Yesterday's terrorists, e.g. the likes of such internationally acclaimed figures such as Nelson Mandela, would probably have died in jail had legislation like this been in effect at the time.

How much longer can it be before plod can arrest people on a charge of 'looking at me in a funny way'?

@Steve Woods

After all, the police are already exceeding their brief by attempting to ban photography, and from there banning vision is just a small step away isn't it?

So if some ideas are blocked then they are so dangerous that they must be true? If they weren't true then why would you block them? You'd just point out why they are false and hence why they are silly.

You're basically saying that some words are so powerful that you have no words to counter them, which says more about your weak position than their strong position. All you're doing by trying to sensor someone is to give them more credibility than they otherwise wouldn't have.

So it's dumb and self defeating.

It's like more of that British cancer spreading across Europe. We'll get more of these stupid attacks on free speech in the guise of anti-terror legislation that are the hallmark of the UK.

"How much longer can it be before plod can arrest people on a charge of 'looking at me in a funny way'?"

It's already happened

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91059-1313300,00.html

Add that to:

Loitering with intent... to use a pelican crossing

Urinating in a public... convenience

Posession of an offensive...wife

Walking around in a loud shirt during the hours of darkness.

"Savage, you're a bigot!"

"Thank you sir!"

"I'm transferring you to the SPG."

Paraphrasing from NTNON, early eighties, with thanks.

Totally disagree. And I'm so convinced of my position I'll put my name to it too ;o)

The fact an argument is false/crap/wrong/weak etc doesn't mean many people won't believe it. Or enough people to cause an awful lot of problems anyway. It's often about *how* the argument is delivered rather than the content. I refer you to Act 3 Scene 2 of Julius Caesar for an example. Marc Anthony plays to the emotions of the assembled crowd, Brutus attempts to reason with them. Guess which works out best?

Censorship is indeed a dangerous tool, but there are circumstances where limiting what people can say is beneficial to society. Would you stand for people saying black people are no better than animals, and if you don't want them raping your wife you should chase them out of town? Probably not, and we have laws against that kind of thing - i.e. we have censorship.

Yes, most of the arguments used by religious fundamentalists of all persuasions are crap, but arguing a la Brutus from a cold, logical perspective isn't going to get you anywhere good. So, are you going to censor the argument or are you going to shout loudly and hope everyone listens to you instead? Best of luck mate...

"The specific offences added are public provocation to commit a terrorist offence,"

And if we sample one hundred terrorists at random, how many will cite as their provocation an Imam or a bookshop and how many will cite the actions of western governments and companies in the middle east?

Given that it is widely acknowledged that the invasion of Iraq resulted in *more* terrorism, we can safley conclude that Blair & Bush et al. have committed a public act which provoked terrorism.

@ Ross:

"Would you stand for people saying black people are no better than animals, and if you don't want them raping your wife you should chase them out of town?"

Yes. I just wouldn't stand for them acting on it. It's the difference between being an adult and a child. Remember; sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

"The specific offences added are public provocation to commit a terrorist offence"

'Terrorism' is now defined as: “the use or threat of action where, the action involves serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public.” The “use or threat” must be “designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public…”

Thanks for that Mr Brown because everytime you hike up the tax and give very little in return you actually provoke me to commit a terrorist offence. Does that mean you can be found guilty of being a terrorist under the TA 2000?

Flame cos Guy Fawkes should've succeeded

"Yes, most of the arguments used by religious fundamentalists of all persuasions are crap, but arguing a la Brutus from a cold, logical perspective isn't going to get you anywhere good."

Wow that's patronising. You give so little credit to people that they need protecting from emotional illogical arguments, and your justification is the fictional account written by Shakespear?

I don't think so.

I think that in real life Marc Anthony and Brutus put their viewpoints forward, argued their cases, one won one lost, it's the nature of tyrants and dictators that they seek to silence the opposing view, rather than enter into discussions they might lose.

I think it's time for a change in UK.gov. seriously, when the politicians can't argue their side in a convincing way, then they're not fit for their job and it's time for a change. Brown has really not shown any leadership, and after the appearance on US TV talking about malaria where they'd whitened his teeth, he seems to be easily led. Whether it's be a stage manager insisting he has white teeth or by Murdoch's lot creating an agenda. He's really not up to it.

If you disagree, argue otherwise.

An idea's memetic fitness isn't related to its truth or usefulness, just how strong a competitor it is in the idea-pool of memes. So yes, some ideas can be dangerous, just like Aqua's Barbie Girl polluted the charts for months despite having almost no musical merit. Simplistic ideas score highly on virulence, and the Literal Word Of God is a simplistic idea.

[Yes. I just wouldn't stand for them acting on it]

Ah ok, so inciting racist attacks is fine?

A Champion Counter Strike team that opened a training school for wanabees players got under arrest after playing 12 consecutive rounds as terrorists.

"Where they playing Terrorists and Counter Terrorists alternatively, we would have had nothing to say, but 12 rounds as terrorists is clearly indicating a morbid tendency we have to fight" said London Super Intendant.

The award winning team is also indicted for providing links to Enemy Territory, where one can play the German Army, and the leader of the team for having played a Dark Elf (Evil/Bad) at the last AD&D tournament.

Mine is the white coat with the large red cross and +5 Cleric Broadsword.

The reason that it is "necessary" to ban the expression of opinion and fact is because argument on these topics has already been banned.

We all know who this particular provision is aimed at. But we may not name them for fear of being tried and convicted of racism or religious hatred. And we most certainly may not give them the benefit of our opinions about all of this lot, because this NuLabour guvvermint, and other associated traitors, has adopted a "No Platform" policy to all who have anything to say that is contrary to the love-in that they are trying to hold.

Quite clearly the repression brought about by Political Correctness leads on to this further repression. Alas it won't stop here, either.

Once again equating the words of one person to the actions of another as though they're the same. I quote a previous response to this, really all Jaqui is doing is the same crap thinking that went on under Blair, no new ideas just more of the same naff ones.

"Is the freedom to advocate murder the one we should be concerned about"

Yes, you're right, we should have to prove that we really need a freedom in order to keep it. But when we're proving it, we should be careful what we say, so as not to get arrested.

Kill all mexicans.

.... is an example of something I should not say when making the point. However now that I have said it, have mexican died as a result of my comment? No?

So the words aren't enough. They're just words and if the words alone don't 'incite' then it's not a crime of 'incitement'. However they do make a nice easy scapegoat to draw attention away from other things.

To me, it's better to have a muslims marching on parliament calling for Blairs head on a pike. That that represents a healthy state of affairs, it lets people vent their anger, and venting anger is important and necessary and healthy for a democracy.

Sure Blair might want to suppress that, but that was the nature of the man, fix the PR not the problem.

Die broccoli die, there I feel better now.

So that's the Labour Party Annual Conference done for !! Next ??

The term terrorism is open ended and can mean anything. It does mean though that any one of us can be prosecuted and or jailed under the definition.

The boyos in charge have known for a long time that the economies were heading in this direction and hence the warning in 2007 that 2008 was going to be a bad year. So how do you prevent loss of power, start the "War on Terror" and tighten your grip.

This is just a pre-emptive strike against a revolution. How long now before their statutes are applied to arrest anarchists, communists, humanists, or rather any person who is sick of being taxed to death, working for free and watching fat cats get fatter.

What can you expect from a pig but a grunt!

(Flames because that's a future prediction of society if liberty keeps being withdrawn.

P.S. Intelligence Services, that is a prediction not incitement! Don't try to confuse it! See how easy it can be now to get scooped and interned for 42 days??)

"an excellent example of how the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes can be dealt with in a way which respects the freedom of speech."

You're free to speak, we're free to send you to Guantemanomo. Freedom all around!

"P.S. Intelligence Services, that is a prediction not incitement! Don't try to confuse it! See how easy it can be now to get scooped and interned for 42 days??)" ... Pre-emptive strike against revolution ..By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 21st April 2008 16:06 GMT.

I don't think they've got round to being able to join up all the Intelligence dots, AC, so they will be remaining confused. Although should they put in an appearance and do anything constructively pre-emptive and/or HyperRadioProActive, which would obviously, inevitably expose some of their handy capability, it would bode well for Future WellBeing rather than rendering them Compromised and Compromisable.

The very fact that they may be considered to React to Situations rather than Lead them Constructively is the Perception of the Service[s] and its Service Agents being Intelligent, Compromised to its Cores. Although, One is always hopeful of AI Beta Performance Paradigm from them, which will Alter the Status Quo to their Immediate and Lasting Advantage.

However, you can take a Horse to Water, but you cannot make it Drink. :-)

how many of the terror groups under surveillance that our dear Jacqui constantly prattles on about, are people running websites with copies of the JRC available for download.