the offence, or
    (ii) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any
    person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,
    and the member may search the vehicle, and if whether before or after the commencement of
    the search, he or she suspects with reasonable grounds that any of the facts mentioned in
    paragraph (i) or (ii) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle."


    A vehicle is not a public place
    A vehicle is not any other place except by "(b) any other place under a power of entry authorised by law" IE a warrant
    Schedule 2 LIMITS THEIR


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭ Witcher


    Grand, there's no talking to you so.

    I've explained it to you several times and you can't seem to grasp it. Every power of arrest, search and detention in the new Bill is a direct replacement for an already existing power.

    Keep digging your hole there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    (a) an offence under the Act of 1939 or an offence that is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of that Act;

    (b) an offence under section 2 or 3 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 ;

    (c) murder, manslaughter or an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861;

    (d) an offence under section 23 , 23A or 23B of the Larceny Act, 1916 ;

    (e) an offence of malicious damage to property involving the use of fire or of any explosive substance (within the meaning of section 7 (1) (e) of this Act);

    (f) an offence under the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971;

    (g) escape from lawful custody;

    (h) an offence under section 11 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1973 , or under section 10 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 ;

    (i) an offence under this Act.


  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    (2) Where a member of the Garda Síochána who with reasonable cause suspects that an offence to which this section applies has been, is being or is about to be committed requires a person to stop a vehicle with a view to ascertaining whether—

    (a) any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed, is committing or is about to commit the offence, or

    (b) evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any person is in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it,

    he may search the vehicle, and if (whether before or after the commencement of the search) he suspects with reasonable cause that any of the facts mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above exists, he may search any person in or accompanying the vehicle.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    (4) Any reference in subsection (1) of this section to an offence includes a reference to attempting or conspiring to commit the offence.

    AND ONLY TO THE OFFENCES MENTIONED IN SUBSECTION 1


  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    But of course that's why they snuck it in, under the SCAMDEMIC legislation, without any debate or or having to go through oireachtas and seanad, JUST BECAUSE IT WAS NOTHING THAT WASN'T THERE ALREADY. What bubble did you arrive in?


  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    "I've explained it to you several times and you can't seem to grasp it. Every power of arrest, search and detention in the new Bill is a direct replacement for an already existing power."

    If nothing new, why waste time on it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,135 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    otmmyboy2 wrote: »
    Suspect in a crime therefore suspected of committing an offence, thus what I said was accurate with the information to hand.
    Therefore not misinformation - false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive
    Since it was not false or inaccurate given the information I had to hand.
    But it was false, the “information to hand” doesn’t make it true.
    Now, it wasn’t your fault, the article wasn’t crystal clear. But nonetheless what was posted was incorrect. Which makes it misinformation.
    The majority of misinformation that’s spread is done so unintentional, that’s why it’s so rampant in the modern era where reads source material.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,135 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    .
    Or let me put it another way if you believe this...You would have no problem then if AGS,the Revenue ,Tusla,and any other welfare or law enforcement organisation ,dropped in tomorrow at 3AM with no warrant,no excuse,or other plausible reason to search your house,your private papers,and your bottom sock drawer.Question you,your family and underage children without any legal counsel,you present on any topic they fancy ,and for as long they want?Take any documents,papers ,or anything they want as "evidence of a crime"not spe ified
    Then leave with no explanation or reason?
    You would object?But if you have done nothing wrong,what have you got to hide?
    That would be illegal for them to do that without a warrant. I don’t see how’s that the relevant? The above applies to searches under a warrant.

    For example, say a paedophile this subject to a search warrant, the above makes it possible to extend that to his pin/password. Are you actually arguing that a suspect paedophile has a right of privacy to his personal device. I doubt it.
    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    But why would they need, a warrant?
    Because it’s a fundamental tenet of the law. That’s kinda basic stuff. :confused:
    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    We've already seen where some guy in the UK, while having beliefs and views on Nazism has been jailed because he had "nazi memobrillia" and some "banned books"[freely available on Amazon.co.uk and in your local bookshop]
    You think he was a poor victim of the law? :pac: :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,611 ✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    So lads this is it , encryption on devices no longer protects you if you don't hand your password over to a warrantless search you'll be thrown in jail for 5 years and fined 30,000
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobile-phones-1.4592434
    Sad day for privacy
    Absolutely an abuse of powers will arise form this
    Doesn't matter if you're innocent ,you're assumed guilty with no right to privacy

    https://assets.gov.ie/137505/620ea206-de91-4bb3-97b1-0e0209b3ecf8.pdf

    Section 16 leads me to believe that they need a warrant to force you to provide your passwords etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,126 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    tudderone wrote: »

    I have an uncle who decided to head to the pub one night for a jar, while there the pub was unusually quiet and he got chatting with a lad at the bar about racing and football and all that rubbish. Two mornings later at about 6 am his front door was taken off the hinges and a couple of car loads of branch men piled in, he was nicked in handcuffs etc and taken off to the station while the house was ransacked.

    Turns out the guy, who he didn't know, was involved with a republican group, the chatting and passing the time of day was enough to get someone a warrant and his privacy invaded and him arrested.

    This "It'll never happen to me" line is in the famous last words top ten.

    Yup!! Happened to a mate of mine too down in Ennis about 10 years ago. Seen talking to the wrong person who was a friend of his then GF's brother who was involved in something illegal.Gott an oh dark hundred wake up call courtesy of AGS SB too.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,126 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Mellor wrote: »
    That would be illegal for them to do that without a warrant. I don’t see how’s that the relevant? The above applies to searches under a warrant.

    Do the words "HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE" mean anything to you?

    Snippage of irrelevant verbiage
    You think he was a poor victim of the law? :pac: :pa

    What is he exactly GUILTY of under UK law may I ask???

    Apart from being a moron, it seems to be believing still in an ideology that is more or less in histories dustbin.

    Owning 3 books that are commonly available ? They are not illegal to own, well maybe now in the UK.It might be nice if the UK govt published a banned list then to prevent such incidents occurring in the future:roll eyes:

    Being sentenced by a judge with a bias against "right wing extremists"but is very tolerant of Islamist and Leftist extremism in similar cases.

    So yeah,your " poor victim of the law" quip is extremely fitting.:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,126 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    https://assets.gov.ie/137505/620ea206-de91-4bb3-97b1-0e0209b3ecf8.pdf

    Section 16 leads me to believe that they need a warrant to force you to provide your passwords etc.

    Wonder how long will it be before some bright spark develops a total bleach of your phone,if you input a code once or twice? I can see that one being a top seller with criminals or anyone else not wanting a snooper on your phone.

    TBH you must be a pretty dumb criminal to have a phone or computer chock full of info on you or at home. Anyone smart will be using multiple burner phones or computer and account for one-off communications.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 37,135 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Do the words "HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE" mean anything to you?
    An example is usually supposed to be relevant or have a point. :rolleyes:
    An illegal, unwarranted searches has no bearing on the topic. Not sure what point you thought you were making. Good to know you're support paedo-privacy though.

    What is he exactly GUILTY of under UK law may I ask???
    I'd have to read the case notes or judgement to answer that.
    Should be spelled out in black and white what the conviction was in the summary.
    Apart from being a moron, it seems to be believing still in an ideology that is more or less in histories dustbin.
    You think Fascism doesn't exist in 21st century?

    Obvious no intelligent reasonable people subscribe to it. Could say the exact same about communism.
    Idiots. But idiots that exist.
    Owning 3 books that are commonly available ? They are not illegal to own, well maybe now in the UK.It might be nice if the UK govt published a banned list then to prevent such incidents occurring in the future:roll eyes:
    But I'd be pretty confident that he wasn't jailing simply for owning Mein Kampf or similar. As pointed out here, it's on sale in Easons and I'd guess in UK book shops too. Probably thousands sold every year.
    Being sentenced by a judge with a bias against "right wing extremists"but is very tolerant of Islamist and Leftist extremism in similar cases.
    Funny you mention that.
    I sure you'd be equally a sympathetic to some Islamist right to preach jihad or buy bomb making books. Or that they shouldn't be subjected to search warrants. :pac::pac::pac:

    Your post history betrays you there.


Advertisement