As I feared, Labour is just as shit as their predecessors. A waffling US arse kissing leader and a bunch of incompetent ministers that sound just like the old lot 
Farage must be loving it.
3 Likes
Maybe - but my take is that to cripple a machine designated in the defence of a State is at best an act of terror and at worse, if they were UK nationals, treason.
In a similar vein, gluing oneās self to road hindering ambulances is an act of aggression too far.
1 Like
I agree with Adam as I can never understand why these childish individuals believe disrupting peopleās lives and damaging property, whether works of art or military installations, will pesruade others to take up their cause. It has precisely the opposite effect and serves no purpose.
1 Like
Putting Palestine Action in the same grouping as IS or al-Qaida is plainly absurd and would be the type of reaction youād expect from the Tories.
5 Likes
Thank you John for sharing that editorial.
My own view is that whilst trespass and criminal damage are of course to be frowned upon, in a way, the UK Govāt and MOD should be thankful of being shown that the security arrangements at RAF Brize Norton are clearly woefully inadequate.
How an act of attention seeking criminal damage can be classed as terrorism is something I cannot understand. Perhaps I have missed something, but I havenāt seen any evidence of any conspiracy to maim, murder, cause explosions, or to instill fear in the general population. Has any member of the general public actually been terrorised or placed in fear that they may be harmed while going about their daily activities.
I cannot support criminal acts, but I welcome the actions of certain groups who raise awareness that perhaps the average citizen should question government actions at times. Surely the ability to demonstrate, protest, and generally question without fear of government reprisal is what democracy is all about.
My own view is that currently it is the government of Israel that is instilling terror in the minds of the people of Gaza, and those that fail to even try to do anything about it, such as the UK government, are just as bad.
So am I therefore at risk of arrest, detention, and extradition for holding this view ? If so, then so be it and I will happily explain myself in court.
12 Likes
I suspect several million female voters might have a view on that. Well, they probably donāt have a view but they should be grateful for their ancestors willingness to be disruptive.
5 Likes
I think that what you refer to was more a result of social progression than criminal activity. I have yet to meet anyone who has been won over by these acts of vandalism.
Yes, @JohnH , in many cases the question of whether an act was terrorism or not depends on whether it was effective in changing the law.
And many people make judgments based on their own beliefs, rather than objectively.
The definition of āterrorismā is here: Terrorism Act 2000
It is only recently that peaceful protest has mutated into large-scale damage and the deliberate targeting and disruption of the lives of ordinary people. It often appears to me that the aim of, for example, the Just Stop Oil protesters was to gain some sort of personal satisfaction.
There is no doubt that what Palestine Action does is terrorism, under the definition in the Act.
I donāt have much sympathy for them, like others here. There is a petulance about modern protest that seems to stem from an inability to persuade sufficient people to back the relevant cause (or perhaps simple laziness). āWe canāt organise a march, because we canāt persuade enough supporters, so weāll just go out and smash something.ā
The difference between the Suffragettes and modern protest is that the Suffragettes risked harm to themselves rather than to others.
1 Like
Exactly.
Finally, someone understands the difference between rentamob and passion.
2 Likes
Indeed. Another subject. I took a keen interest in my days in the CCF, and to this day remember that priority was to secure oneās camp beit a bivouac, gun emplacement or storage facility at all costs. So yes, on this one a minister or a fancy rank bedecked in gold braid should be hung, drawn and quarteredā¦ 
You have.
Emptying a can of paint into the engine of a Voyager will render it useless until said engine is replaced. The Voyager is part of the UK State defence. By grounding the aircraft, it cannot respond immediately to any threat whether it be the emergency evacuation of souls, transport of troops or simply aiding other aircraft to come home. This is terrorism. And again, maybe treason.
1 Like
I strongly suspect that it wasnāt seen that way at the time given the number that were prosecuted and imprisoned. The benefit of hindsight is fantastic and I suspect the likes of Just Stop Oil might be seen in a different light by the generations to come.
Thatās not to say that I agree with this action but, as a general principle, protest is meant to be disruptive otherwise they donāt get any attention and one might as well shout into the void.
Edited to add: Iāve had quite a lot of involvement with the anti-nuclear protesters and, for the most part, theyāre basically good people even if we might consider them misguided.
Quite a lot of paint in fact - yes, that engine is going to need a complete strip down and rebuild - which wonāt be quick given the amount of contamination.
Which makes it a bit of a stupid act on their part - they would have made their point just as well spraying the outside of the plane
3 Likes
If "protesters " can easily infiltrate a supposedly secure installation, just imagine what a couple of highly trained squads of Spetznaz could do.
3 Likes
To be frank, thereās not much you can really do to counter a threat on that level and peacetime security measures arenāt designed to do so. (Thereās another debate on whether weāre currently in peacetime)
For the most part, security is designed to deter, detect and delay hostile actors and clearly they failed on the first two, but we donāt know about the third. Thereās going to be a lot of conversations without coffee going on in Brize Norton as a great big chicken has come home to roost.
This is what happens when you put Maureen from HR in charge if security at military bases.
Youāve got that very wrong indeed.
I agree that the damage caused falls within Section 1 (2) (b) of the Terrorism Act of 2000.
However, Section 1 (1) (c) of said Act requires that for the offence to be complete āthe use or threat (of action) is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.ā
No doubt it can be argued that Palestine Action have an ideological cause of behaving in a decent and non genocidal manner, which is a cause with which I find it difficult to disagree.
Personally, I feel that the definition of āTerrorismā in the Act is a poor one. Nowhere is there any requirement for a reasonable person to actually feel, or be likely to feel, fear or terror. The intimidation element mentioned in Section 1 (1) (b) is for me not at all the same as terror, as āIntimidateā and āTerroriseā have very different meanings for me.
I doubt that anyone has actually felt terror as a result of the Brize Norton incident and so I believe that it is inappropriate, albeit convenient in certain quarters, to proscribe the group that carried out that particular action.
Terror ---- intense, sharp, overmastering fear. www.dictionary.com.
1 Like
Sheās not the security specialist who decides on the countermeasures required. Like any senior manager, she depends on domain specialists to do their job and properly advise her.
I could go on at length about the military culture that leads to these types of incidents but this isnāt the place.
Sorry, but a base commander is the same as a shipās captain in that everything is ultimately their responsibility.
1 Like