Terrorism Bill vs Speed Camera protest
Discussion
Reading some of the text of the proposed terrorism bill in the times today, it seems some of the text will bring other actions under the "terrorism" definition.
Under the text mentioned in today's times, any act of criminal damage aimed to influence government decisions is defined as a terrorist act. As, I would assume, is the encouragement to do this or the incitement to do so.
As a result, anyone damaging / destroying or even defacing (ie paint on lens) could be considered to be a terrorist, held for 60 days without charge etc etc. As could, perhaps, anyone encouraging or glorifying such activity.
Have I got my interpretation of this one wrong? (I hope so!).
Otherwise, shall we count the flurry of posters deleting comments that could be deemed to incite people to do such a thing?
So lets see what other activities (some of which I disagree with strongly, but still dont believe they should be covered by the same severe legistlation). Any form of demonstration where damage is incurred (thinking the various may-day marches, then again they are lentilist scum, but still dont deserve 2 months in the lockup without charge, plus whatever other penalties are thrown at them.)
Under the text mentioned in today's times, any act of criminal damage aimed to influence government decisions is defined as a terrorist act. As, I would assume, is the encouragement to do this or the incitement to do so.
As a result, anyone damaging / destroying or even defacing (ie paint on lens) could be considered to be a terrorist, held for 60 days without charge etc etc. As could, perhaps, anyone encouraging or glorifying such activity.
Have I got my interpretation of this one wrong? (I hope so!).
Otherwise, shall we count the flurry of posters deleting comments that could be deemed to incite people to do such a thing?
So lets see what other activities (some of which I disagree with strongly, but still dont believe they should be covered by the same severe legistlation). Any form of demonstration where damage is incurred (thinking the various may-day marches, then again they are lentilist scum, but still dont deserve 2 months in the lockup without charge, plus whatever other penalties are thrown at them.)
Thelemming said:
Have I got my interpretation of this one wrong? (I hope so!).
Yes and No. The interpretation is correct but is is not in the terror act - It is already law under the Terrorism Act 2000. This also includes jail for having a certain three letter combination on your t-shirt, defining striking nurses as terrorist action and implementation of guilty unless you can prove your innocence, and yes, damaging to speed camera's could be defined as a terrorist act quite easily under about 3 different definations.
This lawmaking is ludicrous. Why do we need so many new laws for things that are illegal anyway ?
The cretins are now touting that teachers are allowed to use reasonable force in restraining children. But we can do that *anyway*. The problem is the highly mobile definition of "reasonable force".
The cretins are now touting that teachers are allowed to use reasonable force in restraining children. But we can do that *anyway*. The problem is the highly mobile definition of "reasonable force".
Terrorism, Def: policy or system of ruling, seeking to obtain political demands,etc, by violence and intimidation.
Defacing a speed camera dosent appear to fall with the definition...you cant terrorise a speed camera...you can burn it or paint it, but not terrorise it.
Edited to add: Does this mean that spraying "Blair is a wnaker" on a wall is also a terrorist act?
>> Edited by deltafox on Tuesday 22 November 19:44
Defacing a speed camera dosent appear to fall with the definition...you cant terrorise a speed camera...you can burn it or paint it, but not terrorise it.
Edited to add: Does this mean that spraying "Blair is a wnaker" on a wall is also a terrorist act?
>> Edited by deltafox on Tuesday 22 November 19:44
deltafox said:
Edited to add: Does this mean that spraying "Blair is a wnaker" on a wall is also a terrorist act?
Now that's a terrifing thought, Him standing over cherrie
(couldnn't find the throw-up smiley)
. Atb Derek. P.s. I leave the rest to your imagination
>> Edited by winnebago nut on Tuesday 22 November 20:45
winnebago nut said:
Edited to add: Does this mean that spraying "Blair is a wnaker" on a wall is also a terrorist act?
Now that's a terrifing thought, Him standing over cherrie
P.s. I leave the rest to your imagination
>> Edited by winnebago nut on Tuesday 22 November 20:45
Some lady at a game fair was arrested/cautioned for having a Bollocks to Bliar T shirt a month or so ago........
Mojo.
deltafox said:
Terrorism, Def: policy or system of ruling, seeking to obtain political demands,etc, by violence and intimidation.
Defacing a speed camera dosent appear to fall with the definition...you cant terrorise a speed camera...you can burn it or paint it, but not terrorise it.
Edited to add: Does this mean that spraying "Blair is a wnaker" on a wall is also a terrorist act?
>> Edited by deltafox on Tuesday 22 November 19:44
The actual defination to paraphrase section 1: an act of terrorism is any specified action, the use or threat of which is designed to influence any government or to intimidate the public in order to advance a political religious or ideological purpose. The specified actions are actions which:
1) involve serious violence against a person,
2) cause serious damage to property,
3) endangers a person’s life (other than the person committing the act),
4) create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public
5) or are designed to interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system.
On the grounds that you can argue that camera destruction in a direct response to government action, you can then further argue that you are trying to influence government and therefore pts 2, 3, and 4 could be applied to camera's
So basically you can't uprise against the government in any way shape or form without breaking a law.
Makes sense I suppose, police wouldn't have a hope in hell against 50,000 angry protestors for example.
But defining a revolt/protest as a terrorist act, does that allow the government to use the military against it's own people?
Dave
Makes sense I suppose, police wouldn't have a hope in hell against 50,000 angry protestors for example.
But defining a revolt/protest as a terrorist act, does that allow the government to use the military against it's own people?
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
So basically you can't uprise against the government in any way shape or form without breaking a law.
Makes sense I suppose, police wouldn't have a hope in hell against 50,000 angry protestors for example.
But defining a revolt/protest as a terrorist act, does that allow the government to use the military against it's own people?
Dave
The first time they do will be their last.
[quote=bluepolarbearThe actual defination to paraphrase section 1: an act of terrorism is any specified action, the use or threat of which is designed to influence any government or to intimidate the public in order to advance a political religious or ideological purpose. The specified actions are actions which:
1) involve serious violence against a person,
2) cause serious damage to property,
3) endangers a person’s life (other than the person committing the act),
4) create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public
5) or are designed to interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system.
On the grounds that you can argue that camera destruction in a direct response to government action, you can then further argue that you are trying to influence government and therefore pts 2, 3, and 4 could be applied to camera's[/quote]Particularly point (3) ... "speed kills" don't you know? - Streaky
1) involve serious violence against a person,
2) cause serious damage to property,
3) endangers a person’s life (other than the person committing the act),
4) create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public
5) or are designed to interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system.
On the grounds that you can argue that camera destruction in a direct response to government action, you can then further argue that you are trying to influence government and therefore pts 2, 3, and 4 could be applied to camera's[/quote]Particularly point (3) ... "speed kills" don't you know? - Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff