[Puffer Fish]

I keep forgetting that there is no First or Second Amendments in the United Kingdom.
(Right to express personal opinions and beliefs without government reprisal, and right to have guns, respectively)

Those concepts are pretty foreign to those in the United Kingdom, it seems.

[Puffer Fish]

He also posted to chatrooms about creating a hand-held "cannon" and talked about mixing gunpowder.

You're going to punish him for talking about making a weapon in the future?

What type of dystopian society has the UK turned into?

You seem to talk about this in a way as if he had talked about wanting to kill people in the future. Or talked about wanting to rob a bank.


I would contend he absolutely has a right (theoretically) to make a cannon if he wants to. Maybe he doesn't have a right to make it or bring it into the UK, but he has a right to do so somewhere on the planet earth.
If he wants to talk about making a cannon, I don't see why you think there is something inherently wrong with that. It should be his right to say that, shouldn't it?
Totally wrong to use that as a factor to give him more punishment.

[Puffer Fish]

Dolphin, from the Aldridge area of Walsall borough, additionally shared footage of terrorist incidents from around the world including a gun attack in Buffalo, New York, in which 10 people were killed by a white supremacists in May last year.

Sorry, his right.

I don't see any solid evidence he was involved or planning to commit terrorism here.


While you may have (in your opinion) reason to worry or feel uneasy, I give my full approval to everything this guy did, said, and posted on the internet.

[Godstud]

I don't see any solid evidence he was involved or planning to commit terrorism here.

Apparently, the police and judge did. Sorry your opinion doesn't carry any weight and you were not privy to all the evidence that the court was. If intent can be proven, then the crime need not actually occur.(Eg. removing the bolts on a street sign. It's obvious that the intent is to steal it.)

I give my full approval to everything this guy did, said, and posted on the internet.

Yes, but as already evidenced, you hold the law in disregard because it condemns the things you wish to do.

[Puffer Fish]

Apparently, the police and judge did.

This seems to be more about interpretation and opinion than about what the evidence actually was.

Sorry your opinion doesn't carry any weight and you were not privy to all the evidence that the court was.

So is the issue of law & justice and individual cases beyond the purview of political discussion?

If you're always going to claim they must have had some reason we don't know about, then you've pretty much shut down all possible criticism about anything.

May we assume you're not one of those "always trust the government, they'll make the right decision" types?

If intent can be proven, then the crime need not actually occur.(Eg. removing the bolts on a street sign. It's obvious that the intent is to steal it.)

The trouble is what evidence is taken to "prove" intent.
Certainly in the example you gave, the intent would be obvious.
I do not believe that is the case in this story.

There are certain things individuals should have the right to do, or even if they do not have the legal right to do those things, they should have the right to do those things without an associated intent automatically being implied.
As a conservative, I believe individuals should have the right to have a gun without intent to commit murder being assumed (even if having that gun is illegal and we agreed it was not a right to have a gun), for example.

Yes, but as already evidenced, you hold the law in disregard because it condemns the things you wish to do.

Perhaps, but on the other side of the coin, you may be equally biased, in the other direction.

Perhaps we should remember that quote from Martin Niemöller, we should defend the things we personally do not wish to do or think are important, lest things we think are important come under attack and there is no one else in society willing to defend it.
I believe the concept of "tyranny of the majority" comes into play. And ironically "tyranny of the majority" can end up oppressing the majority of persons.

(example: "I'm not gay, so who cares if being gay is made illegal." "I'm not a woman, so why should women have rights?" "I don't drink alcohol, so why should I care if the state gets very strict on alcohol drinkers?" "I'm not homeless, so who gives a crap about them?" and so on)

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish Being gay doesn't victimize others you rape-loving piece of shit.

[Puffer Fish]

Puffer Fish , Being gay doesn't victimize others you rape-loving piece of shit.

Neither did what this person did victimize anyone.

[Godstud]

Making guns is a precursor to using them. To think otherwise is delusional, @Puffer Fish. Why do you hate the law so much?