http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html

http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw

[quote]
LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.

Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.

Police refused to comment on a report in the local Yorkshire Post
newspaper about a man his 20s who was arrested for allegedly planning
to pass classified information to Russia.

The report came days after Jonathan Evans, the head of Britain's
domestic intelligence agency, MI5, warned of "unreconstructed attempts
by Russia, China and others to spy on us" despite the end of the Cold
War nearly 20 years ago.

Hill was charged Saturday and will make his first appearance before
magistrates in Leeds on Monday, said London's Metropolitan police,
which takes the lead on security matters nationwide.

The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
in his possession.

Britain's Press Association news agency said the allegations do not
relate to any suspected "terrorist-related activity", without quoting
sources.

[unquote]

Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
clincher.

--
 x   If you have been, was it fattening?
/|\

wrote in message 
news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>
> [quote]
> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>
> The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
> hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
> in his possession.

The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings 
would turn this into a lethal bomb
>
> [unquote]
>
> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
> clincher.
>
I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility 
that the police may have got things right once in a while.

-- 
Alex

New laptop - Sig missing

> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
> clincher.


The sodium chlorate that you can easily buy as weedkiller has additives that 
stabilize it and prevent it from being used as an effective oxidizing agent. 
So I suspect that it was not weed killer that was involved.

Jeff

wrote in message 
news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>
> [quote]
> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>
> Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
> England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
> Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.


It's quite clear that his intention was to pass information to the Russians 
and Chinese about our new pipe bomb stolen from the IRA, although his 
deliberate action to demonstrate the risk of such an advanced weapon was 
beyond comprehension.

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>  wrote in message 
> news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html 
>>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>>
>> [quote]
>> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
>> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>>
>> The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
>> hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
>> in his possession.
> 
> The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings 
> would turn this into a lethal bomb
>>
>> [unquote]
>>
>> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
>> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
>> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
>> clincher.
>>
> I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the 
> possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.
> 


I would suggest that a lot of it is genuine concern as to, "There but 
for... go I".


My place, for example. Enough stock and mechanical workshop equipment, 
including normal and nc mills and lathes and a forge, to *make* a wide 
range weapons, let alone recommission practically anything. Enough 
electrical end electronic workshop equipment to make anything a little 
Bin Liner might dream of. Literally thousands of books, hundreds of 
which would contain material of use to terrorists.

The barn would light up anyone's WMD kit - my neighbour left several 
tons of fertiliser there a couple of years ago, when repairing his own 
barn.. Lots of chemicals, especially those used with the forge, that 
could probably be argued enough to kill half the local population if 
dumped in the nearest reservoir.

Then there are my present and expired passports, with stamps showing 
months, indeed years, spent in places that few normal people want to go 
to. Photographs of me with friends that certainly would put the fear of 
GOd in any bus passenger.

All perfectly innocent, of course. But maybe there would be quite a few 
people saying that the police had got it right, for a change..

-- 
Sue

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:54:30 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>>
>> [quote]
>> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
>> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>>
>> The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
>> hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
>> in his possession.
>
>The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings 
>would turn this into a lethal bomb
>>
>> [unquote]
>>
>> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
>> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
>> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
>> clincher.
>>
>I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility 
>that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Possibly because so many of us have all of those things or
substitutes. I have had all of those in my possession at some time.
Still got most of them except fuel tablets and I'd have to take the
bike apart for ball bearings. Got a box of screws though.

I'll wait for the 4am kick on the door.

Although with luck I will be out of this third rate shithole of a
police state when I retire next year

"Alang"  wrote in message 
news:lkqej356s83e0e9nushb8saa3sq5k4jnaj@4ax.com...

> Possibly because so many of us have all of those things or
> substitutes. I have had all of those in my possession at some time.
> Still got most of them except fuel tablets and I'd have to take the
> bike apart for ball bearings. Got a box of screws though.
>
> I'll wait for the 4am kick on the door.

I have the weedkiller (although it is fire supressed), the sugar, the tubes 
(I have just finished a house build so I have loads of stuff ranging from 
steel gas pipe to cast iron downpipe), ball bearings and other blunderbuss 
fodder (bike bearings and a wood workshop full of nails etc) and I also have 
the fuel tablets (I use them on the hills often).
In addition I have the koran, bible, scouting for boys, hunting, hillwalking 
and survival books in addition to Das Kapital, Mein Kampf and probably some 
eTexts from the red flag list. I have shotguns and air rifles and knives.

I'm stuffed.

Andy

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:5pp4voFsg952U1@mid.individual.net...
>  wrote in message 
> news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>>
>> [quote]
>> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
>> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>>
>> The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
>> hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
>> in his possession.
>
> The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings 
> would turn this into a lethal bomb
>>
>> [unquote]
>>
>> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
>> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
>> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
>> clincher.
>>
> I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the 
> possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Indeed.

Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially 
not in a domestic environment.  If you have it in your possession in solid 
form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to 
make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

Acetone too is not usually found in a domestic environment in any amounts 
greater than required to remove a bit of nail varnish.  So that may be 
suspicious as well.

It's right to ask questions in such circumstances, and it's right to take 
further action if the answers to those questions are unsatisfactory.

On 12 Nov, 09:17, "Norman Wells"  wrote:
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
> > possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially
> not in a domestic environment.  If you have it in your possession in solid
> form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to
> make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.
Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
than £200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
legal'.

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:fh95n8$mqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, 
> especially not in a domestic environment.

Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works 
jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds 
for at B&Q or the garden centre.
-- 
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:54:30 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>>
>> [quote]
>> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
>> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>>
>> The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
>> hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
>> in his possession.
>
>The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings 
>would turn this into a lethal bomb
>>
>> [unquote]
>>
>> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
>> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
>> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
>> clincher.
>>
>I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility 
>that the police may have got things right once in a while.

There is never any mention of intent in terrorism cases - doesn't it
matter anymore?

Dave Baker wrote:
> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
> news:fh95n8$mqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, 
>> especially not in a domestic environment.
> 
> Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works 
> jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds 
> for at B&Q or the garden centre.

To be fair, the pp did use the words "hardly ever".

And words like "strictly legal".

So, apparently you can be guilty of an offence if you are merely 
"strictly legal".

Perhaps HMG could introduce a system whereby things which are only 
"strictly legal" to possess could be identified and a system of permits 
introduced. It could be called, say, "licencing".

Until then, all of us with tens of litres of acetone in a bottle next to 
our home workshop may just have to hope that we won't get invited to 
spend the next 28-96 days explaining why we think "strictly legal" 
should be good enough.

-- 
Sue

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:12:53 -0000, "Andy"
 wrote:

>"Alang"  wrote in message 
>news:lkqej356s83e0e9nushb8saa3sq5k4jnaj@4ax.com...
>
>> Possibly because so many of us have all of those things or
>> substitutes. I have had all of those in my possession at some time.
>> Still got most of them except fuel tablets and I'd have to take the
>> bike apart for ball bearings. Got a box of screws though.
>>
>> I'll wait for the 4am kick on the door.
>
>I have the weedkiller (although it is fire supressed), the sugar, the tubes 
>(I have just finished a house build so I have loads of stuff ranging from 
>steel gas pipe to cast iron downpipe), ball bearings and other blunderbuss 
>fodder (bike bearings and a wood workshop full of nails etc) and I also have 
>the fuel tablets (I use them on the hills often).
>In addition I have the koran, bible, scouting for boys, hunting, hillwalking 
>and survival books in addition to Das Kapital, Mein Kampf and probably some 
>eTexts from the red flag list. I have shotguns and air rifles and knives.
>
>I'm stuffed.

I hope you are posting anonymously! :)

"Maria"  wrote in message 
news:25bgj399bqd4ill78tlh8di25rb15cg2fe@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:12:53 -0000, "Andy"
>  wrote:
>
>>"Alang"  wrote in message
>>news:lkqej356s83e0e9nushb8saa3sq5k4jnaj@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Possibly because so many of us have all of those things or
>>> substitutes. I have had all of those in my possession at some time.
>>> Still got most of them except fuel tablets and I'd have to take the
>>> bike apart for ball bearings. Got a box of screws though.
>>>
>>> I'll wait for the 4am kick on the door.
>>
>>I have the weedkiller (although it is fire supressed), the sugar, the 
>>tubes
>>(I have just finished a house build so I have loads of stuff ranging from
>>steel gas pipe to cast iron downpipe), ball bearings and other blunderbuss
>>fodder (bike bearings and a wood workshop full of nails etc) and I also 
>>have
>>the fuel tablets (I use them on the hills often).
>>In addition I have the koran, bible, scouting for boys, hunting, 
>>hillwalking
>>and survival books in addition to Das Kapital, Mein Kampf and probably 
>>some
>>eTexts from the red flag list. I have shotguns and air rifles and knives.
>>
>>I'm stuffed.
>
> I hope you are posting anonymously! :)

Oops.

Andy

"TimB"  wrote in message 
news:1194860579.685838.76650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 12 Nov, 09:17, "Norman Wells"  wrote:
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
> > possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, 
> especially
> not in a domestic environment.  If you have it in your possession in solid
> form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used 
> to
> make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.

But not highly suspicious.

Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
than £200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
legal'.

Then you're a fool.  I think most would say it's more important for the 
police to be acting to prevent something major occurring than for 
prosecuting those who drop cigarette butts in the street.

On 12 Nov, 10:37, Maria  wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:54:30 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
>
>
>
>
>
> <AlexNOOOO!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
> > wrote in message
> >news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>
> >> [quote]
> >> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
> >> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>
> >> The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
> >> hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
> >> in his possession.
>
> >The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings
> >would turn this into a lethal bomb
>
> >> [unquote]
>
> >> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
> >> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
> >> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
> >> clincher.
>
> >I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility
> >that the police may have got things right once in a while.
>
> There is never any mention of intent in terrorism cases - doesn't it
> matter anymore?- Hide quoted text -

Unfortunately, if you include "intent" in the charge, then you have to
prove it. This then leads to the annoying situation where people get
off charges that we all know they're guilty of.

If you remove intent from the requirements for locking people up, then
justice works much smoother.

Take rape, for example. It's always been a bit of a nuisance that men
accused of rape could not be shown to have *intended* rape, by virtue
of the fact the victim consented quite willingly. So really, we could
do with removing the tiresome element of intent from that law too.

"Dave Baker"  wrote in message 
news:fh99ob$5bg$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
> news:fh95n8$mqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, 
>> especially not in a domestic environment.
>
> Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works 
> jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds 
> for at B&Q or the garden centre.

I'm sure it does work jolly well.  But the fact that you have to get it from 
'a local chemical company' rather than a garden centre merely emphasises my 
point that it is nowadays a somewhat unlikely weed killer to be found 
domestically, particularly in solid form.

I suspect too that the suppliers were probably meant to make appropriate 
checks to ensure your bona fides, as they are with ammonium nitrate 
fertiliser, though it's quite conceivable of course that they didn't.

wrote in message 
news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>
> [quote]
> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>
> Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
> England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
> Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.

I can't find an Explosive Substances Act 1993 on OPSI or StatuteLaw.

There is of course an Explosive Substances Act 1883, and an Explosives Act 
1875.

<snip>
> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
> clincher.

Are we talking granulated or castor sugar?

"Palindrome"  wrote in message 
news:a4WZi.103954$D65.1051@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> Dave Baker wrote:
>> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
>> news:fh95n8$mqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, 
>>> especially not in a domestic environment.
>>
>> Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it 
>> works jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over 
>> the odds for at B&Q or the garden centre.
>
> To be fair, the pp did use the words "hardly ever".
>
> And words like "strictly legal".
>
> So, apparently you can be guilty of an offence if you are merely "strictly 
> legal".

Well, yes you can.  Under recent legislation it is an offence to prepare for 
acts of terrorism, which has just that effect.

> Perhaps HMG could introduce a system whereby things which are only 
> "strictly legal" to possess could be identified and a system of permits 
> introduced. It could be called, say, "licencing".

As with guns, you mean?  Or certain chemicals?

These restrictions already exist in many areas.

>
> Until then, all of us with tens of litres of acetone in a bottle next to 
> our home workshop may just have to hope that we won't get invited to spend 
> the next 28-96 days explaining why we think "strictly legal" should be 
> good enough.

It all depends on whether you have a plausible reason for possessing them in 
the quantities you have, whether you comply with legal requirements on their 
safe storage, and whether there are any aggravating circumstances, such as 
the possession at the same time of large quantities of hydrogen peroxide. 
If you have no good reasons, why shouldn't you be asked for a bit of 
explanation?

Incidentally, we are _all_ liable to be invited to spend the next 28 days 
(at present) explaining all sorts of things just on a whim, for no given 
reason.  You don't have to be in possession of bomb-making materials or 
anything at all to make you liable for that.  Just existing is enough.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:42:59 -0800, TimB  wrote:

>On 12 Nov, 09:17, "Norman Wells"  wrote:
>> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> > I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
>> > possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially
>> not in a domestic environment.  If you have it in your possession in solid
>> form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to
>> make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.
>
>Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
>into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.
>Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
>than £200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
>those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
>legal'.

On his other point on sodium chlorate. I only ever buy tubs of
crystals. Get them from at least 5 shops in the town at £2.50 a kilo.
A couple of Kilos does the whole yard and the borders of the house.
Sometimes have to repeat after lots of rain.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:16:16 -0000, "Norman Wells"
 wrote:

>
>"Dave Baker"  wrote in message 
>news:fh99ob$5bg$1@news.datemas.de...
>>
>> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
>> news:fh95n8$mqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, 
>>> especially not in a domestic environment.
>>
>> Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works 
>> jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds 
>> for at B&Q or the garden centre.
>
>I'm sure it does work jolly well.  But the fact that you have to get it from 
>'a local chemical company' rather than a garden centre merely emphasises my 
>point that it is nowadays a somewhat unlikely weed killer to be found 
>domestically, particularly in solid form.

£1 for 300gms from the local pound shop.
Sold in Wilkinsons too but I can't recall the price

>
>I suspect too that the suppliers were probably meant to make appropriate 
>checks to ensure your bona fides, as they are with ammonium nitrate 
>fertiliser, though it's quite conceivable of course that they didn't.

Nah!

I can even buy bags of sugar and boxes of matches in Netto

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:37:24 +0000, Maria
 wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:54:30 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
><AlexNOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> wrote in message 
>>news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
>>> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>>>
>>> The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
>>> hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
>>> in his possession.
>>
>>The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings 
>>would turn this into a lethal bomb
>>>
>>> [unquote]
>>>
>>> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
>>> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
>>> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
>>> clincher.
>>>
>>I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the possibility 
>>that the police may have got things right once in a while.
>
>There is never any mention of intent in terrorism cases - doesn't it
>matter anymore?

It's too easy now for the police to arrest anyone at all and charge
them with possessionn of articles likely to aid terrorism. As most
posts here show the majority of people are well in the danger zone of
posibility of arrest. With the thousands of stops and searches, the
arrests and the sometimes dubious convictions one would have to be
terminally stupid or naive to trust the security industry.

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:5pp4voFsg952U1@mid.individual.net...
>  wrote in message 
> news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>>
>> [quote]
>> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
>> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>>
>> The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
>> hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
>> in his possession.
>
> The ingredients to make a decent explosive , and the tubing and bearings 
> would turn this into a lethal bomb
>>
>> [unquote]
>>
>> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
>> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
>> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
>> clincher.
>>
> I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the 
> possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.

Sorry, but it looks a bit suspicious that he was arrested under the Official 
Secrets Act but charged with possession of fairly common household goods.

On 12 Nov, 09:17, "Norman Wells"  wrote:
> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days, especially
> not in a domestic environment.  If you have it in your possession in solid
> form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used to
> make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.

As other people have stated, that is simply rubbish; apart from
anything else, solid sodium chlorate will be cheaper than "a liquid
formulation" - one doesn't need to pay extra for water - and may be
rather safer if children are around.

> Acetone too is not usually found in a domestic environment in any amounts
> greater than required to remove a bit of nail varnish.  So that may be
> suspicious as well.

Again, fiddlesticks; acetone is a very useful solvent and has a
variety of uses other than just removing "a bit of nail varnish".  For
example, I often use it when degreasing components I have just turned
and/or threaded, especially if I am to use an adhensive or thread-
locking compound in their subsequent assembly.  Someone else might use
it to remove natural oils and waxes from certain timbers - such as
Dalbergia nigra or Dalbergia retusa - before applying glue.

> It's right to ask questions in such circumstances, and it's right to take
> further action if the answers to those questions are unsatisfactory.

Seig heil!

--
 x    If you have been, do you have a moustache?
/|\

On 12 Nov, 10:25, "Dave Baker"  wrote:
> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
> news:fh95n8$mqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
> > especially not in a domestic environment.
>
> Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
> jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
> for at B&Q or the garden centre.

Norman Wells is known for posting any amount of rubbish if it supports
his somewhat authoritarian view of How The World Ought To Be; he is
like Kev, but without the latter's sense of the ridiculous.

Do not expect any of his comments to make any sense and, when he
really gets going, do not expect his attributions or quoting to be
even approximately accurate.

--
 x    If he has been, is he still ga-ga?
/|\

On 12 Nov, 11:09, "Norman Wells"  wrote:
> "TimB"  wrote in message
>
> news:1194860579.685838.76650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Nov, 09:17, "Norman Wells"  wrote:
>
> > "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > > I'm amazed by some people's steadfast refusal to accept even the
> > > possibility that the police may have got things right once in a while.
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
> > especially
> > not in a domestic environment.  If you have it in your possession in solid
> > form, rather than as a liquid formulation which could not easily be used
> > to
> > make a bomb, it may be strictly legal, but it's highly suspicious.
>
> Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
> into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.
>
> But not highly suspicious.
>
> Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
> than £200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
> those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
> legal'.
>
> Then you're a fool.  I think most would say it's more important for the
> police to be acting to prevent something major occurring than for
> prosecuting those who drop cigarette butts in the street.

I see you've cocked up who wrote what.

Fancy that.

--
 x    If you have been, are you still deluded?
/|\

On 12 Nov, 11:16, "Norman Wells"  wrote:
> "Dave Baker"  wrote in message
>
> news:fh99ob$5bg$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>
>
> > "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
> >news:fh95n8$mqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
> >> especially not in a domestic environment.
>
> > Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
> > jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
> > for at B&Q or the garden centre.
>
> I'm sure it does work jolly well.  But the fact that you have to get it from
> 'a local chemical company' rather than a garden centre merely emphasises my
> point that it is nowadays a somewhat unlikely weed killer to be found
> domestically, particularly in solid form.

Fool - it is simply cheaper to get the stuff from a chemical company
than to get it in pretty packets from a garden centre.

> I suspect too that the suppliers were probably meant to make appropriate
> checks to ensure your bona fides, as they are with ammonium nitrate
> fertiliser, though it's quite conceivable of course that they didn't.

What a pleasant fellow you aren't.

--
 x    GFY
/|\

On 12 Nov, 11:18, "TD"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>
> > [quote]
> > LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
> > was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>
> > Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
> > England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
> > Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.
>
> I can't find an Explosive Substances Act 1993 on OPSI or StatuteLaw.

I didn't write that piffle; I just quoted it.

> There is of course an Explosive Substances Act 1883, and an Explosives Act
> 1875.

Yes, of course.

> <snip>
>
> > Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
> > the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
> > light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
> > clincher.
>
> Are we talking granulated or castor sugar?

For all I know, he could even have possessed icing sugar with intent.

What that intent might be, might depend on whether or not he'd baked a
cake.

--
 x   If you have been, was it "royal" or "fondant"?
/|\

On 12 Nov, 11:27, "Norman Wells"  wrote:
> "Palindrome"  wrote in message
> news:a4WZi.103954$D65.1051@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> > Until then, all of us with tens of litres of acetone in a bottle next to
> > our home workshop may just have to hope that we won't get invited to spend
> > the next 28-96 days explaining why we think "strictly legal" should be
> > good enough.
>
> It all depends on whether you have a plausible reason for possessing them in
> the quantities you have, whether you comply with legal requirements on their
> safe storage, and whether there are any aggravating circumstances, such as
> the possession at the same time of large quantities of hydrogen peroxide.
> If you have no good reasons, why shouldn't you be asked for a bit of
> explanation?

How about needing the H2O2 for use in a home-made "hypo" eliminator,
to oxidise thiosulphate to sulphate?

Of course, having a seven-foot tall, 1/2 plate enlarger in the same
room as the peroxide may help.

> Incidentally, we are _all_ liable to be invited to spend the next 28 days
> (at present) explaining all sorts of things just on a whim, for no given
> reason.  You don't have to be in possession of bomb-making materials or
> anything at all to make you liable for that.  Just existing is enough.

And does that make you feel all safe, secure and protected?

Idiot.

--
 x    caput tuum in ano est
/|\

wrote in message 
news:1194888262.311049.278370@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Nov, 11:18, "TD"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>> news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>>
>> > [quote]
>> > LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
>> > was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>>
>> > Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
>> > England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
>> > Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.
>>
>> I can't find an Explosive Substances Act 1993 on OPSI or StatuteLaw.
>
> I didn't write that piffle; I just quoted it.

Oh I know.  Just wondering why AFP wrote it.

>> There is of course an Explosive Substances Act 1883, and an Explosives 
>> Act
>> 1875.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
>> > the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
>> > light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
>> > clincher.
>>
>> Are we talking granulated or castor sugar?
>
> For all I know, he could even have possessed icing sugar with intent.
>
> What that intent might be, might depend on whether or not he'd baked a
> cake.

A Chocolate Bombe?

> --
> x   If you have been, was it "royal" or "fondant"?
> /|\
>

wrote in message 
news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7ad41d_1.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>
> [quote]
> LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
> was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>
> Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
> England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
> Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.
>
> Police refused to comment on a report in the local Yorkshire Post
> newspaper about a man his 20s who was arrested for allegedly planning
> to pass classified information to Russia.
>
> The report came days after Jonathan Evans, the head of Britain's
> domestic intelligence agency, MI5, warned of "unreconstructed attempts
> by Russia, China and others to spy on us" despite the end of the Cold
> War nearly 20 years ago.
>
> Hill was charged Saturday and will make his first appearance before
> magistrates in Leeds on Monday, said London's Metropolitan police,
> which takes the lead on security matters nationwide.
>
> The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
> hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
> in his possession.
>
> Britain's Press Association news agency said the allegations do not
> relate to any suspected "terrorist-related activity", without quoting
> sources.
>
> [unquote]
>
> Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
> the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
> light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
> clincher.
>
> --
> x   If you have been, was it fattening?
> /|\
>

The charge alleges that on November 8, in Skipton, "you had knowingly in 
your possession or under your control an explosive substance, namely 
component parts including sodium chlorate, sugar, hexamine tablets, matches, 
bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone, under such circumstances as to 
give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you are not making it or did not 
have it in your possession or under your control for a lawful object."
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7067767,00.html>

Was there an actual explosive substance or did he merely possess the 
component parts?

In article ,
Jethro   wrote:
>If you remove intent from the requirements for locking people up, then
>justice works much smoother.
>
>Take rape, for example. It's always been a bit of a nuisance that men
>accused of rape could not be shown to have *intended* rape, by virtue
>of the fact the victim consented quite willingly. So really, we could
>do with removing the tiresome element of intent from that law too.

Yes, but in the case of rape an act has already been performed.
Mere possession of chemicals should not in itself be a crime,
although it may warrant further surveillance depending on the
circumstances.

Conversely, motive alone should not be grounds for prosecution
even if intent could be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case of terrorist acts, there should (imo) be clear
evidence of conspiracy, planning and/or preparation - so not
just the raw chemicals, but also the weaponised agents, notes,
annotated maps, taped conversations etc.

Francis

Dave Baker  wrote in message
news:fh99ob$5bg$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
> news:fh95n8$mqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
> > especially not in a domestic environment.
>
> Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
> jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
> for at B&Q or the garden centre.
> --
> Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines
>
>

Unless someone happens to drop a lit
cigarette, in the vicinity, a few days later,
with no rain in between.
Gets very expensive in that situation.

ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

On 12 Nov, 17:44, "TD"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:1194888262.311049.278370@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Nov, 11:18, "TD"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
> >>news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>
> >> > [quote]
> >> > LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
> >> > was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>
> >> > Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
> >> > England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
> >> > Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.
>
> >> I can't find an Explosive Substances Act 1993 on OPSI or StatuteLaw.
>
> > I didn't write that piffle; I just quoted it.
>
> Oh I know.  Just wondering why AFP wrote it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> There is of course an Explosive Substances Act 1883, and an Explosives
> >> Act
> >> 1875.
>
> > Yes, of course.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> > Whilst all the other substances can doubtless be inocently explained -
> >> > the sodium chlorate would be to kill weeds and the matches would be to
> >> > light a barbecue - the illegal possession of _sugar_ is doubtless the
> >> > clincher.
>
> >> Are we talking granulated or castor sugar?
>
> > For all I know, he could even have possessed icing sugar with intent.
>
> > What that intent might be, might depend on whether or not he'd baked a
> > cake.
>
> A Chocolate Bombe?

Or a Bombe Surprise?

--
 x   Would it have gone with a bang?
/|\

Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script ) wrote:
> Dave Baker  wrote in message
> news:fh99ob$5bg$1@news.datemas.de...
>> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
>> news:fh95n8$mqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Sodium chlorate is hardly ever used as a weed killer these days,
>>> especially not in a domestic environment.
>> Nonsense. I get it from a local chemical company for my patio and it works
>> jolly well. Cheaper than the proprietory stuff you pay well over the odds
>> for at B&Q or the garden centre.
> 
> Unless someone happens to drop a lit
> cigarette, in the vicinity, a few days later,
> with no rain in between.
> Gets very expensive in that situation.
> 
The trick is to gather all the dead weeds into a heap away from anything
you want to keep.  Then you throw a lit cigarette end in - it'll go up
like a ....   ;-)

-- 
Mike

On 12 Nov, 19:48, "TD"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:1194804006.149584.254600@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071110/tuk-britain-police-security-a7a...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/24kfgw
>
> > [quote]
> > LONDON (AFP) - A 23-year-old man arrested under Britain's secrecy laws
> > was charged Saturday with possessing explosives, police said.
>
> > Peter Stephen Hill, a risk analyst from Skipton, near Leeds, northern
> > England, was detained Wednesday under the provisions of the Official
> > Secrets Act 1911 but charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1993.
>
> > Police refused to comment on a report in the local Yorkshire Post
> > newspaper about a man his 20s who was arrested for allegedly planning
> > to pass classified information to Russia.
>
> > The report came days after Jonathan Evans, the head of Britain's
> > domestic intelligence agency, MI5, warned of "unreconstructed attempts
> > by Russia, China and others to spy on us" despite the end of the Cold
> > War nearly 20 years ago.
>
> > Hill was charged Saturday and will make his first appearance before
> > magistrates in Leeds on Monday, said London's Metropolitan police,
> > which takes the lead on security matters nationwide.
>
> > The charge alleges that he illegally had sodium chlorate, sugar,
> > hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone
> > in his possession.
>
> > Britain's Press Association news agency said the allegations do not
> > relate to any suspected "terrorist-related activity", without quoting
> > sources.
>
> > [unquote]
>
> The charge alleges that on November 8, in Skipton, "you had knowingly in
> your possession or under your control an explosive substance, namely
> component parts including sodium chlorate, sugar, hexamine tablets, matches,
> bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone, under such circumstances as to
> give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you are not making it or did not
> have it in your possession or under your control for a lawful object."
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7067767,00.html>

The report in the Grauniad specified s. 4 of the Explosive Substances
Act 1883:

[quote]
4. Punishment for making or possession of explosive under suspicious
circumstances. - (1) Any person who makes or knowingly has in his
possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such
circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not
making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control
for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had
it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be
guilty of felony, and, on conviction, shall be liable to penal
servitude for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding two years ...  and the explosive substance
shall be forfeited.
[unquote]

None of those items allegedly in his possession is actually "an
explosive substance".  Potassium chlorate might be, but sodium
chlorate isn't, no matter how much a non-chemist might wish it were
otherwise.  Nor would the celebrated "co-op mix" be any use as an
explosive without the means to set it off, even if that physical
mixture had been prepared; needless to say, I will not comment further
on that mixture other than to say it does not normally involve much
use of candied peel.

The law is plainly old, old-fashioned, out of date and needs to be
changed.  Nobody has been sentenced to "penal servitude" for a great
many years and the Australian government might well protest quite
loudly if that trend were to be reversed.

--
 x    If you have been, did you meet Tony Holland?
/|\

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> 
> None of those items allegedly in his possession is actually "an
> explosive substance".  Potassium chlorate might be, but sodium
> chlorate isn't, no matter how much a non-chemist might wish it were
> otherwise.  Nor would the celebrated "co-op mix" be any use as an
> explosive without the means to set it off, even if that physical
> mixture had been prepared; needless to say, I will not comment further
> on that mixture other than to say it does not normally involve much
> use of candied peel.
> 
Why do you say Potassium Chlorate might be an explosive but not Sodium
Chlorate?  I believe Sodium Chlorate has been known to detonate (under
extreme conditions) (BICBW) and I would expect Potassium Chlorate to
behave in a similar manner.

As for "co-op mix" not being any use without the means to detonate it,
the same could be said for just about any modern commercial or military
high explosive.

-- 
Mike

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:4738f875$0$509$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>> None of those items allegedly in his possession is actually "an
>> explosive substance".  Potassium chlorate might be, but sodium
>> chlorate isn't, no matter how much a non-chemist might wish it were
>> otherwise.  Nor would the celebrated "co-op mix" be any use as an
>> explosive without the means to set it off, even if that physical
>> mixture had been prepared; needless to say, I will not comment further
>> on that mixture other than to say it does not normally involve much
>> use of candied peel.
>>
> Why do you say Potassium Chlorate might be an explosive but not Sodium
> Chlorate?  I believe Sodium Chlorate has been known to detonate (under
> extreme conditions) (BICBW) and I would expect Potassium Chlorate to
> behave in a similar manner.

Chlorates are oxidising agents.  They provide the oxygen necessary for the 
combustion of something else, and are used in circumstances where the 
atmosphere is unlikely to provide enough, quickly enough, to achieve the 
desired end result, such as an explosion which requires rapid combustion in 
a confined space.  Potassium nitrate performs the same function in 
gunpowder.

Oxidising agents are not usually explosive substances per se, but are 
components of explosive mixtures.  It is well documented that the process of 
grinding it with sugar can easily cause explosions.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:4738f875$0$509$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>> None of those items allegedly in his possession is actually "an
>> explosive substance".  Potassium chlorate might be, but sodium
>> chlorate isn't, no matter how much a non-chemist might wish it were
>> otherwise.  Nor would the celebrated "co-op mix" be any use as an
>> explosive without the means to set it off, even if that physical
>> mixture had been prepared; needless to say, I will not comment further
>> on that mixture other than to say it does not normally involve much
>> use of candied peel.
>>
> Why do you say Potassium Chlorate might be an explosive but not Sodium
> Chlorate?  I believe Sodium Chlorate has been known to detonate (under
> extreme conditions) (BICBW) and I would expect Potassium Chlorate to
> behave in a similar manner.
>
> As for "co-op mix" not being any use without the means to detonate it,
> the same could be said for just about any modern commercial or military
> high explosive.
>

Sodium Chlorate/sugar mixture has a fairly low FofI (figure of 
insensitivity*).  It can be detonated with relatively mild percusion or even 
rough handling - as a boy in my class at school would attest (He only had 3 
fingers left after a batch he was stuffing onto a cycle inner tube 
exploded).

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_insensitivity

M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>>>
>> Why do you say Potassium Chlorate might be an explosive but not Sodium
>> Chlorate?  I believe Sodium Chlorate has been known to detonate (under
>> extreme conditions) (BICBW) and I would expect Potassium Chlorate to
>> behave in a similar manner.
>>
>> As for "co-op mix" not being any use without the means to detonate it,
>> the same could be said for just about any modern commercial or military
>> high explosive.
>>
> 
> Sodium Chlorate/sugar mixture has a fairly low FofI (figure of 
> insensitivity*).  It can be detonated with relatively mild percusion or even 
> rough handling - as a boy in my class at school would attest (He only had 3 
> fingers left after a batch he was stuffing onto a cycle inner tube 
> exploded).
> 
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_insensitivity
> 
Yes, I know enough about chlorate mixes to still be able to count to ten
without taking my shoes and socks off ;-)

I was more interested in why the pp thought Potassium Chlorate was an
explosive in itself but not Sodium Chlorate.

BTW, why was your classmate packing an inner tube?  I thought bike
frames were the containers of choice.

-- 
Mike

On 12 Nov, 09:42, TimB  wrote:

> Read your last sentence again. That's the important point. Walking
> into a tube station carrying a rucksack is also strictly legal.
> Shoplifiting goods on the other hand, even goods with a value of less
> than £200, is strictly illegal. I'd rather see the police dealing with
> those issues than arresting people for things which are 'strictly
> legal'.

Shiplifiting stuff for less than 200 pounds is now not criminal - can
get only a spot fine in the supermarket. Not like the olden days.
Years ago in occupied Trieste my father reported his cart (!) missing
at the local Kommandantur. Now you can say whatever you like about
them, and they did do horrible things apparently, but when they cought
the thief they had him strung in no time! Would only get a fine now.
Unbelieveble. Then they wonder why the streets are full of yobs.