Page 3 of 3
Re: The times goes on the Anti-Gun War path.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:50 pm
by Plumose
I have just been thinking about the section 58 again and my re-reading makes me think that it is purely about thing like the Jolly Roger Cookbook and terrorist training manuals and nothing to do with recordings of terrorist acts.
So I am no longer worried about someone sending me a link and watching it, I just really wouldn't want to.
Re: The times goes on the Anti-Gun War path.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:03 pm
by Dark Skies
Plumose wrote:I have just been thinking about the section 58 again and my re-reading makes me think that it is purely about thing like the Jolly Roger Cookbook and terrorist training manuals and nothing to do with recordings of terrorist acts.
So I am no longer worried about someone sending me a link and watching it, I just really wouldn't want to.
You're right! In fact this clears everything up.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 76226.html
Indeed Amber Rudd never intended such a draconian law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 79986.html
I was just being paranoid.
Re: The times goes on the Anti-Gun War path.
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:56 am
by Blackstuff
I can't read either of those as i don't subscribe to the independent/have a login, can you give the jist on here??
Re: The times goes on the Anti-Gun War path.
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:34 am
by Dark Skies
Blackstuff wrote:I can't read either of those as i don't subscribe to the independent/have a login, can you give the jist on here??
I don't subscribe either - yet it appears for me.
Re: The times goes on the Anti-Gun War path.
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:03 pm
by Rarms
Blackstuff wrote:I can't read either of those as i don't subscribe to the independent/have a login, can you give the jist on here??
Essentially, definitely illegal and exactly what Amber Rudd wanted