back to article Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?

A Register reporter has been let away with a slap on the wrist after confessing to what the cops claim is an act of terrorism. According to the Metropolitan Police, anyone caught watching a sickening beheading video will be treated like a terrorist. Lawyer and legal commentator David Allen Green challenged that claim – and we …

Page:

  1. corestore

    '1984' was a WARNING. Not a bloody INSTRUCTION MANUAL.

    1. Greg J Preece

      It wasn't meant to be a cliché factory either....

      New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first.

      1. John 110

        "New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

        What, every time??!!

        1. Greg J Preece

          What, every time??!!

          Yes, Winston. Every time.

      2. Jagged
        Unhappy

        "New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

        - I hope you mean "read 1984" and not "read the Daily Mail"

      3. NumptyScrub
        Happy

        quote: "It wasn't meant to be a cliché factory either....

        New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

        Watching a video is not an act of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence directed against the state.

        The word the Met officer wanted is sedition, which is an act of promoting or fostering discontent with the state in a non-violent manner (using violence makes it terrorism).

        Watching a video is not sedition either though. You would need to promote or distribute the video for it to be an act of sedition.

        For simply watching a video to be considered a crime under existing terrorism legislation, that legislation would have to be so very broad you could argue it was deliberately ignoring what terrorism actually is. What is the betting shouting "Allah won't like you doing that" at someone in the street "may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation" in the UK?

        1. chris lively

          "Sedition" isn't as catchy a phrase as "terrorism". I'm not convinced most people would know what sedition even is.

          1. heyrick Silver badge
            Coat

            I'm not convinced most people would know what sedition even is.

            That green gooey gunk you get at the bottom of a fish tank?

            1. Lapun Mankimasta
              Holmes

              That green gooey gunk

              precisely. sedition occurs when rocks are weathered and the sediments get washed down into a lake or the sea ... as happens in, you know, CJ Dennis' The Sedimental Bloke

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            > I'm not convinced most people would know what sedition even is.

            Modifying your config files via judicious application of sed patterns, isn't it?

            Maybe we should sed them politicians out of existence.¹

            ¹ And please nobody mention 1409, however much of an SQL fan you are.

            1. Anonymaus Cowark

              1409

              Ah! The mandatory xkcd reference. Thanks

        2. GotThumbs
          Facepalm

          But, but what if....

          the video was an instructional video on how to create a bomb?

          My point is....the context of the video is (and should be) a SIGNIFICANT factor in any governments concern regarding who views the video and where are they located.

          Would you be concerned if the police did NOT look into the chap who lives next door to you or works in the same building as you....who has been watching multiple videos created by known terrorist organizations?

          Just because some sick bastard chooses to view the beheading of a fellow journalist, he seems to want to inflame his local government.

          We should all remember that the term 'Journalist' is very, VERY LOOSELY used these days.

          IMO. There is ZERO information to be learned, buy viewing this video, but the terrorists will LOVE to see the view numbers jump. It's what they want.

          Why not be the bigger person and choose to disappoint them by NOT viewing it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: But, but what if....

            @ GotThumbs

            "Just because some sick bastard chooses to view the beheading"

            Strange. It was only a couple of hundred years ago that the Brits and French got a good afternoon's entertainment out of public executions. What's the difference between that and watching a video, other than the technology.

            Some of them not that long ago weren't just beheadings either. What about a nice bit of flaying alive, or hanging, drawing and quartering.

            Bear in mind that most of these people seem to be living in a period far removed from the current period - or want to take life back to those times, so it fits very well with their philosophy.

        3. P. Lee
          Holmes

          > What is the betting shouting "Allah won't like you doing that" at someone in the street "may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation" in the UK?

          Isn't that the point of the legislation? Make everything illegal and then you can just prosecute those who aren't your friends.

          1. Andrew Meredith

            "Isn't that the point of the legislation? Make everything illegal and then you can just prosecute those who aren't your friends."

            And where do we end up if we do that ??!

            France .. of course ;-)

        4. IT veteran

          Ah, but they can't use the anti-terrorism laws against sedition, can they? No locking you up for 14 (?) days without charge, no secret courts etc.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first.

        Read it you say? Not only I've read it plenty of times, I'M A BLOODY SUBSCRIBER!!!

        Oh! You meant the book? :(

      5. Stevie

        Bah!

        I have to read The Daily Mail?

        Damn you, this is just like what happened in Orwell's 1984.

        (Doubleplusgood New Rule though. Tried to upvote it twice.)

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        ... if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first.

        Well the article itself rather worryingly deployed "sickening" without quotes or the required minimum of irony, so I think you're getting your offence a bit out of proportion. Anyway, no one's read Tony Blairs autobiography, so what do we use for comparison?

      7. corestore

        "New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

        1. I never read the Daily Mail.

        2. Newspeak.

        3. Thoughtcrime

        3. 'That's not watching a video, that's supporting terrorism'

        4. 'That's not free speech - we'd NEVER curtail free speech - that's *propaganda*'

        5. 'That's not a rifle, we would never ban rifles, that's an *assault weapon*.'

        Redefine it, isolate it, destroy it, change the meme, change the language. 1984.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          > Redefine it, isolate it, destroy it, change the meme, change the language. 1984.

          "Marriage"

      8. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. NoneSuch Silver badge

      Having a government dictate what you can see, read, and hear for "your protection" is the first step to despotism. It only increases over time and eventually leads to a Little Red Book or Mein Kampf becoming leading literature for the masses.

      Governments work for us. We tell them what to do. Once governments begin dictating edicts to the people, you no longer live in a democracy.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

        1. Someone Else Silver badge
          Coat

          "[...] Governments should be afraid of their people!"

          They are. Why do you think they are acting this way?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Frankly I am more afraid of the people I see than I am of the government.

        3. Anomalous Cowshed

          "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

          But that's precisely the problem: all governments are afraid of their people, which is why they spend so much time, money and resources, one might even say, ingenuity, in attempting to control or repress them. Because as government inevitably tends towards "government of the masses by the elites" it becomes increasingly important to the elites to remain in government and avoid being lawfully or violently demoted to the ranks of the governed masses.

          1. Hargrove

            Re: "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

            @ Anomalous Cowshed:

            Because as government inevitably tends towards "government of the masses by the elites" it becomes increasingly important to the elites to remain in government and avoid being lawfully or violently demoted to the ranks of the governed masses.

            Nicely put.

            For what it's worth, at least in the US, several distinctions are useful.

            There is the Government in Theory--a conceptual republic whose just powers derive from the will of those governed which is reflected in the rule of law.

            There is the government as actually specified in the formal laws of a nation. Because power does not yield, these inevitably become disconnected from the will of the people.

            Finally there are those who govern. For the same reason, (power does yield), they act uncompromisingly for the benefit of special interests who perpetuate their power, with increasing disregard for both the concept of a rule of law and the written laws themselves.

            The aggregate message of the reports we see here in the Register is that the People comprising society at large need to become critically discriminating with regard to the difference between proper government and the actions of those who govern. And, to begin to take organized steps to change the latter at the polls, while we still can.

            Never forget Miriam Carey.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

              "People comprising society at large need to become critically discriminating with regard to the difference between proper government and the actions of those who govern."

              For this, you need the people to be adequately educated. But for those who govern, adequately educated means "be barely able to read and write, and vote us to keep in government".

              As Juvenal wrote... Panem et circenses (Bread and Circus)...

        4. Keep Refrigerated

          Governments should be afraid of their people?

          You know, for me, this quote has always been problematic. The way I see it, governments are afraid of the people... which is why they are increasingly stripping our rights and monitoring our communications.

          Of course "Governments should work for their people" unfortunately doesn't quite sound so dramatic.

          1. skeptical i
            Meh

            Re: Governments should be afraid of their people?

            @KeepRefrigerated, re: "Of course 'Governments should work for their people' unfortunately does not quite sound so dramatic."

            Problem is, for /which/ people should my government be working? We the people who elect our representatives? Or them the people who fund the campaigns? Very occasionally these two constituencies have concerns in common, but ....

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC <No subject>

          "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

          Looks like we have two despots already according to your vote tally.

          Or maybe Clegg and Cameron read El Reg?

      2. Charles Manning

        "Once governments begin dictating edicts to the people, you no longer live in a democracy."

        Well you voted for them, so it is a democracy.

        Parties only develop their policies in response to what the public gives them feedback on by voting. Like any other manufacturer/service provider, they sell what the punters buy.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Charles Manning

          "Well you voted for them, so it is a democracy."

          Huh? I didn't vote for this shower of crap that is in power right now... I do however think that there should be a general election instead of using a 'kingmaker' (whom was Clegg) to grant Cameron what he needs to be prime minister though.

        2. Graham Marsden
          WTF?

          @Charles Manning - "Like any other manufacturer/service provider, they sell what the punters buy"

          No, they sell what the suckers will believe.

          For example the 2010 Tory Party Manifesto said "We will stop the forced closure of A&E and maternity wards, so that people have better access to local services, and give mothers a real choice over where to have their baby, with NHS funding following their decisions."

          But in 2012 the Tories attempt to force the closure of the A&E and maternity ward at Lewisham Hospital, however, fortunately, they were defeated in the courts.

          That's just *one* small example of what lies politicians will peddle to get people to vote for them, knowing full well that, once they're in power, they can do what the hell they like for the next four or five years before they peddle a *new* set of lies (and bribe people with their own money) to get them to vote for them again.

          This makes a total mockery of the concept of democracy.

          1. James Micallef Silver badge

            Re: "Like any other manufacturer/service provider, they sell what the punters buy"

            I wonder if a constitutional* change could be in order - Political parties need to present in their electoral manifesto not just 'blah-blah' but proposed legislation. Parliament procedure is run by civil service and by constitutional law, only laws in the manifesto can be proposed.

            I know parties will argue that this binds them to much, doesn't allow flexibility etc, however I would argue that this is exactly what is needed. A lot of legislation is knee-jerk reaction to current situation and poorly thought out / rushed through, and mostly unneeded and based on political posturing about the 'cause du jour'. If legislation is good, it will always be applicable. legislation made for special cases is usually super-crappy. And if they want 'more flexibility' that's easy - limit governments to 2 or 3 year terms

            *yeah, I know UK hasn't one, but equivalent basic laws on governance that cannot be changed by the party currently in power, needs national referendum 2/3 majority to change type-of-thing

      3. Shannon Jacobs
        Holmes

        I am strongly opposed to censorship, but this beheading video manages to cross my line because the making of the video with the intention that people watch it and be frightened because of the video was an intrinsic part of the motivation of the vicious crime. If they knew that no one would see the video, then they might not have killed him, and anyone deliberately acting to distribute that video should be traced and arrested for aiding a crime or encouraging future crimes. By making terrorism succeed, that person is guaranteeing future acts of terrorism.

        I actually think that professional journalists might be required for the sake of their work to watch it, but the general principle here is to negate the murderers' intentions by NOT watching the video. The sad punchline is that the victim died for the sake of freedom of speech, the underlying principle of serious journalism.

        1. DrBobMatthews

          A very slippery slope to go down. No government has any right whatsoever to decide on what is acceptable for an individual should watch. Attempting to use flawed legislation introduced as a knee jerk reaction is always going to fail from mostly lack of respect. In todays overburdened legistaive nightmare of a world, the John Pilger photograph of the little Vietnamese girl on fire running up the road, would probably have been banned material by the Met Police and the government.

          I have seen stills from the video and it is disgusting, but it also in its pictoral form sends two messages.

          1. The "executioner" is sufficiently arrogant and brutal as not to care about the consequences.

          2. This is the world like it or not that the West has helped to create by its heavy handed blind incursions into other countries. We are all of us partly culpable for creating the conditions that allowed this to happen.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            1. The "executioner" is sufficiently arrogant and brutal as not to care about the consequences.

            In the wider sense of what it may bring down on ISIS perhaps, but he's worried enough from a personal perspective to cover his face.

          2. NumptyScrub

            quote: "A very slippery slope to go down. No government has any right whatsoever to decide on what is acceptable for an individual should watch."

            Child porn.

            That's how effective the "think of the children" argument is. I'm conflicted myself; I agree that the passive act of viewing something should not be, of itself, an offense, but I suspect I would still be comfortable agreeing with a guilty verdict for someone who was found simply watching child porn, as long as it was beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to watch that content.

            I categorically cannot agree that watching a video is terrorism though. The act has to be violent to be terrorism, and watching a video is not a violent act.

          3. <shakes head>

            i do belive you are mistaken, this is thee result of the west removing it's heavy hand from those areas (post 1945), this is what is was like before the days of empire, everyone breaking into smaller and smaller groups and a us and them mentality. with empire the Empire was always them and so everyone got on a whole lot better.

    3. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Eastasia

      I'm sure I recall a year or two back the government was considering supporting the likes of ISIS because they were fighting against Assad in Syria.

      But I must be mistaken, because we are at war with ISIS. We have always been at war with ISIS.

      1. DrBobMatthews

        Re: Eastasia

        I agree, but what it boils down to is the ridiculously flawed doctrine so beloved by duplicitous politicians, "My enemies enemy is my friend" wow has that been torn to shreds over the last 20 years.

        After the illegal war in Iraq and the nonexistent WMD's it should have been change to my supposed friends are my enemies friends.

      2. Bumpy Cat

        Re: Eastasia

        The government wasn't going to support ISIS or al-Nusra. Stop repeating such nonsense. They were going to support the FSA, who are a broad, mostly secular resistance movement. However, Assad is not stupid; he ignored ISIS/al-Nusra and focussed all the attacks of the Syrian government on the liberal/secular opposition; he released 500+ Islamist insurgents from jail to bolster ISIS; some reports say that the Syrian govt even came to an arrangement with ISIS/al-Nusra to not attack each other, allowing both of them to concentrate on the FSA.

        The result: ISIS can claim to be the bulk of the resistance to the Syrian government. The Syrian government can point to ISIS and say "See? Our opposition are sectarian fascist murderers!". A win for both of them - and a loss for anyone who calls themself liberal or secular.

    4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: corestore

      "'1984' was a WARNING. Not a bloody INSTRUCTION MANUAL." So you have the barbaric and totally unjustified beheading of a reporter by an Islamist, simply because the reporter was a Yank, in a propaganda video that the Islamists want to have distributed as widely as possible, and your immediate response is to criticise the government's efforts to block their propaganda? You are seriously in need of a reality check.

      1. NumptyScrub

        Re: corestore

        quote: "So you have the barbaric and totally unjustified beheading of a reporter by an Islamist, simply because the reporter was a Yank, in a propaganda video that the Islamists want to have distributed as widely as possible, and your immediate response is to criticise the government's efforts to block their propaganda? You are seriously in need of a reality check."

        Show me where in law it is an actual offense to watch that video, and I shall immediately shut up.

        Letting people know about propaganda is one thing (although Streisand Effect, right?) but an official statement implying that simply viewing it makes you a terrorist is incomprehendably stupid. Nobody that far divorced from either reality or common sense should be in such a position of power in the first place.

        They may as well have said that "making a cheese sandwich may constitute an offense under Terrorism legislation". It's as patently ridiculous and just as unenforcable, IMO, whilst also being exactly as true (for any given value of "may"). It's also just as damning of both the apparent vagueness of the existing Terrorism legislation, and the Service's apparent (lack of) understanding of it.

        I'm going to make myself some cheese sandwiches for lunch tomorrow as a deliberate act of sedition.

        You'll note that at no point have I condoned the actions perpetrated in this video. I completely disagree with the act and with the message it apparently portrays, and idiots like that have my utmost contempt. What also has my contempt, though, is the way that at least some people in the Service think that anything they don't like the sound of is automatically illegal, without any reference to actual legislation (and a complete inability to quote legislation to back up their previous statements). That, sir, is a fucking diabolical state of affairs (pun intended).

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: NumptyScrub Re: corestore

          Your post translates as the Worldy equivalent of "me, me, me!" Wake up, there are more important thing to get rage about than your imagined 'censorship' by The Man.

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: NumptyScrub corestore @Plump & Bleaty

            Hi again mein kleine plumpdroid, you're not answering the Nice Mr. Numpty's post, his points seem valid.

  2. Khaptain Silver badge

    Two girls and a cup

    "Two girls and a cup" - Easy to make a mistake about what you are going to see.

    "Beheading of a British Journalist". - not a lot of error possible here.

    Should everyone that looks at the crucifixion scene or a bloody Christ dying on the cross also be considered as terrorists ?

    1. Rich 11

      Re: Two girls and a cup

      Should everyone that looks at the crucifixion scene or a bloody Christ dying on the cross also be considered as terrorists ?

      Not if they consider the crucifixion a just and lawful act. That would make them supporters of the Imperial Roman hegemony, not terrorists. However if they didn't consider it just or lawful, that might risk them being categorised as opponents of the regime, and potentially rebels, insurgents or terrorists.

      So not the best comparison, really.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon