You can't make a Lucozade bomb?? ... ACK! WHAT A SLEDGEHAMMERTOTHEBACKOFMYACTUALHEAD SURPRISE!! Does that mean I can take liquids on a plane again? Thought not. Shower of arse.
Three of eight British men accused of plotting to blow up seven trans-Atlantic airliners using liquid explosives were convicted today of conspiracy to commit murder. The jury, however, didn't find any of the men guilty of the actual headline-grabbing charges that lead to a worldwide clamp-down on liquids in carry-on baggage. …
You forgot to say that four of them pled guilty to 'conspiracy to cause a public nuisance' for their videos. These are clearly the sort of hardened and effective terrorist threat that our governments have to protect us from by destroying all civil liberties and implementing a police state. We cannot continue if Islamic extremists are allowed to 'cause a public nuisance' by frightening people about the threat of terrorism, after all, that is the job of Nu Labour and the Department of Fatherland Security and let's face it, they are no use for anything else.
In all these cases from Calor gas in the car, to ammonium nitrate and diesel oil and these liquid bombs. The problem is always the detonator, you neeed a good bang to start the process (although in the calor gas bottles they forgot about air being needed). This was one of the reasons the IRA failed in the Hammersmith Bridge attempt, they had over 28lbs of semtex (which is good stuff), but the detonator failed.
If I was the government I'd be looking to control the detonators as a priority, you can't get a really big bang without them. They use them in quarrying everywhere including Romania or other ex Soviet states, start checking on the base chemicals invovled which are fairly rare and creating a swab test or sniffer and cut down on the terrorists. Also tagging with smart water or other methods the items themselves. Somebody could do a paper on dna samples in explosive situations.
Laser Icon because they represent the latest detonation methods of foil and a bang.
"The prosecution is considering a request for retrial in respect of the plot to blow up airliners against all seven men upon which the jury could not agree."
Such an important case - how could the police have fucked it up?
No doubt the prosecution will re-present their evidence which will consist of bottles with "BOM" written in black felt tip over the words Lucozade and Oasis...
"The prosecution is considering a request for retrial in respect of the plot to blow up airliners against all seven men upon which the jury could not agree."
If at first you don't succeed... And even the Guardian runs this story under the headline "Liquid bomb plot: three guilty of murder conspiracy" and refers to Abdulla Ahmed Ali as "the ringleader." Curious.
I also like this bit: "Disposable cameras would have been used to help set off the devices which would also contain regular batteries, hollowed out to contain chemicals." Very crafty, though you have to wonder what they'd have done with the chemicals they hollowed out of the batteries to make room for the chemicals, and what use the cameras would have been as detonators without further batteries. And indeed why we're still allowed to carry batteries and disposable cameras onto planes.
I would like to invite the security people around the world to demonstrate such a bomb in front of the world press a liquid bomb. They can get assurances that video footage will be blurred to preserve confidentiality of what they use, but it MUST be public.
Note that this demo should reflect cabin circumstances: noise, vibration, bad ventilation and room temperature (and maybe someone occasionally trying the handle, because the "busy" light is obviously only there for show).
Then, and ONLY then I will believe this crap. Until then, what I think has really happened is that some moron at a high position dreamt this up without taking the circumstances into account, and got this out to make a name for him/herself. Well, I would like to know who this is. WHO CAME UP WITH THIS FIRST?
Proof has been long overdue. Put up or shut up. If it can be proven, fair enough. However, if not there has been some explaining to be done. And exactly that is why I think it will not be demonstrated. Not because the scary terrorists will use this, but because withdrawing this claim would seriously embarrass someone. So I want to know where this idea started, and who started it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask.
We have had a large and expensive (they all are) trial and a British jury has listened to the evidence and come to a conclusion. So far so good this is a fine example of British justice at work but now, the CPS want a retrial? So really juries are no good! If they don't reach the desired conclusions after considering the evidence let's just do it again , and again, and again until we get a verdict we like. Big Brother was a rank amateur compared to the twats that are currently undermining all that once made Britain admired for it's justice and society.
What the fuck is happening to this country...? We find seven men non-guilty of trying to blow up aeroplanes, so the CPS considers having a second go?
What's going to happen, keep dragging these fuckwits back to court until someone finally convicts them?
Christ on a bike I'm sick of this country...
So one of the largest terror plots was foiled and hundreds of lives were saved, and yet the prosecution could not convince 12 people that this happened. So does that mean most of the air travel industry are equally unconvinced?
Surely we need a retrail with a jury chosen by Jaqui Smith?
Why is there nothing in the major news websites saying this is a damning verdict on the likelyhood of a viable liquid explosives attack? It seems to have gone from the ridiculous to the absurd with powdered Tang now equivalent to gelignite :-)
Maybe the BBC has picked up some of the answer - there are lots of new expensive X-Ray machines that can image liquids in 3D and tell you their density so no pesky TATP ingredients can get past them. Maybe a plot to sell UK XRays around the world!
Yes, I see the point, they were Admins. No, better IT managers. No, just a moment. There's nothing about it in the text... Thats a bloody IT site, please keep to it or at least make me smile somehow. Tell me they stuffed it in a robot-bobby and tried that way to position it... Something, but not plain news i get from timesonline, please!
You can put a bomb in a Lucozade bottle and colour it the colour of Lucozade though, which is both what they were doing and what the boffins demonstrated was possible.
(The boffins needed HTP and a fistful of tries though, so it doesn't sound a good plan.)
Clearly these guys where attempting to blow up something (no matter how unlikely to succeed it actually was), so where do you have to conceal your bomb as a soft drink?
Pub? Tube? Trains? Bus? Nah, can take any bag you want.
Nightclub? Couldn't get in with any bottle easily - you'd want a different disguise.
The most entertaining thing about the Muslim obsession with aircraft bombing is that it ends up making it harder and more expensive for Muslims to go on the Haj.
If at first you dont succeed, try and try again until the buggers are found guilty. I mean, they must be guilty right, they are muslims and probably have a vivid imagination of creating super dooper liquid bombs. How about prosecuting that terrorist who has plenty of blood on his hands, whats his name again... err Mr A Blair I believe.....
Maybe I havn't been paying enough attention as I am bored of "being in a contant state of "terror"" that .gov wants, but all the reports I heard say they have no proof that planes were the target, it could just have easily been the underground.
Perhaps they should ban drinks on the underground, (although Boris banning open alcohol is maybe the start to see how people would react). or maybe they should do the senisble thing and let me take water on planes again without having to pay £3 litre for fking water in the terminal
I'm assuming that your head has taken several such blows as part of the successful prosecution was that it was confirmed in court that the devices were "viable devices" (which means they would have done more than just go bang), and that they could have been used to seriously damage and aircraft. What the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt was that the toerags had a definite intention to use them against aircraft, despite it being bleeding obvious. So, no, you will still not be able to take liquids on the plane. Question is, would they let someone like you with a sledgehammer and several large head wounds onto a plane?
I like to to quote Baron Elton asked the simplest of questions (Emperor's New Clothes stylie) . . in a Lords debate (showing that intelligence really only resides in one of the houses)
"What damage can be done by 105 millilitres of liquid that cannot be done by 100 millilitres of liquid?"
"My briefing does not extend to that . . . . I suspect that this is based on science."
God save us all from these idiots, but I suspect it is too late for the UK now - you know the place where Media Studies or History of Art is considered more critical to the future of the country than, say, something like a pure Science degree . . . .
.. try again
A jury hears the evidence. It reaches a verdict. But the verdict isn't the one the authorities expect.
So discard the verdict and order a retrial. And, presumably, another and another until the old bill and the spooks get the result they want.
But will future juries be fooled? After all, was this not the 'plot' that depended on manufacturing triacetone triperoxide while in flight? If so, maybe potential jurors should read the comprehensive debunking published in El Reg here:
But why bother with expensive trials? Summary execution of alleged terrorists - of all young British muslims, in fact - would fulfil all the securocrat's aims at minimum cost. All we'd need are a few trains of cattle trucks, some cheaply-built crematoria, a few Ukrainean guards and a nice quiet forest.
Having recently been on holiday I have been through the stupid airport checks a few times. Seeing them remove a bottle of sun lotion from a friend into a big wheelie bin, I asked them how they disposed of the contents of the bin.
I got a blank look. I explained that the wheelie bin contained potential bomb making material, was it suitably disposed of ? Nah - it is just picked up by the local corporation dust cart.
The whole lot is rhubarb dreamed up by the security industry, keeps them all in jobs.
In terms of potential lives saved, the money would be better spent on the NHS or improving road safety.
The politicians are either ingnorant or afraid of being labelled the person who allowed the terrorists in.
"Christ on a bike I'm sick of this country..."
Well do something about it then!
Instead of complaining on a forum of like minded people you can -
Lobby your MP - tell him/her that you will be actively campaigning against them.
Join one of the many lobby groups that are active in this area e.g. Amnesty or Liberty.
Stop moaning about 'this country' as if it is something that you are not part of. Society is a collection of individuals.
F*ck off somewhere else so we don't have to listen to your whining. Trains, planes and boats leave every hour.
To all those above, please re-read the story. They were found guilty of plotting to cause explosives. It doesn't matter whether it would or would not have worked, what the CPS had to prove is that they believed it would and were intending to do it.
Second point you completely missed, they were not found innocent of planning to blow up planes, the jury failed to agree on this point. Big difference. The CPS is entirely justified in seeking a retrial in these circumstances.
Brit trio? what sort of headline is that? Surely they are evil islamic terroists, as the rest of the media are calling them, carefully ensuring islamic & terroist are always printed together.
You obviously missed the memo (or more likey are using it to wipe up coffee).
I fully agree. But, playing devil's advocate (since nobody in Government seems willing to do so), I would ask what damage can be done by 52Kg of Uranium 239 that cannot be done by 51.9Kg of U239?
I truly do not believe that the situations are in any way similar AT ALL, but it would be nice to at least hear an answer to Baron Elton's question. Perhaps something sensible like "we have to put a limit somewhere" as it just irritates me even more that TPTB feel no need to even justify decisions like this!
I was recently going through Heathrow when a foreign student made the unfortunate mistake of passing his rucksack through the X-ray machine. Unfortunate because he had a half empty bottle of coke in it. Suddenly some security idiot from one of the other lines vaults over the divider, screaming "LIQUID! LIQUID!"
Way to go with the over-reaction there Captain Cretin.
Just on a point of law here, for the people suggesting that the CPS are just throwing away the verdict they don't want.
The jury could not agree on a verdict for the aircraft charges, and four of the nuisance charges. They were neither acquitted nor convicted, therefore a retrial may be appropriate. had they been acquitted, a retrial would not be permissible under the double jeopardy rule, unless there was significant new evidence (ie, "well, we knew this before, yer'onner, but it came from our super secret spy, what we didn't want killed").
Personally, I think the fact that the jury couldn't agree demonstrates reasonable doubt: not-guilty, ergo no retrial should be requested. Unlikely though.
And people wondered why Labour were so keen on abolishing trial by jury. They're lucky they're being tried in the UK. Seeing as US airlines and passengers might have been targeted, surely they should be getting a fair hearing in front of a military tribunal in the USA, obviously via small dark rooms in Egypt where they can discuss the confession they forgot to sign... [/sarcasm]
Can't help wondering how many of the confiscated items get disposed of carefully at home by highly trained security staff.
Never seen the jacket with the lucozade bottle in the pocket before in my life gov.
Well is that a fact? Can you really? A real and practical, reliable, dependable, binary explosive comprising small quantities of nice, well-behaved and stable liquids, both of which can be so thoroughly and effectively disguised through being stored in a soft drink bottle as to render them completely undetectable to a thorough boarding search and swab test? An explosive combination so dependable, yet undetectable, that it requires nothing less than the almost total and permanent prohibition of carrying liquids on to planes and, most importantly of all, the spread of yet more ignorant fear and alarm? Well shit, sounds like I'd better start being scared.
They should run the trials like they do in the US do, a group of military officers and, a military defence assigned by the "court" who doesn't have access to any information.
That's the way to get results.
Yeah but it's a pain to get into most countries becouse they all think the English are fascist wankers. Or countries need you to have things like degrees and a good understanding of their language, things that don't just appear over night.
I remember a while a go when a high profile court case jury found the defendant 'not guilty'.
When Gordon Brown was asked for his opinion on the case he said "I'm dissapointed, there ought to be laws against such outcomes!"
And yes I'm not scared about terrorism either. Not bothered one bit. Inept and idiotic MPs and Police chiefs yes, very scared.
>Well is that a fact? Can you really?
>A real and practical, reliable, dependable, binary explosive
Reliable and dependable, maybe not. But no-one said these guys would have succeeded, just that they were trying a credible plot. Using materials that people with extensive explosives knowledge managed to make go bang. That doesn't mean the bombers would have managed it, just that they had the right stuff.
>comprising small quantities of nice, well-behaved and stable liquids
Depends on your view of the stability of HTP in bottles that can take the pressure then why not, the fuel of the explosive was a sugary powder, so it's not two liquids.
Half a kilo is quite a lot BTW.
>as to render them completely undetectable to a thorough boarding
>search and swab test?
I must look unusually innocent, when we were allowed drinks on planes, I was never subjected to such testing.
>An explosive combination so dependable, yet undetectable, that it requires nothing
>less than the almost total and permanent prohibition of carrying liquids on to planes
Well, yes, you'd have thought sniffing the bottle would be sufficient although the queues might be worse with security staff taking a sniff of every bottle found in hand luggage.
Also, I guess peroxide could be perfumed, and alcohol at 98% pure smells like alcohol at 50% pure and they make an entertaining mix.
"Instead of complaining on a forum of like minded people you can -
"Lobby your MP - tell him/her that you will be actively campaigning against them."
"Join one of the many lobby groups that are active in this area e.g. Amnesty or Liberty."
Not done because I'm sick of small well meaning groups who get overtaken by politics.
"Stop moaning about 'this country' as if it is something that you are not part of. Society is a collection of individuals."
You think the majority of us have any control any more? Really?
"F*ck off somewhere else so we don't have to listen to your whining. Trains, planes and boats leave every hour."
Trust me, when I no longer have family members to look after, I'm off.
So, now you're done trying to pick holes in my comment, do you actually have anything worthwhile to add to the thread?
Is that the same footage they showed cracking toughed glass yesterday? the stuff that it took 36 attempts in laboratory conditions and substituting some of the proposed chemicals for explosive chemicals?
hmmm, i've got a book on my desk if it was substituted for explosives would you be a bit scared of explosive books? and want to stay away from waterstones as well as newsagents
Thats all you need.
None of the above are restricted substances. No need to worry about a detonator, because its so unstable that a temperature change of +/-1 degC can detonate it once its mixed (nitro glycerine). Shaking the bottle vigourously would do the trick.
It would be suicide for sure. but then agian, detonating a bomb on a plane thats flying IS already suicide.
My chemistry teacher is a good man who warned me not to try to make the stuff at home when I was a teen. He even tried to get permission to make thermite and demonstrate it to the class. He didn't get permission but he tried.
Anyway, there is an equally good point to be made about thermite. Rust and aluminium powder. That's all. Light up a magnesium strip and dunk into powder mix. POOF melt all the way through the fuselage.
I think they should ban all make up powders on flights too. Could be dangerous. Also, all synthetic fabrics and cotton fabrics, hell just ban clothes. Too many places to hide things.
If we want to get to the root of the problem just ban people from flights. They can be dangerous, even unarmed. Especially those martial arts types. Definitely need to ban ex-servicemen, all oriental peoples, ex-policemen, instructors, students.
I KNOW!! just let politicians fly. that'll keep us all safe.
OK but for those saying 'no such thing as liquid explosives' or no explosion without a detonator I refer you to http://science.howstuffworks.com/liquid-explosives.htm which ironically was written based on the original story.
As for two compounds being made dangerous together, well we don't know what explosives the military has - Define octonitrocubane before continuing if you have an objection, and Russia has experimented with nerve gases which have to be combined from two primer solutions.
Formula one doesn't use Methanol btw, they use ordinary petrol that you can buy at the pump for your own car, thats why you see the fire quite clearly as witnessed several times during the hungarian GP.
You must be confusing F1 with Indycar/Champcar or whatever the hell there calling the low tech american version these days :P
JonB: "I must look unusually innocent, when we were allowed drinks on planes, I was never subjected to such testing."
So you were never frisked, never encountered a baggage scanner and never had a laptop swabbed? If you had wanted to carry on any prohibited item or substance then there would have been no way for security staff to detect, interrogate and subsequently stop you from getting on the plane?
Anyway, regardless of that, you missed my point. The threat (however unlikely it is ever to be seen through "successfully") has been identified, ergo some countermeasure must be implemented. Beyond the understandable immediate reflex action - ban all liquids of any quantity until the risk has been fully assessed - should the permanent countermeasures be:
A) Proportionate to that risk?
B) Disproportionate, yet politically expedient and involving a permanent restriction of liberty?
And just in case anyone is already firing up to start bleating the words 'liberal' and 'pansy': I know that not being able to take liquids on a plane isn't exactly much of a hardship, so focus less on the details and more on the principles.
I can confirm, categorically, that these guys did indeed produce explosives. They had even conducted a series of test explosions in the woods until they became satisfied they had something viable and potent. We found a number of these spent devices to which several of them later freely admitted to producing in their clamour to drop each other in the shit; such was the solidarity and idealistic loyalty of these particular rotten scumbags.
After finding the suitcase containing several substantial devices minus their initiators (which we never expected to find together at that time), we spent nearly 5 more long months on our hands and knees combing every inch of those 916 acres. Together with the house searches, we retrieved enough additional ingredients to potentially kill many more people, not to mention enough incriminatory evidence to convince everyone involved that we had stopped something evil from happening. Thousands of innocent people were intended to die, why are so many losing sight of that fact? It was real, it was there and it was but days away from intended use regardless of what the final targets were; believe what you like but I know what I saw and would stake my life on my conclusions (which is something I am occasionally called upon to do).
The planned operation was potentially buggered the moment the arrest was made in Pakistan and our hands were forced. The surveillance operation was truly exceptional and we had a pretty good idea what they were planning and how they were likely to execute it; our problem was having to jump the gun before we had enough incontestable evidence and viable defence refutations. We did the best that we could under the circumstances which was clearly immeasurably better than letting the attacks go ahead.
From my personal perspective I happen to believe they were guilty as charged because I saw far too much to convince me otherwise. You might disagree, though I'm certain that even the most embittered Register cynic might think otherwise if you had stood in my shoes. Having said that, I should bare in mind that black is white and up is down in Registerland and so many armchair critics cannot see beyond their own blinkered cynicism, so I guess I'll probably be damned as yet more proof of an Establishment, Jewish, Masonic or Lizard conspiracy. So be it.
That the jury FAILED TO AGREE on a verdict is an altogether a different matter; In English law all you have to do is to produce a 'reasonable doubt' - not prove your innocence - to escape conviction. The doubt does not have to be substantiated or even true merely a 'reasonable possibility'. Which is why so few rapists ever get to court in the first place let alone become convicted. This is the system that we live by and, whilst its infinitely preferable to the alternatives, it can still be enormously frustrating when you (and in particular the guilty party) know when the Jury has got it very wrong. Miscarriages of justice can and indeed do run both ways - or is it only wrong when the genuinely innocent are found guilty? As has already been stated the law permits a retrial because no satisfactory verdict, either way, has yet been reached for the most significant allegation; this is surely right, proper and fair in a free society, regardless of the eventual finding?
Such evidential considerations are all the more ironic when discussed here, on The Register, where rapidly jumping to erroneous conclusions based on media reports, heresay, unsubstantiated allegations and preconceived ideas is such a distinctive Registerland trait. We all know it, its this sheer entertainment value that keeps many of us coming back for more.
I don't understand what everyone is moaning about? I thought that the register would have had a higher percentage of intelligent readers than a tabloid like the Sun?
The jury DID NOT REACH A VERDICT therefore the CPS has every right to retrial them until a verdict is reached.
No lets do it the liberal reg reader way. If in court (as often can happen) the Jury is split and fails to reach a collective decision, then we should go on about how the defendant(s) are automatically innocent and that this country is in a mess. Learn how the law works librotards.
>So you were never frisked,
Yes, no-one frisked my drink though.
>never encountered a baggage scanner
Yes, liquids in bottles look like liquids in bottles in a scanner.
>and never had a laptop swabbed?
No, never had anything swabbed.
Mostly though, I never had anyone ever open up a sealed drinks bottle and see what was in it, let alone chemically test it.
So, what do you do? Sniff every drink bottle, or ban all the bottles? Banning the bottles might actually be less of a hardship than the queues caused by examining each one.
Of course people still manage to wander around the planet with cocaine etc strapped to their bodies or stuffed in their orifices so I would have thought that would be a better way to get a bomb on board, bombs not requiring metal of course.
I'm not sure what you propose as a more proportionate countermeasure?
In additional to my above titled post, and in anticipation of the usual likely critique.
With regard to a Police belief of guilt in advance of any trial - at 0230 this very morning I heard noise and shouting outside my house, I looked out in time to see 4 drunks smashing the windows of the kebab shop across the road from me. I phoned it in and ran outside. I managed to nick 2 and ensured that the others were picked up a short time later. I returned to the shop where the groggy staff showed me CCTV footage of the act taking place from both the internal and external POV.
I believe that I am now reasonably entitled to claim that I KNOW, irrefutably, that these particular morons are 100% GUILTY of causing criminal damage, even before they were actually charged; let alone before any eventual court appearance. Or does being a police officer require some deeper level of proof before you're allowed to make such assertions?
Incidentally, a number of very able bodied neighbours also witnessed last night's events but, typically, no-one else even bothered to come out or even call it in despite the fact that I was outnumbered 4 to 1 by very aggressive dick-heads at least half my age. Yet, this afternoon, at least two of these good neighbours were highly critical of my reaction time and methods; they apparently could have done it so much better. So why didn't they?
Ah, the Great British public, first to criticise, last to act! Is it any wonder that the inmates are now in charge of the asylum whilst vast herds of chemically confused, socially inadequate morons are left to range freely across the streets?
Rule Britannia eh?
Ahh... so just because you were so amazingly wrong about the ability to use a binary explosive you're changing tack and saying it's all about the principles (and may I also add kinepak and binex to the list of binary explosives - which are comercial, very stable and reliable, your so wrongness).
Proportionate to that risk?
OK, you tell us what is propotionate and reasonable, oh and if it turns out your proposal is a bit slack, you'll have to take the responsibility.
>I know that not being able to take liquids on a plane isn't exactly much of a hardship
Not much of a hardship = reasonable? so maybe a principle of making it so inconvienient (and high risk of getting caught) for a potential bad guy (or gal) that they don't bother.
In summary.... shush
I'm sorry JonB, you misunderstand me. I really can't be bothered to spell it out any more clearly than I already have, other than to say that in the days-gone-by to which you refer, the threat we are discussing had not been identified. Figure it out from there. Please understand I'm not trying to be dismissive or anything; you're obviously not stupid, so my meaning should be pretty clear from what I've already said.
Did this lot not notice that the plods were shooting brownish people just on suspicion? Did they think that popping off petards for a lark wouldn't get the plod's wind up? They've been more than lucky that they were not terminated with extreme prejudice on the high street in full daylight to the applause of the watching crowd.
Lads, Usama bin Laden is NOT a good role model.
Thanks for that liquids anwer, that's an answer I can work with.
I make no bones about the people themselves: they were observed doing serious dodgy things, there appears to have been stacks of evidence of bomb building and planning and it's not like someone forced them to work together - to me they should get what is coming to them (and it's nice to see good detective work on display - I rather missed that). I don't buy the "we wanted to scare people" - you don't need powerful explosives for that. In the right place even a paper bag will do. Actually, I have an idea. Let's just scare them with their own bombs.
As for airport checks, I hope someone gets a decent sniffer together that doesn't need swabs (might also stop those that missed their annual bath twice in a row). I'm not convinced it isn't possible to subvert airside personnel (that doesn't need to be willingly) so the risk still exists, but the current countermeasures at least reduce the risk.
However, overall I still think what the British government did during the Irish terrorism wave was best: clamp down on media coverage. These people depend on the media broadcasting their atrocities, so keeping them as 8 point articles just after the puzzles would at least sort that one out..
Thank you for that, If you are genuine and you certainly sound it , it is nice to get a little info from the horses' mouth. I have to apologise for not reading the article correctly, although I remain disenamoured with the current British establishment your comment goes to show that not everyone working for the establishment is a twat and that there are some genuine white hats left.
I still don't get terrorists, I don't see why they want to get past security, insead they should use the security bottleneck to cause an easy to get, easy to reach body count, just pack a suitcase with nails, ballbearings and explosives and blow up the check in queues, or a supermarket. I just don't understand this fascination with planes.
> these guys did indeed produce explosives. They had even conducted a series of test explosions in the woods until they became satisfied they had something viable and potent.
I don't doubt it. But, tell us, how many *failed* attempts did they have? When it took even experienced scientists multiple attempts to get it right? And would they *really* have been able to do it on a plane? Can anyone say? Or is there a reasonable doubt?
> several of them later freely admitted to producing in their clamour to drop each other in the shit
"Look, sunshine, you admit to this and we'll go easy on you. Keep schtum and we'll maybe hand you over to the Yanks who'll send you to Guantanamo Bay" (or some other such threat).
BTW, ever heard of The Prisoner's Dilemma?
> Together with the house searches, we retrieved enough additional ingredients to potentially kill many more people, not to mention enough incriminatory evidence to convince everyone involved that we had stopped something evil from happening.
Wasn't a similar justification used for the "Ricin Terror Plot" raids?
> Thousands of innocent people were intended to die, why are so many losing sight of that fact?
So many? Or just some of the "Twelve good persons and true" who were not convinced of this by the Prosecution's case?
> It was real, it was there and it was but days away from intended use
Not 45 minutes...?!
> From my personal perspective I happen to believe they were guilty as charged because I saw far too much to convince me otherwise. [...] In English law all you have to do is to produce a 'reasonable doubt' - not prove your innocence - to escape conviction.
Yet the Jury weren't convinced. And that's the point. It's the JURY who make the decision. If they don't then, yes, there can be a re-trial, but until they are *found* to be guilty they are *presumed* to be innocent, no matter what your personal perspective may be.
The defendants do not have to prove their innocence, the prosecution must prove their *guilt*, whether you like it or not.
As to your follow up post, just out of interest, had not you, a serving officer, called in the report, how long do you think it would have taken for your colleagues to react to the incident? Perhaps it's that which your neighbours were remarking on.
(A friend called the Police one night just after midnight when some idiots were smashing up a car in the road outside his place. An officer came around to take a statement at midday the next day...)
BTW I'm pleased to hear you did something about it, but, there again, that's your JOB, ie to keep the peace, not to determine guilt, nor exact punishment on offenders.
PS I hope that your post won't prejudice any future trial...
>I don't doubt it. But, tell us, how many *failed* attempts did they have?
Surely the number of failed attempts is largely irrelevant? Well I guess it might perhaps demonstrate their degree of determination. But the salient point here is that, at some stage in the proceedings, they satisfied THEMSELVES that they'd finally got it right and became sufficiently confident to start putting their conspiracy into practise.
>When it took even experienced scientists multiple attempts to get it right?
Which proves what exactly? That it was a sod to get right?
>And would they *really* have been able to do it on a plane? Can anyone say? Or is there a reasonable doubt?
Well, I for one would prefer not to have been on one of those planes when they gave it a try, how about you? Would you risk your family or anyone else's on that supposition? Richard Reid was another moron but he had enough viable TATP in his shoes to cause a small explosion regardless of whether or not it would have actually detonated the PETN.
>"Look, sunshine, you admit to this and we'll go easy on you. Keep schtum and we'll maybe hand you over to the Yanks who'll send you to Guantanamo Bay" (or some other such threat).
Sorry but this really is a 'grow up' moment. You can't even imagine the paranoia everyone had about getting it absolutely right. We all know, only too well, the pitfalls and consequences to a trial of any potential accusations of coercion or duress - in the real world its also a very real career buster. Despite much opinion to the contrary, most of us regard this as morally repugnant.
This is why terrorist suspects are constantly filmed, their interviews recorded and their defence solicitors ever present. We even have to strive to ensure dietary requirements and appropriate prayer time is provided, anything to demonstrate that fairness and reasonable impartiality is maintained; even if this means suspending an interview.
>BTW, ever heard of The Prisoner's Dilemma?
Oh yes; I've even played it in the presence of a Circuit Judge during a particularly tedious interview techniques course.
>Wasn't a similar justification used for the "Ricin Terror Plot" raids?
Quite possibly, I can't really say. However, in this particular case we absolutely had them; it is quite hard to exaggerate the sheer depth, scope and professionalism of the surveillance operation, it was the most detailed any of us have ever encountered and the information it revealed was something else. I obviously can't talk about the extent of the physical evidence save to say that WE found it overwhelmingly conclusive. I can't say what would convince you or anyone else for that matter.
>So many? Or just some of the "Twelve good persons and true" who were not convinced of this by the Prosecution's case?
And this is, of course the rub; jury trials are a very inexact science and we have to take the rough with the smooth. I have been involved in scores of cases where the evidence of guilt has been absolutely overwhelming but still Jury's have acquitted for reasons known only to themselves.
I've seen Judges recoil in amazement at such decisions, their reactions matched only by that of the equally shocked accused. In one memorable case a newly acquitted "burglar" came up to me outside the Court still staggered by his unexpected good fortune, he then proceeded to volunteer the location of stolen property we knew nothing about and then shout abuse at the departing Jurers for being such mugs! Its events like this that prevent you taking things personally and engendering a healthy level of resigned stoicism.
>Not 45 minutes...?!
An irrelevant cheap shot my friend.
.......... continued on next post
>Yet the Jury weren't convinced. And that's the point. It's the JURY who make the decision. If they don't then, yes, there can be a re-trial, but until they are *found* to be guilty they are *presumed* to be innocent, no matter what your personal perspective may be.
Yes of course, we all know this but that was not the point I was making. We all understand the legal Presumption of Innocence, but that is, in reality, a very different concept than your personal knowledge of events, or mine in this particular context.
If I were to punch you in the mouth without warning or provocation, you wouldn't need a Jury to convince you that I was guilty of assault; and if a jury subsequently acquitted me (perhaps I produced a bogus alibi or concocted a false but realistic sounding story), your opinion of my guilt would not change one iota because you had better knowledge of events than that Jury. How instead would you feel if I murdered your wife with the same outcome or even if you had witnessed me attempting to murder a bus full of people all with the same outcome? Any different do you think?
>The defendants do not have to prove their innocence, the prosecution must prove their *guilt*, whether you like it or not.
Don't you think I don't know and accept that? I understand the rules of the game (for that's what it is) only too well. As far as I am concerned, a criminal act can produce two very distinct and often only tenuously connected outcomes. The first is the act itself which, once completed, is largely over and done with. The second is that of the Court proceedings which, although born of the criminal act, is a very different animal and consists of a series of protracted, ritualised traumatic events which often has very little to do with the reality of the original act. Truth and reality often struggles to be heard above the cacophony of jurisprudence in full holler.
>As to your follow up post, just out of interest, had not you, a serving officer, called in the report, how long do you think it would have taken for your colleagues to react to the incident?
It took them 20 minutes as the only available car was in the next town.
>Perhaps it's that which your neighbours were remarking on.
No, their normal complaint is of seeing too many police (usually me) it tends to cramp their style.
>(A friend called the Police one night just after midnight when some idiots were smashing up a car in the road outside his place. An officer came around to take a statement at midday the next day...)
I recently called for assistance in similar circumstances to my above incident and did not get any because there was no-one available. I had to deal with it
>BTW I'm pleased to hear you did something about it, but, there again, that's your JOB, ie to keep the peace, not to determine guilt, nor exact punishment on offenders.
Yep, my 24 hour a day job - did I say I was in bed when this happened? I only wish my pay reflected my constantly being on duty.
Oh and If we weren't able to determine the guilty party, no-one would ever get charged with any offence. We have to first detect and determine guilt in order for the offender to have his trial and Presumption of Innocence, the system wouldn't work otherwise. Okay, potential guilt then, but in reality it means the same thing.
> Surely the number of failed attempts is largely irrelevant?
No, it's entirely relevant because you neglect to factor in whether, once they'd "got it right", they could replicate those results sufficiently to make this a truly viable threat.
> Which proves what exactly? That it was a sod to get right?
Exactly! Yet, because it was *possible* (but not necessarily by any means probable), millions of passengers have had to suffer disruption and hassle.
> Well, I for one would prefer not to have been on one of those planes when they gave it a try, how about you? Would you risk your family or anyone else's on that supposition?
Why didn't you add "Think of the children!" whilst you were at it?
This is exactly the same sort of argument that is being used by your Chief Police Officers etc for ID cards, taking everyone's DNA and so on because "would you want to risk us *not* catching the terrorists/ criminals/ paedophiles/ bogeyman of the month?"
Yes, there's a potential risk, but I also take a risk every time I go out on Britain's roads where around 3,500 people die each year. Do you risk your family's lives on the supposition that it's not likely to be *you* in that number of deaths?
I don't deny there's a threat, but there's also such a thing as a sense of proportion and not getting caught up in the hype.
> I obviously can't talk about the extent of the physical evidence save to say that WE found it overwhelmingly conclusive. I can't say what would convince you or anyone else for that matter. [...] still Jury's have acquitted for reasons known only to themselves.
Again, exactly my point. With all due respect to you and your colleagues and your experience and your feelings, you are *not* impartial nor objective viewers of the evidence.
>>Not 45 minutes...?!
> An irrelevant cheap shot my friend.
A "cheap shot"? Definitely. "Irrelevant", however? Nope.
> We all understand the legal Presumption of Innocence, but that is, in reality, a very different concept than your personal knowledge of events, or mine in this particular context.
Yes, I don't deny that. The question is, however, what happens next which is why, of course, we have an independent judiciary and why we don't let the Police determine guilt or families of victims determine sentences.
> I only wish my pay reflected my constantly being on duty.
On that you will get no argument from me. Whatever else we may disagree on, the way successive Governments have treated the pay of Police, Hospital Staff, the Fire Service and other such groups is nothing short of shameful.
> Oh and If we weren't able to determine the guilty party [...] Okay, potential guilt then, but in reality it means the same thing.
No, it doesn't. Ask the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and many others who were victims of over-zealous Police Officers in the past.
@ Graham Marsden
The jury were unconvinced of the target, apparently (and bafflingly) there's a separate offence for attempting to blow up aircraft.
They were (4 at least) were convicted of plotting to murder, what they weren't convicted of, and where the evidence was lacking was that it was aircraft they were targeting. The bombers insisted the device was planned for the terminal building, and wasn't intended to kill.
An attempted murder charge should be enough to keep them locked up indefinitely really, success shouldn't make them more guilty.
>My tack was never about the explosive, nor have I changed it.
"You can't make a Lucozade bomb??" (Rhetorical)
You may be right that I misunderstand you (and maybe I am thick), but I thought you meant that you felt the restrictions were too harsh and that some other "countermeasures" should be used. I asked what that was, with the observation that examining every drink bottle may produce more hardship than banning them all.
I would like to take this oppertunity to point out that with the simple bottle of a certain easy to optain liquid and the addition of HTH (pool clorine) powder makes a dandy clorine bomb which is in terms of lethality in a closed enviroment is nifty alternative to simply blowing up the whole sodding plane.....
Just my 5 cents worth
Reminds me of the planer crashes of sim city........now where is that disk
Now that the general public believe that liquid bombs of this nature are real it would be all too easy for a terror clown to spread panic on a flight. He could just pop into the loo, piss into an empty Oasis bottle and drop his iPod headphone into it. Then all he would need to do is run out shouting and hope that there isn’t a sky marshal or Wesley Snipes on board.
I think you'll find you're not allowed empties on either..
@jelly : Chlorine
Given the rate that air is cycled in a plane, I'd expect that you'd have to produce shit loads of chlorine to even make anyone ill, that even if you managed that killing people would be one hell of a challenge and that the flight crew would be unaffected.
of government using over the top none factual headlines to take away our rights.
Remeber the ricin scare which was splashed all over the headlines a few years ago, in resulted in all 3 people being found innocent.
Whats worse is after 7/7 one of the guys who remain in the country was arrested again, for no reason other than he had been arrested before on terrorists charges (even though he was cleared) then tagged and told he couldnt leave his crappy little flat for most of the day. - Far as I know thats still on going.
*\. Mines the one with a pda in the pocket about to be used as an excuse for my free trip to gitmo'.
>My tack was never about the explosive, nor have I changed it.
So your first post with "You can't make a Lucozade bomb??" in it wasn't written by you? and the whole post rant entitled "@ Credulous Twits" didn't happen?
nahhhh... you were shown up as the troll you are (perhaps in your eagerness to be the first to post?) and so decided to bang on about personal liberty in a third and whiny post "you missed my point" (which you didn't make), almost finally ending with a note to JonB basically saying "if you understand me you're clever, if you don't you're stupid", do you find this works for you? I bet you're a school teacher.
Please post again so I can taunt you some more, the dirt from your spade is hitting you on the head because the hole you have dug for yourself is so deep.
"Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting."
I see your point but I wasn't referring to the use of a viable device (or whatever the securigoons are calling them these days). It would be along the lines of hoax bomb threats and even if you couldn’t bring an empty bottle on the plane I’m sure a flight attendant would give you a bottle of water. It would only need to look like a fizzy drink bomb to have a marked affect, like panic everyone on board the plane and cause it to divert. That alone would inconvenience hundreds or maybe thousands of people.
OK, I've only skimmed the thread, but I *do* remember the comprehensive debunking of liquid bombs by El Reg some time ago.
I was surprised then to cop a demo of one by a UK News programme.
Could someone please explain the difference?
No longer knowing what to believe,
Confused ov Leeds
I very much doubt you _are_ thick, but then neither am I. In other words I don't need to be reminded of what I said. "You can't make a Lucozade bomb??" was sheer sarcasm but (since we're pointing these things out) I clarified the implication in my subsequent comment. There's no win to be had in comparing that initial intellectually vacuous flame bait with what I later went on to say, hence my "meh" response to Mike. I never changed tack as he claimed; from the beginning my argument has always been about what I believe is a disproportionate response that has done little more than feed our fears.
If carry-on baggage can be checked for conventional explosives, firearms, flammable substances, pressurised containers, offensive weapons, Transformers t-shirts, whatever, then it can also be checked for the makings of binary explosives. More precisely, if we can check bags, laptops etc. for chemical traces without the need to ban those items purely on the basis that they could conceivably harbour a terrorist device, then we can do it for any other potential nastiness-concealing container.
Oh, and of course a bottle of liquid in a scanner looks just like a bottle of liquid. What's the point in saying that unless you either really do think I'm thick or had a burning desire to show the world you can be disingenuous and faintly patronising? Actually I'm sorry, that was a cheap shot. An eye for an eye will make us all blind... but fuck it, it's good sport. Anyway, I can see the point you were trying to make. Obviously a laptop (for example) with a bomb in it is going to look different on a scan than one without but, forgetting for a moment that it's perfectly plausible some ne'er-do-well could create one that doesn't, the fact is that we have well-established and efficient ways of telling the difference and we use them; we do not simply implement a fearmongering blanket ban.
You are however right when you say that additional checking will cause more inconvenience than simply banning all liquids. How much more is a matter for debate. As you have surely gleaned I do not believe it to be significant enough to justify the current outright ban and all that it entails.
Finally, one thing I'm sure you'll agree with me on is that next time I get half-cut and feel like dropping a sarky comment on a Reg article at ten to midnight on a school night I should probably think twice.
Mine's the one hung up next to the gloves.
That's honestly the first time I've ever been called a troll (\me makes a note of the date and time). It's also the first time I've ever been called a teacher, but what exactly do you mean by that? C'mon, let's see your true colours. Seems to me you're the one posting inflammatory messages so by anybody's definition you're the troll. And no, I don't consider my original comment to be inflammatory, just ill-advised.
"Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always"
PIRA statement to Thatcher government after the Brighton bomb, 1984.
Air travel is pretty safe up until the plane hits the ground too hard. If it crashes in a city the death toll is likely to be very high. That is why 'hitting' a plane is an attractive (spectacular) proposition for a terrorist.
Yes the above quote was from the Provisional IRA but the point is made that terrorists, particularly those who have no regard for their own life are very hard to counter. Someone with a device/mixture designed to explode which doesn't expolde is still a terrorist.
Intent is a difficult thing to determine. Yes we built bombs, we tested them. We were happy we could get them to go bang when we wanted them to. We thought about disguising them to get them onto planes but then we decided we'd just set them off in the terminals. That would teach the infidels because of the disruption we would cause. Mmmmm.
Who is going to decide that it is no longer a risk to have liquids/bottles on a plane? I think it will be after 'they' have worked out a new method to cause disruption/death etc. So far we've had exploding shoes? What a load of cobblers (deliberate punnage). Exploding liquids? I find that hard to swallow (!) Anything is possible in this day and age, just look at some of the previous comments here "oh my laptop battery and blah blah blah", "you should mix......".
Where will it all end?
You are a Troll because of the coblers that you have spouted some of which you admit was "flame bait" and when you said "from the beginning my argument has always been about what I believe is a disproportionate response that has done little more than feed our fears." it must have been in your head alone, because you certainly didn't even hint as this until your trolling "flame bait" was responded to, the most telling post is when you refer to people as "Credulous Twits" (hmm.. they were right, you were wrong, ahem), unless you were still "half-cut" at 10:57 in the morning you're not allowed to use the "ill-advised" excuse (besides who ill advised you? do you have voices in your head?).
At the end of the day, your initial posts were just plain wrong, rather than admit it you'll pretend that you were trying to make a point about personal liberty, I personally believe that argument is weak (you have offered no better solutions, even when specifically asked), there may be a point to make but you have spewed so much chaff with the wheat nobody is listening, you're probably not thick, you just look that way because you're stubborn, oh and apologising for something you wrote in the same paragraph means either you don't mean it or you don't know how to use the delete key.
Am I a Troll for taunting you? maybe, but I did add the disclaimer "Please post again so I can taunt you some more" and you did......
You have two choices;
1. Shush, people will forget about you (I sugest you change your name)
2. Post something else, you'll only make yourself look stupider which will make people smile, go on I dare you to fall into my "taunting you more trap" bwahhahaha!
3. Admit that you were wrong, apologise to the "Credulous Twits" then maybe people will listen to you (but it's probably too late).
I know I said two choices, but I think we both know you won't let it lie (because you're stubborn).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019