The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000 defines an action as terrorist if it both fits one of these 5 criteria: (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. and also "involves the use of firearms or explosives". The recent bombing of Baghdad fits all 5 of the criteria and involved explosives, therefore it is a terrorist act under these rules. As Ian Jackson pointed out (below), the British government itself is not subject to its own law in this way: but I am. The act also makes it illegal to supply money which is to be used for terrorism without the express consent of a constable. I pay my taxes. QED. Ken Brown, International Terrorist. ========================================= Forwarded from the UKcrypto mailing list: Ian Jackson wrote:
Pete Chown writes ("Re: Terrorism Act 2000"):
Ken Brown wrote:
The bombing of Baghdad is terrorism under these definitions.
Acts of Parliament don't bind the Crown unless they specifically say that they do. So although you are right that the definition is satisfied, the government would not have committed an offence.
Indeed. However, does this not make it an offence to pay tax ?
15. - (3) A person commits an offence if he- (a) provides money or other property, and (b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
There doesn't seem to be an exception for people who give Crown agents money for (partly) terrorist purposes.
There is an exception to this:
21. - (1) A person does not commit an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 if he is acting with the express consent of a constable. (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a person does not commit an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 by involvement in a transaction or arrangement relating to money or other property if he discloses to a constable - (a) his suspicion or belief that the money or other property is terrorist property, and (b) the information on which his suspicion or belief is based. (3) Subsection (2) applies only where a person makes a disclosure- (a) after he becomes concerned in the transaction concerned, (b) on his own initiative, and (c) as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Therefore how about the following tactic:
* If you are already a taxpayer through PAYE, then you probably fall under 21(3)(a) at the moment and should immediately write, recorded delivery, to your local Police station, and ask for a confirmation that they've received your letter. Your letter should state that you believe the UK government may be committing terrorism abroad and your reasons, and that your source is the newspapers and general media.
* If you are *not* already a taxpayer then 21(3)(c) and (b) can't both apply. You cannot lawfully start paying tax without express consent of a constable. So you must write, recorded delivery, to Inland Revenue and your local Police, asking for permission from the Police to pay your taxes. You have to make sure to let the Inland Revenue know why you're not paying, so that they know that you have an excuse.
Alternatively perhaps Inland Revenue could confirm that taxes will not be used for terrorist purposes, such as bombing Baghdad.
Interestingly, seeking money or property for terrorism is an offence too, so ad agencies involved with tax-raising campaigns should perhaps look out.
What have I missed ?
Ian.