What does "violence to intimidate people" mean? Some people are easily intimidated, and "violence" is misdefined by many. Strong speach is called "violent" by many people (at least in the US, and much to my disgust), and is certainly intimidating. Many definitions of terrorism say that the mere threat of violence is terrorism, and then if you allow the "terrorized" to interpret what a threat of violence is, it can get pretty out of hand.

I think intent to physically harm is an absolute minimum for anything to be classified terrorism. Property crime should never be classified terrorism, and certainly inconveniencing people is not terrorism; to call it such is an incredible diminishing of the real meaning and issue.

Whilst I don't support violence in the furtherance of the cause of animal rights (and those who do give animal rights advocates a bad name), I don't think terrorism is the correct classification. I cannot think of a single thing that these people did that is not already covered by another law already, and the use of 'anti-terror' legislation just brings in a hysteria that has no place in dispassionate justice. I also think it is a dangerous leakage of the concept of terrorism.

>I also think it is a dangerous leakage of the concept of terrorism.

Absolutley.. this government seem to want to apply it to "anyone we don't like"...

You're right, of course. A rolling blockade of the M4 is a brilliant, modern take on non-violent protest. Surely, though, there are other laws to deal with people who inconvenience others on the roads?