Terror threat Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
"The police have been told to use stop and search powers against the protesters, who have pledged to take DIRECT ACTION on August 18 and 19 but not to endanger life."
So expressing their opinion in a peaceful manner involves direct action does it? and the police are supposed to just let them get on with it.
Its a busy airport if people want to protest peacefully they have every right to do so but if they want to cause disruption to the travelling public with their "direct action" then they deserve everything that comes their way
Well lets hope that the passengers take direct action against the protesters, I certainly would not like my holiday mess up by that lot.
Its hard enough getting to the airport and getting through security, without any extra hassle
And despite the fact you quoted the article, I notice you neglected to quote the part that said
"Cristina Fraser, a student, was stopped when cycling near the airport with a friend and then charged under section 58 of the Terrorism Act. This makes it an offence to make a record of something that could be used in an act of terrorism."
Because clearly someone who is cycling near an airport is a danger to humanity! Run! Run for the hills I tell you!! There is a woman on a bike!!!
I think I was wrong about my initial assessment. We aren't sleepwalking in to a police state. We are running headlong and cheering while we do it.
- 1 Reply to A Yahoo! User
Cristina Fraser, a student, was stopped when cycling near the airport with a friend and then charged under section 58 of the Terrorism Act. This makes it an offence to make a record of something that could be used in an act of terrorism."
Whats that got to do with riding a bike she was clearly recording of something that could be used in an act of terrorism. lol
Maybe the best tactic would be to halt the benefits for those taking aprt in prottests becuase they are not activley looking for gainful employment.
whinge whinge whinge taff is that all you can do make up stories about police states and "innocent" protestors
And not to continue to point out how much of a twat you are, but don't we have laws for dealing with public order offences already? I mean - there must have been protests before the ATA 2000 came in, so why won't the police use those?
Why is it necessary to detain protestors for a month without charge? Are the police scared that they will go out and do more protesting if released early?
I will tell you why, but you will just ignore it because you are so utterly convinced you are right that the police could shoot your mother dead, then pull out a map of London and say she was a terrorist, and you would just go "Yeah. Okay"
If the government can stop this protest, then future protests (against anything) will be more unlikely to happen. And so, rather than using public order laws, or even assult laws, the police are going to wade straight in with the neo-fascist anti-terrorism laws, to scare the living shit out of anyone who turns up.
If you thought that, by attending a peaceful protest, you might get locked up for a month without charge, wouldn't you give a second thought ot not going?
Terrorists are bad people. I think we can all agree on that.
But protesters are not terrorists. They don't blow things up, they don't kill people. They don't leave massive car-bombs next to schools. And yet somehow you are putting the two on the same level by accepting that police can use anti-terrorism laws to deal with protesters.
But hey - when things get so bad that you actually want to get off your lazy, fat ass and protest about something, I am sure you won't mind spending a month in jail without charge for your actions, will you?