Terrorism Act 2000

[Charles Lindsey]

	On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:27:28 +0000
	Ken Brown <k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> said...

> 
> Andrew Cormack wrote:
> 
> > I read the Act as having logical ANDs between the subsections of 1(1), so
> > in an electronic case (which I'm taking as not involving firearms or
> > explosives so section 3 doesn't apply), you have to have all three of
> > "interference or serious disruption" and "influencing the government or the
> > public" and "advancing a political, religious or ideological cause".
> 
> 
> But surely 
> 
> 
> >  >(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to
> >  >intimidate the public or a
> >  >section of the public, and
> >  >
> >  >(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political,
> >  >religious or
> >  >ideological cause.
> 
> 
> Implies you have to (intimidate OR influence OR advance a cause) AND
> (one of the subsections of (2))

I parse it as:

(      (influence govt OR intimidate (public OR section of public)
        OR use (firearms  OR explosives)
       )
) AND (advance a (political OR religious) cause
) AND ((violence
        OR damage
        OR endanger
        OR risk (health OR safety) of (public OR section of public)
        OR interfere
       )
)

Which is quite reasonable, as these things go :-( .

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5