This is terrorism? - REALLY?

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...

Don't worry, you're still free to make things up and not bother reading either what people have written or what the law actually is. You don't have to think for yourself or care what the truth is. You can just comfortably believe whatever you're told by whoever you decide is the authority.

Short version for you: A law regarding airports was correctly applied to actions at an airport. No mention of terrorism. Someone made that up and you believed it without checking.
 
Well, everyone said before when the new terrorism laws was brought into law that they would be abused and while I don't feel these protesters have broken any laws under that, it's what it is today. The government will use any law available to try you.

As Angilion said, seems people are twisting this story.
 
Let's hope we remain a member of the EU, more government and more laws to be abused by people we can't vote out is a great idea.
 
asim18 said:
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???
Click to expand...

OP if Asim is using common sense and reason and making you look daft then you really need to step back and take stock of your life.
 
Angilion said:
Don't worry, you're still free to make things up and not bother reading either what people have written or what the law actually is. You don't have to think for yourself or care what the truth is. You can just comfortably believe whatever you're told by whoever you decide is the authority.

Short version for you: A law regarding airports was correctly applied to actions at an airport. No mention of terrorism. Someone made that up and you believed it without checking.
Click to expand...

Are you feeling ok?

Literally the first paragraph of the link says;

Two of the activists convicted of terrorism offences for blocking the takeoff of an immigration removal charter flight at Stansted airport have spoken of their shock at the verdicts, describing the outcome as an “unprecedented crackdown on the right to protest”.
Click to expand...

I think you need to start reading the links before commenting.
 
Risking the lives of those on a plane to further political aims sure sounds like terrorism by definition to me.
 
Dis86 said:
Risking the lives of those on a plane to further political aims sure sounds like terrorism by definition to me.
Click to expand...

So based on that logic, I'm guessing you think the guy who killed Jo Cox was also a terrorist too right?

Not saying you're wrong btw.
 
Personally, I don't think there was much terror involved here to be completely fair. Stopping a plane from taking off/disrupting runway isn't really terrorising anyone is it?
 
BowdonUK said:
Are you feeling ok?

Literally the first paragraph of the link says;



I think you need to start reading the links before commenting.
Click to expand...

I think you need to start reading relevant information before commenting. The trial itself said nothing about terrorism. Saying that it's about terrorism makes as much sense as saying that tax evasion laws are about organised crime - those laws are sometimes used in organised crime cases but that doesn't mean that everyone convicted of tax evasion is convicted of an organised crime offence. Some "news" sources would portray it that way if they thought it would get them more clicks/sales/influence, but that doesn't make it true.
 
Angilion said:
Someone made that up and you believed it without checking.
Click to expand...

That would make it two threads of his on the go at the same time based on outrage not facts.

There's this one and then the other about EA who kicked a guy off their game server for streaming a test build and thereby breaking NDA. It was being sold as EA abusing their rights and somehow a claim of deleting vast amounts of that players games were made despite zero actual proof...
 
asim18 said:
So based on that logic, I'm guessing you think the guy who killed Jo Cox was also a terrorist too right?

Not saying you're wrong btw.
Click to expand...

It's a curious one. I'm trying to remember but forgive me with it being a while ago. I believe he shouted some political slogans as he did so but can't recall if these were corroborated. Assuming they were then it fits the dictionary definition. However the man in question was not a risk to the general public like these morons. He wouldn't have hurt you or I. To me a terrorist is someone who is a threat to the innocent public.
 
It's about time the law started supporting the many trying to go around their normal daily lives rather than the few who think their opinions are so important they can force them on others through disruption.
 
lurkio said:
should it be under terrorism laws = nope
Click to expand...

Good job it wasn't under terrorism laws then!!!

As stated many many times in the thread, they were not charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 but under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act.
 
Angilion said:
I think you need to start reading relevant information before commenting. The trial itself said nothing about terrorism. Saying that it's about terrorism makes as much sense as saying that tax evasion laws are about organised crime - those laws are sometimes used in organised crime cases but that doesn't mean that everyone convicted of tax evasion is convicted of an organised crime offence. Some "news" sources would portray it that way if they thought it would get them more clicks/sales/influence, but that doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

I wasn't commenting about the OP's story in my post. So I'm not sure what you are going on about.

I think you have me confused with someone else.
 
stockhausen said:
I'm guessing that as ever, you don't actually have any opinion at all - why do you bother to (not) comment?
Click to expand...

But rich coming from you given you've basically posted a news story and ran... you could at least attempt to justify some of the dubious statements you've made when questions?

dowie said:
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?
Click to expand...

You've made some claims and yet you have no answer... you just want to throw labels around it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom