You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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.
Vulnerability to drone attack is a good point Is it not cost effective to have multimillion pound planes kept in hangars with closed doors?
That is so obvious presumably there is disadvantages as well.
At no point did anyone apart from the most rabid Daily Mail reader think JSO were terrorists though.
Well, there’s the previously mentioned Lord Walney, government advisor on “extremism” for one
I'm far from being a legal expert, but I'm sure there's something in English law that states its acceptable to commit one crime if trying to prevent a much greater one. This was pretty much the gist of Kier Starmer's defence (of the Fairford Five). So it kind of undermines Starmer somewhat, if something he actually did himself brings into question actions he might take in the near future. That there is legal precedent, that of the original 'Fairford Five' only two were ever convicted of any crimeI believe, and they were the relatively minor crimes of criminal damage. Not terrorism. So to try to apply the terrorism act would already be undermined by this precedent surely? And if the government were to push for this, it would make Starmer look even more hypocritical and weak than he already is.
I remember nothing in the 2024 Labour Party election manifesto that mentioned aiding genocide and the invasion of sovereign lands to support other nations' colonial and imperial interests. Therefore the government has no public mandate to act in such a way. Doing so would therefore surely be undemocratic?
What recourse do we have, if peaceful and fair means of protest are taken away from us?
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.
And plenty of people on here would be calling them all sorts of things but because they agree with the cause think they should be let off
Let off? I'd give them a shiney medal and pat on the back for giving RAF security a necessary wake up call. They've already been given the stage they were seeking so that bit's covered.
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 equally daft to label any far-right groups "terrorist" for simply doing that.
Far-right groups have a long history of terrorising people and communities, there is no need for spurious accusations.
A history stretching back from the 1930s right up to last summer.
And plenty of people on here would be calling them all sorts of things but because they agree with the cause think they should be let off
Have you thought its best not to judge everyone else by your own standards? You cant see the problem with terrorism laws and proscribing organisations being used for this?
Yes arrest and charge them but terrorism laws are for the most extreme cases and as such infringe the most of civil liberties. Once you start using them for this where do you stop?
Although on the right vs left scenario. Lets be realistic here a cursory look at how JSO were treated vs the farmers and fuel campaigners shows that the right are always treated leniently.
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?
Give this government a couple of years, they'll get there.
Now his government is banning Palestine Action for doing the same.
Fair point. I think this time the targets were wide of the mark though.
It was Brize Norton. Not a nuclear weapons base. The security is scaled appropriate to the risk - and Brize is low risk.
If anyone wants Fort Knox security for a place like Brize, they best be ready to pay a shedload more tax every week.
Go look at Heathrow - you could readily get in with a pair of chunky wire cutters. But you'd be detected in seconds.
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
Yes it is. No violence was offered so its peaceful. I have a dictionary you could borrow
Quite a letter in the Guardian from the former Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
I am a former chief constable, and once attempted to become a Labour police and crime commissioner. I’m not therefore someone easily categorised as a supporter of terrorism or criminal activity. The decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group is beyond satire (Report, 20 June). I suspect that embarrassment over hilarious security failures at an RAF base may be clouding judgment and good sense.
Proscribing a group for peaceful protest – albeit illegal – is a disgrace. It is nearly as disgraceful as the continued UK support for the apartheid, ethnic-cleansing Israeli state. If the home secretary is so keen to proscribe an organisation, why not proscribe the terror group known as the Israel Defense Forces? They kill innocent people daily, and yet my voted-for government does absolutely nothing.
Words mean nothing. Israel’s leadership ignores them, yet our government persists in arming it. The proposal to proscribe Palestine Action is undemocratic and, frankly, shameful. It is an abuse of an important law – one here being used to suppress support for Palestinians. The home secretary appears to have left reason behind.
Meredydd Hughes
Bradwell, Derbyshire
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/22/ban-on-palestine-action-as-terrorists-is-shameful
People waited 14 years to get Tory prime ministers out of Downing Street, and this is what we get after all that waiting.
^ speak your mind!
even if your voice shakes
Met chief “shocked” regarding the protest planned for Monday in support of Palestine Action, “shocked eh?….i say **** him and his bunch of racist sexist thugs masquerading as police officers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79q1jv8p24o
Met chief “shocked” regarding the protest planned for Monday in support of Palestine Action, “shocked eh?….i say **** him and his bunch of racist sexist thugs masquerading as police officers
You do realise the moment that our Labour government announces Palestine Action has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation it will become a criminal offence to express any support for them don't you?
Even former chief constables will have to be careful what they write in letters to the Guardian.
So make the most of your current freedom to express support for Palestine Action, Labour look certain to deny you that right very soon.
Met chief “shocked” regarding the protest planned for Monday in support of Palestine Action, “shocked eh?….i say **** him and his bunch of racist sexist thugs masquerading as police officers
You do realise the moment that our Labour government announces Palestine Action has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation it will become a criminal offence to express any support for them don't you?
So?, should I care?, I’ll be adding another Palestine Action sticker on the rear window of the car as the originals from last year were beginning to peel in the heat last week , and I’ll order another few, stick them on my front door
Interesting to compare this to the action taken by a group of women when they smashed up a Hawk fighter jet back in 1996. The UK government approved the sale of Hawk fighter jets to Indonesia who were using them to commit genocide. The women got onto the airbase undetected, smashed up the jet with hammers as a protest action and then had to phone security as they hadn't been detected. In court they were found not guilty as whilst they had committed a crime it had been caried out to prevent an even greater crime, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Hope
Yes it is. No violence was offered so its peaceful. I have a dictionary you could borrow
I have an Act of Parliament that says that certain "peaceful acts" are excluded. Tunnelling, locking-on, public nuisance, obstructing access to Parliament, obstructing transport works (see also tunnelling and locking-on) and interference with key infrastructure.
The European Convention of Human Rights still maintains your right to assemble and express yourself, but even the ECHR doesn't apply on private land. Laws protect "the public" from over-exuberance, while maintaining their right to protest.
I have an Act of Parliament that says that certain "peaceful acts" are excluded
Excluded from what? Being peaceful?
The proposal to proscribe Palestine Action is undemocratic and, frankly, shameful. It is an abuse of an important law
I think sums it up perfectly. Shame his message isn't getting wider coverage
Yes it is. No violence was offered so its peaceful. I have a dictionary you could borrow
I have an Act of Parliament that says that certain "peaceful acts" are excluded.
Well that's the whole point, it was a peaceful act, as TJ correctly points out.
Politicians have decided to include peaceful acts as examples of "terrorism". An absurd development and also a very dangerous one.
And not least when you consider that the current government refuses to classify the IDF as a terrorist organisation despite the overwhelming evidence that it is. A point eloquently made at the top of this page by the former chief constable of South Yorkshire.
Well that's the whole point, it was a peaceful act, as TJ correctly points out.
Computer hacking is a "peaceful" act by that definition, it doesn't involve anything other than a few 1s and 0s. Let me know how you feel about that when "peaceful" demonstrators stop you accessing your bank account. It isn't always about the rights of a few protesters but the majority of the public; it's about proportionality 🙂
There has to be a limit to "peaceful" and that was breached at Brize.
Was it terrorism? Nah, that's just an embarrassed reaction from someone "tough on crime"
It isn't always about the rights of a few protesters but the majority of the public; it's about proportionality 🙂
It’s not at all about the rights of a few protesters. It’s about the right of EVERYONE to protest. If you want to talk about proportionality you need to address the balance between right to dissent in a democracy with the impact of some paint.
Computer hacking is a "peaceful" act by that definition, it doesn't involve anything other than a few 1s and 0s. Let me know how you feel about that when "peaceful" demonstrators stop you accessing your bank account. It isn't always about the rights of a few protesters but the majority of the public; it's about proportionality
Sorry are you seriously asking me how I "feel" about non-violent crime??
I have already stated on this thread that I strongly disapprove of Palestine Action's tactics. The fact that I don't approve of them doesn't somehow mean that I should support the idea of classifying non-violent crime as terrorism.
I leave that sort of irrational authoritarian nonsense to the likes of Kemi Badenoch and Donald Trump.
The difference being made of peaceful vs violent is a poor way of defining terrorism. It kind of works because of historical terrorist activities - murdering, blowing things up, etc., but in the modern world a 0's and 1's attack is also terror inducing - we saw the impact of a power station going out of sync in Spain, an attack on the national precision navigation and timing infrastructure would be non-violent* by the definitions being bandied about but devastating to all of us - more so I'd argue than an individual bomb in a city centre. It certainly scares me more.
Anyway - that's not the point, to me the issue is still that by the legal definitions the PA actions meet the definition of terrorism and so if the Gov is so inclined, they can on a legal basis proscribe them. I don't agree but they can, legally. But by the same hand, 'without fear and favour', we can't have them deciding that exactly the same act (JSO damaging property in an attempt to influence the Gov on ideological/ political/religious grounds, etc) then isn't to be treated the same. So they're either all terrorists, or none of them. I'm inclined that better legal minds than mine are wrestling this over, I wonder if the Secret Barrister is doing something on it, usually pretty balanced assessments.
* taken to full extent could cause multiple deaths but indirectly - bad example maybe but I'm drawing a difference between a direct bomb / bullet and this type.
It isn't always about the rights of a few protesters but the majority of the public; it's about proportionality 🙂
It’s not at all about the rights of a few protesters. It’s about the right of EVERYONE to protest. If you want to talk about proportionality you need to address the balance between right to dissent in a democracy with the impact of some paint.
Nothing that I wrote prevents protest.
There's a point where proportionality is the overriding principal; the ECHR protects everyone, not just protesters
There's a point where proportionality is the overriding principal;
Whatever that means.
But arguing that pots of paint is a disproportionate response to bombing children requires mental gymnastics of Olympic level.
Anyway - that's not the point, to me the issue is still that by the legal definitions the PA actions meet the definition of terrorism and so if the Gov is so inclined, they can on a legal basis proscribe them.
Who the hell has claimed that the government doesn't have the legal right to proscribe Palestine Action?
Maybe I have missed something but has someone actually made that claim or are you simply arguing with yourself?
As the former chief constable of South Yorkshire said.....Proscribing a group for peaceful protest – albeit illegal – is a disgrace.
The fact that the government has the power to do so is totally irrelevant to the point.
In the same that many of Donald Trump's authoritarian executive orders are perfectly legal but nevertheless a disgrace.
Calling them terrorists is just playing with words. Best sorted by prison sentences for anyone damaging RAF aircraft or similar games
Seemed to work for Just Stop Oil.
Seemed to work for Just Stop Oil.
if by “work ok” you meant “shut down protest with grotesquely harsh prison sentences” then yes, you’re right.
Seems to “work ok” for Putin as well.
I can only think the security weren't on the cameras/sensors. Having camped next to Fairford, it wouldn't be hard to walk up to the fence and cut the wire and walk in.
In the same that many of Donald Trump's authoritarian executive orders are perfectly legal but nevertheless a disgrace.
Well indeed. It’s a bit disturbing that whereas on the Trump thread his antics are roundly condemned, when the same philosophy is transplanted to a domestic context the punters are howling for blood. And then we ask how Reform are getting votes?
Maybe I have missed something but has someone actually made that claim or are you simply arguing with yourself?
Does a claim need to be made before a point can be made to the contrary? You really can be pretty rude, I don't know whether you mean to be.
You really can be pretty rude, I don't know whether you mean to be.
Yeah I didn't go to charm school. If a couple of punters on here want to keep banging on about the government having legal power to proscribe Palestine Action then I will point out that no one is disputing that.
The problem with authoritarian governments isn't generally that they act illegal but the reverse, they have laws which allow them to act in an immoral manner.
The issue being discussed is the morality of proscribing Palestine Action, not the legality of the issue.
Although on the right vs left scenario. Lets be realistic here a cursory look at how JSO were treated vs the farmers and fuel campaigners shows that the right are always treated leniently.
I thought both were treated far too leniently. Both protest had illegal elements that should have been treated harshly by the law
Surely, to be a terrorist, you need to be terrifying someone?
Blowing up random cars and cafes. Kidnapping, killing etc
They could be painting those jets with the pilots sat in them, and they wouldnt be causing and risk to them, let alone terror.
I would go as far as to say, unless youve actually killed someone, posed a real risk of killing someone, or implied a future risk of killing somone, youre just a protestor.
Absolutely appalled the Government have failed to take a strong oppostion to geonicide, let alone supported it. Unforgivable.
Surely, to be a terrorist, you need to be terrifying someone?
Blowing up random cars and cafes. Kidnapping, killing etc
Well exactly - dropping bombs on hospitals, shooting people queuing for food, dropping atom bombs on cities, starting fire storms in cities, raping American nuns. But apparently it’s more serious to pour paint on an aeroplane.
Absolutely appalled the Government have failed to take a strong oppostion to geonicide, let alone supported it. Unforgivable.
I agree but I guess that Starmer is trying to suck up to Trump.
I also think that he has an almost phobic response to anything Corbyn-like. His pro- Palestinian stance was often misconstrued (willfully in many cases I suspect) as anti-semitic.
The irony being, I think the actions of Israel and Zionists in general will certainly be conflated as Jewish actions and the impact on the Jewish community will suffer.
The irony being, I think the actions of Israel and Zionists in general will certainly be conflated as Jewish actions and the impact on the Jewish community will suffer.
That would please the Israeli Zionist/right wing government greatly, I imagine Netanyahu and his ghouls will be rubbing their bloodstained hands together at the thought of misguided attacks on the Jewish community
But you'd be detected in seconds.
Sounds good. Perhaps the RAF should pop over for some tips to set up security somewhat higher than what they had but short of that nuclear strawman.
I think the actions of Israel and Zionists in general will certainly be conflated as Jewish actions and the impact on the Jewish community will suffer.
Especially when zionists insist on pushing the myth that all proper Jews support them and only allegedly "self-hating" Jews don't.
Although ironically the one good thing that has come from Israel's current genocide in Gaza (I can't think of another one) is that more and more people realise what a lie that is.
Anti-zionist Jews have been at the very forefront of speaking out against the genocide and that hasn't gone unnoticed, particularly among Muslim supporters of Palestine.
Obviously there is still a problem with those who haven't yet grasped that undeniable fact and Netanyahu and his far-right government is doing a great deal to fan the flames of anti-semitism.
"This is not the policing of public safety; it is the policing of dissent – and limiting belief and speech.
This is a government that seems all too eager to project control over protest at a time when its foreign policy is deeply unpopular."
Indeed, and it should be seen in the context that in four years time we could very likely have a Nigel Farage-Kemi Badenoch/Robert Jenrick government which will relish further attacks on public dissent.
Under those circumstances Labour will obviously not have the moral authority to challenge attacks on dissent and Farage will presumably just point out that he is simply expanding on the groundwork laid down by "Labour".
None of this should come as a great surprise of course when you look at the way Starmer and the centrists ruthlessly suppressed dissent within the Labour Party when it was in opposition. There was no reason to believe that that mindset would not be a feature of the Starmer's centrist government.
Whatever the flavour Trump, Farage, or Starmer, right-wingers have so much in common.
While Starmer bashing is quite justified, the terrorism laws were put in place and first abused by Blair. Then it's the incremental move to expand and over reach each time by all his successors.
I was told that the opening line of the Terrorists Handbook stated that the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise. That's the only definition that is correct. Everything else is on a scale from peaceful protest to inconvenience to criminal damage.
Anti-terrorism laws have always been abused by UK governments, going right back to arresting people and holding them without trial in concentration camps, or the more innocent sounding "internment" camps.
The special powers that anti-terrorist laws have makes them easy to be abused and that abuse often has a high level of public support which can be fairly easy to manipulate.
Sorry are you seriously asking me how I "feel" about non-violent crime??
No
I have already stated on this thread that I strongly disapprove of Palestine Action's tactics. The fact that I don't approve of them doesn't somehow mean that I should support the idea of classifying non-violent crime as terrorism.
It isn't all non-violent crime. A non-violent crime (or a series) that oversteps a boundary could be classified as terrorism. Government has a series of roles, including justice, national security and defence
This is where proportionality comes into it, which is nothing to do with cans of paint
Do the rights to protest of 10 PA members (for the sake of argument) in the non-violent way that they chose at Brize disproportionately upset the right to national security and defence of the other 68mn of us?
On the basis that they took several military aircraft (vital to national security and defence) out of use, does that satisfy the use of "terrorism"?
PA will have their day in Court to argue the point under the government's role of justice
I, like you, strongly disapprove of PAs tactics and they do have a history of attacking facilities associated with UK defence, e.g.
(2023) Three people have been arrested after a van was driven at a gate during a protest at a drone factory in Leicester.
Campaign group Palestine Action held a demonstration at UAV Tactical Systems in Meridian Way on Wednesday morning. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-67144286(2025) A spokesperson for Elbit said the firm is "proud to deliver a broad range of modern and innovative equipment and services to the British armed forces". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0jw41k9p7o
the terrorism laws were put in place and first abused by Blair.
In 2000, to stop the fuel tanker drivers' dispute, he made use of emergency powers through an Order in Council under Section 3 of the Energy Act 1976.
He considered it so urgent that The Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000 was signed by the Queen and came into force on the day before it was laid before Parliament.
He could have just reduced the enormous taxes on fuel
He then went on to introduce the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which made emergency powers easier to access for government across a range of scenarios
It isn't all non-violent crime.
What Palestine Action did in Brize Norton, which is what is being used to justify classing them as "terrorists", was completely non-violent.
It's as simple as that. If you want to go down Whatabout Road that's a whole different kettle of fish.
The government has been asked to provide the evidence, which they heavily hint they have, to justify proscribing Palestine Action as terrorists and they have so far failed to provide it.
Do the rights to protest of 10 PA members (for the sake of argument) in the non-violent way that they chose at Brize disproportionately upset the right to national security and defence of the other 68mn of us?
On the basis that they took several military aircraft (vital to national security and defence) out of use, does that satisfy the use of "terrorism"?
In what way are these aircraft 'vital to national security and defence'? It's been claimed that these aircraft wouldn't be involved in aiding the current conflict between Israel/USA and Iran, as they have the wrong refuelling connectors or something. So as a British taxpayer, I'm curious as to how my money is being spent in the name of 'national security and defence'. Last time I looked, there was no threat of invasion of our country, and we don't appear to be under any imminent military threat that such aircraft would be instrumental in preventing anyway. So I'm wondering exactly how our 'national security and defence' is being compromised by these aircraft being (temporarily) out of service?
What Palestine Action did in Brize Norton, which is what is being used to justify classing them as "terrorists", was completely non-violent.
In what way is physically attacking aircraft or this morning driving a van at a gate non violent. If someone came and threw a brick through your window would you say that was a non violent act ?
Who have they hurt?
From the dictionary
Violent ”using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.”
Yes the dictionary will give the definition, but not the inference.
When we refer to anything using the word 'violence' it is used in relation to attack or harm against a person, not an inanimate object, as is the case here.
n
A non-violent crime (or a series) that oversteps a boundary could be classified as terrorism.
Anything "can be classified as terrorism" if you're the one doing the classifying. Putin calls Ukrainian attacks on bridges "terrorism". Is he wrong?
Do the rights to protest of 10 PA members (for the sake of argument) in the non-violent way that they chose at Brize disproportionately upset the right to national security and defence of the other 68mn of us?
[...]
I, like you, strongly disapprove of PAs tactics and they do have a history of attacking facilities associated with UK defence, e.g. [Elbit]
What is at stake is not the 10 PA members' right to protest; it is the right to protest of ALL OF US, which is abridged by arbitrary definitions of "terrorism".
One could argue that what really impacts UK security is companies like Elbit that supply the drones used to kill children in Gaza. If they had acted responsibly, the whole situation would never have arisen.
What is at stake is not the 10 PA members' right to protest; it is the right to protest of ALL OF US, which is abridged by arbitrary definitions of "terrorism".
See also restrictions on access to legal aid, originally brought in after "abuse" of the system by migrants. Now we're all ****ed.
If someone came and threw a brick through your window would you say that was a non violent act ?
I would see it as an act of terror/hate because the intention would very clearly be to instill terror/fear.
In the same way if someone pointed a gun at someone, even without pulling the trigger, could be seen as an attempt to instill terror/fear.
I understand what terror and terrorism is.
Palestine Action have not thrown a brick through anyone's window, let's just focus on the non-violent albeit illegal action that they took, not some hypothetical scenarios which have not happened.
And by the way not all criminal acts of violence are also acts of terrorism, so there's that as well.
This is the definition from the CPS.
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.
The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
Most of this is moot if they proscribe(?) PA, but I don't think the act really counts as serious damage. Given how the military categorises damage to equipment and in this case aircraft, I would argue the act falls well short of 'serious damage'. Most likely around the Cat 3 mark given Brize's facilities.
- Cat. 1 Repairable on site by first line maintenance personnel.
- Cat. 2 Repairable on site by second line maintenance personnel.
- Cat. 3 Repairable on site but beyond the technical resources of the unit. Repairs will be done by a Service repair party (Cat.3(SER)), or civilian contractor’s working party (Cat. 3(CWP)). A Cat. 3(FLY) aircraft may be flown under limitations until repaired.
- Cat.4 The damage sustained requires special equipment not available on site and the aircraft must be moved for repair at an established Service repair depot. (Cat.4(SER)) or to a contractor’s works (Cat. 4(WKS)). A Cat. 4(FLY) aircraft may be flown from a site, after temporary repairs have been carried out, to the repair agency for full repairs.
- Cat. 5 The aircraft is damaged beyond economic repair.
- Cat. 5(GI) Damaged or surplus, but suitable for ground instructional use.
- Cat. 5(COMP) Beyond economical repair or surplus, but is salvage of components or spare parts is possible.
- Cat. 5(SCRAP) Beyond economical repair or surplus, and suitable for scrap only.
- Cat. 5(MISSING) Missing - presumed lost.
Either way, through proscribing or using the act it's a weak case and a troubling precedent for all the reasons other posters have eloquently articulated.
Having spent my career having to be very mindful of the threat of various forms of terrorism, from a personal security prespective and a base/operational security perspective I've never had to consider someone on a scooter with a repurposed fire extinguisher a threat, they're more an annoyance.
Anything "can be classified as terrorism" if you're the one doing the classifying. Putin calls Ukrainian attacks on bridges "terrorism". Is he wrong?
Yes. He started a war, Ukraine is fighting a war that he started
You commit war crimes in that situation as a nation state, not terrorism.
States can commit terrorism in other circumstances
What is at stake is not the 10 PA members' right to protest; it is the right to protest of ALL OF US, which is abridged by arbitrary definitions of "terrorism".
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
Obviously. But when a protest leads to criminal damage, it shouldn't get you branded a terrorist. Which was the point being made again.
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
When you make the rules, you decide who is protesting within the rules. Works for Putin, and now it works for Yvette Cooper (*).
(* strangely enough, recipient of considerable Friends of Israel largesse)
If someone came and threw a brick through your window would you say that was a non violent act ?
obviously yes, but if someone painted my window red. No.
Given how the military categorises damage to equipment and in this case aircraft, I would argue the act falls well short of 'serious damage'. Most likely around the Cat 3 mark given Brize's facilities.
Interesting stuff
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
So if Yvette Cooper says you can protest all you like, as long as you stay within your own living room and do it quietly, youre ok with that?
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
Obviously. But when a protest leads to criminal damage, it shouldn't get you branded a terrorist. Which was the point being made again.
And if you look above (somewhere), you'll see that in this specific case l agree.
PA have something of record of damage to military sites and suppliers, that's the bigger issue for them being branded as whatever
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
The suffragettes blew things up got arrested for protests and breaking the law and are now lauded as heros.
The laws of protest in UK have been eroded considerably during the 21st century.
You know the land access you have in England - In large part from non violent but illegal protest. some with voting rights as above
Seemed to work for Just Stop Oil.
if by “work ok” you meant “shut down protest with grotesquely harsh prison sentences” then yes, you’re right.
Seems to “work ok” for Putin as well.
I am fine with Putin jailing anyone who vandalises his warplanes.
He doesn't need to proscribe the group as terrrorists in order to do that. Nor do we.