UK Big Brother - Justified by terror

New UK government legislation has very serious implications for British citizens. These new seemingly infinite powers have had no detailed debate in the UK parliament and have sweeping implications. Justified by the United Nations Security Council this is possibly the biggest move towards "big brother" in the UK to date.

p10.hostingp rod.com
So kiss goodbye to the Common Law Duty of Confidentiality, the whole of the Data Protection Act, all of the Financial Services Authority rules on Confidentiality and Insider Trading, and any European Union Directive etc.

I have been watching what has been happening with new legislation going through in the US that takes away so many of the civil liberties and principals that i believe in.
All the time reading this i have been wondering "how can the people of this country let this happen?"

Now in front of my very own eyes, i see the start of the same thing happening in the UK. I would urge everyone in the UK to read this, and read it carefully as it gives a great deal more control to those who oversee our country.

If i didn't believe in the new world order, and the way things are changing for the worse i certainly do now.

Related Link:
www.opsi.gov.uk

[edit on 22-10-2006 by UM_Gazz]

(3) For the purposes of this Order, "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where—

(a) the action falls within paragraph (4),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

So protesting is terrorism?

It extents to everyone in the UK...and abroad.

(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British Overseas citizen, a British subject, a British National (Overseas) or a British protected person; or

(b) a body incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.

(4) Action falls within this paragraph 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,

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

So now terrorism is : making violence, damage to property, endangers a person's life disrupt an electronic system(hacking?)... every criminal or near are terrorists?

(5) The use or threat of action falling within paragraph (4) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not paragraph (3)(b) is satisfied.

And any use of firearms or explosive to commit a crime or not is terrorism.

(a) "action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(d) "the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

So any threat against the UK or any country is subject to UK terrorism laws if they get caught by UK's mens?

(2) The conditions are that the Treasury have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person is or may be—

(a) a person who commits, attempts to commit, participates in or facilitates the commission of acts of terrorism;

Any person who give money to something call terrorism by the UK government is now terrorist.

It basically like the Military Comission Act, but with the Habeas Corpus and no torture, yet.

thats what it says, im glad someone else took the time to read this i thought it was going to disappear into the net without comment.

Its really not good when you join all the dots.......


more to follow

ewan

Its becoming like a game of dominoes.
First the U.S then Britain follows suit.
I guess these regressive laws will be legislated here (Australia) next.

Ok, so you (the government) have all these nice new powers, how are you going to use them.

Blair backs DNA database

this gets better and better.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

(3) For the purposes of this Order, "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where—

(a) the action falls within paragraph (4),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Only if the protest includes: a) serious violence, b) serious damage to property, c) endagers a persons life, d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or, e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

AND has the intent to to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Now, if thats not terrorism I dont know what is.

Articles 3 and 4 go together and must be construed that way

It extents to everyone in the UK...and abroad.

(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British Overseas citizen, a British subject, a British National (Overseas) or a British protected person; or

(b) a body incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.

(4) Action falls within this paragraph 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,

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

So now terrorism is : making violence, damage to property, endangers a person's life disrupt an electronic system(hacking?)... every criminal or near are terrorists?

Only if these acts are peformed with the intent to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

These orders/articles must be taken and read together. You cant just take one article at a time and say anyone protesting, or using a weapon etc. is considered a terrorist. Several condition must be met: physical violence to persons or property, theft or disruption of electronic media WITH the intent to influence or intimdate a government or the public, to advance a political or religious agenda. If you dont want to be defined as a terrorist in the UK, just don't use violence, gun or explosives to advance your cause. and dont give financial support to those who might.


[edit on 10/23/2006 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 10/23/2006 by darkbluesky]