RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:08 pm Worth noting - EDL dont exist.

Who's suggested that it's down to race alone? Or are you taking Puja's obvious joke as being a serious comment?

For the avoidance of doubt because text doesn't give tone, I was indeed being very tongue-in-cheek. Not that race *doesn't* play a part, but it was a joke.

There used to be a twitter account that tweeted as if it was from an alternative universe where Miliband decided against a bacon sandwich and formed a coalition government in 2015, detailing how happy that world was. I suspect that the Miliverse account probably no longer updates because of how wide the differentials would be between that world and ours.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:33 pm It would certainly make an emotional difference. I would assume it would make a legal difference in terms of what investigative powers (and reaources?) the police would have.
But I don't know, another good question

Speaking of emotional difference in terminology, here is the Telegraph's headline, presented without comment:



Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:47 pmSpeaking of emotional difference in terminology, here is the Telegraph's take on things, presented without comment:

Keep up, SoM beat you to that by about 6 hours

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:50 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:47 pmSpeaking of emotional difference in terminology, here is the Telegraph's take on things, presented without comment:

Keep up, SoM beat you to that by about 6 hours

I am behind on my RR reading, clearly!

Puja

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:08 pm Worth noting - EDL dont exist.

Who's suggested that it's down to race alone? Or are you taking Puja's obvious joke as being a serious comment?

I took it as one of his tropes.

Regarding EDL, it’s fair to suggest that as an organisation it no longer really exists, but as an idea it does. There’s plenty of splinter groups, plus references back to the EDL original. Banning it would make membership and association unlawful. It would send a message. Plus if the splinter groups were proscribed, then that would have an impact.

Historically, these groups tend to wind down and reform under a different name, so long term does it matter practically? But it certainly sends a message.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:21 pm When it comes to things like setting building on fire and blocking the entrances, does it even matter what term you use? Or is officially labelling them as terrorists needed in terms of capturing more of them under the same net with shared responsibility?

It’s a good point. Neil Basu just called some of the actions as terrorist on the BBC.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:33 pm It would certainly make an emotional difference. I would assume it would make a legal difference in terms of what investigative powers (and reaources?) the police would have.
But I don't know, another good question

It would bring additional legislation into play. Plus a whole policing unit , counter terrorist police, with its considerable resources.

The problem would be disassociating those who want to peacefully protest from those who just want to start a riot.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 6:23 pmIt’s a good point. Neil Basu just called some of the actions as terrorist on the BBC.

Yeah, just saw that. Was looking to see if I could fndi it in an article somewhere.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 6:24 pm It would bring additional legislation into play. Plus a whole policing unit , counter terrorist police, with its considerable resources.

The problem would be disassociating those who want to peacefully protest from those who just want to start a riot.

Is it as simple as that? Thank you.

Yes, of course, separating out peaceful protestors from rioters is necessary regardless.
In these specific insidences, I can't imagine there re many/any of the former after the first batch of rioting. But the burden of proof will go beyond "Which Tyler presumes"

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 6:38 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 6:23 pmIt’s a good point. Neil Basu just called some of the actions as terrorist on the BBC.

Yeah, just saw that. Was looking to see if I could fndi it in an article somewhere.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 6:24 pm It would bring additional legislation into play. Plus a whole policing unit , counter terrorist police, with its considerable resources.

The problem would be disassociating those who want to peacefully protest from those who just want to start a riot.

Is it as simple as that? Thank you.

Yes, of course, separating out peaceful protestors from rioters is necessary regardless.
In these specific insidences, I can't imagine there re many/any of the former after the first batch of rioting. But the burden of proof will go beyond "Which Tyler presumes"

Terrorism Act 2000 would allow the police to stop and search suspected terrorists with a lower degree of suspicion, plus arrest and detain. And of course surveillance. I’d assume the security services also monitor far right groups, more so those described as terrorists.

There’s plenty who hang around at demonstrations waiting for the riot but don’t do much themselves. Hard to nick them unless they are promoting a proscribed organisation. Even rioters might not be terrorist but someone from a proscribed organisation looking to start trouble would be. It would be complex in this instance.

Since the first riots, these aren't demonstrations that become riots, they're organised riots.
Absolutely, not all rioters will be terrorists, my original question was about when one becomes the other, assuming that nothing had yet.
I dont believe that you have to be part of a proscribed organisation to be a terrorist. It may be that way, but seems an unnecessary hurdle (possibly purely an out of date one)

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 6:53 pm Since the first riots, these aren't demonstrations that become riots, they're organised riots.
Absolutely, not all rioters will be terrorists, my original question was about when one becomes the other, assuming that nothing had yet.
I dont believe that you have to be part of a proscribed organisation to be a terrorist. It may be that way, but seems an unnecessary hurdle (possibly purely an out of date one)

No, you can be a lone wolf terrorist motivated by a wider ideology. Much harder to investigate prior to an incident for obvious reasons.

I suppose the issue is that not all riots are terrorist offences. Yet all riots end up with people hurt and property damaged. If it’s organised by a terrorist group then you can get the obvious link. The organisation but is essential, and that needs evidence.

I suppose the issue is not to cast the terrorist definition too far. Remember the Duggan riots? An incident triggers a riot, which then acts as a catalyst for other riots. Should that be considered to be terrorism? Those riots elsewhere in the uk weren’t by people who could claim to be personally impacted by the death. Some wanted to demonstrate over the tactics the police used, others just wanted to loot shops. But no one outside of the lunatic right fringe would call these people terrorists.

Anti immigration protests shouldn’t be considered terrorism offences per se. Rioting isn’t terrorism by itself, even considering that some riots are pre planned. There’s a tipping point where a group or those who follow an ideology are viewed to have tipped over a red line. Not sure this explanation is totally answering your question other than to suggest that we should be careful proscribing groups as terrorist or considering certain view points as extremist ideologies, even if we personally don’t like them.

FTR, the best answer I've seen is that it's so much much organisation (though that helps) but if the effect is intended (or likely) to cause fear/terror in people uninvolved, but in similar situations to the victims.

So blocking the exits and setting fire to an asylum hotel / mosque, is obviously going to terrorise the people inside. But it's also obviously going to scare other users of other asylum hotels / mosques, thinking that they might be next.
Bombing a pub frequented by off-duty British squaddies is supposed to instill fear in other off-duty British squaddies, that they're not safe, even in a pub in their hometown.

Please note, I've not been calling anyone a terrorist, or claiming that riots are acts of terrorism. I've been trying to find out if the one can cross a line I to the other (yes, according to Neil Basu) and when a riot might cross that line.
My question was I spired by the last week, obviously, but Iw as also taking pains (not well enough) to separate it from them. A question of principle, not current happenings.
I'm still unsure if there needs to be a political or policy element to classify as terrorism.

Yeah I would think that’s the key difference. You could argue previous rioters have ‘targeted’ the police I guess, but I’m not sure that would be seen the same way as the targeting of mosques or anywhere that might house asylum seekers or suspicious brown people.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 10:46 pm Yeah I would think that’s the key difference. You could argue previous rioters have ‘targeted’ the police I guess, but I’m not sure that would be seen the same way as the targeting of mosques or anywhere that might house asylum seekers or suspicious brown people.

Not necessarily. Many riots don’t just target the police, although the example I provided did, at least at first. I suppose the police always get targeted because they are there.

I suspect this is the type of discussion going on now, hopefully with more facts than we have, about whether far right groups become proscribed as terrorist or not. It’s certainly not straightforward, which is probably the point.

I’m assuming the ultimate decider is whether the intention at the outset is to cause fear through violence, like a terrorist would through a bomb, which could be applied to these riots of the organisational element were proven.

Counter protests are now springing up. Unfortunately they will attract elements who just want a fight so this will
Make the police’s job harder, even if I think many people would agree with the sentiment.

Counter protests have been a thing since the first riot.
Most peaceful, but sadly, some looking to give the thugs the fight they're looking for.

Musk is a grade A cunt and a dangerous fucker too

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 2:52 pm Musk is a grade A cunt and a dangerous fucker too

That wanker always wades in and muddies the waters. Thoroughly irresponsible.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 12:59 pm Counter protests have been a thing since the first riot.
Most peaceful, but sadly, some looking to give the thugs the fight they're looking for.

Yep. Sadly it allows the rioters to say they were provoked.

On another note, Counter Terrorism police are apparently investigating some of the recent activities.

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 2:52 pm Musk is a grade A cunt and a dangerous fucker too

Absolutely. Totally the worst person to be in charge of a social media platform.

It should be obvious he's just a shit-stirrer that shouldn't be paid attention to, as his website only makes money off people talking shit and getting angry, but turns out the rest of the media work exactly the same way so they just keep amplifying it. I didn't think he would have been bothered with UK events.

He's too big to fail at this point, despite his best efforts, so I think we're stuck with him unfortunately.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 4:20 pm It should be obvious he's just a shit-stirrer that shouldn't be paid attention to, as his website only makes money off people talking shit and getting angry, but turns out the rest of the media work exactly the same way so they just keep amplifying it. I didn't think he would have been bothered with UK events.

He's too big to fail at this point, despite his best efforts, so I think we're stuck with him unfortunately.

Barring him getting bored or arrested for going too far you’re probably right. Very galling though reading posts on LinkedIn praising his business acumen!

Poor Nigel, having the wool pulled over his eyes so horribly, and by such a trustworthy source as well.
If only an MP had access to any form of fact checking, or reputable sources - or even direct from the police or home secretary.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... er-380493/

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 6:54 pm Poor Nigel, having the wool pulled over his eyes so horribly, and by such a trustworthy source as well.
If only an MP had access to any form of fact checking, or reputable sources - or even direct from the police or home secretary.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... er-380493/

He could have tabled a Parliamentary Question to the Home Secretary. It would have taken a couple of days to get an answer that would have been accurate but probably not much more informative that that provided in the media.
Much more fun to jump on a bandwagon.

Alternatively, he could have phoned the home secretary, or the MP for Southend and Leigh, and got an answer in 5 minutes, whilst being cautioned that making the information public would jeopardise the court case, and be in contempt of parliament.

Of course, given his history, he wouldn't have been trusted with the information in the first case, but could certainly have been reassured that his bullshit was bullshit.

He chose not to even try, because he's twat.