Lots of options, but something needs to be done for sure
Looking at a lot of airfields, they have a lack of simple things like fences around the perimeter roads, Waddington Upavon and Valley are classics, Fairford as well.
Hopefully, the barbed wire makers are receiving big orders.
Not sure how I feel about such rash moves to proscribe a group so easily…
I agree, I think it’s overdoing it.
Serious consequences for the perpetrators, yes. But this doesn’t meet the definition of terrorism (the use or threatened use of violence to achieve political or social objectives), so proscribing is government overreach.
2 Likes
I’m no fan of JSO and their ilk, but even I’ll admit that blocking roads and throwing cans of soup on art pales in comparison to breaking into military facilities and damaging aircraft critical for UK defence and national security interests. I don’t think you can reasonably call such activities mere “peaceful protest”.
You can debate the semantics of terrorism in this case, but it is certainly sabotage and perhaps even treasonable conduct. Even if its just as a deterrent, proscription of the organising group, unrepentant as they are, seems to me to be absolutely the right move.
3 Likes
Is it rash, we don’t know what the Security Services know.
2 Likes
Proscribing a whole group as terrorists because of the action of a couple is really not what that law is designed for.
The individuals who have done this, sure, throw the book at them. But let it be done in open court. Don’t just define them all as terrorists whereby just existing is illegal.
The proscribed terrorist laws are to stop people lending support to the likes of ISIS.
2 Likes
Hamas, who ultimately these ‘Pro-Palestinian’ groups support, are “the likes of ISIS”.
4 Likes
Having done a quick bit of googling on Palestine Action, I think their tactics appear quite obvious. They are the pro-palestinian JSO, but substantially more extreme. I doubt anyone could be a fully paid up member of this specific group without recognising and acknowledging their modus operandi.
Not to mention that this stunt won’t have been off the cuff, it’s likely that this group has been methodically planning this for a substantial period of time. Shame they didn’t realise none of those planes had anything to do with Gaza though…
I stand by my assessment of these crimes as being as good as treason, so I hold no sympathy for them whatsoever.
And like others have said, I’m sure the Home Secretary likely has some interesting information none of us here are privy to.
I’m not weighing in on Israel/Palestine more generally, I think there is substantial horrors on both sides of the coin tbh, but if you are pro-palestinian there are hundreds of other groups to support and methods to make your voice heard in a peaceful and appropriate manner.
The Home Sec would be banning this one specific group which has just proven itself to be a major national security threat, it’s not like she’s banning any and all support for pro-palestinian causes. For 99% of pro-palestinian protestors, nothing will change by proscribing this group. If a pro-Israeli group did the same thing, I’d be calling for their proscription just as quickly.
3 Likes
Not liking Israel =/= liking hamas
Also would like to point out that our Gov has been massively upping Mil aid to the IDF, Are these people idiots for thinking the RAF is doing this? Yes, obviously.
Should the offenders be prosecuted? Yes, obviously.
But prescribing the whole org as terrorists is overkill
1 Like
If you’re only keeping one, Leuchars is more geographically separate from liaise and therefore probably less vulnerable than Kinloss - if you can get drones to Lossie, you’re close enough they’re at Kinloss as well.
That said, both would be even better - our northern airspace is critically important ans a transit route (from certain countries East of Europe) and we should adopt an aggressively defensive posture for it.
Actually it does.
The definition also includes damage to property
As Joe shared
4 Likes
Thanks, I need a good laugh this morning.
I’d argue it doesn’t. The definition requires serious violence or damage. And this is far from serious damage in my view, and I’d not be 100% confident of a jury agreeing with it being serious damage if I was prosecuting.
Ha - with the A15 right on the edge, so any movements of “buckets of sunshine” from the location on the other side of the road required the traffic lights to be used…
Define serious damage? If the paint requires specialist cleaning & repainting (any anti-IR capabilities?), or, engines need to be removed to clean any stages of the fan blades, I would call that serious damage. There was mention of a crow bar or similar being used, haven’t seen any piccies yet.
3 Likes
Sure, in that case then, with that definition, I imagine we should also be charging anyone who cuts down a speed camera or ULEZ camera with terrorism too.
This is damage that can be repaired, that’s the key in my eyes. If it’s repairable, as opposed to irreparable, then it’s probably not going to be “serious” in the context of terrorism Vs violent protest.
Stretching terrorism to cover this, cheapens terrorism, gives bodies more credence than they deserve and would have big knock on effects for many forms of already criminal protest.
3 Likes
ULEZ cameras aren’t part of the national security infrastructure.
3 Likes
Sure, but, they are national infrastructure. If the state keeps watering down what terrorism is, then soon, everything will be terrorism if the state doesn’t like the motivations of the people making the point.
There are much better offences to charge, heck, even simple Criminal Damage is enough, this would be way outside the ambit of the usual guidelines, so could be heavily punished.
Not that they’ve even arrested anyone yet.
2 Likes