The BBC now reports on the trial of Abu Baker Mansha. (other reports now spell this as Abu Bakr Mansha)
Why is he being tried on terrorism charges at all ?
Threatening to kill or harm a single British soldier is obviously illegal, but it is not an act of terrorism which could influence or terrorise the British public or Government.
From the press reports so far, it seems that there is no evidence of a viable threat to anyone - no weapons, no up to date intelligence about a target, no other co-conspirators etc.
Why have the old investigative principles of Means, Opportunity and Motive been forgotten ?
Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 December 2005, 19:31 GMT
A terror suspect planned to hunt down and kill or injure a British soldier honoured for a charge against Iraqi insurgents, a court has heard.
Abu Baker Mansha, 21, faces a charge under the Terrorism Act for having the soldier's name and address.
Corporal Mark Byles had been given the military cross for leading an attack on a trench which killed five insurgents and left eight captured.
Mr Mansha, from Thamesmead in south London, denies the charge.
A police raid on his flat found a blank-firing gun, which someone was trying to convert to fire live rounds, and
Presumably no actual ammunition was found, and the blank-firing gun had not actually yet been converted into a real weapon, otherwise firearms charges would have been brought.
DVDs containing "virulent anti-Western propaganda" including footage of Osama Bin Laden and Ken Bigley's beheading, Southwark Crown Court heard.
All of which is may be despicable, but it is not illegal, and is not terrorism.
Lying in a bag was a copy of the Sun newspaper carrying an article about Corporal Byles' actions.
A paragraph had been circled. It read: "Corporal Byles of Portsmouth, Hants, reckons he killed between 15 and 20 insurgents during the war."
Mr Mansha's fingerprints were on the newspaper, the court heard.
Most importantly, the raid also turned up a piece of paper carrying an old address for the soldier in Portsmouth, obtained from the electoral roll, it is alleged.
Prosecutor David Cocks QC said: "We say that looked at in the context of what else was in the flat he [Mansha] had the piece of paper with Corporal Byles' information on in his possession, either to kill him or to do him really serious injury to exact revenge."
Presumably that would also include the highly suspicious Wellington boots which were Requested from whom ? Ambush account The suspect said he had obtained the pistol from a market stall as a souvenir. Mr Cocks said it was not clear whether it was Mr Mansha or another individual who had obtained Corporal Byles' address.
The court also heard Mr Mansha had apparently requested information about a wealthy Jewish man and a Hindu businessman.
Being interviewed by police, Mr Mansha refused to answer questions and instead gave prepared statements denying terrorist links, strong political views, and even being a strict Muslim.
Requested from whom ?
The suspect said he had obtained the pistol from a market stall as a souvenir.
Mr Cocks said it was not clear whether it was Mr Mansha or another individual who had obtained Corporal Byles' address.
So there are no co-conspirators and the handwriting , fingerprint and DNA evidence does not actually prove that Mansha actually wrote the address on the paper ?
Corporal Byles told the court about how his Warrior armoured vehicle was caught up in an ambush near al-Amarah.
He was told there were gunmen dug in 200 yards ahead of them.
"I had two choices - stay there and be cut to pieces... or put down concentrated fire and attack the positions which is what I did."
The trial was adjourned until Thursday.
Why was it necessary to for Corporal Byles to have to testify in Court at all ? Presumably neither he nor Mansha had ever set eyes on each other in person before the court appearance ? Why has Corporal Byles been named in Court with no reporting restrictions, if he is so vulnerable ?
What possible threat is an untrained, unarmed 21 year old to an experienced war hero serving British soldier ?
Have the British authorities, yet again, acted too soon, before any real terror plot has actually developed ?