Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Latest snowflake outrage

Points of disagreement
Don't think that using an Anti-terrorism measure to select the charge was the right way to go. They commited a large slew of offences to be charged with, but they clearly aren't terrorists. It does smack of over reaction, and to some extent devalues the currency. If we use AT laws all the time for everything, what's then special about actual terrorism? Or do we just go round the legislative loop again making things *more* illegal than they already are.
As with hate crime, this is the snowflake bit that gets me irate. A crime is crime, trying to classify it to make it different so we can have harsher penalties or a weaker burden of proof is the mark of a poor mind and an inadequate justice system. In this case it also panders to their sense of self importance, it's a lot harder to bleat about civil liberties if you've been prosecuted under Health and Safety legislation. That would have been a better route in my mind, you didn't have a risk assessment carried out by an authorised person and issued and trained out to all participants, that could also be pushed back at anybody organising this who conveniently forgot to turn up and risk arrest.
 
A crime is crime, trying to classify it to make it different so we can have harsher penalties or a weaker burden of proof is the mark of a poor mind and an inadequate justice system.

We see this currently with the call to put in "Misogyny" as a hate crime class... eventually just about every possible distinction will be a hate class attracting special penalties. At that point the sentencing council will trim the tariff's to bring the average sentence back down and the Daily Wail will then have one of it's scheduled aneurysms about milksop judges and soft sentencing....
 
As with hate crime, this is the snowflake bit that gets me irate. A crime is crime, trying to classify it to make it different so we can have harsher penalties or a weaker burden of proof is the mark of a poor mind and an inadequate justice system. In this case it also panders to their sense of self importance, it's a lot harder to bleat about civil liberties if you've been prosecuted under Health and Safety legislation. That would have been a better route in my mind, you didn't have a risk assessment carried out by an authorised person and issued and trained out to all participants, that could also be pushed back at anybody organising this who conveniently forgot to turn up and risk arrest.
I agree with your point but had they gone down that route they could not then make the statement that the actions taken by this group prevented a legal action from taking place and thus could be called terrorism.
 
I agree with your point but had they gone down that route they could not then make the statement that the actions taken by this group prevented a legal action from taking place and thus could be called terrorism.
What about the other passengers on the aircraft?
I'm sure that many of them were shitting it, as they weren't aware what was going on.
I hope the announcements were made, explaining what was occuring?
I'm not a nervous flyer, but know many folk who'd be going batshit panic if they saw huge amounts of hi-viz activity outside the plane.
 
" prevented a legal action from taking place and thus could be called terrorism "

Or not... "Terrorism" has defied any attempt to stick a firm definition on it, but those that exist , like the NATO or the proposed UN Comprehensive Convention definitions are all grounded in Violence and/or significant Damage to property. The particular International counter-terrorism convention regarding airfields, the one obviously relevant here, formally "The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation" defines terrorist acts as:

  1. Committing an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if it is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft;
  2. destroying an aircraft being serviced or damaging such an aircraft in such a way that renders it incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger its safety in flight;
  3. placing or causing to be placed on an aircraft a device or substance which is likely to destroy or cause damage to an aircraft;
  4. destroying or damaging air navigation facilities or interfering with their operation if it is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft;
  5. communicating information which is known to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight;
  6. attempting any of 1–5; and
  7. being an accomplice to any of 1–6.

And, admittedly relying on media reports here,I can't see anything that could be reasonably or fairly designated as fitting one of those categories or otherwise fitting the definition of Violence or *significant* damage to property....
 
" prevented a legal action from taking place and thus could be called terrorism "

Or not... "Terrorism" has defied any attempt to stick a firm definition on it, but those that exist , like the NATO or the proposed UN Comprehensive Convention definitions are all grounded in Violence and/or significant Damage to property. The particular International counter-terrorism convention regarding airfields, the one obviously relevant here, formally "The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation" defines terrorist acts as:

  1. Committing an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if it is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft;
  2. destroying an aircraft being serviced or damaging such an aircraft in such a way that renders it incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger its safety in flight;
  3. placing or causing to be placed on an aircraft a device or substance which is likely to destroy or cause damage to an aircraft;
  4. destroying or damaging air navigation facilities or interfering with their operation if it is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft;
  5. communicating information which is known to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight;
  6. attempting any of 1–5; and
  7. being an accomplice to any of 1–6.

And, admittedly relying on media reports here,I can't see anything that could be reasonably or fairly designated as fitting one of those categories or otherwise fitting the definition of Violence or *significant* damage to property....

Presumably any definition of 'terrorism' (to separate it from mere 'violence') would include some sort of statement about 'as an attempt to further a political position in some way?'
 
Presumably any definition of 'terrorism' (to separate it from mere 'violence') would include some sort of statement about 'as an attempt to further a political position in some way?'


Typically yes.... e.g US Code Title 22 U.S. Code § 2656f Section D defines as: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents "

Often it's noted that "terrorists" might be state-sponsored or supported or even direct agents.. this is where the world get's coy about a hard and fast definition, particularly a criminal one, because we've (as in governments) all done it...
 
Typically yes.... e.g US Code Title 22 U.S. Code § 2656f Section D defines as: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents "

Often it's noted that "terrorists" might be state-sponsored or supported or even direct agents.. this is where the world get's coy about a hard and fast definition, particularly a criminal one, because we've (as in governments) all done it...

Indeed. And that's when you get into the 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' log jam.
 
" prevented a legal action from taking place and thus could be called terrorism "

Or not... "Terrorism" has defied any attempt to stick a firm definition on it, but those that exist , like the NATO or the proposed UN Comprehensive Convention definitions are all grounded in Violence and/or significant Damage to property. The particular International counter-terrorism convention regarding airfields, the one obviously relevant here, formally "The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation" defines terrorist acts as:

  1. Committing an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if it is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft;
  2. destroying an aircraft being serviced or damaging such an aircraft in such a way that renders it incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger its safety in flight;
  3. placing or causing to be placed on an aircraft a device or substance which is likely to destroy or cause damage to an aircraft;
  4. destroying or damaging air navigation facilities or interfering with their operation if it is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft;
  5. communicating information which is known to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight;
  6. attempting any of 1–5; and
  7. being an accomplice to any of 1–6.

And, admittedly relying on media reports here,I can't see anything that could be reasonably or fairly designated as fitting one of those categories or otherwise fitting the definition of Violence or *significant* damage to property....

I understood the defendants were charged with intentional disruption of services and endangerment at an aerodrome under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act.
 
I understood the defendants were charged with intentional disruption of services and endangerment at an aerodrome under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act.


"
Endangering safety at aerodromes.
(1)It is an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon intentionally to commit at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation any act of violence which—
(a)causes or is likely to cause death or serious personal injury, and
(b)endangers or is likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.
(2)It is also, subject to subsection (4) below, an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally—
(a)to destroy or seriously to damage—
(i)property used for the provision of any facilities at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation (including any apparatus or equipment so used), or
(ii)any aircraft which is at such an aerodrome but is not in service, or
(b)to disrupt the services of such an aerodrome,
in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.
"

None of which looks particularly like what they actually did....

also note

"Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted—
in England and Wales, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General"

So in this case a political appointee gets to decide whether to throw the book at people posing a direct challenge to a flagship government policy. I note that the reasons for the AG's decision were not disclosed to the defence.

As I understand it what would have taken about 15 minutes in a magistrates court. "Cut a fence and behaved like cnuts your worship"..."did they the guilty bastards.. right... fines costs and victim supplements..... next guilty bastard..." got strung into a nine week trial which seems mostly consisted of the prosecution building an indirect and tenuous logical link between what actually occurred and the offences stated in the act. What has been left is the impression that a political decision was made to frighten political dissenters by seeking the harshest possible penalty. I would rather that had not happened, it risks bringing the justice system into disrepute.
 
Top