Before all those sitting too high on their morale horses to see the ground get going....
When it was brought to the Police's attention by the Uni, it was the fact that Mr Yezza was the one downloading the material - someone who DID NOT have a reason to be doing so. As soon as it became clear that that the material had been downloaded at the request of Nr Sabir, who DID have a reason to download it, the case was closed. The subsequent investigation of Mr Yezza for immigration issues is completely separate, and the vague and libelous linking of the two is just blatent opportunism by the liberal-minded, desperate to find something so they can scream their second favourite accusation("Racist!") seeing as they have a real problem formulating a reasoned argument against "The Man". Should this be shown to be as empty an accusation as their usual bleating, I'm sure Mr Ozimek will fall back on the liberal's number one favourite bleat - "Fascist!"
So, let's not waste too much time on Mr Ozimek's bleating, let's just focus on one or two of his more farcial statements in order to show his weak train of (group)thought.
"....First, the law: If you possess dodgy material, it is for you to explain why...." And why not? If the Police find you carrying a gun or an explosive device, would you expect them to say "well, that's OK, we have to first prove you mean to shoot/blow-up someone"? No, it is simply illegal. Likewise, the law states that it is illegal to be in ownership of certain prohibited materials UNLESS you have a valid reason such as academic research. Mr Yezza did not have such a reason until it was explained he was merely fulfilling the request of someone who DID have such a valid reason. UK laws are largely set by the UK government, so if you don't like the law then please feel free to vote for which ever lunatic fringe group you think will give you the anarchic rights you wish for, just don't expect the rest of us to. We're a little more capable of realising a balance needs to be struck, and at the moment the balance seems quote fine to the majority, despite Mr Ozimek's alarmist bleating.
"....What the Police appear to be saying is that you can be given the all-clear as a bona fide researcher of terror material in the morning – then re-arrested the same evening for the same offence. Surely not, one might think, but that possibility is within the bounds of the Law...." It is also quite possible the Police could investigate someone for drug-smuggling, prostitution, fraud or any one of a dozen illegal activities without proof beforehand, that is the reason for the investigation, to find evidence. And whilst the Police may decide not to pursue an arrest in the morning for any of those said crimes, should new evidence or the significance of evidence found in the morning lead to a re-think, they can also turn around and arrest for the same illegal activity in the afternoon. Mr Ozimek's wild accusation is that the Police will do this on some whim, no doubt driven in his eyes by their "blatent racism/fascism". Excuse me, but I think someone here is being a bit prejudiced, and so far it's not the Police. Oh, and I do not deny being prejudiced against the liberal-minded as I find their idiocy irritating.
"....This has therefore provoked the accusation, in some quarters, that the Act is likely to be applied in a selective and racist fashion – with individuals whose skin is not quite white being far more likely to be asked to justify what is on their bookshelves or hard drive..." Ah, here we go - "Racist!" Can you provide proof of such bias? Before you start bleating about racial profiling, please can you also admit as to which racial group the July 7th bombers belonged to? Which religion they espoused, whether you contend it was a "corrupted" version or not? If I do a network security threat analysis I would prioritise my likely attackers into groups such as disgruntled employees, recent students (yes, the young and knowledgeable are more likely to try hacking before the experience of age adds a little wariness, I can vouch for that from personal experience), so am I being prejudiced against these groups? No, I am just being realistic. Whilst it would be unfair to say the only threat to us is coming from the Asian Muslim community, it is also head-in-the-sand liberalism to ignore the fact that the next suicide bomber in the UK is more than likely going to come from that group, and I do expect the Police to be expanding the majority of their anti-terror investigations into the Asian Muslim community. Not to do so would be to avoid their main reason for being - to protect the general public, which includes the rest of the Asian Muslim community - in favour of moronic political correctness.
"....Yes, this is the law, but one might have hoped for greater insight into the question of whether it should be so from a senior member of a university. Sir Colin is buying into the notion that there are “dangerous books” out there – and the only way to avoid danger is to check with authority first. But once the authorities start to dictate what books or documents we may possess, we are on a slippery slope...." It is a simple reality that danger does not only come in the physical form of weapons, but that the written (or typed) word can be even more dangerous when the idiotic/dupeable are exposed to them. Would the author contend the banning of "Mein Kampf" in Austria is unfair? Unlikely. So, if Sir Colin had been dean of a Austrian university that found a student downloading "Mein Kampf" - an illegal act in Austrian universities without an explicit Austrian government licence for historic study - would you expect him to not refer the case to the local Police? Ah, but then anti-Nazism is cool with the groupthink of liberalism. It is also an accepted common thought in UK society that Nazism is bad. So, would Mr Ozimek be writing such drivel if Mr Yezza had been a skinhead from Essex calling himself Adolf Smith, and he had been caught downloading something like "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion"? I suspect not. So I suppose what Mr Ozimek is saying is that we shouldn't trust the authorities as qualified to say what is a "dangerous book" but he feels just fine in telling us what he thinks is "dangerous". Whilst Mr Ozimek gets down off his horse he may want to look into both some head deflation, the realities of the terrorist threat to the UK, and the dificult job faced by our Police and intelligence services in trying to detect and defeat that threat before it kills again.