Insane, he's committed no crimes, he just has instructions that I'm pretty sure are probably openly available on the internet.
It seems like one step above Thought-Crime. Research Crime or something.
Sounds like they assumed the worst based on some possibly credible links to terrorists. But this really begs the question of where to draw the line. Unspecific intent? What's he gonna do?
he’s committed no crimes,
Apart from several offences under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The fact that you’re defending what is parallel to thoughtcrime is wild
1)A person commits an offence if— (a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism
What is boundary of ‘useful for terrorism’ exactly? Viewing a Google street view of say the GCHQ building? Planewatchers taking photos near the tarmac? Amateur OSINT activities that require things like UXO, radar, or aircraft identification? Putting a video of your SO leaving for deployment on Facebook?
Adding the ‘reasonable excuse’ clause is a paltry fig leaf that just kicks the determination of criminality to the whims of a magistrate or CPS. We’ve seen weak terrorism charges used to stifle legitimate protest, even before the latest protest laws.
The fact that you’re defending what is parallel to thoughtcrime is wild
I don't read it as such, more that they were pointing out that it is a crime.
Good or bad crime is irrelevant, "arrested for not a committing a crime" is incorrect.
That raises some interesting questions.
His only crime was believing Telegram was safe for hiding documents.
Sucker!
Oi you got a loisence for them Google searches???
London
"who’d a thunk it"
For discussion about London including the surrounding Greater London area. Discuss all things from news, travel, culture, and general life around the capital and largest city of England!
Rules and other welcoming info can be found here.