4 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

They need to get permission to take the case to the supreme court .

You are a member of a terrorist organisation, a sleeper cell

Fer Chrissakes, first I'm woke and now I'm a sleeper. Make up you mind!

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Terrorism is when a group uses violence and intimidation to try to influence an elected Governments policies .

P.A used violence and intimidation to try to influence the UK Govs policies on Israel .

Quite straight forward really .

The only violence ever used in dozens of PA actions was on the poor policewoman. Intimidation... Do you think Elbit was "intimidated" out of the UK? PA obviously did not "intimidate" the UK govt sufficiently for it to refuse UK bases to the US.

How exactly do you think a protest organisation "intimidates" the UK's policies on Israel? Try to "influence" is the correct term.

2 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

The only violence ever used in dozens of PA actions was on the poor policewoman. Intimidation... Do you think Elbit was "intimidated" out of the UK? PA obviously did not "intimidate" the UK govt sufficiently for it to refuse UK bases to the US.

How exactly do you think a protest organisation "intimidates" the UK's policies on Israel? Try to "influence" is the correct term.

Could you read up on P.A,s actions against Elbit ?

I don't have the time to write all about it

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No I do not agree with your simplistic definition of terrorism.

The UK legal definition of terrorism is:

“Under UK law, specifically the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of action designed to influence a government, intimidate the public, or disrupt an electronic system, aimed at advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause“

The use of UK terrorism laws against a protest group might very well fit the definition of use or threat of action or action to intimidate the public right to engage in political activism.

Thank you for quoting that law. It is broad enough to include almost any political group north of the PTA! I think even the Boy Scouts could be so charged. Note the all-important "or" not "and".

OK, lets ask A.I. and ask whether my definition of what is terrorism is correct or not ?

Hey , A.I is this a correct definition of what terrorism is :

"Terrorism is when a group uses violence and intimidation to try to influence an elected Governments policies ."

A.I replies

Yes, that is a highly accurate summary of the core elements that define terrorism. Law enforcement and international bodies generally agree that terrorism involves the use or threat of violence to intimidate a population or coerce a government into granting political, religious, or ideological demands

Now you present an entirely different definition that still isn’t the UK legal definition, laced of course with the sophistry you so often resort to rather than admit your error.

‘The core elements’

The core element is the legal definition.

3 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Not necessarily so; there is no statutory right for an appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court in the UK has the discretionary power to hear or deny hearing any petition; understandable that you as a non UK citizen were unaware of this.

It would be quite surprising were the Supreme Court not to hear this case, so fundamental to our concepts and understanding of "democracy", "freedom of speech", aso.

This is, in every way, a landmark case about how the UK proceeds with public protest in future.

Thank you for quoting that law. It is broad enough to include almost any political group north of the PTA! I think even the Boy Scouts could be so charged. Note the all-important "or" not "and".

Which is, I suspect, why the law was drafted the way it was.

9 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Could you read up on P.A,s actions against Elbit ?

I don't have the time to write all about it

Perhaps you'll point to any in which violence against a person was employed? There are none.

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now you present an entirely different definition that still isn’t the UK legal definition,

EH ?I copy and pasted the previous definition .

How can a C & P be completely different ?

They are exactly the same .

Once again you are wrong and you will just keep arguing and adding bits as a distraction .

My definition of what terrorism is was 100% accurate and spot on .

40 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Fer Chrissakes, first I'm woke and now I'm a sleeper. Make up you mind!

Would you be willing to take action on behalf of Palestine action , a group that you are a member of ?

14 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

There will be many, many more arrests before this case is heard by the Supreme Court. I think it's one of the most important decisions in modern law, what constitute terrorism.

You asked a question and I did my best to answer correctly , I knew the definition and wrote the answer myself .

Took time and effort to write the reply .

My answer was 100 % accurate .

CH comes along saying I'm wrong , gives me a thumbs down says the reply was simplistic and he lazily just C & Ps the actual law , the law which actually said the same as me , just written different .

Then he spends the rest of the day trying to look for an angle where he's right and I'm wrong .

So, DONT expect me to answer anymore of your questions, its just not worth the hassle .

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

EH ?I copy and pasted the previous definition .

How can a C & P be completely different ?

They are exactly the same .

Once again you are wrong and you will just keep arguing and adding bits as a distraction .

My definition of what terrorism is was 100% accurate and spot on .

Here‘s an idea.

Since you brought up AI.

Cut and paste your definition of terrorism together with the legal definition into AI and get it to explain the differences for you.

There’s no shame in seeking the help you need.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here‘s an idea.

Since you brought up AI.

Cut and paste your definition of terrorism together with the legal definition into AI and get it to explain the differences for you.

There’s no shame in seeking the help you need.

They maybe slightly be different in wording but they both adequately explain the definition of terrorism .

One was written as a laymen by me , the other was written for the law .

They BOTH give the definition of terrorism, the differences between the two are irrelevant .

You are just looking for an angle to argue .

5 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Would you be willing to take action on behalf of Palestine action , a group that you are a member of ?

100%. I'd probably be arrested immediately for wearing my PA shirt.

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Many of the people supporting the zero-Palestinian anti genocide movement are also paying taxes.

Ok, Unfortunately, it is unlikely that they pay anywhere near enough to cover the costs of goods and services that the UK gives them, nor the cost of the expenses incurred through their activities. Did you know that the top 10% of income earners pay 60% of the UK income tax? I don't think anyone from that income range was busy causing millions of pounds of damage.

Look at the list of who has been arrested. Most are unemployed, followed by working at publicly funded "social service" groups, or students or retirees. Can you name one of the most recent 107 arrested terror group members who is actually paying a significant amount of tax? Surely, you can name one?

9 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Ok, Unfortunately, it is unlikely that they pay anywhere near enough to cover the costs of goods and services that the UK gives them, nor the cost of the expenses incurred through their activities. Did you know that the top 10% of income earners pay 60% of the UK income tax? I don't think anyone from that income range was busy causing millions of pounds of damage.

Look at the list of who has been arrested. Most are unemployed, followed by working at publicly funded "social service" groups, or students or retirees. Can you name one of the most recent 107 arrested terror group members who is actually paying a significant amount of tax? Surely, you can name one?

Ah, I see. It's the taxpayers who are the responsible citizens. The, ahem, 10%. You're right about that because the really fatcats, the 1%, are clever enough to not pay anything.

What about change, Pat, what about morality? Those taxpayers can't effect change, they're too busy working. Students, retirees, those who work in social services or for NGOs and, yes, the unemployed, those are the people who have the freedom to speak out without fear.

Perhaps you think society doesn't need change, that all is hunky-dory just as it is. Wars, the economy, nukes, immigration, geopolitics, the climate crisis, despoliation of the planet, it's all okay by you. Well, friend, not for me. I want a better world. And to get that you have to make a lot of noise, and maybe get yourself locked up. It's worth it. Nonviolence works.

Yeah, whoop, millions of pounds that can't be used for death and destruction. Good for them.

17 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

100%. I'd probably be arrested immediately for wearing my PA shirt.

So, why deny being part of a sleeper cell for a terrorist organisation ?

11 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Ah, I see. It's the taxpayers who are the responsible citizens. The, ahem, 10%. You're right about that because the really fatcats, the 1%, are clever enough to not pay anything.

What about change, Pat, what about morality? Those taxpayers can't effect change, they're too busy working. Students, retirees, those who work in social services or for NGOs and, yes, the unemployed, those are the people who have the freedom to speak out without fear.

Perhaps you think society doesn't need change, that all is hunky-dory just as it is. Wars, the economy, nukes, immigration, geopolitics, the climate crisis, despoliation of the planet, it's all okay by you. Well, friend, not for me. I want a better world. And to get that you have to make a lot of noise, and maybe get yourself locked up. It's worth it. Nonviolence works.

Yeah, whoop, millions of pounds that can't be used for death and destruction. Good for them.

You are given to hysterical hyperbole as you attempt to characterize a group who pays more than their fair share as paying nothing. In the UK, the top 1% of income earners pay 1/3 of all income tax and capital gains tax revenues. The top 0.1% earn 5% of all salary paid, but pay 11% of all income tax. In contrast, the bottom 50% of earners earn 24% of all salary paid, but only pay 10% of income tax. In effect a large portion of the UK is getting a free ride or a very cushy subsidized ride on the backs of a small number of workers. Your claim that the 1% pay no tax is an absolute falsehood. The immorality is your attempt to characterize people who are compensated for their hard work as not contributing. This is consistent with the recycled political slogans you have carried forward from the 1970's.

I don't need unemployed "students" or left over social activists to tell me how to live my life. Nor do I need them getting in my way when I go to work, a 4 letter word that is foreign to most of them.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

You are given to hysterical hyperbole as you attempt to characterize a group who pays more than their fair share as paying nothing. In the UK, the top 1% of income earners pay 1/3 of all income tax and capital gains tax revenues. The top 0.1% earn 5% of all salary paid, but pay 11% of all income tax. In contrast, the bottom 50% of earners earn 24% of all salary paid, but only pay 10% of income tax. In effect a large portion of the UK is getting a free ride or a very cushy subsidized ride on the backs of a small number of workers. Your claim that the 1% pay no tax is an absolute falsehood. The immorality is your attempt to characterize people who are compensated for their hard work as not contributing. This is consistent with the recycled political slogans you have carried forward from the 1970's.

I don't need unemployed "students" or left over social activists to tell me how to live my life. Nor do I need them getting in my way when I go to work, a 4 letter word that is foreign to most of them.

The tax debate becomes tiresome over time. All information about who pays taxes is publicly accessible. Yet, people continue to push false narratives.

If I was to say "I Support Palestine Action" in the UK - even online I could get arrested. So I won't.

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

If I was to say

In another posting from a few days ago you said you had finished some DIY in the UK. So you just made that statement in the UK, online.

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

If I was to say "I Support Palestine Action" in the UK - even online I could get arrested. So I won't.

Keep it to the UK , do you support Islamic immigration to the UK ?

Halah food and all that ?

Muslims becoming the majority in UK towns ?

Is that what you support ?

8 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

In another posting from a few days ago you said you had finished some DIY in the UK. So you just made that statement in the UK, online.

I was referring to expressing support for the organisation, not merely discussing the wording of the law. There's a difference between describing a statement and making the statement itself.If I was to rob a bank I would commit a criminal offence so I wont. I have consulted my learned friends on AI. So don't be a tout.

Edited June 17Jun 17 by beautifulthailand99

11 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Keep it to the UK , do you support Islamic immigration to the UK ?

Halah food and all that ?

Muslims becoming the majority in UK towns ?

Is that what you support ?

Why should I - this thread is about Palestine Action - a proscribed UK civil disobedience group where to declare support for it is an illegal activity. That is what we are discussing not hypotheticals about religious adherents. That said as an animal rightist would ban halal and kosher food and male circumcision as barbaric practices.

5 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Why should I - this thread is about Palestine Action - a proscribed UK civil disobedience group where to declare support for it is an illegal activity. That is what we are discussing not hypotheticals about religious adherents. That said as an animal rightist would ban halal and kosher food and male circumcision as barbaric practices.

You have an avatar as the Union Jack .

You support an middle eastern Islamic terrorist group who are invading the UK .

Whose side are you on ?

You make a lot of assumptions there - the flag is I've taken my country back from the bigots and reactionaries. (well I haven’t I changed my oft changed avatar on an obscure Thai based internet forum). I tell you which side I am on - the foxes I love them nearly as much as my wife. Which is a lot.

6 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You have an avatar as the Union Jack .

You support an middle eastern Islamic terrorist group who are invading the UK .

Whose side are you on ?

Edited June 17Jun 17 by beautifulthailand99

2 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

If I was to say "I Support Palestine Action" in the UK - even online I could get arrested. So I won't.

Is that so ?

3 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Tommy Robinsons changed his tune a bit :)

Ha ha , get off line and watch the football

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Is that so ?

Tommy Robinsons changed his tune a bit :)

Ha ha , get off line and watch the football

I don't support football - not because it's illegal - it's not but it's overpaid male aggression wrapped up in the flag full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

So here’s the judge opening the door for appeal to the Supreme Court and ECHR:

“But Baroness Carr added that it was "a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism".

"It is not - as claimed - a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open," she added.

"It is a covert organisation which operates with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury."

The suffragettes absolutely meet the definition of a covert terrorist group. They engaged in arson and bomb attacks.

Their most militant wing travelled around the country teaching women how to make bombs and set arson fires.

“We [Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr] would feel uneasy at the fact that their [the Suffragettes ] actions killed at least four people and caused injuries to many others. We [Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr] might be stunned, even shocked, to learn that they [the Suffragettes] detonated a bomb at Westminster Abbey which damaged the Coronation Chair and (potentially) broke the Stone of Destiny. Or when we [Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr] learn that they [the Suffragettes ] attempted to blow up a reservoir and flood villages in Upper Windleden, or detonated a bomb at Holloway Prison that covered sleeping children in shards of glass, or bombed schools, or threw bombs onto crowded train carriages and tube station platforms, or tried to burn down the tennis club house at Wimbledon, or bombed a Dublin theatre while the audience were still inside, or burnt down Kew Garden’s tea pavilion or planted a bomb that was powerful enough to destroy an entire building with 200 people inside – when we learn all of this, our ideas about the Suffragettes might shift.“

Clearly Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr was drawing on a shockingly ignorant view of the history of direct action in the UK.

https://eghammuseum.org/terrorists-the-suffragette-arson-and-bombing-campaign/

Palestine Action ban is lawful, Court of Appeal rules

The Home Office had challenged a High Court ruling that the group's proscription should be quashed.

On 6/17/2026 at 12:19 PM, Nick Carter icp said:

So, why deny being part of a sleeper cell for a terrorist organisation ?

You're assuming I'm going to wake up. I wonder the same every single night!