From: NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid 
  
 On 11/08/2025 12:57, The Todal wrote: 
 > On 11/08/2025 12:01, GB wrote: 
 >> On 10/08/2025 09:24, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>> I see that 474 arrests were made yesterday at a rally in London under 
 >>> the Terrorism Act 2000, mostly for just peacefully displaying 
 >>> handwritten placards saying 'I support Palestine Action'.€€ It's also 
 >>> been reported that 800 inmates in the busiest London jails were moved 
 >>> out beforehand in order to make room for these alleged terrorists. 
 >> 
 >> Those people who were arrested foolishly failed to distinguish between: 
 >> a) Huge concern over Gaza (which we probably all share) 
 >> b) Support for Palestinian Action, itself. 
 > 
 > You mean Palestine Action. 
  
 Yes 
  
  
  
 > Or maybe you're fearful of being categorised 
 > as a supporter unless you change the word to Palestinian. That's what 
 > free speech has come to. 
  
 No 
  
 > 
 >> 
 >> All the placards I saw in the news conflated the two issues. 
 >> 
 >> AFAIK, not a single one of the protesters was arrested over his 
 >> support for Palestinians. They were all arrested for supporting a 
 >> proscribed organisation. 
 > 
 > It would probably be sufficient to carry a placard. 
  
  
 May I remind you of S12 1A: 
  
 A person commits an offence if the person€€€ 
  
 (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. 
  
  
  
  
  
 > As if that form of 
 > "support" was tantamount to vandalising expensive aircraft. 
  
 That's a non sequitur. They were (allegedly) supporting a proscribed 
 organisation. That's nothing to do with vandalising aircraft. 
  
  
 > 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> Palestinian Action were proscribed because they thought it was okay to 
 >> cause tens of millions of €€€€€€ worth of damage to aircraft. Whether 
 >> that makes them terrorists or just bloody nuisances is a moot point, 
 >> but we elect a government to make such decisions, and we should abide 
 >> by their decisions. 
 > 
 > I'm sure Donald Trump's henchmen would make the same point. He's been 
 > duly elected and is therefore entitled to send ICE to arrest and deport 
 > innocent people. Etc. 
  
  
 The SI proscribing PA was debated in Parliament, and the vote in favour 
 of proscribing them was overwhelming. I forget the exact figures, but 
 roughly 20 to 1. 
  
  
  
  
  
 > 
 >> 
 >> It's a slippery slope. If Palestinian Action are allowed to get away 
 >> with damaging aircraft, then others will think it's okay to set asylum 
 >> seeker hotels on fire, and eventually people will think it's okay to 
 >> murder their neighbours because they don't like their topiary. 
 > 
 > Why do you imagine that anyone might "get away" with vandalising 
 > aircraft? Is this a Daily Mail version of how the criminal law works? 
 > 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> Neo-Nazi groups have been proscribed, and people have been arrested 
 >> for supporting them. I can't remember any people here speaking out in 
 >> their favour? 
 >> 
 > 
 > Was it useful to deprive Sinn Fein of the "oxygen of publicity" by 
 > refusing to broadcast their political objectives? 
 > 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)