UK Anti-Terror Police Listed Extinction Rebellion in a Guide to Prevent School Atrocities

Extinction Rebellion, ‘swarming roadblocks’. DAVID HOLT [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart; From the guide – “While concern about climate change is not in itself extreme, [Extinction Rebellion] activists may encourage vulnerable people to perform acts of violence, or commit such acts themselves”

Terrorism police list Extinction Rebellion as extremist ideology

Exclusive: Police scramble to recall guide issued to teachers putting climate activists alongside far-right groups

Vikram Dodd and Jamie Grierson
Sat 11 Jan 2020 04.00 AEDT

Counter-terrorism police placed the non-violent group Extinction Rebellion (XR) on a list of extremist ideologies that should be reported to the authorities running the Prevent programme, which aims to catch those at risk of committing atrocities, the Guardian has learned.

The climate emergency campaign group was included in a 12-page guide produced by counter-terrorism police in the south-east titled Safeguarding young people and adults from ideological extremism, which is marked as “official”.

XR featured alongside threats to national security such as neo-Nazi terrorism and a pro-terrorist Islamist group. The guide, aimed at police officers, government organisations and teachers who by law have to report concerns about radicalisation, was dated last November.Advertisement

It says that issues to look out for include people who speak in “strong or emotive terms about environmental issues like climate change, ecology, species extinction, fracking, airport expansion or pollution”.

In the guide, people are advised to listen and look out for young people who “neglect to attend school” or “participate in planned school walkouts” – an allusion to the school strikes for the climate, a global movement of which the activist Greta Thunberg is a lead proponent. Thousands of UK pupils, and millions worldwide, walked out of school last year in protest at government inaction on the climate crisis.

DCS Kath Barnes, head of CTPSE, said: “I would like to make it quite clear that we do not classify Extinction Rebellion as an extremist organisation. The inclusion of Extinction Rebellion in this document was an error of judgment and we will now be reviewing all of the contents as a result.

A spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion said: “How dare they? Children up and down the country are desperately fighting for a future. Teachers, grandparents, nurses have been trying their best with loving nonviolence to get politicians and big business to do something about the dire state of our planet. And this is how the establishment responds.

“In a world of misinformation, where lies travel faster than the truth, we can’t help but wonder was this a deliberate attempt to silence a legitimate cause. Wouldn’t it be nice if they focused on the real extremists, the fossil fuel companies and those that do their bidding?”

Read more:

The following is a copy of the XR page in the now withdrawn handbook;

Extinction Rebellion Extremist Handbook Listing
Extinction Rebellion Extremist Handbook Listing (h/t The Guardian)

I’m deeply shocked that a police counter-terrorism unit could make the mistake of listing dangerous extremist groups which encourage law breaking and actively seek to recruit school children alongside Extinction Rebellion.

68 thoughts on “UK Anti-Terror Police Listed Extinction Rebellion in a Guide to Prevent School Atrocities

  1. So though at first the authors of the guide had the appearance of courage, integrity and common sense, the first push back, and it was all a hour of straw. Cowards!

    • The original authors were those people who actually have to deal with dangerous nut cases.
      The pushback was from the politicians who hire the people who actually have to deal with dangerous nut cases.

    • Instead of the police “accepting that the protest group was not extremist”, what they really meant was that their guide was accurate but politically incorrect.

      Any group planning to place aircraft at risk by flying drones around airfields is an extreme, dangerous group.

    • Wikipedia is a leftist Ideological propaganda site masquerading as an online Encyclopedia. You should not be surprised that Wikipedia is where truth goes to die.

    • Re “interesting times” – Old Chinese curse : “May you live in interesting times”.

      We live in interesting and dangerous times because instant mass communication for the first time in human history now makes it possible for mob behaviour, mob rule, lynch mood, mass hysteria, etc. to spread globally – whereas it traditionally these could naturally only ever be local phenomena.

      It makes excellent sense for Anti-terrorist authorities to keep an eye on these fanatics.

      • Andy, you can rest assured that although the “guide” has been recalled, they will still keep a close eye on XR! It’s like the step back of anti-terrorist authorities on “racial profiling”. It is out of the manual, but still front and center in reality. Oh they will strip search some 90yr old great-granny from a small town in Kentucky now and again to show they aren’t “profiling” but they seem to be particularly successful in stymying planned terrorist attacks.

  2. Anyone know where I can get a copy of this guide?

    I want to know what other groups are listed, and what it says about them.

    • Yes, Loydo, and police are totally honest, never infiltrated and never afraid to lose their lives to the terrorists. In fairy tales.

    • They are a doomsday cult no different to how those all start out. The person who put them on the watch list was correct and the politicians removed them. When this all blows up in there face in the coming years watch the politician cockroaches all hide and claim it wasn’t them.

      What those in the UK should do is get in writing now exactly who was responsible for removing them off the watch list so they can be held to account.

    • Loydo

      So what’s changed?

      A former head of the Met Police anti terrorist unit, now a civilian security adviser, reached the same conclusion, independently.

      Take your greenwash sh*t elsewhere.

  3. Agree that obstruction to daily business should be punished. However, you should not punish people or groups for expressing their view points in general. XR is not my cup of tea, I regard them as stupid and ridiculous, just like the Jehovah Witness which most of us just laugh at and send away. So the police should not determine what is good or bad ideology but just take care of violent and traditional unlawful behavior.

      • I understand that they have an underlying different agenda, somewhat difficult to identify especially for children. However, instead of forbidding groups of radical opinions, like some want to forbid the climate skeptic community, the MSM media should rather be obligated to reveal these underlying agendas to the full in a mature and understandable way.
        As a bad example: In Denmark you are allowed to publish how to make moonshine, but you are obligated to have a first chapter explaining it is illegal to actually do it.
        Likewise explaining to the public the hidden agenda of XR, will likely prevent many from joining, who otherwise would have joined.
        I see it the same way with CAGW recruitment. Better to force the “state owned” media to allow skeptic a reasonable amount of air-time and column-space, rather than almost complete censorship.

    • There wasn’t even a hint of efforts to deny anyone their right to express their opinion in this pamphlet.

      The entire article was about watching such groups because such groups tend to attract extremists who use more than just words in order to stop those who “are killing the planet”.

    • But nobody is being punished. You cannot be punished until you do something wrong. Individuals are only being kept an eye on – because enough is known about human psychology to postulate that certain individuals may turn out to be terribly dangerous. The Americans omitted keeping an eye on the daily business and actions of the little group of Muslims – and 9/11 ensued.

      Yes, police should indeed determine what is good or bad ideology.

  4. Where I go at work, eco-green terrorism is now considered a major threat. With specific quirks as potential perpetrators ranging from teen-agers to grannies would be particularly hard to spot and screen.

    They could be technically trained and have access to means and knowledge outside of the common core.

    Even more so as fully-badged personnel with high-level clearance could theoretically become green addicted without rising much suspicion in a green mass hysteria driven society.

    • So are cars entering from the wrong end of a one-way street, if that was intentionally in order to harm others. James Hansen has been arrested several times for his climate activism, but not accused of terrorism. Terrorism is a far cry from spraying red paint on a building.

      • The problem with these sorts of actions is you need to know if they actually thought thru the risk to themselves and others.

        I don’t know many who have issues with protestors and the right to protest.

        The issue comes when they seek to get media attention and there action is dangerous to themselves or others. You can’t just say this or that act is okay you need the full context.

        Spraying red paint may be dangerous, the paint may be flammable etc … you need context.

    • The threat of using drones at airports to endanger life, property and commerce is classic terrorism. Terrorism is threats and actions designed to disrupt your life to further the terrorists’ ideological purposes. And that encompasses CAGW activists’ propaganda and protest actions.

  5. Is a group whose long/medium /short term goal to replace an elected government they don’t agree with by whatever means possibly a subversive terrorist organisation? Is an organisation that wants to change things by bypassing Parliament a terrorist organisation?

    In both cases the answer is yes. Does XR have these goals, I think so.

  6. “These definitions are provided by the Terrorism Act 2000.

    Terrorist is a person who,

    has committed certain offences under the Terrorism Act 2000, (for example, is linked to a proscribed organisation, provides money/property he suspects will be used for purposes of terrorism, uses money/property for purposes of terrorism) or
    is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
    Terrorism means the use or threat of action where

    the action,
    involves serious violence against a person,
    involves serious damage to property,
    endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
    creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
    is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system or,
    the use or threat is designed to influence the government or international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
    the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.”
    Therefore aspects of Extinction Rebellion methodology as expressed by certain individuals could be legitimately considered terrorism, but the organisation in and of itself is not a terrorist organisation.

    • @John, agree totally and thanks for the clarification of the definition.
      Again, it is the individuals who overstates their rights. Otherwise UN would be a terrorist organization. It was not UN’s intention to kill countless million people in Africa, when they banned DDT, for example, it was just a badly informed decision.

    • John

      One can be half a terrorist then?

      Sorry, but convention dictates that subscription to just one of these criteria renders on a terrorist.

      Mitigation may be a legitimate defence in a court of law. e.g. “only one of our methods describes us as terrorists” but I’m afraid Robin Hood was a thief, irrespective of his noble intention.

  7. The final comment from XR is interesting, “ Wouldn’t it be nice if they focused on the real extremists, the fossil fuel companies and those that do their bidding?”

    • John

      Usual distraction from their terrorist activities.

      We were driven to shooting down a plane of innocent civilians because America killed a legitimate military target of ours”.

      “Sorry, but our military report is quite clear on this, Abdul screamed “Look, big silver bird, it must be American, Shoot!”

      “Our response is clear and unequivocal, Ooops!”

      • [I think this post, and HotScot’s post which it is replying to, are seriously off-topic. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for moderators to remove both of them, but if HotScot’s is allowed to remain, I think this response should also be allowed. If both comments are removed, I would be grateful if the moderators could forward this one to HotScot to explain why his has disappeared.]

        I’m always surprised that people who have shown the independence of mind to reject mainstream brainwashing in one area (in this case, global warming) should be keen to echo it in different areas (like the claim that Soleimani was a terrorist). In fact, Soleimani was the greatest ANTI-terrorist fighter of the Middle East. His career consisted of helping people fight illegal invasions of their countries (starting with Saddam Hussain’s invasion of Iran), and fighting terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaida — in which enterprise he sometimes worked with American armed forces. (Though, obviously, not with those elements of the American Deep State that backed the terrorists.)

        He is revered not only amongst anti-terrorist Muslims, but among the Christian and Yazidi communities of Syria, who regard him as the most effective shield that they had against the jihadists that wanted to enslave or exterminate them. It was Soleimani that organised the defence of Erbil and Baghdad that prevented ISIS taking almost the whole of Iraq in their original surge. The Popular Mobilization Units that Soleimani organised did the bulk of the work in pushing ISIS out of Iraq, whatever American MSM say. The PMUs are notable for using house-to-house fighting to liberate terrorist-held areas, risking their own lives to minimise civilian casualties. (This contrasts with the American strategy of just flattening terrorist-occupied areas, used in Raqqa and elsewhere.)

        The American claim that the PMUs were responsible for the death of the Iraqi-born American contractor in last December’s attack on the base in northern Iraq is, to put it mildly, far from conclusively established — especially when you consider that the attacked base was shared with the PMUs. America’s response to the attack on this (PMU!) base was to bomb five other PMU bases, hundreds of miles away, which were guarding against ISIS infiltration. This killed about half-a-dozen PMU members, and about a couple of dozen regular Iraqi soldiers and border guards. Unsurprisingly, some of their funerals turned into anti-American demonstrations — for which America blamed Soleimani, even though he used his influence to moderate the anger!

        With American encouragement, Saudi Arabia started diplomatic efforts to calm the situation down. Iraq invited Soleimani to represent Iran in those negotiations and to attend the remaining funerals. He travelled openly, using a diplomatic passport, on a scheduled air service. America told Iraq shortly before his arrival of its intention to kill him, and was told in no uncertain terms not to. But it went ahead and murdered not just Soleimani but also the Iraqi anti-terror forces chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who had greeted him at the airport. This was an act of war against both Iraq and Iran.

        Far from being “a legitimate military target”, Soleimani was killed while on a mission of peace, under a flag of truce, on his way to the funerals of the last batch of America’s innocent victims. It is widely believed in the Middle East that the Americans suggested the negotiations precisely to get him to where it would be convenient to kill him. The contempt for American duplicity is now incandescent. Soleimani was extremely popular — he had about an 85% approval rating in Iran, according to Western opinion-pollsters working there. It was widely assumed that he would be elected the next President of Iran, and the effect of his assassination on Iranians is analogous to that of JFK on Americans. Except that in this case, the killers don’t hide their identity. Instead they glory in their actions, slander their victims, and threaten a massively disproportionate response (including the war-crime of targeting cultural sites) if any retaliation at all is taken, even the proportionate retaliation that Iran is entitled to under international law. (Incidentally, it remains to be seen whether the Soleimani assassination will eventually also be seen as analogous to that of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.)

        Any Iranian government that did not take proportionate retaliation for the killing of the national hero would fall, so great was the people’s anger. Iran had to launch such retaliation. As with the drone incident last summer, Iran targeted military equipment rather than personnel, and hit precisely what they targeted. American generals and politicians (behind the scenes) were so shocked by the demonstration of Iranian capabilities that they cancelled any planned “disproportionate response”, at least for as long as it would take them to either harden up, or withdraw from, all the bases that they belatedly realised were wide open to Iranian missiles.

        Of course, the Iranians couldn’t be sure that the threatened American response wouldn’t come, so they had to go on high alert for air raids. Unfortunately, some idiot failed to suspend civilian air traffic, and some older air defence missile units were brought out of mothballs and moved around the country to fill gaps in coverage, without being reliably linked into the modern command and control structure. I find both of these decisions blameworthy, but military bloggers have persuaded me that probably no blame attaches to the character mocked by HotScot, the “Abdul” with his finger on the pushbutton. (“Abdul” is not a Persian name, by the way.)

        Tragically, the fog of war led to a civilian plane being shot down, when its height, speed and direction happened to match that of a cruise missile headed for an important military base. It took the Iranians a couple of days to sort out what had happened, to apologise profusely, and to promise to pay compensation and to punish any individuals found to be at fault. That really isn’t fast enough, but it compares well with the years that America took to formally admit that the USS Vincennes had shot down Iran Air flight 655 in 1988, with America’s explicit refusal to apologise for the resulting 290 deaths, and with the awarding of honours rather than punishment to those on the Vincennes who were responsible. It’s also worth noticing that no threats had been made against the Vincennes to make it expect imminent attack, and that the Tehran missile-crew were defending their own territory, while the Vincennes was thousands of miles from home, and actually entered Iranian territorial waters to shoot down an Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace. Americans are in no position to criticise.

        Everything I have said will seem astonishing to anyone who depends on the MSM for news and analysis about the Middle East. I get my information from a loose network of analytical blogs, many of which are run by Western ex-military, ex-intelligence or ex-diplomatic staff. These are people who retired or were pushed out over the last couple of decades because they refused to fit the intelligence to the politically desired policy — a policy of aggression towards any country whose governments try to rule in the interests of their nations’ people, rather than for the benefit of an international exploitative ruling class, which seeks to break up national cohesion so that all non-elite people become easily-dominated interchangeable cyphers.

        These bloggers are usually much more insightful, and certainly more truthful, than the sort of people who are allowed into the MSM. If you want to examine such blogs, good places to start are: (1) Sic Semper Tyrannis. (Run by a group of American ex-military and ex-intelligence people.) (2) Moon of Alabama. (Run by a German of similar background, I think.) (3) (Run by a British ex-ambassador who was forced out for whistleblowing about an allied country boiling dissidents alive. Skip the boring stuff about domestic Scottish politics if you’re not Scottish.) And (4) the Vineyard of the Saker. (Run from Florida by an ex-NATO analyst of Swiss nationality and Russian descent.) Following links from those will give a much higher proportion of truth than using MSM sites, though of course they can sometimes get things wrong, and there is never any guarantee that you can’t find yourself on a disinformation site after a couple of jumps.

  8. UK Anti-Terror Police were right first time.

    Extinction Rebellion (and the related Climate Emergency) both argue that the “climate situation” is so dangerous that ordinary people (meaning them) must rise up and with or without the cooperation of municipal, state and federal governments, take direct action to “protect” the environment.

    Their documents say that that all existing emergency laws (and new ones to be introduced by them) can be used to take direct action, including ignoring all existing laws that they think are not helpful.

    Terrorist organisation who will use revolutionary action to achieve their goals? You bet.

  9. I look forward to the day when the theft of time – which is an irreplaceable resource – becomes a criminal offence regarded with the same gravity as theft of property – which is replaceable

  10. ER are an extremist organisation, in fact they are borderline terrorists.
    Most of their supporters are hysterical childish idiots.
    In October of last year they got a glimpse of what the public really think of them when one of their ‘activists’ was pulled down from the roof of a train in London and given a good kicking.

    • It was entirely fair to flag up that the ‘grown ups’ behind the organisation may convince indoctrinated young adults to do stupid things that may endanger them and others. The children would not deserve to be labelled ‘terrorists’ but the extremists behind the actions do.

  11. It amazes me how humans are so dim they think calling a wolf “a doggy” will keep it from eating their two year old. If there were no God, humans would be extinct.

  12. Seriously the leaflet says. ‘They may put posters on lamp posts etc’

    Anyone in their right who actually thinks a bunch of socially Conscious greens are going to go all KGB on you is deluded. What are you afraid of? Getting beaten to death with a celery stick. 😂

    Come on!???????

  13. I have no doubt some of the arsonist atrocities committed in Australia were done in the name of climate change awareness.

  14. One day school less, often every week. More uneducated, easy to manipulate young activists. Why don’t they protest on Saturdays or Sundays?

    • Because Saturdays and Sundays are their own time; they wouldn’t have teachers and activist students to push them out into the streets. Anyway, playing hooky is fun.

  15. One day school less, often every week. More uneducated, easy to manipulate young activists. Why don’t they protest on Saturdays or Sundays? Sitting in this protest makes them part of a group, self-important and inflated self-opinion, and still, would they need to really learn something – everything is known, their leaders told them everything needed?

  16. “While concern about climate change is not in itself extreme, activists may encourage vulnerable people to perform acts of violence, or commit such acts themselves”

    Hardly a constructive comment by myself – please forgive me but…….

    I thank you.

  17. Richard Walton, a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange, and a former Head
    of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) between
    2011-2016, had this to say about XR:

    “As this paper shows, however, the leaders of Extinction Rebellion seek a
    more subversive agenda, one that that is rooted in the political extremism
    of anarchism, eco-socialism and radical anti-capitalist environmentalism.
    The ‘civil resistance model’ they espouse is intended to achieve mass protest
    accompanied by law-breaking, leading eventually to the breakdown of
    democracy and the state. Obscured from public view, these objectives mark
    Extinction Rebellion’s campaign out as an extremist one that seeks to break
    down the established civil order and liberal democracy in the UK.”

Comments are closed.