Palestine Action activists sentenced as terrorists
5d 28m ago by lemmy.ml/u/geneva_convenience in world from www.middleeasteye.net
A British judge has sentenced four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists, handing them custodial sentences ranging from four to eight years.
The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.
In a preliminary ruling in March 2025, Johnson found an "appearance" of a terrorism connection in the case, as he said the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. This information was withheld from the jury who convicted them.
the UK is officially a shithole country now
Fascism has been achieved
Now?
They're putting the finishing touches on, been degrading for decades, ever since the focus of total control and surveillence shifted to them as a testbed.
UK gov: goes out of its way to make the place a shithole
also UK gov: "Why don't people consider it worthwhile to reproduce anymore?"
Adding an offence later in the case and withholding information to a jury has to be grounds a mistrial.
Zionism overrules all other laws, it would seem.
They didn't add an offence, they added an aggravating factor.
If spray painting a plane is the exact same as blowing it up then might as well blow it up.
So terrorism just doesn't mean anything anymore.
Ironically, it means the same it has always meant: resistance to colonization/imperialism/opression, it's just that in the past it was disguised with the veil of "civilization", and now the mask is off and you can see the naked brutal truth of how the term has always been weaponized
It's literally a disinhibitive ruling. Someone somewhere will inevitably think "well if I'm going to be called a terrorist anyway for some property damage, why not shoot at the cop that's coming to stop me? In for a penny in for a pound."
It never has
In the eyes of the oppressor ...
It does mean something, just not what's in the dictionary. The definition: "The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals." Based on that, police are constantly using terrorism, but they're almost never said to be. The state has a monopoly on violence. Terrorism is just a term they use to support that. You acting against the state?" Terrorism." The state acting against you?" Justice."
But also by that definition, these guys don't count as terrorists
Yeah, that's my point. Terrorism is just whatever the state doesn't like at this point. The dictionary definition has no relation to the definition they use.
It's always been a label so subjective that it's essentially meaningless. There's a reason why most big name news cables have "don't use the word terror or terrorist" in their style guides.
Terror is in interesting word, it used to mean a government that oppressed their citizens, then it changed to mean general attacks on civillians by a non government entity.
And now, it means protesting specific government policies.
The first meanings are understandable, they involve harming civillians.
The new definition is just idiotic.
Well, your statement is pertinent, and therefore it terrorises me, so I hope you do not live in the UK.
The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.
Rule Of Law my ass!
Rule of Israel
Speaking ill of israel is a greater act of terrorism than crashing planes into buildings.
Free the Palestine Action prisoners!
Remove the shameful judge!
Looks like they are one step behind the US and catching up fast.
In terms of personal rights suppression, the UK is already miles ahead.
I guess one day we'll all just be cogs in Elon's machine with no rights whatsoever. I was hoping to die before then but it's going fast.
"Unprecedented"?
The English courts have been sentencing civilians as terrorists for centuries.
The difference is that none of the charges are commonly associated with terrorism. The judge had to invent a "terrorism connection" in addition to the normal charges.
He didn’t invent it, it was mentioned in the original JTAC assessment of Palestine Action.
Fucking Mosley must be laughing right now from hell.
I know that image from The Wall movie, but I guess it's also its own piece given the signature. That watercolor sky is absolutely beautiful.
Looks like sugar water painting.
Didn't know that was a thing. Very cool.
I'm working through a book on sculpting while learning Blender. It's been surprisingly difficult to get the proportions correct when I print the studies.
Fucking Mosley must be laughing right now from hell.
Why would he? Was he Palestinian advocate?
No because fascism is manifesting heavily long after he's dead.
disarming israel is terrorism? yayyy were all terrorists because that term means nothing now
Such a standard to be met:
He added that those convicted acted "for the purpose of advancing a political and/or ideological cause".
Guess the legal system has no standards.
I thought the standard was " the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons."?
Shameful
How does wanting to disarm a foreign government terrorism?? By that logic the entirety of the UK government is a bunch of terrorists for wanting to disarm uh Russia and Iran I assume?
UK has stopped making sense a long time ago
The only terrorist I see is the judge. They should be extradited to Hamas for trial.
The "last minute evidence" was probably pics of the judge with an underage girl sourced from MI5/CIA/Mossad assets.
If you do anything to oppose genocide you're a terrorist. If you support genocide the red carpet is rolled out for you in the West.
If you support genocide the red carpet is rolled out for you.
FTFY
The only terrorists are the regime of the UK that support actual terrorists and choose to terrorize their own citizens to protect them.
So i can't use hammer to brutally beat police officer ? Facism has good day ahead
Britain should just follow Doggerland's example. Aside from spotted dick, nothing of value would be lost.
/s.
Daily reminder that the Middle East Eye refuses to disclose it's owner, which is extremely suspicious. That's because the Middle East Eye is directly run by Qatar's embassy in London.
Next time, please at least quote The Guardian or another British media outlet.
Is Israel committing genocide?
yes
That’s because the Middle East Eye is directly run by Qatar’s embassy in London.
Citation needed.
Also, please elaborate on exactly why, even if it were true, that would be so fucking scary.
News is the UKs worst export and that's fucking saying something.
And so you post a trash rag owned by a shady zionist shell corporation?
Exactly, The guardian isnt much better.
Jesus christ, every time with this guy. Can you please try not to be so fucking obvious? The guardian is just as biased as MEE, the only difference is that their bias is in favor of Israel instead. You sound like a raging islamophobe btw.
Are you suggesting Middle East Eye is secretly run by Zionists or Israel itself in an effort to further drive antisemitism? Similar to the way Evangelical Christianity grows stronger the more its adherents feel persecuted, one of the goals of Zionism is to increase antisemitic sentiment to make more Jewish people feel they have no safe place in the world other than to move to Israel? Interesting, I hadn't considered this. /s?
The OWNER has been disclosed, it's the source of FUNDING being obscured. But considering who owns it, the Qatari connection absolutely makes sense:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09814915
"1 officer / 0 resignations
BESSASSO, Jamal Awn Jamal
Correspondence address7th Floor, 1 Sussex Place, Hammersmith, London, England, W6 9EA
Role ActiveDirectorDate of birthDecember 1969Appointed on8 October 2015
NationalityDutchCountry of residenceUnited Kingdom
Identity verification due21 October 2026"
So who is Jamal Awn Jamal Bessasso? Well...
Former director of planning and human resources for Al Jazeera in... wait for it... Qatar.
Al Jazeera, as good as they are, has a notable blind spot with Qatar due to THEIR funding, most folks recognize that, so it makes sense MEE would be the same.
This doesn't mean either source is necessarily out of line when reporting non-Qatari interests, but definitely grain of salt worthy otherwise.
Isn't qatar a big ally of UK?
This again...
It wasn't a new charge. It was an aggravating factor.
It's the opposite of mitigating factors (for those who are confused). Jury says that for example someone is guilty of robbery. That's the charge and the verdict. Now the judge has to come up with the sentence and can apply mitigating factors like: it's his first offense, he showed remorse, admitted guilt and apologized to the victim, hence I will not give him maximum possible sentence...
Aggravating factors work the other way. The judge can say "he used a deadly weapon and is repeat offender: maximum sentence". Under UK law "terrorism connection" can be added as aggravating factor to any verdict. The judge added it here because Palestine Action is currently proscribed as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Nothing was withheld from the jury, nothing was added to the charges. Those articles are simply lying about it.
Yea, no, it most definitely is not that simple. Top UK lawyers are not bullshiters:
- https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/top-lawyer-palestine-action-terror-sentencing-5HjdbTp_2/
- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/four-palestine-action-protesters-terrorists-constitutional-threat
“It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.
“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”
Either give them a trial as terrorists or don't.
It really is that simple. What is "terrorist connection"? Let's see.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policing-act-2026-factsheets/crime-and-policing-act-2026-counter-terrorism-and-national-security-factsheethttps://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/129/5801129en.pdf
"""The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 introduced a requirement for courts to consider whether a ‘terrorist connection’ is an aggravating factor when sentencing for a specific set of non-terrorism offences."""
So is "terrorist connection" an offense? No. It's an aggravating factor.
"""any offence is capable of being subject to a finding or a determination of a terrorist connection, if the offence is not a terrorism offence and is punishable with a maximum sentence of more than 2 years"""
"""maximum sentence for criminal damage is 10 years"""
It's all as clear as it can be.
The offense is criminal damage. The jury said they are guilty. The sentence can be more than 2 years. The judge can consider terrorist connection as a aggravating factor. He did.
Jury is not involved in sentencing. Nothing was withheld.
“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”
You can argue that The Counter-Terrorism Act and the whole notion of "terrorist connection as an aggravating factor" is wrong and that only jury should be able to determine if someone has a connection to terrorist organization but you definitely can't argue that the judge is adding some charges here without informing the jury. This is simply not what is happening. They are not even bending the rules here. They are doing exactly what the law allows them to do.
I'm not "arguing" anything in front of any court and I'm not saying the judge did not follow the letter of the law. Top UK lawyers are making the case that as tried this case poses grave constitutional threats. And they're going to litigate this as far as it goes.
What I am saying is that what you're presenting as a slam dunk ...isn't. This is unprecedented (the law is from 2020 and it's the first time it's used in such a case in such a way) and serious people are raising serious issues.
EDIT: oh and by the way, at the end of the day, legal schmegal, the Palestine Action people are actually morally squarely on the right. They are not terrorists. They are activists putting their lives between Elbit's butcher machines and Palestinian genocide victims. The cop who got injured should not have been in that Elbit factory because Elbit should not be allowed to build genocide machines period. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter really does apply here, and these are indeed freedom fighters. History will vindicate them. One day, everyone will have always been against this, but these folks will actually have the receipts. Tiocfaidh ár lá.
Palestine Action people are actually morally squarely on the right. They are not terrorists
Maybe they are, but as someone born and raised in Central/Eastern Europe, they are - at best - morally dubious. Or incredibly easy to manipulate.
Palestine Action Plans Sabotage on UK Air Bases Used for Ukrainian Pilots Training
Pro-Palestinian activists reportedly destroy military equipment intended for Ukraine
What I find morally dubious is why Ukrainians are put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in genocide.
Russia is not the only barbarian in town.
What I find morally dubious is why Ukrainians are put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in genocide.
"What I find morally dubious is why [literally any NATO country] is put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in school shootings", since they're using AR16 rifles, 5.56 or 9mm ammo, Glock or CZ pistols, etc.
The industry makes the tools, the governments (or, well, individuals) decide how to use them. If the tools are well made and have high capabilities, I want Ukraine to have access to them regardless of the fact that some traitorous, murderous, corrupt dictators are also using them elsewhere.
You make an argument that chooses a priority: "regardless of the fact that". Guess what, other people make their own priority arguments where they make their own "regardless of the fact that" calculations. If you get to call other people "morally dubious" for not following your absolute priority, so do they get to call you "morally dubious" for not following theirs. Then the conversation becomes "which genocide matters more, Putin's or Netanyahu's". Is that the conversation you really want to be having though?
Here's what I say instead and you should be able to see the pragmatism in this point of view:
Ukraine should have the tools to fight for its freedom which is why it should not be put by its allies in the position to have to navigate suppliers that are politically toxic and a source of uncertainty and division in its support base (the conflicting moral priority arguments in my first paragraph).
The cold hard logic is that Elbit is a politically toxic, politically compromised supplier that comes with unnecessary uncertainty and risk. The fact that there are large sections of western populations that hold very legitimate grievances against them is very much an opening for Russian propaganda and manipulation. The UK should not expose Ukraine to any of that.
So if you really care about Ukraine having a shot, you should simply demand the exclusion of Israeli linked suppliers. They are a strategic liability for Ukraine. It's just not worth the drama and uncertainty from the point of view of Ukraine focusing on what matters to them and for sure nobody needs to be giving Putin any more talking points about western hypocrisy.
You missed my point.
There are no "suppliers not 'complicit' in genocide" due to the variety of equipment Israel is using. One way or another, every major military industrial complex member from the West is there.
I'm saying that just as you wouldn't say that Ikea is complicit in murder because someone used one of their knives, you shouldn't say that the ammunition or hardware industry is complicit in genocide because someone is using their gear.
The arms industry is far from black and white. It's a spectrum of shitty grey. Some part of that spectrum is made up of actual Israeli companies like Elbit. That's not some neutral "IKEA" that "happens" to sell something that someone "happens" to use to do something bad. It's a company that's literally part of the military-industrial complex of a genocidal apartheid state. That's a part of the shitty spectrum of the arms industry that Ukraine should not be put in a position to depend on.
Or to put it differently: if Ukraine is made to depend on those motherfuckers, don't clutch your pearls if the consequences (political blowback and uncertainty due to direct action from pro-palestinian activism and movements in the west) of that really bad decision end up affecting Ukrainian capacity. Don't blame the activists trying to grind the gears of Israel's genocide to a halt. They were going to do that anyway AND THEY ARE MORALLY CORRECT TO TRY TO DO THAT. If that inadvertently ends up hurting the Ukrainian war effort, blame Ukraine's allies for exposing Ukraine to that strategic liability. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Or if you want it all the way down to brass tacks: Palestinians don't have an obligation to die for Ukrainans. Palestine solidarity actions in the West don't have an obligation to Ukraine to facilitate the industry that actively participates in Palestinian genocide. If the West's Ukraine armament strategy depends on such a fucked up moral catastrophe and also depends on their citizens going along with that moral catastrophe, the West's armaments strategy is just plain fucking stupid because it will keep producing friction and uncertainty and they should fucking do better.
Do you understand what I’m saying?
Yes, but I fundamentally disagree.
Your first point, about being dependent on "complicit" military industrial complex elements - should the rest of the world now be dropping out of any relationship with the US MIL because Trump bombed a school? Should we just agree that having our military infrastructure and operations hindered by activists is OK, because they have the moral high ground?
War is a dirty, fundamentally amoral thing, always, but the company making the tools of war is - in my opinion - as "complicit" as Ikea is in the murder committed with one of their knives.
Go after the CEO! Put the entire management in prison, please! Let's FINALLY see some elites taking responsibility for their actions! But sabotaging a facility that has nothing to do with the cause "for the cause" is just not the way to do it. And, if nothing else, only because the elites gain on this. Because they just got a shitload of money off of insurance, and the Palestinian cause just got another label of "violent criminals who don't care who they hit".
Your second point, about "moral correctness" - OK, Elbit sucks and should die. But does that mean we get to sabotage any and all Elbit facilities? Or attack their employees? Even though their systems barely had anything to do with Gaza? They do UAVs, and those were not used for any form of attacks by Israel, only for reconnaissance. But if that's the case, where do we stop? Many of their systems used Nikon/Canon/other lenses - should we now also attack those companies?
I don't believe in collective responsibility. I don't believe that a dude putting together a recon drone should be punished for something that - maybe! - the CEO of the company has done.
Or if you want it all the way down to brass tacks: Palestinians don’t have an obligation to die for Ukrainans. Palestine solidarity actions in the West don’t have an obligation to Ukraine to facilitate the industry that actively participates in Palestinian genocide
I mean, shit, after war-torn Ukraine sent its grain to help starving Palestinians, you'd think there's some obligation to at least not get in their way, no? Especially considering, again, Elbit's systems were, in the vast majority, used for recon, not payload delivery. Especially considering that this specific facility was fully committed to the Ukrainian war effort and had nothing to do with what is going on in Palestine.
What I am saying is that what you’re presenting as a slam dunk …isn’t
Except it is. We're talking about some basic legal concepts here: charges, verdict, sentencing and aggravating factors. To claim that the judge withheld something from the jurors and applied additional charges after the verdict is simply a lie. He applied aggravating factors during the sentencing. Something the law clearly allows him to do in this case.
Now I'm sure some lawyers will argue that the whole concept of terrorist connection as aggravating factor is wrong but this is not what this post or articles claim. They claim something that is clearly false.
I'm also not talking who is and isn't morally right. If you want to address what I'm talking here about (is terrorist connection additional charge or an aggravating factor?) then I'm happy to listen. If you want to talk about something else then please reply to someone else.
Other commenters: "fascists rewrote the law to allow grave miscarriages of justice that violate the very constitutional foundations of a free society."
You: "nothing to worry about here guys, everything is perfectly legal. It's not like "they're just following the law" literally lead to the Holocaust or something."
Trouble reading much?
OK so let us know the next time you get a speeding ticket, so I can tack on some terrorism bonus time for you to serve, long after the jury has spoken about your guilt in speeding.
All I need to do is show you have any kind of tangential connection to anything I call terror, and I can turn your small sentence into a large one.
That sounds like the kind of shit China and Russia do. Anyone wants to tolerate that shit happening here in the West is no longer welcome to live in the West, IMO.
This argument makes no sense and only shows your total lack of understanding here.
Of course you'll say that. You're exactly someone who should not be welcome here.
Good thing you have nothing to say about it then.
Why are you lying?
I asked why you lied. Your comment is factually false.
because Palestine Action is currently proscribed as a terrorist group
ah so the ruling elite all glaze isreal, which means anyone who doesn't agree with ethnic cleansing is a terrorist. I gotchu, yeah, very much legal and cool. All above board, nothing to see here. Gotta get those terrorists before they checks notes stop a genocide?
I think you're a bit confused here. It wasn't me who proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist group. UK government did. I just stated a fact here. Or was your comment addressed to the UK government? If so than I agree they suck.
I think it was pretty clear. Palestine Action are not terrorists, that's the insane part
Moreover, they tricked the jury. Instead of trying them for terrorism, they try them for a small offense and then turn it into terrorism without the jury having a say in it. It's sneaky even if it's technically allowed
Moreover, they tricked the jury. Instead of trying them for terrorism, they try them for a small offense
Is this really that confusing? They were tried for criminal damage of property worth over $1m. That up to 10 years in prison. How is that a small offense?
The "terrorist connection" aggravating factor doesn't change the maximum sentence, it only changes the conditions of parole. Everything you said is simply wrong. This is pure misinformation. The charges were not turned into anything. They are not charged with or sentenced for terrorism. Even if the aggravating factor was revealed before the trial the jury would still just be considering if they committed criminal damage.
I think it was pretty clear. Palestine Action are not terrorists, that’s the insane part
Weren't they the guys who set fire to a couple of storage and production facilities that held equipment meant to be sent to Ukraine?
Are you one of those sea lions that somehow learned how to type, but you just spend your whole day spreading lies?
Hmm?
Palestine Action Plans Sabotage on UK Air Bases Used for Ukrainian Pilots Training
Pro-Palestinian activists reportedly destroy military equipment intended for Ukraine
This is literally 10 seconds on Google.
Again. Why do you spread lies? Where are the fires you claimed?
Fine - no fires, my mistake. Just physical destruction of equipment and disruption of operations.
Bullshit. The full context of the situation was denied to the jury.
Remember, the entire reason we have juries is to allow for jury nullification. That's literally the only benefit of juries. 12 random untrained people will never be better at deciding objective facts of guilt or innocence than a judge with a law degree and decades on the bench. We have juries as a final check against the kind of criminal corruption that has currently overtaken the UK government. The idea is that you can write whatever ridiculous laws you want, but at the end of the day you need to convince 12 average people that an offense worthy of punishment has been committed. The system is intended as a check against out of control government. Again, this is literally how the system is designed. (Judges will of course lie about this to protect their own power.) The government can write a law proscribing the death penalty for stealing a candy bar. But the jury system, if it works as intended, would prevent anyone from being convicted under that law.
The government here deliberately perverted the jury system to avoid jury nullification. They tried them under a minor offense. The jurors probably thought those convicted would get community service or a fine. That's the rightful and just punishment for such an offense. Any greater a penalty, and jury nullification would have been on the table. Instead, the government secured a conviction under a minor offense but was able to get a sentence on par with a serious felony.
For your talk of the system working as intended, you sure are ignoring the government's complete perversion of the jury system that is the very bedrock of our system of justice.
They tried them under a minor offense. The jurors probably thought those convicted would get community service or a fine.
"Four Palestine Action activists have been found guilty of criminal damage "
"Corner was also found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm after striking Sgt Kate Evans twice with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. "
"An estimated £1m worth of damage was caused during the raid."
"""For damage over £5,000 or more serious cases:
Up to 10 years' imprisonment""""
Yes, the jury said they are guilty of a crime carrying up to 10 years of prison but thought they would just get a fine. Are you really that dense?
Didn't they break a cop's back? "Middle East Eye" isn't mentioning that because it's not exactly an unbiased source of information. They're just innocent "protesters" LOL.
Using violence to achieve a political goal is pretty much the definition of terrorism. Using violence to influence a government is terrorism. It would be bias for the judge to grant some kind of exemption simply because the government involved is Israel.
They were doing violence (broke a person's back) to influence the British government's relationship with Israel. That's terrorism.
Consider expanding your sources of information beyond sites that are giving incomplete information with the goal of making you feel angry.
"They" didn't hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.
Your tirade about violence is quite silly actually, because it's far too indiscriminate. The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*). Placing them in the same category as motherfucking ISIS is simply making a mockery of the principle of proportionality, which is a cornerstone of any liberal democracy.
(*) The incident with the policewoman is not indicative of their modus operandi. They did not hope to affect political change by injuring police officers, the same way that, say ISIS used murder as a political tool of terror. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter.
“They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.
"They" were more than four people. There were eight others involved that were acquitted. Again, read some more news sources.
The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*)
How do you know the mindset of these people better than a jury of their peers that saw all of the evidence?
Also in many places it is first degree murder (not manslaughter) if you accidentally kill someone while in the commission of another crime. Modus operandi kinda goes out the window when you're already engaged in a crime and that results in other crimes.
The intent of the original crime (property destruction) was to influence the government. That intent can be transferred to other crimes they committed (the acts of violence) while doing the original crime. Their intent was to influence the government. They committed crimes and violence happened during the commission of those crimes. The original intent applies to the violent crimes they committed. The intent of the violence was to influence the government.
Anyway it obviously was enough to convince a jury of their peers.
Pro-tip: if you're going out to do crimes to try to influence the government, maybe refrain from hitting a policewoman multiple times with a fucking sledgehammer. I'm not going to be crying over someone that does something like that going to prison for a long time.
Only a jury of their peers didn't convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.
So you don't think that the intent of the original crime doesn't apply to subsequent crimes committed during the same act?
Or do you know that you're wrong and can't admit it and still feel the need to say stuff anyway?
The double negative is breaking my brain.
So, taking into account that:
Judge Jeremy Johnson kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage.
All defences on the charge of criminal damage were banned by the Judge before he heard the evidence, meaning the defendants weren’t allowed to argue that their actions were legally justified as they acted to save lives and prevent a greater crime. He also barred the defendants from telling the jury about their motivations for taking action, their emotional reactions to the massacres of Palestinians or the illegality of Israel’s actions.
It seems that in this case the intent didn't matter when it came to allowing the defendants to fully make their case in front of a fully informed jury but it mattered when it came to sentencing them after a conviction had been secured.
Can't have it both ways mate.
EDIT: Turns out the leading UK lawyers are saying the exact same things:
- https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/top-lawyer-palestine-action-terror-sentencing-5HjdbTp_2/
- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/four-palestine-action-protesters-terrorists-constitutional-threat
“It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.
“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”
Can't have it both ways mate.
Things are often withheld from the jury. Do you have no familiarity with the legal system.
Their intent was to influence government through property damage which escalated to violence.
Do you think Israel's intent of saving lives by destroying Hezbollah and Hamas is justified?. These organizations have weapons and kill people. Israel is destroying their weapons. Some people might get hurt or killed while they do this, but by your logic everything is justified if your intent is to destroy weapons to save lives.
If these criminal's acts are justified because their intent was to "save lives" then the above paragraph is equally valid since it follows the same logic.
You can't have it both ways. Either both Israel's and this group's acts of violence are justified or neither are justified. Which is it?
Lol no, I'm not following you up Stupid Mountain.
Not sure if you noticed but this is not the US. UK law doesn’t have a felony murder rule, intent to commit one crime (property destruction) doesn’t automatically transfer to another (killing) if violence occurs.
If someone dies during an unlawful act like arson, it’s usually manslaughter under the Homicide Act 1957, not murder, unless intent to kill or cause serious harm is proven. If you want to educate yourself on UK law, read up on R v Mitchell (1983) and R v Woollin (1999).
In this scenario, the jury convicted based solely on property damage, with terrorism charges withheld and defences (e.g. legal justification to save lives) barred by the judge.
If protesters set fire to a government building to influence policy and someone dies, they’d likely face manslaughter unless intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is proven. Transferred malice only applies if harm to a different person was unintended but foreseeable.
This is a property destruction was premeditated crime, and apparently while planning this crime they didn't consider what they'd do when the cops showed up?
Come on, you have to be smarter than this. When you get to the point when you feel the need to put so much effort in defending the actions of a monster that broke a woman's back with a sledgehammer, how do you convince yourself that you're still on the side that cares about people's lives?
To make matters worse this woman has been harassed because she while doing her job she had her back broken. How does this make any sense in terms of basic human decency? Because you see some imagery from a war you're allowed to do horrible things to other people?
"A jury of their peers" whats your favorite boot flavor? spiked rubber or natural rubber?
Didn’t they break a cop’s back? “Middle East Eye” isn’t mentioning that because it’s not exactly an unbiased source of information. They’re just innocent “protesters” LOL.
Why would a cop be there?
Using violence to achieve a political goal is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Congrats, you just defined the entirety of every police force and judicial system in the world as terrorists.
Using violence to influence a government is terrorism.
No, it's just the only effective way to enact change.
They were doing violence (broke a person’s back) to influence the British government’s relationship with Israel. That’s terrorism.
Only because they're brown and going against a Western country. When the UK government hires people to do it, it's just a military intervention.
Consider expanding your sources of information beyond sites that are giving incomplete information with the goal of making you feel angry.
You're defending a country previously engaged in the worst acts ever recorded in human history, honestly dwarfing Germany's in all but intensity, and currently is aiding in some of the worst acts in human history. If you ever find yourself in that position, I recommend either getting the taste of iron and sulphur in you, or correcting yourself before someone does that for you.
Why would a cop be there?
Because they broke into a building and were destroying property. They were fighting with the building's security and so the cops were called.
You really don't know anything about the subject, do you? Really, you have to read news from more sources instead of just swallowing whatever propaganda that gets fed to you.
Because they broke into a building and were destroying property.
Oh no. Maybe that building was promised to them 3000 years ago. Did you see if they had any UK-recognized religious claims to that building and its materials? The UK recognizes ancient religious claims to land and possessions so clearly the cops broke the law by not following their own precedent.
They were fighting with the building’s security and so the cops were called.
Maybe the security were just islamphobic and were holding their children hostage. You don't know. You weren't there. Until I get a government press release from a trust worthy government I can't really say it's not true. Really we have to give such claims equal weight since we now know they had a 3000 year old claim to that building and all its possessions. It seems like the building security are the real terrorists here.
You really don’t know anything about the subject, do you? Really, you have to read news from more sources instead of just swallowing whatever propaganda that gets fed to you.
Maybe I just need some more Hasbara in my life, it's clearly done you a world of good.
What are you talking about? They hit a police woman in the back multiple times with a god damn sledgehammer.
Do you think people that do that shouldn't go to prison?
Genuinely sounds like self defense. I'd have to wait until I see approved-state approved versions of the livestream and video though but it just sounds like that police woman was hiding nuclear secrets in her back and really had it coming. I mean she clearly threatened the entire country and these heroes bravely did what any hero should and took out the threat.
It doesn't exactly help the argument that this wasn't terrorism when you automatically relate every violent act to geopolitics.
If you ever do any violence, this kind of thing in your posting history would be pretty strong evidence of terrorist intent.
Politics by definition is violence. It is the descriptor of who is allowed to do the violence. All of politics is violence, all of violence is political to some degree.
And honey, if I'm ever stuck in a western country and am arrested, the last thing on my mind is terrorism charges. I'd be worried about getting raped or tortured for the rest of my life more than whatever excuse a government uses to allow my rape and torture.
In civilized countries we vote.
I don't want to live under the political system that you propose.
You already do. Try voting for anything that upsets the actual owners of your country and suddenly you will find out who has the monopoly on violence. I'll give you a hint, it's never the working class.
I live in a country where we have laws that are determined by the people we vote for. If they pass laws we don't like we vote in someone else. Works quite well, you should try it in your country.
How'd that work out for the native candians again? how many mass graves under public schools have been found? how many native women go missing every year while the RCMP chalks it up to voluntarily going missing?
In all seriousness, has protesting actually ever done anything?
If they wanted to make a difference, surely there are better ways.
JFK, read some history.