Cycling UK Forum

Apparently critical mass has been listed on the home office's counter terrorism watch list, how @@@@ing ridiculous!
Why haven't they put motorists on the list given the carnage they cause is thousands of times that of 'terrorists'

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/7653/cyc ... FsWh31AIUk

The utility cyclist wrote:Why haven't they put motorists on the list given the carnage they cause is thousands of times that of 'terrorists'
..

Right again Utility
Many motorists are terrorists

According to the 2006 Terrorism Act terrorism is defined thus:

Terrorism is an action or threat designed to influence the government or intimidate the public. Its purpose is to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

Apart from a few well known occasions, it is doubtful that motorists ever fall into this category. I do think that the moderators should consider how the word is used on these fora.

Oldjohnw wrote:According to the 2006 Terrorism Act terrorism is defined thus:

Terrorism is an action or threat designed to influence the government or intimidate the public. Its purpose is to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

Apart from a few well known occasions, it is doubtful that motorists ever fall into this category. I do think that the moderators should consider how the word is used on these fora.

Terrorism is an action designed to influence the government?

Under which definition all politics, demonstrations, even letter writing is terrorism!

roubaixtuesday wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:According to the 2006 Terrorism Act terrorism is defined thus:

Terrorism is an action or threat designed to influence the government or intimidate the public. Its purpose is to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

Apart from a few well known occasions, it is doubtful that motorists ever fall into this category. I do think that the moderators should consider how the word is used on these fora.

Terrorism is an action designed to influence the government?

Under which definition all politics, demonstrations, even letter writing is terrorism!

Nonsense. The definition, which above states the motive, goes on to describe using acts of violence, as I am sure you will be aware. The UN goes on to state the following:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Neither protesters, letter writers, motorists nor cyclists can be thus described.

Since when has a group of people going for a bike ride terrorised anyone?
Is this "one nation Conservatism" professed by the current PM?

I'm a member of two groups which have been defined as extremist: CND and Greenpeace.

Next week, at the school governors' meeting, I have to declare this, as one of the types of organisations which is given this information is schools.

Welcome to the future: land of the thought police.

Oldjohnw wrote:........Welcome to the future: land of the thought police.

Yep it doesn't taken long for the Tories with a big majority to start the clampdown on human rights......

reohn2 wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:........Welcome to the future: land of the thought police.

Yep it doesn't taken long for the Tories with a big majority to start the clampdown on human rights......

Which is, basically, anything they don't like. Jack Straw was like that in the latter Blair years. The police were being used even at Labour conferences, to eject protesters. The police are once again being used by the state: banning XR protests, this recent list of organisations. So far, the rule of law is there to protect us but Johnson wants to control that, too.

Oldjohnw wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:........Welcome to the future: land of the thought police.

Yep it doesn't taken long for the Tories with a big majority to start the clampdown on human rights......

Which is, basically, anything they don't like. Jack Straw was like that in the latter Blair years. The police were being used even at Labour conferences, to eject protesters. The police are once again being used by the state: banning XR protests, this recent list of organisations. So far, the rule of law is there to protect us but Johnson wants to control that, too.

You're spot on.
To be clear,I was no fan of Blair or Jack Straw when in office

Oldjohnw wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:........Welcome to the future: land of the thought police.

Yep it doesn't taken long for the Tories with a big majority to start the clampdown on human rights......

Which is, basically, anything they don't like. Jack Straw was like that in the latter Blair years. The police were being used even at Labour conferences, to eject protesters. The police are once again being used by the state: banning XR protests, this recent list of organisations. So far, the rule of law is there to protect us but Johnson wants to control that, too.

The Rule of Law has become something of a ghost for many, these days. You're unlikely to have access to it in many circumstances, dependent on the nature of the offence, how much money you have (or don't have) and/or your position in the social hierarchy (aka class system).

Money and socio-economic status in general will invoke not just the ghost of the rule of law but also it's poltergeist actions agin' your opponents or alleged criminal persecutors. Certain fashionable crimes are subject to the full-monty of law-rules. This includes various flavours of dissidence. The actions of the poltergeist-law are sometimes a bit arbitrary and over-violent, mind.

Other crimes and other victims are apparently invisible and fail to interest the rule of law or it's hofficers. Should a low-earning cyclist be car-squashed, for example, it is just "an accident" requiring nothing but a bit of tutting at the victim and sympathy for the delayed motorist. Also, one lot of peasants robbing another lot of peasants is a matter only for them, not a rozzer, who is too busy twisting the arm of a granny anxious about fracking.

Cugel

You may be right, Cugel. I've asked before, what do the police do instead of what they are supposed to do? It seems that they see their role as increasingly as an arm of government, to protect and even promote political interests.

Protecting government rather than citizens.

Oldjohnw wrote:

roubaixtuesday wrote:Under which definition all politics, demonstrations, even letter writing is terrorism!

Nonsense. The definition, which above states the motive, goes on to describe using acts of violence, as I am sure you will be aware. The UN goes on to state the following:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Neither protesters, letter writers, motorists nor cyclists can be thus described.

Most protesters commit criminal acts under strict reading of laws, ranging from unlawful public assembly, through obstruction of the highway, to simply showing advertisements distracting road users without planning permission. Even ones sympathetic to the conservatives are terrorists by that overly broad definition, yet haven't been listed.

The Home Office has lost the plot.

The Home Office has lost the plot.

Hard to disagree. Thankfully, at present, the courts still offer protection. They ruled against the Met over banning XR, for example. But Johnson wants to stop this in his charge that the courts are politics by the back door.

Oldjohnw wrote:

The Home Office has lost the plot.

Hard to disagree. Thankfully, at present, the courts still offer protection. They ruled against the Met over banning XR, for example. But Johnson wants to stop this in his charge that the courts are politics by the back door.

Last year on R4, in the Reith Lectures, Jonathan Sumption, the retired Law Lord, made the case for politicians to take more responsibility for politics, rather than relying on the law for political decisions. Well worth a listen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m8