16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in next general election
16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in a general election for the first time, under new plans unveiled today.
The government is proposing to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 in time for the next general election.
The move was a key pledge in Labour's manifesto, and will see 16 and 17-year-olds able to vote in all UK elections.
Currently, 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in devolved elections in England and Wales.
The government says this would be the "biggest change to UK democracy in a generation".
The last time the voting age was lowered (from 21 to 18) was in 1969.
Angela Rayner said: "We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our Plan for Change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give sixteen-year-olds the right to vote. "
They want to give a nice starter bonus to the Dried Fruit party?
They'll be a fantastic tantrum when Labour come third to Corbyn and Reform.
Fourth very possible in this age group as Greens have pretty tasty support with them too
16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in next general election
16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in a general election for the first time, under new plans unveiled today.
The government is proposing to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 in time for the next general election.
The move was a key pledge in Labour's manifesto, and will see 16 and 17-year-olds able to vote in all UK elections.
Currently, 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in devolved elections in England and Wales.
The government says this would be the "biggest change to UK democracy in a generation".
The last time the voting age was lowered (from 21 to 18) was in 1969.
Angela Rayner said: "We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our Plan for Change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give sixteen-year-olds the right to vote. "
They want to give a nice starter bonus to the Dried Fruit party?
They'll be a fantastic tantrum when Labour come third to Corbyn and Reform.
Fourth very possible in this age group as Greens have pretty tasty support with them too
Starmer promised he'd protect the jobs of people at JLR to their faces 2 months ago didnt he? Steel industry probably ought to start looking at future options
Starmer can’t really stop a firm from making a tiny part of their employees (1.5%) redundant.
Heck unless the Government takes control of the firm it can’t actually do much at all - so the promise was that Starmer would do what he could to ensure JLR can sell in the USA
Bit silly of him to put out social media messages saying he’d kept his promise to them that their jobs were safe then. Pride comes before a fall
Fake news, Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.
My apologies for being the lame brain that I am but I don't see an answer to the Why of the title in the thread header.
It's related to the previous thread.
If Nigel Farage and Reform are going to win the next election then they need to not look like a party made up of failed Tory politicians like Sir Jake Berry, Suella Braverman, Liz Truss, and so on and so forth.
There is no one factor which will win or lose the next election for Reform. The idea that it is fatal to have members who said one thing at time X and another at time Y is not really a runner. Though famous disasters like Truss may be problematic. No-one has heard of Jake Berry, and most other people.
The key questions for Reform in GE 2029 are deeper. Do they go in hard on truth telling and realism - something whose time may have come; do they go hard on the fact that Clacton voters are all for a nationalist state which spends bigly on the post 1945 social democrat deal; or do they go for protest and unicorns and contradictions?
Will they tell us approximately what % of GDP will be devoted to state expenditure in the fifth year of their government?
Or will they be 'the same as all the others'.
Why do you ask questions to which you know the answer? They will go for protest and unicorns and contradictions. Farage idolises Trump.
It got Starmer to Downing Street.
'My lies are better than your lies' isn't a winning argument, any more than trying to delude people into thinking a direct tax on wages is not a direct tax on wages.
Starmer's Ming Vase was full of unicorns and contradictions. He wasn't going to raise taxes (then immediately did), or cut benefits (then immediately did) etc etc etc
16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in next general election
16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in a general election for the first time, under new plans unveiled today.
The government is proposing to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 in time for the next general election.
The move was a key pledge in Labour's manifesto, and will see 16 and 17-year-olds able to vote in all UK elections.
Currently, 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in devolved elections in England and Wales.
The government says this would be the "biggest change to UK democracy in a generation".
The last time the voting age was lowered (from 21 to 18) was in 1969.
Angela Rayner said: "We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our Plan for Change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give sixteen-year-olds the right to vote. "
They want to give a nice starter bonus to the Dried Fruit party?
They'll be a fantastic tantrum when Labour come third to Corbyn and Reform.
Fourth very possible in this age group as Greens have pretty tasty support with them too
On topic. I think there should be a parliamentary enquiry into the use of and requirement for super-injunctions. On the face of it, they are generally not in the public interest.
I still cannot process the fact that government were the ones behind the super-injunction.
What’s the point of D Notices?
There probably isn't a point any more. As I understand it they were voluntary, but in the days of the traditional press it was easy to get everyone to sign up, after all newspaper editors used to get knighthoods and proprietors peerages so that kept them in line. In the days of everyone and his dog being able to post on the internet, a legal sanction is probably required
Starmer promised he'd protect the jobs of people at JLR to their faces 2 months ago didnt he? Steel industry probably ought to start looking at future options
Starmer can’t really stop a firm from making a tiny part of their employees (1.5%) redundant.
Heck unless the Government takes control of the firm it can’t actually do much at all - so the promise was that Starmer would do what he could to ensure JLR can sell in the USA
Bit silly of him to put out social media messages saying he’d kept his promise to them that their jobs were safe then. Pride comes before a fall
Fake news, Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.
Melville is of course an arch down the rabbit hole of conspiracy merchant, but he has a point. What Labour social media fuckwit thought this was a good idea?
16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in next general election
16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in a general election for the first time, under new plans unveiled today.
The government is proposing to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 in time for the next general election.
The move was a key pledge in Labour's manifesto, and will see 16 and 17-year-olds able to vote in all UK elections.
Currently, 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in devolved elections in England and Wales.
The government says this would be the "biggest change to UK democracy in a generation".
The last time the voting age was lowered (from 21 to 18) was in 1969.
Angela Rayner said: "We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our Plan for Change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give sixteen-year-olds the right to vote. "
Merlin Strategy have just released a poll of 16 and 17 y.o.
Labour 33 Reform 20 Green 18 LD 12 Con 10
Details on ITV's news website
Yeh but that was before Magic Grandpa and poor man's AOC launched their vehicle.
The barcodes have pulled out of the race to sign Hugo Ekitike.
They are going to feel even sicker when Liverpool sign Isak too.
Do you think we could/would sign both of them?
We need a striker but I'd expect it to be one or the other, not both. Even if we have plenty of budget to sign both, signing too many players in the same window can upset the balance of the team.
Yes, Nunez is in the process of being sold, ditto Chiesa, coupled with the heartbreaking loss of Jota, Liverpool are going to be light up front, particularly in December/January time with Salah away at the Africa Cup of Nations.
Makes sense.
Its an area we've done well in, and been heavy in for years, but a lot of turnover lately.
Its remarkable how little Liverpool have spent in recent years, so the Budget is there to be able to get people in, I just hope they're the right people and gel and we don't do a Manchester United and go for names just because we can then have egos that don't play for the club and don't work together.
16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in next general election
16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in a general election for the first time, under new plans unveiled today.
The government is proposing to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 in time for the next general election.
The move was a key pledge in Labour's manifesto, and will see 16 and 17-year-olds able to vote in all UK elections.
Currently, 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in devolved elections in England and Wales.
The government says this would be the "biggest change to UK democracy in a generation".
The last time the voting age was lowered (from 21 to 18) was in 1969.
Angela Rayner said: "We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our Plan for Change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give sixteen-year-olds the right to vote. "
Merlin Strategy have just released a poll of 16 and 17 y.o.
Labour 33 Reform 20 Green 18 LD 12 Con 10
Details on ITV's news website
Yeh but that was before Magic Grandpa and poor man's AOC launched their vehicle.
And of course reliant on finding enough respondents to stop their hopscotch and kiss chase long enough to form a full poll
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Starmer promised he'd protect the jobs of people at JLR to their faces 2 months ago didnt he? Steel industry probably ought to start looking at future options
Starmer can’t really stop a firm from making a tiny part of their employees (1.5%) redundant.
Heck unless the Government takes control of the firm it can’t actually do much at all - so the promise was that Starmer would do what he could to ensure JLR can sell in the USA
Bit silly of him to put out social media messages saying he’d kept his promise to them that their jobs were safe then. Pride comes before a fall
Fake news, Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.
It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.
But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.
One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.
Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here. I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them
It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want
They don’t sound plausible
How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method
Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get
What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional
This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you
Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?
This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look
It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.
Yes, it's like that MP who couldn't see why taxes would have to rise to cover 'a few billion pounds' - most people, most MPs included, have no instinctive grasp of how big a billion is. The human brain thinks in a log scale*, and perceives 'billion' as twice a million rather than a thousand times a million.
*this is true. Psychological experiments on those who have never studied maths show that they perceive nine as roughly double three, and sixteen as roughly double four. Can't remember more details than that though.
That's a square root scale, not a log scale big difference
The last significant extension to the franchise was in 1969 when those aged 18-21 got the vote though there have been other changes since such as giving UK citizens living abroad the vote in the 1980s.
Roy Jenkins said one of the reasons why he thought the Conservatives did so well in the 1970 election (at 46%, a higher vote share than any party has achieved since) was the number of young women who followed their mothers and voted Conservative.
Not sure there is huge empirical evidence for this but just a thought extending the franchise doesn’t always work our as you might think.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
She appears to have only displayed a Palestinian flag, and displayed a sign accusing Israel of genocide. Nothing supporting PA and indeed she states she does not support any proscribed organisations. Clear overreach by the police.
The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.
Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.
On the last point: why didn't he just get some legal advice?
Come off it, of course Starmer knew. Labour is 'Operation protect Starmer at all costs' these days.
The last significant extension to the franchise was in 1969 when those aged 18-21 got the vote though there have been other changes since such as giving UK citizens living abroad the vote in the 1980s.
Roy Jenkins said one of the reasons why he thought the Conservatives did so well in the 1970 election (at 46%, a higher vote share than any party has achieved since) was the number of young women who followed their mothers and voted Conservative.
Not sure there is huge empirical evidence for this but just a thought extending the franchise doesn’t always work our as you might think.
I will go to my grave convinced that a significant factor in both the Labour loss in 1970 and the Conservative loss in February 1974 was Enoch Powell. Most certainly not any football matches.
The last significant extension to the franchise was in 1969 when those aged 18-21 got the vote though there have been other changes since such as giving UK citizens living abroad the vote in the 1980s.
Roy Jenkins said one of the reasons why he thought the Conservatives did so well in the 1970 election (at 46%, a higher vote share than any party has achieved since) was the number of young women who followed their mothers and voted Conservative.
Not sure there is huge empirical evidence for this but just a thought extending the franchise doesn’t always work our as you might think.
I will go to my grave convinced that a significant factor in both the Labour loss in 1970 and the Conservative loss in February 1974 was Enoch Powell. Most certainly not any football matches.
Given the catastrophic economic circumstances of 1974 (which the current government seems to be doing its best to replicate in many ways) the 1974 elections are better considered as moral victories for the Conservatives.
Which is bizarre considering what an uncharismatic and incompetent politician Ted Heath was.
The role of the UK Special Forces (one of whom was responsible for the data leak) is somewhat murky.
Also extraordinary is that John Healey was briefed on this while in opposition, as shadow DefSec, and didn't tell Starmer, as he believed the injunction prevented his doing so.
On the last point: why didn't he just get some legal advice?
Come off it, of course Starmer knew. Labour is 'Operation protect Starmer at all costs' these days.
Yep. The idea that Healey found out something that significant to a future government and didnt tell his boss is utterly inane. There arent super injunction spies listening in to confidential discussions between shadow ministers and the LOTO (who has some limited knowledge of law)
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
She appears to have only displayed a Palestinian flag, and displayed a sign accusing Israel of genocide. Nothing supporting PA and indeed she states she does not support any proscribed organisations. Clear overreach by the police.
Not unusual with our authoritarian Police force, which is its own issue, how they feel they are a law to themselves.
My point though was in response to OLB calling the decision to proscribe the terrorist organisation that was engaging in terrorism as a terrorist organisation.
They were quite literally engaging in terrorism and had an explicit intention to continue to do so until their objectives where achieved. That is terrorism. Either we proscribe terrorist organisations, or we don't, but to call it absurd to proscribe one just because you are sympathetic to them is silly.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
It’s typical of the Process State approach. Nuance and thinking are bad. Resulting in a Morons Version of Malicious Compliance.
A classic was the prison officer who was told that referring disrespectfully to Osama Bin Ladin was “Islamaphobic”.
The young lady, the other day, being bared from school for wearing a Union Jack dress is another.
Chief Constable Savage is alive and well. He has a whole cabinet full of awards on anti-racism. And runs Operation Darkie - arresting people for ordering their coffee black. Black people at Black rights demos.
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.
It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.
But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.
One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.
Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here. I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them
It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want
They don’t sound plausible
How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method
Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get
What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional
This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you
Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?
This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look
It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.
Yes, it's like that MP who couldn't see why taxes would have to rise to cover 'a few billion pounds' - most people, most MPs included, have no instinctive grasp of how big a billion is. The human brain thinks in a log scale*, and perceives 'billion' as twice a million rather than a thousand times a million.
*this is true. Psychological experiments on those who have never studied maths show that they perceive nine as roughly double three, and sixteen as roughly double four. Can't remember more details than that though.
That's a square root scale, not a log scale big difference
I have an idea.
Next time the Commons is voting, wheel in a stack of paper, with £10 notes at the top, the size that a billion in tenners would be.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
She appears to have only displayed a Palestinian flag, and displayed a sign accusing Israel of genocide. Nothing supporting PA and indeed she states she does not support any proscribed organisations. Clear overreach by the police.
Not unusual with our authoritarian Police force, which is its own issue, how they feel they are a law to themselves.
My point though was in response to OLB calling the decision to proscribe the terrorist organisation that was engaging in terrorism as a terrorist organisation.
They were quite literally engaging in terrorism and had an explicit intention to continue to do so until their objectives where achieved. That is terrorism. Either we proscribe terrorist organisations, or we don't, but to call it absurd to proscribe one just because you are sympathetic to them is silly.
Indeed, any organisation that seeks to sabotage RAF planes for political reasons falls within the definition of terrorism. The perpetrators should have the book thrown at them.
I do think the definition of terrorism is too broad though as it includes any violence for political purposes, and is value-free. An organisation attempting to overthrow the Russian government would count as terrorist. If you are a citizen of an authoritarian country, to my mind you have the right to attempt to overthrow that government by force.
Melville is of course an arch down the rabbit hole of conspiracy merchant, but he has a point. What Labour social media fuckwit thought this was a good idea?
It's very stiff and formal. I can't help thinking that tackling climate change and protecting the environment should, at the very least, be in a warm embrace.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
...In the encounter, which she filmed, one officer told her: “Mentioning freedom of Gaza, Israel, genocide, all of that all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government.”
He went on to say that the phrase “Free Gaza” is “supportive of Palestine Action”, adding it was an offence “to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, namely Palestine Action is an offence under section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act”. The officer told her she had committed that offence.
The officers said they would arrest Murton unless she provided her name and address, which she reluctantly agreed to do...
..One of the police officers told Murton they were “trying to be fair”, adding: “We could have jumped out, arrested you, dragged you off in a van.”
I was going to comment that either the law is extremely badly drafted, or our Police forces contain a very high number of complete idiots.
On reflection, though, I think both things are likely true.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
The last significant extension to the franchise was in 1969 when those aged 18-21 got the vote though there have been other changes since such as giving UK citizens living abroad the vote in the 1980s.
Roy Jenkins said one of the reasons why he thought the Conservatives did so well in the 1970 election (at 46%, a higher vote share than any party has achieved since) was the number of young women who followed their mothers and voted Conservative.
Not sure there is huge empirical evidence for this but just a thought extending the franchise doesn’t always work our as you might think.
Think of a 21 year old in 1970 one "following her mother to vote for the same party" to an 18 year old in 2026.
There is such a difference any comparison is just a waste of time.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Under that definition, a picket line outside a hospital, or indeed a doctors' strike, constitutes terrorism.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Yes.
It is worth rememberingon a point of pedantry that most 18 year olds are still in education too.
Arguably, we should have been considering raising the voting age.
As Willy Bridgman pointed out to Baldwin in 1925, whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue that isn’t possible. It is politically suicidal to take away votes from those who have them as it will cause fury (and did, when conscientious objectors were temporarily disenfranchised in 1918).
That doesn’t mean we should look at lowering it further. Personally I think it’s a bad idea, but this move is not about that, of course, it’s about whether they will support Labour. I think Starmer and Rayner are being optimistic in assuming they will but that’s rather typical of their ham-fisted approach to politics.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Not nearly young enough.
They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.
That’s the problem - I suspect a lot of 16 year olds are going to vote reform because hey what has the current lot done for my older mates
I've shifted to a position where I don't necessarily object to giving 16 year olds the vote. But if we do, we also have to treat them like adults in other respects - allow them to drink, smoke and leave school. To say 'you're not old enough to have adult rights' but also 'you're old enough to come to an informed view about how the country should be governed' seems the wrong way around.
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.
It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.
But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.
One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.
Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here. I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them
It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want
They don’t sound plausible
How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method
Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get
What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional
This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you
Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?
This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look
It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.
Yes, it's like that MP who couldn't see why taxes would have to rise to cover 'a few billion pounds' - most people, most MPs included, have no instinctive grasp of how big a billion is. The human brain thinks in a log scale*, and perceives 'billion' as twice a million rather than a thousand times a million.
*this is true. Psychological experiments on those who have never studied maths show that they perceive nine as roughly double three, and sixteen as roughly double four. Can't remember more details than that though.
That's a square root scale, not a log scale big difference
I have an idea.
Next time the Commons is voting, wheel in a stack of paper, with £10 notes at the top, the size that a billion in tenners would be.
Edit : 5m × 5m × 4.4m ?
Grok tells me that £1 billion in £10 notes stacked on each other is approximately 393,700 inches, or about 32,808 feet, 6.21 miles, or 9.99 kilometers. So a wad roughly 10 km high.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Yes.
It is worth rememberingon a point of pedantry that most 18 year olds are still in education too.
Arguably, we should have been considering raising the voting age.
As Willy Bridgman pointed out to Baldwin in 1925, whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue that isn’t possible. It is politically suicidal to take away votes from those who have them as it will cause fury (and did, when conscientious objectors were temporarily disenfranchised in 1918).
That doesn’t mean we should look at lowering it further. Personally I think it’s a bad idea, but this move is not about that, of course, it’s about whether they will support Labour. I think Starmer and Rayner are being optimistic in assuming they will but that’s rather typical of their ham-fisted approach to politics.
If you were going to raise it, you do it in the same way that smoking is being banned.
UK 30 year gilts now 5.5%, a level not seen since 1998 👍
Slow motion Liz Truss. The country is one poorly received fiscal event away from a full blown debt/currency crisis. Right now Sterling is gradually weakening which is covering the government's blushes a bit but one wrong move and it becomes a crisis.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Were people damaging traffic cameras classed as terrorists? They would seem to fall under that definition.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Were people damaging traffic cameras classed as terrorists? They would seem to fall under that definition.
One man’s terrorist is a Welsh Reform voter’s freedom fighter?
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Under that definition, a picket line outside a hospital, or indeed a doctors' strike, constitutes terrorism.
Basically, any political campaign the government of the day dislikes can be deemed terrorism. It's an abomination. Watching PB's leading libertarian trying to defend it is top notch entertainment, though.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Under that definition, a picket line outside a hospital, or indeed a doctors' strike, constitutes terrorism.
Basically, any political campaign the government of the day dislikes can be deemed terrorism. It's an abomination. Watching PB's leading libertarian trying to defend it is top notch entertainment, though.
Only if its engaging in terrorism.
I'm pro free speech. I think the idea of proscribing organisations should be abolished altogether.
I think enforcing the law equally is reasonable. What is unreasonable is your idea to proscribe other groups, but not the ones you find cuddly.
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.
It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.
But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.
One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.
Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here. I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them
It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want
They don’t sound plausible
How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method
Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get
What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional
This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you
Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?
This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look
It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.
Yes, it's like that MP who couldn't see why taxes would have to rise to cover 'a few billion pounds' - most people, most MPs included, have no instinctive grasp of how big a billion is. The human brain thinks in a log scale*, and perceives 'billion' as twice a million rather than a thousand times a million.
*this is true. Psychological experiments on those who have never studied maths show that they perceive nine as roughly double three, and sixteen as roughly double four. Can't remember more details than that though.
That's a square root scale, not a log scale big difference
I have an idea.
Next time the Commons is voting, wheel in a stack of paper, with £10 notes at the top, the size that a billion in tenners would be.
Edit : 5m × 5m × 4.4m ?
Grok tells me that £1 billion in £10 notes stacked on each other is approximately 393,700 inches, or about 32,808 feet, 6.21 miles, or 9.99 kilometers. So a wad roughly 10 km high.
In a 5m x 5m space you could have something like 2700 stacks…
UK 30 year gilts now 5.5%, a level not seen since 1998 👍
Slow motion Liz Truss. The country is one poorly received fiscal event away from a full blown debt/currency crisis. Right now Sterling is gradually weakening which is covering the government's blushes a bit but one wrong move and it becomes a crisis.
Is all the AI stuff retriggering a new wave of US exceptionalism ?
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Were people damaging traffic cameras classed as terrorists? They would seem to fall under that definition.
What's the threshold for "serious"?
PA did millions of pounds of damage. More than it would cost to replace many buildings if they were blown up. That's serious.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Under that definition, a picket line outside a hospital, or indeed a doctors' strike, constitutes terrorism.
Basically, any political campaign the government of the day dislikes can be deemed terrorism. It's an abomination. Watching PB's leading libertarian trying to defend it is top notch entertainment, though.
The act is missing some sort of motivation clause around actually terrorising people.
Chopping a ULEZ camera down is criminal damage and politically motivated, but it doesn't make me fear for my life or imply that the choppers might kill me later in the same way.
Criminal damage already has a 10 year max sentence. That's sufficient, imo, as long as we make it clear politically aggravated activity will push the sentence up.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
Yvette Cooper's statement to the Commons suggests to me that the government was entirely correct to proscribe them. Inter alia:
Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), “Five Eyes” allies and the UK defence enterprise. Its activity has increased in frequency and severity since the start of 2024 and its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Palestine Action has also broadened its targets from the defence industry to include financial firms, charities, universities and government buildings. Its activities meet the threshold set out in the statutory tests established under the Terrorism Act 2000. This has been assessed through a robust evidence-based process, by a wide range of experts from across government, the police and the Security Services.
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.
It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.
But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.
One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.
Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here. I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them
It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want
They don’t sound plausible
How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method
Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get
What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional
This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you
Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?
This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look
It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.
Yes, it's like that MP who couldn't see why taxes would have to rise to cover 'a few billion pounds' - most people, most MPs included, have no instinctive grasp of how big a billion is. The human brain thinks in a log scale*, and perceives 'billion' as twice a million rather than a thousand times a million.
*this is true. Psychological experiments on those who have never studied maths show that they perceive nine as roughly double three, and sixteen as roughly double four. Can't remember more details than that though.
That's a square root scale, not a log scale big difference
I have an idea.
Next time the Commons is voting, wheel in a stack of paper, with £10 notes at the top, the size that a billion in tenners would be.
Edit : 5m × 5m × 4.4m ?
Grok tells me that £1 billion in £10 notes stacked on each other is approximately 393,700 inches, or about 32,808 feet, 6.21 miles, or 9.99 kilometers. So a wad roughly 10 km high.
In a 5m x 5m space you could have something like 2700 stacks…
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.
It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.
But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.
One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.
Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here. I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them
It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want
They don’t sound plausible
How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method
Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get
What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional
This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you
Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?
This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look
It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.
Yes, it's like that MP who couldn't see why taxes would have to rise to cover 'a few billion pounds' - most people, most MPs included, have no instinctive grasp of how big a billion is. The human brain thinks in a log scale*, and perceives 'billion' as twice a million rather than a thousand times a million.
*this is true. Psychological experiments on those who have never studied maths show that they perceive nine as roughly double three, and sixteen as roughly double four. Can't remember more details than that though.
That's a square root scale, not a log scale big difference
I have an idea.
Next time the Commons is voting, wheel in a stack of paper, with £10 notes at the top, the size that a billion in tenners would be.
Edit : 5m × 5m × 4.4m ?
Grok tells me that £1 billion in £10 notes stacked on each other is approximately 393,700 inches, or about 32,808 feet, 6.21 miles, or 9.99 kilometers. So a wad roughly 10 km high.
In a 5m x 5m space you could have something like 2700 stacks…
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Under that definition, a picket line outside a hospital, or indeed a doctors' strike, constitutes terrorism.
Basically, any political campaign the government of the day dislikes can be deemed terrorism. It's an abomination. Watching PB's leading libertarian trying to defend it is top notch entertainment, though.
The act is missing some sort of motivation clause around actually terrorising people.
Chopping a ULEZ camera down is criminal damage and politically motivated, but it doesn't make me fear for my life or imply that the choppers might kill me later in the same way.
Criminal damage already has a 10 year max sentence. That's sufficient, imo, as long as we make it clear politically aggravated activity will push the sentence up.
Terrorism doesn't have to only threaten people's lives, threatening property in a serious manner is equally terrorism, if it is politically motivated under a threat to continue until your objectives are achieved.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
Terrorism requires terror. Damaging a military aeroplane is criminal damage. It could arguably be treason. But it's not terrorism. Blowing up a building even if empty carries with it a threat to blow up a building with people inside and so would constitute terrorism. The difference between direct action and terrorism is lethal violence or the threat thereof. Destroying a speed camera is not terrorism. Damaging a military plane is not terrorism. The path we are going down now is absurd, it robs words of their real meanings. Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. (Am I even allowed to say that? What an absurd world we are living in).
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Were people damaging traffic cameras classed as terrorists? They would seem to fall under that definition.
What's the threshold for "serious"?
PA did millions of pounds of damage. More than it would cost to replace many buildings if they were blown up. That's serious.
The Bladerunners have done about £18 million damage so far. At this rate you're going to suggest the Black Cap for them.
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.
It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.
But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.
One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.
Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here. I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them
It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want
They don’t sound plausible
How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method
Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get
What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional
This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you
Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?
This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look
It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.
Yes, it's like that MP who couldn't see why taxes would have to rise to cover 'a few billion pounds' - most people, most MPs included, have no instinctive grasp of how big a billion is. The human brain thinks in a log scale*, and perceives 'billion' as twice a million rather than a thousand times a million.
*this is true. Psychological experiments on those who have never studied maths show that they perceive nine as roughly double three, and sixteen as roughly double four. Can't remember more details than that though.
That's a square root scale, not a log scale big difference
I have an idea.
Next time the Commons is voting, wheel in a stack of paper, with £10 notes at the top, the size that a billion in tenners would be.
Edit : 5m × 5m × 4.4m ?
Grok tells me that £1 billion in £10 notes stacked on each other is approximately 393,700 inches, or about 32,808 feet, 6.21 miles, or 9.99 kilometers. So a wad roughly 10 km high.
If you had a large pallet of say 2m x 2m, containing 400 or so stacks of notes, it need only be 25m high. That would still be hard to wheel into the Commons.
I notice she also goes with Leon's £7bn confection.
The $7b is all over the Internet. It is very hard to actually come across the real numbers.
It won't be £7bn but it doesn't matter because like the £350m a week that number will stick regardless of the reality.
But the advantage is that it's a Tory blunder so finally the Government may do the sensible thing and increase Income Tax..
If they're spending £400k per year on MOD housing or £200k per year on social housing for a family of four Afghans then the total is going to add up fast and big.
One revelation we can look forward to is where the blackmailer was housed.
Why would they be spending £200k-£400k per year on social housing for a family of four? You can rent a two or three bed flat in Zone 2 London for well under £30k per year. Presumably much less in other parts of the country. Hell, you can *buy* a flat for less than the numbers quoted here. I'm actually involved in a refugee resettlement scheme and the allocation for housing is pitifully small, so I'm calling bullshit on these numbers.
Ah, so you don’t like THESE numbers. Ergo you dismiss them
It’s like a Maldivian breakfast buffet of data. Just pick what you want
They don’t sound plausible
How do you think that it can cost £400k per year to house a family?
My point is more: people are choosing whatever numbers they like to fit their agenda. Then claiming some superiority in their method
Perhaps I am the same. But all I’ve done is take the number used in court which is near to the source material as we can get
What we need is some serious parliamentary scrutiny. Those who blithely think this story has gone away because “it’s not on most read list at express.co.uk” are fucking delusional
This is not Watergate. This is more like a bank run. Very very dangerous. It may indeed fizzle out with minor reputational damage to one or two corporations. Or it may be a grave systemic risk
I'm not choosing a number to fit my agenda. I am giving you a number that I actually know, because I am actually involved in refugee resettlement.
wtf and who cares. There may well be special circumstances for these people. Extra security. Extra medical issues. I don’t frigging know and neither do you
Once again - none of us knows much because the whole thing is disgracefully shrouded in appalling deception and secrecy. Did the government inform the treasury? The bond markets? Anyone? That they were intending to spend £7bn? Or have spent it? Or what?
This depressing fiasco gets crazier the closer you look. A lot of people on here really don’t want to look
It's a useful reminder of how innumerate some people are.
Yes, it's like that MP who couldn't see why taxes would have to rise to cover 'a few billion pounds' - most people, most MPs included, have no instinctive grasp of how big a billion is. The human brain thinks in a log scale*, and perceives 'billion' as twice a million rather than a thousand times a million.
*this is true. Psychological experiments on those who have never studied maths show that they perceive nine as roughly double three, and sixteen as roughly double four. Can't remember more details than that though.
That's a square root scale, not a log scale big difference
I have an idea.
Next time the Commons is voting, wheel in a stack of paper, with £10 notes at the top, the size that a billion in tenners would be.
Edit : 5m × 5m × 4.4m ?
Grok tells me that £1 billion in £10 notes stacked on each other is approximately 393,700 inches, or about 32,808 feet, 6.21 miles, or 9.99 kilometers. So a wad roughly 10 km high.
If you had a large pallet of say 2m x 2m, containing 400 or so stacks of notes, it need only be 25m high. That would still be hard to wheel into the Commons.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Were people damaging traffic cameras classed as terrorists? They would seem to fall under that definition.
What's the threshold for "serious"?
PA did millions of pounds of damage. More than it would cost to replace many buildings if they were blown up. That's serious.
The Internet tells me a traffic camera costs around £40,000. The Met reported a total of 510 anti-ULEZ crimes, 159 reports of cameras being stolen and 351 reports of cameras being damaged, in 4 months in 2023. So, that's something like £20 million in damage. That appears to be comparable.
(A poll at the time found about a third of Londoners supported the attacks on cameras.)
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.
This is the definition
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
Were people damaging traffic cameras classed as terrorists? They would seem to fall under that definition.
What's the threshold for "serious"?
PA did millions of pounds of damage. More than it would cost to replace many buildings if they were blown up. That's serious.
The Internet tells me a traffic camera costs around £40,000. The Met reported a total of 510 anti-ULEZ crimes, 159 reports of cameras being stolen and 351 reports of cameras being damaged, in 4 months in 2023. So, that's something like £20 million in damage. That appears to be comparable.
(A poll at the time found about a third of Londoners supported the attacks on cameras.)
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
Terrorism requires terror. Damaging a military aeroplane is criminal damage. It could arguably be treason. But it's not terrorism. Blowing up a building even if empty carries with it a threat to blow up a building with people inside and so would constitute terrorism. The difference between direct action and terrorism is lethal violence or the threat thereof. Destroying a speed camera is not terrorism. Damaging a military plane is not terrorism. The path we are going down now is absurd, it robs words of their real meanings. Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. (Am I even allowed to say that? What an absurd world we are living in).
If the intention is to threaten to cause damage and cost money to force people into changing their policies, then your intention is to use terror. That is a threat, and it is using violence to achieve it.
How many people could lose their lives if millions of pounds is diverted from the NHS to cleaning up their criminal damage? I get that you think there's an unlimited sum of money to spend, but there is not. If criminal damage is politically motivated, then yes, it rightly meets the criterion for being terrorism and always has done.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
Terrorism requires terror. Damaging a military aeroplane is criminal damage. It could arguably be treason. But it's not terrorism. Blowing up a building even if empty carries with it a threat to blow up a building with people inside and so would constitute terrorism. The difference between direct action and terrorism is lethal violence or the threat thereof. Destroying a speed camera is not terrorism. Damaging a military plane is not terrorism. The path we are going down now is absurd, it robs words of their real meanings. Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. (Am I even allowed to say that? What an absurd world we are living in).
IANAL, but AIUI you are allowed to express the opinion that Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. That is not support for Palestine Action, which would be illegal.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
Terrorism requires terror. Damaging a military aeroplane is criminal damage. It could arguably be treason. But it's not terrorism. Blowing up a building even if empty carries with it a threat to blow up a building with people inside and so would constitute terrorism. The difference between direct action and terrorism is lethal violence or the threat thereof. Destroying a speed camera is not terrorism. Damaging a military plane is not terrorism. The path we are going down now is absurd, it robs words of their real meanings. Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. (Am I even allowed to say that? What an absurd world we are living in).
If the intention is to threaten to cause damage and cost money to force people into changing their policies, then your intention is to use terror. That is a threat, and it is using violence to achieve it.
How many people could lose their lives if millions of pounds is diverted from the NHS to cleaning up their criminal damage? I get that you think there's an unlimited sum of money to spend, but there is not. If criminal damage is politically motivated, then yes, it rightly meets the criterion for being terrorism and always has done.
What about the costs of policing political demonstrations? That's also money that could be going to the NHS. Should such demonstrations also therefore be classed as terrorism?
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
Terrorism requires terror. Damaging a military aeroplane is criminal damage. It could arguably be treason. But it's not terrorism. Blowing up a building even if empty carries with it a threat to blow up a building with people inside and so would constitute terrorism. The difference between direct action and terrorism is lethal violence or the threat thereof. Destroying a speed camera is not terrorism. Damaging a military plane is not terrorism. The path we are going down now is absurd, it robs words of their real meanings. Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. (Am I even allowed to say that? What an absurd world we are living in).
If the intention is to threaten to cause damage and cost money to force people into changing their policies, then your intention is to use terror. That is a threat, and it is using violence to achieve it.
How many people could lose their lives if millions of pounds is diverted from the NHS to cleaning up their criminal damage? I get that you think there's an unlimited sum of money to spend, but there is not. If criminal damage is politically motivated, then yes, it rightly meets the criterion for being terrorism and always has done.
What about the costs of policing political demonstrations? That's also money that could be going to the NHS. Should such demonstrations also therefore be classed as terrorism?
How much has Tommy Robinson cost the country in court costs with his protests that were contempts of court?
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Not nearly young enough.
They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.
That’s the problem - I suspect a lot of 16 year olds are going to vote reform because hey what has the current lot done for my older mates
I've shifted to a position where I don't necessarily object to giving 16 year olds the vote. But if we do, we also have to treat them like adults in other respects - allow them to drink, smoke and leave school. To say 'you're not old enough to have adult rights' but also 'you're old enough to come to an informed view about how the country should be governed' seems the wrong way around.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Not nearly young enough.
They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.
That’s the problem - I suspect a lot of 16 year olds are going to vote reform because hey what has the current lot done for my older mates
I've shifted to a position where I don't necessarily object to giving 16 year olds the vote. But if we do, we also have to treat them like adults in other respects - allow them to drink, smoke and leave school. To say 'you're not old enough to have adult rights' but also 'you're old enough to come to an informed view about how the country should be governed' seems the wrong way around.
I'm fine with the blur. I'm fine with 16 year olds being able to vote but not get into debt. The two things are quite distinct. One is participating in democracy which doesn't really make much difference to the individual. The other is about protecting them from the big bad world.
Where I have an issue, however, is how we treat them in the criminal justice system. If they can vote, they can be named like everyone else.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
I mean their views on the killing of civilians in Gaza, not their violent direct action tactics. The woman who was threatened with violent arrest by the Kent plod was expressing views that are extremely widely shared.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
Terrorism requires terror. Damaging a military aeroplane is criminal damage. It could arguably be treason. But it's not terrorism. Blowing up a building even if empty carries with it a threat to blow up a building with people inside and so would constitute terrorism. The difference between direct action and terrorism is lethal violence or the threat thereof. Destroying a speed camera is not terrorism. Damaging a military plane is not terrorism. The path we are going down now is absurd, it robs words of their real meanings. Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. (Am I even allowed to say that? What an absurd world we are living in).
If the intention is to threaten to cause damage and cost money to force people into changing their policies, then your intention is to use terror. That is a threat, and it is using violence to achieve it.
How many people could lose their lives if millions of pounds is diverted from the NHS to cleaning up their criminal damage? I get that you think there's an unlimited sum of money to spend, but there is not. If criminal damage is politically motivated, then yes, it rightly meets the criterion for being terrorism and always has done.
What about the costs of policing political demonstrations? That's also money that could be going to the NHS. Should such demonstrations also therefore be classed as terrorism?
No, of course not, because the people engaging in non-violent demonstrations are not breaking any law and are engaging in free speech.
Those who break the law on the other hand by engaging in violence are a completely different kettle of fish and you know it.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Not nearly young enough.
They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.
That’s the problem - I suspect a lot of 16 year olds are going to vote reform because hey what has the current lot done for my older mates
I've shifted to a position where I don't necessarily object to giving 16 year olds the vote. But if we do, we also have to treat them like adults in other respects - allow them to drink, smoke and leave school. To say 'you're not old enough to have adult rights' but also 'you're old enough to come to an informed view about how the country should be governed' seems the wrong way around.
I'm fine with the blur. I'm fine with 16 year olds being able to vote but not get into debt. The two things are quite distinct. One is participating in democracy which doesn't really make much difference to the individual. The other is about protecting them from the big bad world.
Where I have an issue, however, is how we treat them in the criminal justice system. If they can vote, they can be named like everyone else.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
The phrase used is, "non-violent direct action."
It specifically excludes the use of violence.
What PA did was violent, so is not non-violent.
By the Law of the Excluded Middle.
Precisely. Middle options have to be excluded from binary options, like whether something is violent or non-violent. Or pregnant or not-pregnant.
Indeed almost any time the word "non" or "not" is used its a binary question.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
They're mainly Iran's little helpers; the link with Russia is probably more tenuous.
It's interesting that they formed in 2020, years before Hamas' attack. I guess that didn't cause them any reason to think more deeply about the situation.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
They're mainly Iran's little helpers; the link with Russia is probably more tenuous.
It's interesting that they formed in 2020, years before Hamas' attack. I guess that didn't cause them any reason to think more deeply about the situation.
Iran and Putin are part of the same Axis of Evil, that are allied together.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
Comments
'My lies are better than your lies' isn't a winning argument, any more than trying to delude people into thinking a direct tax on wages is not a direct tax on wages.
Starmer's Ming Vase was full of unicorns and contradictions. He wasn't going to raise taxes (then immediately did), or cut benefits (then immediately did) etc etc etc
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
https://x.com/jamesmelville/status/1945764601519345864?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Its an area we've done well in, and been heavy in for years, but a lot of turnover lately.
Its remarkable how little Liverpool have spent in recent years, so the Budget is there to be able to get people in, I just hope they're the right people and gel and we don't do a Manchester United and go for names just because we can then have egos that don't play for the club and don't work together.
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
big difference
Roy Jenkins said one of the reasons why he thought the Conservatives did so well in the 1970 election (at 46%, a higher vote share than any party has achieved since) was the number of young women who followed their mothers and voted Conservative.
Not sure there is huge empirical evidence for this but just a thought extending the franchise doesn’t always work our as you might think.
It is worth rememberingon a point of pedantry that most 18 year olds are still in education too.
To be welcomed, I think https://sheffield.ac.uk/news/lowering-voting-age-boosts-long-term-participation-elections
From the vocal vox pops I'm exposed to will benefit Greens.
Which is bizarre considering what an uncharismatic and incompetent politician Ted Heath was.
My point though was in response to OLB calling the decision to proscribe the terrorist organisation that was engaging in terrorism as a terrorist organisation.
They were quite literally engaging in terrorism and had an explicit intention to continue to do so until their objectives where achieved. That is terrorism. Either we proscribe terrorist organisations, or we don't, but to call it absurd to proscribe one just because you are sympathetic to them is silly.
A classic was the prison officer who was told that referring disrespectfully to Osama Bin Ladin was “Islamaphobic”.
The young lady, the other day, being bared from school for wearing a Union Jack dress is another.
Chief Constable Savage is alive and well. He has a whole cabinet full of awards on anti-racism. And runs Operation Darkie - arresting people for ordering their coffee black. Black people at Black rights demos.
Next time the Commons is voting, wheel in a stack of paper, with £10 notes at the top, the size that a billion in tenners would be.
Edit : 5m × 5m × 4.4m ?
Find Out Now voting intention:
🟦 Reform UK: 30% (-1)
🔴 Labour: 20% (-2)
🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-2)
🟠 Lib Dems: 13% (-)
🟢 Greens: 12% (+3)
Changes from 9th July
[Find Out Now, 16th July, N=2,603]
I do think the definition of terrorism is too broad though as it includes any violence for political purposes, and is value-free. An organisation attempting to overthrow the Russian government would count as terrorist. If you are a citizen of an authoritarian country, to my mind you have the right to attempt to overthrow that government by force.
He went on to say that the phrase “Free Gaza” is “supportive of Palestine Action”, adding it was an offence “to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, namely Palestine Action is an offence under section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act”. The officer told her she had committed that offence.
The officers said they would arrest Murton unless she provided her name and address, which she reluctantly agreed to do...
..One of the police officers told Murton they were “trying to be fair”, adding: “We could have jumped out, arrested you, dragged you off in a van.”
I was going to comment that either the law is extremely badly drafted, or our Police forces contain a very high number of complete idiots.
On reflection, though, I think both things are likely true.
They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.
1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000
And as the Wikipedia article states
Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.
We're right about everything, sooner or later.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
There is such a difference any comparison is just a waste of time.
That doesn’t mean we should look at lowering it further. Personally I think it’s a bad idea, but this move is not about that, of course, it’s about whether they will support Labour. I think Starmer and Rayner are being optimistic in assuming they will but that’s rather typical of their ham-fisted approach to politics.
So a wad roughly 10 km high.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
I'm pro free speech. I think the idea of proscribing organisations should be abolished altogether.
I think enforcing the law equally is reasonable. What is unreasonable is your idea to proscribe other groups, but not the ones you find cuddly.
PA did millions of pounds of damage. More than it would cost to replace many buildings if they were blown up. That's serious.
Chopping a ULEZ camera down is criminal damage and politically motivated, but it doesn't make me fear for my life or imply that the choppers might kill me later in the same way.
Criminal damage already has a 10 year max sentence. That's sufficient, imo, as long as we make it clear politically aggravated activity will push the sentence up.
Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), “Five Eyes” allies and the UK defence enterprise. Its activity has increased in frequency and severity since the start of 2024 and its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Palestine Action has also broadened its targets from the defence industry to include financial firms, charities, universities and government buildings. Its activities meet the threshold set out in the statutory tests established under the Terrorism Act 2000. This has been assessed through a robust evidence-based process, by a wide range of experts from across government, the police and the Security Services.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-06-23/hcws729
The decision to proscribe them was upheld by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. There is no issue of free speech at stake here.
(can't be arsed to do the sums)
Is blowing up buildings terrorism?
That would still be hard to wheel into the Commons.
(A poll at the time found about a third of Londoners supported the attacks on cameras.)
How many people could lose their lives if millions of pounds is diverted from the NHS to cleaning up their criminal damage? I get that you think there's an unlimited sum of money to spend, but there is not. If criminal damage is politically motivated, then yes, it rightly meets the criterion for being terrorism and always has done.
Terrorism has always been a slippery term.
Interesting bit of history that was new to me - Oslo are still using bits of the Tirpitz to cover holes during road works.
Can we get one with a dog for scale?
It specifically excludes the use of violence.
Pricey.
https://www.boker.de/en/tirpitz-damascus-110190dam
Of the current RefUK MPs, all four of them are former Tories.
Lee Anderson (obviously).
Sarah Pochin (former Conservative Councillor).
Nigel Farage (15 years a Tory).
Richard Tice ("most of my adult life").
Where I have an issue, however, is how we treat them in the criminal justice system. If they can vote, they can be named like everyone else.
Those who break the law on the other hand by engaging in violence are a completely different kettle of fish and you know it.
I can’t see why we can’t drive them down to 13-14% by the GE
Indeed almost any time the word "non" or "not" is used its a binary question.
It's interesting that they formed in 2020, years before Hamas' attack. I guess that didn't cause them any reason to think more deeply about the situation.
I suspect the Reform figure would be about right, but you could probably reverse the Lib Dem and Labour figures.
Streeting is absolutely done here.
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.