An interesting comment yesterday underneath Sqwawkbox reporting on yesterdays protests not only against genocide but also against against the fascistic arrests of people protesting against a law, under that very law…
Comment by winteringham
"When the original anti-terror laws were discussed, Campbell Savours posed exactly this question suggesting if a “Middle Eastern state” wished to win a multi-billion contract, would part of the deal be to proscribe any group that objected?” I think he covered a number of points in that 26 years ago.
Jack Straw would have none of it …………………"
The comment probaby attracted much interest as it was updated with a link to Jack Straw’s guarantee.
The Sqwawkbox report highlights the mass arrests - 400+ I saw somewhere today.
The byline, most pertinently, reads:
Starmer continues to assault UK freedoms to protect Israel
A trip down memory lane shows Straw was no innocent, nor humanitarian softie.
Here he is on offical business with Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz in 2001
Former home secretary Yvette Cooper has previously defended the proscription by saying some supporters of Palestine Action “don’t know the full nature” of the group.
Well, Defend Our Juries lodged a contempt of court action against then HC Yvette Cooper.
This was specifcally for making the above claim, which accused DOJ of violence - because DOJ themselves were being prosecuted and their non-violent policy was their key defence.
With her claim made in the media, Cooper was obviously jeopardizing a court process.
Yet the BBC repeats the claim without mentioning that the DOJ group - mentioned in the same piece immediately below - have taken out a contempt of complaint against Cooper for making this very claim…
So the action against Cooper is to remain secret - try finding it in the MSM - but Cooper’s likely law-breaking claims in defiance of court procedures are still to be broadcast.
ED
Edit: Here is the DoJ complaint, made to the AG
Comments prevent a fair trial
“…It is not only disingenuous to present this isolated case as characteristic of Palestine Action, it is a contempt of court that prevents fair trials of those who stand accused. Yvette Cooper’s comments have been widely publicised, such that it would be impossible to find a jury unaffected by them. Her comments have irreparably prejudiced the jury in three ways.
…
…” https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/yvette-cooper-is-in-contempt-of-court-says-defend-our-juries/
It seems to me, that with Starmers record (aka Jimmy Saville), clearly MI5/6, Mossad, and/or the NSA have some Epstien’esq dirt on him. IMHO, that is the only plausible explanation for his sychophantic support of the genocidal Nazis in Israehell.
There is a video out there of Starmer admitting Jewish family connections and also Israeli family. He goes on in to say that he is not a Zionist, but knows what it is and supports it
Hi folks, the contrast with the UK should be mentioned - here the “law” is arresting, prosecuting and gaoling hundreds of protesters in the UK without black costumes, vandalism, fireworks or guns - just with placards expressing support for an organisation that was unlawfully proscribed by the Starmer lot ( see :
which is being appealed by the government as we try and speak).
The Rule of Claw will get its way both in the US and in the UK because the public don’t realise that if you don’t stand up for your rights you will lose them.
I see there was comment about the split decisions:
“Following the bizarre split verdicts on the Criminal Damage charge, emotions were high amongst bemused and shocked defendants, their friends and families. Among supporters or the legal team no-one was able to point to particular differences in the cases against those found guilty against those acquitted.”
I tried to see what the potential sentences were but couldn’t discern any real range, although one reference to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 mentioned 10 years or life imprisonment as the max depending on whether arson was involved or threat to life when life was the max.
In contrast I believe no-one can be charged with genocidal acts or complicity in genocide or crimes against humanity ( which includes acting as an apartheid regime) without the approval of a government legal adviser with ministerial responsibilities called the Attorney General ( who attends Cabinet meetings but is not a member of the cabinet !?) - how likely is that for Elbit employees or UK Government members?
How worse could it be if terrorism sentencing is applied? I wonder if the jurors were aware of the potential sentence for these victims of the system.
Were Elbit owners insured so that loss was 0? If insurers lose money can they become the “victims” under the Criminal Damage Act or are they just gamblers who lost out and can only claim in civil courts?
Another thought , reading through available material I saw no reference to common law defences such as defending others who are at risk under the self defence exception:
The judge (under threat of contempt of court I believe) refused to admit evidence or mention of Gaza abuses using Elbit weaponry - but surely action to protect children in Gaza falls within the definition of common law self defence?!
cheers
PS some answers to these questions can be found on foreign sites by searching “Filton 6 trial” - I think the threat of contempt prevents us from linking directly to those sites!
the reference to Hoffman’s statement in R v Jones does not amount to a reaon for the decision of the Court ( ratio decidendi) but would be called obiter dictum - merely an aside- of interest but not creating a precedent that has to be followed - IMO.
Thanks for all the updates @CJ1 I find myself so incensed at the entire process from their initial arrest to the absolute travesty of real justice, that I don’t want to read anymore about it, but your postings keep me on track.
