I know that there is a dedicated thread for flags, but this seems like an opportune moment to discuss FLEGS!
3 Likes
Try Claxton Village Hall,Norfolkā¦and Iāll let the 3 houses in my areaā¦who were asked to take the flags downā¦that that directive from the council was illegalā¦thank you for the info from gov.uk..I will pass it on..
1 Like
Iām not saying you cannot fly the Union flag, but in some areas it is deemed a council matterā¦so wherever u are in Britain fly your flagā¦again itās the times we live inā¦
I have never had a problem flying flags. Union flag, Algerian flag, French flag, RCT flag, LOU flag, LFC flag allās good here just like football tops though some are not permitted in my house.
1 Like
So some locals complained and but the council said there was no issue
1 Like
Some thought it divisiveā¦but some didnātā¦so the equilibrium wonā¦actually not wonā¦but came to an agreementā¦but lifeās life and we get on with it.
More useful idiots?
1 Like
Yes, but it isnāt āterrorismā.
My issue isnāt that they have committed a serious offence, itās the state trying to define protest out of existence.
3 Likes
Following this from afar.
Terrorism is the wrong word. That needs to be reserved for something different to this.
But it isnāt a simple case of trespass either. Military assets need to be off limits, and hopefully that is reinforced with a prison sentence.
2 Likes
Sabotage?
It is an attack on military and defence assets. If not terrorism, then it would come under an act of war against the state.
I am all for the right to protest, but there needs to be a clear line of what is, and what is not acceptable. And when that line is crossed, the consequences are handed out.
3 Likes
treason?
i could imagine it fits some description of treasonā¦
Probably just falls under criminal damage.
Should be made to enlist in the army and sent off to a zone for potential confrontationā¦bet they would then appreciate the military equipment being used to save them then .
There are specific pieces of legislation regarding damaging military equipment. My suspicion is that they want to push a terrorist offence so that the group that they belong to can be proscribed.
Iām more concerned that they could get anywhere near the aircraft. If there were guards on duty, Iām wondering whether they hesitated to use potentially lethal force on what appeared to be civilian protesters.
3 Likes
Or we could not be fascists? That would be nice.
I agree, and that is a deeply troubling turn of events. A Government cannot choose to define a group as a terrorist organisation just to stop them being a pain in the arse.
4 Likes
Or we could not be anarchists, would be even better .
There is a risk that well meaning protesters could become a tool, useful idiots, for someone who wants to cause genuine harm to the nation and its population. Where protesters have been charged, it is when they were potentially causing harm, not just being a pain in the arse.
I suppose the problem is that there is no universally agreed definition of what terrorism is. The usual key ingredients are that it is aimed at a civilian population, and that the targets attacked donāt have any direct agency over the potential aims that the terrorist is trying to achieve.
1 Like
Can just picture the military investigation summary.
āOh well, that was a bit of a pain in the arseā
