This is terrorism? - REALLY?

If the government or police want to make an example of you then you can be sure they have a 500 page manual on how to twist vague laws aimed at other things in order to prosecute you. This is why 'hate crime' laws are so dangerous to free speech they're being used against political arguments.

I'm all for them to be punished for trespassing, endangering lives, preventing a law enforcement official from doing their job or whatever but calling it terrorism is clearly an abuse of the law. Do police and prosecutors not know what context and motive is anymore?
 
snips86x said:
Great contribution! They're doing something they believe in, just because you think otherwise, doesn't mean its wrong.
Click to expand...

I believe in being allowed to bang any woman I please.
Oh wait...they might not believe in me being allowed to do that.
 
ITT: People who hate authority abusing privacy over terrorist act, immediately capitulate when a "lefty librul" is the target of it.

Amazing, and racist
 
mmj_uk said:
If the government or police want to make an example of you then you can be sure they have a 500 page manual on how to twist vague laws aimed at other things in order to prosecute you. This is why 'hate crime' laws are so dangerous to free speech they're being used against political arguments.

I'm all for them to be punished for trespassing, endangering lives, preventing a law enforcement official from doing their job or whatever but calling it terrorism is clearly an abuse of the law. Do police and prosecutors not know what context and motive is anymore?
Click to expand...

The police haven't called it terrorism. The media has.

The law is terrorism related because it was introduced after the Lockerbie bombing.
 
mmj_uk said:
If the government or police want to make an example of you then you can be sure they have a 500 page manual on how to twist vague laws aimed at other things in order to prosecute you. This is why 'hate crime' laws are so dangerous to free speech they're being used against political arguments.
Click to expand...

Except in this case the correct legislation has been used appropriately given the offences committed.

mmj_uk said:
I'm all for them to be punished for trespassing, endangering lives, preventing a law enforcement official from doing their job or whatever but calling it terrorism is clearly an abuse of the law. Do police and prosecutors not know what context and motive is anymore?
Click to expand...

Rather than using the aviation-specific Act, what would you prefer they be charged with instead? You're suggesting police and CPS have recorded this incorrectly, so feel free to put them right.
 
Don't bother @TheVoice, attempting to give actual facts doesn't matter to those who can only see their own "opinion" and then confuse that "opinion" with "fact".
 
I wonder how many of the people who applaud this draconian enforcement of an inappropriate law also just happen to be in favour of not paying for a TV licence?
 
stockhausen said:
Preventing the departure of a deportation aircraft may be described as many things - terrorism isn't one of them.

Breaches of Health and Safety now amount to terrorism?
Click to expand...

Calm down stockhausen. ..

The 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security act isn't 'terrorist' legislation any more than the Firearms acts are...

Its legislation that may be applicable to criminal activity undertaken by terrorists but isn't in any fashion exclusive to such activity.


I normally hear this stupid 'terrorist legislation' angle when it comes to the Regulation of Investigatory Power act 2000/2016 (often called the 'snoopers charter' by the press) which covers all surveillance and use of covert human intelligence sources ('snitches' /informants etc) so again can be applicable to terrorists but isn't exclusive to them.


An actual outrageous and egregious example of abuse of terrorist legislation was the use of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain And question Lauren Southern earlier this year....

You see the clues in the name.... Terrorism Act 2000

Personally I applaud taking a very firm line with people engaging on such 'direct action' regadless of their political persuasion.

Such protestors are acting against against the democratic will of the majority of the population and the laws of the land which have due process for people making immigration /asylum claims.
 
Last edited:
Deluxe1 said:
Doesn't mean they can break the law.
Click to expand...

Not related to case specifically but the law isn't always right, and sometimes it needs people who believe in X or y to 'break' it before it can be changed. The law isn't something holy or absolute...
 
stockhausen said:
I wonder how many of the people who applaud this draconian enforcement of an inappropriate law also just happen to be in favour of not paying for a TV licence?
Click to expand...

Eh? I don't see the connection there at all tbh...

Can you explain why it is draconian? And what law you believe should have been used to charge them instead?
 
Don't worry, most people on the thread immediately attack the protesters rather than comment on the excessive use of the terrorism laws... the usual.
 
BowdonUK said:
Don't worry, most people on the thread immediately attack the protesters rather than comment on the excessive use of the terrorism laws... the usual.
Click to expand...

They were airside. That's serious business. If this happened in an Asda car park I'd object but when these idiots start trespassing on international ground then by all means nail them with everything we've got. Zero sympathy, throw away the key as far as I'm concerned.
 
Poor reporting.

In reality they were charged appropriately for a crime they committed and they were found guilty. Hopefully they’ll get a custodial sentence and a reality check.

They cut down an airfield fence and messed around with the planes. Suprised they weren’t shot whilst attempting it to be honest.
 
This reminds me of the LCY charade a few years ago. Anyone else remember when they had an all day party on the runway lol when they were trying to promote the idea that pollution is racist to black people, trying to rile people up etc.

Did anything happened to those protesters. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37283869

For that charade they had live news helicopters too. I don't recall any media propagation support for this protest.
 
stockhausen said:
I wonder how many of the people who applaud this draconian enforcement of an inappropriate law also just happen to be in favour of not paying for a TV licence?
Click to expand...

It says they were:

"guilty of intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome. They were found guilty under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act"


How is a law against intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome" an inappropriate law???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom