On Friday, a teenager named Michael Piggin walked free from court when the jury at a second trial failed to reach a verdict. The prosecutors have stated they will not seek a retrial.
You can read more about it in this article which gives further details of the trial and what Michael Piggin was accused of:
...planning to carry out a murderous attack on his former school, a cinema, a mosque and a council office near his home in the Midlands.
Piggin had earlier pleaded guilty to stockpiling weapons, including petrol bombs and component parts of pipe bombs, but consistently denied he intended to carry out an attack.
Now ask yourself if the verdict would have been the same if he was Muslim.
This is not the first time that a different justice has been applied to Non Muslims.
Take the case of Robert Cottage and David Bolus Jackson, who were caught with the largest explosive arsenal in the UK since World War 2. Rocket launchers, chemicals, BNP literature and a nuclear biological suit were uncovered along with the Anarchist Cookbook, which includes bomb-making information, as well as crossbows and four air-rifles.
These individuals were not even charged under the terrorism act and the jury failed to convict them of conspiracy to cause explosions.
Would the verdicts have been the same if they were Muslims? Would a police superintendent have gone out of his way to state they were not terrorists?
Compare this with the case of Samina Malik, the "Lyrical Terrorist", who was convicted under the terrorism act for writing bad poetry (later overturned on appeal).