Definitely: I'm waiting for URL details with extra information, which I'll post here, but in the meantime probably best to send an email to that address.
While by no means opposed to free speech - in both great matters and little ones - I'm deeply uneasy about this title. It's deliberately provocative, OK, but it might give some people the idea that glorifying terrorism is a good thing to do.
One man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter, but I don't want either blowing me to bloody fragments as I go about my daily business, thanks very much.
Maybe we all need to define our terms, starting but not finishing with HMG.
Surely the law would even ban the likes of the BBC's "Secret Army". I was thinking about CWIL members who might have contributed had they known in time. It's not hard to find possibilities!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 11:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 11:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 12:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 12:21 pm (UTC)Glorifying terrorism
Date: 2006-12-13 12:46 pm (UTC)One man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter, but I don't want either blowing me to bloody fragments as I go about my daily business, thanks very much.
Maybe we all need to define our terms, starting but not finishing with HMG.
Re: Glorifying terrorism
Date: 2006-12-13 01:01 pm (UTC)I agree - only, unfortunately, HMG have chosen to make ill-defined terms the law.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 01:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 02:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 06:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 08:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 09:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 10:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 10:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 12:13 pm (UTC)