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.

You have every right to express your view, I just don't happen to agree with it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#UKpol #USpol #EUpol #PalestineAction

Stop the #FelonsCrusade in the #MiddleEast.

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....

@RichRARobi

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.

The term really took off after 9/11. Had you forgotten Blair? That's when the label "terrorism" became the standard (& invincible) way of criminalising dissent.

I don't know how others feel about this, but I am getting extremely ANGRY that the #British #ukgovernment is FLOUTING the rule of law to hide their own #corruption

I am proud of the #nanarchists who have shown themselves to be braver than I am.

I am also totally dissatisfied with British #justice that appears to have been corrupted in the Elbit case.

It appears that evidence was FABRICATED

#starmer should be ASHAMED

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.

@heinragas

@DrALJONES

I'd have to guess you know the UK left the quaint notions of justice & human rights behind after 9/11.

They mimicked US "terrorism" laws... on imperial instruction.

Remember Blair and Iraq?

"Terrorism" now applies to, eg, peaceful protests for climate, animal rights, eg, filming animal cruelty, and so forth. It's totally chilling.

The rationale: even peaceful protest can interfere with corporations' right to maximise profit.

https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/activists-challenge-animal-rights-terrorism-law-violation-free .

Max and Zahrah are doing their best to disseminate the info. The UK media are banned from publishing it.