• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Welsh Exile said:
For me, who you're targeting is an important factor. If Tommy Robinson and his gang wanted to get together and have a pop at the government by targeting the police and government buildings and what not I'd call them "rebels" (with a few expletives before and after that word) and even "freedom fighters" if I agreed with their cause.

If their main target are the public, or a specific group of people, I'd call them terrorists or *****
Click to expand...
Considering their targets have included hotels and mosques, with the aim of causing terror to people they expect to be in them, that seems pretty solid grounds to call it terrorism.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
Considering their targets have included hotels and mosques, with the aim of causing terror to people they expect to be in them, that seems pretty solid grounds to call it terrorism.
Click to expand...
By that token, the attack which sparked all of this should also be called terrorism.
 
Becca said:
By that token, the attack which sparked all of this should also be called terrorism.
Click to expand...
We don't know the reasoning for the original attack.

Terrorism require a political element to the attack. At least in my book.
 
I'm not sure that follows, unless you think his aim was to cause terror in all people who attend dance classes.
These rioters are wanting people who use mosques or asylum hotels to feel terror, thinking that they might be next, not just the occupants of that mosque and that hotel.

Either way, caught a bit of the news at 6, and they had a former head of UK's anti-terrorism unit (Neil Basu) on, saying that some of these actions cross the line into terrorism.
Which helps for these specific incidents, but I'm still unclear as to where that line is (but confirms that it exists).
Instinctively, I'd say that Ragey hits the nail on the head.
 
Last edited:
Legal definition of Terrorism definition via MI5 and CPS. It's pretty broad tbh.

In this is Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

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, and
the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.

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.
 
Saintjay said:
Legal definition of Terrorism definition via MI5 and CPS. It's pretty broad tbh.

In this is Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

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, and
the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.

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.
Click to expand...
The far right violence seems to fall pretty squarely into that.
 
That is helluva broad!

Broader than I'm instinctively comfortable with.

And yes, the last few nights would definitely qualify
 
Which Tyler said:
That is helluva broad!

Broader than I'm instinctively comfortable with.

And yes, the last few nights would definitely qualify
Click to expand...
Circles back to what i meant when i said could fit JSO when clearly it shouldn't and yep it's not overly comfortable.
 
Intention has to be a big part too. JSO have done dangerous acts, but I wouldn't say they have ever acted with the intention of hurting others.

I know the M25 stunt was reckless, but it's purpose wasn't to hurt anyone.
 
Saintjay said:
Circles back to what i meant when i said could fit JSO when clearly it shouldn't and yep it's not overly comfortable.
Click to expand...
Which of these four clauses has JSO done?

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.

Because they have very deliberately never caused serious damage to property. Everything they've done has very deliberately not caused any permanent damage.
 
Saintjay said:
Somehow they also need to get a grip of social media companies. Slight problem when Elon is one of them.
Click to expand...

Ye think many of those dumb f*~*kwits know how to use a VPN?

Do everyone with more than single digit IQ a favour and ban twatter from UK interwebz.
 
ncurd said:
Which of these four clauses has JSO done?

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.

Because they have very deliberately never caused serious damage to property. Everything they've done has very deliberately not caused any permanent damage.
Click to expand...
Would stopping emergency vehicles getting to and from emergency situations endanger life or cause a health and safety risk to the public?

Really depends on the truth regarding ambulances being blocked or fire engines etc.

I'm not a barrister so whether that does or doesn't fit the definition it open to interpretation.
 
Saintjay said:
Would stopping emergency vehicles getting to and from emergency situations endanger life or cause a health and safety risk to the public?

Really depends on the truth regarding ambulances being blocked or fire engines etc.

I'm not a barrister so whether that does or doesn't fit the definition it open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
I think there would definitely have to intent. Also I think you have to work out if they genuinely made a difference to normal response time.

I'd be very dubious of any of those claims. Bearing in mind emergency response vehicles can speed on normal streets.
 
The only time I can imagine it having impact is during a incident like 7/7 where things shave to rapidly redeployed a cross the country.
 
Just watched some of the footage of the rioters outside the hotel. I noticed quite a few younger ones were actually laughing as they were breaking into the hotel as if it's all a joke FFS. It's the older ones that seem to be the angry ones. Also half of them seemed to be recording it all on their phones as if they were at a sports event. It's absolutely mental.

I know the police have had a bad press in recent times but it very rarely gets mentioned how brave they have been in trying to deal with this. The vast majority are probably decent people who are civilians themselves when they're off duty and will most likely have families. Quite a few of them have ended up in hospital from trying to keep the public safe. I hope they emerge from all this with a lot of credit and appreciation - just like NHS workers did during COVID.
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
5K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
4K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
25 26 27
Replies
528
Views
21K
Amiga500
A
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
781
Try-Hard Tackler
T
M
Had to stare someone down at a red light
Replies
6
Views
1K
Al Bangor
Al Bangor

Latest posts

Top