You have to tick all three boxes for it to be terrorism.

Box (a) is definitely ticked, no question about that.
Box (b), he wasn't trying to intimidate the public. Was he trying to influence the government? Maybe, it was retribution for wrongs he considered the police to have carried out against him. You could argue that he was trying to influence the police not to commit those wrongs.
Box (c), was it for a political cause - not really, religious - no, racial - no, ideological - not really. It was a personal vendetta against the police.

The (a) offences listed in section 2 are criminal offences elsewhere in criminal law. They only become terrorism if they are used to advance the aims in (b) and (c).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 defines terrorism

It must (a) involve and action which falls under subsection 2 of the act [violence against the person, damage to property etc, it does no dispute about that]
(b) the threat is designed to influence the government or international governmental organisation or intimidate the public etc
and (c) be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, radical or ideological cause

Did Raul Moat intend to influence the government or intimidate the public? Maybe but it is a difficult one to prove
Was he trying to advance a political religious etc cause? Not really
That just leaves (a), violence against the person, and there are other laws dealing with people who do that for non-terrorist reasons.

The murderer made statements before hand saying that his murder was for political reasons. Under the terrorism act, those statements make his act an act of terrorism.

I agree that this should be treated as a mad lunatic who needs to be locked up for public safety, just like any other axe weilding lunatic.

Are you sure that's EU? I think it's just Germany (and apparently Spain and France). I'm pretty sure such a system has been proposed for the UK, but not implemented.

300 litres is 0.3 cubic metres. Much easier to visualise without any amusing conversions...

The mass is 300kg.

Your ovens weren't always electric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_oven

In England we call them casseroles, I'd not heard "Dutch oven" before.

My normal-sized (300 litre) fridge/freezer draws 80-100W, and runs about half the time (measured myself, I have a watt-meter connected to a computer graphing power usage at 5 second intervals). Similar (current) model: http://www.siemens-home.co.uk/energy-efficient-appliances/fridges-and-freezers/fridge-freezers/KG34NVI30G.html?source=browse The manufacturer claims it averages to under 30W over a year.

What does the American electricity-guzzling appliance do?

Not entirely representative, but on my Jabber roster about 30% are Google people, and about half of them are Google employees. I wonder how many Google Talk users have no non-Google people on their roster, and will be happy to learn that Google has just decided that they can no longer talk to them.

Do you want to point out something that was wrong in my post, or are you just trolling?

Chips are called chips, and look like this - http://www.mccain.co.uk/Global/Images/Products/Product%20Category/Healthy/oven%20chips%20sc%20large.jpg
Crisps are called crisps and look like this - http://images2.mysupermarket.co.uk/Products_1000/37/174137.jpg?v=2

In Europe, and most of the rest of the world, we use smart-chips when we aren't using contactless. There is a magnetic stripe on the card, that that is only so that the card can be used in the USA and other similarly backward countries.

I'm not sure about those two stores, but in a lot of stores, especially ones owned by smaller companies, the credit card terminal is not linked to point of sale system. The checkout operator presses the button on the till for card or cash, nobody takes cheques any more, then if it is card, they enter the total amount into the card terminal, process the payment, and usually put the store copy of the card receipt in the till. It may well be that they thought the card terminal wasn't working, and put the payment through again.

There are accounts where you have to register with an email address and password to access content. For those sorts of accounts, I don't care if someone else finds the password and uses it to read the stuff on the site. I have a spamcatcher webmail account, password the same as the username, and the username and password on the sites I register using it are the same as the webmail ones. The name and address details are completely made up based on a fictional character. Completely insecure, but I do not care. If someone else gets in, they are welcome to have a look round.

There is a case in Europe of people getting into bank accounts by compromising their cellphone. They sent a phishing message puportedly from their bank telling them they needed to install some security software on their phone, with instructions on how to do it for iPhone, Android and Blackberry.

Then, having got the login details for the bank account, they log in, do a transfer instruction, and when the bank sends a code to the phone to authenticate it, the malware on the phone intercepts the message, and sends it to them, so they can complete the transaction,

If the problem is wealth inequality, then you don't make it an explicit cap, you make it a ratio. Say, no person should be able to control more wealth than 100 times the median. That would mean, today, that a wealthy person would be in a position to live comfortably and never have to work again, which sounds like it's sufficient incentive for the people whose only motivation for doing things that benefit society is collecting personal wealth (I've never met any such people, but according to posts above they exist). And, if someone really wants more, then the incentives are set up so that they can get a lot more by increasing the median wealth a small amount...