A note of explanation on why Reid is targetting so-called "fascist individuals". Please note that I only discuss legal issues in the most general terms.

Terrorism is defined under UK law as the action of groups. For example, if you were a group plotting and campaigning for the replacement of an elected government you could be a group of terrorists, just like all the opposing political parties. I am fairly certain that you cannot be an individual terrorist outside of a recognisable group under current UK law. Imagine that an individual is plotting and campaigning for the repacement of the democratically elected government perhaps by being extremely critical of the leader and senior ministers. It would seem that it's not terrorism.

This would likely pose real problems for the police wanting to nail an individual for terrorism. They probably could not even impose a control order without at least some credible evidence of links. They would want to be at least a member  of some recognisable group or catch him in the company of a radical political group, ideally a group that pursues a revolutionary ideology.

Since such a person could not be a terrorist, I suppose they would have to be a political activist. He could be watched under a RIPA terrorist investigation but they would need that active group.

As for the 'fascist' part, Reid responds to media criticism. He's changed from passing the buck. Now he's attempting to distance himself from the NeoCons and the 'Fascist' label by misusing the term himself and acts the part of a socialist by calling for solidarity in the face of an alleged terror threat.




Comments have been disabled due to malicious commenting

The following comments were made to this post


� August 20, 2006 - You CAN be convicted of terrorism as a lone individualPosted by Watching Them, Watching Us
"I am fairly certain that you cannot be an individual terrorist outside of a recognisable group under current UK law."

Unfortuanetly, tou are not correct !

See the definition of "terrorism" in section 1 id the Terrorism Act 200, which is also the basis of the definition in the Terrorism Act 2006, and inthe Abnti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Even the NuLabour Government admits that this is wrong, and it is being reviewed by Lord Carlisle of berriew (but not until next year).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm#1

The wording applies to a single individual, as well as to a group.

There are offences associated with "proscribed groups" e.g. the IRA or Al Quida but you can cewrtainly be arrested, charged and convicted under these Acts without being a member of a proscribed group, and without having any other co-conspirators or plotters.

e.g. under

Section 58 Collection of information.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/00011--g.htm#58

Andrew Rowe - two consequtive charges sentences of seven and a half yesrs i.e. 15 years
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1577303,00.html

Abu Bakr Mansha - 6 years - no other conspirators alleged
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4650000.stm

Permanent Link

� August 20, 2006 - Watching me, watching themPosted by dizzy
Thanks Spyblog. http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/

Now to try to salvage my argument.

What I'm trying to get across is that John Reid is attempting to apply terrorism to political activists, especially effective political activists highly critical of the New Labour junta. Watching Them, Watching Us himself would be in this sort of position - somebody who effectively criticises and opposes the government and government policies but who is not a terrorist. Such people should never be considered terrorists of course since they are quite properly taking part in the political process.

Reid is trying to extend the penulties for terrorism to so-called "fascist individuals" so it would certainly seem that he considers that current laws are inadequate.

Such a political activist could escape current definitions of terrorism
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's 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.

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.

Presumably a 'reasonable excuse' would be political activism and/or investigative journalism / blogging.

I am saying that for the state to be able to nail or apply a control order to such a political activist for terrorism, they would seek to catch him in the company of a insurrectionary group.