43 replies to this topic

[cunning_plan]

did anyone see the article in new scientisc about exploding torusers(perhaps a minor bit off topic) farmers spraying sodium nitrate, then wives hang trousers up to dry in front of the fire...

also i agree self moderation is by far the best way forward and with this forum though there is no talk of HE or terrorism or whatever i still get the feeling the polie would be a bit ... scepticle.

[ChesterPFX]

Riiiight.

Why don't you find out what he was actually arrested for.

he was arrested for having the stuff with him.

What I was getting at was, how do I put this.......what was he arrested for? Was he arrested for example, for possessing explosives in suspicious circumstances (Sec 4, Explosive Substances Act 1883) or was he stopped and searched under sec 43 Terrorism Act 2000 and nicked under Sec 41 of the same (A constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist) or something else.

What, by the way, would the 'polie' have to be sceptical about this site?

Edited by ChesterPFX, 09 March 2005 - 08:28 PM.

[ChesterPFX]

have a virtual drink on me.

Cheers fella, am virtually enjoying it now!!

[cunning_plan]

not toaly sure, il investigate.
what would the police be sceptical about...surely the fact that there is enough details here on low explosives or at the every least where to get the components used in low and high explosives would make them sceptical and a bit? or not?(no sarcasm general question)
for all the sarcasm however surely you must have seen my point? he was arrested for having sulphur and a pipe with him...as i said il find out what he was arrested on the grounds of.

[ChesterPFX]

what would the police be sceptical about...surely the fact that there is enough details here on low explosives or at the every least where to get the components used in low and high explosives would make them sceptical and a bit? or not?

Not. Or even suspicious.

for all the sarcasm however surely you must have seen my point?

Sorry, not really.

he was arrested for having sulphur and a pipe with him...

Again, you have gone back to stating that he had a pipe, but you also said earlier that it was a gun barrel.

Whatever he was nicked for, I'm sure it wasn't a great conspiracy to get him. The fact that said his parents went to the station must surely suggest that the police were acting correctly.

Assuming of course that there was some malfeasance here on behalf of the police, I expect a huge complaint has been lodged and we can look forward to hearing about it on the news.

[alany]

did anyone see the article in new scientisc about exploding torusers(perhaps a minor bit off topic) farmers spraying sodium nitrate, then wives hang trousers up to dry in front of the fire.

It was posted in rec.pyrotechnics a while back.

It was sodium chlorate weed killer and I still doubt the truth of the story.

[Andrew]

It was posted in rec.pyrotechnics a while back.

It was sodium chlorate weed killer and I still doubt the truth of the story.

I did read original article in te New Scientist. It's title was exploding trousers, but explained how farmer's trouses made small snaps, like when grinding chlorate and sulphur together, the odd brused leg when a farmer walked into a table or such. And there were a few cases of fire. If that is, I remember it correctly.

[cunning_plan]

my point isnt were the police allowed to which im sure given the sate of things at the momnet they were. but what i dont see is was he doing anything wrong? the link the police made between the air rifle barrle and the sulphur was that his intention was to make a pipe b**b. his reply when i asked what he was arrested for exactly was:

'twas something like b**b hoax, although when 1st
arrested it sounded like 'being in the vecinity of
bechen cliff school' which apparently I was trying to
blow up"

so draw what you will from that. the reason i brought this up was basicly am i allowed to carry chems around with me in my bag? for example today i bought a few kg of some sulphur and some sodium nitrate, i cant see how that can be illeagle to carry home...but then again i can see that it could be.

[Creepin_pyro]

I'd still like to hear how the police discovered he had all this in his bag. What prompted the police to look in the bag?

Surely they didn't just stop him in the street randomly and ask for a look in his bag?

I'm quite sure that the police do not go around looking in peoples bags for no apparent reason. What made them approach him initially?

[Andrew]

I'm quite sure that the police do not go around looking in peoples bags for no apparent reason.  What made them approach him initially?

I'm very sure that the police don't go round just searching peoples bags willy nilly.

We want to know what he was doing that attracted the attention of the police?

[Richard H]

cunning_plan, please use a spell checker!

[cunning_plan]

richard- i usualy try, the quote was horiffic grammer and spelling even by my standrds but i decdided as it was a quote any editation was pointles. apologies to all though.

i presume that the shop must have said something or perhaps...no i cant see any other reason.

[alany]

Can this thread just die now - please!

[adamw]

OK.