Let’s start with “damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure”. It’s a cheap trick of citing national security but also implying that any damage to any part of the “infrastructure” threatens our national security. Then a long list of unsubstantiated claims of “intimidation” etc.
“The clear advice and intelligence given to me earlier this year” is pure Blair “this is what our intelligence services are telling me”. Then PR words like “world-leading” and “robust” with a claim that the “advice and intelligence” is that PA satisfies the relevant tests & should be proscribed.
But this mixes up advice and intelligence. Whether PA satisfies the tests in the Terrorism Act 2000 is both a legal judgement and not really something you need advice on, given how ludicrously widely drawn the tests are. And Intelligence does not tell you what “should” happen. So more sophistry.
As I’ve said before “disturbing information given to me that covered ideas and planning for future attacks” is just using pejorative language to make things sound bad
And “the unanimous recommendation to ministers from the cross-government security expert review group” looks like more sleight of hand, appearing again to deliberately conflate the issue of meeting the threshold for proscription with actually recommending it.