The Government Ban Far-Right Groups, So Why Not These, Who It Seems Are Much More A Threat To Them, Than The Far-Right Are?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052415/Protesters-bring-Westminster-standstill.html

[jackthehat]

Anonymous *might* shout quite loudly about the Tories......but they aren't really much of a threat to them.

The other groups you mention are a real threat to the citizens of this country.

And 'that's' why they have been rightly banned.

[Mamyalynne]

It must surely be a question to pose to the Government why they don't see Anonymous in the same light as other banned groups.

Some explanations given by other responders.

They do look creepy in those masks though, that's just me.

[hc4361]

You really believe that ISIS could march through a UK city as they are not banned, AOG?

[mikey4444]

Is "Grow up you silly woman" allowed here on AB ?

AOG....it has been explained to you, on many previous occasions, why "Scottish Dawn" and "National Action" are proscribed in Britain, so I am at a loss why you keep asking why they are banned ?

[vetuste_ennemi]

//Indeed, you could argue that Anonymous has done some rather good work during its lifetime! //

//SP. that's interesting, What good work has it done?//

Anonymous? Are they the one's with the balaclavas?

Ah, got it! "Love Trumps Hate - and I'll smash you in the face if you disagree with me."

Now, as for Gromit the Moderator (or Matthew Hopkins as I like to think of him -same instinct, but grander title you see) I've got him as front runner for VE's "Sneer of the Year Award".

[jno]

Are they the one's with the balaclavas?

well, no, they're the ones with the Guy Fawkes masks. Click on the link.

[naomi24]

SP, I googled - and I'll go with my original impression. They're a bunch of idiots.

[jourdain2]

I would like burkhas to be banned. It follows that the 'Guido Fawkes' masks should also be banned. That would probably put a stop to it - or curtail it severely.

[-Talbot-]

This flag and its organisation needs banning from our streets https://tinyurl.com/ybmbbpf8

Why haven't they already been banned?

[Gromit]

Membership of Hezbollah’s military wing is illegal in the UK. But it is OK to support its polital wing. Similar to IRA/sinn fein situation. The UK Government recognises the Lebanese Government of which Hezbollah has elected members, so a ban would be inconsistent.

[THECORBYLOON]

ANOTHEOLDGIT, do you think the group should be banned under the Terrorism Act 2000?

To be banned, certain criteria have to be met.

"PROSCRIPTION CRITERIA
What is a proscribed organisation?
A. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she
believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the
Act, this means that the organisation:
• commits or participates in acts of terrorism;
• prepares for terrorism;
• promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or
• is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
What is meant by ‘terrorism’ in the proscription context?
A. “Terrorism” as defined in the Act, means the use or threat which: involves serious violence
against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the act); creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
What determines whether proscription is proportionate?
A. If the statutory test is met, the Secretary of State will consider whether to exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Secretary of State will take into account other factors, including:
• the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities;
• the specific threat that it poses to the UK;
• the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas;
• the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and
• the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight
against terrorism"

[Kromovaracun]

Anonymous aren't a "protest group" by conventional means, they're not a legally-existing entity or a coherent group with goals. They're just a group of hacktivists, pranksters, and anti-authoritarians who operate mainly on the internet. They behave more like a swarm of bees than a conventional group per se.

They have done a few admirable things and a few not so admirable things (I quite liked their campaign against the church of Scientology, and their hack of the Syrian Defence Ministry), but they really do puff themselves up and overstate their importance, most of which is smoke and mirrors. If you look at some of the video threats that people from Anonymous sometimes make, most of them are really very cringe.