Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

ISIS flag guy did nothing illegal

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

scrotgrot

Original post by ExcitedPup

My thoughts exactly. I also feel a prosecution under s1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 is arguable.

Ya I'm no lawyer but looks it to me

Reply 21

anosmianAcrimony

I'm glad somebody said this. It needed saying.

Reply 22

ExcitedPup

Original post by scrotgrot

Ya I'm no lawyer but looks it to me

I found a clearer offence; s13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

13Uniform.(1)A person in a public place commits an offence if he—(a)wears an item of clothing, or(b)wears, carries or displays an article,in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

Seems quite straightforward. I'm surprised the officers didn't arrest him, it seemed like a pretty clear public order offence to me, even if they were unaware of s13 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Reply 23

ExcitedPup

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

I'm glad somebody said this. It needed saying.

What, that this terrorist sympathiser, whom it appears actually did break the law (s13 of the Terrorism Act 2000) should not be subject to the full force of the law?

He knew exactly what he is doing. And to parade that in our central government district, when nerves are probably already frayed? He's lucky he wasn't shot

Reply 24

Carpe Vinum

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

He didn't say that it doesn't sadden him that the man has a young child or that this fundamentalist group exists and is parading its flag outside of our parliament. All he said is that it's within the man's rights. He even made clear that he disagrees with the man!

I simply do not understand why people are defending that man. Wearing that flag was clearly meant as a provocation. So soon after the Tunisia attacks and close to the 7/7 bombings. Why are people standing up for him? Why do people become so concerned with human rights when it's someone in support of a terrorist organisation? I'm utterly confused by it.

Reply 25

ExcitedPup

Original post by Carpe Vinum

The OP was also completely wrong to claim it's not against the law.

It is against the law; s13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 prohibits people from wearing clothing or displaying items that would create a reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter of a proscribed terrorist group.

That is a reasonable law, and I'm disappointed it wasn't enforced on this occasion

Reply 26

Bushido Brown

Original post by LibertyMan

The moral argument for having freedom of opinion in our world, or the most convincing one to me at least, is that our growth as a race depends on different ideas clashing and getting explored and evaluated. The more varied and passionate thinkers and philosophers we have the better. We cannot ban political opinions, because they bring about change that molds our society for the better. No, this doesn't mean ISIS is good- but that we can't claim to know what is good or bad or have truly objective morality, so we need to respect all sorts of opinions, whether very hippie or very aggressive, in order to breed some genius philosophers somewhere that will help us progress.

Secondaly, following the same argument that we can't claim to know what is right or wrong, we simply ought to respect people's opinions, because if we don't, we are arbitarily surpressing them, and that means any opinion, even a good one, can be arbitarily surpressed in the future by a tyrannical government.

I'd like to finish off with saying that over history man evolved in a constant struggle to fight his emotions and let his reason be in control his animalistic body. We are halting this evolution of intellectual power if we choose to use draconian power to surpress opinions that we feel an animalistic negative instinct towards, rather than using logic and debate to win people over. What makes a philosopher different to an extremist is that the extremist is completely enslaved to his emotions and passions, while a philosopher has masterred himself with his intellect. Who would you rather be?

I couldn't agree more. :yy:

Reply 27

ImNotReallyMe

Forget about him expressing his own opinions which seem to be favoring terrorismthis could in fact be a sign of something worse to come, like a warning of sorts

Reply 28

blahbleeblah

Am I missing something here? Ticks all the boxes of an offence.

Statement:

"Wearing, carrying or displaying of an emblem or flag, by itself, is not an offence unless; the way in which, or the circumstance in which, the emblem is worn, carried or displayed is such as to cause reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter or member of a proscribed organisation.

"While support of and membership of ISIS is unlawful it is not a criminal offence to advocate the creation of an independent state."

The Public Order Act states that a person is guilty if he: "Displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

A Home Office spokesman said: “ISIS is a proscribed group. Showing signs you are a supporter of that group is an offence.

"It was an operational decision and we cannot comment on individual cases."

Operational decision?

Reply 29

ExcitedPup

Original post by blahbleeblah

Am I missing something here? Ticks all the boxes of an offence.

Statement:

Operational decision?

They don't want to criticise the police openly. The guy's details would have been obtained when the police stopped him, and the CPS, police, Home Office and Security Service can make a determination about whether to put him under surveillance, or proceed with a charge after the fact, etc

Reply 30

ExcitedPup

Original post by Bushido Brown

I couldn't agree more. :yy:

Do you not consider that if this man is willing to wear an ISIS flag into our central government district, he is already at the point of putting his ideas into action. Can you imagine the uproar if this guy later detonated himself in a suicide bombing?

In any case, he clearly did break the law; s13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000

Reply 31

harry734

Its funny because the people arguing against the right to have this flag (or do whatever he did) would also have been arguing for the rights of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack victims on the basis of freedom of speech, its evidence that they have no moral foundation, but instead just want to attack islam at any chance, you must atlas be consistent.

Reply 32

TimmonaPortella

I question what social good could possibly justify allowing a man to walk around our capital draped in the flag of a declared enemy which has beheaded our citizens.

Reply 33

tengentoppa

There's certainly a legal case to be made that he should have been arrested.

And abhorrive is not a word, you're thinking of abhorrent.

Reply 34

Lady Comstock

Original post by LibertyMan

You don't understand the law.

Reply 35

TaintedLight

The guy should be shot for portraying extreme lunacy. The 21st century is not for savages to roam free.

Reply 36

willock

Fully agree no arrest is necessary. Instead the police should look the other way whilst the public perform a bit of justice in the same as a man with a swastika flag should be lynched to within an inch of his life and if he happens to not make it who cares. The flag represents evil and terrorism and anyone who flies it deserves anything they get.

Reply 37

willock

Furthermore how can we effectively crack down on extremism if this man who is blatantly an extremist with extreme views who is promoting extremism is free to do it. A sniper should simply have been set up and taken him out and they should have made up some rubbish story later that he had a gun. All Isis supporters deserve to die. Simple