Jump to content

Talk:Wood Green ricin plot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV problems

[edit]

Is the title "Wood Green no-ricin plot" expressing an implicit opinion that the plot was either non-existent, or that it was not the serious matter it was sometimes portrayed as?

Does the text reference to "media frenzy" express an opinion? David | Talk 00:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "media frenzy" observation came from the BBC, as was cited [1] where the reporter reviewed the timeline of what the press knew and what was actually true. The press at the time published long articles about the horrors of ricin, a substance that not present in the flat -- a fact which the authorities were well aware. These things do happen, and when it does it should be pointed out.

On the matter of the title, I think it should be as close to the facts as possible. There may or may not have been a plot, but there was indeed no ricin. So calling it, for example, the "Wood Green ricin plot" would be expressing the fallacy (not just the opinion) that there was ricin involved. Goatchurch 09:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other possibilities.

We could call it the 'Wood Green "Ricin Plot"', with the quotation marks making it clear that it was not a ricin plot, but was called one. Googling suggests that this is a common way of naming this episode.

Actually, I don't really like 'no-ricin plot', because it suggests there was a plot, just not one involving ricin: there is no evidence for this. Calling it the 'Wood Green ricin non-plot' would be better.

I don't think it's particularly important: I believe that the current title at least suggests the major point. There may be better ways of doing it, but it doesn't seem crucial.--Crink 11:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wood Green ricin plot as one person Kamel Bourgass of "plotting to spread ricin and other poisons on the UK's streets". The fact that ricin was not yet obtained does not make this "not" a plot to use ricin, just an incomplete one which was overreacted to. Rmhermen 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have preferred "Wood Green alleged ricin plot" but am willing to accept it as it is. Anyone object to clearing the NPOV tag? Rwendland 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to edit out the POV so leave it for a bit, i've had poeple quoteing this article claiming that no terrorism was involved, thats how bad the POV is on this article, it says the exact oposite to the facts! As for Alleged ricin plot in the title, a man was convicted for acts proparitory to terrorism due to the chemicals and instruction manuals he had, nothing is alleged, they are court determined FACTS.Hypnosadist 13:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who changed the name and made it biased against the facts? The case collapsed. There was NO ricin! One man, already in jail for murder, got convicted of "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance". Those whom he supposedly had the conspiricy with were found innocent. The case is total garbage. Is it the rule that we must aportion absolute credibility with the security services where it is not deserved?Goatchurch 09:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed to make the title NPOV as opposed to the biased title before. Here are the reasons;
  1. Kamel Bourgass was found guilty of "plotting to spread ricin and other poisons on the UK's streets" in a fair trial.
  2. This was because he had a book with instructions on how to prepare RICIN.
  3. He had the equipment and raw materials to ready and organised to prepare RICIN.
  4. "Is it the rule that we must aportion absolute credibility with the security services where it is not deserved?" Well the british law courts Yes.
  5. "Those whom he supposedly had the conspiricy with were found innocent." It clearly says on his charge persons or persons unknown.
  6. "Those whom he supposedly had the conspiricy with were found innocent." A in prime example of british justice as the innocent go free and guilty are locked away. Un-like a country with a rigged legal system where all the people would have been found guilty (or if the tabloids where judge, jury and as they want to be exicutioner).
Hope that helps you understad that the No-ricin plot is the most biased title i have ever seen on wikipedia to is also completely factually inaccurate.Hypnosadist 14:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that doesn't sound like a credible position to hold. These eight guys were on trial because between them, it was said, they were plotting to spread ricin on the streets of London. The juries found only one of them guilty of conspiracy, and the rest innocent. Now, most normal people would see this as a bit of a contradiction since it's not a conspiracy of it's only one person. Let's say the verdicts didn't quite come out the way anyone planned them to. But, sure, if you need to believe that what the courts put out is the pinnacle of truth and must make perfect sense, it follows that you'll just have invent some new persons unknown, and assert that this one guilty guy must have plotting something to do with chemicals with them (though not, it seems, murder, according to the subsequent lack of verdict on that count). I mean, no one seems too bothered to be looking for these persons unknown. Well, maybe it's just a technical fix. Maybe they don't exist. Maybe there there was no plot. We already know there was no ricin. However, you seem to feel strongly that it should be called a ricin plot anyway, and since this is consistent with what the powers that be would like it to known as, I dare say your point of view will prevail. Anyways, if we also have to put up with the government saying it runs what they call a ministry of defence, whose business is almost everything but defence, this is but a small injustice.Goatchurch 01:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he had a good reason why he had instructions on makeing several dangerous poisons and the equipment and chemicals needed to manufacture and then refine them! He was in contact with people overseas via the internet, thats also where he got the instructions, they can be (or are?) the conspiritor but INAL. Goat don't mind read when you are not psychic, this should be called the ricin plot because he was ploting to to use ricin as a weapon (this was the finding of the court), the fact they arrested him before he managed to start preparing ricin is a good thing not a bad thing. If the preparation went wrong you could have a fire or contamination of the enviroment with toxins. As i say if this was stalins' russia we would have had 7 confessions not 1 conviction and 6 not guilty men.Hypnosadist 02:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word terrorism

[edit]

Nower in the convictio is the word "terrorism" involved, he was convicted of ploting to spreadin sh*t in the streets. See also: The Independent: "Jurors attack deportation of cleared 'ricin plot' suspect"--Striver 15:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the long version of the charge from the BBC;He has also now been convicted of conspiring "together with other persons unknown to commit public nuisance by the use of poisons and/or explosives to cause disruption, fear or injury". This is a terrorism charge, only british understatement calls it a public nuisence (its a cultural thing). I'm guessing this law dates from the 19 century by the wording, Tony Blair would have had the word terrorism in the title just to make it clear.Hypnosadist 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do we have a source for that?--Striver 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link that gives the long name of the charge. [2] We'll have to have a look to see under which act its enacted as well. Also this page is going to need updateing due to the possible deportions by the british government of some of the people involved in this story.
PS i also want to add a bit more about DC Stephen Oake, things like Tony Blair turning up to his funeral and perhaps the controversey around his death; the occupents of the raided flat in manchester complied with the police, and this was a speculative raid on known associates so the cops didn't cuff the people because they were playing nice cop. The first cops through the door are a separate unit called the Heavy Entry Team HET they are in full riot gear and stab vests, they only kick doors in, it's there job. The occupents of the raided flat in manchester complied with the police, and as this was a speculative raid on known associates the cops didn't cuff the people because they were playing nice cop and no-one had commited a crime as far as the police knew. The local anti-terrorism detectives then enter after a few minutes when the HET say the area is secure, and then the HET leave. Its at this point Kamel Bourgass(not known to be him at this time) makes his move, running to the kitchen and grabbing a knife and stabbing DC Oake (who had no stab vest, now all police have them) before being restrained. This was considered a big screw up, and why at Forset Gate and other later anti-terror raids the police go in much harder and arrest and cuff EVERONE at a suspect location if its to do with terrorism.Hypnosadist 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Meguerba

[edit]

Here's a useful link [3] about Mohammed Meguerba the informer/torture victim who provided info on this conspiracy. He does not really warrent a full page to himself but i think a section here about him and the evidence he provided.Hypnosadist 00:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary questions

[edit]

Attempts have been made in parliament to work out how the DSTL tests that found no ricin on the pestle and mortar were "by mistake" reported to the police and media as positive. That question isn't answered, but the answers do give some new information.

The incorrect information sent to the Home Secretary's Office came from the Terrorism and Protection Unit (e-mail sent 06:02am on 7 January 2003), so it's unclear from these answers if the "mistake" was by the DSTL or the Terrorism and Protection Unit. [4]

The 22 whole castor beans seized from the flat were also tested at the lab, which as usual of course contained ricin in the bean. [5] [6] So a bland statement like "ricin was found in the flat" would be strictly true (as it would be for millions of homes around the world) but confusing - "extracted ricin" is the interesting question.

DSTL verbally told the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch the negative ricin test result at a case conference on 20 March 2003, confirmed with a written statement. (The same day the 2003 invasion of Iraq began.) Rwendland 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, i think these two paragraphs from hansard would add information to the article;

An initial test conducted by Dstl Porton Down on 6 January 2003 on an exhibit taken by police from the flat occupied by Kamal Bourgass gave an apparent positive result for ricin. However, confirmatory tests which were conducted throughout the period from 7 January 2003 to 28 January 2003 failed to detect the presence of ricin.

Ricin was identified and confirmed on 7 January, 2003 in a second exhibit, consisting of 22 castor beans seized from the flat. Nicotine poison was also identified and confirmed. Other materials, specifically mentioned in the poison recipes recovered from the flat were also found including acetone and isopropyl alcohol.

This is very notable as this is Charles Clarke. Hypnosadist 00:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ricin plot Daily Mirror.jpg

[edit]

Image:Ricin plot Daily Mirror.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terror cell

[edit]

From WordWeb and TheFreeDictionary.com:

A cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members) [7][8]

Bourgass alone was convicted. There was no "UK poison cell". This is not POV; it is a bald fact. Therefore I am justified in reverting the following two edits by user Hypnosadist. [9][10] smb (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)Bourgass one of three people convicted for crimes in association with these events.
2)Aledged here calls into question the nature of these events as terrorism, to do that against a conviction in a fair trial is very POV. (Hypnosadist) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating separate convictions. Kamel Bourgass was sentenced for murder, and plotting to murder. Two other individuals were convicted for possessing false passports; they were not found guilty of plotting to kill people. There was no "UK terror cell". It simply didn't exist. smb (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3)"usually 3 to 5 members" does not exclude cells of one or three (see below).
4)Not every one in a cell has to know everything or be involved in all aspects of the plot.
5)Kamel Bourgass was found due to the links discribed on that chart. (Hypnosadist) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also the using of Only in the article is very POV, all we need to say is X was found guilty, y was found not guilty. (Hypnosadist) 03:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cite a dictionary, you adduce video game Splinet Cell, so-named because...
The Shop is one of the few organizations in the world that is aware of the black-ops division of the NSA, named "Third Echelon", which sends covert agents into the world called Splinter Cells, to exercise the use of a "fifth freedom"; the freedom to do whatever is necessary to preserve national security and peace for the United States.
Agents (plural) have "controllers" who "coordinate most of the missions and objectives". A bit like Solid Snake and fictional black ops unit Foxhound, then. Back in the real world, Bourgass was the only person found guilty in a British court of planning to murder people (using poison). All others were "acquitted of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance in relation to the ricin plot". [11] These are the facts. smb (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6)Kamel Bourgass was found guilty of working "together with other persons unknown", ie the rest of the cell.
7)"usually", not "never only one" (Hypnosadist) 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The formal indictment was actually conspiracy "together with other persons unknown to commit public nuisance...". You already knew this because in August 2006, here on this very page, you explained: "This is a terrorism charge, only british understatement [sic] calls it a public nuisence (its a cultural thing)." [12] That said, evidence presented at trial suggested Bourgass may have received assistance from abroad, but a second conspiracy trial was later dropped. All defendants walked free. [13] smb (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"persons unknown" does not mean the other named defendants who are all innocent of all ricin related charges. This article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4433649.stm states

Was subsequently convicted of having "conspired together with other persons unknown to commit public nuisance by the use of poisons and/or explosives to cause disruption, fear or injury".

Kamel Bourgass worked with other people according to the conviction. Those other people equal the cell. Thats my source now show a source to counter the findings of the trial. (Hypnosadist) 05:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already presented reliable sources to support each statement (please read them). It was originally thought that, working together as a group, these men received assistance from persons unknown overseas, from people outside of the United Kingdom. [14] But Kamel Bourgass alone was found guilty (everyone else, not guilty). [15] Allegations of a "UK poison cell" were not proven, but British authorities insisted that Bourgass had, at least, visited and received training in Afghanistan. [16] Authorities were originally planning to prosecute other individuals related to the "UK cell", but this action was suddenly dropped. [17] In the year 2006, serious doubts emerged over a key informant involved in the case. [18] (I will add this to the page later.) The scale of the conspiracy as said to exist before the war simply didn't exist. Now reexamine the two edits under contention [19] I believe they're quite reasonable. smb (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the informant who claimed he and Bourgass had received poison training in Afghanistan later changed his mind. "Although information said to come from Meguerba was used to mount the raid that led to the ricin arrests, he later changed his story when interviewed in Algeria by British police officers, saying that he played no part in preparing the poisons and had merely heard Bourgass talking about his expertise as a poison maker." [20] smb (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both edits are pure POV pushing; "alone" is being used to minimise this conviction and "alleged" is being used to call into question preparations to use poison by terrorist(s) in the UK. (Hypnosadist) 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact 1. Eight men were accused of belonging to a UK poison cell that plotted to murder civilians. Fact 2. Seven of the eight defendants were found not guilty. So "alone" in this context means exactly that: Bourgass alone was convicted of murder and plotting to murder. I don't see how stating this simple fact minimises his conviction. And I take "alleged" (in alleged UK poison cell) to mean "declared but not proved", as per its propoer definition. smb (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute how many people were convicted of ricin related offences, "alone" is being used emotively.
"declared but not proved" but it has been proved with the conviction of Bourgass. (Hypnosadist) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has not been proven. It was claimed that these eight men made up the "UK poison cell". Please see this link If seven of them were found not guilty in a court of law (which you do not dispute) and only one sentenced, then the allegation of a "UK poison cell" remains unproven. We have one man, Kamel Bourgass, who prosecutors believe visited Afghanistan at some point in his life (and this is now in doubt because the source for the alligation has now changed his story). smb (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No seven men have been found innocent of being in the "UK poison cell", one was making poison when and where the intel said, that is the cell. Your basic argument that one man can't a cell is unsound due to the wording of YOUR definition, even if it was a sound argument Bourgass was convicted of working with persons unknown. What source do you have that is making the "exceptional claim" that this "cell" as specifically mentioned by C.P. does not exist? (Hypnosadist) 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition provided above is not mine. These definitions come from reliable sources (like, you know, a dictionary). You should not ignore them just because they don't suit your purpose. Bourgass was convicted of working with persons unknown because it was believed he had received poison training in Afghanistan, not in the United Kingdom. A group of eight men were arrested in the UK. Colin Powell held this group up as the "UK poison cell". [21] But if seven are eventually acquitted, as they were, in a British court, then by definition you don't have a cell, what you have is an individual who may or may not have received training outside of the UK.
There's no point in our continuing like this. Perhaps you would like to consider filing a Request for Comment? smb (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/nsn/nsn-050411.htm See thats not hard, that source does dispute the existance of the cell as part of al Queda, because Bourgass did not use lye in his prep which is the method found in manchester. Some people dispute globalsecurity.org as a source but i think its great. This is really usful and a section on the origin of the method owned by Bourgass would help this article. But most of this should not be here, it should be on the Iraq War subpage that deals with the run up to the War. (Hypnosadist) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little more searching shows that Kurt Saxon is the source of Bourgass's ricin prep, that should interest you. (Hypnosadist) 00:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as al-Zarqawi goes, post-war the CIA decided he had no pre-war links with bin Ladin (see page 90 of [22]). I've not noticed anyone defend the notion that al-Zarqawi was running a global network pre-war; he was just focused on Iraq actions. So whether or not Bourgass was part of a UK group, I don't think it was a "cell" of a global network. Rwendland (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Murray quote

[edit]

I've edited the Murray quote, so that it is more comprehensible. The quote came from an article that mainly focused on the alleged "liquid explosive" plot. Without knowing that, the reference to "... this current case..." was rather confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhogg (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Terrorist Network.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Terrorist Network.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Mohamed Meguerba

[edit]

per WP:ONEEVENT, individual is primarily associated with the Wood Green ricin plot, and there is likely to be little to no significant, independent coverage unrelated to the ricin plot. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wood Green ricin plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wood Green ricin plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wood_Green_ricin_plot&oldid=1256558122"