this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2025
889 points (97.7% liked)
memes
17128 readers
2967 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That site you linked appears to be AI generated and they can't guarantee they spot and fix all the hallucinations: https://ukfactcheck.com/editorial-standards
This appears to be the Guardian article mentioned in that post though: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/05/lord-dannatt-urged-ministers-to-crack-down-on-palestine-action-at-request-of-us-firm
Neither article claims that this Lord specifically lobbied to get Palestine Action proscribed. The Guardian article has the letters attached to the article, and terror is never mentioned, he just talks about 'considerable' and 'criminal' damage, and unjustified violence, not even the 'significant' damage required for the Terrorism Act. Additionally, his most recent letter was sent in September 2024, the proscription was July 2025.
This Lord is a shitty person lobbying on behalf of a US defence company to get protestors stricter criminal prosecution. However your claim that he lobbied to get Palestine Action proscribed as terrorists is not backed by evidence or the article you linked.
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.