Neither article claims that this Lord specifically lobbied to get Palestine Action proscribed.
Literally the headline (and URL) in the Guardian: “Lord Dannatt urged ministers to crack down on Palestine Action at request of US firm”.
At best you’re engaging in petty word games pretending that “crack down” means anything other than the outcome he got, for God knows what reason. (Edit: I see you joined Lemmy two hours ago for the purposes of making that post and only that post, which makes your motives even more dubious)
I don’t think there’s any evidence that ‘crack down’ did refer to terrorism. I believe it most likely meant harsh criminal charges, as there was no reference to terrorism or any of the wording from the terrorism act in the letters he sent or the responses he got. I do not remember there being any public thought/debate of protest action being proscribed as terrorism, so I don’t see how ‘crack down’ have been inferred to mean terrorism given there was no context of terrorism at the time. Unless we know that both both Teledyne and politicians were thinking of terrorism at the time, to say he lobbied to get them proscribed specifically rather than just harsher charges in general is speculation. However if you do have any evidence, I would love to see it. It wouldn’t surprise me too much given that the proscription does not seem to make any sense from reading the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act.
And yes, I did make this account just for this. I’ve never had a lemmy account before, I always browse logged out because I’m a weird tin foil hat privacy nutter. I understand a newly created account with no prior activity is very suspicious.
Being a new account isn’t suspicious in of itself, but being a new account that makes such an incredibly weak pettyfogging argument in defense of a shady corrupt arms company, now that is suspicious.
You’re asking for “evidence” that lobbying a government to “crack down” on something means pushing them to enact legislation about it? You show me evidence that it doesn’t mean that, because the latter reading is by far the least plausible of the two.
Literally the headline (and URL) in the Guardian: “Lord Dannatt urged ministers to crack down on Palestine Action at request of US firm”.
At best you’re engaging in petty word games pretending that “crack down” means anything other than the outcome he got, for God knows what reason. (Edit: I see you joined Lemmy two hours ago for the purposes of making that post and only that post, which makes your motives even more dubious)
I don’t think there’s any evidence that ‘crack down’ did refer to terrorism. I believe it most likely meant harsh criminal charges, as there was no reference to terrorism or any of the wording from the terrorism act in the letters he sent or the responses he got. I do not remember there being any public thought/debate of protest action being proscribed as terrorism, so I don’t see how ‘crack down’ have been inferred to mean terrorism given there was no context of terrorism at the time. Unless we know that both both Teledyne and politicians were thinking of terrorism at the time, to say he lobbied to get them proscribed specifically rather than just harsher charges in general is speculation. However if you do have any evidence, I would love to see it. It wouldn’t surprise me too much given that the proscription does not seem to make any sense from reading the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act.
And yes, I did make this account just for this. I’ve never had a lemmy account before, I always browse logged out because I’m a weird tin foil hat privacy nutter. I understand a newly created account with no prior activity is very suspicious.
Being a new account isn’t suspicious in of itself, but being a new account that makes such an incredibly weak pettyfogging argument in defense of a shady corrupt arms company, now that is suspicious.
You’re asking for “evidence” that lobbying a government to “crack down” on something means pushing them to enact legislation about it? You show me evidence that it doesn’t mean that, because the latter reading is by far the least plausible of the two.