- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
People are now attacking road safety infrastructure with explosives in suburban England.
Bear in mind that Tory MPs actively encouraged this behaviour!
You must log in or register to comment.
We have anti-environmental terrorists now?
Looks like it. Or anti-clean air, anyway!
Interesting that XR can block a couple of roads and get days of negative coverage in the national press, but people actually exploding things in a city gets completely ignored.
Don’t forget the Tory press getting their knickers in a twist about Just Stop Oil inconvencing a few people!
This was pretty inevitable. If people were burning down 5G masts because it gave them spaces AIDS or was part of Bill Gates’ efforts to hack their children to become surly and uncooperative then something nominally based in reality was always going to get out of hand. I say nominally because you don’t do this because you object to paying a few quid, you do it because you’ve drunk the 15-minute-city Kool-Aid (and I’d bet they believe an awful lot of other conspiracy theories too).
Using explosives to try to force government policy to change is terrorism. These idiots can go into high security jail, or better still, shot whilst resisting arrest.
Except the police aren’t treating it as terrorism.
It can’t be this hard to catch them, try them with video evidence, and fine the fuck out of them can it?
I’d imagine it’s criminal damage with reckeless endangerment, which can carry a custodial sentence.
Regardless of the specific offence, it wouldn’t be hard to find them and prosecute in normal times, but with the police on austerity budgets still and politicians tacitly supporting this kind of thing, it might be harder than it should be.
Not to mention the unauthorized possession, manufacture, and use of an explosive device. Whoever did this 100% belongs in prison.
At this early stage, the incident is not being treated as terrorism
The UK legal definition of terrorism:
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) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where:
the action falls within subsection (2)
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
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:
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
is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic systemI cannot see how this is not domestic terrorism.
They were white though so can’t be terrorism
I was thinking it might come under the definition, but hadn’t gotten around to looking it up, so thanks!
Obviously they did (2). They would have to argue that they weren’t actually trying to make the GLC change the policy, so as to avoid (1) which may or may not be tenable. I kind of think not!
It was this man’s idea, officer:
Anti-ULEZ propaganda on Twitter (image uploaded to lemmy, not a link to twitter)
(Image from this thread)
According to the BBC, the explosion damaged nearby vehicles and homes, too.
It went off at 18:45, so it was pure luck that no one was close enough to get hurt.
ULEZ zone is a poor people tax. 🙄
My aunt just got a new car - her previous car was a 2004 Rover 25. Almost 20 years old and it was ULEZ compliant. If you’re ‘poor’ but still need to own and drive a car, there are plenty of cheap vehicles that meet the standard!
Poor people don’t drive cars but have to breath the pollution.
Nope. Cars are expensive, rich people own more cars and drive them more, and older cars are exempt.
