JazzG Interesting, wonder why she wasn't charged under that if it met the legal definition. Might run that through ChatGPT and see what it thinks!
What do you think?
To help you out I've copied the relevant definition from the Terrorism Act 2000 below.
Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act âterrorismâ means the use or threat of action whereâ
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if itâ
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a personâs life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
JazzG But if you are going to organise a movement who is based around undermining our defence security and companies that is different.
Unlike the above, undermining our defence and security companies is not a crime.
On Starmer, I never fail to be amazed at how poor his political instincts for issues like this are. I've no doubt Mandelson was vetted before his appointment. Surely that would have flagged up the Epstein issue as being a conflict of interest or concern in the US/Washington. Poor appointment, even poorer handling of the fallout in recent days.
