If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Nanny state uses new terrorism powers to arrest schizophrenic with an Estes model rocket and a pocket knife   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 121
    More: Stupid, counter-terrorism, The Register, refusal, MPs, arrests, criminal records, police station, no charges  
•       •       •

5755 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Nov 2009 at 10:41 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-11-24 10:44:09 AM
Did the nanny state glue the pocket knife to the Estes rocket then aim the contracption at the schizophrenic? That would sure terrify me.
 
2009-11-24 10:48:29 AM
/wonders where his model rockets are stashed... probably still in his parents' attic along with his other childhood toys.
 
2009-11-24 10:48:47 AM
radioman_: Did the nanny state glue the pocket knife to the Estes rocket then aim the contracption at the schizophrenic? That would sure terrify me.

Yep. That is one skillful use of a rocket and a jackknife.
 
2009-11-24 10:49:21 AM
V?
 
2009-11-24 10:49:52 AM
FTFA: In June the man, JFL, who spoke on condition we do not publish his full name...

"L?" I cant think of any Muslim sounding names that begin with "L." Probably not a terrorist.
 
2009-11-24 10:50:14 AM
Am I reading this correctly? In the UK you do not have the right to silence?
 
2009-11-24 10:50:57 AM
The terrorists have won.
 
2009-11-24 10:51:49 AM
When you take the model rockets away from schizophrenics, only criminals will have model rockets.
 
2009-11-24 10:52:15 AM
As much as the thing he was eventually sectioned for is a horrible law, I get the impression that he was going to get himself locked up anyway.

Kept missing court dates and skipping bail, tried to get an illegal passport and leave the country, was generally sending a message of "I'm mentally unstable and I could have the knowledge and equipment to blow something up".

Get the impression that he was anti-terror force's worst nightmare. Someone who could clearly go off the rails at any moment but was just skirting around the edge of the law in a way where he couldn't be forced to receive treatment. Guessing they eventually got tired of the mountain of paperwork he was causing and decided to get him done on a technicality so he could get sectioned.
 
2009-11-24 10:52:16 AM
Wow, I remember launching Estes rockets when I was younger. Half the time, the engines didn't fire.

/only buit the single-stage model
 
2009-11-24 10:53:02 AM
Nanny state uses new terrorism powers to arrest schizophrenic with an Estes model rocket and a pocket knife...and traces of high explosive on his hands, after failing to appear at police stations on appointment, leaving town, missing bail after leaving the country, refusal to answer questions, refusal to comply with lawful orders, posession of a book on gun manufacture and a book on methamphetamine production (not in itself illegal but suspicious given the rest of the circumstances) and his refusal to speak making pre-trial interviews pointless (how can you determine someone's stae of mind when they simply don't talk?), yeah, he'd have got off all of that in another country. GOD DAMN NANNY STATE HEY?!!!

Go frkk yourself subtard.
 
2009-11-24 10:53:09 AM
I'm sorry, but draconian powers that are akin to those used by the gestapo and KGB don't marry well with the term Nanny state.
 
2009-11-24 10:54:06 AM
*built

/facepalm
 
2009-11-24 10:54:46 AM
I read that whole thing with my mouth hanging open. THIS is why I will never go to Great Britain, despite being a citizen and having a passport. That was a big old pile of police state bullshiat. No right to silence? Jesus Tubthumping Christ!
 
2009-11-24 10:56:15 AM
No_One_Special: Am I reading this correctly? In the UK you do not have the right to silence?

You have the right to remain silent unless the police get a court order from a judge forcing you to reveal important information (passwords and encryption keys). If you say you don't know them, the police have to prove you're knowingly withholding them (very difficult to do). The reason there have been so few convictions (think the article says there have been 3) is because it's only likey to convict (stupid) people who actively refuse to give over codes rather than just say they've forgotten them.
 
2009-11-24 10:56:20 AM
AnubisAscended: Wow, I remember launching Estes rockets when I was younger. Half the time, the engines didn't fire.

/only buit the single-stage model


Same here. Only I turned a single stage into a two stage. Also, you know the old NASA saying, "With enough thrust, even a brick can fly"? I know for a fact that you can get at least half a brick off the ground.

/Also put a frog in the egg launcher model.
//The parachute failed.
 
2009-11-24 10:56:20 AM
reveal101: I read that whole thing with my mouth hanging open. THIS is why I will never go to Great Britain, despite being a citizen and having a passport. That was a big old pile of police state bullshiat. No right to silence? Jesus Tubthumping Christ!

Good, you're not welcome.
 
2009-11-24 10:57:16 AM
Why did they arrest him with an Estes model rocket and a pocket knife? Surely handcuffs and a policeman would be much better?

Why is it always the lunatics who take a stand over dodgy legislation. He sounds like a fruitcake. Why can't we have someone like Alan Sugar decide to take a stand? That would kill two birds with one stone, someone famous and with clout would be campaigning against drraconian legislation AND we would geet Alan Sugar off of the streets and off of the TV.
 
2009-11-24 10:57:57 AM
"Stupid" tag? Was the "Scary" tag too afraid to show itself? This is scary.
 
2009-11-24 10:58:21 AM
www.dvdtalk.com
 
2009-11-24 10:59:38 AM
Noticeably F.A.T.: AnubisAscended: Wow, I remember launching Estes rockets when I was younger. Half the time, the engines didn't fire.

/only buit the single-stage model

Same here. Only I turned a single stage into a two stage. Also, you know the old NASA saying, "With enough thrust, even a brick can fly"? I know for a fact that you can get at least half a brick off the ground.

/Also put a frog in the egg launcher model.
//The parachute failed.


never had a problem with the engines not firing... my chutes almost never deployed. switched to streamer recovery models which seemed to work better
 
2009-11-24 11:00:19 AM
reveal101: THIS is why I will never go to Great Britain, despite being a citizen and having a passport. That was a big old pile of police state bullshiat.

And what would happen to a schizophrenic in the USA who was found entering the US from Cuba with a model rocket and traces of military-grade high explosive on his hands?

LAND OF THE FREE
HOME OF THE BRAVE
 
2009-11-24 11:00:29 AM
I did have a realy good chuckle when I read : "One file encrypted using software from the German firm Steganos was cracked, but investigators found only another PGP container."

Go PGP!!!
 
2009-11-24 11:00:55 AM
reveal101: I read that whole thing with my mouth hanging open. THIS is why I will never go to Great Britain, despite being a citizen and having a passport. That was a big old pile of police state bullshiat. No right to silence? Jesus Tubthumping Christ!

I'm betting that that's your default expression.
 
2009-11-24 11:01:55 AM
The Witch: I'm not a witch I'm not a witch!
Sir Bedevere: But you are dressed as one
The Witch: *They* dressed me up like this!
Crowd: We didn't! We didn't...
The Witch: And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
Sir Bedevere: [lifts up her false nose] Well?
Peasant 1: Well, we did do the nose.
Sir Bedevere: The nose?
Peasant 1: And the hat, but she is a witch!
Crowd: Yeah! Burn her! Burn her!
Sir Bedevere: Did you dress her up like this?
Peasant 1: No!
Peasant 3, Peasant 2: No!
Peasant 3: No!
Peasant 1: No!
Peasant 3, Peasant 2: No!
Peasant 1: Yes!
Peasant 2: Yes!
Peasant 1: Yeah a bit.
Peasant 3: A bit!
Peasant 1, Peasant 2: A bit!
Peasant 2: a bit
Peasant 1: But she has got a wart!
Random Person in the crowd: *cough* *cough*
 
2009-11-24 11:01:57 AM
fireclown: Clearly sees nothing wrong with a nanny state.

Awesome. Loves me some Three-Dollar Bill.
 
2009-11-24 11:02:12 AM
I imagine if I continually skipped bail, changed addresses, mailed books suggesting an interest in explosives and drug making and then had numerous encrypted hard drives I might become of interest to the authorities.

Nothing at all suspicious about that activity at all.

However, I would expect to be let go when they found out I wasn't a terrorist.
 
2009-11-24 11:04:01 AM
BlackMuntu: reveal101: THIS is why I will never go to Great Britain, despite being a citizen and having a passport. That was a big old pile of police state bullshiat.

And what would happen to a schizophrenic in the USA who was found entering the US from Cuba with a model rocket and traces of military-grade high explosive on his hands?

LAND OF THE FREE
HOME OF THE BRAVE


Well he wouldn't be charged.

Just locked up indefinitely and probably tortured.
 
2009-11-24 11:07:01 AM
Prof.Xomox: I did have a realy good chuckle when I read : "One file encrypted using software from the German firm Steganos was cracked, but investigators found only another PGP container."

Go PGP!!!


This made me LOL and this guy is my new hero. I bet it is nothing more then a bunch of porn. Well that is what I do with mine.
 
2009-11-24 11:09:09 AM
abigsmurf: No_One_Special: Am I reading this correctly? In the UK you do not have the right to silence?

You have the right to remain silent unless the police get a court order from a judge forcing you to reveal important information (passwords and encryption keys). If you say you don't know them, the police have to prove you're knowingly withholding them (very difficult to do). The reason there have been so few convictions (think the article says there have been 3) is because it's only likey to convict (stupid) people who actively refuse to give over codes rather than just say they've forgotten them.


Along the same lines, try asserting your fourth and fifth ammendment rights at US customs when they want to (a) search your laptop for files, and then (b) ask you to enter your password to decrypt any encrypted files/partitions they find.
 
2009-11-24 11:10:19 AM
Looks like I picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue
 
2009-11-24 11:13:14 AM
No no, I mean the article says something along the lines of "Mr. so-and-so believes he has a right to silence, and this belief is going to get him prosecuted under derpy derpy doo"

Along the same lines, try asserting your fourth and fifth ammendment rights at US customs when they want to (a) search your laptop for files, and then (b) ask you to enter your password to decrypt any encrypted files/partitions they find.

You can refuse to do so- if they have a warrant to search your files they can crack the damn thing themselves.
 
2009-11-24 11:14:11 AM
Prof.Xomox: I did have a realy good chuckle when I read : "One file encrypted using software from the German firm Steganos was cracked, but investigators found only another PGP container."

Go PGP!!!


I found that amusing on at least 2 levels. First being that he wrapped a hardcore encryption in something a bit crappy, probably to wind up anyone who looked for encrypted data. Secondly, now everyone knows not to use Steganos to encrypt their data if you don't want the authorities to access it.
 
2009-11-24 11:15:42 AM
Model rockets, oh how I love thee.

Was big into them as a kid, but stopped buying them. Limited selection, and when the local stores stopped carrying them, that was pretty much the end.

My sister got back into it in college. Living in Austin, we have hobby stores that carry the good stuff. Picked her up a e-engine powered D-Region Tomahawk. Mofo is three feet tall, and goes up like a thousand feet. Absolute beast.
 
2009-11-24 11:16:02 AM
FTA: He returned to Paddington Green station as appointed on 2 December, and was re-arrested for carrying a pocket knife.

Bet that was the first good night's sleep for the Queen in a long time!
 
2009-11-24 11:16:54 AM
The Envoy: Nanny state uses new terrorism powers to arrest schizophrenic with an Estes model rocket and a pocket knife...and traces of high explosive on his hands, after failing to appear at police stations on appointment, leaving town, missing bail after leaving the country, refusal to answer questions, refusal to comply with lawful orders, posession of a book on gun manufacture and a book on methamphetamine production (not in itself illegal but suspicious given the rest of the circumstances) and his refusal to speak making pre-trial interviews pointless (how can you determine someone's stae of mind when they simply don't talk?), yeah, he'd have got off all of that in another country. GOD DAMN NANNY STATE HEY?!!!

Go frkk yourself subtard.


Those are all lame reasons to imprison someone. Face it dude - your country sucks. England does not trust its citizens, treats them like children and uses Orwellian logic, such as taking away freedom to protect democracy, as an excuse for its actions.

Look, I know Brits think people in North America are a bunch of lunatics who needlessly court danger through our excessive freedoms. Most of us, in turn think you are all too ready to exchange your freedoms or the freedoms of your fellow citizens for a false sense of security and that you are on a slippery slope to 1984. It becomes a question of values. I would rather live in a more dangerous but freer world while you would rather have less freedom but a sense of security.

In closing, and in the words of Emiliano Zapata: "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
 
2009-11-24 11:24:48 AM
rattchett: Those are all lame reasons to imprison someone. Face it dude - your country sucks. England does not trust its citizens, treats them like children and uses Orwellian logic, such as taking away freedom to protect democracy, as an excuse for its actions.

Look, I know Brits think people in North America are a bunch of lunatics who needlessly court danger through our excessive freedoms. Most of us, in turn think you are all too ready to exchange your freedoms or the freedoms of your fellow citizens for a false sense of security and that you are on a slippery slope to 1984. It becomes a question of values. I would rather live in a more dangerous but freer world while you would rather have less freedom but a sense of security.

In closing, and in the words of Emiliano Zapata: "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"


So he'd have gone free in the US having done all of that would he?! You, my friend, are deluded if you think so.
 
2009-11-24 11:28:08 AM
The Envoy

So he'd have gone free in the US having done all of that would he?! You, my friend, are deluded if you think so

In the US there would be nothing to charge him with. He kept his mouth shut like a good citizen should.
 
2009-11-24 11:32:24 AM
Surely this is the actions of an 'anti-nanny state', subby? We're just doing what you Americans have done for the last 8 years - stitch someone up under phoney turrism laws then section them as loonies and lock them away.
 
2009-11-24 11:35:52 AM
i637.photobucket.com

/hotlink
 
2009-11-24 11:37:06 AM
Marcus Aurelius: The Envoy

So he'd have gone free in the US having done all of that would he?! You, my friend, are deluded if you think so

In the US there would be nothing to charge him with. He kept his mouth shut like a good citizen should.


In the states he would have been in Guantanamo Bay before you could say "Right wing fascist conspiracy, fark you Bush and Cheney and your phoney war for oil"
 
2009-11-24 11:39:24 AM
British version of what we call the Miranda warning here in the U.S.:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

In other words, you can't credibly use a defense argument later in court if you don't divulge it to the cops right away. The fact that you used a right to silence can be used against you to weight evidence as an indicator of guilt.
 
2009-11-24 11:39:36 AM
luckyeddie

In the states he would have been in Guantanamo Bay before you could say "Right wing fascist conspiracy, fark you Bush and Cheney and your phoney war for oil"

We only put Muslims in Gitmo. White Christian-looking Americans that manage to keep their mouths shut invariably walk away.
 
2009-11-24 11:41:06 AM
Marcus Aurelius: The Envoy

So he'd have gone free in the US having done all of that would he?! You, my friend, are deluded if you think so

In the US there would be nothing to charge him with. He kept his mouth shut like a good citizen should.


Eh. Depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction they could probably hold him a while. The right judge could do a indefinite Contempt of Court or a Baker Act (Mental Health)hold. But I doubt they could actually get good charges.
 
2009-11-24 11:42:56 AM
One word: Guantanamo.
It's a 'STFU Yank Card'. Valid for the next 10 years.
 
2009-11-24 11:43:11 AM
AnubisAscended: Wow, I remember launching Estes rockets when I was younger. Half the time, the engines didn't fire.

/only buit the single-stage model


I had a two-stage rocket blow up on the launch pad. The lower stage shot sideways toward me as a smoking fireball while the upper stage went up a short distance then fell to the ground. My friend who was less clueful about rockets ran to it and was about to pick it up when I reminded him that it was still live and was about to fire the parachute-ejection charge.
 
2009-11-24 11:43:52 AM
Another Government Employee

Eh. Depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction they could probably hold him a while. The right judge could do a indefinite Contempt of Court or a Baker Act (Mental Health)hold. But I doubt they could actually get good charges.

The critical part is keeping your mouth shut. If you tell a Fed that the sky is blue, they'll put you in jail for five years for lying.
 
2009-11-24 11:50:29 AM
Iron Chef Scottish: One word: Guantanamo.
It's a 'STFU Yank Card'. Valid for the next 10 years.


Only if you are a Muslim.

That's not to say the authorities won't try to make your life miserable otherwise.
 
2009-11-24 11:52:13 AM
Iron Chef Scottish: One word: Guantanamo.
It's a 'STFU Yank Card'. Valid for the next 10 years.


except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry. TFA indicates that the man in question was from London. We're not sending crazy DC natives to Cuba... though that might help with traffic.
 
2009-11-24 11:52:18 AM
abigsmurf: As much as the thing he was eventually sectioned for is a horrible law, I get the impression that he was going to get himself locked up anyway.

Kept missing court dates and skipping bail, tried to get an illegal passport and leave the country, was generally sending a message of "I'm mentally unstable and I could have the knowledge and equipment to blow something up".

Get the impression that he was anti-terror force's worst nightmare. Someone who could clearly go off the rails at any moment but was just skirting around the edge of the law in a way where he couldn't be forced to receive treatment. Guessing they eventually got tired of the mountain of paperwork he was causing and decided to get him done on a technicality so he could get sectioned.


You have actually RTFA
Your argument is invalid
 
2009-11-24 11:53:55 AM
reveal101: I read that whole thing with my mouth hanging open. THIS is why I will never go to Great Britain, despite being a citizen and having a passport. That was a big old pile of police state bullshiat. No right to silence? Jesus Tubthumping Christ!

Oh, you'd be fine - just don't shave your pubes. Our coppers shoot Brazilians.
 
2009-11-24 11:54:14 AM
Another Government Employee: Iron Chef Scottish: One word: Guantanamo.
It's a 'STFU Yank Card'. Valid for the next 10 years.

Only if you are a Muslim.

That's not to say the authorities won't try to make your life miserable otherwise.


Like put you on a no-fly list for ever?
 
2009-11-24 11:58:56 AM
Iron Chef Scottish: One word: Guantanamo.
It's a 'STFU Yank Card'. Valid for the next 10 years.


At which point in time Obama's successor will have finally closed the camp.
 
2009-11-24 12:04:49 PM
The Envoy: Nanny state uses new terrorism powers to arrest schizophrenic with an Estes model rocket and a pocket knife...and traces of high explosive on his hands, after failing to appear at police stations on appointment, leaving town, missing bail after leaving the country, refusal to answer questions, refusal to comply with lawful orders, posession of a book on gun manufacture and a book on methamphetamine production (not in itself illegal but suspicious given the rest of the circumstances) and his refusal to speak making pre-trial interviews pointless (how can you determine someone's stae of mind when they simply don't talk?), yeah, he'd have got off all of that in another country. GOD DAMN NANNY STATE HEY?!!!

Go frkk yourself subtard.


Not subby, but I'll step in on his/her behalf, mostly because you're obviously a dick.

I notice that you neglect to cover the "All charges are dropped except those involving him being unwilling to fully cooperate with the police and failing to provide them with the incriminating evidence they were hoping to have him provide to them" part of the story.

Go shine your jackboots, asshole.
 
2009-11-24 12:05:41 PM
The Envoy: Nanny state uses new terrorism powers to arrest schizophrenic with an Estes model rocket and a pocket knife...and traces of high explosive on his hands, after failing to appear at police stations on appointment, leaving town, missing bail after leaving the country, refusal to answer questions, refusal to comply with lawful orders, posession of a book on gun manufacture and a book on methamphetamine production (not in itself illegal but suspicious given the rest of the circumstances) and his refusal to speak making pre-trial interviews pointless (how can you determine someone's stae of mind when they simply don't talk?), yeah, he'd have got off all of that in another country. GOD DAMN NANNY STATE HEY?!!!

Go frkk yourself subtard.


he's a schizophrenic posttard.
 
2009-11-24 12:09:13 PM
Iron Chef Scottish: One word: Guantanamo.
It's a 'STFU Yank Card'. Valid for the next 10 years.


the Ministry of Love will be seeing you soon.
 
2009-11-24 12:18:57 PM
The Envoy: So he'd have gone free in the US having done all of that would he?! You, my friend, are deluded if you think so.

There is a right to remain silent in the USA and in Canada it is a Constitutional right. I am pretty sure the right to remain silent has not been revoked through legislation. That being the case, tell me what law would he have been convicted under here? Aside from not providing the keys, what did he exactly do? Own a model rocket and pocket knife? Own books containing information that would be illegal to put into practice? Have allegedly had a form of explosives on his hands - which the authorities have refused to prosecute him for?

It appears that England has forgotten the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty".

In Canada and the USA, for the most part, acting sketchy in the absence of an actual crime does not result in imprisonment. That is not to say that it does not occasionally happen or that we don't have rotten laws on the books. Just that our basic freedoms, such reading what we want without fear of imprisonment, the right to remain silent, and the belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty still continue to be cornerstones of our judicial system.
 
2009-11-24 12:22:11 PM
Pardon Me Sultan: Not subby, but I'll step in on his/her behalf, mostly because you're obviously a dick.

I notice that you neglect to cover the "All charges are dropped except those involving him being unwilling to fully cooperate with the police and failing to provide them with the incriminating evidence they were hoping to have him provide to them" part of the story.

Go shine your jackboots, asshole.


Really? Obviously a dick? Truly hurtful! So you maintain that subtard's headline presented all the facts, do you? What do you have to say about my assertion (and the others in this thread) that this is hardly "nanny state" given how other countries would react to this kind of case? Or were you in too much of a tearing hurrry to whip out your hilariously original "jackboots" line to fully engage your pea-brain?

I'll go slowly because you're obviously struggling: His failure to comply with LAWFUL orders was UNLAWFUL. See? That means he broke a law. Would he have walked in the US after a long list of violations like the above? He was required to provide evidence to the police in relation to charges being brought against him. In the absence of any refutation on his part of that evidence, the police had a whole laundry-list of violations (RDX traces, missing bail, leaving the country, attempting to enter other countries, posession of questionable materials including literature on making pipe bombs) that he refused to deny. Do you STILL maintain that they should have let him go? If you do then there's definitely an asshole here and it's not me!

Run along chum, adults are talking.
 
2009-11-24 12:23:27 PM
Antimatter: Model rockets, oh how I love thee.

Was big into them as a kid, but stopped buying them. Limited selection, and when the local stores stopped carrying them, that was pretty much the end.

My sister got back into it in college. Living in Austin, we have hobby stores that carry the good stuff. Picked her up a e-engine powered D-Region Tomahawk. Mofo is three feet tall, and goes up like a thousand feet. Absolute beast.


When I was a kid I remember the engines coming in 5 packs.. rather then launch a rocket 5 times it was fun to just set off the engines without a rocket and watch as they fly horizontally through a parking lot.

Once I jokingly dared my brother to launch one off in the basement. He wouldn't do it, and i then told him i was messing around, and that he shouldn't do it.

Later that night he did it.

Almost lit the house on fire.
 
2009-11-24 12:24:31 PM
Proving once again that police follow the rule "Guilty until proven innocent."

Good for him for standing up for his rights, or at least his perception of his rights. He certainly has suffered for his principles.
 
2009-11-24 12:26:00 PM
You know, there's serious worries regarding this story. I'm just not happy being lectured to by a country which imprisons more people per capita than any other democracy, then crows about freedom.
 
2009-11-24 12:27:28 PM
Pardon Me Sultan: I notice that you neglect to cover the "All charges are dropped except those involving him being unwilling to fully cooperate with the police and failing to provide them with the incriminating evidence they were hoping to have him provide to them" part of the story.

Go shine your jackboots, asshole.


The charges would be a waste of time to pursue. They could spend a lot of time preparing a case for them and arguing them in court, just to achieve and end result of adding a fine and a 3 or 4 weeks onto the end of the sentence. The guy's been sectioned and will receive treatment for his mental illness.
 
2009-11-24 12:28:52 PM
luckyeddie: Marcus Aurelius: The Envoy

So he'd have gone free in the US having done all of that would he?! You, my friend, are deluded if you think so

In the US there would be nothing to charge him with. He kept his mouth shut like a good citizen should.

In the states he would have been in Guantanamo Bay before you could say "Right wing fascist conspiracy, fark you Bush and Cheney and your phoney war for oil"


1/10.....although good effort getting all the buzz terms in there.
 
2009-11-24 12:34:21 PM
rattchett: There is a right to remain silent in the USA and in Canada it is a Constitutional right. I am pretty sure the right to remain silent has not been revoked through legislation. That being the case, tell me what law would he have been convicted under here? Aside from not providing the keys, what did he exactly do? Own a model rocket and pocket knife? Own books containing information that would be illegal to put into practice? Have allegedly had a form of explosives on his hands - which the authorities have refused to prosecute him for?

It appears that England has forgotten the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty".

In Canada and the USA, for the most part, acting sketchy in the absence of an actual crime does not result in imprisonment. That is not to say that it does not occasionally happen or that we don't have rotten laws on the books. Just that our basic freedoms, such reading what we want without fear of imprisonment, the right to remain silent, and the belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty still continue to be cornerstones of our judicial system.


See, there's your problem. You seem to think the Constitution is law in the UK and that the authorities in the US would have let this gentleman go. You also seem to think that the right to silence has been revoked across the board. You'd be wrong on that.

Innocent until proven guilty still stands here and you're deluded if you can't see that he'd enough incriminating evidence (hi-ex traces, questionable material which, while legal, raised suspicion in conjunction with the other issues and skipping bail) against him to be detained under terrorism legislation then you're being deliberatly obtuse for the sake of arguing. Staying quiet merely compounded a lot of suspicion and plenty of tangible evidence against him. What happens in the US and Canada if you skip bail and/or try to leave the country while on bail? They let you go if you keep your mouth shut? I don't think so. Like it or not, skipping bail is a crime here, so it was hardly "acting sketchy in the absence of an actual crime" was it? He was tried, he didn't even bother to speak then so in the absence of any defence and some evidence that he wasn't utterly on the level, combined with the commission of an actual crime left the judge no choice. You'd have let him go would you?! Really?! I don't think so.
 
2009-11-24 12:38:02 PM
The Envoy: Another Government Employee: Iron Chef Scottish: One word: Guantanamo.
It's a 'STFU Yank Card'. Valid for the next 10 years.

Only if you are a Muslim.

That's not to say the authorities won't try to make your life miserable otherwise.

Like put you on a no-fly list for ever?


And make any bureaucratic endeavor (licenses, permits, etc.) an impossible situation. Ideally, they then box you into a tax evasion and or RICO charge. May take a while, but if they are determined, the authorities will get it done.
 
2009-11-24 12:40:55 PM
He sounds like he hangs out on the Fark politics tab
 
2009-11-24 12:43:32 PM
Burchill: You know, there's serious worries regarding this story. I'm just not happy being lectured to by a country which imprisons more people per capita than any other democracy, then crows about freedom.

The simple fact that he skipped bail, also a crime in the US, seems to be passing these people by. I give up, time to take the plunge:

Holy fark it's JUST like 1984 here! Chancellor Suttler's got all my butter and the CCTV in my bedroom keeps catching me wanking! I left my work permit, travel papers, birth certificate and passport at home when I went out to get some milk from the local shop and the check-point at the top of my road detained me and locked me in a cell for 3 weeks before verifying my identity and then only let me go after I'd turned in my brothers and parents for watching bootleg copies of "Neighbours". My knees hurt from goose-stepping in these massive boots and my brown shirt itches. England prevails!!!

Knob-heads.
 
2009-11-24 12:45:32 PM
www.urshirts.com
 
2009-11-24 12:45:54 PM
The Envoy: You'd have let him go would you?! Really?! I don't think so.

His only crime was refusing to give his encryption key to the authorities. All other charges were dropped.

So you can keep regurgitating useless information in an attempt to confuse the situation, but all it's demonstrating is that you have poor rhetorical skills.
 
2009-11-24 12:49:14 PM
This should really come as no surprise. Of course they're going to apply these laws to something other than what they pissed and moaned about in order to get said laws in the first place. Every other country in history has done the same thing. Over here we instituted draconian laws to "save tha children from tha drugs" and those laws are often misused against political dissidents who are now being targeted with anti-terror laws.
England, unfortunately, has not had the benefit of a hard fast constitution so these laws really are just waiting for the wrong party headed by the wrong dude to sweep in and mis-apply them towards more sinister and direct goals.
 
2009-11-24 12:50:32 PM
I live in the UK and I'm perfectly happy, I'm not going to put the US down or provide any speculation into the case. This is because I don't really know anything about the case and because I belive that everybody has the right to their opinion. If I wasn't happy here then I would probably move the the US and I'm sure that many of you would go in search of a new land of the free if you ever felt the need to (or raise arms to the government - meh, your choice).

All I really came here to say is this:

Does anybody think it's really cool that there is 2 threads here, the model rocket thread and the same old argument about the differences between UK and US culture ... I like both :-)
 
2009-11-24 12:53:46 PM
Feed_The_Walrus: Does anybody think it's really cool that there is 2 threads here, the model rocket thread and the same old argument about the differences between UK and US culture ... I like both :-)

A Brit. would be fascinated by that.
 
2009-11-24 01:01:17 PM
lexnaturalis: His only crime was refusing to give his encryption key to the authorities. All other charges were dropped.

So you can keep regurgitating useless information in an attempt to confuse the situation, but all it's demonstrating is that you have poor rhetorical skills.


Really? FTFA: "He was also charged for his February missed bail appearance and for two attempts to get a new passport falsely claiming his was lost. He says CTC told him he would not get the one they had seized back, so he applied for a new one." Page 3 of the article.

Then Page 4 says: "The suspicion of terrorism was dropped long before trial and JFL was sentenced under RIPA Part III as a general criminal rather than a threat to national security."

So where does it say the charge of skipping bail was dropped? Notice "sentenced under RIPA III", NOT charged under it. Two different things.

There are poor skills being demonstrated, but the area is reading comprehension and the guilty party is you, sunshine.
 
2009-11-24 01:04:24 PM
eynonmcwanker: luckyeddie: Marcus Aurelius: The Envoy

So he'd have gone free in the US having done all of that would he?! You, my friend, are deluded if you think so

In the US there would be nothing to charge him with. He kept his mouth shut like a good citizen should.

In the states he would have been in Guantanamo Bay before you could say "Right wing fascist conspiracy, fark you Bush and Cheney and your phoney war for oil"

1/10.....although good effort getting all the buzz terms in there.


Look, ma. I hooked myself a fish - and it's pullin' ter the right.
 
2009-11-24 01:10:56 PM
Prof.Xomox: I did have a realy good chuckle when I read : "One file encrypted using software from the German firm Steganos was cracked, but investigators found only another PGP container."

Go PGP!!!


i hear it's pretty good
 
2009-11-24 01:20:49 PM
I haven't built a model rocket since rocketry class in high school. It was just a streamer model, probably 8 inches tall, probably a 1/2A or A motor. Worked just fine, but I don't think I ever recovered it, we did our big launch day in a huge field in winter in which you would sink up to your ankles in cold mud and Canada goose feces. My friend in the class built the Estes replica Phoenix missile, like 3 or 4 feet tall, took D motors. Never got off the launch pad, the motor was defective and exploded about a half second after ignition. Supposedly extremely rare for the motors to fail like that. Oh well...
 
2009-11-24 01:43:35 PM
The Envoy: rattchett: There is a right to remain silent in the USA and in Canada it is a Constitutional right. I am pretty sure the right to remain silent has not been revoked through legislation. That being the case, tell me what law would he have been convicted under here? Aside from not providing the keys, what did he exactly do? Own a model rocket and pocket knife? Own books containing information that would be illegal to put into practice? Have allegedly had a form of explosives on his hands - which the authorities have refused to prosecute him for?

It appears that England has forgotten the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty".

In Canada and the USA, for the most part, acting sketchy in the absence of an actual crime does not result in imprisonment. That is not to say that it does not occasionally happen or that we don't have rotten laws on the books. Just that our basic freedoms, such reading what we want without fear of imprisonment, the right to remain silent, and the belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty still continue to be cornerstones of our judicial system.

See, there's your problem. You seem to think the Constitution is law in the UK and that the authorities in the US would have let this gentleman go. You also seem to think that the right to silence has been revoked across the board. You'd be wrong on that.

Innocent until proven guilty still stands here and you're deluded if you can't see that he'd enough incriminating evidence (hi-ex traces, questionable material which, while legal, raised suspicion in conjunction with the other issues and skipping bail) against him to be detained under terrorism legislation then you're being deliberatly obtuse for the sake of arguing. Staying quiet merely compounded a lot of suspicion and plenty of tangible evidence against him. What happens in the US and Canada if you skip bail and/or try to leave the country while on bail? They let you go if you keep your mouth shut? I don't think so. Like it or not, skipping bail is a crime here, so it was hardly "acting sketchy in the absence of an actual crime" was it? He was tried, he didn't even bother to speak then so in the absence of any defence and some evidence that he wasn't utterly on the level, combined with the commission of an actual crime left the judge no choice. You'd have let him go would you?! Really?! I don't think so.


You are correct in that "skipping bail" is serious. You are wrong in all your other assertions and I believe you are intentionally misconstruing what I have said.

To reiterate:

We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities. We are freer as a result.

In the story, the prosecution and the Judge were able to draw adverse inferences on the basis of the silence of the accused, resulting in a presumption of guilt. In the USA and Canada, exercising our right to remain silent in a criminal proceeding does not result in the onus shifting from being on the State to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence.

In the USA and Canada, model rockets and pocket knives are not illegal. Nor are we arrested for having information of the sort the accused in the article had.

With respect to the question of explosives - he was not charged and found guilty, so what's the relevance?

I know that Brits do not have rights enshrined in a constitution in the same way as we have here and I am certainly not trying to impose the constitutional rights upon British citizens. I do believe that we are freer as a result of our constitutional rights. We know that greater rights result in an increased potential for danger. Free speech and free association can result in riots. The right to read books on dangerous ideas can result in those ideas being put into practice. Freedom brings risk and responsibility. That said, we have for the most part decided that the freedom of the individual comes before the convenience of the State.

England may not be at 1984 or V for Vendetta and the USA and Canada are not utopias. That said, I would rather live here by a long shot. As a nation you seem to going down the slippery slope quicker than us and judging by the comments of many British farkers, you by and large either don't see it, don't care, or are happy to see it happen.
 
2009-11-24 01:45:15 PM
Lord_Byrne 2009-11-24 11:02:12 AM

"However, I would expect to be let go when they found out I wasn't a terrorist."


Although UK police would probably use the tired argument that if you had nothing to hide from them you should co-operate, then charge you with wasting police time for not doing so.


"Wasting police time ? Hell, officer, you arrested me!"
 
2009-11-24 01:52:23 PM
rattchett: In closing, and in the words of Emiliano Zapata: "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"

Is that before or after you have to remove your shoes at the airport check-in line?
 
2009-11-24 01:53:22 PM
"In his judgment, Judge Hetherington accepted JFL was no threat to national security and noted his outsider lifestyle. "You... wished to involve yourself in a world which was largely based upon the access to the internet and using computers and not really interacting with other people in the ordinary outside world to any great extent," he said.

Steal This Book - 'How to make pipe bombs'

"It is said on your behalf that you lead an existence rather akin to that of a monk, and that there is nothing sinister in any of this but it is essentially private matters and you do not see why you should have to disclose anything to the authorities.""


My god, he's describing like 70% of fark. I hope most of that spectrum doesn't live in Britain..
 
2009-11-24 02:07:53 PM
My brother was once arrested under the terrorism act, back before that 11/9 thing. You know when the only terrorists were Irish Republicans and the IRA were recognised as such and not members of the NI government.

Anyway, he was flying home to Belfast from Glasgow and was caught with what the officers believed to be a firearm - it was a plastic BB gun, which belonged to me, he had meant to give to me when he stopped by before his flight.

And when I say caught, I mean let through security onto the plane which then broke down and then had to board another plane and go through security again, at which point they asked if he had a gun in his bag. Nice police work there, Lou.

Of course he replied, "Oh shiat, yes I have." Not believing you get in trouble for having a plastic toy in your hand luggage.

Unfortunately not, he was whisked off to Paisley police station to spend an uncomfortable evening in the cells and then released to fly home the next day.

My father wasn't best pleased.

However, when it went to court the procurator fiscal threw the case out for being a waste of time and said the notion that my brother, a well educated science graduate from a well off unionist family, was some sort of terrorist was laughable.

The nanny state is a lie.
 
2009-11-24 02:26:52 PM
I'd just like to add that the British are the worst form of life on the planet. Not just practically, but morally, physically, and effectively as well.
 
2009-11-24 02:33:35 PM
So I thought I would try and tease a timeline and what actually happened out of the article.

Man tries to enter Canada illegaly and gets caught.
Man is bailed in UK.
Man moves to Netherlands (at this point he is a fugitive from the law)
Man attempts return to UK, ostensibly to turn himself in
Sniffer dogs smell some sort of explosive on mans luggage
Man arrested at customs
Customs find out that he has tried to circumvent customs checks by fed-ex'ing stuff directly to a hotel room (which individually the items would probably not be looked at, but altogether, they look suspicious)
High explosive residue found on the man.
Man says nothing under questioning
THEY LET THE MAN GO UNDER BAIL CONDITIONS (yeah, real Gestapo move there, they just locked him up and threw away the key)
Man reports to the police station WHILE CARRYING A WEAPON and is arrested for it (no matter what you think about UK gun/knife laws you must admit that turning up to the cop shop with a weapon in your pocket isn't the most sensible thing to do)
Police request that he turn over the encryption keys to the files on the flash and hard drives that they have siezed in the course off their investigations.
Man again says nothing under questioning
Police warn him that they may issue a section 49 RIPA notice which requires him to turn over the encryption keys for said devices. (similar to a subpoena, and before you say this would be covered under the fifth ammendment in the US I suggest you read up on United States v. Boucher)
Man says nothing
Man is bailed again.
Man skips bail AGAIN and moves house multiple times to prevent being found by the authorities
Man is arrested
Man is issued with a Section 49 notice and the passwords/keys are requested and he is given 1 hour to tell them
Man does not tell them
Man is charged under Section 53 for failing to comply with Section 49 notice, he is also charged with his missed bail appearance and illegally attempting to get a passport TWICE.
man remanded in custody for 3 months until his trial.
Man pleads guilty to all charges thinking he will get away with time served.
Man is sentanced to 13 months in prison (taking into account the 3 months already served and good behaviour should be out in 6 1/2 months)
"something" happens while in prison and he is sectioned under the mental health act.

So at this point, this "innocent" man has done the following.
1) Tried to enter Canada illegally
2) Skipped bail
3) Carried an offensive weapon INTO A POLICE STATION
4) Skipped bail
5) Attempted to illegally gain a passport
6) Attempted to illegally gain a passport
7) Refused to comply with a Section 49 RIPA notice (i.e. a subpoena)

Yet they still didn't charge him under the terrorist provisions of the RIPA act. I mean FFS the guy skipped bail twice, attempted to get a passport illegially twice, traces of explosives have been found on him, he has books about making bombs and explosives and refuses to make evidence available even under court order, yet they charge him under normal criminal laws.

Yeah, thats real nanny-statism or jack-booted nazi-ism or whatever you fancy labeling it at work. I'm now so afraid to go onto the streets unless a policeman demands I hand over my USB stick and give him the truCrypt password. If you ask me, the guy has gotten of fairly lightly.

Also, reading between the lines, it would tend to suggest that if it wasn't for the farkwittry of jumping bail and trying to illegally gain passports that he would have been sentenced to time served for the RIPA offence (though if it weren't for the farkwittery he would probably have never been remanded into custody in the first place).

While RIPA legislation itself may be fail, it is so much less fail than the hyperbolic morans in this thread.
 
2009-11-24 02:39:28 PM
Nanny state. Riiiight. Don't you lads have the death penalty over there? I quite like living in a country where the state can't strap me to a table and pump me full of posions which are banned for use on animals for being too inhumane because I can't afford a good lawyer.
 
2009-11-24 02:45:33 PM
Lord Summerisle: Nanny state. Riiiight. Don't you lads have the death penalty over there? I quite like living in a country where the state can't strap me to a table and pump me full of posions which are banned for use on animals for being too inhumane because I can't afford a good lawyer.

Cue quizzical dog look. It's good to know that your rights are secure by virtue of the fact that the government won't use dangerous chemicals to kill you.

Cue non-sequiter on aisle 2.
 
2009-11-24 02:52:47 PM
rattchett: We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities. We are freer as a result.

In the story, the prosecution and the Judge were able to draw adverse inferences on the basis of the silence of the accused, resulting in a presumption of guilt. In the USA and Canada, exercising our right to remain silent in a criminal proceeding does not result in the onus shifting from being on the State to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence.


We do have the right to silence, but you are allowed to infer things from the silence. In this case this hasn't happened.
He was issued with a court order requiring him to divulge the password, he did not divulge said password, therefore he is in contempt of the court order.

In the USA and Canada, model rockets and pocket knives are not illegal. Nor are we arrested for having information of the sort the accused in the article had.

Neither are they in the UK, neither is the information, but I would be happy to put money on the fact that if you presented a US judge with the facts of "he has books on explosive making and other ilegal activities, and has proven access to substances that could be used in the manufacture of explosives" he would grant a warrant to search his house, or arrest him for further questioning as I can pretty much guarantee that they constitute probable cause.
 
2009-11-24 02:54:52 PM
Pinko_Commie: Man reports to the police station WHILE CARRYING A WEAPON and is arrested for it (no matter what you think about UK gun/knife laws you must admit that turning up to the cop shop with a weapon in your pocket isn't the most sensible thing to do)

A pocket knife in a police station.

No matter what I think of the laws, I think that the police station should be one of the places better equipped to deal with the horrors of a pocket knife.
 
2009-11-24 02:55:57 PM
Pinko_Commie: We do have the right to silence, but you are allowed to infer things from the silence.

That is not true in the States, and is an important part of our Right to remain silent.
 
2009-11-24 02:57:05 PM
Burchill: You know, there's serious worries regarding this story. I'm just not happy being lectured to by a country which imprisons more people per capita than any other democracy, then crows about freedom.

Just because we're bigger criminals than the Australians, don't let that deter you from our philosophy of doing whatever the hell we please...
 
2009-11-24 03:05:50 PM
I found the part of the article that said 'override the right to silence' rather amusing. So, if he doesn't talk, are they going to waterboard him?
 
2009-11-24 03:21:20 PM
One of the guys in CMU's KGB was detained for investigation when a clerk at CVS reported that he had a device with a battery pack.

It was a home-made GPS unit, and the only reason the cops let him go was because they saw the GPS and Windows (CE? Mobile?) logos. Like a bomb or incendiary device could never have those logos. And so if you can't identify something because you haven't seen an advertisement for it it MUST be a bomb, right?
 
2009-11-24 03:28:41 PM
The Envoy: Nanny state uses new terrorism powers to arrest schizophrenic with an Estes model rocket and a pocket knife...and traces of high explosive on his hands, after failing to appear at police stations on appointment, leaving town, missing bail after leaving the country, refusal to answer questions, refusal to comply with lawful orders, posession of a book on gun manufacture and a book on methamphetamine production (not in itself illegal but suspicious given the rest of the circumstances) and his refusal to speak making pre-trial interviews pointless (how can you determine someone's stae of mind when they simply don't talk?), yeah, he'd have got off all of that in another country. GOD DAMN NANNY STATE HEY?!!!

Go frkk yourself subtard.


In the United States at least, you can have materials containing "dangerous ideas" and refuse to answer questions about it and, yes, you would "get off" which is your term for what we call "having done nothing illegal".

As far as refusing to reveal one's encryption keys: if you're going to be dealing with a fascist country that masquerades as a democracy, you may as well familiarize yourself with TrueCrypt (new window). It can be set up to conceal that there's even encrypted data on the disk.
 
2009-11-24 03:44:33 PM
The Envoy: Nanny state uses new terrorism powers to arrest schizophrenic with an Estes model rocket and a pocket knife...and traces of high explosive on his hands, after failing to appear at police stations on appointment, leaving town, missing bail after leaving the country, refusal to answer questions, refusal to comply with lawful orders, posession of a book on gun manufacture and a book on methamphetamine production (not in itself illegal but suspicious given the rest of the circumstances) and his refusal to speak making pre-trial interviews pointless (how can you determine someone's stae of mind when they simply don't talk?), yeah, he'd have got off all of that in another country. GOD DAMN NANNY STATE HEY?!!!

Go frkk yourself subtard.


You are a farking moron. That all sounds fine to me. You retarded brits have no liberty. Here in the states we have absolutely no legal obligations to talk to the pigs about anything. I would have told them to go shove a stick up their ass. And the fact the pigs released the titles of some of the books in his library just goes to show that they are trying to smear him. Its farking disgusting.
 
2009-11-24 03:46:42 PM
zombietheclown: Prof.Xomox: I did have a realy good chuckle when I read : "One file encrypted using software from the German firm Steganos was cracked, but investigators found only another PGP container."

Go PGP!!!

i hear it's pretty good


I doubt the file (probably an image like a JPEG) "encrypted with using Steganos" was actually encrypted. The PGP container was no doubt meant to provide the encryption and the PGP-encrypted payload was just embedded in the image file using some free steganography tool. Detecting and extracting such payloads is fairly simple and wouldn't be much of a "crack". This is educated guesswork, however; an ounce of speculation is worth a pound of fact
 
2009-11-24 04:19:57 PM
The Envoy: Pardon Me Sultan: Not subby, but I'll step in on his/her behalf, mostly because you're obviously a dick.

I notice that you neglect to cover the "All charges are dropped except those involving him being unwilling to fully cooperate with the police and failing to provide them with the incriminating evidence they were hoping to have him provide to them" part of the story.

Go shine your jackboots, asshole.

Really? Obviously a dick? Truly hurtful! So you maintain that subtard's headline presented all the facts, do you? What do you have to say about my assertion (and the others in this thread) that this is hardly "nanny state" given how other countries would react to this kind of case? Or were you in too much of a tearing hurrry to whip out your hilariously original "jackboots" line to fully engage your pea-brain?

I'll go slowly because you're obviously struggling: His failure to comply with LAWFUL orders was UNLAWFUL. See? That means he broke a law. Would he have walked in the US after a long list of violations like the above? He was required to provide evidence to the police in relation to charges being brought against him. In the absence of any refutation on his part of that evidence, the police had a whole laundry-list of violations (RDX traces, missing bail, leaving the country, attempting to enter other countries, posession of questionable materials including literature on making pipe bombs) that he refused to deny. Do you STILL maintain that they should have let him go? If you do then there's definitely an asshole here and it's not me!

Run along chum, adults are talking.


I'll talk slowly since thinking adults are talking.

Yes, he broke the laws of the disgraceful system you're defending.

The rest of us are aghast at the assumption of guilt, and that not wanting to incriminate yourself is itself a crime under your beloved system.

You live in London? Awesome. You get to live in the shiatty system you love so much.
 
2009-11-24 04:39:58 PM
Burchill: You know, there's serious worries regarding this story. I'm just not happy being lectured to by a country which imprisons more people per capita than any other democracy, then crows about freedom.

Any other democracy? Try any other country

Land of the 99% free!

/97% if you include probation and parole!
 
2009-11-24 04:54:31 PM
Came here to see pictures of awesome Estes model rocket stuff. Left disappointed.
 
2009-11-24 05:47:20 PM
I'll try to be constructive, since fanning the flames makes for bad discussion.

The guy definitely broke a range of laws, most of which are reasonable no matter where you live, such as skipping bail, illegal entry, and attempting to falsely gain a passport. The real concern I have about this case is that his insistence on staying silent was used against him all the way from arrest to sentencing, and the fact that a law exists which can force a person to hand over their encryption keys. I concede that a precedent for the latter may also exist in North America, and I would be equally troubled to see it happen in any democratic country.

It seems that in this case the onus was on him to prove his innocence, rather than on the legal system to prove guilt. Likewise, the fact that prosecution can happen for refusing to divulge encryption keys is just as worrying, since it removes the last barrier we have for digital privacy.
 
2009-11-24 06:21:07 PM
abigsmurf: As much as the thing he was eventually sectioned for is a horrible law, I get the impression that he was going to get himself locked up anyway.

Kept missing court dates and skipping bail, tried to get an illegal passport and leave the country, was generally sending a message of "I'm mentally unstable and I could have the knowledge and equipment to blow something up".

Get the impression that he was anti-terror force's worst nightmare. Someone who could clearly go off the rails at any moment but was just skirting around the edge of the law in a way where he couldn't be forced to receive treatment. Guessing they eventually got tired of the mountain of paperwork he was causing and decided to get him done on a technicality so he could get sectioned.


Yeah. Keep pulling stuff like this and you're going to wind up in jail.

AnubisAscended: Wow, I remember launching Estes rockets when I was younger. Half the time, the engines didn't fire.

/only buit the single-stage model


Then you were either using the el-cheapo igniters or not mounting them correctly. With good igniters and proper mounting our group never had one fail to launch, nor did we ever see a staging fail.

The_Original_Roxtar: Noticeably F.A.T.: AnubisAscended: Wow, I remember launching Estes rockets when I was younger. Half the time, the engines didn't fire.

/only buit the single-stage model

Same here. Only I turned a single stage into a two stage. Also, you know the old NASA saying, "With enough thrust, even a brick can fly"? I know for a fact that you can get at least half a brick off the ground.

/Also put a frog in the egg launcher model.
//The parachute failed.

never had a problem with the engines not firing... my chutes almost never deployed. switched to streamer recovery models which seemed to work better


Make sure you're using enough wadding & don't launch a long-packed chute (spread it out on the ground for a bit first.) We had a few chutes rip loose or the like but nothing ever came down with the chute still furled.

Dire: I haven't built a model rocket since rocketry class in high school. It was just a streamer model, probably 8 inches tall, probably a 1/2A or A motor. Worked just fine, but I don't think I ever recovered it, we did our big launch day in a huge field in winter in which you would sink up to your ankles in cold mud and Canada goose feces. My friend in the class built the Estes replica Phoenix missile, like 3 or 4 feet tall, took D motors. Never got off the launch pad, the motor was defective and exploded about a half second after ignition. Supposedly extremely rare for the motors to fail like that. Oh well...

I sure wouldn't have shot a small streamer-recovery rocket over snow--that would be a bear to find! As for a motor exploding on the pad--never saw it in our group's years of launches. However, solid rocket motors don't like being banged about too much. Drop them too hard and you can crack the propellant of some types. The burn surface is now bigger than it's supposed to be...
 
2009-11-24 06:43:33 PM
i749.photobucket.com
 
2009-11-24 08:30:49 PM
they are really REALLY gonna get a kick outa me

my rocket project (new window)
 
2009-11-24 10:49:21 PM
No_One_Special: You can refuse to do so- if they have a warrant to search your files they can crack the damn thing themselves.

I'm *so* going to set my passphrase to "Custom agents are child molesting Gestapo wannabes" or something equally offensive.
 
2009-11-25 01:38:36 AM
DSan: I found the part of the article that said 'override the right to silence' rather amusing. So, if he doesn't talk, are they going to waterboard him?

No, but they might arrest him. They may even get him sectioned (declared legally mentally unfit) under the mental health act and locked up indefinitely.

Oh wait... that's exactly what they did.
 
2009-11-25 03:20:57 AM
Gotta love the shiatstorm on Fark when something like this happens. How long will it take us to realise both of our systems are far from perfect; we have shiat like this, and you can get locked up for stupid shiat like tiny-scale weed possession, and still have the death penalty.

Anyway, can't you guys see the problem with lecturing us on freedom when you have farking Guantanamo? I couldn't give two shiats that it's only Muslims who you imprison there.
 
2009-11-25 04:36:25 AM
Wow, I go home and the farking retards come out in force. I'll address you all in turn in separate posts, but the following should suffice. Given the idiocy of some of you, I'm sure it won't.

rattchett: You are correct in that "skipping bail" is serious. You are wrong in all your other assertions and I believe you are intentionally misconstruing what I have said.

To reiterate:

We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities. We are freer as a result.

In the story, the prosecution and the Judge were able to draw adverse inferences on the basis of the silence of the accused, resulting in a presumption of guilt. In the USA and Canada, exercising our right to remain silent in a criminal proceeding does not result in the onus shifting from being on the State to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence.

In the USA and Canada, model rockets and pocket knives are not illegal. Nor are we arrested for having information of the sort the accused in the article had.

With respect to the question of explosives - he was not charged and found guilty, so what's the relevance?

I know that Brits do not have rights enshrined in a constitution in the same way as we have here and I am certainly not trying to impose the constitutional rights upon British citizens. I do believe that we are freer as a result of our constitutional rights. We know that greater rights result in an increased potential for danger. Free speech and free association can result in riots. The right to read books on dangerous ideas can result in those ideas being put into practice. Freedom brings risk and responsibility. That said, we have for the most part decided that the freedom of the individual comes before the convenience of the State.

England may not be at 1984 or V for Vendetta and the USA and Canada are ...


I'll put it simply for you because you're misconstruing the whole thing: The traces of explosives and all of the extraneous little details constituted a reason to hold and question him under terrorism legislation that prohibits keeping quiet. In the ensuing events, it appears that the only sound he made was to, and pay attention here, this bit's important: PLEAD GUILTY TO ALL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM UNDER THAT LEGISLATION, AS WELL AS THE SEPARATE CHARGE OF SKIPPING BAIL!. Now, does convicting someone who pleads guilty NOT happen anywhere else? Should they have called his bluff and let him go after an admission of guilt?! If you answer "yes" then you're even more stupid than your previous posts suggest.

Let's move on to this farking gem: "We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities.".
He was imprisoned for ADMITTING THE CHARGES. How you don't understand that is pretty amazing. His lack of co-operation led to him being charged, NOT CONVICTED. I wonder who's deliberately misconstruing things here? For future reference, the police caution here goes as follows: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." It's pretty clear from the opening sentence that your wrong in your assertions regarding our right to silence.

Britain is not on any more of a "slippery slope" than the US and your belief that they're "freer" as a result is a fallacy perpetuated by ignorance and an inability to think critically and base judgements on facts rather than your apparent dislike of Britain, itself based on ignorance. I base this opinion of you on your moronic belief that pen-knives and model rockets are illegal in the UK, which is utterly and demonstrably false. As proof I offer:

Link (new window)
and
Link (new window)
and, well, the other Google hits that come up after a mere second of effort.

And the same goes for penkinves.

As for the books: it quite clearly ststes that these books are LEGAL to purchase and own, but when ownership coincided with other suspicious factors this constituted enough reasonable suspicion to hold and question him. So I'll reiterate my opinion that you're basing your argument on ignorance which renders it completely wrong.
 
2009-11-25 04:58:16 AM
Pardon Me Sultan: I'll talk slowly since thinking adults are talking.

Yes, he broke the laws of the disgraceful system you're defending.

The rest of us are aghast at the assumption of guilt, and that not wanting to incriminate yourself is itself a crime under your beloved system.

You live in London? Awesome. You get to live in the shiatty system you love so much.


If that passes for thinking then I pity you. Put simply, the circumstances constituted enough probable cause to hold him and question him. As for the assumption of guilt, he admitted to all of the charges. Get that? He ADMITTED to the charges, leaving no option other than conviction. He confirmed guilt, it wasn't ASSUMED. He was tried fairly and admitted to the charges against him, removing any possibility of being found innocent, exactly as would have happened in the States. This really isn't that complicated.

As for "loving the system", please point out where I expressed anything like that? I merely refuted the idiotic assertions of a few, including you, which are based on ignorance.
 
2009-11-25 05:15:11 AM
No, no, this is a perfect example of why the US made their legal system the way they did- The legal idea that "a defense is inadmissible" unless divulged to police is draconian. In the US, all burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Anything they assert, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense just has to wait and see what they will assert and can then come up with any argument they please to create reasonable doubt.

So yes, a perfect example of the lack of freedoms in the British system. I had no idea defensive arguments had to be made prior to charges and the burden of proof lay on the defense. What.... what BOLLOCKS quite frankly.

The American system is flawed and embarrassing sometimes, but I'm just going to have to re-post this (new window) (Long but worth it)
 
2009-11-25 05:45:19 AM
asscorethethird: You are a farking moron. That all sounds fine to me. You retarded brits have no liberty. Here in the states we have absolutely no legal obligations to talk to the pigs about anything. I would have told them to go shove a stick up their ass. And the fact the pigs released the titles of some of the books in his library just goes to show that they are trying to smear him. Its farking disgusting.

I doubt you can read, but if you can, have a look at the prior posts directed at your fellow ignoramuses. They spell out very clearly the issues here, the issues that appear to have flown far over your head.

Do us all a favour and try entering the States with:
1) An outstanding arrest warrant (this is what happens when people skip bail. Yes, even in the US)
2) Traces of a high-explosive on your hands
3) A book describing how to make a pipe bomb
4) Encrypted data
Then, with that in place, tell the pigs to go fark themselves. I'm pretty sure you'll waltz out of the airport in a matter of minutes, no problem. In the apparently highly unlikely that event that you're detained, admitting to any charges brought against you will, according to you, not result in further detention, trial and conviction.

Get off of your Dad's computer you idiotic child. You very obviously have no clue what you're talking about, yet I'm the farking moron?! Ok pal.
 
2009-11-25 05:51:39 AM
No_One_Special: No, no, this is a perfect example of why the US made their legal system the way they did- The legal idea that "a defense is inadmissible" unless divulged to police is draconian. In the US, all burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Anything they assert, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense just has to wait and see what they will assert and can then come up with any argument they please to create reasonable doubt.

So yes, a perfect example of the lack of freedoms in the British system. I had no idea defensive arguments had to be made prior to charges and the burden of proof lay on the defense. What.... what BOLLOCKS quite frankly.

The American system is flawed and embarrassing sometimes, but I'm just going to have to re-post this (new window) (Long but worth it)


And an admission of guilt to all the charges doesn't constitute proof? They had enough to hold him under a SPECIFIC act stipulating that he had to divulge his encrypted data, which he refused to do. He was fairly tried to ascertain his guilt or innocence, during which process he admitted to being guilty. He could have claimed innocence but didn't and, according to this article, he did it after assuming he'd already served his time. Was the judge somewhow supposed to ignore the fact that he'd pleaded guilty and find him innocent, despite the fact that the admission of guilt was the ONLY statement he appears to have made? That's absurd.
 
2009-11-25 08:49:26 AM
The Envoy: Wow, I go home and the farking retards come out in force. I'll address you all in turn in separate posts, but the following should suffice. Given the idiocy of some of you, I'm sure it won't.

rattchett: You are correct in that "skipping bail" is serious. You are wrong in all your other assertions and I believe you are intentionally misconstruing what I have said.

To reiterate:

We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities. We are freer as a result.

In the story, the prosecution and the Judge were able to draw adverse inferences on the basis of the silence of the accused, resulting in a presumption of guilt. In the USA and Canada, exercising our right to remain silent in a criminal proceeding does not result in the onus shifting from being on the State to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence.

In the USA and Canada, model rockets and pocket knives are not illegal. Nor are we arrested for having information of the sort the accused in the article had.

With respect to the question of explosives - he was not charged and found guilty, so what's the relevance?

I know that Brits do not have rights enshrined in a constitution in the same way as we have here and I am certainly not trying to impose the constitutional rights upon British citizens. I do believe that we are freer as a result of our constitutional rights. We know that greater rights result in an increased potential for danger. Free speech and free association can result in riots. The right to read books on dangerous ideas can result in those ideas being put into practice. Freedom brings risk and responsibility. That said, we have for the most part decided that the freedom of the individual comes before the convenience of the State.

England may not be at 1984 or V for Vendetta and the USA and Canada are ...

I'll put it simply for you because you're misconstruing the whole thing: The traces of explosives and all of the extraneous little details constituted a reason to hold and question him under terrorism legislation that prohibits keeping quiet. In the ensuing events, it appears that the only sound he made was to, and pay attention here, this bit's important: PLEAD GUILTY TO ALL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM UNDER THAT LEGISLATION, AS WELL AS THE SEPARATE CHARGE OF SKIPPING BAIL!. Now, does convicting someone who pleads guilty NOT happen anywhere else? Should they have called his bluff and let him go after an admission of guilt?! If you answer "yes" then you're even more stupid than your previous posts suggest.

Let's move on to this farking gem: "We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities.".
He was imprisoned for ADMITTING THE CHARGES. How you don't understand that is pretty amazing. His lack of co-operation led to him being charged, NOT CONVICTED. I wonder who's deliberately misconstruing things here? For future reference, the police caution here goes as follows: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." It's pretty clear from the opening sentence that your wrong in your assertions regarding our right to silence.

Britain is not on any more of a "slippery slope" than the US and your belief that they're "freer" as a result is a fallacy perpetuated by ignorance and an inability to think critically and base judgements on facts rather than your apparent dislike of Britain, itself based on ignorance. I base this opinion of you on your moronic belief that pen-knives and model rockets are illegal in the UK, which is utterly and demonstrably false. As proof I offer:

Link (new window)
and
Link (new window)
and, well, the other Google hits that come up after a mere second of effort.

And the same goes for penkinves.

As for the books: it quite clearly ststes that these books are LEGAL to purchase and own, but when ownership coincided ...


You are absolutely right. He plead guilty and I missed that when I read the article. While it is questionable whether he had the mental capacity to plead to the charge in light of his being sectioned, his guilty plea is a very important fact that I missed. I stand corrected.

That said, and in general terms, I believe that the right to remain silent is important and I believe that a law that results in an accused, as a result of his silence, having an adverse inference made against him so that the burden of proof shifts from the Crown having to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence is draconian.

I realize that stories posted on Fark come with an agenda, resulting in people who do not reside in Britain having a skewed perspective. However, to an outsider, there are aspects of Britain that are hard to fathom, such as the prohibition against carrying pocket knives generally, the number of CCTV units, parties being charged for giving rude gestures to traffic cameras, victims of violent assault being charged for defending themselves, a retired police officer charged for carrying the Swiss Army knife that his colleagues gave him at his retirement,the incarceration of a person for finding a gun in his back garden and transporting it to the authorities, and laws that say your can be convicted of a crime if you remain silent, to name but a few.

All of those things may be fine with you, and that's great, you live in England and I don't - a fact that we are both no doubt grateful for.
 
2009-11-25 09:28:37 AM
ratchett: You are absolutely right. He plead guilty and I missed that when I read the article. While it is questionable whether he had the mental capacity to plead to the charge in light of his being sectioned, his guilty plea is a very important fact that I missed. I stand corrected.

That said, and in general terms, I believe that the right to remain silent is important and I believe that a law that results in an accused, as a result of his silence, having an adverse inference made against him so that the burden of proof shifts from the Crown having to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence is draconian.

I realize that stories posted on Fark come with an agenda, resulting in people who do not reside in Britain having a skewed perspective. However, to an outsider, there are aspects of Britain that are hard to fathom, such as the prohibition against carrying pocket knives generally, the number of CCTV units, parties being charged for giving rude gestures to traffic cameras, victims of violent assault being charged for defending themselves, a retired police officer charged for carrying the Swiss Army knife that his colleagues gave him at his retirement,the incarceration of a person for finding a gun in his back garden and transporting it to the authorities, and laws that say your can be convicted of a crime if you remain silent, to name but a few.

All of those things may be fine with you, and that's great, you live in England and I don't - a fact that we are both no doubt grateful for.


Good post and as a result I apologise for my condescending tone, I think I could have made my point without it, I just let my ire get the better of me.

Now, this may sound like BS, but while I was considering this story after leaving work (feel free to post the "someone's WRONG on the internet!" pic) the issue of his mental state DID ocurr to me and I agree with you wholeheartedly. The judge should have asked for the standard assesment of his mental health and his assertion that he didn't think the guy would talk to the assesors, thereby making it pointless to order it, is piss-poor. I'm glad he's getting the care he should have received prior.

Also, considering your second paragraph, you're right again. That's a worrying stae of affairs and I can't logically defend that shifting of the burden of proof. I can only assume that, given the fact that this guy didn't seek or get legal representation, the issue was allowed to progress like it did. I think (hope) a half-decent lawyer could have hammered them Police and CPS for that. I do think that there was enough evidence to initially hold and question him, but from that point on it did get a bit too fascistic.

As for the issues that concern you, many are simply not that simple. 80% of CCTV cameras are privately owned (shops especially-shop-lifting is almost as popular as drinking as a national past-time) and the ones covering public areas are, for the vast majorty, not monitored. The sheer volume of them precludes that. Victimcs of violent assault being charged for defending themselves is also not common at all. For instance, the Indian gent who beat a home invader and fractured his skull being charged with GBH. Sounds terrible, but in reality he got a group of friends, dragged the guy in to a garden and set about him with a cricket bat and metal pole long when he was on the gorund and was no longer a threat. That's excessive force in anybody's book, but media like the Daily Mail gloss over the facts for the juicy outrage. Pen-knives are perfectly legal and I myself have been stopped carrying one in Victoria station in Central London carrying one, but I was on my way to work so they didn't even bat an eye-lid. I was stopped for a positive response from a drug-dog and hasten to add that I wasn't carrying anything! I think the issues arise when laws are poorly enforced and the shocking reporting simply focuses on that.

I actually have British/American nationality and don't like living here much. I'd far rather live in Australia, Canada or Thailand, truth be told. I like some aspects of the States, but I'll show my hypocrisy here and say that Farkers (and my conservative nutter grandfather) have put me off!
 
2009-11-25 09:42:00 AM
The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.
 
2009-11-25 09:51:57 AM
TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.


name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.
 
2009-11-25 10:22:32 AM
The_Original_Roxtar: TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.


Yaser Hamdi. That took me a good 10 seconds on Wikipedia.
 
2009-11-25 11:26:05 AM
The Envoy:

Good post and as a result I apologise for my condescending tone, I think I could have made my point without it, I just let my ire get the better of me.

Thanks for the apology and the debate.
 
2009-11-25 03:19:11 PM
Redscum: The_Original_Roxtar: TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.

Yaser Hamdi. That took me a good 10 seconds on Wikipedia.


and as soon as it was determined that he was a US citizen (the guy spent almost his whole life in saudi arabia) he was moved to a US prison in norfolk. try again.
 
2009-11-25 06:46:22 PM
The_Original_Roxtar: Redscum: The_Original_Roxtar: TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.

Yaser Hamdi. That took me a good 10 seconds on Wikipedia.

and as soon as it was determined that he was a US citizen (the guy spent almost his whole life in saudi arabia) he was moved to a US prison in norfolk. try again.


You said "name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo". That's precisely what I did. Try again.

As I've said anyway, I couldn't give two shiats who you imprison there, they're still imprisoned indefinitely without charge. Whether or not they're US citizens is irrelevant.
 
2009-11-25 07:20:03 PM
Redscum: The_Original_Roxtar: Redscum: The_Original_Roxtar: TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.

Yaser Hamdi. That took me a good 10 seconds on Wikipedia.

and as soon as it was determined that he was a US citizen (the guy spent almost his whole life in saudi arabia) he was moved to a US prison in norfolk. try again.

You said "name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo". That's precisely what I did. Try again.

As I've said anyway, I couldn't give two shiats who you imprison there, they're still imprisoned indefinitely without charge. Whether or not they're US citizens is irrelevant.


lets go back through the thread shall we?

iron chef: "gitmo is a STFU yank card"
me: "me gitmo is for foreigners... the UK is doing this to its own citizens. the comparison isn't apt"
you: "lolz it's cute that you think that"
me: "name a citizen that has been confined there"
you: "here's a guy who was surrendered along with a fark-ton of taliban in afghanistan after spending 20 years in saudi, but spent the week he was born in louisiana"
me: "as soon as he told us he was a citizen, we sent him to virginia"

You've still not proven your initial point, and my initial point remains uncontested.
Gitmo is NOT for US Citizens.
 
2009-11-25 08:24:53 PM
The_Original_Roxtar: Gitmo is NOT for US Citizens.

Regardless of what has been done to this point, the way the laws are written, you can be declared a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" and be sent to gitmo. There is nothing, zip, nada, in the rules that says you have to be a foreigner to be housed there.
 
2009-11-25 09:47:56 PM
TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: Gitmo is NOT for US Citizens.

Regardless of what has been done to this point, the way the laws are written, you can be declared a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" and be sent to gitmo. There is nothing, zip, nada, in the rules that says you have to be a foreigner to be housed there.


incorrect.
US citizens cannot be denied entrance to the united states
the 5th amendment guarantees due process

one can only lose one's citizenship in a few ways: http://www.newcitizen.us/losing.html

basically, "join an army fighting against the US and we'll fark you up"
these rules are followed. if it were the afghani army that
Yaser Hamdi or John Walker Lindh were members of rather than the taliban, things would have gone differently.

Guantanamo is a naval base. naval, military. Unless marital law is declared, the military has no control over citizens.
 
2009-11-25 09:50:32 PM
martial
my hands are dyslexic lately.
 
Displayed 121 of 121 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report