2 ms·

That's the rub, though. The Filton 24 are actual terrorists and their abettors. Smashing up a company to further your political cause is terrorism. "I don't car

That's the rub, though. The Filton 24 are actual terrorists and their abettors. Smashing up a company to further your political cause is terrorism. "I don't care if you use these weapons to murder and rape j..Zionists, but because those weapons are intended to strike Palestinians, I simply must SMASHY SMASH SMASH. Ha ha, crunch goes the policewoman's spine! Ow stop hurting me with those handcuffs! Why am I in prison?" That's what the IRA did when they bombed the UK - they not only threatened the safety of the public, they also deliberately inflicted massive economic damage to push their political objectives. Breaking into RAF Brize Norton was the icing on the cake. That's why the Home Secretary moved to proscribe the group the very next day. She hadn't felt the need to do that for the year or so since the Elbit break-in, nor the Leonardo break-in, but the moment some chucklefucks reveal the UK is so incompetent it can't defend its own RAF bases from intruders, those fuckers are going down. The group's past violence and destruction gave her the ammo to make the proscription stick. On the other hand, protesting the company - e.g. shouting at them, or holding a sign - is merely speech. I can't ever see that as being terrorism, which why I completely disagree with the Terrorism Act. Praising the violent group in public is speech too. It is just a nonsense that this speech is also criminalised, and that the maximum penalties are so high. A draconian law like that has a chilling effect on speech just by existing, even if nobody is ever prosecuted for their speech. But that said, watch for the outcome of these 700 charges against protestors, I bet they will be insubstantial or be dropped, and nobody who just held a sign will go to prison. The process itself is punishment.

DrScientist 4mo ago
You are missing the point, this is not about the merits or otherwise of the case - that's for the jury to decide - it's about due process. The whole point of a jury is that you are, in the end, judged by your peers, not by the state. It's a key protection from abuse of state power. When the jury convicts they are giving the power to the judge to pass sentence within the remit of that conviction. If the jury convicts for one thing, and the judge sentences for another, then you could go to prison for life for a parking fine - it's clearly an abuse of process.
- amiga386 4mo ago
  If anything, the courts did them a solid. "We're not going to mention that the government thinks you're terrorists. We're not even here to determine that. Don't try justifying your actions in terms of being a irredeemable terrorist wanting to inflict terror on your enemies (such as arms manufacturers)". If anything, telling the jury about the group's terrorist connections could bias them towards conviction, not away. The courts have a narrow scope. This specific trial did not need to decide if the Elbit wreckers were terrorists or not. The government has a wider scope, and literally voted Palestine Action into being a terrorist organisation. That decision was then affirmed by the courts on appeal. If Palestine Action had not been going around breaking into arms manufacturers, they could well have overturned the governments' proscription. But Palestine Action going around doing smashy smashy smashy let the appeal judges see that the government were right. At no point did Palestine Action ever need to smash anything -- they chose to smash things up. They were banking on getting the benefit of committing political violence (intimidating suppliers et al into leaving "the enemy") while not suffering the consequences (being designated terrorists). In short, they fucked around and are now finding out. Judges don't need jury trials to find facts, they do bench trials without juries at all. A jury doesn't "give power to the judge"; the judge already has the power. The jury only finds answers to questions of fact, and even then the judge can bring in findings of fact from other cases if they so wish, so they jury did their part but they don't run the show.
  - DrScientist 4mo ago
    PA was proscibed after the Filton offenses. A key principle of justice is laws are not retrospective - you can't be put into prison for something that was legal at the time. Again, yet another example of a failure of natural justice in this case. >Judges don't need jury trials to find facts, they do bench trials without juries at all. Again you missed the point - trials without juries are for minor things where the person on trial is unlikely to be deprived of their liberty. Juries are there to stop the state from imprisoning people at a whim - indeed they are fully able to choose to refuse to convict, without needing to explain why, even if the facts clearly show the defendents did it. The safe guard is about 'juries of peers' personal opinions - not about the letter of the law - as the establishment can control that. Seems like your investment in the outcome is blinding you to the obvious abuse of process. I can see why the establishment was keen to make examples of these people - however that's not a good reason to undermine the very foundations of justice.

DrScientist 4mo ago

You are missing the point, this is not about the merits or otherwise of the case - that's for the jury to decide - it's about due process. The whole point of a jury is that you are, in the end, judged by your peers, not by the state. It's a key protection from abuse of state power. When the jury convicts they are giving the power to the judge to pass sentence within the remit of that conviction. If the jury convicts for one thing, and the judge sentences for another, then you could go to prison for life for a parking fine - it's clearly an abuse of process.

amiga386 4mo ago
If anything, the courts did them a solid. "We're not going to mention that the government thinks you're terrorists. We're not even here to determine that. Don't try justifying your actions in terms of being a irredeemable terrorist wanting to inflict terror on your enemies (such as arms manufacturers)". If anything, telling the jury about the group's terrorist connections could bias them towards conviction, not away. The courts have a narrow scope. This specific trial did not need to decide if the Elbit wreckers were terrorists or not. The government has a wider scope, and literally voted Palestine Action into being a terrorist organisation. That decision was then affirmed by the courts on appeal. If Palestine Action had not been going around breaking into arms manufacturers, they could well have overturned the governments' proscription. But Palestine Action going around doing smashy smashy smashy let the appeal judges see that the government were right. At no point did Palestine Action ever need to smash anything -- they chose to smash things up. They were banking on getting the benefit of committing political violence (intimidating suppliers et al into leaving "the enemy") while not suffering the consequences (being designated terrorists). In short, they fucked around and are now finding out. Judges don't need jury trials to find facts, they do bench trials without juries at all. A jury doesn't "give power to the judge"; the judge already has the power. The jury only finds answers to questions of fact, and even then the judge can bring in findings of fact from other cases if they so wish, so they jury did their part but they don't run the show.
- DrScientist 4mo ago
  PA was proscibed after the Filton offenses. A key principle of justice is laws are not retrospective - you can't be put into prison for something that was legal at the time. Again, yet another example of a failure of natural justice in this case. >Judges don't need jury trials to find facts, they do bench trials without juries at all. Again you missed the point - trials without juries are for minor things where the person on trial is unlikely to be deprived of their liberty. Juries are there to stop the state from imprisoning people at a whim - indeed they are fully able to choose to refuse to convict, without needing to explain why, even if the facts clearly show the defendents did it. The safe guard is about 'juries of peers' personal opinions - not about the letter of the law - as the establishment can control that. Seems like your investment in the outcome is blinding you to the obvious abuse of process. I can see why the establishment was keen to make examples of these people - however that's not a good reason to undermine the very foundations of justice.