On 2024-10-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
For a case in which terrorist weaponry and terrorist training materials
were discovered,
What they've actually found, according to the police's own press
release, is a PDF file published by the *United States Air Force*
which is a commentary on an Al Qaeda training manual.
On 2024-10-31, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-10-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
For a case in which terrorist weaponry and terrorist training materials
were discovered,
What they've actually found, according to the police's own press
release, is a PDF file published by the *United States Air Force*
which is a commentary on an Al Qaeda training manual.
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant has
changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those
that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist"
document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several
children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence
of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating
factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-10-31, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-10-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
For a case in which terrorist weaponry and terrorist training materials >>>> were discovered,
What they've actually found, according to the police's own press
release, is a PDF file published by the *United States Air Force*
which is a commentary on an Al Qaeda training manual.
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant has
changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those
that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist" >>document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several
children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence
of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating >>factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder.
A whole life order is only possible for offenders who were 21 or over at the time of the offence. So that won't happen here. As he was 17 at the time, he was legally a child, so the starting point will be a 12 year minimum term. I suspect this one will be longer than that. But, either way, it still won't
be long enough to prevent idiots on social media claiming that the judge has been soft on him.
On 2025-01-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-10-31, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-10-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
For a case in which terrorist weaponry and terrorist training materials >>>>> were discovered,
What they've actually found, according to the police's own press
release, is a PDF file published by the *United States Air Force*
which is a commentary on an Al Qaeda training manual.
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant has
changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those
that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist"
document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several
children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence
of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating
factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder.
A whole life order is only possible for offenders who were 21 or over at the >> time of the offence. So that won't happen here. As he was 17 at the time, he >> was legally a child, so the starting point will be a 12 year minimum term. I >> suspect this one will be longer than that. But, either way, it still won't >> be long enough to prevent idiots on social media claiming that the judge has >> been soft on him.
Since the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, whole life
orders can be passed to people over 18 if the seriousness of the offence
is "exceptionally high", which I would suggest could apply here if he
hadn't been 17.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/321
But yes it would appear you are right that in this case the starting
point is 12 years. I would also expect the actual sentence to be
considerably longer than that.
On 20/01/2025 15:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-10-31, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-10-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
For a case in which terrorist weaponry and terrorist training materials >>>>>> were discovered,
What they've actually found, according to the police's own press
release, is a PDF file published by the *United States Air Force*
which is a commentary on an Al Qaeda training manual.
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant has
changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those
that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist"
document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several
children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence
of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating
factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder.
A whole life order is only possible for offenders who were 21 or over at the
time of the offence. So that won't happen here. As he was 17 at the time, he
was legally a child, so the starting point will be a 12 year minimum term. I
suspect this one will be longer than that. But, either way, it still won't >>> be long enough to prevent idiots on social media claiming that the judge has
been soft on him.
Since the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, whole life
orders can be passed to people over 18 if the seriousness of the offence
is "exceptionally high", which I would suggest could apply here if he
hadn't been 17.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/321
But yes it would appear you are right that in this case the starting
point is 12 years. I would also expect the actual sentence to be
considerably longer than that.
And what is the point of having a public inquiry as announced by Starmer?
To reveal to the masses whether our intelligence services should have
noticed him in time, and prevented his actions? Seems rather problematic
as it might tell us too much about how MI5 operates and any flaws in
their methods.
I've been watching the drama series, Lockerbie: A Search for Truth (Sky Atlantic). After the appalling terrorist explosion on Pan Am Flight 103 (December 1998), the relatives of the victims pleaded for a public
inquiry - to discover why the warnings given to American diplomats and
to airport authorities prior to the explosion were not communicated to
the public so that they could decide whether to take the risk of flying
on the aircraft or cancel their bookings like the diplomatic staff. But Thatcher refused a public inquiry.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 15:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-10-31, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:A whole life order is only possible for offenders who were 21 or over at the
On 2024-10-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
For a case in which terrorist weaponry and terrorist training materials >>>>>>> were discovered,
What they've actually found, according to the police's own press
release, is a PDF file published by the *United States Air Force*
which is a commentary on an Al Qaeda training manual.
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant has
changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those >>>>> that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist"
document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several
children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence >>>>> of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating
factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder. >>>>
time of the offence. So that won't happen here. As he was 17 at the time, he
was legally a child, so the starting point will be a 12 year minimum term. I
suspect this one will be longer than that. But, either way, it still won't >>>> be long enough to prevent idiots on social media claiming that the judge has
been soft on him.
Since the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, whole life
orders can be passed to people over 18 if the seriousness of the offence >>> is "exceptionally high", which I would suggest could apply here if he
hadn't been 17.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/321
But yes it would appear you are right that in this case the starting
point is 12 years. I would also expect the actual sentence to be
considerably longer than that.
And what is the point of having a public inquiry as announced by Starmer?
To reveal to the masses whether our intelligence services should have
noticed him in time, and prevented his actions? Seems rather problematic
as it might tell us too much about how MI5 operates and any flaws in
their methods.
I've been watching the drama series, Lockerbie: A Search for Truth (Sky
Atlantic). After the appalling terrorist explosion on Pan Am Flight 103
(December 1998), the relatives of the victims pleaded for a public
inquiry - to discover why the warnings given to American diplomats and
to airport authorities prior to the explosion were not communicated to
the public so that they could decide whether to take the risk of flying
on the aircraft or cancel their bookings like the diplomatic staff. But
Thatcher refused a public inquiry.
The Stockport case is entirely different to Lockerbie.
At the time of Lockerbie, there was a potential threat on almost any
flight- around then I frequently flew to the US and elsewhere and recall
the extra checks. The culprits hadn’t already been subject to three ‘rounds’ of the Prevent process, investigated for attacking fellow pupils,
the cause of the police being called to domestic ‘disputes’, …….
Nor were the public gaslighted by both the police and government following the incident.
I don’t doubt errors were made over Lockerbie - in such cases mistakes are inevitable.
However, the scale of the mistakes in Stockport go way beyond what can be considered remotely acceptable.
On 2025-01-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant has >>>changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those
that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist" >>>document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several
children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence
of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating >>>factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder.
A whole life order is only possible for offenders who were 21 or over
at the time of the offence. So that won't happen here. As he was 17
at the time, he was legally a child, so the starting point will be a
12 year minimum term. I suspect this one will be longer than that.
But, either way, it still won't be long enough to prevent idiots on
social media claiming that the judge has been soft on him.
Since the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, whole life
orders can be passed to people over 18 if the seriousness of the offence
is "exceptionally high", which I would suggest could apply here if he
hadn't been 17.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/321
But yes it would appear you are right that in this case the starting
point is 12 years. I would also expect the actual sentence to be
considerably longer than that.
On 2025-01-20, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant has >>>>changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those >>>>that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist" >>>>document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several >>>>children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence
of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating >>>>factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder.
A whole life order is only possible for offenders who were 21 or over
at the time of the offence. So that won't happen here. As he was 17
at the time, he was legally a child, so the starting point will be a
12 year minimum term. I suspect this one will be longer than that.
But, either way, it still won't be long enough to prevent idiots on
social media claiming that the judge has been soft on him.
Since the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, whole life
orders can be passed to people over 18 if the seriousness of the offence
is "exceptionally high", which I would suggest could apply here if he
hadn't been 17.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/321
But yes it would appear you are right that in this case the starting
point is 12 years. I would also expect the actual sentence to be
considerably longer than that.
It would appear that we are both correct. He was sentenced to 52 years,
which I think is possibly the second-longest sentence I have ever heard
of (not counting whole life orders, which as discussed above was not an option for the judge in this case). I predicted "many decades", but this
is above what I would have guessed.
The only longer sentence I am aware of is the brother of the Manchester
Arena bomber, who was sentenced to 55 years for 22 counts of murder.
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the leader
of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the sentence is unduly lenient and should have been longer.
A hypothetical scenario which could lead to a press release like the
one the police have issued could be that what they found were castor
beans, and perhaps some evidence that someone had been trying to
purify ricin from them, but had not had much success with it.
The only longer sentence I am aware of is the brother of the Manchesterleader> of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the
Arena bomber, who was sentenced to 55 years for 22 counts of murder.
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the
unduly lenient and should have been longer.
On 2025-01-23, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-20, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Oh, and I was also 100% correct about the ricin:
A hypothetical scenario which could lead to a press release like the
one the police have issued could be that what they found were castor
beans, and perhaps some evidence that someone had been trying to
purify ricin from them, but had not had much success with it.
They literally found some castor beans in a tupperware box with a
pestle and mortar. 'The form it was found in was deemed to be "low to
very low risk".'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czepl8406n8t#asset:21bdc301-7b12-48cc-936e-f2e66db607c7
Knee jerk reactions against this perceived "threat" could result in prosecution of
various council authorities for regular ornamental planting of the highly decorative
cultivars of the castor oil plant. It is a very striking plant and widely grown in the
south of England seaside resorts. Metallic dark red leaves with bright red spiky
flowers.
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message news:vmvnik$25p5a$1@dont-email.me...
Knee jerk reactions against this perceived "threat" could result in
prosecution of various council authorities for regular ornamental
planting of the highly decorative cultivars of the castor oil plant. It
is a very striking plant and widely grown in the south of England
seaside resorts. Metallic dark red leaves with bright red spiky
flowers.
It's grown in London in the front gardens of some larger houses,
positioned bordering the road and right now has perfectly round
symmetrical seed heads with all the actual seed pods radiating out on stalks from the centre.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 10:00:01 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vmvnik$25p5a$1@dont-email.me...
Knee jerk reactions against this perceived "threat" could result in
prosecution of various council authorities for regular ornamental
planting of the highly decorative cultivars of the castor oil plant. It
is a very striking plant and widely grown in the south of England
seaside resorts. Metallic dark red leaves with bright red spiky
flowers.
It's grown in London in the front gardens of some larger houses,
positioned bordering the road and right now has perfectly round
symmetrical seed heads with all the actual seed pods radiating out on
stalks from the centre.
Poppies abound in the UK.
On 1/23/25 21:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The only longer sentence I am aware of is the brother of the Manchester
Arena bomber, who was sentenced to 55 years for 22 counts of murder.
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the leader
of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the sentence is
unduly lenient and should have been longer.
I think it is wrong to characterise them as idiots.
There appears to be a common theme in democracy that saying idiotic
things increases a politician's electability. Another similar topical
example being LA cutting money on fire services to increase spending
on the police.
So you can characterise politicians as self interested, evil,
populist, etc.., but characterising politicians as just stupid is
letting them off the hook.
On 23/01/2025 22:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-23, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-20, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Oh, and I was also 100% correct about the ricin:
A hypothetical scenario which could lead to a press release like the
one the police have issued could be that what they found were castor
beans, and perhaps some evidence that someone had been trying to
purify ricin from them, but had not had much success with it.
They literally found some castor beans in a tupperware box with a
pestle and mortar. 'The form it was found in was deemed to be "low to
very low risk".'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czepl8406n8t#asset:21bdc301-7b12-48cc-936e-f2e66db607c7
That isn't ricin in any meaningful sense. I thought he might have
possibly extracted and refined some without getting himself killed. Even
as an impure concentrate it is seriously dangerous (and so is nicotine).
Knee jerk reactions against this perceived "threat" could result in prosecution of various council authorities for regular ornamental
planting of the highly decorative cultivars of the castor oil plant. It
is a very striking plant and widely grown in the south of England
seaside resorts. Metallic dark red leaves with bright red spiky flowers.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 15:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-10-31, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:A whole life order is only possible for offenders who were 21 or over at the
On 2024-10-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
For a case in which terrorist weaponry and terrorist training materials >>>>>>> were discovered,
What they've actually found, according to the police's own press
release, is a PDF file published by the *United States Air Force*
which is a commentary on an Al Qaeda training manual.
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant has
changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those >>>>> that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist"
document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several
children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence >>>>> of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating
factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder. >>>>
time of the offence. So that won't happen here. As he was 17 at the time, he
was legally a child, so the starting point will be a 12 year minimum term. I
suspect this one will be longer than that. But, either way, it still won't >>>> be long enough to prevent idiots on social media claiming that the judge has
been soft on him.
Since the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, whole life
orders can be passed to people over 18 if the seriousness of the offence >>> is "exceptionally high", which I would suggest could apply here if he
hadn't been 17.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/321
But yes it would appear you are right that in this case the starting
point is 12 years. I would also expect the actual sentence to be
considerably longer than that.
And what is the point of having a public inquiry as announced by Starmer?
To reveal to the masses whether our intelligence services should have
noticed him in time, and prevented his actions? Seems rather problematic
as it might tell us too much about how MI5 operates and any flaws in
their methods.
I've been watching the drama series, Lockerbie: A Search for Truth (Sky
Atlantic). After the appalling terrorist explosion on Pan Am Flight 103
(December 1998), the relatives of the victims pleaded for a public
inquiry - to discover why the warnings given to American diplomats and
to airport authorities prior to the explosion were not communicated to
the public so that they could decide whether to take the risk of flying
on the aircraft or cancel their bookings like the diplomatic staff. But
Thatcher refused a public inquiry.
The Stockport case is entirely different to Lockerbie.
At the time of Lockerbie, there was a potential threat on almost any
flight- around then I frequently flew to the US and elsewhere and recall
the extra checks.
‘rounds’ of the Prevent process, investigated for attacking fellow pupils,
the cause of the police being called to domestic ‘disputes’, …….
Nor were the public gaslighted by both the police and government following the incident.
I don’t doubt errors were made over Lockerbie - in such cases mistakes are inevitable.
However, the scale of the mistakes in Stockport go way beyond what can be considered remotely acceptable.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 10:00:01 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vmvnik$25p5a$1@dont-email.me...
Knee jerk reactions against this perceived "threat" could result in
prosecution of various council authorities for regular ornamental
planting of the highly decorative cultivars of the castor oil plant. It
is a very striking plant and widely grown in the south of England
seaside resorts. Metallic dark red leaves with bright red spiky
flowers.
It's grown in London in the front gardens of some larger houses,
positioned bordering the road and right now has perfectly round
symmetrical seed heads with all the actual seed pods radiating out on
stalks from the centre.
Poppies abound in the UK.
There are many sorts of poppy in the UK - native and non-native.
But the true opium poppy Papaver Somniferum is grown as a colourful
garden ornamental in the UK and it does revert to wild pale purple
form after a few generations. It grows wild in the hedgerows near me.
The seed set is so prodigious and long lived in the ground that once
you have it in the garden it is never going to go away.
https://www.chilternseeds.co.uk/item_954g_papaver_somniferum__mixed_var ieties_seeds
It would be a very serious offence to grow in the USA "Land of the
Free".
Not really enough UV at our high latitude for it to be viable as a
crop.
On 24/01/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 10:00:01 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vmvnik$25p5a$1@dont-email.me...
Knee jerk reactions against this perceived "threat" could result in
prosecution of various council authorities for regular ornamental
planting of the highly decorative cultivars of the castor oil plant. It >>>> is a very striking plant and widely grown in the south of England
seaside resorts. Metallic dark red leaves with bright red spiky
flowers.
It's grown in London in the front gardens of some larger houses,
positioned bordering the road and right now has perfectly round
symmetrical seed heads with all the actual seed pods radiating out on >>> stalks from the centre.
Poppies abound in the UK.
There are many sorts of poppy in the UK - native and non-native.
But the true opium poppy Papaver Somniferum is grown as a colourful
garden ornamental in the UK and it does revert to wild pale purple form
after a few generations. It grows wild in the hedgerows near me. The
seed set is so prodigious and long lived in the ground that once you
have it in the garden it is never going to go away.
https://www.chilternseeds.co.uk/ item_954g_papaver_somniferum__mixed_varieties_seeds
It would be a very serious offence to grow in the USA "Land of the Free".
Not really enough UV at our high latitude for it to be viable as a crop.
Martin Brown wrote:I get plenty of them, the petals are pretty enough, but last for such a
<https://www.chilternseeds.co.uk/item_954g_papaver_somniferum__mixed_varieties_seeds>
Most interesting.
On 2025-01-20, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant has
changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those
that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist"
document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several
children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence
of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating
factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder.
A whole life order is only possible for offenders who were 21 or over
at the time of the offence. So that won't happen here. As he was 17
at the time, he was legally a child, so the starting point will be a
12 year minimum term. I suspect this one will be longer than that.
But, either way, it still won't be long enough to prevent idiots on
social media claiming that the judge has been soft on him.
Since the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, whole life
orders can be passed to people over 18 if the seriousness of the offence
is "exceptionally high", which I would suggest could apply here if he
hadn't been 17.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/321
But yes it would appear you are right that in this case the starting
point is 12 years. I would also expect the actual sentence to be
considerably longer than that.
It would appear that we are both correct. He was sentenced to 52 years,
which I think is possibly the second-longest sentence I have ever heard
of (not counting whole life orders, which as discussed above was not an option for the judge in this case). I predicted "many decades", but this
is above what I would have guessed.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in news:vn042g$286ae$1@dont-email.me:
Out of pure curiosity could cannabis farm techniques with UV lighting
There are many sorts of poppy in the UK - native and non-native.
change that into a viable proposition?
Surely not or it would already be being done.
On 23/01/2025 21:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-20, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
This case has now come to court, and unexpectedly the defendant hasA whole life order is only possible for offenders who were 21 or over
changed his plea to guilty to, I think, all charges. Including those >>>>> that describe an US Air Force document as an "Al Qaeda" "terrorist"
document.
Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday. Given he murdered several
children and tried to murder several more, I would expect a sentence >>>>> of many decades, or perhaps a whole life order. The main mitigating
factors, which may not count for much, appear to be that he was 17
at the time of the offence, and he's got some sort of autism disorder. >>>>
at the time of the offence. So that won't happen here. As he was 17
at the time, he was legally a child, so the starting point will be a
12 year minimum term. I suspect this one will be longer than that.
But, either way, it still won't be long enough to prevent idiots on
social media claiming that the judge has been soft on him.
Since the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, whole life
orders can be passed to people over 18 if the seriousness of the offence >>> is "exceptionally high", which I would suggest could apply here if he
hadn't been 17.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/321
But yes it would appear you are right that in this case the starting
point is 12 years. I would also expect the actual sentence to be
considerably longer than that.
It would appear that we are both correct. He was sentenced to 52 years,
which I think is possibly the second-longest sentence I have ever heard
of (not counting whole life orders, which as discussed above was not an
option for the judge in this case). I predicted "many decades", but this
is above what I would have guessed.
What's the point? What are they going to do with him? (Maybe he could
study and get a degree.)
It won't act as a deterrent, as people's minds don't work that way, in
this and other circumstances.
On 2025-01-24, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/23/25 21:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The only longer sentence I am aware of is the brother of the Manchester
Arena bomber, who was sentenced to 55 years for 22 counts of murder.
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the leader
of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the sentence is
unduly lenient and should have been longer.
I think it is wrong to characterise them as idiots.
I used that word in reference to Mark's prediction, which used it.
I suspect he didn't anticipate one of the idiots in question being
the leader of his party though.
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the leader
of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the sentence is >unduly lenient and should have been longer.
On 24 Jan 2025 at 14:21:49 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
It won't act as a deterrent, as people's minds don't work that way, in
this and other circumstances.
It is an attempt to satisfy people's desire for retribution, while trying to >not to be too uncivilised about it.
On 24 Jan 2025 14:39:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24 Jan 2025 at 14:21:49 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
It won't act as a deterrent, as people's minds don't work that way, in
this and other circumstances.
It is an attempt to satisfy people's desire for retribution, while trying to >> not to be too uncivilised about it.
In this particular case, public protection is a key factor. The prospect of the murderer ever not being a threat to the public if released is extremely remote. I strongly suspect that he will end up serving his time in a secure psychiatric institution. He does not give the impression of being anywhere near sane.
Mark
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:34:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/23/25 21:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The only longer sentence I am aware of is the brother of the Manchester >>>> Arena bomber, who was sentenced to 55 years for 22 counts of murder.
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the leader >>>> of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the sentence is >>>> unduly lenient and should have been longer.
I think it is wrong to characterise them as idiots.
I used that word in reference to Mark's prediction, which used it.
I suspect he didn't anticipate one of the idiots in question being
the leader of his party though.
I did use that word. However, my use of the word referred to people (eg the MP for Southport) claiming that the judge had been too soft on the murderer. I'm entirely happy to use that word to describe him.
But that is not a claim that the leader of the Conservative Party has made. Her point is that the judge, far from being soft on the murderer, was as
hard on him as the law allowed, and it's regrettable that the law did not allow him to be harder. The judge himself stated that, had the murderer been only a few weeks older at the time of the offence, he would have received a whole life sentence. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that maybe the law needs to be changed so that, if any similar case happens
again, a whole life sentence is possible. Even if you disagree with that suggestion, it's certainly not idiotic.
Mark
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:46:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the leader
of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the sentence is
unduly lenient and should have been longer.
I am certain you will disagree with me on this, but I do think that there is a significant difference between, on the one hand, saying that the sentence given was unduly lenient and should be reviewed, and, on the other, saying that we should consider changing the law so as to allow whole of life
tariffs under such circumstances.
The former is just plain daft, and completely indefensible by any rational argument. The latter, while clearly open to debate, is not unreasonable. Nor is it unreasonable to express the opinion that a future parole board should refuse any application for parole.
Mark
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:46:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the leader
of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the sentence is >>unduly lenient and should have been longer.
I am certain you will disagree with me on this, but I do think that there is a significant difference between, on the one hand, saying that the sentence given was unduly lenient and should be reviewed, and, on the other, saying that we should consider changing the law so as to allow whole of life
tariffs under such circumstances.
The former is just plain daft, and completely indefensible by any rational argument. The latter, while clearly open to debate, is not unreasonable. Nor is it unreasonable to express the opinion that a future parole board should refuse any application for parole.
Turns out I am wrong about it not being viable as an outdoor commercial
crop in the UK. They were growing it in Oxfordshire for medical grade
opium derived compounds as recently as 2020 but government intransigence seems to have killed it off rather than the relatively poor yield.
Out of pure curiosity could cannabis farm techniques with UV lighting
change that into a viable proposition?
On 2025-01-24, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin when he
didn't, in fact, produce any.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:42:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin when he
didn't, in fact, produce any.
UK media is rarely if ever accurate about drugs, medicine and science.
On 24 Jan 2025 at 15:29:18 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:34:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/23/25 21:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The only longer sentence I am aware of is the brother of the Manchester >>>>> Arena bomber, who was sentenced to 55 years for 22 counts of murder. >>>>>
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the leader >>>>> of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the sentence is >>>>> unduly lenient and should have been longer.
I think it is wrong to characterise them as idiots.
I used that word in reference to Mark's prediction, which used it.
I suspect he didn't anticipate one of the idiots in question being
the leader of his party though.
I did use that word. However, my use of the word referred to people (eg the >> MP for Southport) claiming that the judge had been too soft on the murderer. >> I'm entirely happy to use that word to describe him.
But that is not a claim that the leader of the Conservative Party has made. >> Her point is that the judge, far from being soft on the murderer, was as
hard on him as the law allowed, and it's regrettable that the law did not
allow him to be harder. The judge himself stated that, had the murderer been >> only a few weeks older at the time of the offence, he would have received a >> whole life sentence. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that >> maybe the law needs to be changed so that, if any similar case happens
again, a whole life sentence is possible. Even if you disagree with that
suggestion, it's certainly not idiotic.
How loyal you are! In my estimation she was not at all idiotic. But you failed >to mention populist barbarism. Or are we going to move the definition of a >child down to 18 months, and torture them to drive out devils? It reminds me >of the American habit of trying children "as adults", on the apparent grounds >that their intrinsic evil deprives them of the right to treated as children?
On 2025-01-24, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:42:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin when he
didn't, in fact, produce any.
UK media is rarely if ever accurate about drugs, medicine and science.
I very much doubt the media has reported him as being convicted on this charge and he hasn't.
On 24 Jan 2025 17:08:36 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24 Jan 2025 at 15:29:18 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:34:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/23/25 21:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The only longer sentence I am aware of is the brother of the Manchester >>>>>> Arena bomber, who was sentenced to 55 years for 22 counts of murder. >>>>>>
You are also correct that idiots, including a Labour MP and the leader >>>>>> of the Tory Party, have wasted no time in claiming that the sentence is >>>>>> unduly lenient and should have been longer.
I think it is wrong to characterise them as idiots.
I used that word in reference to Mark's prediction, which used it.
I suspect he didn't anticipate one of the idiots in question being
the leader of his party though.
I did use that word. However, my use of the word referred to people (eg the >>> MP for Southport) claiming that the judge had been too soft on the murderer.
I'm entirely happy to use that word to describe him.
But that is not a claim that the leader of the Conservative Party has made. >>> Her point is that the judge, far from being soft on the murderer, was as >>> hard on him as the law allowed, and it's regrettable that the law did not >>> allow him to be harder. The judge himself stated that, had the murderer been
only a few weeks older at the time of the offence, he would have received a >>> whole life sentence. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that >>> maybe the law needs to be changed so that, if any similar case happens
again, a whole life sentence is possible. Even if you disagree with that >>> suggestion, it's certainly not idiotic.
How loyal you are! In my estimation she was not at all idiotic. But you failed
to mention populist barbarism. Or are we going to move the definition of a >> child down to 18 months, and torture them to drive out devils? It reminds me >> of the American habit of trying children "as adults", on the apparent grounds
that their intrinsic evil deprives them of the right to treated as children?
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere, yes. And, as it happens, I think 18 is probably the most appropriate point for that. But I don't think it's automatically unreasonable to suggest lowering that. Or to allow a
whole-life sentence for 17 year olds, but with a higher bar for when it
would be justified. After all, we already allow people to drive at 17, and the government has said it wants to lower the voting age to 16. There's nothing magic about 18. It just happens to be where we have, in the past, drawn the line as regards sentencing policy.
More to the point, though, even if you disagree with Kemi on lowering the
age limit for a whole life sentence, it's simply false to suggest that she complained about the judge being too soft on the offender. She said nothing even remotely like that.
Mark
Fair enough - she probably never had a spell as Home Secretary - remarks like that come as second nature to Home Secretaries of all parties.
On 24 Jan 2025 at 18:19:03 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:42:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin when he
didn't, in fact, produce any.
UK media is rarely if ever accurate about drugs, medicine and science.
I very much doubt the media has reported him as being convicted on this
charge and he hasn't.
Surely he was convicted following his guilty plea? As with the other
charges. It would be impossible to sentence him otherwise.
On 1/24/25 23:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin when he >>>>>> didn't, in fact, produce any.
UK media is rarely if ever accurate about drugs, medicine and science.
<snip>
Exactly. The many reports of him pleading guilty to it would have to be
wrong, plus the reports of what he was sentenced to as a result would
have to be completely made up. It's not impossible but it's pretty
unlikely.
I assumed the objection was to reporting that he had actually produced
ricin, as opposed to just reporting that he had been convicted of
producing ricin.
Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin when he >>>>> didn't, in fact, produce any.
UK media is rarely if ever accurate about drugs, medicine and science.
Exactly. The many reports of him pleading guilty to it would have to be wrong, plus the reports of what he was sentenced to as a result would
have to be completely made up. It's not impossible but it's pretty
unlikely.
On 2025-01-24, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/24/25 23:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin when he >>>>>>> didn't, in fact, produce any.
UK media is rarely if ever accurate about drugs, medicine and science. >>
Exactly. The many reports of him pleading guilty to it would have to be
wrong, plus the reports of what he was sentenced to as a result would
have to be completely made up. It's not impossible but it's pretty
unlikely.
I assumed the objection was to reporting that he had actually produced
ricin, as opposed to just reporting that he had been convicted of
producing ricin.
Again I wouldn't blame the media for that, how would they have any
knowledge of what he had or hadn't produced except what the police
have told them?
On 24 Jan 2025 at 23:59:47 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/24/25 23:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin when he >>>>>>>> didn't, in fact, produce any.
UK media is rarely if ever accurate about drugs, medicine and science. >>>
Exactly. The many reports of him pleading guilty to it would have to be >>>> wrong, plus the reports of what he was sentenced to as a result would
have to be completely made up. It's not impossible but it's pretty
unlikely.
I assumed the objection was to reporting that he had actually produced
ricin, as opposed to just reporting that he had been convicted of
producing ricin.
Again I wouldn't blame the media for that, how would they have any
knowledge of what he had or hadn't produced except what the police
have told them?
Did someone forget to make attempting to produce a poison a crime? Because it is reasonable to infer that he did that, rather than seeking a superior laxative. But if attempting to produce a poison *isn't* a crime, then charging
him with producing ricin is a hysterical lie.
On 23/01/2025 20:30, Brian wrote:
The Stockport case is entirely different to Lockerbie.
A matter of opinion.
There are similarities between the Stockport case, the 7/7 bombings in
London and Pan Am Flight 103.
On 24 Jan 2025 at 23:59:47 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Did someone forget to make attempting to produce a poison a crime?
On 24 Jan 2025 at 23:59:47 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/24/25 23:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin when he >>>>>>>> didn't, in fact, produce any.
UK media is rarely if ever accurate about drugs, medicine and science. >>>
Exactly. The many reports of him pleading guilty to it would have to be >>>> wrong, plus the reports of what he was sentenced to as a result would
have to be completely made up. It's not impossible but it's pretty
unlikely.
I assumed the objection was to reporting that he had actually produced
ricin, as opposed to just reporting that he had been convicted of
producing ricin.
Again I wouldn't blame the media for that, how would they have any
knowledge of what he had or hadn't produced except what the police
have told them?
Did someone forget to make attempting to produce a poison a crime? Because it is reasonable to infer that he did that, rather than seeking a superior laxative. But if attempting to produce a poison *isn't* a crime, then charging
him with producing ricin is a hysterical lie.
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 00:07:50 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jan 2025 at 23:59:47 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Did someone forget to make attempting to produce a poison a crime?
You mean I could be arrested for letting pork go off in my fridge ?
On 25/01/2025 00:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jan 2025 at 23:59:47 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-24, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/24/25 23:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Exactly my point. He's been convicted of production of ricin >>>>>>>>> when he didn't, in fact, produce any.
UK media is rarely if ever accurate about drugs, medicine and
science.
<snip>
Exactly. The many reports of him pleading guilty to it would have to >>>>> be wrong, plus the reports of what he was sentenced to as a result
would have to be completely made up. It's not impossible but it's
pretty unlikely.
I assumed the objection was to reporting that he had actually
produced ricin, as opposed to just reporting that he had been
convicted of producing ricin.
Again I wouldn't blame the media for that, how would they have any
knowledge of what he had or hadn't produced except what the police
have told them?
Did someone forget to make attempting to produce a poison a crime?
Because it is reasonable to infer that he did that, rather than seeking
a superior laxative. But if attempting to produce a poison *isn't* a
crime, then charging him with producing ricin is a hysterical lie.
He made it slightly more available by grinding it in a mortar and pestle
than it was in the seeds but he didn't *make* anything or even do
solvent extraction on it. The plant *made* the poison all he did was
grind up the seeds to a powder (at least according to news reports).
Making a chemical requires some reaction and/or purification
concentration stage. Had he crystallised a few mg of nearly pure ricin
from a kg or so of seeds then I think making might be right, but
grinding up the seeds is neither here nor there.
Making heroin from raw opium from opium morphine by acetylation is a
proper example (and one of the more common illegal criminal acts).
Castor beans were favourites for biology practicals back in my school
days - which is crazy considering how toxic they are. There was a big
jar of them on the shelf! Also more benign peas and butter beans.
It's entirely possible to grow cannabis natively in the UK. Many folk do, although for various reasons we needed go into here, they tend not to do
it openly or indeed near habitation.
On 24/01/2025 17:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
It's entirely possible to grow cannabis natively in the UK. Many folk
do,
although for various reasons we needed go into here, they tend not to
do it openly or indeed near habitation.
There was an entire field of cannabis growing near me a couple of years
ago. It had footpaths down two sides.
I assumed that this was a cultivar for making rope, not pot!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:44:30 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |