A West London man has been sentenced to five years in prison for encouraging violent attacks in response to government policies during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Patrick Ruane, 55, was sentenced at the Old Bailey on 11 November, following his conviction on two counts of encouragement of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2006. He will serve an additional year on licence after his release.
Ruane’s extremist activity was uncovered by the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command during an investigation that began in 2021. Officers linked him to a series of inflammatory social media posts where he encouraged violence against individuals associated with the government’s pandemic response.
Among his targets were pharmaceutical company staff, MPs, police, vaccine laboratories, and 5G infrastructure.
Online Extremism and Arrest
Detectives arrested Ruane in November 2021 at his flat in west London, where they seized multiple electronic devices. Analysis revealed extensive evidence of Ruane’s postings over a ten-month period.
Acting Commander Gareth Rees of the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command described Ruane’s posts as more than mere online chatter:
“This wasn’t idle chit-chat online – he was encouraging people to seriously injure or kill others, suggesting who to target.”
Ruane’s online activity included calls to violence against pharmaceutical and government workers, alongside conspiratorial accusations about vaccines and 5G technology.
Legal Proceedings and Sentencing
Ruane was charged in August 2023 with two counts of encouragement of terrorism and one count of possessing a document useful for terrorism. While he was found not guilty of possessing the document, he was convicted on the two counts of encouragement and sentenced accordingly.
Bethan David, Head of the Counter Terrorism Division at the Crown Prosecution Service, highlighted the danger Ruane posed:
“This is a dangerous man who was prolific in encouraging violence because of his firmly held beliefs in a conspiracy theory. During a time when the nation was suffering a devastating pandemic, Patrick Ruane was using Telegram to spread false and damaging information and encourage violence and terrorism.”
Authorities have reiterated the importance of public vigilance in combatting terrorism. The Met urged anyone with concerns about potential radicalisation or suspicious activity to report it confidentially through the UK’s anti-terrorist hotline or the government’s ACT website.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Cue yet another tweet from Musk lecturing us about how stopping people from threatening or encouraging violence against others online is a disgraceful infringement of freedom of Speech.
My workplace still has British Transport Police posters up warning us to be careful taking down Anti-Vax stickers as so many had needles and razorblades behind them.
I do struggle a bit with the modern definition of terrorism. Essentially the modern definition could interpret pretty much most violence as terrorism.
Traditional interpretation is
“the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective” essentially this required an act of terror to have a level of scale to the violence, as the act of terror was to create a climate of fear.
The current UK legal interpretation
The use or threat of serious violence against a person or serious damage to property where that action is:
designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and
for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’
The modern legal interpretation means that any individual intimidating, threatening another individual or small group undertaking a level of property damage could be considered a terrorist if any link could be found to political, racial or ideological cause..
Essentially if we look historically it would mean the following were terrorists
1) the Suffragettes
2) the miners unions
3) fox hunt protesters or fox hunters threatening the fox hunt protester
4) green peace
5) racists down the pub
6) drunk homophobic blokes out on a Saturday night
7) person protesting about fur coats.
8) people getting into a hot argument at a political rally
9) people shouting abuse at a protest they don’t like
Now depending on your politics and if they are impacting you personally at the time these groups many have been either irritating or down right unpleasant and worrying to you…and they May have broken some laws and needed arresting….people do things others don’t like and sometimes they argue threaten and even punch each other over it….but I’m sorry they are not terrorists.
Now is a sado anti vaxer saying violence should be used a terrorist…maybe maybe not…if he was planning a terror campaign then yes….if he was mouthing off then maybe not…if he was encouraging violence he still needed charging and it’s still a crime…but terrorism, a lot of people seem to be charged under terror laws for simply being horrible people or holding and expressing views in an unrestrained way…