Forum menu
. I don't think the UK legal definition is right,
Of course the definition of terrorism as used by politicians with a clear and obvious agenda isn't correct, it is designed to comply with their preferred narrative.
That is precisely why this latest suggestion, ie proscribing Palestine Action, is laughable. That is the point being made.
Jonv I'd agree with your last point there.
It would seem that the definition of "terrorism" in the UK is reasonably broad. All these things (criminal damage, violence, etc) are crimes anyway - but by calling them terrorism, the government has a lot of leeway to punish people much harder than they otherwise might for simple vandalism.
So i suppose "terrorism" is a political definition - given that it can be changed by the government and thus varies over time and in different countries - rather than an "absolute" definition (like, say, a 'table' if you see what i mean.
I'd call them protesters, it's less dramatic and more accurate.
Exactly, and if a supposed "left wing" government (I'm exaggerating for effect, bare with me) classifies a peaceful protest as terrorism and we let them get away with it, what the hell will the next "proper" right wing government do? Put Marines on the streets?
So i suppose "terrorism" is a political definition
Terrorism is not a political definition, it is a word with a clear meaning which is distorted and abused by politicians for their own political agendas.
Hence the world's most famous ever "terrorist" was probably Nelson Mandela, the man who devoted his life to fighting apartheid
Exactly, and if a supposed "left wing" government (I'm exaggerating for effect, bare with me) classifies a peaceful protest as terrorism and we let them get away with it,
But it wasn’t a peaceful protest. They illegally entered military bases to cause criminal damage to equipment. That’s not peaceful protest
It’s hard to see how you could describe a group that attacked UK military assets as anything other than a terrorist organisation
So attacking military assets is “terrorism”. You’ll need to update the entire history of warfare with this new insight. How do you feel about attacking civilians?
Terrorism is not a political definition, it is a word with a clear meaning which is distorted and abused by politicians for their own political agendas.
Mostly it just means “people we don’t agree with (at the moment)”.
But it wasn’t a peaceful protest. They illegally entered military bases to cause criminal damage to equipment. That’s not peaceful protest
Nah, it's just peaceful (expensive) criminal damage. No one was hurt or threatened. No risk to any air crew as the damage and potential risk was obvious. Has helpfully exposed a security issue.
Anyone thinkng that was more than a peaceful protest is going to struggle with the zombie apocalypse.
Nah, it's just peaceful (expensive) criminal damage.
that meets all the definitions of terrorism as laid down in law.
So it is legally correct that it is defined as terrorism, whether you like it (I don't) or agree with the definition (I don't)
But instead of semantics over the legal definition vs 'what a genuine terrorist does' - where does this lead us. As I put in previous post...
- designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation (tick)
- for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause (tick)
- serious damage to property (tick)
I'm struggling to understand why JSO has not been proscribed for exactly the same reason.
Clearly law's an ass, being selectively applied
I'm struggling to understand why JSO has not been proscribed for exactly the same reason.
Clearly law's an ass, being selectively applied
What do you think the RAF is, then ?
By those definitions, I feel like the Catholic church would also be a terrorist organisation. I always believed that the definition was using violence for political ends, but I guess the legal wording has to be a bit more specific than that.
So it is legally correct that it is defined as terrorism, whether you like it (I don't) or agree with the definition (I don't)
We're agreed on that at least! Easily misused to justify all sorts of clampdowns where genuine political protest crosses a line, usually because low level protests get ignored.
So it is legally correct that it is defined as terrorism
I am fairly sure no one is disputing the claim that it complies with the "legal definition" of terrorism in the UK.
The point is that the legal definition of terrorism, as specifically defined by politicians, makes a mockery of the term terrorism.
Brize Norton has approximately 5,800 service personnel, 300 civilian staff and 1,200 contractors, how many of those individuals do you believe felt in any way terrorised?
And compare that with the campaign of terror instigated by the IRA and Loyalists during The Troubles which people clearly understand to be terrorism, or the shooting of starving Palestinians as they desperately try to secure food for their existence.
It is absurd to equate what happened in Brize Norton with terrorism, it isn't even vaguely similar.
let a bomber through and it killed your family , hypothetical but plausible
Not really plausible. Firstly the RAF are talking about "days" to repair any possible damage, secondly the RAF have very clearly stated that it will not effect their operational capabilities, and thirdly no one is actually going to send bombers to bomb the UK.
No one's family is in danger because of what happened in Brize Norton
Utter knobs we might need those aircraft to support operations defending the uk F Palestine , not my problem imagine if an aggressor knowing that the uk could support its air defence , let a bomber through and it killed your family , hypothetical but plausible
Couple of things -
- The voyagers are mostly (not always) used to extend the endurance of aircraft when they're operating in areas where acquiring fuel without unacceptable breaks in tasking is difficult/impossible.
- The QRF aircraft stood by to intercept incursions into UK airspace are fuelled and held at a state that means they can respond rapidly. Clue is the 'Q'.
- Last time I checked the Palestinians had no viable air force or military aviation capability.
- All that that aside and more pressing concern will be how some amateurs managed to breach the base security of the largest hub of military aviation operations in the UK.
And if I'm being brutally honest it's hard to take strategic advice from someone who lost a fight with grammar.
Some people struggle with the written word, it doesn't make their opinions less valid.
Well I for one welcome the refreshing honesty from a zionist supporter.
It certainly makes the task of exposing zionism for what it is a lot easier
Well I for one welcome the refreshing honesty from a zionist supporter.
It certainly makes the task of exposing zionism for what it is a lot easier
Im a big fan of it
I may or may not have been on guard during both these instances.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2838965.stm
I want to know where the protestors got in to the base.
I visit RAF Brize Norton once or twice a month but have to get my temporary pass renewed every 14 days as I’m not considered a regular visitor so cannot have a permanent one. This can mean queuing for up to half an hour at main gate security and heaven help me if I don’t have my driving licence or passport with me as proof of ID, even though I am registered on the system and have been going there for nearly 10 years.
A quick, easy entry point would make access so much more convenient and hassle-free.
As some who has worked on brize and the bases in the area I'm a little surprised TBH. Even working in fields on the public side of the fence we have always been looked at.
The little army base up by me is happily way more secure it's never a good idea to lose your unescorted day pass at home time.
A quick, easy entry point would make access so much more convenient and hassle-free.
And apparently electric scooters are an excellent way to travel across the sprawling base.
Quick easy access and travel...... these terrorists are very cunning !
But it wasn’t a peaceful protest. They illegally entered military bases to cause criminal damage to equipment. That’s not peaceful protest
Much as I think their actions were silly, dangerous and perhaps a little counter-productive, they don´t really meet the measure of Terrorism, nor even "violent protest" really, I´d put them on about the same rung as the JSO lot that lobbed colourful cornflour at stone henge last year. People with a pretty valid point, feeling a bit ignored by wider society, resorting to vadalism/property damage to score some publicity. They´re not wrong, but they´ve not gone about it in the right way...
Labelling them "Terrorists" is really doing the Daily Mail, the Kippers and Tommy Ten names jobs for them... If you want to see where missuse of labels to justifty a bit of overeach leads have a look at LA, or better yet Gaza right now...
Politically driven hyperbole is yielding increasingly damaging consequences across the globe, I´d love it if the UK could rise above it, but we don´t seem to be managing do we...
I've just seen where they might have entered. Bloody Ukrainians with their big jets.
* RIP AN-25
There's quite a good piece on Palestine Action & the decision to ban it on Sky News.
https://news.sky.com/story/palestine-action-the-enemy-within-or-non-violent-protesters-13386813
“There's quite a good piece on Palestine”
Unless it covers the obliteration of a terrosist faction it will be a shit article!
“There's quite a good piece on Palestine”
Unless it covers the obliteration of a terrosist faction it will be a shit article!
zionist cuck(<f)
taken from the sky article
“Others have welcomed the move. Lord Walney, who served as the government's independent adviser on political violence, told Sky News the decision was "long overdue".
"Palestine Action have acted as the enemy within which is why it's right, now, to crack down on them," he said.
"They have terrorised working people for a number of years and there's a number of serious violent charges that are going through the court system at the moment."”
Lord Walney used to be chair of ”Labour friends of Israel” and from hiss Wikipedia article he sounds like a lovely person 🙄
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodcock,_Baron_Walney
They´re not wrong, but they´ve not gone about it in the right way...
Problem is the right way doesnt really work. Unless by which its donate some money to politicians and then get some hefty contracts which you then screw up. After all Capita have done a great job at undermining the army with their incompetence for the recruiting process.
As for "Daily Mail, the Kippers and Tommy Ten names jobs" be nice if the same standards were also applied to them.
“zionist cuck“
brave forumite
The problem with classifying Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation isn't simply that it makes a mockery of the term "terrorist" but, more worryingly, it gives anyone suspected of membership to a terrorist organisation significantly less legal rights than a common criminal, even a murder suspect.
The Terrorism Act 2000 grants police the power to stop and search individuals they reasonably suspect of being a terrorist, without requiring a specific reason for suspicion.
When holding terrorist suspects, law enforcement has enhanced powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, including the ability to arrest without a warrant and extend detention periods beyond the usual limits. Specifically, police can hold suspects for up to 14 days without charge, compared to the standard 4-day limit.
While suspects have the right to consult with a solicitor privately, police can delay this access if they believe it will interfere with a terrorism investigation.
Police can require individuals to provide information, including passwords for electronic devices, and failure to comply can result in an offense.
To extend the special powers which the state has when dealing with terrorism to deal with mundane criminality is a dangerous road for a liberal democracy to take.
Authoritarianism might be having a growing appeal in both Europe and the United States but the dangers are obvious. You might once have expected a "Labour" government to recognise that other solutions might be more appropriate. Especially as authoritarianism often has the complete opposite desired effect.
To extend the special powers which the state has when dealing with terrorism to deal with mundane criminality is a dangerous road for a liberal democracy to take.
Definitely this.
By all means stop and search someone who might be about to attack someone physically, or firebomb property for their cause.
Cutting a fence and spraying a jet, we have ordinary criminal laws for that.
So we’ve gone from “how embarrassing that people can attack UK military bases” to “organisations that promote attacking military bases shouldn’t be proscribed”? This is how bases are protected, by using the law to discourage attacks.
This is how bases are protected, by using the law to discourage attacks.
One of the most important ways that military bases are protected is by the public believing that they are part of a legitimate power structure, and not the tools of authoritarian nutters. Once you erode confidence by attacking coffee mornings, jailing flag wavers etc then the job of maintaining support gets more difficult.
So we’ve gone from “how embarrassing that people can attack UK military bases” to “organisations that promote attacking military bases shouldn’t be proscribed”? This is how bases are protected, by using the law to discourage attacks.
We are saying the criminal law is sufficient to deal with those who damage bases for political reasons. The terrorism laws should be there to deal with what the man on the Clapham omnibus would consider a terrorist threat, not just criminal damage and aggravated trespass.
If a far right group were damaging military airplanes, publicising that they were, and protecting their members who carried out the attacks… they’d be proscribed. And it would be different people saying it was unnecessary.
The law can still protect without proscribing it as terrorism. It's still a crime. And the law (or at least the CPS easy reader on the law) doesn't specifically and definitely not solely call out military bases, state infrastructure, etc.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism
which is where we finally get to which is where the same act of defacing / damaging property with paint can be a terrorist act (as here) or a 'peaceful protest, no-one got hurt but they did go a bit far' (JSO/Sunflowers) depending on the whim of the government and who they dislike vs those they're prepared to tolerate as a democracy.
I disagree strongly with both acts of vandalism, I don't like the double standards one bit.
JSO protests had people prepared to be arrested and face the law. Slightly different situation here.
Well according to Chomsky the USA has been using state-sponsored Terrorism for years pre 911. Most people see 911 as a watershed act - but actually not for the Terrorist act itself but for the guns to be turned on the USA.
I think we will discover over the next few years most like minded people have had enough of western aggression and displacing people in the middle-east who won't be able to survive the forthcoming temperatures too -only for them to show up in Europe.
The 'right' have serious contradictory positions on their hands.
JSO protests had people prepared to be arrested and face the law.
JSO folk got years in prison for a peaceful nonviolent protest. Not surprising that others didn’t choose the same approach
You're right that the man on the Clapham omnibus is supposed to be the benchmark. The trouble is, as has been pointed out, ask two people on the bus about this sort of act and you'll nowadays get two different answers based on the political leanings of the people you ask. Our legal system generally works because in most cases a general understanding is just that; in this case it doesn't.
Technical question (IANAL) - British law relies on precedent, usually because someone has tried cases and made rulings that others then follow. Does a decision NOT to charge eg: JSO with terrorist offences create a precedent in the same way such that PA can point to it it? Or would for example JSO need to have been charged and acquitted of terrorism (but downgraded to mere criminal damage) for it to be a precedent?
The trouble is that the man on the Clapham omnibus will not be able to provide consistent answers which draw a clear line separating terrorism from non- terrorism, because there isn’t one. So ask him about Mandela, Irgun, Nicaraguan Contras, IRA, suffragettes, French Resistance, ISIS, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc etc. The answer is whatever you want it to be.
The law can still protect without proscribing it as terrorism. It's still a crime. And the law (or at least the CPS easy reader on the law) doesn't specifically and definitely not solely call out military bases, state infrastructure, etc.
Very much ^^this^^
Proscribing what is basically an anti-war organisation, mostly out of embarassment at how easily they were able to gain access to a supposedly controlled site is an overreaction.but there is a crime there still.
Don´t get me wrong they also put themselves at the very real risk of being subject to (legally sanctioned) violence or even lethal force. And as tax payers this is costing all of us, cleaning emulsion off of a plane, putting up more fencing, training more people to patrol, investigating Palestine Action (now as a terrorist organisation), IDing, arresting and prosecuting the protestors... all of it is coming out of our pockets, I´m not pleased about any of it it feels like a waste of apparently hard to find public money while we´re still in the throws of austerity 3.2.
The only thing I really want for my money is some proportionality, I don´t live in a country where terrorism laws are used simply to stifle descenting views, or where the rhetoric of the right is deftly adopted by a (supposedly) centre left government to deflect from their current failings.
The thing is, 12 of your Clapmahm omibus riders could end up on a jury for these protestors, if they´ve been subjected to all of this Terrorism rhetoric in the run up, is their judgement going to be unaffected?
If some Crustys on scooters with fire extiguishers full of dulux are "Terrorists" how should our government characterise the IDF? or indeed Tommy Ten names?
Well according to Chomsky the USA has been using state-sponsored Terrorism for years pre 911. Most people see 911 as a watershed act - but actually not for the Terrorist act itself but for the guns to be turned on the USA.
I think we will discover over the next few years most like minded people have had enough of western aggression and displacing people in the middle-east who won't be able to survive the forthcoming temperatures too -only for them to show up in Europe.
The 'right' have serious contradictory positions on their hands.
And we´re only a couple of weeks away from the 7th of July... These events do occasionally touch our sad little island as well.
Most people in the west don´t seem to appreciate is the interconnectedness of these things, a genocide in the middle-east is just distant and irrelevant. Of course Netanyahu´s actions today are creating a whole new generation of future terrorists, actual terrorists. Those kids with life changing injuries and dead families, much like the 911 and 7/7 perpetrators will see little difference between Israil and nations like our that stood by and spouted the same weak "right to defence" line (or even sold them arms), to them we will be the "sponsors"...
We reap what we sow, and when an actual terrorist carries out an actual terror attack on UK shores in a decade or two, I wonder if people will recognise that stronger, swifter condemnation of Netanyahu´s actions today might have assuaged some of the future hatered we can now expect. Or will we still be too busy blaming lefties with paint for everything?
This is how bases are protected, by using the law to discourage attacks.
It's not going to dissuade foreign actors though & the thread was originally about just how embarrassingly easy it appeared for folk to access & damage the planes in what should have been a highly secure site.
The Beeb showed some aerial footage of what I took to be Brize Norton showing half a dozen or so large planes sat out in the open & very close together; sitting ducks with today's drone technology I'd suggest.
I think we've had quite a lucky escape really as security clearly needs a serious update.
At no point did anyone apart from the most rabid Daily Mail reader think JSO were terrorists though.
I agree that our refusal to condemn the Isreali government's genocide will come back and bite us on the arse in the future, but doing the right thing for long term reasons isn't a strong point for modern politicians.
As America found out at 9/11. While I was horrified for the casualties at a human level, given the support the US government and US citizens had provided for terrorist groups around the world, it occurred to me that as a nation they were finally seeing the awful consequences of such actions.