Terrorism Act 2000

[Pete Chown]

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.

This, however, is one aspect of the Terrorism Act that I particularly
dislike.  There are lots of régimes that don't deserve our protection.
If any private individuals want to overthrow Saddam, good luck to
them...

> Which is a bad idea because you end up discussing mental
> states in court instead of actions.

You always do, though.  As an example, theft requires that someone be
"dishonest", which is a state of mind.

> Perhaps the lawyers here could
> correct me but there is a popular idea that lots of men have got off
> rape charges because they claimed they thought there was consent, when
> if they had been accused of an "ordinary" violent crime they could have
> been convicted.

Possible but I don't think so.  Consensual sex is not rape but it is
also not a crime at all.

-- 
Pete