cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/34639023

Another Case

The British government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist group on 5 July 2025 under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 after members of the network vandalised RAF aircraft at Brize Norton.[12] Since then, British police have arrested 744 individuals for showing support to Palestine Action, many of these resulting from a sit-in on Parliament Square on 9 August 2025.[13][14] Civil liberties groups have criticised the ban as “conflating protest with terrorism.”[15]

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.caEnglish
    83·
    3 days ago

    About five minutes later, the arresting officer approached him again. “He said: ‘I’ve got good news and I’ve got bad news.’ I said: ‘What’s the good news?’ He said: ‘I’m de-arresting you.’

    “And I said: ‘What’s the bad news?’ He said: ‘It’s going to be really embarrassing for me.’ And then I walked free, while all the real heroes are the people that are actually getting arrested.”

    At least the cop wasn’t a total ass about it.

    I think the UK government is being incredibly stupid and fascist lately with shit like this.

    • Railing5132@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      2 days ago

      Hey, if it was the US, due would be chewing on concrete with 3 or 4 'roided up cops yelling: “stop resisting!” while kneeling in his neck. I’m not saying the fascism shown here is cute but at least it isn’t so comically over-the-top as it is on this side of the pond.

      • Cypher@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        2 days ago

        Yes it’s a less aggressive form but it’s far more insidious because people are less likely to resist it.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        Yeah in the US, they would have beat the shit out of him for daring to mock them with a shirt. Then arrest him for resisting.

    • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      3 days ago

      The arrest would be the embarrassing part either way. You cannot define terrorism in a way that does not make it a matter of perspective.

      • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        Yes you can. Problem for governments is that they usually are terrorists by the typical definitions of using violence to further political goals.

        In particular the UK is heavily involved in the terror genocide against Gaza as it facilitates arms transfers from the US to Israel and runs spy flights over Gaza to help the Israelis find civilians to murder. They recently went to pay American contractors with British tax money to hide the fact that they continue their direct intelligence support to the genocide.

        • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          I can’t help but notice you did not provide a definition of terrorism that is not based on perspective.

          • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            using violence to further political goals.

            Unless you want to go down the road of saying that every word and thereby every definition is a matter of perspective, i fail to see how this definition is “based on perspective”.

            • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              2 days ago

              Ok America every way after WW2 has been to further economic interests in the area. Israel itself is formed on the back of horrific terrorism and outright murders.

              So can a terrorist nation define another as a terrorist? As such could that definition not apply to literally every nation in the eyes of another? The word terrorist is useless, sandwich tosser terrorist, sandal thrower terrorist. It’s meaningless.

              • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
                11·
                2 days ago

                I agree that the use by states is hypocritical and the designation currently is meaningless.

                But the definition in itself is relevant imo. to call out states when they engage in terror, which many, but not all, do.