| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 43:50:38 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 175,629 |
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread
protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >>women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what
they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or
any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread
protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of
women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what
they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of
Palestine Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or
any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread
protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of
women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or--
any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
Owen Jones wrote quite a good opinion piece:
On 2025-10-06, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >>>women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what
they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine >>Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or
any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
I'm not sure what you are finding hard to understand. They are
protesting about both of the above things, and the method they
have chosen to do so is quite deliberate.
What is the outcome that you think is "clear and inevitable"?
Because personally I have no idea what is going to happen.
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >>>women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what they >>are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine >>Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of >wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or
any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
On 06/10/2025 in message <6930115099.29cde37e@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>>It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>>protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >>>>women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what they >>>are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine >>>Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of >>wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or >>>any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
If the placards refer to Palestinian civilians with no mention of
Palestine Action could they be convicted of supporting one, specific, unmentioned, group?
On 06/10/2025 in message <slrn10e7oe8.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-06, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>>It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>>protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >>>>women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what >>>they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine >>>Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or >>>any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
I'm not sure what you are finding hard to understand. They are
protesting about both of the above things, and the method they
have chosen to do so is quite deliberate.
What is the outcome that you think is "clear and inevitable"?
Because personally I have no idea what is going to happen.
If you protest specifically in support of a proscribed terrorist group
you get arrested
and convicted.
On 06/10/2025 in message <6930115099.29cde37e@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread
protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >>>> women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what they >>> are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine >>> Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of
wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or
any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
If the placards refer to Palestinian civilians with no mention of
Palestine Action could they be convicted of supporting one, specific, unmentioned, group?
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread
protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >>> women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what they >> are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine >> Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or
any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
or any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action
On 2025-10-06, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <6930115099.29cde37e@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>>>It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>>>protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >>>>>women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what they >>>>are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine >>>>Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of >>>wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or >>>>any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
If the placards refer to Palestinian civilians with no mention of
Palestine Action could they be convicted of supporting one, specific,
unmentioned, group?
No.
There could be grey areas where who knows what could happen, e.g. if the placard said something like "I support action on Palestine" or somesuch.
On 6 Oct 2025 at 19:18:33 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <6930115099.29cde37e@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>>
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread
protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety of >>>>> women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what they >>>> are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of Palestine >>>> Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of
wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or >>>> any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
If the placards refer to Palestinian civilians with no mention of
Palestine Action could they be convicted of supporting one, specific,
unmentioned, group?
Well, no; but the protesters in question are protesting about the banning of an organisation that is by no stretch of the imagination terrorist.
On 06/10/2025 05:48 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>Is there actually a law against being in support of Palestine Action?
wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread
protests including those by local residents concerned about the
safety of
women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what
they
are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of
Palestine
Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of
wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
The UK is not known (these days, at least) for legislation about what
people think.
I can see that there is legislation against taking any action in support
of it, but that's not the same thing, is it?
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or
any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
or any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action
Quite.
On 06/10/2025 21:50, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2025 05:48 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>Is there actually a law against being in support of Palestine Action?
wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike
wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread
protests including those by local residents concerned about the
safety of
women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear
what they
are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of
Palestine
Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of
wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Yes.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803/pdfs/ uksiem_20250803_en_001.pdf
Proscription means that an organisation is outlawed, degrading its
ability to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or invite support for, a proscribed organisation. It is also
a criminal offence to arrange a meeting to support a proscribed organisation; or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which
arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter
of a proscribed organisation.
On conviction of the membership offence in section 11 of the Act, the maximum sentence is 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
The UK is not known (these days, at least) for legislation about what
people think.
I can see that there is legislation against taking any action in
support of it, but that's not the same thing, is it?
It isn't, no.
The UK is not known (these days, at least) for legislation about what >>>people think.
I can see that there is legislation against taking any action in support >>>of it, but that's not the same thing, is it?
It isn't, no.
Okay, I think what you're saying is, there is no law against beliefs, only >against actions. In the same way that there is no law against being a >paedophile so long as the paedophilia is all in a person's head.
However, a paedophile teacher or doctor would lose his job if he ever said >anything to reveal his fantasies about children.
And if you say anything in public or in social media about proscribed >organisations you will risk being found in breach of the law.
On 07/10/2025 in message <mkk0s2Fe468U2@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
The UK is not known (these days, at least) for legislation about
what people think.
I can see that there is legislation against taking any action in
support of it, but that's not the same thing, is it?
It isn't, no.
Okay, I think what you're saying is, there is no law against beliefs,
only against actions. In the same way that there is no law against
being a paedophile so long as the paedophilia is all in a person's head.
However, a paedophile teacher or doctor would lose his job if he ever
said anything to reveal his fantasies about children.
And if you say anything in public or in social media about proscribed
organisations you will risk being found in breach of the law.
Can I clarify the last sentence?
Surely you can discuss a proscribed organisation as long as your
discussion does not amount to support, or does it actually preclude discussion?
On 07/10/2025 in message <mkk0s2Fe468U2@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
The UK is not known (these days, at least) for legislation about
what people think.
I can see that there is legislation against taking any action in
support of it, but that's not the same thing, is it?
It isn't, no.
Okay, I think what you're saying is, there is no law against beliefs,
only against actions. In the same way that there is no law against
being a paedophile so long as the paedophilia is all in a person's head.
However, a paedophile teacher or doctor would lose his job if he ever
said anything to reveal his fantasies about children.
And if you say anything in public or in social media about proscribed
organisations you will risk being found in breach of the law.
Can I clarify the last sentence?
Surely you can discuss a proscribed organisation as long as your
discussion does not amount to support, or does it actually preclude discussion?
On 07/10/2025 09:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 07/10/2025 in message <mkk0s2Fe468U2@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
And if you say anything in public or in social media about proscribed
organisations you will risk being found in breach of the law.
Can I clarify the last sentence?
Surely you can discuss a proscribed organisation as long as your
discussion does not amount to support, or does it actually preclude
discussion?
I used the words "risk being found in breach of the law" because any discussion has to be phrased very carefully.
I doubt if the police would think it worth prosecuting someone for
saying in social media that it was unjust to proscribe Palestine Action
or Maniacs Murder Cult or Russian Imperial Movement. But perhaps it
would depend on the mood of the police officer.
On 07/10/2025 09:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Can I clarify the last sentence?
Surely you can discuss a proscribed organisation as long as your
discussion does not amount to support, or does it actually preclude
discussion?
I used the words "risk being found in breach of the law" because any discussion has to be phrased very carefully.
I doubt if the police would think it worth prosecuting someone for
saying in social media that it was unjust to proscribe Palestine Action
or Maniacs Murder Cult or Russian Imperial Movement.
If you protest specifically in support of a proscribed terrorist group
you get arrested
Yes, they know that, they are explicitly *trying* to get arrested.
and convicted.
That remains to be seen.
On 07/10/2025 09:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 07/10/2025 in message <mkk0s2Fe468U2@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
The UK is not known (these days, at least) for legislation about what >>>>>people think.
I can see that there is legislation against taking any action in support
of it, but that's not the same thing, is it?
It isn't, no.
Okay, I think what you're saying is, there is no law against beliefs, >>>only against actions. In the same way that there is no law against being >>>a paedophile so long as the paedophilia is all in a person's head.
However, a paedophile teacher or doctor would lose his job if he ever >>>said anything to reveal his fantasies about children.
And if you say anything in public or in social media about proscribed >>>organisations you will risk being found in breach of the law.
Can I clarify the last sentence?
Surely you can discuss a proscribed organisation as long as your >>discussion does not amount to support, or does it actually preclude >>discussion?
You certainly should be able to, but it seems under this repressive >government that it's getting increasingly risky actually to do so.
Not that they'd actually admit to it, because of course they vigorously >defend our fundamental right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, >don't they?
It's just a tiny unfortunate hypocrisy that their words and actions do not >exactly coincide.
Now the British university public are being urged by that nice Mr Starmer >not to protest about anything Palestine related this coming weekend
because it would apparently be 'un-British'. By which I think it means 'a >bit embarrassing' for him.
On 06/10/2025 20:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
If you protest specifically in support of a proscribed terrorist group
you get arrested
Yes, they know that, they are explicitly *trying* to get arrested.
It makes sense to protest about Gaza, but supporting a group that wrecks aircraft as some sort of deranged political point seems completely daft. Indeed, I think these protesters are daft.
and convicted.
That remains to be seen.
Jury nullification is a bit of a forlorn hope. Even if people support
the Gaza protests, many deplore the destruction of our aircraft. The
very most the arrestees can hope for is a hung jury, which will hardly vindicate their actions in the way they hope.
It's looking increasingly likely the conflict in Gaza will end fairly
soon, and it may just be a distant memory by the time any jury trials
begin. The arrestees will by then be wondering whether this was a hill
worth dying to defend.
On 06/10/2025 20:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
If you protest specifically in support of a proscribed terrorist group
you get arrested
Yes, they know that, they are explicitly *trying* to get arrested.
It makes sense to protest about Gaza, but supporting a group that wrecks aircraft as some sort of deranged political point seems completely daft. Indeed, I think these protesters are daft.
Todal said he was thinking about getting himself arrested in this way,
but we have heard no more about that. Presumably, because he's not daft.
and convicted.
That remains to be seen.
Jury nullification is a bit of a forlorn hope. Even if people support
the Gaza protests, many deplore the destruction of our aircraft. The
very most the arrestees can hope for is a hung jury, which will hardly vindicate their actions in the way they hope.
It's looking increasingly likely the conflict in Gaza will end fairly
soon, and it may just be a distant memory by the time any jury trials
begin. The arrestees will by then be wondering whether this was a hill
worth dying to defend.
On 06/10/2025 20:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
If you protest specifically in support of a proscribed terrorist group
you get arrested
Yes, they know that, they are explicitly *trying* to get arrested.
It makes sense to protest about Gaza, but supporting a group that wrecks aircraft as some sort of deranged political point seems completely daft. Indeed, I think these protesters are daft.
Todal said he was thinking about getting himself arrested in this way,
but we have heard no more about that. Presumably, because he's not daft.
and convicted.
That remains to be seen.
Jury nullification is a bit of a forlorn hope.
Even if people support
the Gaza protests, many deplore the destruction of our aircraft. The
very most the arrestees can hope for is a hung jury, which will hardly vindicate their actions in the way they hope.
It's looking increasingly likely the conflict in Gaza will end fairlyIt has little to do with the Palestinian cause actually but to do with
soon, and it may just be a distant memory by the time any jury trials
begin. The arrestees will by then be wondering whether this was a hill
worth dying to defend.
On 06/10/2025 21:50, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2025 05:48 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>Is there actually a law against being in support of Palestine Action?
wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike
wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread
protests including those by local residents concerned about the
safety of
women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear
what they
are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of
Palestine
Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of
wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Yes.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803/pdfs/uksiem_20250803_en_001.pdf
Proscription means that an organisation is outlawed, degrading its
ability to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to
belong to, or invite support for, a proscribed organisation. It is also
a criminal offence to arrange a meeting to support a proscribed
organisation; or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which
arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter
of a proscribed organisation.
On conviction of the membership offence in section 11 of the Act, the
maximum sentence is 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
The UK is not known (these days, at least) for legislation about what
people think.
I can see that there is legislation against taking any action in
support of it, but that's not the same thing, is it?
It isn't, no.
On 07/10/2025 09:16, The Todal wrote:
On 06/10/2025 21:50, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2025 05:48 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""wrote:
Spike wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>>>> protests including those by local residents concerned about the
safety of women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their
communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear
what they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of
Palestine Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of
wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Is there actually a law against being in support of Palestine Action?
Yes.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803/pdfs/
uksiem_20250803_en_001.pdf
Proscription means that an organisation is outlawed, degrading its
ability to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to
belong to, or invite support for, a proscribed organisation. It is
also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting to support a proscribed
organisation; or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which
arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or
supporter of a proscribed organisation.
On conviction of the membership offence in section 11 of the Act, the
maximum sentence is 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
The UK is not known (these days, at least) for legislation about what
people think.
I can see that there is legislation against taking any action in
support of it, but that's not the same thing, is it?
It isn't, no.
Okay, I think what you're saying is, there is no law against beliefs,
only against actions.
In the same way that there is no law against being
a paedophile so long as the paedophilia is all in a person's head.
However, a paedophile teacher or doctor would lose his job if he ever
said anything to reveal his fantasies about children.
And if you say anything in public or in social media about proscribed organisations you will risk being found in breach of the law.
The Todal wrote:
The UK is not known (these days, at least) for legislation about
what people think.
I can see that there is legislation against taking any action in
support of it, but that's not the same thing, is it?
It isn't, no.
Okay, I think what you're saying is, there is no law against beliefs,
only against actions. In the same way that there is no law against
being a paedophile so long as the paedophilia is all in a person's head.
However, a paedophile teacher or doctor would lose his job if he ever
said anything to reveal his fantasies about children.
And if you say anything in public or in social media about proscribed
organisations you will risk being found in breach of the law.
Can I clarify the last sentence?
Surely you can discuss a proscribed organisation as long as your
discussion does not amount to support, or does it actually preclude discussion?
On 06/10/2025 in message <6930115099.29cde37e@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike
wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>>protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety >>>>of women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what >>>they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of >>>Palestine Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of >>wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or >>>any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
If the placards refer to Palestinian civilians with no mention of
Palestine Action could they be convicted of supporting one, specific, unmentioned, group?
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:18:33 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <6930115099.29cde37e@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike >>>>wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>>>protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety >>>>>of women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities. >>>>>
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what >>>>they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of >>>>Palestine Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of >>>wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or >>>>any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
If the placards refer to Palestinian civilians with no mention of
Palestine Action could they be convicted of supporting one, specific,
unmentioned, group?
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
On 2025-10-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:18:33 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <6930115099.29cde37e@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> SpikeI suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of
wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>>>> protests including those by local residents concerned about the safety >>>>>> of women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their communities. >>>>>>
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what >>>>> they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of
Palestine Action then say it is due to the restriction of free speech. >>>>
wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine Action or >>>>> any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
If the placards refer to Palestinian civilians with no mention of
Palestine Action could they be convicted of supporting one, specific,
unmentioned, group?
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:18:33 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <6930115099.29cde37e@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 14:44:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 in message <mkhkptF2073U1@mid.individual.net> Spike
wrote:
It should be obvious where this is going, after repeated widespread >>>>>>> protests including those by local residents concerned about the
safety
of women and girls in the circumstances surrounding their
communities.
The full article is available at the link below:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24rmdngrrjo>
[snipped]
What I can't understand is why these protesters don't make clear what >>>>>> they are protesting about.
If it's the plight of Gazan civilians say so.
If it's the restriction of free speech due to the proscribing of
Palestine Action then say it is due to the restriction of free
speech.
I suspect that would amount to support of Palestine Action, a form of >>>>> wrongthink, so I don't think that would help them.
Don't, whatever your views, say it is in support of Palestine
Action or
any other proscribed group, the outcome is clear and inevitable.
If the placards refer to Palestinian civilians with no mention of
Palestine Action could they be convicted of supporting one, specific,
unmentioned, group?
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
So, their arrests were unwarranted.
There was no offence they were
committing, nor was there any possibility of reasonable suspicion of any offence. They were therefore just random arrests about which we should
all be concerned in what is supposedly a free country.
It's unacceptable, and it's becoming more and more prevalent it seems.
It's high time there was an effective remedy against absurd police
overreach of this nature.
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with an
extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with an
extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
On 09/10/2025 15:19, GB wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that >>> proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with an
extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
You give the impression that you actually do want people to be arrested
for displaying any sign that says or implies that they support Palestine Accent.-a Or Palatine Acshunt.
The aim of the protesters is to show that the law is idiotic, which most people would agree with.
Is it your belief that really everyone who attends these demonstrations
with or without a placard or banner is plainly supporting Palestine
Action and therefore deserving of being arrested? And that if necessary
the wording of the law needs to be amended to make that clear?
On 09/10/2025 15:26, The Todal wrote:
On 09/10/2025 15:19, GB wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of
that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with
an extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
You give the impression that you actually do want people to be
arrested for displaying any sign that says or implies that they
support Palestine Accent.-a Or Palatine Acshunt.
I don't particularly want anyone arrested, but I don't think we can pick
and choose which laws we will abide by.
The aim of the protesters is to show that the law is idiotic, which
most people would agree with.
The particular organisation that specialised in vandalism was a gigantic PITA. There's nothing to stop people setting up a new organisation that supports Palestine, but doesn't destroy aircraft. Why not just do that?
Is it your belief that really everyone who attends these
demonstrations with or without a placard or banner is plainly
supporting Palestine Action and therefore deserving of being arrested?
And that if necessary the wording of the law needs to be amended to
make that clear?
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't like
it, tell their MP.
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
On 09/10/2025 15:26, The Todal wrote:
On 09/10/2025 15:19, GB wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that >>>> proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with an
extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
You give the impression that you actually do want people to be arrested
for displaying any sign that says or implies that they support Palestine
Accent.-a Or Palatine Acshunt.
I don't particularly want anyone arrested, but I don't think we can pick
and choose which laws we will abide by.
The aim of the protesters is to show that the law is idiotic, which most
people would agree with.
The particular organisation that specialised in vandalism was a gigantic PITA. There's nothing to stop people setting up a new organisation that supports Palestine, but doesn't destroy aircraft. Why not just do that?
On 09/10/2025 15:26, The Todal wrote:...
You give the impression that you actually do want people to be arrested
for displaying any sign that says or implies that they support Palestine
Accent.-a Or Palatine Acshunt.
I don't particularly want anyone arrested, but I don't think we can pick
and choose which laws we will abide by.
The aim of the protesters is to show that the law is idiotic, which most
people would agree with.
The particular organisation that specialised in vandalism was a gigantic PITA.
There's nothing to stop people setting up a new organisation that
supports Palestine, but doesn't destroy aircraft. Why not just do that?
On 09/10/2025 15:26, The Todal wrote:
You give the impression that you actually do want people to be
arrested for displaying any sign that says or implies that they
support Palestine Accent.-a Or Palatine Acshunt.
I don't particularly want anyone arrested, but I don't think we can pick
and choose which laws we will abide by.
The aim of the protesters is to show that the law is idiotic, which
most people would agree with.
The particular organisation that specialised in vandalism was a gigantic PITA.
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't like
it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't like
it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed
like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far, and that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under current law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any more
than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does
not justify the means.
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't
like it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed
like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far, and that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under current law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any more
than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does
not justify the means.
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with an
extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
On 09/10/2025 15:19, GB wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that >>> proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with an
extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
It makes a certain kind of sense.
"He's not carrying any signs & there's nothing on his shirt, but he
looks like a protester to me. Nick 'im!"
(Which seems to be more or less what is already happening.)
I think the answer poor Jess Phillips gave was along the lines that when you're in government you have to make important decisions based on the secret information that people like her are given which she cannot
possibly share with mere plebs.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does
not justify the means.
The end, preventing further damage to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't like >>>> it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed
like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far, and
that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under current
law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any more
than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does
not justify the means.
You know perfectly well that nobody is suggesting that what Palestine
Action did was legal (although, for the second time, they didn't
"destroy" any aircraft). But what they did wasn't "terrorism".
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 15:26, The Todal wrote:
On 09/10/2025 15:19, GB wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that >>>>> proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with an >>>> extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
You give the impression that you actually do want people to be arrested
for displaying any sign that says or implies that they support Palestine >>> Accent.-a Or Palatine Acshunt.
I don't particularly want anyone arrested, but I don't think we can pick
and choose which laws we will abide by.
But that's not what's happening. They are abiding by the law, and you
are trying to criminalise them anyway by picking and choosing laws to
extend beyond what the law actually says.
The aim of the protesters is to show that the law is idiotic, which most >>> people would agree with.
The particular organisation that specialised in vandalism was a gigantic
PITA. There's nothing to stop people setting up a new organisation that
supports Palestine, but doesn't destroy aircraft. Why not just do that?
Because such organisations already exist, and suggesting that they solve
the issue completely misses the point.
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that >>> proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine
Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
On 09/10/2025 18:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't like >>>>> it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed
like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far, and >>> that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under current
law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any more
than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does
not justify the means.
You know perfectly well that nobody is suggesting that what Palestine
Action did was legal (although, for the second time, they didn't
"destroy" any aircraft). But what they did wasn't "terrorism".
Actually, yes, what they did was 'terrorism', as defined by the
Terrorism Act.
Destroying/disabling RAF aircraft "involves serious damage to property",
was "designed to influence the government", "for the purpose of
advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause."
You could question whether proscription was proportionate. However, it--
would be so easy to establish a new untainted organisation that I can't
see any point defending the old one.
On 09/10/2025 18:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't like >>>>> it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed
like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far, and >>> that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under current
law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any more
than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does
not justify the means.
You know perfectly well that nobody is suggesting that what Palestine
Action did was legal (although, for the second time, they didn't
"destroy" any aircraft). But what they did wasn't "terrorism".
Actually, yes, what they did was 'terrorism', as defined by the
Terrorism Act.
Destroying/disabling RAF aircraft "involves serious damage to property",
was "designed to influence the government", "for the purpose of
advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause."
You could question whether proscription was proportionate. However, it
would be so easy to establish a new untainted organisation that I can't
see any point defending the old one.
On 09/10/2025 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 15:26, The Todal wrote:
On 09/10/2025 15:19, GB wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and peopleI have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that >>>>>> proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with an >>>>> extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
You give the impression that you actually do want people to be arrested >>>> for displaying any sign that says or implies that they support Palestine >>>> Accent.-a Or Palatine Acshunt.
I don't particularly want anyone arrested, but I don't think we can pick >>> and choose which laws we will abide by.
But that's not what's happening. They are abiding by the law, and you
are trying to criminalise them anyway by picking and choosing laws to
extend beyond what the law actually says.
Sorry, I really don't understand what you are suggesting? Clearly, supporting a proscribed organisation is illegal. PA is proscribed,
whether you approve or not. And, it's an offence to:
"wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or
in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the
individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation
(section 13)
publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag
or logo, in the same circumstances (section 13(1A)) "
So, I can't understand why you think these people are abiding by the law?
The aim of the protesters is to show that the law is idiotic, which most >>>> people would agree with.
The particular organisation that specialised in vandalism was a gigantic >>> PITA. There's nothing to stop people setting up a new organisation that
supports Palestine, but doesn't destroy aircraft. Why not just do that?
Because such organisations already exist, and suggesting that they solve
the issue completely misses the point.
Are you seriously suggesting that PA achieved anything (useful)?
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that >>>> proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine
Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the act).
On 09/10/2025 17:22, GB wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't
like it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed
like that.
I don't have to feel sorry for her, not one bit.
She has staked her claim to fame on the basis that she advocates for the rights of abused women, to protect them from violence and encourage the government to do more to protect women from violence.
There can be no violence worse than being bombed, shelled and attacked
with deadly drones in Gaza.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far,
and that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under
current law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause,
any more than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
I think the answer poor Jess Phillips gave was along the lines that when you're in government you have to make important decisions based on the secret information that people like her are given which she cannot
possibly share with mere plebs.
Her smile, which she uses quite a lot in her work as an MP, is enough to turn my stomach.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does
not justify the means.
The end, preventing further damage to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
On 09/10/2025 19:04, The Todal wrote:
I think the answer poor Jess Phillips gave was along the lines that
when you're in government you have to make important decisions based
on the secret information that people like her are given which she
cannot possibly share with mere plebs.
If you were shanghaied on the way to the toilet, and had to devote half
your mind to avoiding peeing in your pants, do you think you'd have
answered the question to the best of your ability?
It's a shameful bit of reporting.
It already has. Ask the arrested pensioners.But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end
does not justify the means.
The end, preventing further damage to expensive aircraft, cannot
justify the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
It doesn't suppress the right to demonstrate, so that's okay, then.
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
On 09/10/2025 18:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't like >>>>> it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed
like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far, and >>> that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under current
law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any more
than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does
not justify the means.
You know perfectly well that nobody is suggesting that what Palestine
Action did was legal (although, for the second time, they didn't
"destroy" any aircraft). But what they did wasn't "terrorism".
Actually, yes, what they did was 'terrorism', as defined by the
Terrorism Act.
Destroying/disabling RAF aircraft "involves serious damage to property",
was "designed to influence the government", "for the purpose of
advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause."
You could question whether proscription was proportionate.
On 09/10/2025 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 15:26, The Todal wrote:
On 09/10/2025 15:19, GB wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and peopleI have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances
of that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What next? Leave out the letter c from Action? Spell Palestine with an >>>>> extra letter l?
If a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
You give the impression that you actually do want people to be arrested >>>> for displaying any sign that says or implies that they support
Palestine
Accent.-a Or Palatine Acshunt.
I don't particularly want anyone arrested, but I don't think we can pick >>> and choose which laws we will abide by.
But that's not what's happening. They are abiding by the law, and you
are trying to criminalise them anyway by picking and choosing laws to
extend beyond what the law actually says.
Sorry, I really don't understand what you are suggesting? Clearly, supporting a proscribed organisation is illegal. PA is proscribed,
whether you approve or not. And, it's an offence to:
"wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or
in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the
individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation
(section 13)
publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag
or logo, in the same circumstances (section 13(1A)) "
So, I can't understand why you think these people are abiding by the law?
On 09/10/2025 in message
<slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and peopleI have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances
of that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine
Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>> groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>> act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
If people feel that limits freedom of speech then any protest should be based entirely on that.
Supporting a proscribed group is pointless, and no government is going
to give in to such protests.
On 09/10/2025 in message <slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>>groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>>act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
On 10/10/2025 08:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message >><slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>>that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>>
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>>>groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>>>act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a >>terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
But where is the Plasticine Action Group listed as being proscribed? I've >scoured the Schedules to the Terrorism Act and can't find it anywhere.
If people feel that limits freedom of speech then any protest should be >>based entirely on that.
Supporting a proscribed group is pointless, and no government is going to >>give in to such protests.
That gives it carte blanche to proscribe any organisation it chooses, >whether or not it's justified in anyone else's eyes.
Suppose your golf/bowls/bridge/Conservative/Jewish* club was proscribed,
as would undoubtedly be in the power of the Home Secretary to do, would
you just meekly accept it, or what?
* - delete as applicable
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message <slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>>that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>>
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>>>groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>>>act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a >>terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
Well, firstly, no. Secondly, no. And thirdly, this discussion is
entirely about the protestors who are not "accepting them as such"
and just saying "well they should" is not a useful addition to the >discussion.
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 18:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't like >>>>>> it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed
like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far, and >>>> that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under current >>>> law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any more >>>> than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does >>>> not justify the means.
You know perfectly well that nobody is suggesting that what Palestine
Action did was legal (although, for the second time, they didn't
"destroy" any aircraft). But what they did wasn't "terrorism".
Actually, yes, what they did was 'terrorism', as defined by the
Terrorism Act.
Yes. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the definition in the Act is ridiculously broad, and would categorise the UK government itself
as a terrorist group.
Destroying/disabling RAF aircraft "involves serious damage to property",
was "designed to influence the government", "for the purpose of
advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause."
You could question whether proscription was proportionate. However, it
would be so easy to establish a new untainted organisation that I can't
see any point defending the old one.
You're still completely missing the point then.
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> The end, preventing further damage to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to "demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree
with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are
right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
On 09/10/2025 21:54, GB wrote:
On 09/10/2025 18:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't >>>>>> like
it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to
express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed
like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far,
and
that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under current >>>> law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any more >>>> than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does >>>> not justify the means.
You know perfectly well that nobody is suggesting that what Palestine
Action did was legal (although, for the second time, they didn't
"destroy" any aircraft). But what they did wasn't "terrorism".
Actually, yes, what they did was 'terrorism', as defined by the
Terrorism Act.
Destroying/disabling RAF aircraft "involves serious damage to
property", was "designed to influence the government", "for the
purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological
cause."
You could question whether proscription was proportionate.
I think the more pertinent question is whether the law itself that would actually, on your own interpretation, have led to the Suffragette
movement being proscribed, is an acceptable law in what purports to be a free nation with human rights.
Had the Suffragette movement been proscribed under the current law, it
would have prevented anyone from supporting it, or even wearing,
carrying or displaying anything that raised any suspicion that he or she supported it.
It would have brutally suppressed it, brushed it under the carpet if you will.-a As a result, it's possible that women might not have the vote
even now.
You may not care much for freedom of speech or expression, and you may
abide obediently by any rule or regulation, however unreasonable, but
that's perhaps because you've never been affected by it.-a But there are many who have.
How would *you* deal with a totally repressive law that affected *you*? Let's say, for the sake of argument, a law saying anyone going under the name GB must not leave their home at any time.-a Would you just meekly accept it?-a What could you do to get it changed?
I suggest there is only civil disobedience.
On 10/10/2025 in message <slrn10ehh96.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message <slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>>Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>>>>groups that are plainly not terrorists?
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action. >>>>>>I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>>>that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>>>
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>>>>act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a >>>terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
Well, firstly, no. Secondly, no. And thirdly, this discussion is
entirely about the protestors who are not "accepting them as such"
and just saying "well they should" is not a useful addition to the >>discussion.
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety of views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech which would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
On 10/10/2025 in message <mkrtcvFnftqU4@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2025 08:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message >>><slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>>Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>>>>groups that are plainly not terrorists?
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action. >>>>>>I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>>>that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>>>
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>>>>act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a >>>terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
But where is the Plasticine Action Group listed as being proscribed? I've >>scoured the Schedules to the Terrorism Act and can't find it anywhere.
Have any of those plasticine cases come to court yet? I wonder if they
will.
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that >>>>> proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine
Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the
act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
On 10/10/2025 in message <mkrtcvFnftqU4@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2025 08:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message
<slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>> Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>> arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The
chances-a of that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very >>>>>>>> slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>> wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action. >>>>>>
proscribe
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined
in the
act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a
terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
But where is the Plasticine Action Group listed as being proscribed?
I've scoured the Schedules to the Terrorism Act and can't find it
anywhere.
Have any of those plasticine cases come to court yet? I wonder if they
will.
If people feel that limits freedom of speech then any protest should
be based entirely on that.
Supporting a proscribed group is pointless, and no government is
going-a to give in to such protests.
That gives it carte blanche to proscribe any organisation it chooses,
whether or not it's justified in anyone else's eyes.
Suppose your golf/bowls/bridge/Conservative/Jewish* club was
proscribed, as would undoubtedly be in the power of the Home Secretary
to do, would you just meekly accept it, or what?
* - delete as applicable
No, but I would protest on the grounds that my freedom of speech was
being restricted, not in support of a proscribed organisation.
On 09/10/2025 22:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 18:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't like >>>>>>> it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to >>>>>> express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed >>>>> like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too far, and >>>>> that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under current >>>>> law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any more >>>>> than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does >>>>> not justify the means.
You know perfectly well that nobody is suggesting that what Palestine
Action did was legal (although, for the second time, they didn't
"destroy" any aircraft). But what they did wasn't "terrorism".
Actually, yes, what they did was 'terrorism', as defined by the
Terrorism Act.
Yes. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the definition in the Act is
ridiculously broad, and would categorise the UK government itself
as a terrorist group.
So, when you said 'But what they did wasn't "terrorism"', what you meant
was that you disagree with the law. It would be clearer if you said
that.
Incidentally, when the bill was going through Parliament did you make
your views known?
Destroying/disabling RAF aircraft "involves serious damage to property", >>> was "designed to influence the government", "for the purpose of
advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause."
You could question whether proscription was proportionate. However, it
would be so easy to establish a new untainted organisation that I can't
see any point defending the old one.
You're still completely missing the point then.
You apparently have some point in mind that you think is wonderful, but, since you don't say what it is, others can't decide whether they agree
with you.
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message <slrn10ehh96.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message >>>><slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>>>Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to >>>>>>>proscribe
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>>arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>>>>that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very >>>>>>>>>slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>>wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action. >>>>>>>
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in >>>>>>the
act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a >>>>terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
Well, firstly, no. Secondly, no. And thirdly, this discussion is
entirely about the protestors who are not "accepting them as such"
and just saying "well they should" is not a useful addition to the >>>discussion.
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety of >>views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you are >>breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech which >>would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running into brick >>walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ehh96.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message
<slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>> Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>> arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>>> that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very >>>>>>>> slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>> wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action. >>>>>>
proscribe
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined
in the
act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a
terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
Well, firstly, no. Secondly, no. And thirdly, this discussion is
entirely about the protestors who are not "accepting them as such"
and just saying "well they should" is not a useful addition to the
discussion.
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety of views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you
are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech
which would be perfectly legitimate.
There is no point in running into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to
"demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree
with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are
right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited
their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property. The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain interpretations of current law.
Rob
On 09/10/2025 22:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and peopleI have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been
arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of that >>>>>> proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>
wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action.
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine
Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>> groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>> act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
It's an incredibly bad point, because all you're really complaining
about is the name of the act. If it was called the Terrorism and
Gigantic PITA Act, your point would be met.
On 10/10/2025 11:33, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to
"demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are
right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain >> interpretations of current law.
At the risk of repeating myself slightly, all you're doing is
complaining about the name of the Terrorism Act. If it had been given a
more long-winded name which included going beyond a reasonable level of peaceful protest, you'd have no argument with the proscription?
I thought that the name of the act didn't matter, even a tiny bit, but apparently it does. So, maybe, Parliamentary time could be set aside to rename it. Or, maybe we need a different act, with almost identical provisions, to deal with the like of PA.
It's startling that nobody really supports PA's vandalism, and people
are just complaining about them being proscribed as terrorist, rather
than being proscribed as 'thoroughly antisocial criminals'.
A rose by any other name ..., but apparently Shakespeare was utterly
wrong!
On 10/10/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/10/2025 21:54, GB wrote:
On 09/10/2025 18:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm merely suggesting people abide by the law. And, if they don't >>>>>>> like
it, tell their MP.
MPs are a waste of space. They are lobby fodder. They don't dare to >>>>>> express any dissent from the party line.
Here's Jess Phillips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCU2qABWGE
Oh, poor Jess Philips! You have to feel sorry for her being ambushed >>>>> like that.
The right answer was, of course, that the Suffragettes went too
far, and
that particular organisation should have been proscribed (under
current
law). That doesn't mean that women's suffrage was a bad cause, any
more
than concern over Palestinians is a bad cause.
But, killing people and destroying aircraft is wrong, and the end does >>>>> not justify the means.
You know perfectly well that nobody is suggesting that what Palestine
Action did was legal (although, for the second time, they didn't
"destroy" any aircraft). But what they did wasn't "terrorism".
Actually, yes, what they did was 'terrorism', as defined by the
Terrorism Act.
Destroying/disabling RAF aircraft "involves serious damage to
property", was "designed to influence the government", "for the
purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological
cause."
You could question whether proscription was proportionate.
I think the more pertinent question is whether the law itself that
would actually, on your own interpretation, have led to the
Suffragette movement being proscribed, is an acceptable law in what
purports to be a free nation with human rights.
It depends whether the Suffragette movement, itself, sponsored the
terrorist attacks, or whether these attacks were the work of 'lone
wolves' who happened to be within the movement.
If the movement itself
was a terrorist organisation, it should have been proscribed.
That would
not have stopped people supporting women's suffrage, and indeed setting
up a new, non-violent organisation, so the human rights would not have
been impinged on.
Clearly, human rights do not justify murder, as occurred 100-odd years
ago. And, I don't think we need to worry too much about the precise
history, as it's just an example.
Had the Suffragette movement been proscribed under the current law, it
would have prevented anyone from supporting it, or even wearing,
carrying or displaying anything that raised any suspicion that he or
she supported it.
They could support women's suffrage, just not that particular terrorist organisation.
It would have brutally suppressed it, brushed it under the carpet if
you will.-a As a result, it's possible that women might not have the
vote even now.
A new non-violent organisation could easily have been set up. I really
don't think the violence was necessary for women to get the vote.
You may not care much for freedom of speech or expression, and you may
abide obediently by any rule or regulation, however unreasonable, but
that's perhaps because you've never been affected by it.-a But there
are many who have.
How would *you* deal with a totally repressive law that affected
*you*? Let's say, for the sake of argument, a law saying anyone going
under the name GB must not leave their home at any time.-a Would you
just meekly accept it?-a What could you do to get it changed?
I'd contact my MP and/or leave the country.
I suggest there is only civil disobedience.
On 10/10/2025 11:33, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to
"demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are
right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain >> interpretations of current law.
At the risk of repeating myself slightly, all you're doing is
complaining about the name of the Terrorism Act. If it had been given a
more long-winded name which included going beyond a reasonable level of peaceful protest, you'd have no argument with the proscription?
I thought that the name of the act didn't matter, even a tiny bit, but apparently it does. So, maybe, Parliamentary time could be set aside to rename it. Or, maybe we need a different act, with almost identical provisions, to deal with the like of PA.
It's startling that nobody really supports PA's vandalism, and people
are just complaining about them being proscribed as terrorist, rather
than being proscribed as 'thoroughly antisocial criminals'.
A rose by any other name ..., but apparently Shakespeare was utterly wrong!
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message <mkrtcvFnftqU4@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
On 10/10/2025 08:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message
<slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>>> Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>>>>> groups that are plainly not terrorists?
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>> wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action. >>>>>>>I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>> arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>>>> that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>>>>
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>>>>> act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a
terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
But where is the Plasticine Action Group listed as being proscribed? I've >>> scoured the Schedules to the Terrorism Act and can't find it anywhere.
Have any of those plasticine cases come to court yet? I wonder if they
will.
There's only one such case, and the person was (eventually) de-arrested
and released without charge. So no.
I'm beginning to think you're just writing posts without reading any.
The point has been repeated over and over. The group should not have been proscribed as a terrorist organisation, because they're not terrorists. Setting up a new organisation does nothing at all to address that point.
At the risk of repeating myself slightly, all you're doing is
complaining about the name of the Terrorism Act. If it had been given a
more long-winded name which included going beyond a reasonable level of peaceful protest, you'd have no argument with the proscription?
I thought that the name of the act didn't matter, even a tiny bit, but apparently it does. So, maybe, Parliamentary time could be set aside to rename it. Or, maybe we need a different act, with almost identical provisions, to deal with the like of PA.
It's startling that nobody really supports PA's vandalism, and people
are just complaining about them being proscribed as terrorist, rather
than being proscribed as 'thoroughly antisocial criminals'.
A rose by any other name ..., but apparently Shakespeare was utterly wrong!
On 2025-10-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:33, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to
"demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are >>>> right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain >>> interpretations of current law.
At the risk of repeating myself slightly, all you're doing is
complaining about the name of the Terrorism Act. If it had been given a
more long-winded name which included going beyond a reasonable level of
peaceful protest, you'd have no argument with the proscription?
I thought that the name of the act didn't matter, even a tiny bit, but
apparently it does. So, maybe, Parliamentary time could be set aside to
rename it. Or, maybe we need a different act, with almost identical
provisions, to deal with the like of PA.
It's startling that nobody really supports PA's vandalism, and people
are just complaining about them being proscribed as terrorist, rather
than being proscribed as 'thoroughly antisocial criminals'.
A rose by any other name ..., but apparently Shakespeare was utterly
wrong!
Yet again you are making truly heroic efforts to avoid making eye
contact with the point: *they shouldn't be proscribed*. It doesn't
matter what you call them.
The only reason the word "terrorism" is relevant is because it is
the word that the government has misapplied in order to misuse a
power that they are only supposed to use against terrorists.
If the government wants to be able to proscribe "annoying people"then they should go ahead and try to pass such a law.
On 10/10/2025 11:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I'm beginning to think you're just writing posts without reading any.
The point has been repeated over and over. The group should not have been
proscribed as a terrorist organisation, because they're not terrorists.
Setting up a new organisation does nothing at all to address that point.
I do quite a bit of DIY, and there's a saying in DIY circles that when you're holding a hammer every screw becomes a nail. Clearly, that's
what's happened here, with the use of the Terrorism Act.
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
The new act will need to have similar provisions, making it possible to proscribe organisations that commit violent acts, etc.
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ehooi.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ehh96.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message
<slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>>> arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The
chances of
that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very >>>>>>>>>> slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>>> wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine >>>>>>>>> Action.
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting
Palestine
Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to
proscribe
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined >>>>>>> in the
act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a >>>>> terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
Well, firstly, no. Secondly, no. And thirdly, this discussion is
entirely about the protestors who are not "accepting them as such"
and just saying "well they should" is not a useful addition to the
discussion.
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety of >>> views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you
are
breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech
which
would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running into brick
walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
Exactly what we are discussing, Clause 1 of The Human Rights Act 1998
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
I may not agree with those people but they have a right to hold their
views.
On 10/10/2025 10:51, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message <mkrtcvFnftqU4@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>wrote:
On 10/10/2025 08:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message >>>><slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>>>Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to >>>>>>>proscribe
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>>arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances-a of
that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very >>>>>>>>>slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>>wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action. >>>>>>>
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in >>>>>>the
act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a >>>>terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
But where is the Plasticine Action Group listed as being proscribed? I've >>>scoured the Schedules to the Terrorism Act and can't find it anywhere.
Have any of those plasticine cases come to court yet? I wonder if they >>will.
If people feel that limits freedom of speech then any protest should be >>>>based entirely on that.
Supporting a proscribed group is pointless, and no government is going-a >>>>to give in to such protests.
That gives it carte blanche to proscribe any organisation it chooses, >>>whether or not it's justified in anyone else's eyes.
Suppose your golf/bowls/bridge/Conservative/Jewish* club was proscribed, >>>as would undoubtedly be in the power of the Home Secretary to do, would >>>you just meekly accept it, or what?
* - delete as applicable
No, but I would protest on the grounds that my freedom of speech was >>being restricted, not in support of a proscribed organisation.
Then nothing would be done and you'd be repressed. "Nope, they're the >rules, you've got to abide by them".
Is there no law you'd actually break if you thought it tyrannical? How >about one prohibiting any protest?
On 10/10/2025 10:55, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message >><slrn10ehh96.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message >>>><slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>>>Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to >>>>>>>proscribe
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>>arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>>>>that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>>>>>
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>>wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action. >>>>>>>
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in >>>>>>the
act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a >>>>terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
Well, firstly, no. Secondly, no. And thirdly, this discussion is
entirely about the protestors who are not "accepting them as such"
and just saying "well they should" is not a useful addition to the >>>discussion.
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety of >>views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you are >>breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech >>which would be perfectly legitimate.
But that's far too wishy-washy and unspecific. It's a bit like a Union >saying we want more pay but not threatening any action.
There is no point in running into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round >>it.
Do you think the Suffragettes would have got anywhere doing what you say? >Or by those deciding not to trespass on Kinder Scout?
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify the means, that
is suppressing the *****right to demonstrate*****.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to
"demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree
with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are
right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited
their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property. The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain interpretations of current law.
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message <slrn10ehh96.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message <slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting Palestine >>>>>>> Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to proscribe >>>>>>> groups that are plainly not terrorists?
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>> wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine Action. >>>>>>>I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>> arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The chances of >>>>>>>>> that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very slim. >>>>>>>>
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as defined in the >>>>>> act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a
terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
Well, firstly, no. Secondly, no. And thirdly, this discussion is
entirely about the protestors who are not "accepting them as such"
and just saying "well they should" is not a useful addition to the
discussion.
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety of
views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you are
breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech which >> would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running into brick
walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety of >>> views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you
are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech
which would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running
into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
Exactly what we are discussing, Clause 1 of The Human Rights Act 1998
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
I may not agree with those people but they have a right to hold their
views.
On 10/10/2025 12:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:33, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to >>>>> "demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>>>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are >>>>> right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>>>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain >>>> interpretations of current law.
At the risk of repeating myself slightly, all you're doing is
complaining about the name of the Terrorism Act. If it had been given a
more long-winded name which included going beyond a reasonable level of
peaceful protest, you'd have no argument with the proscription?
I thought that the name of the act didn't matter, even a tiny bit, but
apparently it does. So, maybe, Parliamentary time could be set aside to
rename it. Or, maybe we need a different act, with almost identical
provisions, to deal with the like of PA.
It's startling that nobody really supports PA's vandalism, and people
are just complaining about them being proscribed as terrorist, rather
than being proscribed as 'thoroughly antisocial criminals'.
A rose by any other name ..., but apparently Shakespeare was utterly
wrong!
Yet again you are making truly heroic efforts to avoid making eye
contact with the point: *they shouldn't be proscribed*. It doesn't
matter what you call them.
Well, clearly we disagree about that. It has been argued (here) that
the individuals who vandalised RAF aircraft should be prosecuted as individuals, whilst leaving PA untouched.
That is insufficient. The organisation behind the individuals needs to
be held responsible.
The only reason the word "terrorism" is relevant is because it is
the word that the government has misapplied in order to misuse a
power that they are only supposed to use against terrorists.
If the government wants to be able to proscribe "annoying people"
then they should go ahead and try to pass such a law.
The next time a group like JSO pops up, the government will have no
problem passing such a law?
On 10/10/2025 12:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:33, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to >>>>> "demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>>>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are >>>>> right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>>>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain >>>> interpretations of current law.
At the risk of repeating myself slightly, all you're doing is
complaining about the name of the Terrorism Act. If it had been given a
more long-winded name which included going beyond a reasonable level of
peaceful protest, you'd have no argument with the proscription?
I thought that the name of the act didn't matter, even a tiny bit, but
apparently it does. So, maybe, Parliamentary time could be set aside to
rename it. Or, maybe we need a different act, with almost identical
provisions, to deal with the like of PA.
It's startling that nobody really supports PA's vandalism, and people
are just complaining about them being proscribed as terrorist, rather
than being proscribed as 'thoroughly antisocial criminals'.
A rose by any other name ..., but apparently Shakespeare was utterly
wrong!
Yet again you are making truly heroic efforts to avoid making eye
contact with the point: *they shouldn't be proscribed*. It doesn't
matter what you call them.
Well, clearly we disagree about that. It has been argued (here) that the individuals who vandalised RAF aircraft should be prosecuted as
individuals, whilst leaving PA untouched.
That is insufficient. The organisation behind the individuals needs to
be held responsible.
The only reason the word "terrorism" is relevant is because it is
the word that the government has misapplied in order to misuse a
power that they are only supposed to use against terrorists.
If the government wants to be able to proscribe "annoying people"then they should go ahead and try to pass such a law.
The next time a group like JSO pops up, the government will have no
problem passing such a law?
On 10/10/2025 in message <mks6q4Fpm9oU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2025 10:51, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message <mkrtcvFnftqU4@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>>wrote:
Suppose your golf/bowls/bridge/Conservative/Jewish* club was proscribed, >>>>as would undoubtedly be in the power of the Home Secretary to do, would >>>>you just meekly accept it, or what?
* - delete as applicable
No, but I would protest on the grounds that my freedom of speech was >>>being restricted, not in support of a proscribed organisation.
Then nothing would be done and you'd be repressed. "Nope, they're the >>rules, you've got to abide by them".
That would depend on the size/type of protest and the ultimate test would
be an election. If a party that proscribes an organisation is re-elected I would see it as the wish of the majority.
On 2025-10-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 12:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:33, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify
the means, that is suppressing the right to demonstrate.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to >>>>>> "demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful >>>>>> discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the >>>>>> property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>>>>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are >>>>>> right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>>>>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain
interpretations of current law.
At the risk of repeating myself slightly, all you're doing is
complaining about the name of the Terrorism Act. If it had been given a >>>> more long-winded name which included going beyond a reasonable level of >>>> peaceful protest, you'd have no argument with the proscription?
I thought that the name of the act didn't matter, even a tiny bit, but >>>> apparently it does. So, maybe, Parliamentary time could be set aside to >>>> rename it. Or, maybe we need a different act, with almost identical
provisions, to deal with the like of PA.
It's startling that nobody really supports PA's vandalism, and people
are just complaining about them being proscribed as terrorist, rather
than being proscribed as 'thoroughly antisocial criminals'.
A rose by any other name ..., but apparently Shakespeare was utterly
wrong!
Yet again you are making truly heroic efforts to avoid making eye
contact with the point: *they shouldn't be proscribed*. It doesn't
matter what you call them.
Well, clearly we disagree about that. It has been argued (here) that
the individuals who vandalised RAF aircraft should be prosecuted as
individuals, whilst leaving PA untouched.
I don't think I've seen anyone at all arguing that, here or elsewhere.
That is insufficient. The organisation behind the individuals needs to
be held responsible.
Organisations are abstract concepts so that's a bit hard.
The only reason the word "terrorism" is relevant is because it is
the word that the government has misapplied in order to misuse a
power that they are only supposed to use against terrorists.
If the government wants to be able to proscribe "annoying people"
then they should go ahead and try to pass such a law.
The next time a group like JSO pops up, the government will have no
problem passing such a law?
The founder of JSO is currently languishing in prison for multiple years
for having the temerity to be on a Zoom call during which protests were discussed. The government clearly already has more than sufficient powers
to punish organisations that commit criminal acts like these.
On 10/10/2025 in message <mks6q4Fpm9oU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2025 10:51, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message <mkrtcvFnftqU4@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2025 08:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message
<slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>>> arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The >>>>>>>>>> chances-a of that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem very >>>>>>>>>> slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>>> wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine >>>>>>>>> Action.
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting
Palestine
Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to
proscribe
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as
defined-a in the
act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as >>>>> a terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
But where is the Plasticine Action Group listed as being
proscribed?-a I've scoured the Schedules to the Terrorism Act and
can't find it-a anywhere.
Have any of those plasticine cases come to court yet? I wonder if
they will.
If people feel that limits freedom of speech then any protest
should-a be based entirely on that.
Supporting a proscribed group is pointless, and no government is
going to give in to such protests.
That gives it carte blanche to proscribe any organisation it
chooses, whether or not it's justified in anyone else's eyes.
Suppose your golf/bowls/bridge/Conservative/Jewish* club was
proscribed, as would undoubtedly be in the power of the Home
Secretary-a to do, would you just meekly accept it, or what?
* - delete as applicable
No, but I would protest on the grounds that my freedom of speech was
being restricted, not in support of a proscribed organisation.
Then nothing would be done and you'd be repressed.-a "Nope, they're the
rules, you've got to abide by them".
That would depend on the size/type of protest and the ultimate test
would be an election. If a party that proscribes an organisation is re- elected I would see it as the wish of the majority.
Is there no law you'd actually break if you thought it tyrannical?
How about one prohibiting any protest?
Probably not.
On 10/10/2025 in message <mks79qFpm9oU2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/10/2025 10:55, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ehh96.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 in message
<slrn10egc03.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 08:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I have posted before how the Plasticine Action Group have been >>>>>>>>>>> arrested ...
Yeah I think they were released though (eventually). The
chances of
that
proceeding to a prosecution, let alone a conviction, seem >>>>>>>>>> very-a slim.
Someone gets T shirts printed saying Plasticine Action, and people >>>>>>>>> wearing them pretend that they are not supporting Palestine >>>>>>>>> Action.
What reason do you have to believe that they are supporting
Palestine
Action, rather than opposing the misuse of terrorism laws to
proscribe
groups that are plainly not terrorists?
I can't answer about 'groups', but PA were terrorists (as
defined-a in the
act).
And yet, they are plainly not terrorists. That is the whole point.
I think we have to accept that if the government proscribes them as a >>>>> terrorist group it is sensible to accept them as such.
Well, firstly, no. Secondly, no. And thirdly, this discussion is
entirely about the protestors who are not "accepting them as such"
and just saying "well they should" is not a useful addition to the
discussion.
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety
of views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group,
you-a are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech
which would be perfectly legitimate.
But that's far too wishy-washy and unspecific.-a It's a bit like a
Union saying we want more pay but not threatening any action.
Then I would ensure it wasn't wishy washy and vote for a government that wouldn't do it, if I could find one.
There is no point in running into brick walls, it hurts, find a way
round it.
Do you think the Suffragettes would have got anywhere doing what you
say? Or by those deciding not to trespass on Kinder Scout?
The Suffragettes weren't a proscribed terrorist group.
Is deciding not to trespass a bad thing?
On 10/10/2025 11:33 AM, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify the means, that
is suppressing the *****right to demonstrate*****.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to
"demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are
right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain >> interpretations of current law.
My questions were centred upon the claimed "right to demonstrate", as specifically quoted (and now highlighted) above.
There is no such "right" which gives any person the right to damage
public or private property.
On 10/10/2025 11:57 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety of >>>> views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you
are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech
which would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running
into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
Exactly what we are discussing, Clause 1 of The Human Rights Act 1998
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
I may not agree with those people but they have a right to hold their
views.
"Freedom of expression" cannot possibly extend to the destruction of
property or to the causing of harm (physical, financial or otherwise) to individuals.
Such free expression has to be lawful in itself.
There was a time when no-one would have argued against that.
On 10/10/2025 11:57 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a
variety of
views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you
are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech
which would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running
into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
Exactly what we are discussing, Clause 1 of The Human Rights Act 1998
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
I may not agree with those people but they have a right to hold their
views.
"Freedom of expression" cannot possibly extend to the destruction of property or to the causing of harm (physical, financial or otherwise) to individuals.
Such free expression has to be lawful in itself.
There was a time when no-one would have argued against that.
On 10 Oct 2025 at 14:08:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:33 AM, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify the means, that
is suppressing the *****right to demonstrate*****.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to
"demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are >>>> right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain >>> interpretations of current law.
My questions were centred upon the claimed "right to demonstrate", as
specifically quoted (and now highlighted) above.
There is no such "right" which gives any person the right to damage
public or private property.
This seems remarkably irrelevant to the discussion, since no-one here has suggested anything of the sort.
On 10 Oct 2025 at 14:14:04 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:57 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a variety of >>>>> views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you >>>>> are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech >>>>> which would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running
into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
Exactly what we are discussing, Clause 1 of The Human Rights Act 1998
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
I may not agree with those people but they have a right to hold their
views.
"Freedom of expression" cannot possibly extend to the destruction of
property or to the causing of harm (physical, financial or otherwise) to
individuals.
Such free expression has to be lawful in itself.
There was a time when no-one would have argued against that.
How does objecting to an organisation being proscribed under terrorism legislation equate to destroying property? I'm confused.
On 10/10/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:57 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a
variety of views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you >>>>> are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech >>>>> which would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running
into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
Exactly what we are discussing, Clause 1 of The Human Rights Act 1998
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
I may not agree with those people but they have a right to hold their
views.
"Freedom of expression" cannot possibly extend to the destruction of
property or to the causing of harm (physical, financial or otherwise)
to individuals.
Such free expression has to be lawful in itself.
There was a time when no-one would have argued against that.
I think you're conflating two issues: whether destroying property during
a demonstration is justifiable and lawful (I'm sure it generally isn't,
and is a breach of the Criminal Damage Act) and whether Palestine Action deserves to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Spraying an aircraft with paint seems a reasonable action unless and
until we're told that it caused very expensive damage.
So apparently
then it becomes terrorism. Unfortunately the Israeli drone manufacturers Elbit seem to have our Ministry of Defence in their pocket. Elbit have
been a regular target of PA demonstrations.
Spraying things with red paint is a pretty standard form of
demonstration. On glass doors and windows, for instance. Extinction Rebellion activists have thrown buckets of rCLbloodrCY outside Downing
Street to call for greater action on climate change. About 400
demonstrators, including families with children, spilled more than 200
litres of red paint to make the severity of climate change rCLviscerally clearrCY.
Does that make Extinction Rebellion a terrorist organisation? Some might
say so.
If the aim is to ensure that all demonstrations are suppressed
and that the standard way of voicing opposition to government policies
is to sign a petition or write a firm letter to your MP.
snip
You have (or someone else has) now snipped the quoted post about damage
to public property by the "proscribed organisation".
has that damage just been magnaminously overlooked?
Where is this stuff coming from?
NOBODY has a right to commit criminal damage to anything.
Not never, not nohow.
So because I do not believe the organisation in question is guilty of terrorism in the ordinary English sense I do not think it right that it should be proscribed whatever the name of the Act under which the proscription was applied.
On 10/10/2025 06:33 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 14:08:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:33 AM, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify the means, that
is suppressing the *****right to demonstrate*****.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to >>>>> "demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful
discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the
property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>>>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are >>>>> right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>>>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain >>>> interpretations of current law.
My questions were centred upon the claimed "right to demonstrate", as
specifically quoted (and now highlighted) above.
There is no such "right" which gives any person the right to damage
public or private property.
This seems remarkably irrelevant to the discussion, since no-one here has
suggested anything of the sort.
There has been talk of the "right to demonstrate", with no limitation of
that to lawful expression of a POV.
Look at the very first quotation above (the one I highlighted with asterisks).
On 10/10/2025 07:52 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think you're conflating two issues: whether destroying property during
a demonstration is justifiable and lawful (I'm sure it generally isn't,
and is a breach of the Criminal Damage Act) and whether Palestine Action
deserves to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Spraying an aircraft with paint seems a reasonable action unless and
until we're told that it caused very expensive damage.
Causing criminal damage is NEVER a "reasonable action".
And it simply does not matter at all that "demonstrators" are of the
opinion that their protests will fall upon deaf ears unless they commit criminal offences. The people with the ears (deaf or otherwise) are
fully entitled to refuse to listen and/or take any notice of the demonstrators.
So apparently
then it becomes terrorism. Unfortunately the Israeli drone manufacturers
Elbit seem to have our Ministry of Defence in their pocket. Elbit have
been a regular target of PA demonstrations.
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that does it deserves sanction as an organisation.
Spraying things with red paint is a pretty standard form of
demonstration. On glass doors and windows, for instance.-a Extinction
Rebellion activists have thrown buckets of rCLbloodrCY outside Downing
Street to call for greater action on climate change. About 400
demonstrators, including families with children, spilled more than 200
litres of red paint to make the severity of climate change rCLviscerally
clearrCY.
All of it is unacceptable - totally unacceptable - criminal activity.
How can anyone seek to excuse it?
Does that make Extinction Rebellion a terrorist organisation? Some might
say so.
Well yes... Parliament (effectively) says so. You'd better ask your questions about justification there.
All I would add is that there are many people whose lives would be
ruined by a criminal conviction. They will (or bloody well should) be
most reluctant to break even a law they disagree with. So what
Parliament has said is highly relevant to them.
On 2025-10-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I'm beginning to think you're just writing posts without reading any.
The point has been repeated over and over. The group should not have been >>> proscribed as a terrorist organisation, because they're not terrorists.
Setting up a new organisation does nothing at all to address that point.
I do quite a bit of DIY, and there's a saying in DIY circles that when
you're holding a hammer every screw becomes a nail. Clearly, that's
what's happened here, with the use of the Terrorism Act.
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. "terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people.
who are not. terrorists.
The new act will need to have similar provisions, making it possible to
proscribe organisations that commit violent acts, etc.
No, there should be no such Act, nor do I believe any such Act would
manage to make it through parliament.
On 10/10/2025 15:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I'm beginning to think you're just writing posts without reading any.I do quite a bit of DIY, and there's a saying in DIY circles that when
The point has been repeated over and over. The group should not have been >>>> proscribed as a terrorist organisation, because they're not terrorists. >>>> Setting up a new organisation does nothing at all to address that point. >>>
you're holding a hammer every screw becomes a nail. Clearly, that's
what's happened here, with the use of the Terrorism Act.
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people.
who are not. terrorists.
Are we all to be free to define what we mean by laws, ourselves, then?
Despite doing 40 in a 30 zone, you can't prosecute me, as I've decided I
was not speeding.
I'm driving my 30 ton truck on what I call the left, even though
everyone else calls it the right.
On 10 Oct 2025 11:32:54 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote:
So because I do not believe the organisation in question is guilty of
terrorism in the ordinary English sense I do not think it right that it
should be proscribed whatever the name of the Act under which the
proscription was applied.
It seems to me that the above statement (with which I agree) amounts to "expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation", contrary to s.12(1A) of the Act.
I wonder what would happen if one went on a demo holding a placard saying
"I do not think it right that Palestine Action should be proscribed".
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people.
who are not. terrorists.
On 2025-10-11, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 11:32:54 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote:
So because I do not believe the organisation in question is guilty of
terrorism in the ordinary English sense I do not think it right that it
should be proscribed whatever the name of the Act under which the
proscription was applied.
It seems to me that the above statement (with which I agree) amounts to
"expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation", contrary to s.12(1A) of the Act.
I don't think a jury would agree.
I wonder what would happen if one went on a demo holding a placard saying
"I do not think it right that Palestine Action should be proscribed".
I don't know why you're wondering that, given I already mentioned on
Tuesday that reportedly someone has been arrested for carrying a sign
saying "I do not support the proscription of Palestine Action".
On 10/10/2025 in message <slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >>"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement
of fact?
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement
of fact? Obviously you can hold any opinion you want but government
deems these people terrorists.
On 10/10/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:57 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a
variety of
views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you >>>>> are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech >>>>> which would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running
into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
Exactly what we are discussing, Clause 1 of The Human Rights Act 1998
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
I may not agree with those people but they have a right to hold their
views.
"Freedom of expression" cannot possibly extend to the destruction of
property or to the causing of harm (physical, financial or otherwise)
to individuals.
Such free expression has to be lawful in itself.
There was a time when no-one would have argued against that.
I think you're conflating two issues: whether destroying property during
a demonstration is justifiable and lawful (I'm sure it generally isn't,
and is a breach of the Criminal Damage Act) and whether Palestine Action deserves to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Spraying an aircraft with paint seems a reasonable action unless and
until we're told that it caused very expensive damage.-a So apparently
then it becomes terrorism. Unfortunately the Israeli drone manufacturers Elbit seem to have our Ministry of Defence in their pocket. Elbit have
been a regular target of PA demonstrations.
Spraying things with red paint is a pretty standard form of
demonstration. On glass doors and windows, for instance.-a Extinction Rebellion activists have thrown buckets of rCLbloodrCY outside Downing Street to call for greater action on climate change. About 400 demonstrators, including families with children, spilled more than 200 litres of red paint to make the severity of climate change rCLviscerally clearrCY.
Does that make Extinction Rebellion a terrorist organisation? Some might
say so. If the aim is to ensure that all demonstrations are suppressed
and that the standard way of voicing opposition to government policies
is to sign a petition or write a firm letter to your MP.
On 11/10/2025 13:32, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>> use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >>> "terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement
of fact? Obviously you can hold any opinion you want but government
deems these people terrorists.
The Terrorism Act has been around for 25 years, and nobody has made
much of a fuss about it during that time.
On 11 Oct 2025 at 01:43:41 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 06:33 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 14:08:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:33 AM, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify the means, that
is suppressing the *****right to demonstrate*****.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, not to >>>>>> "demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful >>>>>> discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the >>>>>> property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail to agree >>>>>> with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that we are >>>>>> right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has forfeited >>>>>> their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under certain
interpretations of current law.
My questions were centred upon the claimed "right to demonstrate", as
specifically quoted (and now highlighted) above.
There is no such "right" which gives any person the right to damage
public or private property.
This seems remarkably irrelevant to the discussion, since no-one here has >>> suggested anything of the sort.
There has been talk of the "right to demonstrate", with no limitation of
that to lawful expression of a POV.
Look at the very first quotation above (the one I highlighted with
asterisks).
The one you have totally misunderstood and misrepresented, that will be then?
What it is saying is that prosecuting pensioners for expressing support for Palestine Action is an overreaction to aircraft vandalism. It is *not* denying
that criminal damagers of aircraft should be punished. Basic English comprehension.
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
Where is this stuff coming from?
NOBODY has a right to commit criminal damage to anything.
Not never, not nohow.
"in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a
right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be
vested in himself or another"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 07:52 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think you're conflating two issues: whether destroying property during >>> a demonstration is justifiable and lawful (I'm sure it generally isn't,
and is a breach of the Criminal Damage Act) and whether Palestine Action >>> deserves to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Spraying an aircraft with paint seems a reasonable action unless and
until we're told that it caused very expensive damage.
Causing criminal damage is NEVER a "reasonable action".
And it simply does not matter at all that "demonstrators" are of the
opinion that their protests will fall upon deaf ears unless they
commit criminal offences. The people with the ears (deaf or otherwise)
are fully entitled to refuse to listen and/or take any notice of the
demonstrators.
The strategy, though, is to make it so that they cannot be ignored. They
may not be agreed with, and they cannot force any action in their
favour, but their case will be aired and publicised so that those who
might agree with them will maybe join or at least tacitly approve of
their struggle for what they fervently believe is right.
I think the Suffragettes and those who trespassed on Kinder Scout, for example, achieved that objective. Martyrs in the cause may be created
but they and those around them may well feel their sacrifice was
worthwhile. The ends may justify the means.
If you're exasperated by those who deliberately ignore you and try to
silence you when you just know you're in the right, what alternative is
there but to create a big fuss?
So apparently
then it becomes terrorism. Unfortunately the Israeli drone manufacturers >>> Elbit seem to have our Ministry of Defence in their pocket. Elbit have
been a regular target of PA demonstrations.
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that does
it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
And how do you prove it anyway? Organisations don't commit criminal
damage, people do.
Spraying things with red paint is a pretty standard form of
demonstration. On glass doors and windows, for instance. Extinction
Rebellion activists have thrown buckets of rCLbloodrCY outside Downing
Street to call for greater action on climate change. About 400
demonstrators, including families with children, spilled more than 200
litres of red paint to make the severity of climate change rCLviscerally >>> clearrCY.
All of it is unacceptable - totally unacceptable - criminal activity.
How can anyone seek to excuse it?
Does that make Extinction Rebellion a terrorist organisation? Some might >>> say so.
Well yes... Parliament (effectively) says so. You'd better ask your
questions about justification there.
Why were they not proscribed then?
Could it possibly be because calling them 'terrorists' would offend most people's understanding of the term and might bring the government into disrepute as being wholly repressive?
All I would add is that there are many people whose lives would be
ruined by a criminal conviction. They will (or bloody well should) be
most reluctant to break even a law they disagree with. So what
Parliament has said is highly relevant to them.
Martyrs for a cause they really believe in don't quite see it that way.
On 11/10/2025 10:04 AM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
Where is this stuff coming from?
NOBODY has a right to commit criminal damage to anything.
Not never, not nohow.
-a "in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a
right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be
vested in himself or another"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5
I'm aware of that.
No member of the public has reasonable grounds for believing that a right
to commit criminal damage has been vested in him.
On 11/10/2025 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:04 AM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
Where is this stuff coming from?
NOBODY has a right to commit criminal damage to anything.
Not never, not nohow.
-a "in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a
right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be
vested in himself or another"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5
I'm aware of that.
No member of the public has reasonable grounds for believing that a
right to commit criminal damage has been vested in him.
-aWe all have reasonable grounds to believe we could commit damage which would be criminal if it was not in order to protect property (eg in Gaza).
On 11/10/2025 10:04 AM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
Where is this stuff coming from?
NOBODY has a right to commit criminal damage to anything.
Not never, not nohow.
-a "in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a
right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be
vested in himself or another"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5
I'm aware of that.
No member of the public has reasonable grounds for believing that a
right to commit criminal damage has been vested in him.
Well, not unless it has.
And it hadn't.
On 11/10/2025 09:27 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Oct 2025 at 01:43:41 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 06:33 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 14:08:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/10/2025 11:33 AM, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify the means, that
is suppressing the *****right to demonstrate*****.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*,
not to
"demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful >>>>>>> discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the >>>>>>> property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail >>>>>>> to agree
with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that >>>>>>> we are
right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has
forfeited
their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging
public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except under >>>>>> certain
interpretations of current law.
My questions were centred upon the claimed "right to demonstrate", as >>>>> specifically quoted (and now highlighted) above.
There is no such "right" which gives any person the right to damage
public or private property.
This seems remarkably irrelevant to the discussion, since no-one
here has
suggested anything of the sort.
There has been talk of the "right to demonstrate", with no limitation of >>> that to lawful expression of a POV.
Look at the very first quotation above (the one I highlighted with
asterisks).
The one you have totally misunderstood and misrepresented, that will
be then?
What it is saying is that prosecuting pensioners for expressing
support for
Palestine Action is an overreaction to aircraft vandalism. It is *not*
denying
that criminal damagers of aircraft should be punished. Basic English
comprehension.
That is one of the various points at which we depart in different directions.
Crimonal damage is not "OK".
Organisations which plan and implement criminal damage are not "OK".
On 10/10/2025 19:52, The Todal wrote:
On 10/10/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:57 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
We have different views, hopefully people want to listen to a
variety of
views.
There is no point in protesting in support of a proscribed group, you >>>>>> are breaking the law.
The thing to do is protest against restrictions on freedom of speech >>>>>> which would be perfectly legitimate. There is no point in running
into brick walls, it hurts, find a way round it.
Thousands of people evidently disagree with you, and are willing to
put not just their money but potentially their freedom on the line.
Exactly what we are discussing, Clause 1 of The Human Rights Act 1998
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
I may not agree with those people but they have a right to hold their
views.
"Freedom of expression" cannot possibly extend to the destruction of
property or to the causing of harm (physical, financial or otherwise)
to individuals.
Such free expression has to be lawful in itself.
There was a time when no-one would have argued against that.
I think you're conflating two issues: whether destroying property
during a demonstration is justifiable and lawful (I'm sure it
generally isn't, and is a breach of the Criminal Damage Act) and
whether Palestine Action deserves to be proscribed as a terrorist
organisation.
Spraying an aircraft with paint seems a reasonable action unless and
until we're told that it caused very expensive damage.-a So apparently
then it becomes terrorism. Unfortunately the Israeli drone
manufacturers Elbit seem to have our Ministry of Defence in their
pocket. Elbit have been a regular target of PA demonstrations.
Spraying things with red paint is a pretty standard form of
demonstration. On glass doors and windows, for instance.-a Extinction
Rebellion activists have thrown buckets of rCLbloodrCY outside Downing
Street to call for greater action on climate change. About 400
demonstrators, including families with children, spilled more than 200
litres of red paint to make the severity of climate change rCLviscerally
clearrCY.
I may be in a minority, but I really don't think that vandalism is okay.
I hate to think what environmental damage 200 litres of red paint has done.
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 07:52 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think you're conflating two issues: whether destroying property
during a demonstration is justifiable and lawful (I'm sure it generally isn't,
and is a breach of the Criminal Damage Act) and whether Palestine
Action deserves to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Spraying an aircraft with paint seems a reasonable action unless and
until we're told that it caused very expensive damage.
Causing criminal damage is NEVER a "reasonable action".
And it simply does not matter at all that "demonstrators" are of the
opinion that their protests will fall upon deaf ears unless they
commit criminal offences. The people with the ears (deaf or otherwise)
are fully entitled to refuse to listen and/or take any notice of the
demonstrators.
The strategy, though, is to make it so that they cannot be ignored. They
may not be agreed with, and they cannot force any action in their
favour, but their case will be aired and publicised so that those who
might agree with them will maybe join or at least tacitly approve of
their struggle for what they fervently believe is right.
I think the Suffragettes and those who trespassed on Kinder Scout, for
example, achieved that objective.-a Martyrs in the cause may be created
but they and those around them may well feel their sacrifice was
worthwhile.-a The ends may justify the means.
If you're exasperated by those who deliberately ignore you and try to
silence you when you just know you're in the right, what alternative is
there but to create a big fuss?
Stay quiet? Pay for a ful, page ad in The Times?
So apparently then it becomes terrorism. Unfortunately the Israeli drone >>>> manufacturers Elbit seem to have our Ministry of Defence in their pocket. Elbit have
been a regular target of PA demonstrations.
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that does
it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
And how do you prove it anyway?-a Organisations don't commit criminalThat line would mean that carious organisation much in the news over the past two years (and earlier) would not (because could not) have been classified as terrorist organisations.
damage, people do.
Spraying things with red paint is a pretty standard form of
demonstration. On glass doors and windows, for instance.-a Extinction
Rebellion activists have thrown buckets of rCLbloodrCY outside Downing >>>> Street to call for greater action on climate change. About 400
demonstrators, including families with children, spilled more than 200 >>>> litres of red paint to make the severity of climate change rCLviscerally >>>> clearrCY.
All of it is unacceptable - totally unacceptable - criminal activity.
How can anyone seek to excuse it?
No response.
Does that make Extinction Rebellion a terrorist organisation? Some
might
say so.
Well yes... Parliament (effectively) says so. You'd better ask your
questions about justification there.
Why were they not proscribed then?
Ask your MP to ask the Home Secretary.
I'm not one arguing against ER or JSO being 9in my opinion, very fairly) classed as terrosrists.
Could it possibly be because calling them 'terrorists' would offend mostNo. I don't accept that at all.
people's understanding of the term and might bring the government into
disrepute as being wholly repressive?
All I would add is that there are many people whose lives would be
ruined by a criminal conviction. They will (or bloody well should) be
most reluctant to break even a law they disagree with. So what
Parliament has said is highly relevant to them.
Martyrs for a cause they really believe in don't quite see it that way.
They'll shed a few tears when membership of a professional body is terminated. But it'll be too late. And all because they couldn't resist
the temptation to stick it to the man.
On 11/10/2025 13:32, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>> use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >>> "terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a
statement of fact? Obviously you can hold any opinion you want but
government deems these people terrorists.
The Terrorism Act has been around for 25 years, and nobody has made much
of a fuss about it during that time.
PA falls within the definition of terrorist in the act, because they
have done "serious damage to property".
There's room to argue about whether -umillions damage to aircraft is 'serious', I suppose? But, Parliament debated it, and they decided it was.
On 2025-10-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 13:32, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>>> use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>>> away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new >>>>> act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >>>> "terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people. >>>> who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement >>> of fact? Obviously you can hold any opinion you want but government
deems these people terrorists.
The Terrorism Act has been around for 25 years, and nobody has made
much of a fuss about it during that time.
That's not entirely true, inasmuch as it was significantly changed by
the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
But regardless, up until now no government minister has misused the
powers given to them by the Act quite so egregiously as has been done
in respect of Palestine Action. So it makes no difference if the
underlying Act is 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years old, the thing that people
are objecting to hasn't happened before.
It's standard practice these days in legislation for parliament to pass
laws saying things like "the secretary of state may by order pass such
rules as they see fit" and we're told "oh it's alright, the secretary
of state will always be a fine upstanding reasonable person who won't
misuse their powers" and no matter how many times this is proven to be
a lie, they keep passing more and more such laws.
On 11/10/2025 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:04 AM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
Where is this stuff coming from?
NOBODY has a right to commit criminal damage to anything.
Not never, not nohow.
"in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a
right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be
vested in himself or another"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5
I'm aware of that.
No member of the public has reasonable grounds for believing that a
right to commit criminal damage has been vested in him.
We all have reasonable grounds to believe we could commit damage which would be criminal if it was not in order to protect property (eg in Gaza).
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message <slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>>use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>>away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new >>>>act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >>>"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people. >>>who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement
of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the instilling
of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
On 11/10/2025 01:09 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 11:32:54 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote:
So because I do not believe the organisation in question is guilty of
terrorism in the ordinary English sense I do not think it right that
it should be proscribed whatever the name of the Act under which the
proscription was applied.
It seems to me that the above statement (with which I agree) amounts
to "expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation", contrary to s.12(1A) of the Act.
I don't think a jury would agree.
But is the carrying and/or display of symbols expressing support for PA
an indictable offence?
Or triable either way?
Or summary only?
I wonder what would happen if one went on a demo holding a placard
saying "I do not think it right that Palestine Action should be
proscribed".
I don't know why you're wondering that, given I already mentioned on
Tuesday that reportedly someone has been arrested for carrying a sign
saying "I do not support the proscription of Palestine Action".
On 2025-10-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 13:32, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>>> use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>>> away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new >>>>> act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >>>> "terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people. >>>> who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement >>> of fact? Obviously you can hold any opinion you want but government
deems these people terrorists.
The Terrorism Act has been around for 25 years, and nobody has made
much of a fuss about it during that time.
That's not entirely true, inasmuch as it was significantly changed by
the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
But regardless, up until now no government minister has misused the
powers given to them by the Act quite so egregiously as has been done
in respect of Palestine Action. So it makes no difference if the
underlying Act is 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years old, the thing that people
are objecting to hasn't happened before.
It's standard practice these days in legislation for parliament to pass
laws saying things like "the secretary of state may by order pass such
rules as they see fit" and we're told "oh it's alright, the secretary
of state will always be a fine upstanding reasonable person who won't
misuse their powers" and no matter how many times this is proven to be
a lie, they keep passing more and more such laws.
On 2025-10-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 13:32, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>>> use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>>> away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new >>>>> act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >>>> "terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people. >>>> who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement >>> of fact? Obviously you can hold any opinion you want but government
deems these people terrorists.
The Terrorism Act has been around for 25 years, and nobody has made
much of a fuss about it during that time.
That's not entirely true, inasmuch as it was significantly changed by
the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
But regardless, up until now no government minister has misused the
powers given to them by the Act quite so egregiously as has been done
in respect of Palestine Action. So it makes no difference if the
underlying Act is 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years old, the thing that people
are objecting to hasn't happened before.
It's standard practice these days in legislation for parliament to pass
laws saying things like "the secretary of state may by order pass such
rules as they see fit" and we're told "oh it's alright, the secretary
of state will always be a fine upstanding reasonable person who won't
misuse their powers" and no matter how many times this is proven to be
a lie, they keep passing more and more such laws.
On 11/10/2025 14:13, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 09:27 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Oct 2025 at 01:43:41 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 06:33 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 14:08:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/10/2025 11:33 AM, RJH wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 at 00:34:50 BST, JNugent wrote:
The end, preventing further damage
to expensive aircraft, cannot justify the means, that
is suppressing the *****right to demonstrate*****.
When did the right to express one's opinion (ie, to *protest*, >>>>>>>> not to
"demonstrate", whose meaning is too ambiguous for use in meaningful >>>>>>>> discussion) encompass the right to destroy or otherwise damage the >>>>>>>> property of other people?
May any of us destroy or damage the property of people who fail >>>>>>>> to agree
with us and may we claim the moral high ground on the basis that >>>>>>>> we are
right and that anyone who disagrees with us is immoral and has >>>>>>>> forfeited
their rights to property and to respect of that property?
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
I think you're missing the point?
I don't think anybody's saying it's OK to go around damaging
public property.
The point AIUI is that doesn't make them a terrorist. Except
under certain
interpretations of current law.
My questions were centred upon the claimed "right to demonstrate", as >>>>>> specifically quoted (and now highlighted) above.
There is no such "right" which gives any person the right to damage >>>>>> public or private property.
This seems remarkably irrelevant to the discussion, since no-one
here has
suggested anything of the sort.
There has been talk of the "right to demonstrate", with no
limitation of
that to lawful expression of a POV.
Look at the very first quotation above (the one I highlighted with
asterisks).
The one you have totally misunderstood and misrepresented, that will
be then?
What it is saying is that prosecuting pensioners for expressing
support for Palestine Action is an overreaction to aircraft
vandalism.
It is *not* denying
that criminal damagers of aircraft should be punished. Basic English
comprehension.
That is one of the various points at which we depart in different
directions.
[Criminal] damage is not "OK".
Organisations which plan and implement criminal damage are not "OK".
Some organisations and terrorists are ok. Just look at the statues of
the Suffragettes and I recall quite a few dignitaries attended Nelson Mandela's funeral.
It seems we must applaud terrorists including those killing Arab
villagers in their quest for Zion.
Hell there might be a statue for Muhammad Umer Khalid in years to come.
Who knows?
On 11/10/2025 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:04 AM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
Where is this stuff coming from?
NOBODY has a right to commit criminal damage to anything.
Not never, not nohow.
"in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a
right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be
vested in himself or another"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5
I'm aware of that.
No member of the public has reasonable grounds for believing that a
right to commit criminal damage has been vested in him.
Well, not unless it has.
And it hadn't.
Some say it was vested in those destroying Colston's statue? I think the
jury agreed.
On 11/10/2025 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:04 AM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
Where is this stuff coming from?
NOBODY has a right to commit criminal damage to anything.
Not never, not nohow.
-a "in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a
right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be
vested in himself or another"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5
I'm aware of that.
No member of the public has reasonable grounds for believing that a
right to commit criminal damage has been vested in him.
Well, not unless it has.
And it hadn't.
Some say it was vested in those destroying Colston's statue? I think
the jury agreed.
On 11/10/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 07:52 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think you're conflating two issues: whether destroying property
during a demonstration is justifiable and lawful (I'm sure it
generally isn't,
and is a breach of the Criminal Damage Act) and whether Palestine
Action deserves to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Spraying an aircraft with paint seems a reasonable action unless and >>>>> until we're told that it caused very expensive damage.
Causing criminal damage is NEVER a "reasonable action".
And it simply does not matter at all that "demonstrators" are of the
opinion that their protests will fall upon deaf ears unless they
commit criminal offences. The people with the ears (deaf or otherwise) >>>> are fully entitled to refuse to listen and/or take any notice of the
demonstrators.
The strategy, though, is to make it so that they cannot be ignored. They >>> may not be agreed with, and they cannot force any action in their
favour, but their case will be aired and publicised so that those who
might agree with them will maybe join or at least tacitly approve of
their struggle for what they fervently believe is right.
I think the Suffragettes and those who trespassed on Kinder Scout, for
example, achieved that objective. Martyrs in the cause may be created
but they and those around them may well feel their sacrifice was
worthwhile. The ends may justify the means.
If you're exasperated by those who deliberately ignore you and try to
silence you when you just know you're in the right, what alternative is
there but to create a big fuss?
Stay quiet? Pay for a ful, page ad in The Times?
And when that, inevitably, has no effect?
So apparently then it becomes terrorism. Unfortunately the Israeli
drone manufacturers Elbit seem to have our Ministry of Defence in
their pocket. Elbit have
been a regular target of PA demonstrations.
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that does
it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
So, any organisation that does any criminal damage should be proscribed, meaning you can't say anything in support of it?
And how do you prove it anyway? Organisations don't commit criminal
damage, people do.
That line would mean that carious organisation much in the news over
the past two years (and earlier) would not (because could not) have
been classified as terrorist organisations.
Spraying things with red paint is a pretty standard form of
demonstration. On glass doors and windows, for instance. Extinction >>>>> Rebellion activists have thrown buckets of rCLbloodrCY outside Downing >>>>> Street to call for greater action on climate change. About 400
demonstrators, including families with children, spilled more than 200 >>>>> litres of red paint to make the severity of climate change rCLviscerally >>>>> clearrCY.
All of it is unacceptable - totally unacceptable - criminal activity.
How can anyone seek to excuse it?
No response.
Does that make Extinction Rebellion a terrorist organisation? Some
might say so.
Well yes... Parliament (effectively) says so. You'd better ask your
questions about justification there.
Why were they not proscribed then?
Ask your MP to ask the Home Secretary.
I'm not one arguing against ER or JSO being (in my opinion, very
fairly) classed as terrorists.
Could it possibly be because calling them 'terrorists' would offend most >>> people's understanding of the term and might bring the government into
disrepute as being wholly repressive?
No. I don't accept that at all.
All I would add is that there are many people whose lives would be
ruined by a criminal conviction. They will (or bloody well should) be
most reluctant to break even a law they disagree with. So what
Parliament has said is highly relevant to them.
Martyrs for a cause they really believe in don't quite see it that way.
They'll shed a few tears when membership of a professional body is
terminated. But it'll be too late. And all because they couldn't
resist the temptation to stick it to the man.
But they may, just may, change attitudes and the law. Then they'll be
folk heroes.
A bit like Robin Hood then. Should he just have obeyed all the
repressive laws in place at the time, kept his head down, and spent his
life doing admin in a council office somewhere?
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 14:25:21 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:09 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 11:32:54 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote:
So because I do not believe the organisation in question is guilty of >>>>> terrorism in the ordinary English sense I do not think it right that >>>>> it should be proscribed whatever the name of the Act under which the >>>>> proscription was applied.
It seems to me that the above statement (with which I agree) amounts
to "expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed >>>> organisation", contrary to s.12(1A) of the Act.
I don't think a jury would agree.
But is the carrying and/or display of symbols expressing support for PA
an indictable offence?
Or triable either way?
Or summary only?
Good questions. Magistrates - especially members of the Judge Jeffries-
like regime to be found in Westminster Magistrates Court - would almost certainly take the least sympathetic view.
I wonder what would happen if one went on a demo holding a placard
saying "I do not think it right that Palestine Action should be
proscribed".
I don't know why you're wondering that, given I already mentioned on
Tuesday that reportedly someone has been arrested for carrying a sign
saying "I do not support the proscription of Palestine Action".
Sadly, some quirk of my newsreader configuration prevents me from seeing
your posts, except when (as here) quoted by another poster.
On 11/10/2025 18:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But regardless, up until now no government minister has misused the
powers given to them by the Act quite so egregiously as has been done
in respect of Palestine Action. So it makes no difference if the
underlying Act is 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years old, the thing that people
are objecting to hasn't happened before.
It has, but nobody has noticed or cared. For example, I don't remember
you marching in support of:
"Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD): Proscribed February 2020
SKD is a white supremacist group that was established in March 2018 as a splinter group of System Resistance Network (an alias of the proscribed group National Action). Members of the group were convicted of
encouraging terrorism and possession of documents useful to a terrorist
in June 2019. The group has encouraged and glorified acts of terrorism
via its posts and images. This includes an image depicting the Duke of Sussex being shot as part of their campaign against rCyrace traitorsrCO following his marriage to the Duchess of Sussex; and home-made
propaganda using Nazi imagery calling for attacks on minorities. The
images can reasonably be taken as inferring that these acts should be emulated and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism."
As far as I can see, SKD has indulged in some fantasy social media
posts, but I'm not convinced they have actually done anything concrete
in the way of terrorism (by your definition). I don't imagine that
either of us lose much sleep over their proscription.
On 11/10/2025 in message <slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message <slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>>>use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>>>away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new >>>>>act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >>>>"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people. >>>>who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement >>>of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the instilling
of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In a legal group it might be sensible for people to make clear they are expressing an opinion to avoid readers acting as if it was fact.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 14:25:21 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:09 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 11:32:54 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote:
So because I do not believe the organisation in question is guilty of >>>>> terrorism in the ordinary English sense I do not think it right that >>>>> it should be proscribed whatever the name of the Act under which the >>>>> proscription was applied.
It seems to me that the above statement (with which I agree) amounts
to "expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed >>>> organisation", contrary to s.12(1A) of the Act.
I don't think a jury would agree.
But is the carrying and/or display of symbols expressing support for PA
an indictable offence?
Or triable either way?
Or summary only?
Good questions. Magistrates - especially members of the Judge Jeffries-
like regime to be found in Westminster Magistrates Court - would almost certainly take the least sympathetic view.
I wonder what would happen if one went on a demo holding a placard
saying "I do not think it right that Palestine Action should be
proscribed".
I don't know why you're wondering that, given I already mentioned on
Tuesday that reportedly someone has been arrested for carrying a sign
saying "I do not support the proscription of Palestine Action".
Sadly, some quirk of my newsreader configuration prevents me from seeing your posts, except when (as here) quoted by another poster.
On 11/10/2025 10:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 07:52 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think you're conflating two issues: whether destroying property
during a demonstration is justifiable and lawful (I'm sure it
generally isn't,
and is a breach of the Criminal Damage Act) and whether Palestine
Action deserves to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Spraying an aircraft with paint seems a reasonable action unless and >>>>>> until we're told that it caused very expensive damage.
Causing criminal damage is NEVER a "reasonable action".
And it simply does not matter at all that "demonstrators" are of the >>>>> opinion that their protests will fall upon deaf ears unless they
commit criminal offences. The people with the ears (deaf or otherwise) >>>>> are fully entitled to refuse to listen and/or take any notice of the >>>>> demonstrators.
The strategy, though, is to make it so that they cannot be ignored.
They
may not be agreed with, and they cannot force any action in their
favour, but their case will be aired and publicised so that those who
might agree with them will maybe join or at least tacitly approve of
their struggle for what they fervently believe is right.
I think the Suffragettes and those who trespassed on Kinder Scout, for >>>> example, achieved that objective.-a Martyrs in the cause may be created >>>> but they and those around them may well feel their sacrifice was
worthwhile.-a The ends may justify the means.
If you're exasperated by those who deliberately ignore you and try to
silence you when you just know you're in the right, what alternative is >>>> there but to create a big fuss?
Stay quiet? Pay for a ful, page ad in The Times?
And when that, inevitably, has no effect?
Try something else which is LAWFUL and NOT criminal?
Just a suggestion...
So apparently then it becomes terrorism. Unfortunately the Israeli >>>>>> drone manufacturers Elbit seem to have our Ministry of Defence in
their pocket. Elbit have
been a regular target of PA demonstrations.
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that does >>>>> it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
So, any organisation that does any criminal damage should be proscribed,
meaning you can't say anything in support of it?
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to them.
On 2025-10-12, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 14:25:21 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:09 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 11:32:54 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote:
So because I do not believe the organisation in question is guilty of >>>>>> terrorism in the ordinary English sense I do not think it right that >>>>>> it should be proscribed whatever the name of the Act under which the >>>>>> proscription was applied.
It seems to me that the above statement (with which I agree) amounts >>>>> to "expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed >>>>> organisation", contrary to s.12(1A) of the Act.
I don't think a jury would agree.
But is the carrying and/or display of symbols expressing support for PA
an indictable offence?
Or triable either way?
Or summary only?
Good questions. Magistrates - especially members of the Judge Jeffries-
like regime to be found in Westminster Magistrates Court - would almost
certainly take the least sympathetic view.
The answer is "triable either way", so a defendant would be entitled
to demand a jury trial if they wished. I wouldn't have mentioned the
jury otherwise.
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message <slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message >>>><slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>>>>use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>>>>away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new >>>>>>act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the >>>>>word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people. >>>>>who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement >>>>of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using violence >>>and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the instilling >>>of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have intimidated
or terrorised anyone - have you?
In a legal group it might be sensible for people to make clear they are >>expressing an opinion to avoid readers acting as if it was fact.
If you don't pay attention that's your own lookout.
On 12/10/2025 in message <slrn10eo6au.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message <slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message >>>>><slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>>>>>use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>>>>>away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new >>>>>>>act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the >>>>>>word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people. >>>>>>who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement >>>>>of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using violence >>>>and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the instilling >>>>of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have intimidated
or terrorised anyone - have you?
In the way that the government specifies what is terrorism but you
disagree, you are entitled to your opinion but the government's definition
is what people should work with.
In a legal group it might be sensible for people to make clear they are >>>expressing an opinion to avoid readers acting as if it was fact.
If you don't pay attention that's your own lookout.
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice.
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 07:52 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think you're conflating two issues: whether destroying property >>>>>>> during a demonstration is justifiable and lawful (I'm sure it
generally isn't,
and is a breach of the Criminal Damage Act) and whether Palestine >>>>>>> Action deserves to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Spraying an aircraft with paint seems a reasonable action unless and >>>>>>> until we're told that it caused very expensive damage.
Causing criminal damage is NEVER a "reasonable action".
And it simply does not matter at all that "demonstrators" are of the >>>>>> opinion that their protests will fall upon deaf ears unless they
commit criminal offences. The people with the ears (deaf or
otherwise)
are fully entitled to refuse to listen and/or take any notice of the >>>>>> demonstrators.
The strategy, though, is to make it so that they cannot be ignored.
They
may not be agreed with, and they cannot force any action in their
favour, but their case will be aired and publicised so that those who >>>>> might agree with them will maybe join or at least tacitly approve of >>>>> their struggle for what they fervently believe is right.
I think the Suffragettes and those who trespassed on Kinder Scout, for >>>>> example, achieved that objective. Martyrs in the cause may be created >>>>> but they and those around them may well feel their sacrifice was
worthwhile. The ends may justify the means.
If you're exasperated by those who deliberately ignore you and try to >>>>> silence you when you just know you're in the right, what
alternative is
there but to create a big fuss?
Stay quiet? Pay for a ful, page ad in The Times?
And when that, inevitably, has no effect?
Try something else which is LAWFUL and NOT criminal?
Just a suggestion...
Which is what exactly?
So apparently then it becomes terrorism. Unfortunately the Israeli >>>>>>> drone manufacturers Elbit seem to have our Ministry of Defence in >>>>>>> their pocket. Elbit have
been a regular target of PA demonstrations.
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that does >>>>>> it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
So, any organisation that does any criminal damage should be proscribed, >>> meaning you can't say anything in support of it?
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to them.
Meaning what exactly?
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
Try something else which is LAWFUL and NOT criminal?
Just a suggestion...
Which is what exactly?
ANYTHING.
As long as it is lawful (ie, not an offence) and does not cause harm to third paries (people like myself, for instance). "Harm" would, for
example, result from blocking traffic or a traffic route.
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to them.
Meaning what exactly?
That they have to obey the law, just as all of us do?
Just a suggestion.
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia, to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that does >>>>>>> it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
So, any organisation that does any criminal damage should be
proscribed, meaning you can't say anything in support of it?
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to them.
Meaning what exactly?
That they have to obey the law, just as all of us do?
Just a suggestion.
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia, to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
On 2025-10-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 in message <slrn10eo6au.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message >>>><slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message >>>>>><slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on >>>>>>>>the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to >>>>>>>>go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a >>>>>>>>new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the >>>>>>>word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against >>>>>>>people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a >>>>>>statement
of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using violence >>>>>and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the instilling >>>>>of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have intimidated
or terrorised anyone - have you?
In the way that the government specifies what is terrorism but you >>disagree, you are entitled to your opinion but the government's definition >>is what people should work with.
Er, no. I am going with the dictionary definition. The government can
specify definitions in law but that only matters to judges in court.
In a legal group it might be sensible for people to make clear they are >>>>expressing an opinion to avoid readers acting as if it was fact.
If you don't pay attention that's your own lookout.
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
On 2025-10-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 in message <slrn10eo6au.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message <slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>>>>>> use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>>>>>> away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new >>>>>>>> act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the >>>>>>> word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people. >>>>>>> who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement >>>>>> of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using violence >>>>> and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the instilling >>>>> of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have intimidated
or terrorised anyone - have you?
In the way that the government specifies what is terrorism but you
disagree, you are entitled to your opinion but the government's definition >> is what people should work with.
Er, no. I am going with the dictionary definition. The government can
specify definitions in law but that only matters to judges in court.
On 2025-10-12, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 18:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But regardless, up until now no government minister has misused the
powers given to them by the Act quite so egregiously as has been done
in respect of Palestine Action. So it makes no difference if the
underlying Act is 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years old, the thing that people
are objecting to hasn't happened before.
It has, but nobody has noticed or cared. For example, I don't remember
you marching in support of:
"Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD): Proscribed February 2020
SKD is a white supremacist group that was established in March 2018 as a
splinter group of System Resistance Network (an alias of the proscribed
group National Action). Members of the group were convicted of
encouraging terrorism and possession of documents useful to a terrorist
in June 2019. The group has encouraged and glorified acts of terrorism
via its posts and images. This includes an image depicting the Duke of
Sussex being shot as part of their campaign against rCyrace traitorsrCO
following his marriage to the Duchess of Sussex; and home-made
propaganda using Nazi imagery calling for attacks on minorities. The
images can reasonably be taken as inferring that these acts should be
emulated and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism." >>
As far as I can see, SKD has indulged in some fantasy social media
posts, but I'm not convinced they have actually done anything concrete
in the way of terrorism (by your definition). I don't imagine that
either of us lose much sleep over their proscription.
Eh? Your own quote describes them inciting and encouraging violent
attacks on specific groups and individuals. Those people might well
be "terrorised" as a result.
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message <slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message <slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up on the >>>>>> use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going to go >>>>>> away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing a new >>>>>> act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word.
For absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the word. >>>>> "terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against people. >>>>> who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a statement >>>> of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the instilling
of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they *have* intimidated
or terrorised anyone - have you?
On 13/10/2025 09:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
Try something else which is LAWFUL and NOT criminal?
Just a suggestion...
Which is what exactly?
ANYTHING.
As long as it is lawful (ie, not an offence) and does not cause harm
to third paries (people like myself, for instance). "Harm" would, for
example, result from blocking traffic or a traffic route.
What if the blockage was vehicle specific? e.g. Allowing ordinary size vehicles to flow freely but preventing 40T HGVs some with double length trailers from using a rat run through a housing estate?
Nominal 6m road. There are no yellow lines - street parking is allowed.
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to
them.
Meaning what exactly?
That they have to obey the law, just as all of us do?
Just a suggestion.
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia,
to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
What do you do when it is the *government* that intends you harm though?
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for the sake of a terrorist organisation.
I imagine that the 'damage' to the planes carelessly left out in the
open to be disabled by any casual passer-by was pretty insignificant
too, and moreover grossly exaggerated to cover embarrassment at how shockingly easy the action was.
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for the sake of a terrorist organisation.
On 13/10/2025 09:28 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 in message
<slrn10eo6au.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung up >>>>>>>>> on theFor absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the >>>>>>>> word.
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't going >>>>>>>>> to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to producing >>>>>>>>> a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word. >>>>>>>>
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against >>>>>>>> people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a
statement
of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using
violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the
instilling
of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have intimidated >>>> or terrorised anyone - have you?
In the way that the government specifies what is terrorism but you
disagree, you are entitled to your opinion but the government's
definition
is what people should work with.
Er, no. I am going with the dictionary definition. The government can
specify definitions in law but that only matters to judges in court.
Your saying "Er, no" does not negate the facts. Parliament, through
powers given to ministers, has classified PA as a terrorist
organisation, as defined within the relevant Act. The dictionary
definition is not relevant in these circumstances. And you know that.
You can disagree that the branding / classification/ whatever should
have been done, but arguing that they are not terrorists when they
plainly *are* (as defined in legislation) is pointless.
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia,
to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
I wonder if you can explain just what harm I am being protected from as regards pensioners simply and peacefully holding placards?
On 13/10/2025 09:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that >>>>>>>> does
it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
So, any organisation that does any criminal damage should be
proscribed, meaning you can't say anything in support of it?
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to
them.
Meaning what exactly?
That they have to obey the law, just as all of us do?
Just a suggestion.
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia,
to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
I wonder if you can explain just what harm I am being protected from as regards pensioners simply and peacefully holding placards?
On 12/10/2025 22:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 18:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But regardless, up until now no government minister has misused the
powers given to them by the Act quite so egregiously as has been done
in respect of Palestine Action. So it makes no difference if the
underlying Act is 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years old, the thing that people >>>> are objecting to hasn't happened before.
It has, but nobody has noticed or cared. For example, I don't remember
you marching in support of:
"Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD): Proscribed February 2020
SKD is a white supremacist group that was established in March 2018 as a >>> splinter group of System Resistance Network (an alias of the proscribed
group National Action). Members of the group were convicted of
encouraging terrorism and possession of documents useful to a terrorist
in June 2019. The group has encouraged and glorified acts of terrorism
via its posts and images. This includes an image depicting the Duke of
Sussex being shot as part of their campaign against rCyrace traitorsrCO
following his marriage to the Duchess of Sussex; and home-made
propaganda using Nazi imagery calling for attacks on minorities. The
images can reasonably be taken as inferring that these acts should be
emulated and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism." >>>
As far as I can see, SKD has indulged in some fantasy social media
posts, but I'm not convinced they have actually done anything concrete
in the way of terrorism (by your definition). I don't imagine that
either of us lose much sleep over their proscription.
Eh? Your own quote describes them inciting and encouraging violent
attacks on specific groups and individuals. Those people might well
be "terrorised" as a result.
Indeed it does say that, but SKD has not carried out what you previously termed terrorism, so it seems your definition is flexible, perhaps
depending on how you feel about the particular group.
Let me remind you what you said:
"The word "terrorism" means using violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim"
SKD don't appear to have used violence at all, and their level of intimidation was pretty low.
The folk in buildings attacked by PA may have felt quite frightened. How were they to know that it was just paint being thrown at them? And, even
if they were fairly sure it was just paint, what PA did was clearly
intended to intimidate.
I think you're going to tie yourself in knots if you try to distinguish between SKD and PA in the way you have.
On 11/10/2025 21:44, Norman Wells wrote:
I imagine that the 'damage' to the planes carelessly left out in the
open to be disabled by any casual passer-by was pretty insignificant
too, and moreover grossly exaggerated to cover embarrassment at how
shockingly easy the action was.
Can I just check your credentials, please. How many years experience in aerospace do you have? Was that on maintenance, design and manufacture,
or just some office-based role?
Otherwise, why should your imagination trump what government ministers say?
On 13/10/2025 12:08 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that >>>>>>>>> does it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
So, any organisation that does any criminal damage should be
proscribed, meaning you can't say anything in support of it?
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to
them.
Meaning what exactly?
That they have to obey the law, just as all of us do?
Just a suggestion.
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia,
to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
I wonder if you can explain just what harm I am being protected from as
regards pensioners simply and peacefully holding placards?
Prima facie, we (and that inclludes you) are being protected from
promotion of a terrorist organisation.
Substitute Hamas for PA and it becomes clear.
it isn't up to you or me to absolve a terrorist organisation for our own purposes.
On 13/10/2025 12:08, Norman Wells wrote:
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia,
to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
I wonder if you can explain just what harm I am being protected from
as regards pensioners simply and peacefully holding placards?
They may have persuaded you to support PA,
which as we all know is a
proscribed terrorist organisation, thus making you liable to a very very lengthy jail term. So, potentially, considerable harm!
On 13/10/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for
the sake of a terrorist organisation.
But it's not. It's for the protection of free speech and peaceful demonstration in general.
On 13/10/2025 12:44, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 in message
<slrn10eo6au.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung >>>>>>>>>> up on theFor absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of the >>>>>>>>> word.
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't
going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to
producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word. >>>>>>>>>
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against >>>>>>>>> people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a >>>>>>>> statement
of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using
violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the
instilling
of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have intimidated >>>>> or terrorised anyone - have you?
In the way that the government specifies what is terrorism but you
disagree, you are entitled to your opinion but the government's
definition
is what people should work with.
Er, no. I am going with the dictionary definition. The government can
specify definitions in law but that only matters to judges in court.
Your saying "Er, no" does not negate the facts. Parliament, through
powers given to ministers, has classified PA as a terrorist
organisation, as defined within the relevant Act. The dictionary
definition is not relevant in these circumstances. And you know that.
You can disagree that the branding / classification/ whatever should
have been done, but arguing that they are not terrorists when they
plainly *are* (as defined in legislation) is pointless.
It has also branded as terrorists little old ladies sitting peacefully
with placards, or they would not be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act.
Do you defend that as an appropriate designation?
On 2025-10-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for the
sake of a terrorist organisation.
The people doing that seem quite clear on the matter.
On 13/10/2025 04:37 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice. >>>>About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for
the sake of a terrorist organisation.
But it's not.-a It's for the protection of free speech and peaceful
demonstration in general.
This is the less well-known sense of the word "peaceful" which means
violent and harmful to innocent third parties and their property.
On 13/10/2025 04:42 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:44, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 in message
<slrn10eo6au.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung >>>>>>>>>>> up on theFor absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. of >>>>>>>>>> the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't >>>>>>>>>>> going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to
producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word. >>>>>>>>>>
word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against >>>>>>>>>> people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a >>>>>>>>> statement
of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using >>>>>>>> violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the
instilling
of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have
intimidated
or terrorised anyone - have you?
In the way that the government specifies what is terrorism but you
disagree, you are entitled to your opinion but the government's
definition
is what people should work with.
Er, no. I am going with the dictionary definition. The government can
specify definitions in law but that only matters to judges in court.
Your saying "Er, no" does not negate the facts. Parliament, through
powers given to ministers, has classified PA as a terrorist
organisation, as defined within the relevant Act. The dictionary
definition is not relevant in these circumstances. And you know that.
You can disagree that the branding / classification/ whatever should
have been done, but arguing that they are not terrorists when they
plainly *are* (as defined in legislation) is pointless.
It has also branded as terrorists little old ladies sitting peacefully
with placards, or they would not be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act.
Age and sex are not exemptions from having to comply with the law.
You know that. And you know that the law is not aimed at "little old ladies". It is aimed at anyone with an itch to disobey the law in order
to stick it to the man, the citizen and the taxpayer.
Do you defend that as an appropriate designation?
I and one or two others have been at some pains to point out that it
doesn't matter what any one of us thinks or is prepared to defend as a particular case. The law is what it is and it applies to everyone.
That is not hard to comprehend.
On 13/10/2025 08:07 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for the >>> sake of a terrorist organisation.
The people doing that seem quite clear on the matter.
Then the penalty is not severe enough.
That's always the answer when a group of self-appointed "heroes" do the cost-benefit analysis and decide it's worth taking the punishment.
If it is, the cost is set too low.
On 13/10/2025 23:09, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:42 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:44, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 in message
<slrn10eo6au.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung >>>>>>>>>>>> up on theFor absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. >>>>>>>>>>> of the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't >>>>>>>>>>>> going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to
producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word. >>>>>>>>>>>
word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against >>>>>>>>>>> people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a >>>>>>>>>> statement
of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using >>>>>>>>> violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the >>>>>>>>> instilling
of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have
intimidated
or terrorised anyone - have you?
In the way that the government specifies what is terrorism but you >>>>>> disagree, you are entitled to your opinion but the government's
definition
is what people should work with.
Er, no. I am going with the dictionary definition. The government can >>>>> specify definitions in law but that only matters to judges in court.
Your saying "Er, no" does not negate the facts. Parliament, through
powers given to ministers, has classified PA as a terrorist
organisation, as defined within the relevant Act. The dictionary
definition is not relevant in these circumstances. And you know that.
You can disagree that the branding / classification/ whatever should
have been done, but arguing that they are not terrorists when they
plainly *are* (as defined in legislation) is pointless.
It has also branded as terrorists little old ladies sitting peacefully
with placards, or they would not be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act.
Age and sex are not exemptions from having to comply with the law.
You know that. And you know that the law is not aimed at "little old
ladies". It is aimed at anyone with an itch to disobey the law in
order to stick it to the man, the citizen and the taxpayer.
But it has been aimed, in the main, at little old ladies (and gentlemen) peacefully doing nothing more than holding placards.
And that's presumably because they're low hanging fruit.-a Easy to arrest and cart away, easy to prosecute, and very, very good for the
Commissioner's crime statistics.-a Policing on the cheap in other words,
and for no crime reduction reason.-a They are not a threat to anyone. And
it avoids the need for the police to put in the hard yards to catch what
the general public regard as 'real criminals', eg the burglars, muggers, pickpockets, knife-wielding murderers etc.
Do you defend that as an appropriate designation?
I and one or two others have been at some pains to point out that it
doesn't matter what any one of us thinks or is prepared to defend as a
particular case. The law is what it is and it applies to everyone.
That is not hard to comprehend.
What you obviously find hard to comprehend is that this discussion has
been about what the law should be and what should be done when it or its application overreaches, as it has here.
Writing for the Independent, Lord Sumption said the Terror ActrCOs definition of what amounts to support for a proscribed organisation is rCLfar too widerCY.
He warned that one of the criteria rCo wearing, carrying or displaying something that supports the group rCo goes too far and should be rowed
back to avoid the more than 500 people arrested at SaturdayrCOs protest against the grouprCOs ban under terror laws from being criminalised.
Urging the government to amend the Act, he said, rCLmerely indicating your support for a terrorist organisation without doing anything to assist or further its acts should not be a criminal offencerCY.
And it's easy to say that Parliament has made its decision and must have
the last word in any debate, and that our MPs (lobby fodder, most of
them) are wise and well informed.
However, there are excellent lawyers and judges who say that the
proscribing of Palestine Action is wrong. And I think their opinion is
more worthy of respect than that of our crowd-pleasing Home Secretaries.
see eg
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/palestine-action-arrests- protest-starmer-labour-sumption-b2806037.html
Writing for the Independent, Lord Sumption said the Terror ActrCOs definition of what amounts to support for a proscribed organisation is rCLfar too widerCY.
He warned that one of the criteria rCo wearing, carrying or displaying something that supports the group rCo goes too far and should be rowed
back to avoid the more than 500 people arrested at SaturdayrCOs protest against the grouprCOs ban under terror laws from being criminalised.
Urging the government to amend the Act, he said, rCLmerely indicating your support for a terrorist organisation without doing anything to assist or further its acts should not be a criminal offencerCY.
On 13/10/2025 16:59, GB wrote:
On 11/10/2025 21:44, Norman Wells wrote:
I imagine that the 'damage' to the planes carelessly left out in the
open to be disabled by any casual passer-by was pretty insignificant
too, and moreover grossly exaggerated to cover embarrassment at how
shockingly easy the action was.
Can I just check your credentials, please. How many years experience
in aerospace do you have? Was that on maintenance, design and
manufacture, or just some office-based role?
Otherwise, why should your imagination trump what government ministers
say?
With what exactly in the above do you disagree?
The fact is the planes were clearly left wholly inadequately protected. Agree or disagree?
Who has been court-martialled over that?-a If no-one, why not?-a It's
surely gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
What evidence do we have that the planes were 'disabled' (some alleged
that they were 'destroyed' even)?-a If they can't withstand a bit of coloured water, they're hardly fit for purpose as war machines.-a Will
they just fall out of the sky at the sight of a cloud or bit of dust?
You don't need any experience in aerospace to know such things.-a You
just need a bit of rational thinking.-a And a little knowledge of human nature to know that those caught with their trousers down will invent
all sorts of exaggerated absurdity to cover up what is obvious.
On 13/10/2025 23:06, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:37 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice. >>>>>About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for
the sake of a terrorist organisation.
But it's not.-a It's for the protection of free speech and peaceful
demonstration in general.
This is the less well-known sense of the word "peaceful" which means
violent and harmful to innocent third parties and their property.
How violent and harmful to innocent third parties were those pensioners arrested for holding placards?
I think you're going to tie yourself in knots if you try to distinguish
between SKD and PA in the way you have.
Funny - to me it looks like you are tying yourself in knots trying
to avoid distinguishing between them.
On 13/10/2025 22:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 16:59, GB wrote:
On 11/10/2025 21:44, Norman Wells wrote:
I imagine that the 'damage' to the planes carelessly left out in the
open to be disabled by any casual passer-by was pretty insignificant
too, and moreover grossly exaggerated to cover embarrassment at how
shockingly easy the action was.
Can I just check your credentials, please. How many years experience
in aerospace do you have? Was that on maintenance, design and
manufacture, or just some office-based role?
Otherwise, why should your imagination trump what government
ministers say?
With what exactly in the above do you disagree?
The fact is the planes were clearly left wholly inadequately
protected. Agree or disagree?
Who has been court-martialled over that?-a If no-one, why not?-a It's
surely gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
What evidence do we have that the planes were 'disabled' (some alleged
that they were 'destroyed' even)?-a If they can't withstand a bit of
coloured water, they're hardly fit for purpose as war machines.-a Will
they just fall out of the sky at the sight of a cloud or bit of dust?
You don't need any experience in aerospace to know such things.-a You
just need a bit of rational thinking.-a And a little knowledge of human
nature to know that those caught with their trousers down will invent
all sorts of exaggerated absurdity to cover up what is obvious.
So, you have no idea what the cost of the repairs will be. But you have
a vivid imagination.
On 13/10/2025 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 08:07 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice. >>>About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for the >>>> sake of a terrorist organisation.
The people doing that seem quite clear on the matter.
Then the penalty is not severe enough.
That's always the answer when a group of self-appointed "heroes" do the
cost-benefit analysis and decide it's worth taking the punishment.
If it is, the cost is set too low.
*All* criminals do a cost-benefit analysis; it's in the nature of their >trade. But it's never stopped crime however Draconian the penalties.
On 14/10/2025 12:11, GB wrote:
So, you have no idea what the cost of the repairs will be. But you have
a vivid imagination.
That presupposes that any 'repairs' are actually necessary. A few pints
of coloured water, if that's what it was,
On 13/10/2025 16:59, GB wrote:
On 11/10/2025 21:44, Norman Wells wrote:
I imagine that the 'damage' to the planes carelessly left out in the
open to be disabled by any casual passer-by was pretty insignificant
too, and moreover grossly exaggerated to cover embarrassment at how
shockingly easy the action was.
Can I just check your credentials, please. How many years experience
in aerospace do you have? Was that on maintenance, design and
manufacture, or just some office-based role?
Otherwise, why should your imagination trump what government ministers
say?
With what exactly in the above do you disagree?
The fact is the planes were clearly left wholly inadequately protected.
Agree or disagree?
Who has been court-martialled over that? If no-one, why not? It's
surely gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
What evidence do we have that the planes were 'disabled' (some alleged
that they were 'destroyed' even)? If they can't withstand a bit of
coloured water, they're hardly fit for purpose as war machines. Will
they just fall out of the sky at the sight of a cloud or bit of dust?
You don't need any experience in aerospace to know such things. You
just need a bit of rational thinking. And a little knowledge of human
nature to know that those caught with their trousers down will invent
all sorts of exaggerated absurdity to cover up what is obvious.
On 13/10/2025 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:08 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that >>>>>>>>>> does it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
So, any organisation that does any criminal damage should be
proscribed, meaning you can't say anything in support of it?
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to >>>>>> them.
Meaning what exactly?
That they have to obey the law, just as all of us do?
Just a suggestion.
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia,
to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
I wonder if you can explain just what harm I am being protected from as
regards pensioners simply and peacefully holding placards?
Prima facie, we (and that inclludes you) are being protected from
promotion of a terrorist organisation.
Do I really need protection from little old ladies holding placards?
I really don't think so. And I don't think you've made any real
argument why I should.
Substitute Hamas for PA and it becomes clear.
Since I didn't mention either, there's nothing to substitute with
anything else.
it isn't up to you or me to absolve a terrorist organisation for our
own purposes.
No-one is as far as I can see.
But why should peaceful little old ladies be criminalised under a
terrorism law and therefore be classified as terrorists? Does no-one
round here have any regard for their language?
On 13/10/2025 23:09, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:42 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:44, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 in message
<slrn10eo6au.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung >>>>>>>>>>>> up on theFor absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. >>>>>>>>>>> of the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't >>>>>>>>>>>> going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to
producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word. >>>>>>>>>>>
word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against >>>>>>>>>>> people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a >>>>>>>>>> statement
of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using >>>>>>>>> violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the >>>>>>>>> instilling
of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have
intimidated
or terrorised anyone - have you?
In the way that the government specifies what is terrorism but you >>>>>> disagree, you are entitled to your opinion but the government's
definition
is what people should work with.
Er, no. I am going with the dictionary definition. The government can >>>>> specify definitions in law but that only matters to judges in court.
Your saying "Er, no" does not negate the facts. Parliament, through
powers given to ministers, has classified PA as a terrorist
organisation, as defined within the relevant Act. The dictionary
definition is not relevant in these circumstances. And you know that.
You can disagree that the branding / classification/ whatever should
have been done, but arguing that they are not terrorists when they
plainly *are* (as defined in legislation) is pointless.
It has also branded as terrorists little old ladies sitting peacefully
with placards, or they would not be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act.
Age and sex are not exemptions from having to comply with the law.
You know that. And you know that the law is not aimed at "little old
ladies". It is aimed at anyone with an itch to disobey the law in
order to stick it to the man, the citizen and the taxpayer.
But it has been aimed, in the main, at little old ladies (and gentlemen) peacefully doing nothing more than holding placards.
And that's presumably because they're low hanging fruit. Easy to arrest
and cart away, easy to prosecute, and very, very good for the
Commissioner's crime statistics. Policing on the cheap in other words,
and for no crime reduction reason. They are not a threat to anyone. And
it avoids the need for the police to put in the hard yards to catch what
the general public regard as 'real criminals', eg the burglars, muggers, pickpockets, knife-wielding murderers etc.
Do you defend that as an appropriate designation?
I and one or two others have been at some pains to point out that it
doesn't matter what any one of us thinks or is prepared to defend as a
particular case. The law is what it is and it applies to everyone.
That is not hard to comprehend.
What you obviously find hard to comprehend is that this discussion has
been about what the law should be and what should be done when it or its application overreaches, as it has here.
On 13/10/2025 23:06, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:37 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice. >>>>>About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for
the sake of a terrorist organisation.
But it's not. It's for the protection of free speech and peaceful
demonstration in general.
This is the less well-known sense of the word "peaceful" which means
violent and harmful to innocent third parties and their property.
How violent and harmful to innocent third parties were those pensioners arrested for holding placards?
On 13/10/2025 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 08:07 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice. >>>About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for
the
sake of a terrorist organisation.
The people doing that seem quite clear on the matter.
Then the penalty is not severe enough.
That's always the answer when a group of self-appointed "heroes" do
the cost-benefit analysis and decide it's worth taking the punishment.
If it is, the cost is set too low.
*All* criminals do a cost-benefit analysis; it's in the nature of their trade. But it's never stopped crime however Draconian the penalties.
On 14/10/2025 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 23:06, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:37 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal
advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for >>>>> the sake of a terrorist organisation.
But it's not.-a It's for the protection of free speech and peaceful
demonstration in general.
This is the less well-known sense of the word "peaceful" which means
violent and harmful to innocent third parties and their property.
How violent and harmful to innocent third parties were those
pensioners arrested for holding placards?
They were supporting a terrorist organisation. That organisation
certainly harmed innocent third parties, for example the employees of
the sites PA attacked.
Besides that, even if you have sympathy for PA, what about the other two organisations proscribed under the same SI:
Maniacs Murder Cult
Russian Imperial Movement, including Russian Imperial Legion
Are you saying it's okay to support all terrorist groups? Or, we can
pick and choose which ones?
Should we individually decide which laws to obey?
On 14/10/2025 11:58, GB wrote:
On 14/10/2025 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 23:06, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:37 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal
advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for >>>>>> the sake of a terrorist organisation.
But it's not. It's for the protection of free speech and peaceful
demonstration in general.
This is the less well-known sense of the word "peaceful" which means
violent and harmful to innocent third parties and their property.
How violent and harmful to innocent third parties were those
pensioners arrested for holding placards?
They were supporting a terrorist organisation. That organisation
certainly harmed innocent third parties, for example the employees of
the sites PA attacked.
Which is not actually answering the question I asked. Is why you've
swerved it because you do not have any proper answer to it?
Besides that, even if you have sympathy for PA, what about the other
two organisations proscribed under the same SI:
Maniacs Murder Cult
Russian Imperial Movement, including Russian Imperial Legion
Are you saying it's okay to support all terrorist groups? Or, we can
pick and choose which ones?
I'm saying freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 10
of the European Convention on Human Rights and enacted in the Human
Rights Act 1998 have supremacy over any domestic legislation
incompatible with it.
Should we individually decide which laws to obey?
Where a law is tyrannical or oppressive and experience shows it can't be changed peacefully, the only option may be civil disobedience.
On 14/10/2025 02:15 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 14/10/2025 11:58, GB wrote:
On 14/10/2025 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 23:06, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:37 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal >>>>>>>>> advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for >>>>>>> the sake of a terrorist organisation.
But it's not.-a It's for the protection of free speech and peaceful >>>>>> demonstration in general.
This is the less well-known sense of the word "peaceful" which means >>>>> violent and harmful to innocent third parties and their property.
How violent and harmful to innocent third parties were those
pensioners arrested for holding placards?
They were supporting a terrorist organisation. That organisation
certainly harmed innocent third parties, for example the employees of
the sites PA attacked.
Which is not actually answering the question I asked.-a Is why you've
swerved it because you do not have any proper answer to it?
Besides that, even if you have sympathy for PA, what about the other
two organisations proscribed under the same SI:
Maniacs Murder Cult
Russian Imperial Movement, including Russian Imperial Legion
Are you saying it's okay to support all terrorist groups? Or, we can
pick and choose which ones?
I'm saying freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 10
of the European Convention on Human Rights and enacted in the Human
Rights Act 1998 have supremacy over any domestic legislation
incompatible with it.
Should we individually decide which laws to obey?
Where a law is tyrannical or oppressive and experience shows it can't be
changed peacefully, the only option may be civil disobedience.
What aboout the following General Election?
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/10/2025 12:11, GB wrote:
So, you have no idea what the cost of the repairs will be. But you have
a vivid imagination.
That presupposes that any 'repairs' are actually necessary. A few pints
of coloured water, if that's what it was,
It wasn't coloured water, it was paint, and it was sprayed directly into the engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
At the very least, therefore, the engine would need to be dismantled for cleaning. I'm not an aviation engineer, so I can't say for certain how much work that would be. But, given the very fine tolerances that jet engines operate to, I suspect it's a non-trivial task.
In context, even a trivial, non-disruptive bird strike on a jet engine
(which engines are designed to withstand) will typically cost $50,000
upwards in subsequent maintenance. But the residue left by a bird strike (blood and gore, mostly) is washable, and engines are designed to be washed. Paint, however, is designed specifically not to be washable once it's dried. You can't wash paint off a fence, or a door, and you can't wash it out of
the inside of a jet engine once it's got in there either. Getting it out of the engine is a much more intrusive maintenance task.
On 14/10/2025 09:05 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 23:06, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:37 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal
advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for >>>>> the sake of a terrorist organisation.
But it's not.-a It's for the protection of free speech and peaceful
demonstration in general.
This is the less well-known sense of the word "peaceful" which means
violent and harmful to innocent third parties and their property.
How violent and harmful to innocent third parties were those pensioners
arrested for holding placards?
They were supporting a violent and harm-causing terrorist organisation.
Some of them may be too stupid to realise that. But them's the facts.
Arguments as to what measures the government *should* take against
terorists are in the political, not legal, realm.
Honestly... take it to uk.politics.misc.
On 13/10/2025 10:23 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:08 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that >>>>>>>>>>> does it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
So, any organisation that does any criminal damage should be
proscribed, meaning you can't say anything in support of it?
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to >>>>>>> them.
Meaning what exactly?
That they have to obey the law, just as all of us do?
Just a suggestion.
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia, >>>>> to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
I wonder if you can explain just what harm I am being protected from as >>>> regards pensioners simply and peacefully holding placards?
Prima facie, we (and that inclludes you) are being protected from
promotion of a terrorist organisation.
Do I really need protection from little old ladies holding placards?
If you are asking whether females over a certain age should be treated
as beyond the age of criminal responsibility, the answer is "No".
But you knew that. You are flying a kite and it is obvious that you are doing so.
I really don't think so.-a And I don't think you've made any real
argument why I should.
Substitute Hamas for PA and it becomes clear.
Since I didn't mention either, there's nothing to substitute with
anything else.
Terrorist organisations are subject to the same rules.
And you've now realised why, even if (as is rather unlikely) you didn't already know.
Have you got a stout string on that kite?
it isn't up to you or me to absolve a terrorist organisation for our
own purposes.
No-one is as far as I can see.
You are seeking to absolve its members and supporters from the
consequences of their crimes if they're female and over retirement age.
But why should peaceful little old ladies be criminalised under a
terrorism law and therefore be classified as terrorists?-a Does no-one
round here have any regard for their language?
How many times must your question be answered before you ask it again?
On 14/10/2025 09:02 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 23:09, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:42 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:44, JNugent wrote:Age and sex are not exemptions from having to comply with the law.
On 13/10/2025 09:28 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:Your saying "Er, no" does not negate the facts. Parliament, through
On 12/10/2025 in message
<slrn10eo6au.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ekprt.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 in message
<slrn10ei4ut.21u.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I must say that I thought that people were silly to get hung >>>>>>>>>>>>> up on theFor absolutely the last time: the problem. is not. the use. >>>>>>>>>>>> of the
use of the word terrorist, but apparently the issue isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> going to go
away. So, Parliament will need to devote some time to >>>>>>>>>>>>> producing a new
act that deals with the likes of PA without using the T word. >>>>>>>>>>>>
word.
"terrorist". It is. the use. of anti-terrorist powers. against >>>>>>>>>>>> people.
who are not. terrorists.
Just for clarity presumably that is your opinion rather than a >>>>>>>>>>> statement
of fact?
No, it's a statement of fact. The word "terrorism" means using >>>>>>>>>> violence
and intimidation in the support of a political aim, i.e. the >>>>>>>>>> instilling
of terror. Palestine Action didn't do that.
Again your opinion I think.
In what way? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have
intimidated
or terrorised anyone - have you?
In the way that the government specifies what is terrorism but you >>>>>>> disagree, you are entitled to your opinion but the government's
definition
is what people should work with.
Er, no. I am going with the dictionary definition. The government can >>>>>> specify definitions in law but that only matters to judges in court. >>>>>
powers given to ministers, has classified PA as a terrorist
organisation, as defined within the relevant Act. The dictionary
definition is not relevant in these circumstances. And you know that. >>>>>
You can disagree that the branding / classification/ whatever should >>>>> have been done, but arguing that they are not terrorists when they
plainly *are* (as defined in legislation) is pointless.
It has also branded as terrorists little old ladies sitting peacefully >>>> with placards, or they would not be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act. >>>
You know that. And you know that the law is not aimed at "little old
ladies". It is aimed at anyone with an itch to disobey the law in
order to stick it to the man, the citizen and the taxpayer.
But it has been aimed, in the main, at little old ladies (and gentlemen)
peacefully doing nothing more than holding placards.
Wrong.
It has been aimed at everyone.
Even you.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:07:28 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 08:07 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal advice. >>>>About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested for the >>>>> sake of a terrorist organisation.
The people doing that seem quite clear on the matter.
Then the penalty is not severe enough.
That's always the answer when a group of self-appointed "heroes" do the
cost-benefit analysis and decide it's worth taking the punishment.
If it is, the cost is set too low.
*All* criminals do a cost-benefit analysis; it's in the nature of their
trade. But it's never stopped crime however Draconian the penalties.
Actually, the opposite is more true. Most criminals are thick, they aren't capable of doing a proper cost-benefit analysis.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/10/2025 12:11, GB wrote:
So, you have no idea what the cost of the repairs will be. But you have
a vivid imagination.
That presupposes that any 'repairs' are actually necessary. A few pints
of coloured water, if that's what it was,
It wasn't coloured water, it was paint,
and it was sprayed directly into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
At the very least, therefore, the engine would need to be dismantled for cleaning. I'm not an aviation engineer, so I can't say for certain how much work that would be. But, given the very fine tolerances that jet engines operate to, I suspect it's a non-trivial task.
In context, even a trivial, non-disruptive bird strike on a jet engineJust get a blowtorch on it. Or, if you don't have one of those, a jet
(which engines are designed to withstand) will typically cost $50,000
upwards in subsequent maintenance. But the residue left by a bird strike (blood and gore, mostly) is washable, and engines are designed to be washed. Paint, however, is designed specifically not to be washable once it's dried. You can't wash paint off a fence, or a door, and you can't wash it out of
the inside of a jet engine once it's got in there either. Getting it out of the engine is a much more intrusive maintenance task.
On 15/10/2025 00:18, JNugent wrote:
On 14/10/2025 02:15 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 14/10/2025 11:58, GB wrote:
On 14/10/2025 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 23:06, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 04:37 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal >>>>>>>>>> advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested >>>>>>>> for
the sake of a terrorist organisation.
But it's not.-a It's for the protection of free speech and peaceful >>>>>>> demonstration in general.
This is the less well-known sense of the word "peaceful" which means >>>>>> violent and harmful to innocent third parties and their property.
How violent and harmful to innocent third parties were those
pensioners arrested for holding placards?
They were supporting a terrorist organisation. That organisation
certainly harmed innocent third parties, for example the employees of
the sites PA attacked.
Which is not actually answering the question I asked.-a Is why you've
swerved it because you do not have any proper answer to it?
Besides that, even if you have sympathy for PA, what about the other
two organisations proscribed under the same SI:
Maniacs Murder Cult
Russian Imperial Movement, including Russian Imperial Legion
Are you saying it's okay to support all terrorist groups? Or, we can
pick and choose which ones?
I'm saying freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 10
of the European Convention on Human Rights and enacted in the Human
Rights Act 1998 have supremacy over any domestic legislation
incompatible with it.
Should we individually decide which laws to obey?
Where a law is tyrannical or oppressive and experience shows it can't be >>> changed peacefully, the only option may be civil disobedience.
What aboout the following General Election?
How could that ever be relevant?
If you want a change in the law, making it one of many issues in a
general election is not the way to achieve your aim. And unfortunately
most of our governments take the view that if they are elected to power
the electorate has conferred on them a mandate to do whatever they feel
like doing, trusting their judgment in all things. Even to bring in repressive laws, or to cut back on funding to vital services.
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>If the aim is to impede our nation's support for the genocide in Gaza,
wrote:
On 14/10/2025 12:11, GB wrote:
So, you have no idea what the cost of the repairs will be. But you have >>>> a vivid imagination.
That presupposes that any 'repairs' are actually necessary.-a A few pints >>> of coloured water, if that's what it was,
It wasn't coloured water, it was paint, and it was sprayed directly
into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic
attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
At the very least, therefore, the engine would need to be dismantled for
cleaning. I'm not an aviation engineer, so I can't say for certain how
much
work that would be. But, given the very fine tolerances that jet engines
operate to, I suspect it's a non-trivial task.
In context, even a trivial, non-disruptive bird strike on a jet engine
(which engines are designed to withstand) will typically cost $50,000
upwards in subsequent maintenance. But the residue left by a bird strike
(blood and gore, mostly) is washable, and engines are designed to be
washed.
Paint, however, is designed specifically not to be washable once it's
dried.
You can't wash paint off a fence, or a door, and you can't wash it out of
the inside of a jet engine once it's got in there either. Getting it
out of the engine is a much more intrusive maintenance task.
then that's a job well done.
It won't have significantly impeded our ability to resist a Russian invasion. And an aircraft isn't a priceless art work like the Mona Lisa.
The logic of "because the damage was very expensive to rectify, you are therefore terrorists" is wholly irrational.
The remedy, of course, is to improve security. The remedy for the
appalling attack on Israel on 7 October is also to improve security [ ... ]
On 14/10/2025 14:02, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 10:23 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:08 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 10:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 11:23 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:55, JNugent wrote:
You are over-reading the situation.
Criminal damage is a crime. End of story. An organsisation that >>>>>>>>>>>> does it deserves sanction as an organisation.
How exactly?
As Parliament has done. It was in all the papers.
So, any organisation that does any criminal damage should be >>>>>>>>> proscribed, meaning you can't say anything in support of it?
I didn't say that. I said that Parliamant's legislation applies to >>>>>>>> them.
Meaning what exactly?
That they have to obey the law, just as all of us do?
Just a suggestion.
Otherwise, what is the point of the law (which is there, inter alia, >>>>>> to protect us fom harm committed by others)?
I wonder if you can explain just what harm I am being protected
from as regards pensioners simply and peacefully holding placards?
Prima facie, we (and that inclludes you) are being protected from
promotion of a terrorist organisation.
I asked what I asked.-a Why do you seek to put totally different words inDo I really need protection from little old ladies holding placards?
If you are asking whether females over a certain age should be treated
as beyond the age of criminal responsibility, the answer is "No".
my mouth?
So, do I need protection from little old ladies holding placards or not?
...as the law provides.>>
But you knew that. You are flying a kite and it is obvious that you
are doing so.
I really don't think so.-a And I don't think you've made any real
argument why I should.
Substitute Hamas for PA and it becomes clear.
Since I didn't mention either, there's nothing to substitute with
anything else.
Terrorist organisations are subject to the same rules.
And so are little old ladies holding placards it seems.-a They are lumped
in with them.
The question is whether they should be.There, you are arguing the same point again: that "little old ladies"
That is not the offence. They are free to do that as long as the placard
And you've now realised why, even if (as is rather unlikely) you
didn't already know.
Have you got a stout string on that kite?
it isn't up to you or me to absolve a terrorist organisation for our
own purposes.
No-one is as far as I can see.
You are seeking to absolve its members and supporters from the
consequences of their crimes if they're female and over retirement age.
I am saying it should not be a crime to sit peacefully with a placard.
Is that so unreasonable?
But why should peaceful little old ladies be criminalised under a
terrorism law and therefore be classified as terrorists?-a Does no-one
round here have any regard for their language?
How many times must your question be answered before you ask it again?
Well, once would be nice, especially if the answer is to the point.
On 15/10/2025 09:52 am, The Todal wrote:
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>If the aim is to impede our nation's support for the genocide in Gaza,
wrote:
On 14/10/2025 12:11, GB wrote:
So, you have no idea what the cost of the repairs will be. But you
have
a vivid imagination.
That presupposes that any 'repairs' are actually necessary.-a A few
pints
of coloured water, if that's what it was,
It wasn't coloured water, it was paint, and it was sprayed directly
into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a
realistic
attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
At the very least, therefore, the engine would need to be dismantled for >>> cleaning. I'm not an aviation engineer, so I can't say for certain
how much
work that would be. But, given the very fine tolerances that jet engines >>> operate to, I suspect it's a non-trivial task.
In context, even a trivial, non-disruptive bird strike on a jet engine
(which engines are designed to withstand) will typically cost $50,000
upwards in subsequent maintenance. But the residue left by a bird strike >>> (blood and gore, mostly) is washable, and engines are designed to be
washed.
Paint, however, is designed specifically not to be washable once it's
dried.
You can't wash paint off a fence, or a door, and you can't wash it
out of
the inside of a jet engine once it's got in there either. Getting it
out of the engine is a much more intrusive maintenance task.
then that's a job well done.
It won't have significantly impeded our ability to resist a Russian
invasion. And an aircraft isn't a priceless art work like the Mona Lisa.
The logic of "because the damage was very expensive to rectify, you
are therefore terrorists" is wholly irrational.
It certainly is NOT "irrational" in the slightest.
You could argue - if you had evidence to support the argument - that it
was illogical. But it would only be irrational if no action at all were taken against the perpetrators.>
The remedy, of course, is to improve security. The remedy for the
appalling attack on Israel on 7 October is also to improve security
[ ... ]
Ah... so the October massacre was all the fault of the victims?
Thanks for pointing that out.
On 15/10/2025 11:07, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2025 09:52 am, The Todal wrote:
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>If the aim is to impede our nation's support for the genocide in
wrote:
On 14/10/2025 12:11, GB wrote:
So, you have no idea what the cost of the repairs will be. But you >>>>>> have
a vivid imagination.
That presupposes that any 'repairs' are actually necessary.-a A few >>>>> pints
of coloured water, if that's what it was,
It wasn't coloured water, it was paint, and it was sprayed directly
into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a
realistic
attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
At the very least, therefore, the engine would need to be dismantled
for
cleaning. I'm not an aviation engineer, so I can't say for certain
how much
work that would be. But, given the very fine tolerances that jet
engines
operate to, I suspect it's a non-trivial task.
In context, even a trivial, non-disruptive bird strike on a jet engine >>>> (which engines are designed to withstand) will typically cost $50,000
upwards in subsequent maintenance. But the residue left by a bird
strike
(blood and gore, mostly) is washable, and engines are designed to be
washed.
Paint, however, is designed specifically not to be washable once
it's dried.
You can't wash paint off a fence, or a door, and you can't wash it
out of
the inside of a jet engine once it's got in there either. Getting it
out of the engine is a much more intrusive maintenance task.
Gaza, then that's a job well done.
It won't have significantly impeded our ability to resist a Russian
invasion. And an aircraft isn't a priceless art work like the Mona Lisa. >>>
The logic of "because the damage was very expensive to rectify, you
are therefore terrorists" is wholly irrational.
It certainly is NOT "irrational" in the slightest.
It is illogical and, in a free society, irrational. You are free to
disagree and to adopt the Trumpian philosophy that any demonstrations
that challenge government policy should be quelled by sending in the National Guard.
You could argue - if you had evidence to support the argument - that
it was illogical. But it would only be irrational if no action at all
were taken against the perpetrators.>
The remedy, of course, is to improve security. The remedy for the
appalling attack on Israel on 7 October is also to improve security
[ ... ]
Ah... so the October massacre was all the fault of the victims?
Thanks for pointing that out.
Why do you deliberately misrepresent what I say - or did you actually
have a comprehension problem?
The October massacre was the fault of the terrorists and of the IDF. The
IDF are not "victims".-a The dead and injured Israelis were the victims
of Hamas terrorists and an incompetent, negligent IDF.
Maybe - just a suggestion - you should read up on it and become better informed. You may now thank me for pointing that out.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hy2evjoqee
The IDF on Thursday released its investigation into the October 7 battle
in the southern Israeli community of Pri Gan, revealing critical delays
in the militaryrCOs response, a dysfunctional local alert squad and acts
of heroism by volunteer responders from the nearby community of Shlomit.
The report concludes bluntly: the IDF failed in its mission to defend
the town.
The probe, conducted by Brig. Gen. Itamar Ben Chaim and approved by
former Southern Command chief Maj. Gen. Yaron Finkelman, highlights
three key findings: the bravery of ShlomitrCOs local alert squad, the IDFrCOs refusal to immediately engage the attackers and Pri GanrCOs own local emergency response team being severely unprepared due to
negligence by both the army and the town itself.
https://www.trtworld.com/article/18185282
A recent report by the Israeli army has said that the first hours of the Hamas-led incursion on October 7 were a military failure of the highest level due to the lack of an effective response, poor conflict
management, and insufficient protection afforded to its own citizens.
The report, published in mid-July, is an extensive investigation into
what happened on the day of the incursion in Kibbutz Be'eri, located 5 kilometres east of Gaza.
More than nine months after Israel launched a brutal war on Gaza
following the Hamas attack, the Israeli army appears to have tacitly admitted that it failed in delivering the most basic service of a
military force - that is, tackling external threats.
The report strikingly proves that the Israeli army, one of the biggest recipients of military aid in the world, could only reach the area controlled by Hamas fighters seven hours after the incursion began.
While the report attempts to justify this failure by citing simultaneous attacks and blocked access roads, it also admits that the Israeli forces waited outside the area after their arrival without engaging with the intruders till the afternoon.
On 14/10/2025 17:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:07:28 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 13/10/2025 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 08:07 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I was thinking more of people who perhaps come here for legal >>>>>>>> advice.
About whether to commit terrorism?
Or whether to do something daft like getting themselves arrested
for the
sake of a terrorist organisation.
The people doing that seem quite clear on the matter.
Then the penalty is not severe enough.
That's always the answer when a group of self-appointed "heroes" do the >>>> cost-benefit analysis and decide it's worth taking the punishment.
If it is, the cost is set too low.
*All* criminals do a cost-benefit analysis; it's in the nature of their
trade.-a But it's never stopped crime however Draconian the penalties.
Actually, the opposite is more true. Most criminals are thick, they
aren't
capable of doing a proper cost-benefit analysis.
I think they're perfectly capable of assessing the risks of what they do.
On 13/10/2025 01:47 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
Try something else which is LAWFUL and NOT criminal?
Just a suggestion...
Which is what exactly?
ANYTHING.
As long as it is lawful (ie, not an offence) and does not cause harm
to third paries (people like myself, for instance). "Harm" would, for
example, result from blocking traffic or a traffic route.
What if the blockage was vehicle specific? e.g. Allowing ordinary size
vehicles to flow freely but preventing 40T HGVs some with double length
trailers from using a rat run through a housing estate?
Is that legal under the road Traffic Acts?
It is not. And doing it causes harm to people with a legal right to use
the route, like it or not.
The lawful way to proceed is to lobby councillors from the county level authority to take action.
Nominal 6m road. There are no yellow lines - street parking is allowed.And?
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic
attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and >minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought.
They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
On 13/10/2025 14:56, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 01:47 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
Try something else which is LAWFUL and NOT criminal?
Just a suggestion...
Which is what exactly?
ANYTHING.
As long as it is lawful (ie, not an offence) and does not cause harm
to third paries (people like myself, for instance). "Harm" would, for
example, result from blocking traffic or a traffic route.
What if the blockage was vehicle specific? e.g. Allowing ordinary size
vehicles to flow freely but preventing 40T HGVs some with double length
trailers from using a rat run through a housing estate?
Is that legal under the road Traffic Acts?
I have no idea. That is why I asked the question.
It is not [legal]. And doing it causes harm to people with a legal
right to use the route, like it or not.
Somehow such niceties don't seem to apply in North Yorkshire.
The lawful way to proceed is to lobby councillors from the county
level authority to take action.
They *are* the problem. They want this stuff routed through the rat run.
Same way that police HQ employees are responsible for most of the
nuisance parking in another residential estate. I kid you not!
Nominal 6m road. There are no yellow lines - street parking is allowed.
And?
It isn't hard to park in such a way that 40T HGVs can't get through.
Most homes have more cars than will fit on their former front gardens.
It happens by accident quite often when people fail to obey the
unofficial convention of parking on one side of the road only.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic >>> attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and
minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought.
They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic >>> attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and
minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought.
They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
On 15/10/2025 07:27 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/10/2025 14:56, JNugent wrote:
On 13/10/2025 01:47 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/10/2025 09:37, JNugent wrote:
On 12/10/2025 10:34 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/10/2025 20:52, JNugent wrote:
Try something else which is LAWFUL and NOT criminal?
Just a suggestion...
Which is what exactly?
ANYTHING.
As long as it is lawful (ie, not an offence) and does not cause harm >>>>> to third paries (people like myself, for instance). "Harm" would, for >>>>> example, result from blocking traffic or a traffic route.
What if the blockage was vehicle specific? e.g. Allowing ordinary size >>>> vehicles to flow freely but preventing 40T HGVs some with double length >>>> trailers from using a rat run through a housing estate?
Is that legal under the road Traffic Acts?
I have no idea. That is why I asked the question.
Then let me enlighten you.
Obstruction of the highway is an offence under the 1847 Town Police
Clauses Act (which itself superseded earlier similar legislation) in
England and Wales, outside the Metropolitan Police District. Other legislation applies within that district (usually referred to as
"London"). There may well be other legislation which supersedes the 1847 Act's provisions re obstruction, but you can rest assured that it did
not relax the prohibition on obstructing the highway.
It is not [legal]. And doing it causes harm to people with a legal
right to use the route, like it or not.
Somehow such niceties don't seem to apply in North Yorkshire.
Who is being obstructed in their lawful use of the highway in North Yorkshire?
The lawful way to proceed is to lobby councillors from the county
level authority to take action.
They *are* the problem. They want this stuff routed through the rat run.
They, like it or not, are the lawful authority. If they don't agree with
you, your only remedy is the next set of elections to the relevant
authority.
But if you are complaining that you (or others) have nowhere to park
your property other than on the public highwayand are somehow *entitled*
to obstruct the highway, don't expect any sympathy from me for that perspective..
Same way that police HQ employees are responsible for most of the
nuisance parking in another residential estate. I kid you not!
Nominal 6m road. There are no yellow lines - street parking is allowed.
And?
It isn't hard to park in such a way that 40T HGVs can't get through.
Most homes have more cars than will fit on their former front gardens.
You say that as though obstruction were lawful and reasonable.
It is neither of those.
Obstruction of the highway is an offence.
Is that difficult to comprehend?
It happens by accident quite often when people fail to obey the
unofficial convention of parking on one side of the road only.
That is no accident.
The vehicles don't park themselves.
On 15/10/2025 12:12 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 15/10/2025 11:07, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2025 09:52 am, The Todal wrote:
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>> wrote:If the aim is to impede our nation's support for the genocide in
On 14/10/2025 12:11, GB wrote:
So, you have no idea what the cost of the repairs will be. But
you have
a vivid imagination.
That presupposes that any 'repairs' are actually necessary.-a A few >>>>>> pints
of coloured water, if that's what it was,
It wasn't coloured water, it was paint, and it was sprayed directly >>>>> into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a
realistic
attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
At the very least, therefore, the engine would need to be
dismantled for
cleaning. I'm not an aviation engineer, so I can't say for certain
how much
work that would be. But, given the very fine tolerances that jet
engines
operate to, I suspect it's a non-trivial task.
In context, even a trivial, non-disruptive bird strike on a jet engine >>>>> (which engines are designed to withstand) will typically cost $50,000 >>>>> upwards in subsequent maintenance. But the residue left by a bird
strike
(blood and gore, mostly) is washable, and engines are designed to
be washed.
Paint, however, is designed specifically not to be washable once
it's dried.
You can't wash paint off a fence, or a door, and you can't wash it
out of
the inside of a jet engine once it's got in there either. Getting
it out of the engine is a much more intrusive maintenance task.
Gaza, then that's a job well done.
It won't have significantly impeded our ability to resist a Russian
invasion. And an aircraft isn't a priceless art work like the Mona
Lisa.
The logic of "because the damage was very expensive to rectify, you
are therefore terrorists" is wholly irrational.
It certainly is NOT "irrational" in the slightest.
It is illogical and, in a free society, irrational. You are free to
disagree and to adopt the Trumpian philosophy that any demonstrations
that challenge government policy should be quelled by sending in the
National Guard.
You could argue - if you had evidence to support the argument - that
it was illogical. But it would only be irrational if no action at all
were taken against the perpetrators.>
The remedy, of course, is to improve security. The remedy for the
appalling attack on Israel on 7 October is also to improve security
[ ... ]
Ah... so the October massacre was all the fault of the victims?
Thanks for pointing that out.
Why do you deliberately misrepresent what I say - or did you actually
have a comprehension problem?
The October massacre was the fault of the terrorists and of the IDF.
The IDF are not "victims".-a The dead and injured Israelis were the
victims of Hamas terrorists and an incompetent, negligent IDF.
Maybe - just a suggestion - you should read up on it and become better
informed. You may now thank me for pointing that out.
The victims were the Israeli people, killed, tortured, raped and/or
taken as hostage prisoners at random. Not just the ones directly
subjected to that inhuman treatment. Their relatives and friends across isreal and the world were also made victim.
Some of those killed or seized weren't even Israeli.>
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hy2evjoqee
The IDF on Thursday released its investigation into the October 7
battle in the southern Israeli community of Pri Gan, revealing
critical delays in the militaryrCOs response, a dysfunctional local
alert squad and acts of heroism by volunteer responders from the
nearby community of Shlomit. The report concludes bluntly: the IDF
failed in its mission to defend the town.
The probe, conducted by Brig. Gen. Itamar Ben Chaim and approved by
former Southern Command chief Maj. Gen. Yaron Finkelman, highlights
three key findings: the bravery of ShlomitrCOs local alert squad, the
IDFrCOs refusal to immediately engage the attackers and Pri GanrCOs own
local emergency response team being severely unprepared due to
negligence by both the army and the town itself.
https://www.trtworld.com/article/18185282
A recent report by the Israeli army has said that the first hours of
the Hamas-led incursion on October 7 were a military failure of the
highest level due to the lack of an effective response, poor conflict
management, and insufficient protection afforded to its own citizens.
The report, published in mid-July, is an extensive investigation into
what happened on the day of the incursion in Kibbutz Be'eri, located 5
kilometres east of Gaza.
More than nine months after Israel launched a brutal war on Gaza
following the Hamas attack, the Israeli army appears to have tacitly
admitted that it failed in delivering the most basic service of a
military force - that is, tackling external threats.
The report strikingly proves that the Israeli army, one of the biggest
recipients of military aid in the world, could only reach the area
controlled by Hamas fighters seven hours after the incursion began.
While the report attempts to justify this failure by citing
simultaneous attacks and blocked access roads, it also admits that the
Israeli forces waited outside the area after their arrival without
engaging with the intruders till the afternoon.
Are you really saying that Hamas somehow deserves less opprobrium
because the Israeli armed forces weren't stationed on guard all around
the border of Gaza?
On 15/10/2025 22:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic >>>> attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and >>> minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought. >>> They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can
only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
I can believe it will require a strip down and clean just to be sure,
but unless the paint was extremely chemically active I doubt if it
really caused serious damage to the outer compressor blades. It might
look unsightly and remind them of how slack their security was though.
Base security must be pretty bad if a bunch of amateurs could get in and
do such damage. Imagine what a trained sabotage group with C4 could do.
Jet engines are designed to tolerate a chicken sized bird strike at full power (although testers are reminded to fully defrost the birds first!).
On 16 Oct 2025 at 01:23:18 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2025 07:27 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
It happens by accident quite often when people fail to obey the
unofficial convention of parking on one side of the road only.
That is no accident.
The vehicles don't park themselves.
But if the attending police officer (if any) happens to feel that the HGV driver having to retrace their route back to the main road they came from is an excellent outcome it may happen that the offending parker is not penalised.
On 15/10/2025 22:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic >>>> attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and >>> minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought. >>> They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can
only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
But you said you are not an aviation engineer so presumably your >comprehension is somewhat limited too. We are left therefore with just >rational thought and argument, such as I've given but you haven't.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/10/2025 22:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic >>>>> attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and >>>> minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought. >>>> They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can >>> only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
I can believe it will require a strip down and clean just to be sure,
but unless the paint was extremely chemically active I doubt if it
really caused serious damage to the outer compressor blades. It might
look unsightly and remind them of how slack their security was though.
Paint is intended to stick and not wash away easily. The sort that can be sprayed will penetrate small openings and will have a solvent that
evaporates quickly leaving behind a coating that fills small holes and is difficult to remove.
Base security must be pretty bad if a bunch of amateurs could get in and
do such damage. Imagine what a trained sabotage group with C4 could do.
Privatised.
Jet engines are designed to tolerate a chicken sized bird strike at full
power (although testers are reminded to fully defrost the birds first!).
Tolerate in the sense of not exploding or falling off but it does disable
the engine. Bird strike on both engines led to an airliner having to land
in the Hudson River.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:48:43 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/10/2025 22:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic >>>>> attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and >>>> minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought. >>>> They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can >>> only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
But you said you are not an aviation engineer so presumably your
comprehension is somewhat limited too. We are left therefore with just
rational thought and argument, such as I've given but you haven't.
That's why I defer to those who are trained and skilled in these areas, rather than fantasising that I can somehow recreate their knowledge with my own thought and argument.
If the aim is to impede our nation's support for the genocide in Gaza,
then that's a job well done.
How come the vast majority of arrests that have been made have been in
the demographic I described then?-a They have been deliberately targeted, presumably because they're easy prey.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:48:43 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/10/2025 22:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the
engine. That's not something that aircraft engines are designed to
withstand, given that it can never occur naturally and is not a realistic >>>>> attack vector when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and >>>> minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought. >>>> They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can >>> only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
But you said you are not an aviation engineer so presumably your
comprehension is somewhat limited too. We are left therefore with just
rational thought and argument, such as I've given but you haven't.
That's why I defer to those who are trained and skilled in these areas, rather than fantasising that I can somehow recreate their knowledge with my own thought and argument.
On 10/16/25 13:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:48:43 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 15/10/2025 22:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the engine. That's not something
that aircraft engines are designed to withstand, given that it
can never occur naturally and is not a realistic attack vector
when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and >>>>> minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought. >>>>> They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can >>>> only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
But you said you are not an aviation engineer so presumably your
comprehension is somewhat limited too. We are left therefore with just
rational thought and argument, such as I've given but you haven't.
That's why I defer to those who are trained and skilled in these areas,
rather than fantasising that I can somehow recreate their knowledge with my >> own thought and argument.
Who are the trained and skilled people you are deferring too?
I hope you will forgive the scepticism, but the police and establishment
do have a lot of form for ridiculous exaggeration of costs. So do these figures actually come from anyone with a technical background and reputation.
On 2025-10-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 10/16/25 13:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:48:43 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 15/10/2025 22:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the engine. That's not something >>>>>>> that aircraft engines are designed to withstand, given that it
can never occur naturally and is not a realistic attack vector
when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and >>>>>> minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought. >>>>>> They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can >>>>> only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
But you said you are not an aviation engineer so presumably your
comprehension is somewhat limited too. We are left therefore with just >>>> rational thought and argument, such as I've given but you haven't.
That's why I defer to those who are trained and skilled in these areas,
rather than fantasising that I can somehow recreate their knowledge with my >>> own thought and argument.
Who are the trained and skilled people you are deferring too?
I hope you will forgive the scepticism, but the police and establishment
do have a lot of form for ridiculous exaggeration of costs. So do these
figures actually come from anyone with a technical background and
reputation.
I think the main point is that based on the publically-available
information and the general knowledge represented in this group,
we simply don't have any basis to judge. Maybe the engines are
toast and will have to be entirely rebuilt from scratch. Maybe
they're completely undamaged and simply firing them up will burn
the paint out of them. Any degree of confidence expressed by
anyone in either direction is misplaced.
On 2025-10-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 10/16/25 13:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:48:43 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 15/10/2025 22:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the engine. That's not something >>>>>>> that aircraft engines are designed to withstand, given that it
can never occur naturally and is not a realistic attack vector
when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and >>>>>> minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought. >>>>>> They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can >>>>> only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
But you said you are not an aviation engineer so presumably your
comprehension is somewhat limited too. We are left therefore with just >>>> rational thought and argument, such as I've given but you haven't.
That's why I defer to those who are trained and skilled in these areas,
rather than fantasising that I can somehow recreate their knowledge with my >>> own thought and argument.
Who are the trained and skilled people you are deferring too?
I hope you will forgive the scepticism, but the police and establishment
do have a lot of form for ridiculous exaggeration of costs. So do these
figures actually come from anyone with a technical background and
reputation.
I think the main point is that based on the publically-available
information and the general knowledge represented in this group,
we simply don't have any basis to judge. Maybe the engines are
toast and will have to be entirely rebuilt from scratch. Maybe
they're completely undamaged and simply firing them up will burn
the paint out of them. Any degree of confidence expressed by
anyone in either direction is misplaced.
On 15/10/2025 09:47, Norman Wells wrote:
How come the vast majority of arrests that have been made have been in
the demographic I described then?-a They have been deliberately
targeted, presumably because they're easy prey.
The reason it's lots of little old ladies being arrested is that their brains are addled, and they can't tell the difference between supporting Gazans and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation.
I am saying it should not be a crime to sit peacefully with a placard.
Is that so unreasonable?
On 16/10/2025 17:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 10/16/25 13:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:48:43 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 15/10/2025 22:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:06:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/10/2025 17:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
and it was sprayed directly into the engine. That's not something >>>>>>>> that aircraft engines are designed to withstand, given that it >>>>>>>> can never occur naturally and is not a realistic attack vector >>>>>>>> when in flight over hostile territory.
They must be built to withstand quite a lot actually, including rain and
minor debris, most of which they just vaporise without a second thought.
They're mighty brutish engines not delicate Swiss watches.
Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it can
only work in ways that are within your limited comprehension.
But you said you are not an aviation engineer so presumably your
comprehension is somewhat limited too. We are left therefore with just >>>>> rational thought and argument, such as I've given but you haven't.
That's why I defer to those who are trained and skilled in these areas, >>>> rather than fantasising that I can somehow recreate their knowledge with my
own thought and argument.
Who are the trained and skilled people you are deferring too?
I hope you will forgive the scepticism, but the police and establishment >>> do have a lot of form for ridiculous exaggeration of costs. So do these
figures actually come from anyone with a technical background and
reputation.
I think the main point is that based on the publically-available
information and the general knowledge represented in this group,
we simply don't have any basis to judge. Maybe the engines are
toast and will have to be entirely rebuilt from scratch. Maybe
they're completely undamaged and simply firing them up will burn
the paint out of them. Any degree of confidence expressed by
anyone in either direction is misplaced.
The compressor turbine at the front doesn't get hot, so there's no way
the paint can be burnt off from there. Plus, everything is finely
balanced, and it would be incredibly risky to start the engine up to
full power with an unknown amount of paint sticking to the insides, so
I'm sure they won't do that.
I'm sure they'll dismantle the engines and then work out what needs replacing and what just needs cleaning. AI suggests that the cost of
taking a large jet engine to bits and refurbishing it is $0.5-3m. I
think there were 4 engines damaged?
On 15/10/2025 09:47, Norman Wells wrote:
How come the vast majority of arrests that have been made have been in
the demographic I described then? They have been deliberately targeted,
presumably because they're easy prey.
The reason it's lots of little old ladies being arrested is that their
brains are addled, and they can't tell the difference between supporting Gazans and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Hopefully, they'll be sentenced to Community Service, which they can--
satisfy by working in a charity shop.
On 15/10/2025 09:52, The Todal wrote:
If the aim is to impede our nation's support for the genocide in Gaza,
then that's a job well done.
Is it legal to say that? You appear to be expressing support for a
proscribed terrorist organisation.
If it's illegal, should you hand yourself in and attempt to explain what
you have done to a no-doubt highly perplexed PC at the enquiries desk?
Closer to home, there's Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000:
"Information about acts of terrorism
(1)This section applies where a person has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistancerCo
...
(b)in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another
person, in the United Kingdom, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
(2)The person commits an offence if he does not disclose the information
as soon as reasonably practicable ..."
Whilst supporting a proscribed organisation is an offence under the
Terrorism Act, I don't think it is "an act of terrorism", so S38B
doesn't apply here?