The law requires specific conditions have been met in order for an arrestable offence to be detected. "Man talks to peers in meeting about subject they agree on" doesn't meet those conditions.

if theyre discussing actually commiting a crime, then it counts as conspiracy to [insert crime here]. if the discussion is intended to promote law-breaking by others, it counts as incitement to [insert crime here]. i believe evidence sujjests that both nick griffin and abu hamsa al-masri have been inciting for a while before they came to the attention of the law.

 

my point was that nick griffin = racist shit-stirer who has preached racism, went unpunished for a while and has now been arrested

 

Abu Hamsa al-Masri = racist shit-sterer who has preached racism, went unpunished for a while and been now been arrested

 

What Newtonian is claiming - that people are not charged for the latter based on their race - is demonstrably factually wrong.

this is the point that i was trying to make, albeit i may have worded it badly.

Yes, conspiracy would be a lovely thing to get these people on. The problem is that it's hard enough to detect the crime, never mind put together compelling evidence for the CPS.

 

Read http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/ for some entertaining descriptions of crime detection (or non-detection, as the case may be)

that was definately ammusing. ill have to remember some of his turns-of-fraises. "they may not know that you'v pissed in their tea, but theyll be suspiciouse that you have" especially tickeled me for some reason.

 

yes, the unfortunate thing about incitement/conspiracy is that it leaves very little phisical evidence, and guaging the reliability of eye/ear-witness accounts is relatively complicated for a jury to do, not to mention that ther usualy arent any witnesses who are willing to testify, if the inciter/conspiritors have been careful.

 

who is it who deals with investigating organised rasist groups do you know, CID or MI5?

I would have thought they both get involved, dependent on the magnitude of the suspected crimes.

I'd have thought that MI5 would have had a better level of detection. I know that theyre not all james bonds, but they do have acess to sophisticated survailance tools, and also can use members of the SAS to infiltrate -- and given that members of the SAS are commonly big, hard, white, skin-head soldure type guys who are, as far as i can tell, commonly quite intelligent, id have thought that they would have little trouble gaining trust and sucessfuly infiltrating.

 

i mean, if an untrained moron can break into someones house and steal their jewelry, often leaving very few sighns of their presence even when a forensics team is looking for those sighns, surely a highly-trained survailance operative can break into a meeting hall and plant a few cameras, or point a sniper-microphone at someones window. or is that illegal?