What the two protestors who threw condoms full of purple dyed flour at the Prime Minister and other MPs during Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday was wrong.
However, it was not by any stretch of the imagination, "terrorism" as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000.
"2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system."
The facts of the case are clear - with many MPs as witnesses, covered live on television. Nobody was "terrorised", nobody was hurt, nobody's health was put at risk, there was no actual "criminal damage", certainly not "serious criminal damage".
The two protestors were held overnight, and denied access to their legal advisors until today, whilst being held at the Paddington Green high security police station which is used to hold terrorist suspects.
It seems that after being questioned by Anti-terrorist police, the two have been now been charged with "threatening, abusive, or harrassing behavior " Public Order offences.
This just compounds yesterday's security debacle. The Terrorism Act should not be used to arrest political protestors and hold them without charge or trial. Not even the majority of violent political protestors e.g. those who fight against the police etc. in street demonstrations or even full scale riots, which these two were obviously not, should be dealt with by the Terrorism Act.