Subversion and direct action are often associated with potentially criminal activity. This is of course not with out reason as many activists, engaging in either subversion or other direct actions in the past, have been convicted for offences that relate to the specifics of their actions. Subversion is a very specific form of Direct Action that mainly applies to the alteration of existing visual or literary media, whereas direct action is the broader term, which encompasses not only methods that use subversion but also further physical preventative intervention, constructive intervention, sabotage and demonstration.
What we are concerned with here at AAW is; the legality of such actions, that to layman, could be perceived as criminal. When we say ‘layman’ here it should be noted that the police are to be considered in this way. The police are only concerned with making arrests for and investigating what they deem to be suspicious. What the police consider suspicious derives from conventional sense, that of the layman. The rank and file of the police are not trained in the law, they are only trained in how lo make lawful arrests that result from suspicion.
A(r)CT 