UKC

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/25/four-arrested-birmingham-sus...

Interesting. I wonder if our law does (or should) prohibit the brethren from hopping off to assist their friends in Syria (whichever side that might be). In happier times both sides seemed perfectly free to join in the fun in Spain.

Assuming the answer is yes it does (at least armed assistance, as opposed to humanitarian), I wonder where the line is drawn. Is it illegal to be a mercenary, for instance? Perhaps it depends on who buys your services to do what.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Its pretty clear from that article that his arrest has got nothing to do with the Brethren going off to join the fun in Syria as you imply.

Maybe the uk.gov realized belatedly that the sick f*cks they have been training and arming for the last few years might mean the odd bit of blowback from the breddas gap year back here in the Yow K.

More broadly I think it implies there are some coldfeet in the F.O. on the Syria strategy.

D

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Mercenaries? Security Consultants, surely. One mans freedom fighter and all that...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Probably yes, since doing so now counts as "terrorism" since it is "the use or threat of action where ... the use or threat is designed to influence the government ... and ... is made for the purpose of advancing a political ... cause". (Terrorism Act 2000)

http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/fighting-abroad-is-it-against-law.htm...

In reply to Dauphin:


Is it? I'm not following you. The article says he's been arrested on suspicion of Syria-related terrorism offences, and elsewhere for facilitating terrorism overseas.

jcm

In reply to Coel Hellier:

So they'll be nicking the lads coming back from Tel Aviv & Marseille also?

D

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well, not if you fight for some government. But if you fight against it, then presumably it is, as in Syria.

jcm

In reply to Dauphin:


Not following you again. Which lads are these?

jcm

In reply to Dauphin:

I suspect that this law is just one of many laws passed in the last couple of decades which are way, way too broadly drawn, and then the DPP picks and chooses which to prosecute based on whim.

Another example is the Communications Acts 2003. Did you know that it is illegal to "persistently" make use of an electronic communications netowork -- such as UKC -- in a manner which "causes annoyance"?

Aren't all UKC regulars guilty of that?? I'm sure I might have annoyed (for example) Tim on occasion, even if only slightly!

In reply to Dauphin:
And all the soldiers coming back from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. plus all those SAS/SEAL/NINJAS who do the same in murkier countries.

Edit: Feck me, i sound just like Shona

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


But then you can be done under the "... intimidate the public or a section of the public ..." clause. Surely fighting for a government must intimidate some section of the public?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Read the whole article. He makes some comments at the bottom about why the home office took his U.K. passport away last year.

D

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

the ones fighting in the IDF and Legion Etrangere.

D

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well, that depends who against, of course. And it has to be for a political or ideological cause, as well, although to be sure the survival of the government could be said to be that.

I think you underestimate the sheer difficulty of drafting legislation, and the role the courts play in interpreting it. There's rather more than ‘whim’ involved in the DPP’s decisions.

jcm

In reply to Dauphin:


Well, those are government forces, aren't they?

jcm

In reply to Dauphin:


I've read the whole article, you berk. And what the Home Office say was that they suspected him of being involved in Syria-related terrorist offences. I quite see that he says he was going there for entirely different reasons, but I can't agree with you that that makes it 'quite clear that his arrest had nothing to do with Syria', or whatever nonsense it was that you came out with.

jcm

In reply to Dauphin:



Can you clarify what you mean by the follow terms?

Clear
Article
Arrest
Nothing
Syria
Imply

I think there seems to be a fundamental fracture in the nature of language.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

'northing to do with Syria' ? Carry on arguing with yourself.

D

In reply to winhill:

Look them up in a dictionary. It is okay there are a few online. All pretty easy to understand for someone with the wit to post on an internet forum one would imagine.

http://www.cageuk.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg

Go on educate yourself.

D

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Still not legal according to the foreign enlistment act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Enlistment_Act_1870
Though it was found to be unenforceable during the Spanish Civil War.

In reply to hokkyokusei:

That’s interesting. Although it seems to suggest it was only illegal to enlist in states at war with states the UK was at peace with. Where does that leave people who sign up in time of peace and then get sent to fight, I wonder?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>Where does that leave people who sign up in time of peace and then get sent to fight, I wonder?

And, for that matter, European freedom of labour laws. Unless those exclude soldiering.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



I like that last thought!