14 year minimum term for terror offenders?

[tight fart]

Sounds good when we think of bombers who want to kill masses of people, not so good when they charge people like the Stansted climate trespassers (who were charged under anti terror laws).

[Zirconia]

Why do I get the feeling this has not been thought out?

[BrassMan]

A country where dissent/protest is punishable by 14 years in prison? That will be very popular here.

[anonymous-user]

From what I read It looks like it's a mandatory minimum for serious offences. Not all offences.

I assume it relates to chapter 2 of this legislation, but that may not be correct: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/content...

BrassMan said:

A country where dissent/protest is punishable by 14 years in prison? That will be very popular here.

I don't think dissent / protest falls under terrorism somehow.

[poo at Paul's]

tight fart said:

Sounds good when we think of bombers who want to kill masses of people, not so good when they charge people like the Stansted climate trespassers (who were charged under anti terror laws).

I don't have an issue with either!

Having spent half my life in "aviation", you should not go messing about with airports and planes IMHO.

Now let's scrap HS2, build 4 new prisons, recruit 30,000 more Prison Service staff, and stop fking about with the problem. .

[jshell]

poo at Paul's said:

I don't have an issue with either!

Having spent half my life in "aviation", you should not go messing about with airports and planes IMHO.

Now let's scrap HS2, build 4 new prisons, recruit 30,000 more Prison Service staff, and stop fking about with the problem. .

I'd vote for you!

[oyster]

poo at Paul's said:

tight fart said:

Sounds good when we think of bombers who want to kill masses of people, not so good when they charge people like the Stansted climate trespassers (who were charged under anti terror laws).

I don't have an issue with either!

Having spent half my life in "aviation", you should not go messing about with airports and planes IMHO.

Now let's scrap HS2, build 4 new prisons, recruit 30,000 more Prison Service staff, and stop fking about with the problem. .

So you equate trespassing on an airport to protest with blowing up potentially hundreds of citizens in cold blood?


I presume you're also in support of speeding trangressions being punishable in the same way as dangerous driving?

[stitched]

La Liga said:

From what I read It looks like it's a mandatory minimum for serious offences. Not all offences.

I assume it relates to chapter 2 of this legislation, but that may not be correct: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/content...

BrassMan said:

A country where dissent/protest is punishable by 14 years in prison? That will be very popular here.

I don't think dissent / protest falls under terrorism somehow.

Remember the elderly chap in a wheelchair heckling Teflon Tony?
Arrested and removed under prevention of terrorism laws I seem to remember.

[Four Litre]

tight fart said:

Sounds good when we think of bombers who want to kill masses of people, not so good when they charge people like the Stansted climate trespassers (who were charged under anti terror laws).

Don't see the problem, am I missing something?

A militant group rushing an airport runway is a very serious matter, the impact (directly or indirectly) of bringing a plane down is a serious matter. Would certainly make these wkers thinks about the possible implications in the future.

[mygoldfishbowl]

tight fart said:

Sounds good when we think of bombers who want to kill masses of people, not so good when they charge people like the Stansted climate trespassers (who were charged under anti terror laws).

If you're referring to the 49 they were charged with aggravated trespass.

[s1962a]

If someone is convicted of terror offences they deserve to be locked up for the maximum amount of time. Build more prison places and lock people away for the full term.

if the definition of terror offences is too broad, then that can be something debated, but if someone is a convicted terrorist, they should get the maximum penalty available. In my opinion obviously.

[anonymous-user]

stitched said:

La Liga said:

From what I read It looks like it's a mandatory minimum for serious offences. Not all offences.

I assume it relates to chapter 2 of this legislation, but that may not be correct: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/content...

BrassMan said:

A country where dissent/protest is punishable by 14 years in prison? That will be very popular here.

I don't think dissent / protest falls under terrorism somehow.

Remember the elderly chap in a wheelchair heckling Teflon Tony?
Arrested and removed under prevention of terrorism laws I seem to remember.

Walter Wolfgang? His treatment being inappropriate, receiving an apology and no further action was taken.

Sort of proves my point...

[Agammemnon]

oyster said:

So you equate trespassing on an airport to protest with blowing up potentially hundreds of citizens in cold blood?


I presume you're also in support of speeding trangressions being punishable in the same way as dangerous driving?

It's possible to speed accidentally- most of us have done so. Breaking into a secure airport area & interfering with the planes tends to be more of a deliberate act IMO.

[oyster]

Agammemnon said:

oyster said:

So you equate trespassing on an airport to protest with blowing up potentially hundreds of citizens in cold blood?


I presume you're also in support of speeding trangressions being punishable in the same way as dangerous driving?

It's possible to speed accidentally- most of us have done so. Breaking into a secure airport area & interfering with the planes tends to be more of a deliberate act IMO.

A good point. My analogy isn't great.

My point remains though. That different trangressions should result in different punishments.

I accept it's popular in NP&E to get all angry about anti-capitalist protestors (especially the activist types who trespass), but to suggest it's a good thing they're subject to the same punishments as those who are deliberately looking to kill and maim people is just ridiculous.

Has rational, cognitive debate gone out the window in place of just shouty, angry postulating?

[poo at Paul's]

oyster said:

So you equate trespassing on an airport to protest with blowing up potentially hundreds of citizens in cold blood?


I presume you're also in support of speeding trangressions being punishable in the same way as dangerous driving?

If the intent is to interfere with operation of aircraft, it's a very serious offence indeed, far more serious than most realise.
But of course, I would not say plots to kill thousands is the same as wandering about Stanstead, (unless they have bombs).
But , but this is proposed as a MINIMUM not maximum, so lets have 14 for the crusties wandering about doing Lord knows what as they know fk all about planes and airports, and how about 30 years for the bomb plotters?
Then your implication that both are not equal is well covered.

HTH

[poo at Paul's]

oyster said:

My point remains though. That different trangressions should result in different punishments.

Again, it is a minimum, not a max, so lots of room to differentiate.

[Dromedary66]

tight fart said:

not so good when they charge people like the Stansted climate trespassers (who were charged under anti terror laws).

I'm absolutely fine with that.

[BrassMan]

La Liga said:

From what I read It looks like it's a mandatory minimum for serious offences. Not all offences.

I assume it relates to chapter 2 of this legislation, but that may not be correct: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/content...

BrassMan said:

A country where dissent/protest is punishable by 14 years in prison? That will be very popular here.

I don't think dissent / protest falls under terrorism somehow.

I doubt that it will be long before some over zealous chap at the CPS tries it. It wasn't that long ago that Extinction Rebellion were being classified as a terrorist group.

Thanks for the link. I'll read it when I have the chance.

[anonymous-user]

BrassMan said:

La Liga said:

From what I read It looks like it's a mandatory minimum for serious offences. Not all offences.

I assume it relates to chapter 2 of this legislation, but that may not be correct: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/content...

BrassMan said:

A country where dissent/protest is punishable by 14 years in prison? That will be very popular here.

I don't think dissent / protest falls under terrorism somehow.

I doubt that it will be long before some over zealous chap at the CPS tries it. It wasn't that long ago that Extinction Rebellion were being classified as a terrorist group.

Thanks for the link. I'll read it when I have the chance.

There certainly are some occasions where laws capture a wider amount of conduct than was intended, or, of course, can be misused on occasion (though the latter usually has effective remedies through the courts / appellate structure).

What we have here, though, aren't new laws. If they aren't being abused now, then I don't see why adjustments to their sentencing would change that.

[oyster]

Dromedary66 said:

tight fart said:

not so good when they charge people like the Stansted climate trespassers (who were charged under anti terror laws).

I'm absolutely fine with that.

Again, why?

(other than you dislike climate protestors).