Former BNP candidate jailed for two-and-a half years

We are, of course Tough On Terrorism in this country, as can be seen by the recent sentences given to people who, whatever their intent (being on the other side to Mr. Cottage in the forthcoming race war, perhaps) hadn't actually got any explosives or, indeed, much of a clue:

Andrew Rowe, 36, a Muslim convert from west London, was found guilty in September 2005 of having instructions on firing a mortar and a secret code.

A 15-year term of imprisonment was reduced to 10 years.

Or this chap: Mohammed Irfan Raja, 19, received two years' youth detention while Aitzaz Zafar, 20, and Awaab Iqbal, 20, received three years' detention.

Usman Ahmed Malik, 21, was sent to prison for three years and Akbar Butt, 20, was given 27 months' detention.

They had all been found guilty of possessing material for terrorist purposes.

Or even these chaps, who for the dubious accolade of supporting the arch-muppet 'al-Qaeda General' Dhiren Barot, got dealt with extremely harshly:
Mohammed Naveed Bhatti, 27, of Harrow in north London, was jailed for 20 years; Junade Feroze, 31, of Blackburn, received 22 years and Zia Ul Haq, 28, of Wembley in north London, got 18 years. Abdul Aziz Jalil, 24, of Luton, was jailed for 26 years; Omar Abdur Rehman, 23 of Bushey in Hertfordshire, was jailed for 15 years and Nadeem Tarmohamed, 29 also of Wembley, received 20 years. Qaisar Shaffi, 28, of Willesden, north-west London, was sentenced to 15 years.

Yet none of these people had got further than planning. The only two recent cases where there has been a concerted attempt to possess explosives are the Operation Crevice attacks and the 21/7 failed bombings, in the latter case resulting in 40 year minimum sentences all round, and the Cottage case, where 2.5 years is apparently adequate.

Now, firstly the 21/7 and the Crevice cases (where they appeared to have enough of a clue to obtain something that might actually explode) are a lot more serious than one bloke with a load of chemicals in his shed, but the point is that we're constantly told that being Tough is the only way to go, and that we're always Not Tough Enough and Forcing The Police To Operate With One Hand Tied Behind Their Backs, and that we need to stop these people as early as possible, preferably just after they've thought of doing something bad. This is one of the 'justifications' for extended detention, in fact, that we're picking these guys up before there's actually enough evidence to charge them. Given that background, a suspect actually possessing explosives or precursors is an extremely rare arrest and generally leads to extremely long sentences and enormous coverage. The BBC have a bit more detail now of the circumstances surrounding sentencing:

His barrister, Alistair Webster QC, said his client accepted he had bought the chemicals but said they would only be used to create "thunder flash" style bangers to scare off intruders.

Sentencing Cottage, Mrs Justice Swift said Cottage's actions had been "criminal and potentially dangerous".

She added there was a low risk of him committing further offences.

"I am satisfied it was Cottage's views on how he put it 'the evils of uncontrolled immigration' would lead to civil war which would be imminent and inevitable.

"I accept the intention was to hold these chemicals until the outbreak of civil unrest. That was a criminal and potentially dangerous act.

"In letting off any such thunder flash mistakenly believing you were under threat you may have caused injury to some innocent person."

Why should a judge be 'satisfied' with the man's crackpot assertions about civil war? A judge saying something along the lines of 'I am satisfied Mr. Mustafa was convinced of the righteousness of smiting the unbeliever in defence of Islam but that he was going to be a good boy and not blow up Britain until he felt like it' would quite rightly be considered a disgrace. I'm frankly rather staggered. Why, for that matter, is a man who holds repellent views on race and the inevitability of violence and who is prepared to act violently considered 'a low risk'.

Anyway, no doubt this case will be debated at length across the nation.