Brian McLean and other loyalists are said to inconsolable as their skill of imagining a machine gun and then being convicted of having a non-existent machine gun might be duplicated and made available to the general public using advanced technology.
Was it really a mask that Brian had on that fateful day in 2012 or was he up ahead of the loop?
The basis of Brian’s case was that the sound of the imaginary gunfire along with his acting out of the operation of the non existent machine gun had incited others to riot.
There are some problems with the PPS case, one that there was already a riot, therefor Brian’s imaginary machine gun, no matter how ferocious couldn’t have originally incited the riot.
The other problem is that the imaginary machine gun rule is now written into common law, in the presence of an imaginary machine gun, theoretically people should be incited to riot. So that basically means this virtual technology should be outlawed as it would inevitably lead to mass riots.
Equally people could use the presence of this technology to mitigate blame for unrelated disorder.
Then in the case the Police said he had a ‘dummy’ machine gun. As I’m sure you know an imaginary and a dummy machine gun are two different things.
A dummy machine gun is a physical item. An imaginary machine gun is not. I’m surprised Brian was convicted even though by definition he didn’t have a machine gun.
I think it says a lot both about his lawyer and the ‘Public Prosecution Service’ that seems to have been co-opted by Common Purpose and it’s allies.
If you want to be nit picky about it, the Police perjured saying he had a dummy machine gun.
That doesn’t matter though in a rigged system anything goes.