Reply to post: Re: "environmental rights terrorists"

London Gatwick Airport reopens but drone chaos perps still not found


Re: "environmental rights terrorists"

The legal definitions don't include intimidation.

USA (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

UK Terrorism act 2006

"terrorism is a violent action that:

- Endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action

- Involves serious violence against a person

- Causes serious damage to property

- Creates a serious risk to the public’s health and safety

- Interferes with or seriously disrupts an electronic system"

Now the last two do apply to these jokers at Gatwick, but lets be clear, legally a terrorist must be involved in violence, damage or serious risk to safety.

Intimidation is it's own crime.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020