It might get watered down yet, no charges have been brought, there’s been some arrests, whether the CPS have the balls to run terrorism when sabotage or very serious criminal damage would be a doddle to prove is the real question, I imagine they’re furiously briefing out the question to Treasury Counsel as we type.
1 Like
Right is right even if no-one else is doing it, wrong is wrong even if everyone else is doing it.
Judges need to be able to act to that standard.
1 Like
Question.
If this action does come under the terrorism definition, does that mean Bob Vylan’s chants at Glastonbury can be seen as soliciting terrorism?
After all, they appear to be encouraging violence in order to change a government’s policy.
It’s too much of a stretch, even calling it inciting Racial Hatred might be a stretch, because that implies that you cannot say anything bad about the IDF without it being Anti-Semitic. Which is dangerous ground to tread in my view.
The real problem the Crown will have is that it will be probably tried in Bristol, and Bristol juries hate political trials.
But then we all thought that throwing paint at an inanimate object would be a stretch, didn’t we?
I could see it happening. I just hoped it wouldn’t.
It was said more than once the JSO should’ve been proscribed.
I would guess it’s the National Security angle that has made this different.
Splintering/renaming always happens, I reckon they will just join PSC and become a more militant wing.
Copycat groups will be less likely if harsh examples are made.
Likewise if they turn upto a protest up town in Palestine Action T-Shirts they will be treated the same as the ones who turned up in Hamas T-Shirts, arrested, charged and bailed with conditions not at attend London except for their court dates.
Doesn’t come close to the threshold, the IDF are not a race, they are an organisation. If they had stuck to criticising as opposed to calling for death we wouldn’t even be having these conversations. I can see if being something really low level like s.4A Pubic Order, which wouldn’t meet the public interest test in my opinion.
1 Like
That’s interesting, I’d have thought maybe the opposite, especially on topics like that given the leanings of a lot of Bristolians. Although I imagine being “extreme” one way causes other people to swing the opposite.
Sorry, this is off topic 
I don’t think it will be like Hamas T-Shirts. Hamas aren’t popular in the mainstream, fringes may think it’s funny, but I think you could have thousands of people all wearing Palestine Action apparel, up and down the country.
And this, to me, exemplifies the ridiculousness of the situation. One group causes disruption, the other kills, rapes, mames innocent people yet the government has chosen to view them as worthy of the same treatment.
1 Like
So they will end up bubbled in a Section 3 cordon and will have to provide Name and Address for a Caution +3 to be released. Once the first few get terrorism convictions common sense will break out.
1 Like
I mean they hate convicting. They acquitted on the Colston statue, and it’s widely held at the Bar that the over politicisation of the Ben Stokes Trial massively went against the Crown there.
The Crown took a standard punch up at a normal night club in Clifton and prosecuted it like it was a murder. Senior Treasury Counsel from London prosecuting an ABH. Something a junior of 5 years call or less would prosecute normally.
I really think you’re underestimating this.
The CPS don’t have the balls not to charge anything. The CPS don’t have the stones not to prosecute fights when the police arrest the wrong side because they don’t want to be the ones to tell the “complainant” they were the baddy. They’d rather run a crap case to trial and have a judge or jury throw it out. If they don’t charge Vylan with something the media will crucify them.
I just find it insane that we can take a group who has never killed anyone and never been convicted of any terror offences, and then make it a terrorism offence to not only be a member of that group, but any support for that group.
Suddenly, wearing a t-shirt bearing the name of said group makes the t-shirt wearer an offender under the terrorism act. A group that, again, has never killed anyone and has never had a member convicted as a terrorist.
That is insane to be.
1 Like
The CPS are currently NFAing slam dunk cases at the slightest chance.
Although this is true of most of the cases they charge for the IOPC
1 Like
Not in my experience. The absolute crap were prosecuting at the moment is laughable, it’s half the reason the backlogs are so high.
Bring back Diplock courts ?
I’m on the side of proscription without conviction being an overstep.
The government has, without legal process, “convicted” those involved of a specific illegal act*.
*Exception to my opposition being where it is unarguably clear that the threshold has been met and would lead to a conviction if those involved were (or able to be) in custody. E.g. stuff has been blown up, but the boss lives in a dusty cave and the perpetrators are burnt jam.
If you’re going to label someone a terrorist, then you should be damn sure they fit the legal definition.
1 Like
