Yes. Because Palestine Action have been involved in very serious criminality, and they’re now a prescribed group.O.k. the sign under the wording Slaughtering of Palestinians also has. Yourse sincerely Palestine Action.
Now should that woman be a priority to be arrested by several coppers over a Robbery nearby.
Simple Yes or No?
Me?Has anyone argued that the people who damaged the plane shouldn't be arrested or go to prison?
Me?
Throwing paint on a plane is criminal damage at best, which people get let off for. The escalate it to internal terrorism because they're embarrassed a few moronic protesters showed up their entire security system as a complete joke is punitive bollocks.
I think they're head in the clouds idiots who did something dumb and hurt their own cause, but I don't tend to believe they're as bad as Islamic fascists as a general rule.So you don't think their as bad as ISIS supporters then?
So it's better to damage military aircraft for no reason than for having a reason?By definition there's an argument that they're terrorists yes. What is the point of their proscription and how would future court cases hold up if by definition they actually weren't terrorists?
You have to ask are they doing it for themselves or a political cause? If it's the latter then it can stray into terrorism yes, if it involves damaging military aircraft for a political cause then it becomes even more problematic yes.
Someone else who doesn't know PACE. Your basic coppering is try and avoid arresting people because you're off the streets doing paperwork.Arresting the protesters supporting a proscribed group.
Although there’s no real reason why they couldn’t do both. Only takes five minutes to throw a few middle class, middle aged attention seekers into the back of a police van.
Nothing to do with that. It’s about wanting those that disagree with their views punished.Someone else who doesn't know PACE. Your basic coppering is try and avoid arresting people because you're off the streets doing paperwork.
But you're serious aren't you? You'd rather waste police and court time on peaceful protesters.
Yeah, but they'll be ignored.The terrorism act and its use is a question for the Labour government, a government which I'm sure many on here voted for. Terror laws allow for further powers than simply sentencing for criminal damage.
Either way I don't think there is any beneficial headroom to allowing people to support a proven criminal organisation so I don't really see the problem. Other groups are not attempting to disrupt military operations which is perhaps the main reason for proscription.
The argument that the government is clamping down on protests is also just obviously false. Mass Palestine protests have taken place every weekend for nearly 2 years. If somebody wants to protest today about the issues facing Palestinians then they still can.
This 803year old woman has been arrested nearly 30 times in the past few years for protesting about something. She thinks her protesting is a calling from the good Lord above and he is effectively giving her the ok to do what she does. She was one of the few who brought the M25 to a complete standstill recently and has also tried to vandalise the Magna Carta. She is a professional protester and obviously doesn't give a shit. She has been involved with Climate Action, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain, Just Stop Oil and now Palestine Action. Maybe she is the UK's Greta!
Looks like I’ll have to repeat myself, because it doesn’t appear to have sunk in the first time.Someone else who doesn't know PACE. Your basic coppering is try and avoid arresting people because you're off the streets doing paperwork.
But you're serious aren't you? You'd rather waste police and court time on peaceful protesters.
Missing the point, deliberately I assume.Looks like I’ll have to repeat myself, because it doesn’t appear to have sunk in the first time.
Yes I would have arrested the people who were expressing support for a proscribed group on Saturday, because the group in question has been involved in very serious criminality, and that’s what the law states should happen. And I actually believe the law should apply equally to all.
If the people arrested had wanted to engage in peaceful protest then they would not have been arrested, and nobody here is suggesting that they should be arrested for that. So it’s not to do with silencing people for having an opposing view or any such bollocks.
The facts are very simple. The people involved knew what they were doing and they wanted to be arrested.
They wanted to make it all about them because that’s what they’re like; middle aged, middle class idiots who love the attention. When they end up in court you’ll see all the prior offences they’ve committed and maybe then the penny will drop.
Is this not similar to the excess of putting people in prison for getting a bit angry on social media?Missing the point, deliberately I assume.
Can you imagine the briefing?
"They may be saying nothing. They may be old, pregnant, or disabled. But if they have a placard saying 'I support Palestine Action' they are committing an offence under the Terrorism Act. I know, you know, they are doing anything that yesterday was illegal, but it is illegal today. You may think it's daft. You may think it's a waste of police time, and you'd rather either be catching villains, or be taking your rest day. But I don't want the Daily Fascist saying we're stood there allowing terrorist offences to be committed."
Just checking, when you say "If the people arrested had wanted to engage in peaceful protest then they would not have been arrested" are you saying that standing quietly with a placard is not peaceful?
By your logic should the public be allowed to bomb the Russian embassy because of what's happening in Ukraine? Why not?
It's not self-defence. Using the Starmer argument, it could be said it was done to prevent a greater crime.The argument on self-defence does not apply to your example because you would not be acting to stop the terrorist. If PA decided to travel to an Israeli airbase to sabotage IAF F-15's then that's perhaps a good point.
You cannot prove that a single aircraft has been involved in what Israel is doing because the reality is they aren't involved. Those aircraft are tankers that physically cannot refuel Israeli aircraft so it's a stupid suggestion. One of those damaged was leased to fly for bloody Jet2 only a few months prior.
I wouldn't use the word terrorist as that is now meaningless except in the Humpty Dumpty sense that "a word means whatever I want it to mean. The defence is that the UK government is complicit in war crimes. (The only other explanation is what I heard an RAF man say, that we're just helping them find hostages.)You therefore can't just conflate the UK government as the same as the Israeli government because they quite clearly aren't the same thing. Or are you saying the UK government is a terrorist supporting government? Who did you vote for again?
Our inability to have public discourse without everything degenerating into hyperbole is troubling.
This 83 year old woman has been arrested nearly 30 times in the past few years for protesting about something. She thinks her protesting is a calling from the good Lord above and he is effectively giving her the ok to do what she does. She was one of the few who brought the M25 to a complete standstill recently and has also tried to vandalise the Magna Carta. She is a professional protester and obviously doesn't give a shit. She has been involved with Climate Action, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain, Just Stop Oil and now Palestine Action. Maybe she is the UK's Greta!
How so? You cannot do something that 'could be said' to do something because it either does or doesn't.It's not self-defence. Using the Starmer argument, it could be said it was done to prevent a greater crime.