Palestine Action

gordondaviesmoustache said:
That’s not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.

However, power changes everybody, mate. You and me included.

I’m merely giving you my experience. You are not obliged to give any weight to it! :-)
Click to expand...


I'll give more weight to your opinion than others. I don't think you're a nobhead.
 


Rightly proud it’s a competition of how many times they’ve been arrested for trying to stop the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. :) all the time and money wasted on three thousand people holding up pieces of card in silent protest.

The government will now attempt to waste more of our money, on an appeal in the high court.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
Starmer accepted fifty thousand pound off the Labour friends of Israel lobby hence his change of heart, power corrupts and until we do away with lobbying we will elect compromised politicians
Click to expand...
It's amazing how cheaply our politicians can be bought for, isn't it? In properly corrupt countries, you're looking at millions.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:


Rightly proud it’s a competition of how many times they’ve been arrested for trying to stop the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. :) all the time and money wasted on three thousand people holding up pieces of card in silent protest.

The government will now attempt to waste more of our money, on an appeal in the high court.
Click to expand...

Appeal is to the Court of Appeal... win or lose there and it maybe goes to the Supreme Court. But I suspect if they lose unanimously at appeal, the government might not go to the Supreme Court, as a SC judgment - even if technically upholding the law (because passed by Parliament) - might effectively say the definition of terrorism was drawn too broadly, or that the political discretion it gives (to Home Secretary or DPP) is not sufficiently balanced with free speech, and that we need to be protected from the state's power to suppress legitimate protest by its being able to declare things as terrorism that are not terrorism (or by pleading "secret information" to justify saying it is terrorism). For a start, you'd look at the sort of things that Trump now calls terrorism - e.g. protests against state murder.
 
Craig Murray writing that he thinks it's a stitch up and asks "what if the High Court ruling is deliberately designed to fail at appeal?"

"I believe that it is. They chose an extremely narrow path to rule that proscription was unlawful and produced an extremely weak judgment. This gives an impression of fairness in the judicial system – except that nothing has changed, the ban remains in force. And it remains in force because the judgment is designed for the government to win at appeal."

Detail here - Link

Reminder that the original judge was removed last minute with no official explanation and replaced with the 3 judges (one of whom - Victoria Sharp has ties to the israel lobby via Robert Maxwell - Ghislaine maxwells Israeli superspy dad, and Trevor Chinn Link):

 
The Fat el Hombre said:
Craig Murray writing that he thinks it's a stitch up and asks "what if the High Court ruling is deliberately designed to fail at appeal?"

"I believe that it is. They chose an extremely narrow path to rule that proscription was unlawful and produced an extremely weak judgment. This gives an impression of fairness in the judicial system – except that nothing has changed, the ban remains in force. And it remains in force because the judgment is designed for the government to win at appeal."
Click to expand...
How would this decision being overturned by the CoA on appeal enhance the impression of fairness in the judicial system - and with who?

Plus the CoA aren’t bound by the scope of the HC judgment, so the ‘narrow path’ of the latter’s judgment, whilst not necessarily wrong, misconceives the powers of the CoA, which can make a finding sua sponte if it wishes. It would be a strange state of affairs if a court as senior as the CoA could not reach a determination without being prompted to by the parties, if it was in the interests of justice to do so.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
How would this decision being overturned by the CoA on appeal enhance the impression of fairness in the judicial system - and with who?

Plus the CoA aren’t bound by the scope of the HC judgment, so the ‘narrow path’ of the latter’s judgment, whilst not necessarily wrong, misconceives the powers of the CoA, which can make a finding sua sponte if it wishes. It would be a strange state of affairs if a court as senior as the CoA could not reach a determination without being prompted to by the parties, if it was in the interests of justice to do so.
Click to expand...

You know better than me mate, I was just relaying what Craig Murray's saying. Will be interesting to see how the appeal plays out.
 
The Fat el Hombre said:
You know better than me mate, I was just relaying what Craig Murray's saying. Will be interesting to see how the appeal plays out.
Click to expand...
The principal (although far from exclusive) purposes of an appellate court is to support the establishment and endorse the decision of the court below, so there will be a conflict for the CoA here, one way or the other.

I’m not saying the CoA won’t overturn the decision, and I certainly wouldn’t be shocked if it did (although I don’t know enough about the nuts and bolts to speak with any great authority on the subject) I’m just saying that Murray’s reasoning for arriving at the conclusion he did is flawed and irrational.

If the CoA are going to overturn the HC decision then they will simply do that, without any need to confer with the presiding HC judge(s) beforehand for the purposes of optics. To suggest (as he has) that the CoA have conspired with the HC for the latter to allow the application in the first instance so the judicial system will look reasonable, and for the CoA to subsequently overturn it to resume the status quo, simply doesn’t bear any sensible and objective scrutiny.

The only way you can interpret what he’s said is that there has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice between the HC and the CoA. Why would the CoA do that when they simply have the inherent power to overturn the decision in any event? It simply doesn’t make any sense.

And better optics for who? There are plenty who think the organisation should be banned, who will be pissed off with this decision.

I’m all for a conspiracy theory if it’s rooted in logic and a reasonable degree of reality. This one isn’t.

Sounds like he’s living in an echo chamber to me, to arrive at that conclusion.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
If the evidence for proscription of PA wasn’t enough I can’t imagine why they would conspire to waste public money on an appeal to the high court, when three thousand people have been arrested and Israel has achieved it’s aims in Gaza and the West Bank.
We will know more when we find out on the 18th the sentence passed down by the courts to the lad who used a sledgehammer on a PC, the other five were released on bail.
Click to expand...
I doubt he'll be sentenced on the 18th as he hasn't been found guilty. Is there perhaps a decision pending on whether he and others will face a re-trial on the charges the first jury could not agree on? Or will the government decide that juries just aren't keen on UK support for genocide?
 
BlueMoonday said:
Or the aggressive actions of the Jew hating canvasser. Wasn't you was it?
Click to expand...
Don't you see the problem? The examples of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance try to distinguish between criticism of Israeli policy and antisemitism, but then Israelis say criticism of Israel is antisemitism.

And Hatchet seems to think Charlie Veitch style provocation is legitimate.
 
I’d fucking love to be a fly on the wall when those three Justices of Appeal are deliberating. And having a chat beforehand.

Whichever ones it is, they will all be insanely clever. As smart as I like to think I am, this cohort are on another planet. Think a decent Championship player compared to a CL regular.

They are at the heart of the establishment and so have become more conservative and less kind as a consequence. But they will strongly believe in the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. So it won’t be straightforward, given how seismic this judgment will be.

If I was going to guess, they will uphold the decision of the HC, but that’s essentially a finger in the air.
 
Last edited:
Kirkstall Blue said:
From the BBC
“Six Palestine Action activists will face a retrial over alleged damage and violence at a UK site of an Israel-based defence firm.

Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, are accused in connection with a break-in on an Elbit Systems site near Bristol.

They were cleared of aggravated burglary earlier this month but the jury could not decide on criminal damage charges against all defendants, as well as allegations of violent disorder against Head, Corner, and Kamio.

Prosecutor Deanna Heer KC said aggravated burglary charges against 18 other defendants who are accused of taking part in the break-in will be dropped.
She said Head, Corner, Kamio, Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin would face a retrial in relation to all charges against them which had not ended in verdicts at the trial which finished on 4 February”

Basically lays out the case today, those six named to face a retrial today ?
Click to expand...
Retrial today?

Retrial a year from now! Personally, I don't think there's much chance of getting a conviction of GBH against Corner (the most serious charge). Maybe a jury might find him guilty of a lesser charge (ABH) but keeping him on remand in prison (for another year) after one jury couldn't even agree on that is looking very inappropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top