UK Politics

3022 readers

143 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Anti-ULEZ extremists blow up a ULEZ camera using an IED (news.met.police.uk)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

People are now attacking road safety infrastructure with explosives in suburban England.

Bear in mind that Tory MPs actively encouraged this behaviour!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

At this early stage, the incident is not being treated as terrorism

The UK legal definition of terrorism:

The Terrorism Act 2006 uses the definition of terrorism contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 34 amends that definition slightly, to include specific types of actions against international governmental organisations, such as the UN. The definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended) states:

(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where:
the action falls within subsection (2)
the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental >organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public
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:
involves serious violence against a person
involves serious damage to property
endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action
creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

I cannot see how this is not domestic terrorism.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

They were white though so can't be terrorism

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I was thinking it might come under the definition, but hadn't gotten around to looking it up, so thanks!

Obviously they did (2). They would have to argue that they weren't actually trying to make the GLC change the policy, so as to avoid (1) which may or may not be tenable. I kind of think not!