United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Absolute garbage. You have a few people who attack a genocide factory and you have a bunch of people cheering them on. I totally get that people who commit property damage and hurt people deserve consequences but pretending they are a terrorist group is ridiculous.
If you read the examples that lawmakers listed for the 2000 law, they all involve deaths. It is clear that property damage alone was not a major consideration. They are misinterpreting the law to try and make any political group into a terrorist organization. This is abhorrent behavior.
What is even more insane is then jailing 3,000 more people that have nothing to do with this crime just because they support the sentiment that the government is covering up a genocide. Hauling away hundreds of peaceful protesters like absolute goons.
I swear the inability to self reflect is going to kill us. As far as your point, the judges could have ruled differently. They could have easily upheld the decision instead of adding to the madness. This is the definition of poor governance and a complete breakdown of human rights.
They could have easily upheld the decision? Based on what law? The specific actions required under the Terrorism Act 2000 include serious property damage. Also serious violence against a person. Both of which apply here and led to the JTAC designation of Palestine Action as a terror group.
While it’s egregious to call property damage “terrorism”, that is how the law stands. It is for legislators to change that, not the judiciary.
Are you saying they couldn't of ruled otherwise!? Judges have discretion. You argument is pretty ridiculous.
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/breaking-down-the-court-of-appeal-judgment-on-palestine-actions-proscription/
Couldn’t have
The purpose of the Court of Appeals is to evaluate the lower court’s application of judicial discretion. The lower court’s decision is only overturned when it is determined there has been an “abuse of discretion” - that the judge’s discretion does not follow the law as laid down.
So in this process, the Appeal Court judge has to go back and see what is on the statute books, and make their judgement on a point of law, rather than discretion. They have to follow legislation.
It would then be for the Supreme Court to decide whether that legislation was consistent, but that’s not for the Appeals.
Judges are not arbitrators of truth and a different group of judges could have came to a different conclusion or perhaps even the same conclusion but for different reasons.
If you are arguing against this fact I am not sure what to say. On the other hand, if you are arguing that this has been decided so it is the law now I will kindly point out that judges can and do get it wrong. This is also not the end, unless they deny an appeal.
This was the appeal. Judges are not arbiters, that’s why the Court of Appeals exists to hold them accountable to the law. The issue here isn’t the judiciary, its the legislation.
The High Court ruled in against the designation and the appeal court got it wrong. If the appeal court were to grant their appeal and the decision was reversed then what would you say.
At any rate, is the law really the problem or how it is applied, to which I will kindly refer back to the High Courts decision. It is clear there hasn't been an actual escalation beyond a couple instances out of hundreds. This designation made no sense from the start and was politically motivated.
Expecting a bunch of corrupt politicians to fix this through a rewrite of the law is a little much. They just need to not apply it improperly. A legislative solution may work, but it is not necessary.
This problem could have been solved by the government not appealing in the first place. As I stated before this is a complete breakdown of governance and judgement unless you take into account the government trying to cover up a genocide. Then perhaps this all makes sense.