|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 8, 2022 11:35:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 8, 2022 11:47:38 GMT
Now that the Police have had time to investigate the man who attacked the Migrant Holding Centre and know more about him, the conclusion by the Police according to days media is Andrew Leak, 66, from High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, is believed to have killed himself after throwing two or three "crude" incendiary devices at the Western Jet Foil site, in Kent, last Sunday. Tim Jacques, senior national co-ordinator for Counter Terrorism Policing, said: "Assessing when this crosses the terrorism threshold is a complex process and needs to be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. "These decisions need to be determined by the facts, as far as they can be established at any given time. "After considering the evidence collected so far in this case, whilst there are strong indications that mental health was likely a factor, I am satisfied that the suspect's actions were primarily driven by an extremist ideology. "This meets the threshold for a terrorist incident."
So this solitary unfortunate chap is considered a terrorist but the Extinction Rebellion / Stop Oil mob aren't?
Craziness.
When have Extinction Rebellion/Stop Oil used violence to advance their political aims? www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103209420 |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 8, 2022 12:14:07 GMT
When have Extinction Rebellion/Stop Oil used violence to advance their political aims? When has that been relevant? Terrorism is defined in United Kingdom law as the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the United Kingdom, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 8, 2022 12:21:40 GMT
When have Extinction Rebellion/Stop Oil used violence to advance their political aims? When has that been relevant? Terrorism is defined in United Kingdom law as the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the United Kingdom, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.That definition would include every single political protest, boycott or picket. When all protest is defined as terrorism we are on the slippery slope to totalitarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 8, 2022 12:24:40 GMT
Don't shoot the messenger.
But they are terrorists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2022 12:30:37 GMT
When have Extinction Rebellion/Stop Oil used violence to advance their political aims? When has that been relevant? Terrorism is defined in United Kingdom law as the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the United Kingdom, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.If it's concidered left-wing or far-left wing I doubt the CPS will touch it. The system is in serious need of reform.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 8, 2022 12:41:28 GMT
It's unlikely that any court would accept a one-off protest as terrorism. But the longer that Just Stop Oil / XR etc. continue with a campaign of law-breaking, the closer they get to a court accepting their actions as terrorism.
They are also seeking to disrupt infrastructure and that was also historically considered by the courts as a hallmark of terrorist activity.
These people might be mad but they aren't stupid: They are deliberately cloaking their activity with the veneer of legitimate protest but that's starting to wear thin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2022 13:00:56 GMT
I guess the government terrorised the people during Covid. Parents were too afraid to send their children back to school and people were indoctrinated to wear masks because the fear campaign led them to believe a work of fiction. There are people who now have severe social and psychological problems because they listened to every word they were told. It could be argued that the government's campaign created more fear and damage than all the Jihadi terrorism under New Labour.
I know, it doesn't really sound like terrorism, but it had the same effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 8, 2022 13:10:30 GMT
It's unlikely that any court would accept a one-off protest as terrorism. But the longer that Just Stop Oil / XR etc. continue with a campaign of law-breaking, the closer they get to a court accepting their actions as terrorism. They are also seeking to disrupt infrastructure and that was also historically considered by the courts as a hallmark of terrorist activity. These people might be mad but they aren't stupid: They are deliberately cloaking their activity with the veneer of legitimate protest but that's starting to wear thin. Protest can be both legitimate and illegal at the same time. See the fight for women's votes for an example. Obstructing the public highway is already a criminal offence. Invoking anti-terrorism laws to charge non-violent protesters is unnecessarily draconian. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2022 13:16:51 GMT
It's unlikely that any court would accept a one-off protest as terrorism. But the longer that Just Stop Oil / XR etc. continue with a campaign of law-breaking, the closer they get to a court accepting their actions as terrorism. They are also seeking to disrupt infrastructure and that was also historically considered by the courts as a hallmark of terrorist activity. These people might be mad but they aren't stupid: They are deliberately cloaking their activity with the veneer of legitimate protest but that's starting to wear thin. Protest can be both legitimate and illegal at the same time. See the fight for women's votes for an example. Obstructing the public highway is already a criminal offence. Invoking anti-terrorism laws to charge non-violent protesters is unnecessarily draconian. It's still initimidation and unnecessary disruption. It also relies on crimes and the encouragement to commit crimes. The issue is that it's once against treated as cute by the media and establishment, who cover the criminal damage whilst the police do very little or nothing to tackle it. I am sure anyone running a business today that could potentially be targeted feel terrorised. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 8, 2022 13:28:37 GMT
Protest can be both legitimate and illegal at the same time. See the fight for women's votes for an example. Yes but the further, and more persistently, that they stray into illegal activity the less credible their claim to legitimate protest becomes. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 8, 2022 13:35:08 GMT
"Just Stop Oil announce temporary protest pause but vow escalation if demands not met.
The group threatened to increase their protests if their demands are not met by Friday."
If their demands are not met? But they're not terrorists? My arse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 8, 2022 13:41:17 GMT
Protest can be both legitimate and illegal at the same time. See the fight for women's votes for an example. Obstructing the public highway is already a criminal offence. Invoking anti-terrorism laws to charge non-violent protesters is unnecessarily draconian. It's still initimidation and unnecessary disruption. It also relies on crimes and the encouragement to commit crimes. The issue is that it's once against treated as cute by the media and establishment, who cover the criminal damage whilst the police do very little or nothing to tackle it. I am sure anyone running a business today that could potentially be targeted feel terrorised. What tactics should the Police use to stop these unlawful protests and acts of criminal damage to property and the disruption and distress caused by the Protesters |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2022 14:04:01 GMT
It's still initimidation and unnecessary disruption. It also relies on crimes and the encouragement to commit crimes. The issue is that it's once against treated as cute by the media and establishment, who cover the criminal damage whilst the police do very little or nothing to tackle it. I am sure anyone running a business today that could potentially be targeted feel terrorised. What tactics should the Police use to stop these unlawful protests and acts of criminal damage to property and the disruption and distress caused by the Protesters The legal process won't amount to much so being arrested is all part of the game when there is media coverage. If it started to be treated like terrorism then people should think twice before using this platform to commit crimes. Obviously this won't happen, because it ties in with all the talk about renewable and greener energy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2022 15:08:51 GMT
That is bullshit frankly. The UKIP message was always liberally sprinkled with dog whistles as well as racist tropes like migrants being diseased, uttered by Farage himself. And the notion that Europhiles wanted immigration based on ethnicity is a blatant lie. They wanted freedom of movement in a common geographic area, with common EU nationality being the deciding factor, not ethnicity. Turks with German nationality in Germany were as free to come here as white Germans, whilst our own black and brown Britons were as free to go there as white ones. Incorrect. The UK Independence Party message was always about independence, self determination. The reality is that Europe is mostly white. Therefore by definition, EU get immigration by ethnicity, not capability. EU get free movement for unlimited numbers of white Europeans with an EU passport. In the EU immigration system, skills are not the consideration, the passport is. UK Independence Party argued that the CV not the ethnicity is the important factor. They argued for the Australian points system. www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-31724979They also argued for Syrian refugees to be allowed into the UK as they are not economic migrants. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25539843Racism my arse. Freedom of movement was not just for white Europeans as you dishonestly claim, but for EU nationals of any colour or ethnicity. The fact that the majority of EU nationals are white is simply a matter of geography and history. And not part of any racist policy. To dishonestly attempt to portray those who supported freedom of movement as the racists is frankly ridiculous nonsense. Freedom of movement was contingent upon EU membership, not ethnicity, colour, or creed. |
|
