A new hearing of Palestine Action activists (acquitted of burglery charges in Feb) is on bogus "terrorism” charges.
-
As far as I know, the earliest example of this in the UK was about a hundred years earlier, when the government labelled suffragettes as terrorists.
Oh, interesting. And of course many of their actions were "terrorist" in the standard definition of causing terror in the population. Unlike those of Palestine Action....
-
As far as I know, the earliest example of this in the UK was about a hundred years earlier, when the government labelled suffragettes as terrorists.
@david_chisnall @DrALJONES @RichRARobi
They started labelling opponents "terrorists" about the time "seditionists" went out of use. -
@DrALJONES someone should tell the jury
@jupiter @DrALJONES If the topic of #JuryNullification comes up in the course of polite conversation with potential or current jurists, no it didn’t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
#UKpol #USpol #EUpol #PalestineAction
Stop
the #FelonsCrusade in the #MiddleEast. -
@jupiter @DrALJONES If the topic of #JuryNullification comes up in the course of polite conversation with potential or current jurists, no it didn’t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
#UKpol #USpol #EUpol #PalestineAction
Stop
the #FelonsCrusade in the #MiddleEast.@ChemicalEyeGuy @DrALJONES what came up?
-
A new hearing of Palestine Action activists (acquitted of burglery charges in Feb) is on bogus "terrorism” charges.
"This is what a stitch-up looks like," says UK MP Zarah Sultana.
She "invoked parliamentary privilege to reveal [what] the British public was officially forbidden from knowing."
The jury will not be told that "if convicted, they & 18 others will be sentenced as terrorists."
See UK Hansard 14 Apr and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkzxhQU6QIM
#UKPol #USPol #EUPol #palestineAction #news .
@DrALJONES And?
Lets be clear, just because the BBC don't understand the difference, HAMAS ARE TERRORISTS, the PLO were TERRORISTS.At the very least, GBH , criminal damage should be dealt with, but this spineless government is unable to defend our shores, let alone keep terrorists OUT OF THE UK.
No amount of digital anything will solve this, only prompt action to deport anybody committing crimes against this country. Terrorists don't deserve human rights when committing atrocities.
-
@ChemicalEyeGuy @DrALJONES what came up?
@jupiter @DrALJONES Anniversary of his death. Noted among “On this day…” articles.
-
@DrALJONES And?
Lets be clear, just because the BBC don't understand the difference, HAMAS ARE TERRORISTS, the PLO were TERRORISTS.At the very least, GBH , criminal damage should be dealt with, but this spineless government is unable to defend our shores, let alone keep terrorists OUT OF THE UK.
No amount of digital anything will solve this, only prompt action to deport anybody committing crimes against this country. Terrorists don't deserve human rights when committing atrocities.
@roger_w_ You seem to have quite thoroughly demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea what you're commenting on here.
The story is not about Hamas or the PLO. In fact, it's not about middle-east politics at all - it's about UK politics, and the right to protest.
-
@DrALJONES And?
Lets be clear, just because the BBC don't understand the difference, HAMAS ARE TERRORISTS, the PLO were TERRORISTS.At the very least, GBH , criminal damage should be dealt with, but this spineless government is unable to defend our shores, let alone keep terrorists OUT OF THE UK.
No amount of digital anything will solve this, only prompt action to deport anybody committing crimes against this country. Terrorists don't deserve human rights when committing atrocities.
Let's see - any other examples? A few organisations come to mind: Irgun, Hagganah, Lehi, Herut
And then there are the individuals: Avraham Stern, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir for example.
Fun fact: Lehi's weekly newsletter was titled Hamaas.
-
Yes, terrorism charges.
I think I read that, at the time of the break-in, the desired laws weren't yet in place. Don't quote me.
@DrALJONES @krans @heinragas
AIUI they are *not* formally being charged with terrorism charges, *but* the judge has been given discretion to sentence them as terrorist-related offenses if found guilty, with long prison terms. This is a new power granted to judges. The jury is not being told this, nor will they hear the defendants' defence. And no doubt the unedited evidence, which appears to paint a different picture of events, will be withheld, again. There's something very rotten here. -
@DrALJONES @krans @heinragas
AIUI they are *not* formally being charged with terrorism charges, *but* the judge has been given discretion to sentence them as terrorist-related offenses if found guilty, with long prison terms. This is a new power granted to judges. The jury is not being told this, nor will they hear the defendants' defence. And no doubt the unedited evidence, which appears to paint a different picture of events, will be withheld, again. There's something very rotten here.Much appreciated, Chris. Do you happen to have a source I can use?
@krans @heinragas @strangetown .
"AIUI they are *not* formally being charged with terrorism charges, *but* the judge has been given discretion to sentence them as terrorist-related offenses if found guilty..
"This is a new power granted to judges. The jury is not being told this, nor will they hear the defendants' defence. And no doubt the unedited evidence..will be withheld again. There's something very rotten here.
-
@roger_w_ You seem to have quite thoroughly demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea what you're commenting on here.
The story is not about Hamas or the PLO. In fact, it's not about middle-east politics at all - it's about UK politics, and the right to protest.
@PoliceStateUK ah well, we all have a right to protest, and still have mostly free speech, what we don't have is the right to impose our views on other people and infringe on their rights in the execution of a protest - and that goes for you too.
You have every right to express your view, I just don't happen to agree with it.
-
There were several original charges. The first trial was for burglary. This one's for criminal damage. The dodgy bit is keeping the terrorism aspect secret. So the jury won't know the defendants can be sentenced as "terrorists" and the UK press is banned from publishing that fact.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
