I don’t think suggesting a police officer attempting to uphold the law is effectively representing our government’s foreign policy or another government’s actions is a great defence for someone who broke someone’s spine with a sledgehammer. I get that you were being sarcastic or ironic but it wasn’t a great way to illustrate your point imo.I thought that I was being pretty obvious with what I was implying. It was a dig at some countries and the people defending those countries who think it's okay to use excessive force. They can't have it both ways.
Then we disagree.When the forms of protest you're in favour of are being restricted, this is the alternative. I'd prefer the protests to have an effect, but they aren't.
I thought the ruling was gbh with no intent?I don’t think suggesting a police officer attempting to uphold the law is effectively representing our government’s foreign policy or another government’s actions is a great defence for someone who broke someone’s spine with a sledgehammer. I get that you were being sarcastic or ironic but it wasn’t a great way to illustrate your point imo.
Yes it was, however I struggle to understand how it’s possible to swing a sledgehammer at someone without intending to harm them. The jury managed it though.I thought the ruling was gbh with no intent?
It doesn't make much sense but we weren't in court I guess.Yes it was, however I struggle to understand how it’s possible to swing a sledgehammer at someone without intending to harm them. The jury managed it though.
As I understand it, in the first trial defence barristers stated the jury members could vote with their conscience. In other words, even though they have committed damage etc you can still say not guilty.Sky news said they used the sledgehammer to smash up one million pounds worth of damage to the drones. They broke in to destroy as much as possible, I don’t understand how six can be found not guilty initially and on retrial four found guilty of criminal damage. Two of them not guilty.
One of the barrister’s in the case is facing contempt of court charges
Reminder of what was actually smashed to pieces with intent.
More intent
The government needed this conviction to carry on with their campaign against Palestine Action protesting the genocide in Gaza. I expected the lad who swung the sledgehammer at the police woman to be found guiltyAs I understand it, in the first trial defence barristers stated the jury members could vote with their conscience. In other words, even though they have committed damage etc you can still say not guilty.
In the second trial barristers were forbidden from telling the jury that.
Despite this ban, one defence barristers refused to obey the judges orders and is now faving contempt of court proceedings.
His evidence was that he was trying to defend his female colleague who was screaming in pain, while he was half blinded by pepper spray.He probably will. I think he had the right to defend himself. That seems to excuse the violent use of excessive force these days. I think it may have worked.
"Broke someone's spine" was also a phrase designed to sound worse than the actual injury.I don’t think suggesting a police officer attempting to uphold the law is effectively representing our government’s foreign policy or another government’s actions is a great defence for someone who broke someone’s spine with a sledgehammer. I get that you were being sarcastic or ironic but it wasn’t a great way to illustrate your point imo.
The KC made an awful lot of exclusions among them the right that the jury should know the charges, and the right to defend yourself in a court room, so while 6 pleaded guilty, it looks like 4? have been found not guilty, this did not happen because of the defence barrister, but because of protesters outside informing the jury of the law, video evidence of the criminals getting attacked by security and the police disappeared, the list of damage done disappeared, as far as i can see the barraster has been called in contempt, because he had worked for one of the defendants in the previous trialWhether or not you agree with the principle of direct action, or whether violence against any personnel was intended, does anyone actually support the state interference in the case? That the jury is not allowed a particular defence and nor are you supposed to know about it?
You wouldn't have thought it from a Labour Party would you?Should have added, now we know why the British government tried to take away our rights with, trial without jury.
Reminder of what was actually smashed to pieces with intent.
More intent
Stopping genocide. Do you support genocide?Scummy bastards, should be locked up.
Nothing but blatent vandalism.