It’s so broad, they can accuse anyone of it, and that’s the point. Both parties have long supported these over broad laws too, because they are not on our side, they want the ability to bring the power of the state on the heads of any groups that might not be breaking the law in a way any reasonable person would condemn but still scare those aritstocrats.
Comment on Flock CEO calls Deflock a “terrorist organization”
Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks agoIn the UK the term is defined by the government as anyone who is deemed by the government a threat to the government or the people or someone’s property or the predominant local religion. But recently it’s been exclusively used for the first one. In this country state law is valued higher than corporate, moral, ethical and religious laws, so YMMV
Introduction 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. (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where: 2. the action falls within subsection (2) 3. 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 4. 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: 1. involves serious violence against a person 2. involves serious damage to property 3. endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action 4. creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public 5. is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system Section 1(3) to (5) goes on to expand on the effect and extent of this definition.
hector@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
tabular@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
In the UK it means the cop wants your ID and is willing to pretend your camera is a gun to get it.
Senal@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
The UK isn’t the US (at least in this context) almost nobody has guns.
In very limited situations the police can, but it’s not the norm.
Don’t get me wrong, ACAB, they just don’t generally use guns a as a pretext, perhaps a knife, or perhaps there is more than an arbitrary number of people grouped together so they can claim an ‘illegal’ protest.
tabular@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I didn’t mean they really thought a camera were a gun. I mean UK cops will “suspect” people filming with a camera of being a terrorist (as if aiming the camera were like pointing a gun).
Senal@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
“anonymous” downvotes aren’t a good replacement for an actual response, but you do you.
Senal@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
and I’m saying it’s not a common occurrence, intentional or not.
Guns aren’t common enough in the UK for “they’ve got a gun” to be a go-to for the police.
“They’ve got a knife” or “They’ve got a sign the ruling class don’t want people to see” are more likely.
As another poster pointed out, it has happened, but it’s by no means the norm.
Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Fatal police shootings in the UK are getting more common. In 2019 one man was “lawfully murdered” because an officer said the victim’s mobile phone looked like a handgun.
Senal@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Sure, that seems about right and the link is interesting.
I was just saying it’s not a common excuse for cops in the UK (right now).