You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Protesters appear to have broken into RAF Brize Norton & damaged & spray painted some large planes. Video footage has been released and obviously it's now known about.
However this has got to be a massive howler/security breach for the RAF & Britain as a whole (making us look pretty daft on the world stage) as presumably bombs could have been planted and other more covert things gone on.
Also on the base was the Prime Minister's plane, used for foreign travel.
Whatever next!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24nppdx0lo
According to Pistonheads this is part of the perimeter. My garden has better security.
https://forums-images.pistonheads.com/208404/202506204005277
The fact they did such a thoroughly crap job of the spray paint rather indicates they knew the rock apes were on the way. You'd have tried to actually write something if you thought you had the time. Airfields are a hugely difficult thing to defend from anyone actually getting on - the art is stopping them doing so without you knowing about it.
You'd have tried to actually write something if you thought you had the time.
With "repurposed fire extinguishers" ?
They apparently had enough time to find some fire extinguishers and fill them with paint. Words might have been useful but the BBC at least seemed happy to publicise some of the group's statement, so not strictly necessary.
Yeh pretty gobsmaked at the low security levels vs the value of the kit on an airbase and the risks e.g. the PM!. Surely a network of posts/drones doing motion sensing and AI to strip out bird-badger movements etc before raising an alarm to a quick reaction security team is possible - Think the USA use this sort of tech on the mexican border.
I presumed the "repurposed fire extinguishers" were carried onto the base with them. Not found on base. To allow a higher volume of paint to be sprayed in a short time.
The fact they did such a thoroughly crap job of the spray paint rather indicates they knew the rock apes were on the way. You'd have tried to actually write something if you thought you had the time.
From the video I saw of them spraying the paint it looked like they were trying to take the planes out of action by spraying it into the jet engines, so I don't think they were trying to write something. Either way they got the message out there.
I presumed the "repurposed fire extinguishers" were carried onto the base with them. Not found on base. To allow a higher volume of paint to be sprayed in a short time.
Indeed - I thought that was the pretty obvious conclusion from the article - though I've not watched the body cam and maybe it shows different.
Surely a network of posts/drones doing motion sensing and AI to strip out bird-badger movements etc before raising an alarm to a quick reaction security team is possible
Do we know how long it took for their presence to be noticed and alarm sounded? Though to be honest, like most every government funded service, the armed forced have been cut to the bone. And perimeter defences isn't a very sexy thing to spend your money one.
I'd imagine quite a few people are about to get fired.
I presumed the "repurposed fire extinguishers" were carried onto the base with them. Not found on base. To allow a higher volume of paint to be sprayed in a short time.
I wondered thai but thought big heavy water-based ones, which I assume is what they were, would be to heavy and cumbersome to carry over fencing extra.
If the breach included bulky equipment then it is even more serious imo, presumably it could have been explosives.
I was expecting a rant about why there aren't any jumper cables to restart the stranded F35.
https://twitter.com/ShivAroor/status/1935213356891218367
Surely a network of posts/drones doing motion sensing and AI to strip out bird-badger movements etc before raising an alarm to a quick reaction security team is possible
Same as most airbases I imagine. CCTV, barbed wire, some roving dog patrols, the real threat of immediate jail time if caught (compared to normal burglary where there'll be a lack of evidence, mitigating circumstances, exceptional hardship plea etc, being caught on military ground is normally a Go Straight To Jail, sometimes after being a dinnertime snack for a Malinois).
Anything extra costs loads of money, isn't particularly sexy to politicians (who tend to want big guns and fast planes and lasers and Shiny New Tech rather than some better fencing) and is rarely needed anyway since breaches are very uncommon.
Everyone else will step up security for a bit then gradually wind it down to bare minimum again once the fuss has blown over.
When I was in the RAF Cadets, we did a demo thing with the RAF Police and their guard dogs involving a terrified cadet willing volunteer being dressed up in an anti-dog suit and told to ignore the challenges shouted at him and then run. The strict instructions were that once the dog had him, he was not to move.
It was a very very quick dog!
If the breach included bulky equipment then it is even more serious imo, presumably it could have been explosives.
I do wonder though if there had been a suspicion of explosives, the guards may have let loose with lethal force. I'm guessing a judgement was made that these were protesters and better to detain than shoot.
I'm guessing a judgement was made that these were protesters and better to detain than shoot
I didn't think there were any arrests yet?
Firstly it’s a laughably breech of security and very embarrassing. Imagine if it was people who knew what they were going and weren’t armed with something a little more harmful than paint. Secondly can you imagine she stormed if MPs had shot them.
Secondly can you imagine she stormed if MPs had shot them.
I know standards have declined in the house of commons, but even so that seems pretty unlikely
That would be funny but I was thinking military police was more likely
Anyone fancy a north africa SAS style raid with landrover mounted paintball guns?
I'd imagine quite a few people are about to get fired.
A then-girlfriend wanted to see Menwith Hill (big golf balls listening station at Blubberhouses). True or not I don't know but she claimed it was US soil.
We drove round the back and took some photos, and then a few people almost fired at us. Big men with assault rifles appeared out of nowhere demanding to know what the **** we were thinking.
An ever changing array of top secret stuff there though, rather than just mundane supply craft.
True or not I don't know but she claimed it was US soil.
We drove round the back and took some photos, and then a few people almost fired at us. Big men with assault rifles appeared out of nowhere demanding to know what the **** we were thinking.
Whole different kettle(sing) of fish, Menwith Hill. So much sensitive stuff goes on in there, and because a proper breach would be an international diplomatic incident, rather than a minor domestic embarrassment, the dedicated patrols there take it very seriously indeed. I've been surveilled and given a couple of drive-bys by the armed police there simply for cycling along the minor road next to it with a backpack on.
As a civilian, I've flown out of Brize Norton and it basically seemed to be a big tatty airport with lots of troops and a few transports going through it rather than a top-security facility.
This is all part of Starmers cunning plan to keep us out of the Iran attacks. "Sorry Donald, we'd love to have the RAF join in but they can't protect themselves from a third rate Banksy, let alone Iranian air defences...."
More seriously, getting in to big military bases probably isn't that hard - big long fencelines. Getting up to a plane and out again should be the tricky bit.
I'm just trying to work out how the protesters worked out that the RAF managed to refuel any IDF aircraft bearing in mind the RAF Tankers only use probe and drogue and the Israelis solely use Tail boom/receptacle refueling as any fule no. Smartly videoing the event for posterity (and, dare I say it, evidence) suggest they may also possibly be linked IQ-wise to the Sycamore-less Gap two...
I'd imagine quite a few people are about to get fired.
Well, be interviewed with neither coffee nor biscuits anyway.
In a 'glass-half-full' kind of way, maybe the protesters have done us a favour by showing how poor the security arrangements were. Maybe now, better security arrangements will be imposed. If it had been someone with properly nefarious intentions, we could be looking at part of our tanker fleet being out of action (aren't the C17s & A400s based at Brize too?). Just as an aside, arent the Voyagers actually owned by AirTanker and leased by the RAF?
Rather unfortunate incident that's going to inconvenience quite a few people and require some conversations that may be carrer ending or limiting.
Thing with this sort of occurrence is the base security have to be lucky every day, the sorts who want unauthorised access only need to be lucky once.
If the breach included bulky equipment then it is even more serious imo, presumably it could have been explosives.
I do wonder though if there had been a suspicion of explosives, the guards may have let loose with lethal force. I'm guessing a judgement was made that these were protesters and better to detain than shoot.
UK law and therefore the ROE do not allow the use of lethal force to defend property/equipment unless there is an immediate and clear risk to life.
A then-girlfriend wanted to see Menwith Hill (big golf balls listening station at Blubberhouses). True or not I don't know but she claimed it was US soil.
We drove round the back and took some photos, and then a few people almost fired at us. Big men with assault rifles appeared out of nowhere demanding to know what the **** we were thinking.
Good counterpoint here, US law allows the use of force to protect equipment, so on a US based you could potentially be shot. Less so if you were outside the perimeter fence.
Well just seen the footage on C4 news
Scooted across the airfield on electric scooters, blew paint into plane engines and then scooted off again without being challenged.
I don't think this can in anyway be underplayed as a massive security failure
Ha, I have a sticker from Palestine Action on the back window of my car, Free Palestine - Stop the War - End the Apartheid
I’ll be leaving it on there,
Ha, I have a sticker from Palestine Action on the back window of my car, Free Palestine - Stop the War - End the Apartheid
Nothing wrong with the slogan, in fact it's spot on imo, but Palestine Action are a pain in the arse, again, imo.
Palestine Action know full well that none of their "direct action" will have any significant practical effect on the UK's involvement in propping up the genocidal regime, the best that can be hoped for are headlines and publicity.
And yet it is the completely wrong headlines and publicity which their direct action generates. UK public opinion is now overwhelmingly sympathetic to Palestine and becoming increasingly hostile to the zionist regime.
Engaging in criminal damage and other criminal activities doesn't generate publicity to the horrors of the apartheid regime, that is already fully in the public domain. Instead it simply provides ammunition to the zionists and the chance for them to write hostile headlines as they attempt to alienate public opinion against Palestine.
Palestine Action smacks of classic middle-class "radicals" imo with little personal connection to cause which they purports to represent.
I am willing to admit that I don't know the actual demographics of Palestine Action because I haven't yet met anyone who is willing to admit being involved with them (only strong sympathy and hints from the SWP members) but I doubt very much that there is any real involvement from the Palestinian diaspora, unlike the Palestine Solidarity Campaign which even at my local branch level has administrative Palestinian involvement.
Here in the UK winning hearts and minds for a genuinely just cause must be the priority, which is precisely why there will be a peaceful national demo involving hundreds of thousands of people in London tomorrow.
I am willing to admit that I don't know the actual demographics of Palestine Action because I haven't yet met anyone who is willing to admit being involved with them (only strong sympathy and hints from the SWP members) but I doubt very much that there is any real involvement from the Palestinian diaspora,
Well I'm glad I said I wasn't sure because it turns out that one of the co-founders of Palestine Action is Huda Ammori and she is indeed Palestinian.
I am not sure how that is reflected in the wider demographics though, IME Palestine Action cheerleaders are typically SWP and the Palestinians who I know are involved the Palestine Solidarity Campaign which strongly opposes Palestine Action tactics.
I managed to put this in the Trump thread 🤷♂️
An oldie but goodie from the aforementioned Menwith Hill
“The military policeman in his gate house blinked as the first bus arrived, followed by a van full of fancy dress, aluminium ladders and equipment. But he only reached for his phone when 20 people breezed past him to the theme tune from Mission: Impossible.
More followed. Within three minutes, 30 walking missiles and others were running around the base. Three guards and a colleague waved their arms and held a few activists.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jul/04/usa.world
I see they want to proscribe 'Palestinian Action' as a terrorist group, basically because they spray painted a plane that yes we have for the defence of the country, but considering we are not involved with any country in a hostile environment, nor are we threatened, its just a act of vandalism,
And in that act, there is little difference were it a jet fighter, a transport aircraft or a small hatchback used to ferry personnel about site.
I see they want to proscribe 'Palestinian Action' as a terrorist group,
People protesting genocide: Terrorist! Vandal! Danger to the country!
People actually committing genocide: We have some more weapons we can sell you if you want?
To classify Palestine Action as a "terrorist" organisation would make a complete mockery of the term terrorist.
I think that ship sailed a long time ago
I see they want to proscribe 'Palestinian Action' as a terrorist group,
People protesting genocide: Terrorist! Vandal! Danger to the country!
People actually committing genocide: We have some more weapons we can sell you if you want?
Is a message that needs spreading far and wide
To classify Palestine Action as a "terrorist" organisation would make a complete mockery of the term terrorist.
It’s hard to see how you could describe a group that attacked UK military assets as anything other than a terrorist organisation
It’s hard to see how you could describe a group that attacked UK military assets as anything other than a terrorist organisation
You think that spraying planes with red paint is a terror tactic ?
You wait until you hear what the IDF have been doing in Gaza and the West Bank, it's gonna blow your mind.
It’s hard to see how you could describe a group that attacked UK military assets as anything other than a terrorist organisation
I'd call them protesters, it's less dramatic and more accurate.
It’s hard to see how you could describe a group that attacked UK military assets as anything other than a terrorist organisation
My viewpoint is the exact opposite.
Terrorism is the use of violence against non-combatants, designed to instil fear amongst the regular population.
Painting a military aeroplane absolutely does not meet that definition.
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
The specific actions included are:
- serious violence against a person;
- serious damage to property;
- endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
- creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
- action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(CPS website)
You can argue about whether the definition is right, or whether other acts elsewhere in the world are terrorism and worse than putting paint into the engines of planes (clue - they are) but in terms of the law and the definitions it's pretty clear cut - serious damage to property, designed to influence Gov and for the purposes of advancing a political cause. Tick tick tick.....these were terrorist acts, and hence the people / organisation are being properly (acc to law) defined as terrorists.
The worry to me is the serious damage to property bit; I think paint in jet engines can cost millions to put right or replace so this is properly characterised as serious. But where's the line, is the value of the property important? Paint on a priceless painting, but that a curator can clean off 'relatively easily' and for the cost of time only - even if it takes months it's probably a few thousand / 10's of k to salvage £10's of millions. What about paint on a building or statue that can be jetwashed off the same day, by a barely minimum wage worker?
Difficult precedent being set.
It’s hard to see how you could describe a group that attacked UK military assets as anything other than a terrorist organisation
I might argue that they were doing a public service. They've highlighted how easy it was to get onto a military base and potentially cause serious trouble.
What they did is nothing that can't be fixed with a bit of cleaning and a repaint. Now imagine if that had been a group of saboteurs or an actual terrorist organisation. There could easily be the burning hulks of half a dozen military aircraft there now or, far worse, they could be raining out of the sky in little bits on their next flight.
[@doris - not really arguing with you, to me a definition should really be that the intent is to instil fear and terror in the general population. I don't think the UK legal definition is right, but if that IS the definition (and it is) then on that basis this was terrorism]
What they did is nothing that can't be fixed with a bit of cleaning and a repaint.
Knowing how tight are the tolerances on a jet engine, and the outcomes if something goes wrong I think we're well beyond 'a bit of cleaning and a repaint'
It they done the fuselage with some slogans, I'd agree, but they didn't.
. 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.