zlacker

>>DamonH+(OP)
After seeing NUMEROUS video of UK police showing up at doorsteps like the gestapo, arresting or citing or intimidating people who are simply practicing free speech, I don’t think anyone should support the government with a pathway to de-anonymize the web. Even if you support the current government, such powers will be used against you at some point.

>>Silver+02
If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube, just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hund...).

Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"

>>raesen+z8
That’s because Palestine Action are a proscribed group.

Whether or not the proscription was correct is irrelevant, the current law means that you commit the same offence showing support for IS or the Terrorgram Collective.

The police can’t simply ignore one proscribed group over another as that leads to all manner of weird and wacky outcomes.

>>multjo+oa
But they're only a proscribed group because the cabinet decided it was politically convenient to proscribe them.

It's not like these guys are the Taliban or the IRA, though some of them did chuck some paint on some planes.

So a person who is worried about Starmer's authoritarian tendencies lay responsibility for the police action at the door of number 10.

>>michae+Mc
They destroyed "drone and aircraft machinery" [0] at APPH and at Teledyne "damage to the clean rooms could halt production for up to 12 months" [1].

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-57403049

[1]: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/pro-palestine-activists-dama...

>>AftHur+XH
That's an argument for arresting and imprisoning a bunch of people for criminal damage, not an argument for proscribing an entire organisation and limiting their free speech.

The argument here is not the PA should be let off scot free. The argument is that proscribing them as an organisation is a massive and authoritarian overreaction to their actions.

>>MrJohz+kO
I should have included the quote I was responding to: "some of them did chuck some paint on some planes."

>>AftHur+tS2
Is that inaccurate? Unless the goal was to strike terror into the hearts of some insurance companies, in what way does the scale of the damages affect whether this organisation should be proscribed? Should we be proscribing Bernie Madoff next?