Well the moment is near when the refinery up this neck of the woods might have a blocked or not depending on wether the anti terror law is used. Could somebodyexplain in nice plain English why the right to protest would need to be govened by the anti terror law on what is "alledgedly" a democratic right. People will be at the refinery west gate if allowed to get that close to voice a genuine opinion and if like the last one the only wepons there will be the police.
If they say that it is a "terrorist" action to stand by a gate and voice an opinion does that mean strikers would be treated the same? Will there be a "Guantanamo Bay" lock up full of ordinary people who's only crime on the day was to complain about the cost of fuel. Just imagine some mother locked up because she thinks petrol is to dear and as she needs her car a price increase hurts the purse.
The closest this gets is to being terrorism is economic as vice president Brown dare not consider losing a days tax from fuel. So president Blair agree's that is terrorism and allows for the full weight of the act to come into force. Does this mean that the striking bus drivers are to be arrested because they want a pay rise and are on strike? Well no because it dosnt affect the govenment so it isnt terror but the economic arguement is the same here they want a fair rise the boss says no. End result all out with banners. Now the fuel blockade would be the same yet treated different what a state this country is in.
If president Blair is worried along with the vice president about the cost to the coffers of a protest then what happens when Joe June Julie and John Public cannot afford to run a car what then? Easy they cut the tax which would show that this whole carryon is about being legally approved pirates.
But pirates usually get hung so they had better whatch out. I wounder if a pirate could be considered a terrorist and if so .......well I'll leave that thought to you.
