Inconsistencies in the case of Abu Hamza compared with other recent convictions
There are all sorts of unanswered questions about the notorious Abu "The Hook" Hamza al Masri, who was sentenced on 11 out of 15 charges, to run concurrently, for up to 7 years in prison
Since a jury has had to suffer by watching the tapes of his rantings, that punishment is probably deserved, even though the prosecution had picked only 10 out of about 2700 sermons or seminars, all dating from before the year 2000.
However, why was Abu Hamza, supposedly a key lynchpin of the Al Quaeda terrorist network, given such a short sentence, for "collecting information" under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, compared with other recent convictions under the same law i.e. only three and a half years, concurrently with his other 7 year sentence, whilst other, far less important people, have been sentenced to 15 years and to 6 years in prison ?
The legislation he was convicted under, for "soliciting to murder", was the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which totally disproves the need for the controversial Racial and Religous Hatred Bill.
However, , the most troubling aspect of his conviction is the concurrent three and a half year sentence under the Terrorism Act 2000 section 58 Collection of informationfor having a partial copy of the 11 volume Encyclopaedia of the Afghani Jihad This had been seized by the Police in 1999, and then returned to him 9 months later, and was again seized in 2004.
Interestingly, the volume supposedly containing the most specfic details of bombs and explosives appears to have been missing, allegedly borrowed by someone uknown.
There was no evidence to show that Abu Hamza had ever read this book, written in Arabic, with most of its information drawn together from CIA training manuals used by the Afghan "freedom fighters" when they were fighting the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan.
Why was Abu Hamza, supposedly a key lynchpin of the Al Quaeda terrorist network, given such a short sentence, for "collecting information" ?
This is in sharp contrast with the much heavier sentences, under the same Section 58, handed out to the far more obscure Andrew Rowe and Abu Baker Mansha, who were not even charged , let alone convicted of any incitement or conspiracy to murder etc.
The recent convictions of British citizens Andrew Rowe, sentenced to 15 years in prison, and in another case, Abu Baker Mansha, sentenced to 6 years, were both for the mere possession of documents, in their own handwriting, which have been deemed to have been "useful to terrorists". This is even though neither any actual weapons, nor any explosives, nor any evidence of a conspiracy with any other people, was found.
Why were these people treated so much more harshly than Abu Hamza ?
Anyone and everyone in the UK could have knowledge or posessions, which could , in the opinion of a bureaucrat, be of "use to terrorists". Which political opponent of the NuLabour Government will be next to be charged and convicted under this catch-all offence ?
This Terrorism Act 2000 Section 58 offence should be repealed, as it is such a vague catch-all "ThoughtCrime" offence, which is already being applied inconsistently, and therefore unjustly.
The TV and media displays of the items seized at the Finsbury Park Mosque, showed some allegedly fake Passports. These appear to be Belgian passports, and therefore even a perfect UK ID Card scheme would have made no difference whatsoever to these alleged terrorists.