Terrorists' vandalising Stone Henge and trying to force govt policy

[FoxJTT047101111]

We need the security services to shut the group down when they are carrying out what can be described as terrorist methods to influence govt policy.

Why aren't they fielding candidates in the election? Then people can vote on the changes they are demanding.

Fair point but to my mind the environment/climate should stand outside of any political affiliation. There should be a working party with members from all of the parties and this should continue regardless of who is in power. Hope that makes sense

They’re an activism group, not a political party.

Why aren’t Mars standing candidates to have us all eat more chocolate ?

They aren't even proper graffiti vandals, never mind terrorists.

The more I think about your OP, the more I think you are unreasonable, unable to understand what words mean, unable to understand democracy and borderline offensive @FoxJTT047101111.

That will only be a valid argument if I claim that such a campaign exists and is achieving anything. Which is what various posters have now done in relation to the Stonehenge fiasco. The burden of proof isn't fulfilled by randomly telling other people they need to prove claims they haven't made.

When you say think about what words mean, then you may want to tell the fbi they are wrong in their definitions of what contributes as terrorism :

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2009 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
Sec. 2331 - Definitions
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2331.htm

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

Stuff like this makes environmentalists seem like nutters. Does it get attention? Yes, negative attention.

I think what’s nuttier is that we are facing extinction, we know why, we have known for decades, we have known and still know what to do about it, but we don’t. That’s got to be insanity.

When governments continue to ignore the dangers, even when it’s right there happening in front of you, and don’t take action, and you’ve exhausted all other options, I think the only sane action is direct action. It’s like the suffragettes, low key campaigning was tried and tried and finally they had enough and started direct action. What else is there?

Lots of people aren’t even changing their individual habits yet alone campaigning - that’s insanity. Doing the things, repeatedly, that you know will likely kill you and your loved ones.

I don't know but damaging Stonehenge is not the answer.

They didn’t damage it. Gone in the next rain.

Damaging the one and only planet we can survive on, to the extent that we can no longer survive on it is far far worse - a billion times worse.

JSO are trying to get governments to listen in the face of the current lot allowing more fossil fuels to be extracted. The current government are in the pockets of the oil companies and they have f’d us over and left us extremely vulnerable.

Things are going to get pretty awful and more quickly than we thought. We will literally be unable to grow food on a huge proportion of the globe leading to mass migration, more wars, more instability. More deaths from extreme weather events. More people suffering diseases and illness due to extremes of weather, more people displaced by fires and floods (leading to further destruction of ecosystems and increasing climate chaos).

It’s fucking dire and at least they are doing something and if I could afford to get arrested and sent to prison without it ruining my DC life then I’d be joining them.

For the record I’m a middle class, middle aged, boring, professional and mum who has never been in trouble with the law and who likes nothing more than walking, gardening and coffee with friends. I couldn’t be further from a ‘crusty’, ‘hippy, ‘Eco zealot’ or any of the other grossly pejorative terms used to stereotype and degrade people that live their values and care about this stuff.

We only presume That's the only goal of JSO, whos to say they are not being funded by other groups for other objectives/reasons etc

I do not consider spraying orange powder on stuff intimidation or coercion of government.They are highlighting their issue in an eye catching, non violent way.

They are not terrorists. They're not even proper graffiti vandals.

Yes. Peaceful direct action.

Look it up. What do they have to gain? Who could be pulling the strings?

you may not consider it, but the law says different and their actions are guilty of this = intimidation and coercion.

how do you also justify what they do vandalism. restricting traffic and blocking roads etc,

bottom line is their groups actions as defined by law = terrorism methods and actions of a terrorist

unless im mi5 and have access to extra information then i dont know, but is certainly a consideration to consider that the group are puppets for other groups

Can you explain how spraying orange powder over stuff is legally classed as intimidation or coercion of the British government?

I don't think it's terrorism, just vandalism. They wouldn't dare do it in other countries. Tell them to go and vandalise that black cube thing in Mecca and see the attention that gets them and their cause.

As you wish, and on this i stand corrected for the orange paint:

While Just Stop Oil’s methods are disruptive and intended to influence government policy, classifying them as terrorists under the Terrorism Act 2000 would require proving that their actions create a serious risk to public health or safety or involve significant disruption. Given that spraying orange powder is not typically seen as causing serious harm or risk, it is unlikely to meet the threshold for terrorism as defined by the law.

However, if their actions were to escalate to more dangerous or disruptive methods, or if their activities were part of a broader campaign that included serious threats or violence, then a stronger argument could be made. For now, labelling them as terrorists under the current legal framework might be an overreach and could undermine legitimate forms of protest and civil disobedience.

Come now. Did ChatGPT write that ?

What would the protesters have done if approached by members of the public trying to stop them ?

You are deeply wrong in your interpretation of the FBI definition. Section A of the same definition, visible right above, says:

> involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

So action has to be firstly, violent or dangerous, secondly illegal and thirdly intimidatory or coercive to be classified as terrorism.

They were approached and you can see what happened, it’s on video

Clearly

I think that’s called grasping at straws.