(minor edit made)
The court did not rule that the ban was invalid because PA were clearly not terrorists, which would expose the govt ban nothing more than a ruse - a response to the legal success of past direct action, the govt being prompted by what seems to function as a higher body - the Israel lobby.
Instead the court seemed to say that the ban didn’t take account of the ‘impact’ on freedom of speech. Well this is a matter of competence, even fake lip-service steps could have addressed this; and the govt could bring the law or policy back on this basis and probably succeeed - even though the fundamental problem with Yvette Cooper’s ban is the prior law on which it is based, the Terrorism Act. which allows a fake terrorism rap to be created by simple government designation - the deifinition of terrorism seems to be irrelevant for this purpose.
I hear the BBC discussing whether sufficient level of criminal damage amounts to terrorism - pure fakery, as the damge has not been found to be criminal; except if it’s terrorism, obviously a circular argument they hope none of their cosetted experts they have wheeled out will have have the gumption to point out.
Update: just heard an ‘expert’ on the BBC tell us that people don’t know that economic damage can be classed as terrorism.
That’s news to me I’ve heard other experts say it’s not terrorism if people aren’t deliberately injured.
Even if the ‘other other’ experts are right it’s still completely fake as terrifying shareholders about their shares is no part of the usual meaning. If it is then the government of almost every western country is terrorist with its support for sanctions on whoever the US says.
But we know all that…still hope the govt will lose its appeal (if it ever had any lol)