@manawyrm@q3k@redford@mrtick Terrorism is a bit of a stretch IMO as there does not seem to be a political goal. On the other hand, sabotage of public infrastructure and severe anti-competitive behaviour seem rather straightforward to prove.
@martijn@q3k@redford@mrtick Ah, interesting. The definition of terrorism over here doesn't specifically include political goals, just "disturbing the peace of the public" is enough to meet the criteria (as far as I can tell, NAL of course).
But yes, this is something that should be on every newspaper front page.
@manawyrm@q3k@redford@mrtick Then it's just a matter of legal semantics. Either way, I think the people responsible for this should be held accountable.
Gregory's Server
@martijn @q3k @redford @mrtick Ah, interesting. The definition of terrorism over here doesn't specifically include political goals, just "disturbing the peace of the public" is enough to meet the criteria (as far as I can tell, NAL of course).
But yes, this is something that should be on every newspaper front page.