No one talking about the "attack" on the RAF refueling aircraft?

[Nasher]

It could be sabotage then, which probably comes with just as large a sentence.

It can be considered an act of war too, so maybe we should just let Israel carry on.

 

[Begbie]

no?
"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims"

Classically Terrorism is violence against the civilian population.

yes.

1.1 What is the definition of terrorism?​

Terrorism is defined in legislation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 1 of the act states that terrorism means the use or threat of one or more of the following actions:

• serious violence against a person
• serious damage to property
• endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action)
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
• action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system<a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/terrorism-in-the-uk-legislation-and-government-strategy/#fn-1">[1]</a>

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Throw away the key.

 

[VeNT]

yes.

1.1 What is the definition of terrorism?​

Terrorism is defined in legislation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 1 of the act states that terrorism means the use or threat of one or more of the following actions:

• serious violence against a person
• serious damage to property
• endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action)
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
• action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system<a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/terrorism-in-the-uk-legislation-and-government-strategy/#fn-1">[1]</a>

you could suggest that the gov would craft legislation to give them the broadest purview for categorizing things they don't want as terrorism?

 

[Begbie]

you could suggest that the gov would craft legislation to give them the broadest purview for categorizing things they don't want as terrorism?

You could do that with every law possible. I, and the government view it as terriosm. Whether you precieve it as or not, is up to yourself. But legislation says it is.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Palestine Action's bid for judicial review granted after MPs banned group

Palestine Action's co-founder Huda Ammori made a bid to challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, a move which was overwhelmingly backed by MPs.

news.sky.com

More money wasted. Why are we so keen on this country to give them everything they want?

 

[Mr Jack]

More money wasted. Why are we so keen on this country to give them everything they want?

Who is "them"?

Is it really hard to understand why we would want a country run according to laws rather than the arbitrary whims of the Home Secretary?

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Having looked at the law, I can’t see that the PA prescribing falls outside the scope of the law. Whether you agree with it or not is a completely different matter and largely irrelevant at this point.

However, that’s not to say they don’t have the right to appeal.

 

[Mr Jack]

Having looked at the law, I can’t see that the PA prescribing falls outside the scope of the law. Whether you agree with it or not is a completely different matter and largely irrelevant at this point.

The judge seems to be allowing it on two grounds: one about process and one about a conflict between the ruling and other laws. There doesn't seem to be any acceptance of a claim that it falls outside the scope of the law itself -- I'm not sure that was even considered though?

However, that’s not to say they don’t have the right to appeal.

Quite, it's right for the courts to consider it if there are good grounds to do so even if they eventually decide that it was legitimately proscribed.