General News Thread

[The Doctor]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

It’s complicated and presumably we’ll find out when the court rules whether govt have overstepped.  You’d expect this to go all the way to the Supreme Court if they find in favour of the state 

I mean, not to start another argument but I wouldn't trust a court decision on this, particularly since this year the supreme court have already demonstrated that they're not particularly interested in ruling in a human rights legislation complaint way (That the ECtHR can overrule this and require states to actually remember their human rights obligations is why some of the far right are not agitating to leave the ECHR despite it being one of Britain's finest achievements)

[Muzzy_no7]

5 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Yes. It's a dangerous path to be going down around the suppression of free speech and the right to object to the governments actions if property damage is considered terrorism rather than vandalism. Personally I think that what we're going to call terrorism should be restricted to taking actions or inciting actions that are intended to cause mass death or injury, to intimidate people in service of a political ideology. Still not perfect (that would for instance still perfectly describe the suffragettes and they were absolutely right) but that's the one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter issue.

Except it’s not just property damage though is it? 
 

I fully back the government on this (one of the few things they’ve got right IMO).

 

The amount of damage, disruption, incitement to commit more damage and promotion of said damage over a significant period of time has given authorities no choice. They also have regularly intimidated thousands of workers at UK companies. 

 

Crucial the high court or wherever it ends up keeps it in place too IMO. 

[The Doctor]

22 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Except it’s not just property damage though is it? 
 

I fully back the government on this (one of the few things they’ve got right IMO).

 

The amount of damage, disruption, incitement to commit more damage and promotion of said damage over a significant period of time has given authorities no choice. They also have regularly intimidated thousands of workers at UK companies. 

 

Crucial the high court or wherever it ends up keeps it in place too IMO. 

I mean, I'm not aware of Palestine Action causing bodily harm to anyone (and you'd think this government would have released that info by this point given it is turning into their poll tax moment), so yes, it is just property damage.

[Muzzy_no7]

18 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I mean, I'm not aware of Palestine Action causing bodily harm to anyone (and you'd think this government would have released that info by this point given it is turning into their poll tax moment), so yes, it is just property damage.

No it isn’t.

 

Countless assaults on Emergency workers. 
 

Violent disorder.

 

Burglary.

 

Aggravated burglary. 
 

Locking on to vehicles and buildings.

 

Ram-raids. 
 

Incitement/threats of damage. 
 

Promoting how to do the above. 

 

Intimidation of public and workers.

 

Indeed some of what they have done (not just one isolated incident at bronze norton) is and has been a serious threat to national security. 

 

Pal Action are simply not what they proclaim to be or what certain persons and news outlets promote them to be. They aren’t in the slightest bit ’non-violent’. 

[kenny]

30 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I mean, I'm not aware of Palestine Action causing bodily harm to anyone (and you'd think this government would have released that info by this point given it is turning into their poll tax moment), so yes, it is just property damage.

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. The current UK definition of terrorism is given in the Terrorism Act 2006.

 

In the UK we define terrorism as a violent action that:

Endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action
Involves serious violence against a person
Causes serious damage to property
Creates a serious risk to the public’s health and safety
Interferes with or seriously disrupts an electronic system

 

Many have a false belief as to what constitutes terrorism in the UK. PA are a political movement that organises criminal damage on property (in this case, NATO defence aircraft - in another country they would have been fortunate to leave the site unharmed) and it does so to change UK government policy.

 

It's textbook terrorism.

[leicsmac]

And while this discussion about the theory and practice of legal demonstration and terrorism is going on, more and more people are starving to death, or being shot dead or deliberately maimed.

 

Humans, huh?

[urban.spaceman]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mnnje4wlro

 

A police officer was taken to hospital after being hit with a sledgehammer while responding to reports of criminal damage.

A vehicle was used to ram the entrance of the Bristol HQ of defence technology firm Elbit Systems on Bolingbroke Way in Patchway, on the outskirts of Bristol, shortly before 04:00 BST.

Employees and police officers who intervened were assaulted, Avon and Somerset Constabulary said, and six people were arrested.

Sledgehammers, axes, whips and other homemade weapons were seized, police added. 

During the incident, two officers were assaulted with a sledgehammer, police said.

One of the officers was taken to hospital with injuries to her back and has since been discharged, while the other officer received medical treatment at the scene after being struck on the back of his legs.

An employee of the business was also treated by paramedics for an injury to their head.

Police said six people aged 20-30 years old were arrested on suspicion of a range of offences including Section 18 wounding with intent, aggravated burglary, burglary and criminal damage.

 

 

[The Doctor]

17 minutes ago, kenny said:

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. The current UK definition of terrorism is given in the Terrorism Act 2006.

 

In the UK we define terrorism as a violent action that:

Endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action
Involves serious violence against a person
Causes serious damage to property
Creates a serious risk to the public’s health and safety
Interferes with or seriously disrupts an electronic system

 

Many have a false belief as to what constitutes terrorism in the UK. PA are a political movement that organises criminal damage on property (in this case, NATO defence aircraft - in another country they would have been fortunate to leave the site unharmed) and it does so to change UK government policy.

 

It's textbook terrorism.

right, at risk of being dismissed as an out there communist (my politics are more anarchist in nature), that definition applies to the police and the military. Are police forces and the military then state sponsored terrorism? If not, then there has to be more to it than just the definition as to whether a group are considered terrorists or not, and all indications around this are that that more to it is simply the UK government outraged that it's allies are being questioned over significant human rights abuses, and it's role in those abuses is also being questioned. That's not keeping us safe, that's authoritarianism

[Foxdiamond]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

And while this discussion about the theory and practice of legal demonstration and terrorism is going on, more and more people are starving to death, or being shot dead or deliberately maimed.

 

Humans, huh?

 

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And while this discussion about the theory and practice of legal demonstration and terrorism is going on, more and more people are starving to death, or being shot dead or deliberately maimed.

 

Humans, huh?

Surely that reflects what the U.K. is actually able to do to affect things ???

I’d say starmer has gone way further than many expected to try and influence things - but he won’t manage to. 
 

in the meantime it’s reasonable to have discussions about free speech and what protests are acceptable/unacceptable here????

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

15 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

right, at risk of being dismissed as an out there communist (my politics are more anarchist in nature), that definition applies to the police and the military. Are police forces and the military then state sponsored terrorism? If not, then there has to be more to it than just the definition as to whether a group are considered terrorists or not, and all indications around this are that that more to it is simply the UK government outraged that it's allies are being questioned over significant human rights abuses, and it's role in those abuses is also being questioned. That's not keeping us safe, that's authoritarianism

Perhaps as an anarchist this explains why you haven't considered the welfare of the employees going about their lawful work (even if you don't agree with the work) that allegedly have been physically assaulted by PA.

[Muzzy_no7]

Good Law Project criticises GB News.

 

Water is also still wet. 
 

Oh and cat sh*t still absolutely stinks. 

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Perhaps as an anarchist this explains why you haven't considered the welfare of the employees going about their lawful work (even if you don't agree with the work) that allegedly have been physically assaulted by PA.

If you don't know what anarchism means perhaps. like I could give the Bud Cubby quote from dimension 20 ("laws are threats...") for a pithy response but truth is that a state is basically a dominant group of people who've declared that they hold the monopoly on legitimate violence - for anyone who thinks that the only legitimate violence is in self-defence or defence of those who can't defend themselves it then becomes clear that all states are illegitimate and inherently authoritarian.

[The Doctor]

19 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Good Law Project criticises GB News.

 

Water is also still wet. 
 

Oh and cat sh*t still absolutely stinks. 

generous to call GB "News" cat shit tbh, more like lion shit (that stuff is foul). 

[urban.spaceman]

I thought we were an autonomous collective

[Foxdiamond]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

If you don't know what anarchism means perhaps. like I could give the Bud Cubby quote from dimension 20 ("laws are threats...") for a pithy response but truth is that a state is basically a dominant group of people who've declared that they hold the monopoly on legitimate violence - for anyone who thinks that the only legitimate violence is in self-defence or defence of those who can't defend themselves it then becomes clear that all states are illegitimate and inherently authoritarian.

And the welfare of the workers in question?

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, Foxdiamond said:

And the welfare of the workers in question?

shouldn't be put in undue danger, however if you work in the arms industry you are complicit in gross violations of human rights and should expect reasonable objections to the legitimacy of your work (you also shouldn't be able to sleep at night if you have a soul)

[leicsmac]

34 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Surely that reflects what the U.K. is actually able to do to affect things ???

I’d say starmer has gone way further than many expected to try and influence things - but he won’t manage to. 
 

in the meantime it’s reasonable to have discussions about free speech and what protests are acceptable/unacceptable here????

 

 

It does reflect and it is reasonable, yes - if that post came across as otherwise, then consider this a clarification. 

 

The point was that the current systems our species operates under seems to  hold quite a few possibly unfair absurdities like that, and as such perhaps a person might understand why other people are driven, sometimes too harshly, to challenge and change those absurdities and the system that perpetuates them. 

 

 

Edited 12 August 2025 by leicsmac

[Foxdiamond]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

shouldn't be put in undue danger, however if you work in the arms industry you are complicit in gross violations of human rights and should expect reasonable objections to the legitimacy of your work (you also shouldn't be able to sleep at night if you have a soul)

Does getting a bashing equal reasonable objection? 

[Trav Le Bleu]

53 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mnnje4wlro

 

 

A police officer was taken to hospital after being hit with a sledgehammer while responding to reports of criminal damage.

 

 

 

Police are asking the public for clues to the whereabouts of a certain Mr P. Gabriel.

[Trav Le Bleu]

15 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I thought we were an autonomous collective

You're fooling yourself!

Edited 12 August 2025 by Trav Le Bleu

[Muzzy_no7]

@The Doctor just admit you were extremely off it by saying Pal Action are ‘only damage’, go and have a nice Whaskey and put ya feet up in the garden👍🏼

[The Doctor]

7 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Does getting a bashing equal reasonable objection? 

generally speaking no, objections should be in the form of blockading. it's a picket line, don't be a scab, and in blocking weapons from being sent out.

[Foxdiamond]

5 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

generally speaking no, objections should be in the form of blockading. it's a picket line, don't be a scab, and in blocking weapons from being sent out.

Shame PA didn't take that option 

[Bellend Sebastian]

45 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Good Law Project criticises GB News.

 

Water is also still wet. 
 

Oh and cat sh*t still absolutely stinks. 

 I'm going to watch a bit. Not sampled for a while. Wish me luck!