Three Palestine Action protestors end their hunger strike

Anniebach

A fractured spine is criminal damage? is attempted murder / manslaughter criminal damage?

I agree, but it isn’t terrorism.

I hear there will be an appeal by the Home Secretary so it will need to wait until that.

Rosie51

Oh well the criminal damage, threatening of security guards (all on video), the fracturing of a police woman's spine, not of interest or concern. The erroneous banning of Palestine Action should not excuse criminal behaviour and violent assault causing actual bodily harm. Are we to understand that if you do these things under the banner of protest that's a free pass? Will it apply to all protests?
I'm dismayed by the lack of concern for those left to deal with such violence and criminality.

They should be tried again under the normal criminal law with a fresh jury.They won’t enjoy the outcome of that!

Oh well the criminal damage, threatening of security guards (all on video), the fracturing of a police woman's spine, not of interest or concern. The erroneous banning of Palestine Action should not excuse criminal behaviour and violent assault causing actual bodily harm. Are we to understand that if you do these things under the banner of protest that's a free pass? Will it apply to all protests?
I'm dismayed by the lack of concern for those left to deal with such violence and criminality.

I completely agree with you Litterpicker.

I too noticed that there was virtually no media coverage of the hunger strikers - it really was a form of censorship.

There has now been a finding that the banning of Palestine Action was illegal. Although the government is appealing against it, it perhaps indicates that this banning was at the very least questionable and ill thought out. Watching people, particularly elderly and sometimes disabled people, being hauled away for holding up a poster, was disturbing for many people.

Correction on last sentance.
made sure the case was brought under terrorism laws

I don’t think this case passes the sniff test.
Listing to a lawyer yesterday who stated, that: this case should never have been brought to court under the terrorism laws.
In his opinion the prosecution were never going to win.
Whereas if it had been a standard criminal damage case, they would have found guilty.
Terrorism cases involve specialised laws that differ significantly from standard criminal cases.
The jury would have been guided by the judge Re their verdict.
Meaning the prisoners couldn’t be found guilty under the laws of terrorism.
So, imo, someone dropped the ball or someone made sure the case was brought under standard criminality laws.

A fractured spine is criminal damage? is attempted murder / manslaughter criminal damage?

Maremia

Criminal damage is one thing. To miscall it as terrorism is another.
Charge the defendants with what they have done, not what you wish it was called.

Yes.

Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were cleared on Wednesday of aggravated burglary after Elbit Systems building near Bristol was targeted in a raid in the early hours of 6 August 2024.
They were also charged with criminal damage and violent disorder but the jury reached partial or no verdicts on those counts, for which they could face a retrial.
Corner was the only one of defendants who was denied bail. Their next hearing will begin on 18 February.

They were charged as above, from the BBC website www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wxlv99xrjo which would indicate they were charged with what they had done.

Still no comment how the damage was done, the van driven into the doors like a battering ram, the security guards attacked threatened and intimidated? Any thoughts how a police woman at the scene came to have a fractured spine?

Criminal damage is one thing. To miscall it as terrorism is another.
Charge the defendants with what they have done, not what you wish it was called.

The ban being unlawful does not excuse the criminal damage done and the cowardly attack on police and the security guard. Does it not bother you Maremia that a female police officer had her spine fractured in the attack? There was video evidence and they were arrested at the scene but you seem happy that a jury did not keep to the solemn oath they made at the commencement of the trial.

And now the High Court rules that the Palestine Action ban was unlawful.

Having read about this trial I come to the conclusion that the jury thought that if they supported a cause ( the jury) then whatever the crimes committed they would refuse to convict, so that’s what they did, they refused to convict them of anything at all.There will likely now be another trial.
The crimes were breaking into a property, causing criminal damage within the property, threatening behaviour and grievous bodily harm.A security guard was attacked and a police woman attacked with a sledgehammer which fractured her spine.
Now, whatever you think of Palestine Action as a group ( my view of them is unprintable ) we can’t have juries refusing to convict of anything when the evidence is before them, because they’re sympathetic.
Particularly I would say on attacks on the police.

Maremia

These can't be the same people, the Filton 6, who have just been found Not Guilty through the due process of a trial in court?

And that is one of the biggest legal travesties I've ever seen. There was ample video evidence and does nobody care about the female police officer who took a sledgehammer blow to her back which caused fractures to her spine? What caused that, a gust of wind through an open window?????
If you truly believe that a female officer was grievously injured whilst only in the vicinity of the "Filton 6" and they weren't responsible then I have to question your intelligence and impartiality.

These can't be the same people, the Filton 6, who have just been found Not Guilty through the due process of a trial in court?

If those 17,700 were being denied the rights they are entitled to, then yes, I would be as concerned as you about that. Innocent until proven guilty. We are still a civilised society.

And, jumping to conclusions, about who supports whom, is a lazy form of exercise.

Whenever you get theses great campaigns, where the protestors have to back down they will always claim a victory. I have seen it happen so many times, both at local and national level.

REKA

They were never going to die. This was not a Bobby Sands hunger strike.

For them to suggest that the government caved in with regard to Elbit is laughable.

And to those who try to boycott Israeli produce, do Google to see what Israel has given to the world. You'll have to get rid of more than a few items.

My thoughts exactly. Never saw and English people worrying over Bobby.

Oreo

I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.They were violent to staff at Elbit and deserve their sentences.
The decision to award the contract to a US firm would have zero to do with Palestine Action.
Misplaced tears for those kind of people are wasted tears.

👏👏👏

Justice for them. Violence for others.

In a democracy like ours, this sums up the attitudes of many of the violent protesters who seem to be on our streetss almost daily

Allira

^No matter what they have done, no matter how we feel about what they have done, we live in a civilised country, under our rules and laws, and these should be followed.^

Ironic.

Well that’s what they rely on.

Justice for them. Violence for others.

No matter what they have done, no matter how we feel about what they have done, we live in a civilised country, under our rules and laws, and these should be followed.

Ironic.

Maremia

The difference has been that these accused,
but not yet convicted individuals,
kept in remand, because violence is in the charge sheet,
were denied some of the privileges allowed to similarly detained individuals.
No matter what they have done, no matter how we feel about what they have done, we live in a civilised country, under our rules and laws, and these should be followed.

Perhaps those in prison and on hunger strike should also have been cognisant of what you say in your last para and acted as you say others should have acted. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Have they specified which means of communication they are being denied?

I was interested enough to look up what remand prisoners are allowed.

Clearly they have some means of communication available in order to list their demands and make statements so which are being allowed and which others are being withheld?