Images of child pornography are rightly illegal because a child has been harmed in their production. Images of people being harmed by racial extremists should be illegal for exactly the same reasons.

If we were able to make execution videos etc just as illegal to own, there will be less of a market for the footage hence less motivation for people to commit the crimes in the first place.

Russ Harrison, Watford,

Downloading child pornography is a crime. The downloader is held responsible for the prior actions of others. How can Islamic extremism be any different? If there was no audience for beheadding videos would the practice be so prolific?

Simon Hough, Widnes, Cheshire

Extremists with bombs go free in England, but in the USA if you were to even think the words 'chlorine bomb' you'd be in a 7x7 concrete cell with electrodes wired to your testicles faster than you can say 'gulag'.

Andrew Duncan, Godalming, UK

Those who are in favour of jailing "terrorists" simply for reading seem to be confusing two different things.

People who perform acts of terror probably started with talking about it and/or downloading. They are correctly called terrorists.

People who read/download material almost always DON'T go on to perform an act, or to move in any real way towards an act (e.g. obtain weapons/boms), hence are not terrorists. They may be sympathisers, but they are not terrorists.

Terrorists are a tiny, tiny subset of those reading/downloading this material.

If people think downloading material is a crime, should we be locked up if we watch a TV programme that's sympathetic to the Palestinians (regarded by many as "terrorists") ?

Clive, Surrey,

shurley it was not just curiosity that these people looked at all the material is not just on. Do the yanks have anything on them. that we dont?

roy gane, trowbridge, wilts

The Daily Express who normally milk items like this for the benefit of their BNP supporters, are quiet on this one. Could it be that this judgement is secretly welcomed by the BNP?

Peter Barnett, Weston, UK

Yes ! Yes! Yes!. Jail is the best place to put people who read and copy terrorist material. The websites need to be blocked out as well.

Jim Wills, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

There is a clear distinction between the offences here. A paedophile viewing child pornography is equivalent to a terrorist blowing up a building - not reading about it. There is all the difference in the world between thinking a thing and doing it. The Court was right to quash these convictions, before the Government is allowed to institute 'thought crime'.

Dan, Nottingham, UK

I agree with Fidella , terrorist should be treated the same way as paedophiles. There is no two ways about that. A terrible mistatke has been made. These are dangerous men and they have been let off.

Phill, london, uk

Terrorists should be treated the same way as paedophiles. That includes downloading material from the internet. What was the judge thinking of?

Fidelia Dsouza, London,

One of the individuals was asked a simple question on Channel News the evening of their release. He failed to reply to a question posed by Mr Snow on 2 occasions, "if he supported The Jihad'. At the first attempt he made a statement not related to the question, and on the second he refused to say anything. What more to say?

jcasey, Haverhill, Suffolk

Mark my words we have not heard the last of these five men yet, they will make a mistake & they won't be so smug then !
Five men as a group downloading material which backs up their beliefs was done with 'intent' to use . No doubt in my mind.
This must be so disheartening for the Police.

maggie millington, Baguer Pican, Brittany

I consider downloading terrorist material the same as downloading child pornography and should carry the same penalty. Why is this country so soft on issues like this

Nick, WATFORD,

Its the difference between actual practice, and intent; Chris Langham however went to jail for downloading material, there was no evidence of him actually doing anything.

Paul, London, UK

Define "extremist propaganda".
This is a very dangerous ground. Simply possessing language that the government does like should not necessarily be a crime. If they are actively passing it out pamphlets that says "overthrow the Crown", that is one thing, but if they are in possession of material that discusses why the west is decedent (in Muslim eyes) then that is not a crime.

Dan , Frederick, us

I do not equate the two situations. Downloading terrorist material is being done with a specific agenda, which includes the ultrimate destruction of the British State and all its values. Ponograpghy is evil, but legislative coupled with law enforcement action could minimise its effect. It, however poses no threat to the UK

j s pillai, dunedin, new zealand

Today's downloader is tomorrows bomber. When do you take action? After the blasts???

Kara Swart, London, UK

I can't believe people on here are equating child porn downloaders with these young men. What planet are you on? This material is about ideology about a way of looking at the world we may not like it or agree with it , I don't like the fact that people read the BNP's offensive material either but I wouldn't criminalise them for doing it. Child porn is completely different it is illegal in and of itself both to produce it and to possess it. How do you think the material gets produced in the first place?

This current case is about clarifying the law and the judge has decided that the law is not about possessing this material, nor as far as I am aware is it illegal to write it in the first place so the two situations are not comparable at all.

Kerri, Sheffield, uk

So many posters beg the question of the rightness of criminalizing the downloading of certain forms of internet pornography in their justification of the criminalizing of the viewing of extremist propaganda. Well, I don't consider it right to criminalize either activity. The viewing or hearing of material of any description should be perfectly legal in all and every case and should be considered judicially irrelevant to any real act that a person may commit which warrants legal proceedings. You can call it thought crime or sight crime or aural crime. It all amounts to totalitarianism.

Peter, Swansea,

I think it's time we called for the return the right to 'exile'

If through all our efforts at integration we fail, and instead find we have raised murderous-minded Jihadi oiks - we should be free to exile them to a place that is more in keeping with their "belief-systems" not to mention their dangerous "thought-processes."

If their families and friends object, ship them out too...time to make a choice; Law abiding British citizen or hostile foreign national.

Kim Lepper, Cheshire, UK

How fortunate are they to live in a non Islamic society unlike the young man in Afghanistan who has been sentenced to death for downloading material concerning the rights of women.

Jeanne Hawkins, lydbrook, gloucestershire

What about all the conspiracy material which had surfaced on the internet straight after 911 attacks mainly created by U.S nationals, blaming Bush's government as an "inside job" ?

Would that also be categorized as "terrorist material" ?
It has done more damage to the current U.S government then all the al-Qaeda training manuals put together. Where do we draw the line?

jayil, london, uk

These people are obviously guilty and should consider themselves luck to be in our state and not in islamic extremist state. manybe they shoudl consider that if they think themselves hard done by?

Lisa, colchester , uk

The analogy with child porn is a good one.

The same laws should apply to what these people had , as is implemented with Child porn .

Just having child porn on your PC etc , is a crime , without any sign of intent. A quick change in the law is needed, it is not good enough that these people are free.

N Wilson, Bourne, lincs

"Of course we can jail people for their thoughts and fantasises. This exactly what we do, and rightly so, with paedophiles when they download materiel. The law should allow us to jail thos ethat think and fantasise about terrorist mass murder."

Aside from the utterly ridiculous notion that people should be jailed for what they think, the comparison with how the law deals with paedophiles is also off the wall. The material which the paedophile downloads requires the abuse of a child in the making of it therefore the downloader is implicated directly in the abuse.

Jim O'Sullivan, Sligo, Ireland

As far as I am aware it is not a crime to read - even subversive literature.

Tony Eden, Ollon, Switzerland

This is a very tricky area. The internet offers so much information, that sometimes we go to links out of curiosity and not with ulterior motives. I recently followed a kink which ended up with a site related to David Duke - KKK. Does that mean i symathise with his views or am a right wing extremist? Definitely not. I think that there has to be a distinction between intent and just research. I would tend to agree with the judges.

Hamad Lone, London, England

Of course we can jail people for their thoughts and fantasises. This exactly what we do, and rightly so, with paedophiles when they download materiel. The law should allow us to jail thos ethat think and fantasise about terrorist mass murder.

Charles Barker, Marlborough, UK

It is an offence to have child pornography on your computer even when there is no evidence that you are going to committ any crime against children and this has been widely accepted. Surely, the same agurements apply to material of the kind they where originally prosecuted for.
An individual does not make a terrorist cell but 4 or 5 could be construded as having that potential and believe the average person on the street would agree. After all, do we have to wait until the bomb goes off before we act?

Ernie Goody, Haverhill, UK

Mike, from Worcester makes an interesting point, after spouting some rubbish about capital punishment:

"the supporters of radical Islam despise civilization and wish to return europe to the dark ages. They hold the vain hope that an ignorant and supressed population might believe their religious mumbo jumbo"

Absolutely right, and they will have their way, if our civilisation goes down the route of jailing people for thought crimes. The best way to suppress a population is by not allowing them the freedom to read, think and discuss whatever they wish to. Do we want to trade in our civil liberties in response to a threat to our country that has killed virtually no-one?

The erosion of our civil liberties is a real and present danger, and is not being perpetrated by outsiders, but by our own government. Well done to the judges for some common sense for a change.

Martin Boddy, Hassi Messaoud, Algeria

Cont'd

Laws should be tested in court, but in this case the judiciary appears out of step, in its understanding of suicidal ideologues and the message that this judgment sends. Many a felon has been “sent down” as a warning to others where it was deemed in the public interest to do so and in this case that would be (to my understanding) the correct thing to do . I do not see these individuals as students testing the boundaries of knowledge, or adventurers setting forth on an intellectual journey. These are not children, these matters are not trivial.

In matters of life and death a concern for the rights of man must be our guide. I have the right to free speech but not the right to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater (or deal with the consequences). These individuals have the right to download information from the internet but when they tell those around them that they going to use this information to harm others, they should have to deal with the consequences.

Art , London, UK

Let us be clear here, suicide bombing changes the rules. There is no one to find guilty after the fact, and this changes the way society needs to deal with perpetrators, or potential perpetrators of this type of crime. This is not a change forced on us from within; this is a crime relatively new to humanity as a whole and specific to a form of ideological terrorist.

Fellow posters, I am always wary of those who argue by analogy because in virtually every case the analogy is poor or chosen solely to represent a specific viewpoint (atom bomb/ peado posters take note). Equally drawing a historical comparison to your favorite dictator seems self serving and weak.

When crime changes the law needs to keep pace, this change needs to be decided by the elected bodies of a democracy (of which the judiciary is not one). In this case the judiciary is citing a "higher" law than that the one passed by the democratically elected government (love them or hate them).

Cont'd

Art , London, UK

i think firstly, it depends on what is considered to be extremist material. i have often had to research extremist terrorist groups for subjects i have studieid and this at times has required me to download information that may be considered extremist material.

Mens Rea and Actus Reus must have been establishedg for the above 5 Muslim men to be prosecuted in the beginning, so i believe that the possession of extremist material is a jailable offence if their is substantial evidence that their was intent to do harm. by one of the above men stating he wanted to die fighting the Jihad, a known terrorist organisation, is proof that he at least supports terrorism indeed in its finest. I think that maybe he in particular has condemmed himself.

Ms W, Australia,

If a BNP member superimposed their image over that of a Yugoslav war criminal, then what would the reaction have been? If the answer is incitement to racial hatred, then it should work both ways.

Daniel, Manchester, England

Absolutely.

If the material is judged under our law as illegal, downloading or viewing should also be considered illegal.

This is not a matter of censorship. Free speach YES, free action NO. We have a free and democrative system of government through which change can be brought about if it is the will of the majority

David Baynes, Nailsea, North Somerset

I like to know HOW an internal combustion engine works but I have no desire to build one. I might also like to know HOW to build a bomb but I have no desire to build one of those either. Is having or desiring knowledge a crime?

Derek, east yorkshire,

I have far more confidence in the Court of Appeal than in any of their critics.

The distinction they have made between the possession of literature and the intent to cause harm is absolutely crucial, and this ruling rightly calls the criminalisation any kind of literature into question.

Dave, Southampton, UK

mark goodbody - the only sense in which these men were denied the judgement of their peers is that the apparently sensible verdict of a jury was overridden.

jem, london, uk

I don't have too much of a problem with the ruling in principle as the law stands (although I think it should be a crime merely to possess such literature); where I do have a problem is that I find it incredible, based on the limited evidence made public, that the judges concluded there was no evidence of any intention to act. what exactly were they all doing?

there are too many people on the edge of doing something stupid and we can't afford to wait to see which way they will swing. at the very least, there should be a huge programme of persuasion and education both from within the moslem community and in schools, colleges and the media.

it's not a question of saying we're right and they're wrong, but rather accepting that neither side is blameless and pressing home the conclusion that terrorism runs counter to their claimed beliefs. there are legitimate ways to counter injustice and the moslem world should make more use of them.

jem, london, uk

I live in the UK where we treasure our openness to free expression of ideas (unlike the homelands of most terrorists). The modern suicide bomber (whose inspiration emanated from Iranian interpretations of Islam) is inspired by the false belief that terrorism is somehow sanctioned by God.
Freedom must be within a context of responsibility - I can not have freedom to shoot dead who I want. Downloading child pornography is rightly enough for jail since it is as pernicious to social responsibility as hard drugs. Downloading material designed to incite and actually train would be suicide bombers is also in my view an abrogation of responsibily in a free society, and so it should also be punishable by jail. Our justices have strayed to far away from responsibility under the law!

Michael Khan, Redhill, Surrey

This is a good ruling because it is in line with basic legal principles, i.e. the causal link between an act and the resultant damage (if any). That some of the readers seek to link Islamic "terrorists" to paedophiles is ridiculous. The possession of literature depicting kids in pornographic poses in itself is a crime. Therefore, this situation cannot be compared to the present case. If the opposite situation were to persist, then go and lock up 3/4ths of students at University. After all, they have access to literature which could teach them how to build a bomb etc. Why stop there? Go and lock up everyone who has access to a butterknife. It has the potential to be used in a terror attack. Point is section 57 goes too far. Its a happy day that the UK judges sought to limit the extent of its reach. Freedom has been victorious. Bravo!

Muhammed, Johannesburg, South Africa

Bravo to the British justices! We Americans are facing the same Draconian Laws! However, I am afraid our judges are not a bright as their British counterparts. Ugh!

"V" for Vendetta anyone?

Clayton Jones, Albuquerque, USA/New Mexico

So, if I were to visit, say,

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/

and download all of the publicly available declassified Los Alamos National Labs documents related to nuclear weapon science, research and nuclear weapon development, including the very primer used at LANL detailing the original fission problem, (and also available at Amazon) , would the CPS call that "possession of materials likely to be of use or connected to terrorist activity, namely the detonation a weapon of mass destruction" even if I had no technical ability or inclination to fabricate such a device?

"Thought Crimes" and many "Anti-Terrorism" laws are simply legal fictions legislated to give authorities unchecked broad authority to tread upon civil liberties under the guise of "security" and protection. They are often far more odious than the very crimes which they purport to prevent and much more likely to permanently injure society and civil liberties than any terrorist. Talk about terrorism!

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

It is depressing to see how successful the government has been in instilling fear and ignorance in the population judging from half the comments here. At least there are still a few people with the judgment to understand right from wrong.

AndyN, Reading,

Most of these views have got it wrong because they have not heard all the evidence that caused the jury to convict. They were not charged with thought crime. Neither were they charged with merely reading exciting violent things on the internet. That is not against British law, so they would not have been prosecuted. They were accused of actively planning terrorist acts at some time - after further training and arming.
The jury thought there was enough evidence to prove that. The Appeal Court have merely decided that they should be given the benefit of the doubt, because of a loophole in the Government's Terrorism Act 2000, which did not quite cover a case like this.

Nigel MacNicol, Oakham, Rutland UK

This is not a thought crime.

These people went out of their way to get the material, to pass it onto each other and to incite each other.

The fact that no crime was committed surely means that the police did their job. Or are we such soft touches that we now believe that sitting there waiting for the punch in the mouth is the way justice works?

I have always been proud of our justice system, the way every other country in the civilised world models itself on our justice system but I am now starting to think that we are going to far with human rights issues, etc.

Of course justice should be fair but it should also be using it's common sense, shouldn't it?

Kim, London,

"In England, it seems justice is blind."
- evienita, Charlotte, USA

Err, yes, isn't that the point?

Thom, London,

Quote from Sir Winston Churchill

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison
without formulating any charge known to the law, and
particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers,
is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation
of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

Please keep in perspective the REAL dangers posed by 'terrorism' compared to the toll being asked of us. We are losing our basic civil liberties in order to 'protect' us from a tiny minority that have caused less deaths per year than LAWNMOWERS!

Mark Goodbody, London, UK

Is the viewing evidence equal to finding materiel to plot terrorism? What is the cut off point - caught in the act? In that case the suicide bombers are already dead, right? Ah, we are all so politically correct that our heads will be missing. We're doing the same in the US. The aggressors will win without firing a shot, won't they?

Carolyn Phillips, Fulshear, Texas, USA

So, since when was thinking a crime? We may not all agree with the thoughts harboured by individuals. Indeed, sometime our own thoughts are of criminal acts. what is important here is the INTENTION to perform criminal acts, and these should be corroborated with tangible evidence (eg. some enactment on the part of the accused). If this were the case, then there may be some grounds for bringing prosecutions. However, if such evidence does not exist, then any prosecution would be precarious.

GK, West Midlands, UK

when truth is pitted against falsehood ,falsehood will perish

zeeshan, nsk,

Its time to change the watch at the Supreme Court. These justices are burying their heads in the sand. They need to come up for air and see daylight. Oh dear, can it be they are so insulated in their worlds they have no concern for the "little people" and the masses. Time to move them out and get some Justices who live in the "real world". If the results of terrorism were closer to home for them, perhaps someone in their family had fallen victim ,they might take off their blinders.

In England, it seems justice is blind. Shame on you Justices, you have outlived your usefulness you should all resign.

evienita, Charlotte, USA

Thank God for Judges who, even in these dark days of freedom suppressed in the name of secutity and the war on terror, show that Biritish justice still occasionally requires a crime to be committed before a person can be locked up or prosecuted. Conspiring to commit atrocities may be a crime but downloading propaganda from the internet is, of itself, not. If, as a white non-extremist, I downloaded the same material would I be subject to prosecution or should that pleasure be afforded only to those people whom the police judge to be extremists likely to act on it?

Billy Barnett, HK,

If Blair had not quietly abolished the laws that covered acts of treason these would be "martyrs" would have had their wish to die granted without any harm to others....the world would be a lot better place without them. They have plotted and planned treacherous acts, let them suffer the penalty of death which has been enshrined in English law for centuries. The liberals who shrink from using the ultimate penalty should remember that the supporters of radical Islam despise civilization and wish to return europe to the dark ages. They hold the vain hope that an ignorant and supressed population might believe their religious mumbo jumbo

Mike, Worcester, uk

All of the answers about Intent to Commit Acts of Terrorism and the Facilitators, would have been found in an 777 London Bombings inquiry. Having problems today GB with Law and Order?

Hillary, Ancona, IT

Further proof of how stupid we British are! When one of the bearded ones was being interviewed on TV the interviewer asked him "did he still hold Jihadist views", he declined to answer. So now we have a few more potential terrorist living amongst us who can quite legally gain all the knowledge they require off the internet, to become good muslims and blow us all to bits.

What a wonderful country we live in.

Ray Turner, Manchester, England

Who runs this country? the elected government or a bunch of judges?

jack harlow, southampton, england

Surely this means that paedophiles shouldn't be prosecuted for having indecent pictures of children. Absolute madness. They shouldn't have been released. I think anybody that makes a collage of their face on the bodies of the 9-11 terrorists belongs behind bars.

Sarah, Paris,

A great day for muslim terrorists and paedophiles.

greg, Wigan,

Firstly let me nail my colours to the mast.These people should be expelled from a society from which they have taken much and now hate and wish to destroy.But you could say the same about most Nu Labour members of Parliament.But I do agree with the ruling of these judges.Their,the defendents, ideas might be nutty,their ideas might be dangerous,but they have not gone beyond this-yet.Since when has it been a criminal offence to read and think.

Norman, Notts,

I feel, on the basis of past events, and with the knowledge that this government will bow before the Saudi Arabian leadership, that we should know what role the Saudi's had in the judges arriving at this decision?

We can be certain the growth of pro-Islam rhetoric that is flooding our nedia is due to strong influence from the country that is the most active in backing terrorist organisations.

But, when you have most of the oil, you rule the world.

Pete Hodge, Skelmersdale,

Tom,
These judges have no more desire to be blown to bits than you. But they are sworn to uphold the law - this law was enacted by Parliament - but poorly drafted so that the wording had to be interpreted. This interpretation is carried out with the traditional values of "innocent until proven guilty" and that we don't punish people for thinking (yet!).
The law must be applied to everyone - and it should be fair and predictable - i.e it mustn't be dependant on anyone's race, religion, social upbringing etc. If we fail, we encourage the extremists.

Colin, Reading, UK

Raza i applaud your posting-the words you used are the most potent when said by a person of your faith-we are all human beings and capable of living in peace with one another -our country is not at war with muslims, only extremists

phil, lancs,

Forget jihad, that chap turned up to Court in a trackuit!

Now that really IS a crime!

Andrew Kinghan, London,

If the right wing whingers would have their way we would ban thinking.

Dr Izhar Khan, Aberdeen,

The idea that you are guilty of some crime simply because you viewed it on a PC is ridiculous.

Every day, millions of us watch the news on the TV, viewing killings. Are we to be arrested because we watched an illegal act, thereby making us guilty as well ?

Personally, over my lifetime, I've read booked, watched TV/PC covering all sorts of illegal acts - robbery, killings, genocide. Am I guilty of those same crimes, by assocation ?

Clive, Surrey,

With the amount of injustices that have occurred in recent times, 'intention' quite clearly hasn't been an issue, why is it now? For convenience maybe? What an interesting comment from Mark Goodbody, I think we need to sit up and take notice.

judy, Liverpool, England

I'm all in favour of civil liberties but who is protecting my civil liberties when would-be terrorists are free to learn their craft protected by the law that is no longer allowed to protect me?
Was it just curiosity that inspired them to view such literature?
I'm sure the wise old owls of the judiciary system and the civil rights fanatics could find it against someones human rights to wear a bomb belt!

Thorrun, Brentwood, UK

Should people who have read/written books describing children being raped be jailed?

Should white-supremists who have described/depicted black folks being lynched on their websites be jailed?

The above two examples do not show intent to cause harm.

They're all 'thought crimes', people must not be jailed for thought crimes. Good decision by those judges.

binny, london, uk

I think Raza in London is spot on.
The judges have lost it.

SO, England,

Thanks God! At last it seems like British Justice System is awaking up and catching up for the freedom of speech, thought and expression. UK is slowly becoming like any Banana Republics of Africa for the freedoms which have been achieved within the last century and are in seriously question abel position. This country will never go down if justice system is awake and working.

Javed Javed, CARDIFF, UK

Would this have happened during World War II? We need to ask ourselves where we are at today.

RobD, Bracknell, UK

Mark

the fear of terrorism divised up by Hitler and targetted at a designated scapegoat for the purpose of firmenting ultranationalist feelings cannot be compared to the very real and present danger of islamofacism.

Read more.

Stiv, Belgrade,

I see some comments suggesting the deportation of the individuals - to where? They are British.

As I understood the alleged plot was to be in the UK, so there would not have been any plans to fly over to any foreign training camps.

A line must be drawn somewhere, if we are unable to convict people in accordance with the laws of this country (which unlike other places actually requires evidence) then the Govt has not proven its case, and it should rightly be dismissed.

The other alternative would be the US-model of Guantanamo, which in my view would undermine many aspects of UK society that we should be proud of.

Katy, London,

Any ruling which makes the police work for a conviction rather than hiding behind terror laws is a victory for justice. Since the tube bombings there seems to be an attitude of scaring the country by the govt/media to make sure there's support for any terror related law or request. I'm glad these judges had the intelligence to see beyond it.

AZ, Sheffield,

The day after the Reichstag fire on 27.02.33, Hitler issued a decree entitled, “For the Protection of the People and the State.” In the name of preventing TERRORISM he declared:

"Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

If it is such a good idea to resrict or remove civil liberties to fight terrorism why is the closest historical example the rise Nazi Germany? Surely that is warning enough?

Mark Goodbody, London, UK

Why do these judges want me to be blown to pieces?

Tom, London,

It is criminal to possess images of child pornography because the child has been subjected to illegal assault (thus adult pornography is legal because the subject has consented to be involved). At what stage does it become legal to possess certain images (such as beheadings) which, I presume, are also the product of an illegal act?

Toby, London,

I find my self of two minds about this ruling; clearly, a person should not be investigated, let alone convicted, simply for having literature of any stripe, or harboring mere thoughts of bad behavior.
My dilemma arises from their rather obvious intent to go forth and do harm. If the boys were in the process of getting their visas and had been in communication with religious extremists in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and these facts could be proven by the Crown, I think that should probably be enough to prove intent. Far too many Muslim youths have followed that path to tragic ends already.
These are difficult times, and difficult questions to navigate for a proponent of a liberal justice system. I hope we find the wisdom to make the right choices, at least most of the time.

Geoffrey Tudor, Sequim, WA, USA

Why do we put with this constant threat?
I believe a hard line should be taken, deportation and a life ban from entering the UK.

Nick Mumford, Graz, Austria

How about testing of the IQ of people that if a person is technical like mecanic or TV repair man should be considered dangerus becouse he can learn things very fast so should be bug his mobile phone.

alekos, kuala lumpur, Malaysia

I have no idea whether what these five did warrants the sentences passed on them but the appeals court ruling makes a mockery of the jury system of justice. Effectively, three professional judges are overruling the decision of the jury. Why bother to have jury trials at all if their decisions mean nothing? The most an appeal court should be allowed to do is order a retrial. That way wrongly convicted people have the opportunity of receiving justice whilst we keep the final decisions out of the hands of judges living in their protected ivory towers

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

For those downloading pedophile images, it is apparent someone had commited a picture by taking those images and you are propogating it by buying/downloading them.The judge said that the accused can be prosecuted if there were in pocession of material for terrorist attaks or clearly intended to engage in terrorism. As pocession of literature can be termed as neither, they were let off.

But i feel if its established that they were planning to travel to Afganistan to wage Jihad against US and UK troops, it is clearly an intent to wage terrorism.

Ravi, Mumbai,

People who make comparisons between the possession of extremist literature and the possession of child pornography miss the crucial point.

With child pornography, a crime was committed when the image was taken. Hence, by being part of the distribution chain (even if not a paying customer), the defendant makes himself instrumental in the abuse of the victim.

With extremist literature, there has been no offense committed. Thats the start and end of it.

TW, London, UK

Just like people who download bus timetables or train timetables until the person boards the train or boards the bus is that person showing a act which could in the law courts be viewed after this decision as riding on a bus or a train.
The Legal system in the UK has alot going for it .but on points like this it is good to use reason and not simply lock someone away without a ilegal act in the law court judges eyes being commited.

joe, stockholm, sweden

good old british law is alive and well- praise be

Peter codner, Devizes, England

How about we make possession of terrorist and extremist materials a criminal offence just like possession of child pornography?

MJ, Sydney, Australia

The court did the right thing striking down a large part of Tony Blair's unjust law.

There is no place in a free country for "thought crimes" or convictions on the basis that "it seems likely the accused may one day commit a crime".

I was young once and I remember young people (under 30s) frequently say things and do not carry them out. This is particularly true when quarreling with parents.

A country ruled by cowards cannot be free. Freedom requires taking some risks, including the risk of trusting others.

Keith T, Winnipeg, Canada

Does the same thing apply tpo paedophiles who view child pornography on the internet?

Ian Turner, Dubai, UAE

Dave H. It is indeed a shame that in Britain we abide by the letter of the law, however flawed it may be. Perhaps we should create our own base for suspects where they have no rights and are detained indefinately instead of receiving a fair trial? I think the Isle of Wight could our Guantanamo....

Joe, Bristol, UK

I am a Muslim and i am disgusted that these men are let off free.
So why were these men planning to visit Pakistan/Afghanistan was it for a Picnic?
Raja the sixteen year old had written a goody bye letter to his parents saying he was going to give his life fighting in Jihad against our boys and the Americans fighting terror and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The material found in the possession of these men were pretty grim - It described what the USA and Britain were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslim lives were lost. It said It was the duty of Muslims to wage Jihad. These men exchanged this dangerous propaganda and incited one another into a frenzy of hate against their own country.
All this is pretty sick.
In plain language I have this to say - if you plan wage war against your own country anywhere you are a traitor
The CPS and the police (who have the task of protecting us all) were trying to prevent young men like these from committing acts of terrorism.
I fully support the Police and thank god for them. I use the London Underground and I thank Allah and our laws and police force for protecting me.
Terrorism is the most heinous of all crimes. The duty of all Muslims like other law abiding people is to support our country’s war on terror, In fact as a Muslim our obligations are even greater to do our outmost to be vigilant and report to the police any suspicious activity that could lead to an act of terrorism.

Raza, London, United Kingdom

Wow, judges that require evidence and not just accusations and suppositions by a mind-reading prosecutor, how refreshing.

DanO, Mount Vernon, USA

This is a most significant ruling. Of course it should be necessary to prove intent.

So your comments Leon are right. Its is not a crime to be a paedophile. The crime comes with the action. Just as it is not a crime to be a burglar. Unless you actually burgle.

British justice is far from perfect. But this ruling is a good example of how good it is.

Be thankful you are governed by it.

richard, bangkok,

Leave the UK at the earliest opportunity before it's too late ! Run for your lives !

John stephenson, N/A, Hong Kong

Dear Times,
Are we to interpret this verdict as excusing kiddie-porn down loaders from any culpability? After all it is not proven that they intended to engage in pedophile activities, they merely: 'stored it in a book or on a bookshelf, or on a computer drive, without any intention to make any future use of it at all.'
So can a terrorist now only be arrested when he is caught in the act?
I am afraid that our judges have lost their judgement.

Leon Vesty, York, UK

When England gathers many more body parts from the floors and walls of her accommodations, she will change her laws to reflect reality.

Dave H, Alexandria, Virginia, USA

This decision is most welcome and long overdue. Hitherto it has been a restraining factor on authors who wish to publish fact and fiction books on the subject of terrorism. The law as stands forces authors to self censor their own work because they do not know where they stand with the law.

There is no 'body' within the realm to which authors can send manuscripts and books for advice and guidance to ascertain if the contents will likely cause them to be subject to a 4am invasion by the police and subsequent charging in the Courts.

Weaver, China,