Four Serving British Soldiers Arrested On Suspicion Of Terror Offences

[socks 32,253]

Aye maybe Socks but a point still well worth remembering next time they are round licking your arse for a vote

They get fukc all votes off me mate ....

[WILF 47,587]

I don't think many are bothered that this group was banned.... It's the way people with his type of view go on

I remember the thread on mass new years eve rape and sexual assaults in Germany by immigrant muslims... He defended them by claiming it was normal for amount of people there

I get you mate but still useful because it's well worth remembering that BGD is not on his own with his way of thinking........there are fecking millions who think exactly like that........mores the point ALL the people we keep going off and voting for every 5 years think exactly like that, they just dress it up different ways

[WILF 47,587]

 

Aye maybe Socks but a point still well worth remembering next time they are round licking your arse for a vote

They get fukc all votes off me mate ....

Good man, I knew the likes of us who think there should be another way could count on a lad like you

[BGD 6,436]

I don't think many are bothered that this group was banned.... It's the way people with his type of view go on

 

I remember the thread on mass new years eve rape and sexual assaults in Germany by immigrant muslims... He defended them by claiming it was normal for amount of people there

Have you read the thread? Definitely folk who are bothered the group was banned and the soldiers charged.

 

 

I don't remember that I assume you can link or quote the posts?

[jacknife 2,005]

The thread should still be there......Everyone remember the mass sexual assault on new years eve in Germany

 

When you tried to defend them by claiming there was only 1 rape and most the others were robberies

[THE STIFFMEISTER 16,165]

Wow,

 

The arrest of two lance jacks, both deemed so vital to their regiments that they are posted to Brecon and Cyprus, in a time when the green army is dying for blokes tells its own story.

 

Two dreamers, with too much time on their hands and 3G access, case closed

[Blackbriar 8,569]

 

If I were to look at their website (if they have one), would that make me a sympathiser ?

 

Also - genuine query, if anyone knows the answer - how do you prove that someone belongs to a proscribed organisation ?

 

I presume you don't pay your subs and get a membership card ! Is it enough to be mates with the 'leader' ? Intercepted phone calls ? Attending one of their tiny gatherings ? Having a pint with known members ?

 

What about sympathisers ? Are they also guilty of......something or other ?

[ChrisJones 7,975]

If I were to look at their website (if they have one), would that make me a sympathiser ?

 

Also - genuine query, if anyone knows the answer - how do you prove that someone belongs to a proscribed organisation ?

 

I presume you don't pay your subs and get a membership card ! Is it enough to be mates with the 'leader' ? Intercepted phone calls ? Attending one of their tiny gatherings ? Having a pint with known members ?

 

What about sympathisers ? Are they also guilty of......something or other ?

Surely a verdict would rest on the volume of information they have? Is it the law yet that your ISP has to keep your internet history for a year, in the UK?

 

I don't think "visited the website site twice in 2015" would be enough. But "spends two hours a day surfing this and related sites" combined with "downloaded this info" and "donated £20 to a fundraiser on these dates" etc would show a pattern that would be used to argue the case against them. Especially when they'll read the content of the material you've sent/received via the digital media. They'd need a massive amount but what that arbitrary amount is is anyone's guess. Now they're a banned group that arbitrary amount is probably lower.

 

For these lads to be caught suggests that they were hardly covert in their actions. I think the phrase is low hanging fruit.

[Blackbriar 8,569]

 

If I were to look at their website (if they have one), would that make me a sympathiser ?

Also - genuine query, if anyone knows the answer - how do you prove that someone belongs to a proscribed organisation ?

I presume you don't pay your subs and get a membership card ! Is it enough to be mates with the 'leader' ? Intercepted phone calls ? Attending one of their tiny gatherings ? Having a pint with known members ?

What about sympathisers ? Are they also guilty of......something or other ?

 

Surely a verdict would rest on the volume of information they have? Is it the law yet that your ISP has to keep your internet history for a year, in the UK?

 

I don't think "visited the website site twice in 2015" would be enough. But "spends two hours a day surfing this and related sites" combined with "downloaded this info" and "donated £20 to a fundraiser on these dates" etc would show a pattern that would be used to argue the case against them. Especially when they'll read the content of the material you've sent/received via the digital media. They'd need a massive amount but what that arbitrary amount is is anyone's guess. Now they're a banned group that arbitrary amount is probably lower.

 

For these lads to be caught suggests that they were hardly covert in their actions. I think the phrase is low hanging fruit.

 

I'd my necessarily support these chaps, but I DO detest censorship.

 

Back in the days of Militant, when the Labour leadership had banned it, they argued that you couldn't be a member of an organisation/movement that didn't have membership requirements, conditions etc.......I see their point, even if it is slightly obtuse (and not entirely true actually !).

Sympathiser, supporter and member are entirely different things.....it's clear that some on this forum, MAY be sympathisers of NA, but that wouldn't make them members (would it ?).

As I've already said, you can't ban ideas !

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Back in the days of Militant, when the Labour leadership had banned it, they argued that you couldn't be a member of an organisation/movement that didn't have membership requirements, conditions etc.......I see their point, even if it is slightly obtuse (and not entirely true actually !).

Sympathiser, supporter and member are entirely different things.....it's clear that some on this forum, MAY be sympathisers of NA, but that wouldn't make them members (would it ?).

As I've already said, you can't ban ideas !

I think with the advent of the internet the line of official membership has been so blurred that you could only be a member if official guidelines have been followed. Not likely with an organisation that isn't legal to begin with.

 

I agree with what you're saying about sympathy and support but again that's where I believe the volume of internet history will play it's roll. I also agree that you can't ban ideas but what was an idea last year is a terrorist action this year...

 

I'm more curious as to how easily they got caught. For all the praise being heaped on them, for patriotism, they sure don't seem the sharpest knives in this particular draw.

[Blackbriar 8,569]

 

Back in the days of Militant, when the Labour leadership had banned it, they argued that you couldn't be a member of an organisation/movement that didn't have membership requirements, conditions etc.......I see their point, even if it is slightly obtuse (and not entirely true actually !).

Sympathiser, supporter and member are entirely different things.....it's clear that some on this forum, MAY be sympathisers of NA, but that wouldn't make them members (would it ?).

As I've already said, you can't ban ideas !

 

I think with the advent of the internet the line of official membership has been so blurred that you could only be a member if official guidelines have been followed. Not likely with an organisation that isn't legal to begin with.

 

I agree with what you're saying about sympathy and support but again that's where I believe the volume of internet history will play it's roll. I also agree that you can't ban ideas but what was an idea last year is a terrorist action this year...

 

I'm more curious as to how easily they got caught. For all the praise being heaped on them, for patriotism, they sure don't seem the sharpest knives in this particular draw.

Can't disagree with any of that !

[BGD 6,436]

If I were to look at their website (if they have one), would that make me a sympathiser ?

 

Also - genuine query, if anyone knows the answer - how do you prove that someone belongs to a proscribed organisation ?

 

I presume you don't pay your subs and get a membership card ! Is it enough to be mates with the 'leader' ? Intercepted phone calls ? Attending one of their tiny gatherings ? Having a pint with known members ?

 

What about sympathisers ? Are they also guilty of......something or other ?

Best way to answer those questions would probably be to look at previous trials of people charged with being members of a proscribed organisation. It's not like this is the first trial of it's type so I assume there's some prosecution guidelines somewhere, fecked if I'd know where to find them though!

[WILF 47,587]

I'd like to think there are some common sense guidelines on degrees of activity/actual possible harm/actual harm done........but having watched politicians for the last 20 odd years I know that if they want to make a point or kiss a group of people's arse then they will get whatever verdict they want and wave the f***ing thing like a flag !

[BGD 6,436]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41344592

 

Three men - including two British soldiers - who are accused of being members of a banned neo-Nazi group will stand trial in March.

 

Lance Corporal Mikko Vehvilainen, 32, Private Mark Barrett, 24, and Alexander Deakin, 22, are accused of membership of National Action.

 

The far-right organisation was added to a list of proscribed groups by the home secretary last year.

 

The men have appeared at the Old Bailey via video link.

 

L/Cpl Vehvilainen is in custody at HMP Belmarsh, a prison in south-east London. The other two are being held at HMP Winchester in Hampshire

 

At the preliminary hearing, the men spoke only to confirm their names and to indicate they understood proceedings.

 

The trial is set to start on 5 March at Birmingham Crown Court, and last about four weeks.

 

Pte Barrett, based in Cyprus, faces a single charge of membership of National Action, contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000,

 

Mr Deakin, from Great Barr, Birmingham, faces further charges of distributing a terrorist publication and possession of documents likely to be useful to a person preparing to commit an act of terrorism, including a white supremacists' handbook.

 

L/Cpl Vehvilainen, from Sennybridge Camp in Powys, is also accused of:

 

Possession of pepper spray

 

Possession of a document likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism

 

Posting material online that was threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby stirring up racial hatred

 

According to the indictment, L/Cpl Vehvilainen had a copy of a book by Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

 

The defendants were remanded in custody.

 

Trial scheduled for March next year, that's a long time for them to sit in jail thinking about what silly boys they've been