Book launch on the ‘ricin trial’ stitch-up


by Sunny
19th January, 2011 at 10:35 am    

On Thursday 27 January at 6.30 for 7.00 pm, Amnesty International will host the launch of “Ricin: The Inside Story of the Terror Plot That Never Was”, a new book from the foreman of the jury in the renowned ‘Ricin trial’.

The 2004 trial set out to prove that Al Qaeda had been planning an attack on the UK. Following a landmark case lasting seven months, the jury cleared four of the five Algerian men who had been accused of a plot to manufacture poisons and explosives.

Weeks later the freed men were threatened with deportation to Algeria, despite the jury’s Not Guilty verdicts. To date only one man has been granted the right to remain in the UK. Two of the men were re-arrested in 2005 and held under Control Order conditions.

This topic and others raised by the ricin trial will be explored by:

Michael Mansfield QC: celebrated barrister who has defended numerous high profile cases, including that of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. He successfully represented defendant Mouloud Sihali in the ricin trial.
Julian Hayes: solicitor who represented defendant Sidali Feddag in the trial.
Lawrence Archer: jury foreman in the trial and co-author of a book on the subject, with legal journalist Fiona Bawdon.
Dianne Abbott MP: Labour MP who in 2009 was extremely proactive in raising the issue of secret evidence use, through hosting a parliamentary meeting and raising an Early Day Motion in the Commons.

The event will be chaired by Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator, television reporter for Dispatches and author of ‘The Rise of Political Lying’ and ‘The Triumph of the Political Class’.

EVENT DETAILS:
What: Launch of “Ricin: The Inside Story of the Terror Plot That Never Was”
When: Thursday 2t January
Time: 6.30pm for 7pm start

Where: Amnesty International Human Rights Action Centre, London EC2A 3EA
The event is free but booking is essential. To attend, please register at www.amnesty.org.uk/events


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Events






63 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : Book launch on the 'ricin trial' stitch-up http://bit.ly/fmCiqT




  1. Nadeem — on 19th January, 2011 at 10:54 am  

    The jury cleared 4 out of 5 of the defendants you say?

    And what of the 1 they didn’t clear? Do you have any information on him/her?

    Could you please update the post if you do?

    Thanks very much

  2. Kismet Hardy — on 19th January, 2011 at 12:25 pm  

    Algerians like their ricin peas

  3. Roger — on 19th January, 2011 at 12:52 pm  

    And what of the 1 they didn’t clear? Do you have any information on him/her?

    He was a horrible terrorist who murdered a police officer. You can read about him here:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/1943.html

  4. damon — on 19th January, 2011 at 1:02 pm  

    It would be good to get to the bottom of this, so maybe the book will shed some light on the case.

    The one man who was not found not guilty was Kamel Bourgass. See time line here.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4433459.stm

    2001

    11 Dec: Kamel Bourgass loses his final appeal against refusal to grant him asylum in UK.

    2002

    22 Jun: Police search a storage depot in Wembley, north London, and find a false passport for Bourgass.

    Sep: Police raid a flat in Ilford, east London, and arrest Mouloud Sihali. Police arrest David Khalef at a house in Thetford, Norfolk.

    Mohamed Meguerba is also arrested, although he is later freed on bail with his significance unrecognised.

    2003

    5 Jan: UK police find 22 castor oil beans – the raw material for the poison ricin – in a flat at 352B High Road, Wood Green, in north London. They also find equipment needed to produce ricin and recipes for ricin, cyanide and several other poisons. Seven people are arrested, including Sidali Feddag. Bourgass flees to Manchester, via Bournemouth and Weymouth.

    7 Jan: Mustapha Taleb is arrested as he visits a bank in Wood Green.

    11/12 Jan: Six people are arrested in Bournemouth, in connection with a ricin plot.

    13 Jan: Four people, including Feddag and Taleb, are charged with “possession of articles of value to a terrorist” in relation to a ricin plot.

    14 Jan: Detective Constable Stephen Oake is stabbed to death by Bourgass during a raid on a flat in the Crumpsall district of Manchester. Bourgass and two other men are are arrested.

  5. Nadeem — on 19th January, 2011 at 1:14 pm  

    thanks Roger.

    Sunny, any chance of an update to your post to give detail on all the defendants?

  6. Kismet Hardy — on 19th January, 2011 at 1:27 pm  

    Nadeem, by your thinking, I’m pretty sure some of the people in guantanamo must be actually guilty. So that makes it alright then

  7. cjcjc — on 19th January, 2011 at 2:12 pm  

    Erm, well the conviction of Bourgass, who also killed a policeman, suggests that there was a plot.

    So I’m confused.

    Still, I’m sure Diane Abbott will sort it all out.

  8. greg — on 19th January, 2011 at 2:33 pm  

    they are Muslims and so ipso facto guilty in the eyes of the likes of cjcjc and his fellow travellers

  9. cjcjc — on 19th January, 2011 at 2:48 pm  

    Well, I hate to respond to a “troll”, but Bourgass
    was found guilty (of conspiracy as well as *murder*…)

    So there was a plot.

  10. Nadeem — on 19th January, 2011 at 3:16 pm  

    Kismet Hardy, who mentioned Guantanamo? Extrapolating on other people’s opinions is never productive. I just think Sunny could go into a bit more detail on his post.

  11. douglas clark — on 19th January, 2011 at 4:19 pm  

    cjcjc @ 9,

    Bourgass had been found guilty of murdering a policeman at a separate and earlier trial. The jury in this case found him guilty of conspiracy to create a public nuicance and were unable to reach a verdict on whether or not he was guilty of a conspiracy to murder.

    I am quoting this from the book Ricin! The Inside Story of the Terror Plot that Never Was.

    Strange that I bought it about a month ago on Amazon!

  12. cjcjc — on 19th January, 2011 at 4:36 pm  

    A public nuisance…”by the use of poisons and/or explosives to cause disruption, fear or injury.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4433709.stm

    “Anti-terrorist squad officers found a suspected chemical weapons laboratory when they raided a flat in Wood Green, north London, in January 2003.

    They discovered castor oil beans – the raw material for ricin – along with equipment needed to produce it and recipes for ricin, cyanide, botulinum and other poisons, along with instructions for explosives.”

    The Plot That Never Was…carried out, thanks to the police. Excellent.
    No need to read the book now.

  13. damon — on 19th January, 2011 at 4:39 pm  

    This is the author of this book talking about the trial in which he was the jury foreman.
    http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/features/ideas/politics-ricin-the-plot-that-never-was/

    The details have to be picked over, as there seems to be politics and spinning all over this story. And not just from pro-war in Iraq – anti-terror legislation right wingers.
    Even the guy who wrote the book and that article admits that ricin recipes had been written out in hand by Bourgass, and that there were ricin ingredients found at the flat in Wood Green.

    At his trial he changed his story, claiming he wrote out the recipes for Mohammed Meguerba who was planning to take them back to Algeria where villagers could use them against bandits.

    Another of the defendents was this guy, Sidali Feddag, who for some reason was supported by Harry’s Place.
    http://hurryupharry.org/2008/09/12/support-sidali-feddag/

    This is from a short profile of Sidali Feddag on a BBC page.

    Algerian. Born 9 February 1985. Youngest of the defendants.
    Entered UK with his father in November 2000 on a tourist visa.
    Was given leave to stay for six months in July 2001 but overstayed and then applied for asylum.

    Failed to attend an interview with immigration services in August 2001 but the following month was given a flat in Wood Green by Islington Council.

    Arrested in January 2003 and has immigration appeal pending.
    Feddag said he met Bourgass at a mosque and invited him to stay at a flat in Wood Green.

    In July 2002 Feddag’s father brought the castor oil beans to the UK on the request of Bourgass, who said he needed them to make herbal medicine. He also brought apple pips and cherry stones.

    Has pleaded guilty to passport offences – he had a false French passport in the name of Osman Koufi – but denied the other charges.
    Has been cleared of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4433649.stm

    It would seem that the security services have every justification to be highly suspicious of people like this. You just need to read about the kinds of lives they were living in the UK.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/apr/14/terrorism.world2

  14. cjcjc — on 19th January, 2011 at 4:48 pm  

    “At his trial he changed his story, claiming he wrote out the recipes for Mohammed Meguerba who was planning to take them back to Algeria where villagers could use them against bandits.”

    Haha – brilliant.

    “Failed to attend an interview with immigration services in August 2001 but the following month was given a flat in Wood Green by Islington Council.”

    Your taxes at work.

  15. joe90 — on 19th January, 2011 at 8:50 pm  

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4442479.stm

    “A key unexplained issue is why the Porton Down laboratory, which analysed the material and equipment seized from a flat in Wood Green, said that a residue of ricin had been found when it had not.”

    “Yet, within two days of the raid on the flat, it appears that the leader of the Biological Weapon Identification Group at Porton Down, Martin Pearce, had concluded that ricin was not present.”

    no trace of ricin was found

    pity your not the judge jury and executioner hey cjcj
    then we could have added miscarriage of justice to boot!

  16. cjcjc — on 19th January, 2011 at 9:30 pm  

    No. They hadn’t got round to making it.
    Thank goodness.

  17. Nadeem — on 19th January, 2011 at 9:51 pm  

    thank goodness the Algerian bandits are ok…

  18. ukliberty — on 19th January, 2011 at 10:34 pm  

    I think Bourgass did intend to poison people but there was no need to panic.

    damon,

    The details have to be picked over, as there seems to be politics and spinning all over this story. And not just from pro-war in Iraq – anti-terror legislation right wingers.

    There was a great deal of spin from supporters of ever more terrorism legislation, too.

    At the time, there were claims along these lines: “OMG this guy could have poisoned hundreds of people!”

    But he was incapable of doing so.

    So this incompetent murderer, who undoubtedly intended to harm lots of people but was incompetent to do so, nevertheless achieved some measure of success because of our over-reaction.

    More details for you to “pick over” here.

  19. ukliberty — on 19th January, 2011 at 10:50 pm  
  20. Sunny — on 19th January, 2011 at 11:11 pm  

    the post is about the book launch – not the full details of the case

  21. BenSix — on 19th January, 2011 at 11:17 pm  

    There’s clearly nothing to worry about here. I mean, sure, we were told that ricin had been made when it hadn’t but better sage than sorry, eh? And, yes, the claim was used to give fallacious justification for a war that went on to kill thousands but, er — what’s done is done, right? And I mean, the jury foreman: what does he know, huh?

    Nope, I think I can return to worrying in tedious detail about the distribution of my taxes.

  22. Roger — on 20th January, 2011 at 12:09 am  

    the post is about the book launch – not the full details of the case

    Er, the book is about the case.

    Are you always this stupid?

  23. Brownie — on 20th January, 2011 at 12:46 am  

    So this incompetent murderer, who undoubtedly intended to harm lots of people but was incompetent to do so, nevertheless achieved some measure of success because of our over-reaction.

    Perhaps things should have gone down like this at Anti-Terror HQ:

    “Sarge, surveillance and intelligence suggests our target is trying to manufacture ricin”

    “Is he clever?”

    “No, seems to be pretty stupid”

    “Then leave him alone. He’ll get bored”

    And, yes, the claim was used to give fallacious justification for a war that went on to kill thousands

    Yes, verily one couldn’t move for those ‘we’ve-found-ricin-in-North-London-so-we-must-invade-Iraq’ arguments in the early spring of 2003. This is most-assuredly why I supproted the war. Well, that and the fact I’m a blood-thirsty imperialist, obviously.

    what’s done is done, right?

    Why don’t you ask the widow of DC Stephen Oake?

  24. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 1:36 am  

    Brownie,

    I have read the book. There never was ricin. There were, perhaps, the precursors of ricin. Though, as far as I know, you can make castor oil out of castor beans too. Which is sometimes used as a food additive. Yes, a food additive.

    It is a fact that the case became part of the narrative that lead us into the Iraq conflict. And, as you choose to deliberately misunderstand that, that it was a part of the ratchet effect that the Blair government adopted that led, eventually to nonsensical claims of a direct threat to the UK.

    Well, Mandy Rice Davies, you would say that, wouldn’t you?

    You do your usual trick of conflating one thing with another.

    DC Stephen Oakes killer was Bourgass.

    Bourgass was being arrested on suspicion of being involved in the ricin plot. Bourgass went mad. He knifed five Police Officers and killed one, DC Oake. DC Oake was refused a GC by the government despite dying in the line of duty and displaying what I’d see as exemplary bravery.

    It might behove you to recall that no-one during the case was allowed to mention Bourgass’s henious crime. It might behove you to look at the facts of this specific case instead of playing dumb.

    I know you are a bit thick, but innocent people should at least see a health warning on any post you make.

    This is a post by Brownie. It is fact free, and has been constructed in a factory that may contain nuts. It is therefore quite likely to damage your health.

  25. BenSix — on 20th January, 2011 at 2:26 am  

    Brownie -

    Yes, verily one couldn’t move for those ‘we’ve-found-ricin-in-North-London-so-we-must-invade-Iraq’ arguments in the early spring of 2003. This is most-assuredly why I supproted the war. Well, that and the fact I’m a blood-thirsty imperialist, obviously.

    Don’t make me quote Carly Simon, Brownie; if I say “the war was bad” I’m not implying “and so are you”. I’m talkin’ about this guy

    Despite the fact that Porton Down knew there was no ricin at Wood Green in early January 2003, Colin Powell, then US Secretary of State, mentioned its definite discovery several weeks later on February 5th, as part of his presentation to the United Nations Security Council. Arguing the case for the invasion of Iraq, Powell cited the Wood Green “find” as a cause for grave concern and linked it to an “Iraq-linked terrorist network”.

  26. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 2:29 am  

    Ben Six:

    This is a post by Brownie. It is fact free, and has been constructed in a factory that may contain nuts. It is therefore quite likely to damage your health.

    I rest my case.

  27. damon — on 20th January, 2011 at 3:21 am  

    the post is about the book launch – not the full details of the case

    I think the case is better understood now that it’s been looked into a little here. And will help put your comments in the OP in perspective too.

    It looks like an totally amateur attempt to make some ricin. It might not have been much of a plot, but several of the people were living lives that are bound to lead the police to suspicion.

    Here is one of the aquitted telling his own story, and it sounds quite plausable. But you really can’t have people going around using false identities either.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/27/terrorism.uksecurity

    Maybe the police need a bit of Lord Scarman like enquiry in how to deal with illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers who live in the black economy, and have false identities and passports …. without always assuming the worst.

  28. Sunny — on 20th January, 2011 at 4:14 am  

    Er, the book is about the case.

    Exactly, so go to the damn event and pose your questions if you like. twat

  29. cjcjc — on 20th January, 2011 at 7:12 am  

    Douglas you’re excelling yourself.
    He was obviously so stupid that he mistook a ricin recipe for a castor oil recipe.
    What a silly billy.

  30. Brownie — on 20th January, 2011 at 7:57 am  

    It is a fact that the case became part of the narrative that lead us into the Iraq conflict. And, as you choose to deliberately misunderstand that, that it was a part of the ratchet effect that the Blair government adopted that led, eventually to nonsensical claims of a direct threat to the UK.

    So this was an anti-terror police investigation run out of No.10? You think MI5, Special Branch, etc. decide which suspects to put under surveillance, which investigations to pursue and which raids to undertake on the say so of N.10?

    This conspiracy grows bigger by the day.

  31. Suburban Mafia — on 20th January, 2011 at 9:22 am  

    Apologies for pedantry, but the event above is on “2t January”

    Some of us on here are really stupid and might get confused.

  32. Nadeem — on 20th January, 2011 at 9:28 am  

    Sunny, do you actually read what you write? In your post you present selective facts about the case.

    Do you expect people not to widen the discussion in the thread? If so, you should have just posted the ‘Event details/Where’ bit at the end. And even that you got wrong by the looks of it.

  33. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 9:38 am  

    Brownie @ 30,

    Go away and read the book, there’s a good boy.

    You have your usual hat on, whatever justified the Iraq War is canoninical for you and your chums. It must never, ever be challenged or found to be lacking.

    Except that it was.

    From the point of view of folk that didn’t, eventually, sign the Euston Manifesto and be forever damned as idiots, the tale told in the book is one of deception and aggrandisement by a state that even back then just lurved media manipulation.

    It no longer counts what a jury decided. Some arsehole with a web site knows better than folk that have listened to all the evidence and determined otherwise. The arseholes with a web site are naturally able to double guess the evidence that the jury heard for they have an agenda that the jury clearly didn’t.

    Brownie, is there an Oscar to be won for deliberately being wrong or playing fast and loose? ‘Cause I’d like to nominate you.

  34. ukliberty — on 20th January, 2011 at 9:43 am  

    Brownie,

    So this incompetent murderer, who undoubtedly intended to harm lots of people but was incompetent to do so, nevertheless achieved some measure of success because of our over-reaction.

    Perhaps things should have gone down like this at Anti-Terror HQ:

    “Sarge, surveillance and intelligence suggests our target is trying to manufacture ricin”

    “Is he clever?”

    “No, seems to be pretty stupid”

    “Then leave him alone. He’ll get bored”

    “Then leave him alone. He’ll get bored”

    Ah, a false dilemma; I criticise the over-reaction and you suggest that means we shouldn’t have arrested him.

    Hopefully the following is clear enough for you:

    I suggest that we should have prosecuted him for attempting to poison people, as I have no doubt he wanted to do that, but perhaps the authorities could have told a different, more accurate story about him.

  35. cjcjc — on 20th January, 2011 at 9:44 am  

    Erm, but the jury found him GUILTY having decided that he DID conspire to commit a public nuisance by the use of POISONS and/or EXPLOSIVES to cause disruption, fear or injury.

    I’ve put a few words in capitals there in case your telescope might overlook them.

    And as you yourself point out, his intentions were so honest that he killed a policeman when arrested.

  36. ukliberty — on 20th January, 2011 at 9:49 am  

    cjcjc, who are you talking to @35?

  37. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 9:52 am  

    cjcjc,

    It may have passed your attention deficit disorder but Bourgass was found guilty. As far as I am concerned that was the correct decision, having read the book. The rest of the so-called plot was found not to exist.

    Is this all a bit too difficult for you to comprehend?

  38. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 9:53 am  

    ukliberty,

    cjcjc wasn’t talking to me, but he was addressing me. He is only interested in justice – which as we all know is supposed to be blind – when it fits with his world view. Thus he calls me Nelson because I don’t see the elephant in the room that he does. The fact that there is no elephant in the room is something that passes him by…

  39. cjcjc — on 20th January, 2011 at 10:11 am  

    “It may have passed your attention deficit disorder but Bourgass was found guilty.”

    Eh? I think that is what I was pointing out.

    “The rest of the so-called plot was found not to exist.”

    Since he was found guilty I’m not sure what you mean by “so-called” plot. There was a plot. Involving poison and/or explosives. As the jury found.

    Perhaps you regard it as unfortunate that these were never deployed, or that a plot can only exist if it is carried to fruition. Mysteriously enough, I do not.

  40. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 10:24 am  

    cjcjc,

    Clearly, if there was a plot, it didn’t include his co-defendants. Now that you have stopped scraping the moon as you did here:

    Well, I hate to respond to a “troll”, but Bourgass
    was found guilty (of conspiracy as well as *murder*…)

    So there was a plot.

  41. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 10:37 am  

    Ré a plot. You say this:

    They discovered castor oil beans – the raw material for ricin – along with equipment needed to produce it and recipes for ricin, cyanide, botulinum and other poisons, along with instructions for explosives.”

    The Plot That Never Was…carried out, thanks to the police. Excellent.
    No need to read the book now.

    Or this:

    Douglas you’re excelling yourself.
    He was obviously so stupid that he mistook a ricin recipe for a castor oil recipe.
    What a silly billy.

    Either the jury got it right or you did. Funnily enough, I think the jury did and you are just making stuff up.

  42. ukliberty — on 20th January, 2011 at 10:46 am  

    cjcjc,

    Since he was found guilty I’m not sure what you mean by “so-called” plot. There was a plot. Involving poison and/or explosives. As the jury found.

    I think some confusion arises from the charge of “conspiracy” and the use of the word “plot” but that Bourgass alone was found guilty. It seems reasonable to think that a conspiracy and plotting involve more than one person. Indeed, Bourgass was not the only person to be charged with conspiracy to commit a public nuisance. But he was the only person to be found guilty. So was there a plot / conspiracy or not?

    In itself, I don’t think it’s of particular interest. We can safely that Bourgass conspired to poison people – he has been found guilty of that. We can say that other people were accused of it and the jury was not convinced of their guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    But what I find rather more interesting is that this somehow became a “real and deadly threat” (and there was a cell, and it was linked to Al Qaeda, and this went on to support ID cards, terrorism legislation, and the war in Iraq) despite the facts that Bourgass’s recipes were crap and his plan entailed Londoners licking or snorting taxi doorhandles.

    (I’ve seen a number of strange things in London, but I’ve never seen that!)

  43. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 10:51 am  

    ukliberty,

    It is pretty obvious from the verdicts that if Bourgass is guilty of conspiracy then it was not with his co-accused?

  44. cjcjc — on 20th January, 2011 at 10:51 am  

    What on earth are you on about?
    Did you fail to spot that my second comment was sarcastic or what?

    Yes, the jury found him GUILTY of conspiring to cause a public nuisance by the use of POISONS and/or EXPLOSIVES to cause disruption, fear or injury.

    It was you who started burbling about castor oil and food additives.

  45. ukliberty — on 20th January, 2011 at 11:17 am  

    douglas,

    It is pretty obvious from the verdicts that if Bourgass is guilty of conspiracy then it was not with his co-accused?

    We can say that Bourgass was found guilty and the other defendants were not found guilty.

    We cannot say for a fact they were not involved – we simply do not know. But, legally, we must presume innocence.

    I have no opinion on their factual innocence or otherwise, other than I am happy to accept that the jury – who, having heard all the evidence, were much more competent than I – were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt of their guilt. And some jurors were reportedly sufficiently moved by what they saw as persecution of the defendants post-trial that they reached out to them and supported them – this does not strike me as suggestive of a perception of any guilt whatsoever.

  46. joe90 — on 20th January, 2011 at 11:17 am  

    they also found coffee granules and a coffee machine in the flat oh my GOD run for your lives!!!!!!!

  47. BenSix — on 20th January, 2011 at 11:27 am  

    We can only be thankful that it wasn’t worse.

  48. damon — on 20th January, 2011 at 11:37 am  

    Many of these guys slipped into the country illegally and then applied for asylum. Several were refused but continued to live here under false identities.
    Who knows who they are? They could have been combatants in the civil war, from either side. Suffering post traumatic stress dissorder.
    This was Mouloud Sihali’s story which I linked to in my last post.

    To understand what brought Sihali to London, we have to go back to 1991 in Algeria. The then government cancelled the elections after it became clear that the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) would win. The subsequent civil war claimed an estimated 150,000 lives. Sihali’s home town, once a popular watering-hole for tourists from France and Russia, found itself in the centre of the “triangle of death” where slaughters by both sides were rife. As a 20-year-old science student, Sihali knew that he would soon have to serve at least two years in the army.

    “I had seen friends who were one or two years older come back, and they were totally destroyed mentally and physically,” he says. “Some had just become mad because they were having to take part in skirmishes, massacres. You end facing a terrorist or government opposition, or whatever you want to call them. They shoot at you. If you don’t shoot you’ll be dead. So you end up shooting someone against your will. I didn’t want to do that, so the only option I had was to leave Algeria.” He left with a month-long visa to Italy where one of his five brothers, an antiques restorer, lived.

    “The original plan was America – the big new world, you think it’s heaven.” But his brother told him that America was too far away and too dangerous. “He said, ‘No way are you going there’ because I was the youngest brother, the baby of the family. I didn’t want to go to France because it is one of the toughest places to live as an Algerian – they hound you, they ask you for papers every five seconds. We had a little argument and he said that there is another place that is safer, no guns, no murders, a land of freedom – England.”

    So his brother helped him to get a fake Italian ID card that would get him to London.

    There must be thousands of people like this in England.
    It’s not fair on the people who they live amongst.
    These guys are living under false identities, driving cars and working as taxi drivers with fake driving liciences.

    This was three years ago in Finsbury Park.
    Some people in the Algerian community complained that the police had criminalised the whole community, but as you can see in the film, some local people think that there was a problem that needed sorting.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7310000/newsid_7317700/7317720.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1

  49. Kismet Hardy — on 20th January, 2011 at 11:37 am  

    BenSix, was that a spoof? Please tell me it was a spoof. Have you seen the ‘bags’ of sugar the policewoman is carrying? It’s a spoof. I’ve given up smoking so can’t think clearly but please tell me that’s a spoof.

  50. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 11:38 am  

    ukliberty:

    I have no opinion on their factual innocence or otherwise, other than I am happy to accept that the jury – who, having heard all the evidence, were much more competent than I – were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt of their guilt. And some jurors were reportedly sufficiently moved by what they saw as persecution of the defendants post-trial that they reached out to them and supported them – this does not strike me as suggestive of a perception of any guilt whatsoever.

    How come being found innocent isn’t, apparently, enough for you? You say, inter alia:

    I have no opinion on their factual innocence or otherwise..

    I am trying to understand how someone whose moniker is ukliberty can say that. They have been found innocent and you do what ukliberty? You question that?

    Frankly ukliberty, if you stand beside your name, you should applaud the jury’s decisions. You should not join the cheapskate side of this arguement and align yourself with folk that had nothing to do with this case, have an agenda that looks like an erection and foolish people like cjcjc.

    Frankly I am coming around to the idea that your name – ukliberty – is an excuse for posting some pretty right wing stuff.

  51. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 11:59 am  
  52. BenSix — on 20th January, 2011 at 12:15 pm  

    Sadly not, Kismet. I’m no expert, though: I’ve been studying another deadly weapon in the armoury of the terrorists.

  53. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 12:26 pm  

    BenSix,

    You have to sit on the naughty step!

  54. ukliberty — on 20th January, 2011 at 1:09 pm  

    douglas,

    They have been found innocent and you do what ukliberty? You question that?

    Um no, I thought I was pretty clear I don’t question that.

    Frankly I am coming around to the idea that your name – ukliberty – is an excuse for posting some pretty right wing stuff.

    I’ve been called right-wing by lefties and left-wing by righties…

  55. ukliberty — on 20th January, 2011 at 1:16 pm  

    BenSix, that reminds me of this: “Cute baby … but two-month-old [Raoul] Moat clenches his fists.”

  56. BenSix — on 20th January, 2011 at 1:58 pm  

    Hah!

  57. damon — on 20th January, 2011 at 2:39 pm  

    On the Amnesty event itself, although I don’t have a problem with the way the court cases turned out, the fact that Dianne Abbott will be speaking does undermine it’s credibility somewhat. No one can deny she is very poor on many issues.

    I never seem to get any recognition for raising an unexplored aspect of a subject like I’m about to do, and am more likely to have people giving me a bit of jib for doing so, but this was a blogger who wrote about the Finsbury Park police raids in 2008.
    And if you see from her ‘blog roll’ she is a Pickled Politics and Liberal Conspiracy reader. (I have to point that out, as someone might be quick to call her a BNP supporter or something).

    This is what the police have to deal with when they are looking for intelligence to do with possible terrorist conspiracies.

    Well done and thank you to the cops. I have got pig-sick of the verbal and sometimes physical harassment walking home, the intimidation of passers-by, (especially unveiled women) by posturing, disrespectful gangs of youths, the blatant selling of stolen goods, and the take-over of my neighbourhood by racist, abusive criminals.

    http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2008/03/blackstock-road-raids.html

    If Douglas Clark was living in that neighbourhood, this would all probably pass him by unnoticed, but knowing the area a bit, it doesn’t sound so surprising. Many of the young Algerian men living there are on their own, away from their families, living in the twilight world of the black economy and with false identities.

    And all they have is each other and their networks of friends and contacts. It’s difficult for the police. Particularly as people are so transient. Moving between places as different as north London, Thetford in Norfolk, Manchester and Doncaster.
    And might have previously lived in Italy, Germany, France or Holland with other social networks of young men from the Maghreb.

    Add the Finsbury Park mosque and Abu Hamza to the mix and it’s no wonder the police thought that there might be a huge conspiracy.

    NB. Note the comments by Detective Inspector Mike Duncan on the blog post I linked to above.

    I manage a pro-active team of undercover police and immigration officers (OP Swale) with the sole aim to remove foreign nationals from the UK who cause harm to our communities because of their criminal activity. If we cannot remove them (some nationalities are extremely difficult to deport) we will do our best to put them in prison for their crimes whilst working on a deportation solution.

  58. ukliberty — on 20th January, 2011 at 3:11 pm  

    damon, I don’t understand your point.

  59. damon — on 20th January, 2011 at 4:57 pm  

    Maybe ukliberty, because it’s background, and not a legalistic defence solicitor kind of point like the thing you linked too in post 18.

    Without background understanding of the world in which these defendants have been living in here, the OP and the Amnesty event itself will not be understood properly. And someone like Dianne Abbott will be able to pontificate and gloss over issues without people having the ability to know whether she’s giving the full story or not.

    For example the OP mentions that some of the men found not guilty were being threatened with deportation.
    But for someone who has been refused asylum and has been found to be living under a number of fake identities, that is surely the right thing to do.
    How can you have a rule of law when you have people living so clandestinely? It’s not fair on the people they live amongst.

    If you think that all Algerians and Somalians and anyone from anywhere should be allowed to live in the UK, then fair enough, at least I can understand that as an idea. But it is bogus claims for asylum that brought the system to its knees a few years back, and made a large section of British society skeptical of the whole programme. The OP doesn’t really address that, it just seems to make the point that threatening them with deportation was unwarranted.

  60. ukliberty — on 20th January, 2011 at 5:29 pm  

    damon,

    For example the OP mentions that some of the men found not guilty were being threatened with deportation.
    But for someone who has been refused asylum and has been found to be living under a number of fake identities, that is surely the right thing to do.

    Broadly speaking I agree that people who have been refused asylum and hold false passports and here unlawfully ought to be deported (after due process of course) – I don’t believe people should be “threatened”, we should either bring proper proceedings or not.

    Of course, each case must be judged on its circumstances.

    In relation to the ricin trial, it is my understanding that some jurors perceived some of the defendants to have been harrassed or persecuted by the authorities after the trial. In other words, those jurors perceived the defendants to have been unjustly treated after the trial and supported them as a result! So there is a ‘risk’ of the authorities appearing to punish defendants who are not found guilty – I’m not saying the authorities actually did this, I’m saying they appeared to do this.

    Were the defendants alleged to possess false passports and suchlike ever charged with those offences? Some were.

    One consequence of the trial in relation to deportation was that at least one of the defendants “persuaded the Home Office that the unfounded allegations against him made it impossible for him to live safely in Algeria” and therefore he was granted indefinite leave to remain (the Times). This appears to be yet another risk of politicising and sensationalising such cases.

    If you think that all Algerians and Somalians and anyone from anywhere should be allowed to live in the UK, then fair enough, at least I can understand that as an idea. But it is bogus claims for asylum that brought the system to its knees a few years back, and made a large section of British society skeptical of the whole programme. The OP doesn’t really address that, it just seems to make the point that threatening them with deportation was unwarranted.

    OK, I can see where you are coming from, but the OP is just about a book launch date and gives a very rough outline of events. If you want the detail, there is a book about it…

  61. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2011 at 7:47 pm  

    damon,

    It seems that Rachel North’s blog is now moribund, which is a genuine shame. I read her book ‘Out of the Tunnel’ and a more levelheaded and sensible person it would be hard to find.

    So, no. I do not accept that anyone should be harrassed. I also think that religious thugs ought to be arrested and imprisoned until they start to respect other peoples right to be whatever they want to be. Thugs are thugs and should be dealt with appropriately. Kind of reminiscent of the Cronulla Beach episode, isn’t it?

  62. ukliberty — on 20th January, 2011 at 9:55 pm  

    damon,

    The OP doesn’t really address that, it just seems to make the point that threatening them with deportation was unwarranted.

    OK, I can see now where you’re coming from but, to be fair to Sunny, the OP is just a note about a book launch and a very brief background to give it some context. I don’t think he needs to go into more detail in the OP – if you want the full detail, read the book! (or Google, or whatever)

    As for the threats of deportation (and allegations of false passports) being “unwarranted”, it’s my understanding that some of the jurors perceived this to be unjust harrassment /persecution of the defendants just because the defendants weren’t found guilty in the ricin trial. Now, that may be unfair of the jurors, I don’t know, but that’s what they felt.

    Two people were eventually charged and one imprisoned in relation to false passports – the person not found guilty was subsequently given leave to remain for five years. Two were arrested and held pending deportation, appealing through SIAC (itself a source of unjustice), later subjected to control orders.

    And one person successfully argued that the unfounded allegations against him made it impossible for him to live safely in Algeria, so he was granted indefinite leave to remain.

    (Eagle-eyes will spot that the people I mentioned there number five – yes, there were more than five people in the whole ricin case… but only five in the trial where Bourgass was found guilty.)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.