Are you or friends, children or grand-children or other loved ones- likely to be filed as terrorist?

I think Priti Patel has judged the mood well of many in the U.K. I think she’ll be a good Home Secretary.

I seem to remember on the original thread, a poster mentioned a group of Extinction Rebellion protestors stopped an ambulance taking a premature baby to a baby unit, which was a matter of life and death. If these idiots are going to protest to the point where they are endangering the lives of others, then yes they are terrorists and should be "put on the list". Jura2 I wonder if that was your baby in the ambulance, whether you would be defending them in the same way.

Ghandi!

So much for freedom of speech. Not allowed to protest things we think are morally wrong.

Just as well Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther king and Ghanaia didn't take that perspective.

Not every law is just.

Jura2 If someone has done something to warrant being put on the list so be it.

I do not think being vegan is going to be top of the Security Services investigations, but hey ho.

So anyone with differing views from those of the Conservative Government, be they Vegan, or against live transport of animals with long distance travel abroad, or concerned about fracking, or an airport expansion, or the privatisation of the NHS, etc, etc, etc, etc - deserves to be put on a terrorist register which will prevent them from getting jobs, especially in some professions, and could lead to prosecutions.

Very reminiscent of the Stasi in East Germany - and other dictatorships.

Suziewoozie I am not missing the point at all.

All organisations are open to infiltration, XR, Greepeace or any others.

Completely missing the point GG.Although maybe you think any form of protest or opposition to the government should always be labelled terroism......Unless it’s a left wing government of course and then it would be fine

Suziewoozie As stated in my first paragraph, better to be safe than sorry as far as I am concerned.

GG the issue here is related to the Prevent strategy

The Security Services have to get surveillance and arrests right every time and investigate every lead and suspicious activity/activist to keep the UK and its inhabitants safe.

A terrorist only needs one chance to cause Mayhem, Murder and endless heartache for those injured or bereaved.

I know which "Rules"I would rather have.

''A slippery slope

But while Hall rightly states that propaganda is a “slippery term”, one of the biggest problems lies in defining terrorism and extremism. Because the way the state uses both is already a slippery slope.

On 17 January, the Guardian published a counter-terrorism document that listed organisations such as Greenpeace, Campaign Against Arms Trade and Animal Aid as extremist threats.

And on 10 January, environmental protest group Extinction Rebellion (XR) hit the headlines after its inclusion in a counter-terror policing document for safeguarding young and vulnerable people.

Although Patel accepted XR wasn’t a terrorist group, she defended its inclusion, stating it was “based in terms of risk to the public, security risks, security threats”. But while the liberal establishment is shocked and ‘scared’ by her defence, anyone with even a passing knowledge of protest policing will tell you this isn’t anything new.

Writing about XR in 2018, I warned:

we’re living at a time when authorities view any disruptive protest as domestic extremism and police it with counter-terrorism strategy.

Those protesting fracking have regularly been presented as extremists in Prevent counter-terrorism training. And in September 2019, the Guardian reported that a retired doctor was reported to Prevent over his involvement in XR.
Blurring the boundaries

I’m not arguing that if this legislation is enacted, people will immediately be prosecuted for having the XR logo or having photos of people blocking bridges. But it is a warning of how the boundaries can be blurred.

And it’s not like those boundaries haven’t been blurred before. For example, when the controversial S44 terrorism search powers were introduced that gave police blanket powers to stop anyone without needing reasonable suspicion. This was despite promises they wouldn’t be used on protesters.

But the reality was somewhat different. They were both used frequently and as a means of harassment and intelligence gathering on protests. In fact, they only stopped after two people took the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Meanwhile, in 2018, 15 people were convicted of a terrorism-related offence for a peaceful protest that prevented a deportation flight taking off. The original offence was introduced in the wake of the Lockerbie bomb.''

As there is no legal definition of extremism, I would imagine that most people would be by default. Technically the government could decide any activity was extremist. Wasn't the climate change group recently 'accidently' put on the list by the police?

No have all just been "security checked" and passed.