haha! good point.

People going onto study A-level Chemistry and Biology (I am extrapolating from reports of people working in science and those in medicine) are disproportionately likely to be Asian and white-middle class; in recent years, my local sixth form college shut its chemistry and physics department with more people (mainly white-working class) entering hairdressing and other vocational courses. In contrast to other some other countries such as Ireland, the provison varies dramatically between the private and public sector in a numbers of ways: whether the teachers have degrees in the specialist subject and whether students can opt for single science GCSE’s or not. Also, the proportion of 2:1’s and higher degrees entering the teaching profession is lower than that compared to humanities. It used to be the case that women scientists (such as Kathleen Lonsdale) had to go to private boy’s school for furthering science studies; today, private girl’s school are disproportionately generating today’s female scientists. Is active curtailment of a particular individual’s choice worse than the bias inherent in the system which disenfranchises (in terms of participation in post 16-year old science) many thousands more, both today and historically; the analogy I would use is of an Islamist being denied a right to vote in a (pseduo) democratic system where there was property qualification which had already disenfranchised a large percentage of the population.

Do we await for what is termed as an actual crime to be committed then?

If the state has enough evidence to suggest you are about to carry out a terrorist attack – or any crime – they will prosecute you. The fertiliser bomb plot was hardly an instance where the police and CPS waited until an attack had been carried out. Infact they’ll even prosecute you if your ‘plot’ is of such a fantastical nature that its little more than science fiction (as was the case in the ‘Red mercury’ trial).

The powers that be are neither impotent nor indecisive.

What we have is a situation where a man who has not been found guilty of any crime; who has not even been charged with an offence has had his liberty curtailed to the point it would be an offence for him to study at the level of 16 and 17 year olds. Furthermore the full rationale for this judgement is kept from us.

If this had occured in any other nation it would have rightly been condemmed as authoritarianism; yet our subservience to the state is such that it barely creates a ripple. Our history from the Magna Carta onward has been about limiting the power of the state and bringing into practise a system of law wherby those accused of a crime are brought to be tried before their peers.

‘AE’ has not been found guilty by any jury and i categorically refuse to condemn someone when the manner of their restraint is utterly alien to everything our predecessors fought for.

I will not accept nor will i agree with the state placing such farcical limitations on a man whilst pointedly refusing to formally prosecute him or letting the public know why he is a threat.

It is the very antithesis of open justice.

It should also be noted that some pretty ignorant people, strung out on their own product, successfully synthesize methamphetamine. That’s a process which is much more complicated than making bombs out of commonly-available materials. Actually, given the notoriously explosive nature of meth labs, it could perhaps be described as an example of making bombs out of commonly-available materials without intending to do so.

I am not saying that preventing AE to do AS levels is the answer as that is obviously farcical.

As for the issue about sulphuric acid ‘being snuck away in a lab coat’, it took 2 mins to google this, and i have to say the fact 13 year olds are finding out how to create dangerous chemicals cheered me up no end.

The decision is obviously idiotic ‘AE’ wanted to take up medicine at university and needed those particular a-levels to do that, the judgement makes it clear that there are other ways for him to gain entry into university, but it doesn’t make clear what would happen if he did get in via alternate routes. After all its hardly like he’d be isolated from learning about chemistry and biology during that degree.

We’re now in a situation in Britain where an individual who has not been found guilty of any crime has no right to study at the level of 16 or 17 year olds and we’re not entirely sure why because the judgement against him is partially based on closed material; whats even more shocking is the lack of any apparent reaction in the media or political world.

But then i suppose all the government has to do is label someone a terrorist for the country to stop giving a shit.

Presumably when a tv programme featuring the use of laboratory equipment comes on, or when gcse/alevel bite size is shown on the BBC he should just close his eyes and stick his fingers in his ears.

OK, we did make TNT……but there were no rucksacks, pipes, bus timetables or Korans in sight!

(speechless)

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Reading comprehension would be a good start. Damn dangerous things, words, in the wrong hands.

I am astonished that ‘Liberty’ hasn’t taken this case up. The weasel word in the above is, of course, suspected terrorist. They can’t prove it, but they can act on a hunch? Welcome to 1984.

Lees’ commentary is excellent, btw.