I always enjoyed Len Deighton"s books. Iâm sure Iâve read them all. âBomberâ for example, led me off to read many of Martin Middlebrookâs excellent books on the RAF WWII bombing campaign (quick synopsis; Harris, the commander, was a war criminal, the bomber crews were the bravest of the brave).
But letâs focus on SS-GB. This rotates about Germany having won the war and the UK being under SS control.
Well Germany neednât have bothered, , Tory legislation and the malevolent, incompetent Starmer have brought Hitlerâs dream to the UK.
Bearing in mind that Section 12 (1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 states that;
(1A)A person commits an offence if the personâ
(a)expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
(b)in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.]
it becomes debatable as to whether it is even possible to lawfully discuss the subject of the above Guardian article in this forum.
It could be said that expressing an opinion that a particular organisation should not be âproscribedâ is of itself an expression of support for that organisation. Bearing in mind that all posts on this forum can be read by all the members, it could be said that all posts are âdirectedâ to all members.
It is arguable that as no âposterâ can know the likely impact of a particular post on any particular reader, and that it is possible that the reader may be âencouragedâ to form an opinion which is in agreement with the original poster stating their belief that a particular organisation should not have been proscribed, that making such a statement is ârecklessâ.
The offence is punishable by up to 14 yrs imprisonment.
My own view is that it is a badly written law that stifles public debate, and that this particular section needs to be re-written to make âintent to encourage supportâ a required element of the offence being complete.
The blame lies with the organisation itself, and its childish, destructive behaviour.
Weâve debated ad nauseam what they did.
Iâve expressed the view that protest is no longer about persuasion: now, itâs all about making the protesters feel satisfied. Just Stop Oil, Greta, PA.
If you donât want to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, donât practise terrorism. And if you canât persuade people of the justice of your cause - which seems to be the case here - then maybe pack up and go home.
Itâs all a crying shame because we should be standing up to Israel and denouncing it as a genocidal. Instead, we have idiots like PA providing a sideshow.
This was the riot against the asylum hotel in Essex where several police officers were injured and vehicles damaged, the Palestine Action demos were peaceful.
Given he was probably one of the only fine, upstanding citizens there who actually had a few teeth in his head, it was incredibly unfair the police removed them. He can join his mates as having the same number of teen as brain cells now; one of each.
Maybe Iâve got the wrong riot, but werenât there just forty âriotersâ surrounded by police and eight police got injured? Not to put a tooth in it () thatâs not a great result for the forces of law and order.
The âprotesterâ was very objectionable, but the police officer should not have just hit him. He should be investigated for assault. I think he let his colleagues down by smacking the guy.
Indeed so.
I find it notable that I cannot find anywhere in the Terrorism Act that mentions causing, or even being likely to cause, a state of terror. The furthest that it goes is to mention âintimidationâ of the public, which in my opinion is a far cry from âterrorisingâ the public.
Right from the outset, the main thrust of Section 1 of the act is to prevent action âdesigned to influence the governmentâ, and by virtue of Section 1 (4) (d) this includes the government of any country anywhere.
The âactionâ to be prevented includes âserious damage to propertyâ by virtue of Section 1 (2) (b) but the question of what is, or is not, to be regarded as âserious damageâ is not specified. What one person considers serious may be thought to be relatively minor by another.
Also good to keep in mind that Section 1 (4) (a) tells us that âaction includes action outside the United Kingdomâ, and also to note that Section 1 (5) states that "In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation" and not being proscribed would be an obvious benefit.
So I think that anyone who either resides in the UK, or indeed goes to the UK for any reason, needs to be aware of the provisions of the legislation that seem more intended to protect all governments everywhere than anyone else.
In many ways the Act seems to be something of a wolf in sheepâs clothing.
It seems they canât win, strike someone whoâs in their face threatening them and they get criticised, wait until someone actually physically attacks them and they get criticised. Who would be a police officer?
Thatâs because youâd have to be a very lily-livered bunch to be provoked to being terrified by terrorism.
I quoted the relevant Act a while ago in a thread on the same topic - A very angry and, I think, accurate editorial - #8 by Porridge - and itâs clear that the definition of terrorism it contains mirrors the way we use it in everyday speech. Itâs just that, when people approve of an organisationâs aims, they donât want to accept itâs actually a terrorism organisation, because that would mean they were supporting terrorism.
But itâs easy to check. Just consider the actions of an organisation whose aims you disapprove of and plug them into the definition.
Sadly, I think the crazy notion that Palestine Action should be placed in the same grouping as ISIS or Al Qaeda is indicative of the governmentâs handling of many of todayâs issues affecting the UK and the rest of the world.
) thatâs not a great result for the forces of law and order.