County Durham man admits ricin terror plot

[Omzy]

County Durham man admits ricin terror plot

A man has admitted producing the lethal poison ricin while preparing for acts of terrorism.

Ian Davison's home in Myrtle Grove, Burnopfield, County Durham, was raided last June by anti-terror officers who found the substance in a jam jar.

At Newcastle Crown Court he also admitted possessing documents which detailed how to make explosives and could by used in acts of terrorism.

The 41-year-old lorry driver is expected to be sentenced next month.

Son accused

Some of the charges related to copies of three texts including The Anarchist's Handbook, which detailed instructions on making explosives.

Davison, who wore a pale blue, short-sleeved shirt and was flanked by four prison officers, also admitted possession of a prohibited weapon.

That charge related to a spray canister found during the raid on his home.

He was remanded in custody and Judge John Milford warned him: "Doubtless you have been told only custody can follow."

Davison will be sentenced after the trial of his son Nicky, 19, who denies two charges of possessing material containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing acts of terrorism.

That case will be heard on 12 April.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8556059.stm

So, another case of terrorism, only this time the person involved is not Muslim, and I'm pretty much convinced he's not Muslim since no reference is made to his religion or race. My question is why has this case not had as much publicity as it undoubtedly would have had, had the accused been a Muslim? The only credible place this article was published was on the BBC News site - it is nowhere to be seen on Sky News or the Guardian / Daily Mail websites. Double standards?

[platinum786]

Yes made double standards it is.

They can do it, and they will do it. Reason being, there is nothing we can do about it.

[Basic]

My question is why has this case not had as much publicity as it undoubtedly would have had, had the accused been a Muslim?

You know the answer to that question.

The only credible place this article was published was on the BBC News site - it is nowhere to be seen on Sky News or the Guardian / Daily Mail websites. Double standards?

Once again, you know the answer to that question...or do you?

I think it's extremely bizarre that you label The Guardian the same as the Daily Mail and Sky News. The Guardian is probably the only paper I read which is balanced because of the vast amount of contributors on there. Including our very own prom queen Sunny Hundall. If anything The Guardian is at the forefront in tackling anti Muslim bias.

Here's an example, which is ironic because it supports your exact sentiments of this thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... s-neonazis

You accuse the Brit media of making generalisations and your response is to generalise the Brit media. Pot, Kettle...

[Omzy]

In all honesty I don't read any of those papers, but the point is that I searched on those websites for that particular news article but did not find anything.

[Basic]

So if you don't read them how would you know about if they are anti muslim or not?

Secondly, whizzin through the internet to see if certain news pieces are/aren't covered isn't proper research is it.

I can make a hoo haa now and say why the news on the Brit kid kidnapped in Pakistan isn't getting coverage, but there's probably a dozen reasons why they aint givin coverage. One of them being that if there are no leads, what is there to report?

[Omzy]

I should also point out I didn't heard anything about this on the radio on the way home yesterday, nor was it on Sky News. But you'll always hear about the most minor terrorism offences as long as it involves a Muslim person.

So yes it is double standards because it seems the Media are not being consistent when reporting non-Muslim terrorist offences.

[Basic]

The media is never consistent dude. Because it is up to the news agencies to report news that they see fit as being important.

I agree, there is anti Muslim bias in some elements of the media but to come to that conclusion by doing a superficial search is silly.

[Basic]

You do know that this aint todays news.

It is from 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... acist.html

^You can't get any more anti Muslim than the Telegraph.

So there lies the reasons of your concern. The news is old news.

[Omzy]

I know it is not today's news. It's a development in the story.

I didn't reach that conclusion just based on this particular story, it's based on what I see on a frequent basis. I thoroughly believe that if this was a Muslim person you'd have seen this story on Sky News and reported in most of the major newspapers.

That is the only point I'm making here.

[Basic]

Well obviously it would.

That's just a sign of the times.

Not only that, the current so called Muslim terror threat is a 'global' one. On that basis alone it will get more coverage because there is a global influence. Nobody really wants to write about some ol chav father who hates pakis and wants to kill em on his front door step. The 2 pieces of news don't come close. One has the capacity to kill hundreds the other probably has the capacity to kill thousands on the basis of conducting numerous terrorist attacks obtained by once again global funding.

[Omzy]

True, I know it's not on the same scale but it still angers me that it doesn't get reported. The very fact that it doesn't get reported means that a large proportion of people in Britain will still only associate terrorism with Muslims. People need to be made aware of the reality.

[Basic]

whatchootalkinbout omzy?

But it does get reported. It is quite common that all newspapers vary on their news content for all topics.

That is based on what the newspapers consider as newsworthy. Plus man, newspapers are about the money, so the news is bound to be based around what will shift newspapers. If we are living in times of imminent threat of terrorists the newspapers will keep that as a central theme.

People aren't stupid. 2001 is nearly 10 years ago, a lot has happened in that time and a lot has happened to put Muslims in the positive media spotlight.

People don't need to be 'taught' anything, and even if they do it is US that need to do it. Not the newspapers. If you think there is so much anti-Muslim bias what are you doing to challenge the myth? If you're saying it aint your job to change hearts and minds you're just falling into the stereotype of being a lazy paki terrorist sympathiser. No point telling us all this on a forum, we know this shit goes on, have you raised these issues directly amongst the people among you that seem to be misinformed about Muslims.

If you assume that the media has full accountability, it doesn't. The media is just a business enterprise that fuels certain viewpoints of its target audience. Although it does need to be factual, how that fact is portrayed to its audience is up to the newspaper to decide.

[Omzy]

I completely agree with the points you've made, but my main problem is that news stories like the one at the centre of topic are not getting the same exposure as your usual "Muslim terrorism" news stories. That man could have been Muslim with no links to any terrorist organisation, he might have only wanted to target his next door neighbour - but it would still have been front page news with "terrorist" plastered all over it.

People don't need to be 'taught' anything

Maybe not, but I could bet you there are a sizeable number of people in this country (including Muslims) who probably never knew "white" terrorists exist. And that's precisely due to the fact those stories are quite simply brushed under the carpet.

[Basic]

But I just explained. Terrorism sells papers. I see what you sayin. But in each generation there has always been the dawn of the new 'folk devil', back in the 80s and 90s it was all the IRA and the Irish were always targetted. Also during that time black people were getting stopped and searched a lot due to the advent of 'muggings' During that time Muslims weren't even heard of in the UK and people were seen on ethnic lines.

My point being is that at some stage communities have been marginalised because of the actions of a few. Now those very communities are on the up. The reason? Not because they whinged, they grabbed the situation from the balls and dealt with it.

There are still problems in the Black community with regards to street crime and all that.

and the IRA are still pissing off unionists on the sly.

But as things are mellowing out in their communities, a new folk devil has emerged. The only way it can be dealt with is if the communities themselves participate in mainstream society, not by sitting back whinging about how people think they are terrorists. That time has been and gone, it's about being pro-active now, only then will the stigma come off.