Going to prison for having the wrong thoughts

Three young people from a wide range of backgrounds have received lengthy prison sentences this week, perhaps I should say four, as one small baby was involved. Good riddance many people will say in reaction to lively headlines.

Sudesh Amman, 18, a former maths and science student at North West London College, is going to prison for three and a half years. At his trial the court heard that he fantasised about carrying out a terror attack and discussed using a knife and acid. He posted al Qaida propaganda on a WhatsApp group, kept manuals on bomb making, knife fighting and close combat, and owned an air gun, a black flag and a combat knife.

The prosecution said that his interest in Islamic extremism was more than ‘a mere immature fascination with the taboo and with graphic violence.’ He has, ‘sincerely held ideological beliefs which motivate him to collect terrorist material.’

Head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, Alex Boon, said Amman’s ‘fascination with dying in the name of terrorism was clear in a notepad we recovered from his home.’

Amman holds terrifying ideas which scare us all but he is a teenager, who has not stabbed anyone or thrown any acid. He has broken the law now by disseminating terrorist literature but in terms of the way the trial was described by the prosecution and the media, he is now incarcerated at great public expense for his ideas.

How will prison change the dangerous ideology he follows? In September 2015 the government commissioned a review to assess the threat of Islamist Extremism (IE) in prison. It was submitted on 17 March 2016. It’s doubtful that much has changed since then.

The review found evidence that IE is a growing problem with increasing violent incidents. Inside Amman will be welcomed by a highly organised Muslim gang culture, violence, drug trafficking and criminality.

Those gangs are directed by offenders supporting ISIS. They make constant threats against staff and other prisoners. Charismatic IE prisoners acting as self-styled ‘emirs’ exert a controlling and radicalising influence on other Muslim prisoners. There’s aggressive encouragement of conversions to Islam.

He’ll enjoy unsupervised collective worship, including Friday Prayers where he’ll witness pressure on staff to leave the prayer room. He’ll be able to avoid body searches by claiming that his Islamic dress is religious, he’ll have free access to extremist literature in chaplaincy libraries and from other prisoners; he’ll meet scared tame prison Imams and will certainly never meet a Christian chaplain or anyone who will challenge his ideas or explore why he has found an outlet in imaginary violence.

The report noted an increasing and disproportionate number of Muslims within our prisons, which accords with their message about the victimisation of Muslims.

IE prisoners even manage to engineer segregation by landing, wing, or even by prison so Amman is unlikely to ever meet Adam Thomas, 22, who received a six and a half-years this week, for belonging to National Action, a banned right-wing group. A longer sentence than that given this week to businessman John Broadhurst, for the manslaughter of his girlfriend Natalie Connolly.

Thomas scared his neighbours by firing his cross-bow at a tree. Unlike other members of the UK underclass, he did not fire it at a human, a cat, a swan or even a squirrel. Like Amman, Thomas and his Portuguese girl- friend, Claudia Patatas, the mother of their baby, named Adolf Hitler, have some terrible ideas. But their ideology is almost laughable, like something from a novel by Conrad. Resting on swastika scatter cushions they planned to overthrow British society, depose the Queen, take over the army and install a new Third Reich.

Judge Melbourne Inman told Patatas, who owned a swastika shaped pastry cutter, that she was, ‘You acted together in all you thought, said and did, in the naming of your son and the disturbing photographs of your child, surrounded by symbols of the Ku Klux Klan.’

Sentencing their comrade Darren Fletcher to five years, he said, ‘The depth of your racism is evidenced by how you have been able to groom your own child. On your own evidence, you have been seeking to indoctrinate your own child in these vile beliefs.’

Three ‘vulnerable,’ people, four if you include baby Adolf, now incarcerated in the care system, have been sentenced for ideas; Amman was apprehended after he sent a video to a gay-activist, and the National Action group have been convicted for their ‘violent racist beliefs.’

Since 2000 we’ve had the Anti-Terrorism Act which aims to prevent crime, and the increasing influence of the idea of ‘Criminal conduct’ a wrong against the whole community, rather than just the private individual. Disturbingly, the public, press, including its liberal wing and even prison reform groups seem to accept this wider interpretation of the law and use of prison as normal and acceptable.

The public may choose to ignore the implications of imprisoning people up for their ‘vile beliefs.’ They might think it rational to convict teenagers on the basis of their diaries and note-books, and even for uneducated people giving their children daft names, but if no solutions to this new problem of ‘thought crime’ are found apart from jail, that public will have to foot a huge bill. We should shelve HS2 immediately as the cost of the penal building programme will nearly bankrupt the state, and rather like the Third Reich we are going to see its intimidating institutions everywhere.



Free speech isn’t free – Make a donation to the Salisbury Review

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

9 Comments on Going to prison for having the wrong thoughts

  1. According to an article in Metro, 30 January, an MP who has worked with counter-terrorism officials says that anyone who doubts whether the Nazis could have gassed as many as six million people is a criminal who should be reported to the police, and the article suggests that it is anti-Semitic hate speech to note that the Nazis murdered non-Jews as well as Jews.

  2. “…their baby, named Adolf Hitler…”

    No, the baby was named merely Adolf, not Adolf Hitler. Perhaps he was named after my hero, the greatest of all violinists, and one of the most admirable of all anti-Nazis, Adolf Busch? I’d have said so if I’d been the parents’ lawyer.

    In a sane world, the baby would have been taken away from his loony parents and fostered by the Rees-Moggs, and that would have been the end of the story. But the principal characteristic of the world in which we live isn’t sanity.

  3. Hopefully, if there’s a by-election in Peterborough in the next few months, the voters there might consider electing someone who isn’t from the three “main” parties, perhaps even Gerard Batten himself.

  4. You know, enforced non-discrimination is coming to bite Britain back in the rear end. Arrested for having wrong thoughts? Oh dear. Who would’ve thought this would be happening in the land of the Magna Carta of all things?

    A wide-ranging and frank exchange of ideas regarding why this is happening, as opposed to just a description of events, is needed. And informed decisions have to be followed through. I couldn’t wait more for electric vehicles and plastic replacements!

  5. Over here, there was a gay paedophile, John Robin Sharpe (d. 2015) who was convicted of possessing child pornography fiction which he wrote for his own private pleasures with no commercial intent. Acquitted at his first trial, but sent back for retrial by the Supreme Court in 2001, then convicted and handed a sentence of four months. He’s now likely serving a longer one.

  6. After 70 years of leftist/marxist ‘programming’ via the MSM and Universities, it is not surprising that the Judiciary has lost all site of moral objectivity. Just this week we hear hat the bearded Mr Chowdhury who attacked police with a samurai sword outside Buckingham palace, forcing one of them to fight for his life is found not guilty. Likewise last week, the infamous thug attacking the car with a zombie knife was let off without charge. At the same time police are in every sense of the word enforcing sharia blasphemy law in the UK. Those who critizise or bring to light criminal acts of Muslims or even question the tenants of Islam are hunted down, de-platformed, vilified, thrown out of school/college/workplace and imprisoned. When the British people left Objective Morality, G-d, Church and community and replaced it with subjective morality, TV, football and individualism, Britain began the decent into barbarism.

  7. Jane, you make such a valid point, and one that is ignored by all the mainstream, particularly those ‘nice liberals’ at the BBC. Which is that it is now possible to be imprisoned for thought, something that would have been viewed in previous decades as belonging to a dystopian fantasy, or the USSR. Currently most Britons can distance themselves from that uncomfortable fact, because they aren’t extremist Muslims, nor yet do they make swastika shaped shortbread, but that change in law from a crime being something one did, to a crime becoming something one thinks, is fundamental and frightening. The furore over that eejit Jeremy Corbyn muttering something under his breath, shows how common the acceptance of ‘thought crime’ has become amongst those who run our country. It has certainly been a common feature in the corporate world for a decade or more with Human Resources often referred to as ‘The Thought Police’, unpleasant and restricting to one’s career as it is in the work place, ‘Thought Crime’ in the legal, police, and security world has a terrifying potential, and it is something that whose imposition we should all resist.

  8. This has been some time coming.

    It was clear for quite some time that the creation of the term “radicalisation” for those who had committed acts was a stepping stone towards a greater state focus on “radicalisers”.

    The claim that those who promote messages that might radicalise the public, are almost as dangerous as those who carry out acts.

    Darren Osborne’s attack is a case in point. After the act, his reading of various ‘counter-Jihad’ sites was declared the cause for this man with a history of mental issues. Robinson’s name was most frequently mentioned, but others too. Though not the BBC series Three Girls, which had set it in motion.

    Therefore alt-media types on the populist right are the end goal, imho, not neo-Nazi low IQ fantasists.

    There is already a drive to regulate alt-media in play (see Damian Collins’s reports).

3 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. A Country Gone Mad | ianrmillard
  2. The Gathering Cloak of Censorship | ianrmillard
  3. One Man’s “Extremism” is Another Man’s Struggle for Liberty and Justice | ianrmillard