| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| True Scotsman |
Boy's petrol bomb revolution bidA schoolboy tried to throw a petrol bomb at a council headquarters.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/5059730.stm Boy's petrol bomb revolution bid A schoolboy has been found guilty of throwing petrol bombs at a council headquarters in an attempted anti-English rebellion. A court heard how Jamie Hoggan, 16, and a 15-year-old friend, who cannot be named for legal reasons, targeted Clackmannanshire Council's offices. They were said to have used the petrol bombs as a call to arms. The verdict came after a jury trial at Alloa Sheriff Court and sentence was deferred for background reports. Hoggan, who had denied wilful fire-raising, threw the petrol bombs at the council buildings in Alloa last August as part of a campaign seeking Scotland's withdrawal from the UK. The two were said to be part of a group called Scottish Freedom Force and had targeted the building as the centre for local government. Hoggan and his friend lit cloths stuck in bottles filled with petrol and threw them at Greenfield House, setting fire to shrubs near the building. No one was injured in the incident. Hoggan's mother Roberta, 39, said her son had spent the evening of the incident at home with her. Speaking after the verdict, she said: "I know they've made their decision but he was with me that night and I stand by that. "I know I told the truth." Asked about his involvement in the anti-English group, she said: "He's hardly ever out the door so how he can be involved with some sort of group is beyond me." Commenting on her son's 15-year-old friend, who has already been discharged by the Children's Panel after admitting the offence, she said: "The so-called accomplice got off scot free - not even a slap on the wrist." |
||||
| SLG |
Scottish Freedom Force? Sounds like they've made that up themselves.
Wonder what the rest of the campaign involved. |
||||
| Aventinian |
The wee lad in question has denied he did it and denied he is a Scottish nationalist either.
You never know who to believe. Children can be quite impressionable at that age and politics like the ones it is claimed he held can seem to offer absolutes that the real world does not. |
||||
| RadgeJougal |
Interesting how the article repeatedly claims an anti-English angle, but never actually quotes anything anti-English. | ||||
| carol |
I'm not aware that the name is familiar in nationalist circles and I'm local to that area.
Carol |
||||
| Aventinian |
It was alleged that the wee boy had discussed 'driving the English out of Scotland' and such. |
||||
| Morph |
This could have a been a lil child with issues using the English or Authority as a valve to release some sort of internal problems. Maybe we shouldn't be bothered about the nationalistic issue here and more on why a young Scottish child felt the need to throw petrol bombs at a council biulding and more why the hell did he have petrol bombs? | ||||
| Aventinian |
Not exactly hard to get your hands on - a glass bottle and some petrol stolen from Dad's tank for the lawnmower...
But yes, clearly the boy does have some problems. But then again, the same could be said of all 'terrorists' - adult or child. |
||||
| RadgeJougal |
Alleged? Aye, it's "alleged" they have alien bodies in Roswell. Do you believe that? Granted this is more likely, but "alleged" doesn't mean anything until proven. |
||||
| RadgeJougal |
I don't think that's a big question. Petrol bombs are easy to make - that's why they're popular with rioters. And petrol is easy to lay your hands on. If anything strikes me about this thing, it is that it all strikes me as incredibly naive. |
||||
| Aventinian |
An allegation is quite a serious thing. And no one is seeking to prove it, what was sought to be proven is that he committed willful fireraising. Whether you want to believe it or not is another matter altogether, and that's not for me to say. |
||||
| Morph |
sorry the point was not how he got a hold of them but more why he was using them in the first place, i mean a brick you could see but a petrol bomb is thoughout and a lot worse IMO | ||||
| parkhead_rfb |
he looks like horace from the broons. | ||||
| parkhead_rfb |
yip blair, bush and thatcher clearly all had issues. |
||||
| Aventinian |
|
||||
| Morph |
here we go again | ||||
| parkhead_rfb |
well all of the above have used terror to get what they want. |
||||
| Morph |
when? balir and bush went into an unjust war i agree, but there was no terrorist agenda, it was done in a more open way, which doesnt make it reight, but it was not a deliberate attack on innocent people. | ||||
| parkhead_rfb |
plenty of people are branded terrorists who dont target innocent people but innocents die due to their actions, why should governments be any different? Both have also supported cancelling democracy when its justice system does not suit. Guantanamo and anti terrorist legislation here are terrorism in their own right. |
||||
| Morph |
I agree Guantanamo is wrong on many levels. But some anti-terrorism measures such as a longer detention period for people who the believe to be terrorists isnt a bad thing. Agreeably it is wrong if these people are innocent, but if not i dont see a problem. | ||||
| SLG |
If you can lock people out without trial, then you never need to actually prove whether they are guilty or innocent. You also need to trust out security services enough to believe that they won't abuse these powers. |
||||
| parkhead_rfb |
the problem is they are detained without trial and often without even a charge. you cant cancel a justice system to suit your own ends, everyone should be afforded the same rights, its a bit rich to lecture others on democracy otherwise. Britain actually introduced diplock courts to do away with those troublesome juries in northern ireland, if manipulating a justice system like that to ensure convictions (many afterwards proven to be wholly unsafe ones) isnt state terror then i dont know what is. |
||||
| parkhead_rfb |
I certainly dont trust British security services. anyone who does is frankly a fool given their record. |
||||
| Morph |
I dont think its foolish to mistrust all the services, i mean the track record is not without blemishes, however when following up on information the odd mistake is made. The UK intelligence services are still bound by a code of laws. It is more a perspective than anything else wether you agree with them or not IMHO | ||||
| Aventinian |
I believe there must be a balance sought. Obviously security does, in some circumstances, demand somewhat extreme measures. Scots Nationalists were rounded up during WWII as potential enemies of the state, or so you lot tell me. Now while this may have given me a few years of nice peace and quiet had I been around then, it's obviously not the sort of thing you can do in peacetime.
There is a simple test though: is it proportionate to the evil to which it wishes to combat. The people of the world evidently believe that Guantanamo is a disgraceful over-reaction. That does not mean that we should completely discount the idea of detention without trial in some very limited circumstances. It is a repulsive thing to do and in this case is wrong, but sometimes it can be necessary to combat greater threats. |
||||
| IF Convenor |
Then you get a situation where the government locks up anybody it doesn't like, using terrorism as a convenient smokescreen. Government is overwhelmingly powerful and resourced compared to the individual, so the individual needs all the protection possible, including protection from excessive detention on the say-so of... who?... some copper who may have his own agenda? |
||||
| parkhead_rfb |
They certainly werent bound by laws when they were supplying loyalist paramilitaries with resources and information to kill people britain claimed as its own citizens. they certainly werent acting within a code of conduct when they deliberately changed records to suit themselves over the shooting of the brazillian in london. They certainly werent acting within guidelines when they illegaly bugged sinn fein offices. I certanly dont trust these people. |
||||
| IF Convenor |
I completely disagree. Detention without trial cannot be justified. Detention prior to trial, i.e. remand, is another matter as some evidence has to be produced in court to justify remanding someone. It should be the same for terrorism cases; the authorities must have some reason for suspecting and detaining someone, so let them present their evidence and have a judge decide if it's sufficient for detention. |
||||
| IF Convenor |
I agree with you, Parkie, but I'd go further and say, through informants, they were orchestrating much of the Provos' violence too. | ||||
| parkhead_rfb |
i would disagree. informants were largely used by the security services as 'super grasses'. many were convicted solely on the evidence of these people and surprise surprise loads of these convictions then turned out to be proven either wrong or very, very unsafe. |
||||
| IF Convenor |
If the stories are to be believed, the government had one or more informants in very senior positions within the Provos. In order to maintain their cover and credibility these informants would have had to participate in and (being so senior) initiate terrorist activities.
Just as with loyalist terrorists, the "war on drugs", etc. the security forces have a vested interest in keeping things going which, in turn, keeps them in a job. I believe, especially in the later stages, most of the unrest in Northern Ireland was being instigated by government agents on both sides of the divide. |
||||
| parkhead_rfb |
thats the problem though believing the stories. security forces could easily leak false information in the sound knowledge of the way that informants are dealt with within republicanism. |
||||
| IF Convenor |
Ah but the stories, if believed, would confirm that the security forces were responsible for much of the violence perpetrated by both sides. Why would they want to leak such stories?
I can see the logic of leaking false stories that there was an informer among the senior ranks to spread mistrust among the paramilitaries, but the downside is it makes it seem as if the security forces have a hand in the violence. I suppose it's swings and roundabouts. |
||||
| Aventinian |
Detention without trial would be different from detention with a judicial hearing where no charge is given. I am no Northern Irish historian, but I believe the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland gave a hearing to suspected terrorists before detaining them without trial. These people were never charged, never tried and never found guilty of an offence. That I would support if it was practical to hold such hearings. However I do not believe that, where national security is concerned, there must only be detention based on a charge which must then be brought to trial immediately. |
||||
| parkhead_rfb |
suspects were held for a far longer period than was ever allowd for other people during the time of diplock courts. Britain also used interment to keep people captive without trial or charge. |
||||