| Fecking scary 07:20 - Jun 13 with 2304 views | Zx1988 |
https://www.theguardian.com/uk
Especially when one of the barristers puts it all so succinctly:
"In written arguments, Mira Hammad KC, representing Kamio, said the defendants had initially been arrested on suspicion of involvement in acts of terrorism but not charged with those offences “showing that a deliberate decision was taken not to submit the crown’s case [that there was terrorism] to the arbitrament of a jury …[therefore] the court should not allow the crown to use [section 69] as a vehicle for enhancing sentence in circumstances where it has determined that a conviction for the same offence by the jury is unlikely”." |  |
| |  |
| Fecking scary on 07:28 - Jun 13 with 1964 views | NthQldITFC |
Strike the word 'terrorist' from all dictionaries.
It means absolutely nothing now.
It is a non-word. |  |
| |
| Fecking scary on 07:37 - Jun 13 with 1926 views | Zx1988 |
| Fecking scary on 07:28 - Jun 13 by NthQldITFC |
Strike the word 'terrorist' from all dictionaries.
It means absolutely nothing now.
It is a non-word. |
Not forgetting, of course, the 100 people arrested for the heinous act of holding a sign.
Then, during the original trial, we had the defending barristers being threatened with contempt proceedings if they reminded the jury of their absolute right to acquit, according to their conscience. Despite this being confirmed by a plaque situated in the very same court house.
It's like a Temu East Germany. | |
| |
| Fecking scary on 08:07 - Jun 13 with 1805 views | Jon_456 |
Scary for who? Feck about and find out.
Don’t break into an arms manufacturer and smash sh*t up if you’re not prepared to face the consequences.
And if you can help it, don’t fracture the spine of a police officer with a sledge hammer. | | | |
| Fecking scary on 08:28 - Jun 13 with 1728 views | Zx1988 |
| Fecking scary on 08:07 - Jun 13 by Jon_456 |
Scary for who? Feck about and find out.
Don’t break into an arms manufacturer and smash sh*t up if you’re not prepared to face the consequences.
And if you can help it, don’t fracture the spine of a police officer with a sledge hammer. |
Which is the whole purpose of the original jury trial, n'est ce-pas?
A jury found them guilty of standard non-terrorist criminal damage and GBH - notwithstanding the defendants being gagged from offering a full defence. They were charged with the non-terrorist versions of the offences because, reading between the lines, the CPS knew that they'd never get a terrorism conviction from a jury.
The scary bit is that the establishment can then turn the tables once a conviction (on a completely different premise) has been obtained and essentially say 'yeah, just kidding. We're definitely treating you as terrorists.'
It also creates the distinct possiblity that, in the future, someone could plead guilty to a crime on a non-terrorist basis, and then find themselves sentenced as a terrorist. [Post edited 13 Jun 8:31]
| |
| |
| Fecking scary on 08:36 - Jun 13 with 1648 views | Zx1988 |
Also, it's just occurred to me...
I don't recall any of the violent protesters in Southampton and Belfast being sentenced as terrorists, despite them committing violent acts aimed at intimidating a community, and trying to influence government policy.
Funny, that. | |
| |
| Fecking scary on 08:50 - Jun 13 with 1600 views | bsw72 |
Concerning for the terrorist link agree. I have no sympathy for the individual who attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer. |  | | |
| Fecking scary on 08:52 - Jun 13 with 1589 views | bsw72 |
| Fecking scary on 08:36 - Jun 13 by Zx1988 |
Also, it's just occurred to me...
I don't recall any of the violent protesters in Southampton and Belfast being sentenced as terrorists, despite them committing violent acts aimed at intimidating a community, and trying to influence government policy.
Funny, that. |
The terrorist link only applies because of the tenuous classification of Palestine Action, so it all may unravel.
If we could get reform or restore classified as a terrorist org though. | | | |
| Fecking scary on 09:04 - Jun 13 with 1541 views | Dubtractor |
| Fecking scary on 08:36 - Jun 13 by Zx1988 |
Also, it's just occurred to me...
I don't recall any of the violent protesters in Southampton and Belfast being sentenced as terrorists, despite them committing violent acts aimed at intimidating a community, and trying to influence government policy.
Funny, that. |
Two tier justice or something...
These protesters went way past anything acceptable, and prison seems the right answer, but the way this has been dealt with is wrong. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fecking scary on 10:25 - Jun 13 with 1393 views | Jon_456 |
| Fecking scary on 08:28 - Jun 13 by Zx1988 |
Which is the whole purpose of the original jury trial, n'est ce-pas?
A jury found them guilty of standard non-terrorist criminal damage and GBH - notwithstanding the defendants being gagged from offering a full defence. They were charged with the non-terrorist versions of the offences because, reading between the lines, the CPS knew that they'd never get a terrorism conviction from a jury.
The scary bit is that the establishment can then turn the tables once a conviction (on a completely different premise) has been obtained and essentially say 'yeah, just kidding. We're definitely treating you as terrorists.'
It also creates the distinct possiblity that, in the future, someone could plead guilty to a crime on a non-terrorist basis, and then find themselves sentenced as a terrorist. [Post edited 13 Jun 8:31]
|
I’m torn on that. You make a fair point but this can’t have come as a surprise to the defendants and their lawyers, it’s not like the judge has made up some law to suit his agenda. And I can’t see a situation whereby one would commit a crime that potentially has terrorist connections and then plead guilty unaware of the potential sentencing outcome. That would surely have to be factored into their plea decision.
Ultimately though I find it hard to have any sympathy towards the defendants. Whatever the reasons, it’s not a peaceful protest but multiple criminal acts. When you do something like that, you’re always taking that risk of this exact outcome. | | | |
| Fecking scary on 10:57 - Jun 13 with 1345 views | StokieBlue |
| Fecking scary on 10:25 - Jun 13 by Jon_456 |
I’m torn on that. You make a fair point but this can’t have come as a surprise to the defendants and their lawyers, it’s not like the judge has made up some law to suit his agenda. And I can’t see a situation whereby one would commit a crime that potentially has terrorist connections and then plead guilty unaware of the potential sentencing outcome. That would surely have to be factored into their plea decision.
Ultimately though I find it hard to have any sympathy towards the defendants. Whatever the reasons, it’s not a peaceful protest but multiple criminal acts. When you do something like that, you’re always taking that risk of this exact outcome. |
The attack on the police was wrong and the person rightly got sentenced for that.
However, how are the peaceful protests against the actions of the IDF working out? Been nearly three years now, virtually everyone in Gaza displaced, over 75,000 killed and now the same is happening in Lebanon and nothing has changed with the peaceful protests.
What do you suggest people do? I am genuinely interested to know.
“They may have been involved in taking the lives of men, women and children in Gaza. That is why they acted. That’s something that – in a sane world – would be commended.” [1]
SB
[1]. https://www.theguardian.com/uk |  |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| Fecking scary on 11:05 - Jun 13 with 1311 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Fecking scary on 07:37 - Jun 13 by Zx1988 |
Not forgetting, of course, the 100 people arrested for the heinous act of holding a sign.
Then, during the original trial, we had the defending barristers being threatened with contempt proceedings if they reminded the jury of their absolute right to acquit, according to their conscience. Despite this being confirmed by a plaque situated in the very same court house.
It's like a Temu East Germany. |
No, it was right and proper according to the law. | |
| |
| Fecking scary on 11:15 - Jun 13 with 1281 views | Zx1988 |
| Fecking scary on 11:05 - Jun 13 by redrickstuhaart |
No, it was right and proper according to the law. |
As was everything that took place in the DDR. | |
| |
| Fecking scary on 11:17 - Jun 13 with 1269 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Fecking scary on 11:15 - Jun 13 by Zx1988 |
As was everything that took place in the DDR. |
You rather miss the point. | |
| |
| Fecking scary on 11:58 - Jun 13 with 1212 views | Zx1988 |
| Fecking scary on 11:17 - Jun 13 by redrickstuhaart |
You rather miss the point. |
Not at all.
Just because it's legal for the CPS to decline to charge someone for terror offences because they don't believe that a jury would convict, have them convicted for the non-terror versions of said offences, and then for a judge to be allowed to arbitrarily upgrade the charges to terror offenses after the fact, doesn't make it right.
It's f**king terrifying that that's legal, and it's reminiscent of the worst of the DDR, or Orwell's 1984. [Post edited 13 Jun 12:05]
| |
| |
| Fecking scary on 12:01 - Jun 13 with 1201 views | Zx1988 |
| Fecking scary on 08:52 - Jun 13 by bsw72 |
The terrorist link only applies because of the tenuous classification of Palestine Action, so it all may unravel.
If we could get reform or restore classified as a terrorist org though. |
From what I've looked up, I'm not sure that such actions need to be carried out in the name of a proscribed organisation. This is the CPS guidance:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/types-c
Unless I've misread it, or have missed some more nuance elsewhere, all that is needed is for any of the defined acts to be carried out for political/intimidatory reasons.
If that's the case, then the right-wing protestors should fall squarely within the definition. | |
| |
| Fecking scary on 12:05 - Jun 13 with 1197 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Fecking scary on 11:58 - Jun 13 by Zx1988 |
Not at all.
Just because it's legal for the CPS to decline to charge someone for terror offences because they don't believe that a jury would convict, have them convicted for the non-terror versions of said offences, and then for a judge to be allowed to arbitrarily upgrade the charges to terror offenses after the fact, doesn't make it right.
It's f**king terrifying that that's legal, and it's reminiscent of the worst of the DDR, or Orwell's 1984. [Post edited 13 Jun 12:05]
|
It was the bit about directing the jury that was right and proper. I have not commented on the terror offences point. | |
| |
| Fecking scary on 12:07 - Jun 13 with 1187 views | Zx1988 |
| Fecking scary on 12:05 - Jun 13 by redrickstuhaart |
It was the bit about directing the jury that was right and proper. I have not commented on the terror offences point. |
Again, legal doesn't equal right.
When a right is so enshrined in law that it has its own plaque at the Old Bailey, why should a judge threaten to jail anyone who dares to remind a jury of that right.
Jurors may not be aware of said right and, therefore, when a judge directs a guilty verdict, may feel that they have no other choice but to comply. | |
| |
| Fecking scary on 12:16 - Jun 13 with 1161 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Fecking scary on 12:07 - Jun 13 by Zx1988 |
Again, legal doesn't equal right.
When a right is so enshrined in law that it has its own plaque at the Old Bailey, why should a judge threaten to jail anyone who dares to remind a jury of that right.
Jurors may not be aware of said right and, therefore, when a judge directs a guilty verdict, may feel that they have no other choice but to comply. |
The rule of law is crucial.
If you start changing things to fit a particular case, on a whim, that is the route to the scariness you identify.
The Judge sets out the law. It is plainly problematic to have barristers telling a jury that those directions are wrong. Which is what that case was all about; undermining the clear and correct direction given- namely that legally, thinking something was a justified cause is not a defence to the offences charged. [Post edited 13 Jun 12:20]
| |
| |
| Fecking scary on 12:26 - Jun 13 with 1119 views | Jon_456 |
| Fecking scary on 10:57 - Jun 13 by StokieBlue |
The attack on the police was wrong and the person rightly got sentenced for that.
However, how are the peaceful protests against the actions of the IDF working out? Been nearly three years now, virtually everyone in Gaza displaced, over 75,000 killed and now the same is happening in Lebanon and nothing has changed with the peaceful protests.
What do you suggest people do? I am genuinely interested to know.
“They may have been involved in taking the lives of men, women and children in Gaza. That is why they acted. That’s something that – in a sane world – would be commended.” [1]
SB
[1]. https://www.theguardian.com/uk |
I don’t have any suggestions but it shouldn’t need highlighting that committing crimes isn’t the way to go.
What we’re effectively saying is that there’s little purpose in any peaceful protest and people should take the law into their own hands anytime they don’t get what they want?
And as I’ve said already, if they think doing that will achieve something then great but they also have to accept the consequences. And seeing as their actions havent stopped Isreal killing people, you have to wonder what they thought they’d achieve in the first place? | | | |
| Fecking scary on 12:57 - Jun 13 with 1041 views | baxterbasics |
Well if they aren't terrorists, I bet they rub shoulders with a few, a sympathise with even more. |  |
| |
| Fecking scary on 12:58 - Jun 13 with 1044 views | Trequartista |
Attacked police with a sledgehammer so not much sympathy. |  |
| |
| Fecking scary on 13:22 - Jun 13 with 976 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Fecking scary on 08:50 - Jun 13 by bsw72 |
Concerning for the terrorist link agree. I have no sympathy for the individual who attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer. |
Precisely and that’s the whole point and why it’s a problem for justice. They should be sentenced according to the crime they were tried for. That’s to be expected.
I wonder if the judge was leaned upon by someone in the govt. I wouldn’t rule that out. It seems the intent is to create a larger deterrent for anyone else threatening the profits of arms companies. The ultimate irony of course is their ideological cause was to stand against organisations linked to genuine terrorist atrocities and genocide.
It’s a slippery slope. We’ve already seen heavy handedness wrt climate protestors. As the article also points out, various historical rights campaigners we celebrate would have been classed as terrorists under this approach. This government is continuing the move towards greater authoritarianism was saw under the last govt. |  |
| |
| Fecking scary on 13:44 - Jun 13 with 911 views | HairBearBunch |
| Fecking scary on 12:58 - Jun 13 by Trequartista |
Attacked police with a sledgehammer so not much sympathy. |
Exactly, A female officer too. Sledgehammer to the spine could have paralysed her for life.
Makes these legal technicalities totally irrelevant. |  | | |
| Fecking scary on 15:25 - Jun 13 with 761 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Fecking scary on 13:44 - Jun 13 by HairBearBunch |
Exactly, A female officer too. Sledgehammer to the spine could have paralysed her for life.
Makes these legal technicalities totally irrelevant. |
It makes them ever more important. A fair trial is required, in accordance with the law. Especially when the consequences are potentially severe. | |
| |
| Fecking scary on 16:52 - Jun 13 with 687 views | brazil1982 |
| Fecking scary on 10:57 - Jun 13 by StokieBlue |
The attack on the police was wrong and the person rightly got sentenced for that.
However, how are the peaceful protests against the actions of the IDF working out? Been nearly three years now, virtually everyone in Gaza displaced, over 75,000 killed and now the same is happening in Lebanon and nothing has changed with the peaceful protests.
What do you suggest people do? I am genuinely interested to know.
“They may have been involved in taking the lives of men, women and children in Gaza. That is why they acted. That’s something that – in a sane world – would be commended.” [1]
SB
[1]. https://www.theguardian.com/uk |
Protests on the UK have no effect.
Stop supporting and justifying criminal actions "it's not a good look" |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
