You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Lisa Nandy has been calling for the BBC to sack people over the Gaza documentary.
We really do have quite a sinister government which obviously wants to intimidate people into not telling the truth about an ongoing genocide which they tacitly support.
https://www.newarab.com/news/uk-minister-questions-lack-sackings-over-bbc-gaza-documentary
UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has raised concerns over the lack of dismissals at the BBC over a Gaza-based film on the plight of Palestinian children.
Still, I guess that if we have a government which is determined to ignore the opinion of voters and instead give a far-right genocidal regime military, diplomatic, and political, support, then this shouldn't come as a surprise I guess.
Although you would think that politicians supporting terrorism would be illegal. Or at should be.
Lisa Nandy has been calling for the BBC to sack people over the Gaza documentary.
UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has raised concerns over the lack of dismissals at the BBC over a Gaza-based film on the plight of Palestinian children.
Still, I guess that if we have a government which is determined to ignore the opinion of voters and instead give a far-right genocidal regime military, diplomatic, and political, support, then this shouldn't come as a surprise I guess.
Although you would think that politicians supporting terrorism would be illegal. Or at should be.
No surprise coming from the likes of Nandy given her history
https://www.declassifieduk.org/what-happened-to-labour-friends-of-palestine/
https://twitter.com/tayab_ali_/status/1941625955321020787
Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 – Encouragement of terrorism
It is an offence to publish or cause another to publish a statement that is likely to be understood by members of the public as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism. While the article references a nuclear weapon (a weapon of mass destruction), its context and intent must be considered carefully. Should it be interpreted as serious or inciting violence, even through provocation or humour, it may fall within the remit of this section
Got TBH that's a waste of time, just giving more airtime to the contemptible Liddle, and IMHO actually degrades the argument that we are making for free speech and freedom to protest in a non-terrorist way
No-one is going to read that and think he's seriously suggesting people do it but to avoid doubt, in the free bit of the article he actually writes
"I am not saying that we should do this, of course – it would be a horrible, psychopathic thing to do. I am merely hypothesising, in a slightly wistful kinda way"
The premise of the article is afaict that he feels the country would be better off without the Glastonbury types - and the Brighton ones too FWIW, I presume his word count ran out before a fuller listing of all the towns with the communities he so hates but maybe Hebden Bridge would have made it on as well. And he's free to feel that and write it, and calling it out as terrorist just makes it seem like we don't know where the line is.
Call it out as a horrible piece of writing by a horrible man, and maybe look to make sure it doesn't cross the line into hate speech (last time I checked, none of "Street drummers, liberal politicians, provo vegans, radical rappers, spiritual healers, Billy Bragg, that bloke who owns Forest Green Rovers, druggies, tattooed blue-haired hags..." are protected characteristics, although Billy Bragg as the national treasure that he is should be) - but it's not terrorism.
Got TBH that's a waste of time
That's one opinion.
Tayab Ali is head of the international Law team in a highly respected law firm
https://www.bindmans.com/our-people/tayab-ali/
Tayab has acted in cases before the UK Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and advised governments, diplomats, NGOs, and international bodies on matters of international law.
He obviously believes there are reasonable grounds for a police investigation into an article which despite clearly being intended to be humourous is nevertheless encouraging the idea of violence against targeted people.
Considering the number of successful prosecutions less than a year ago against people who were encouraging others to commit violence I am not in a position to dismiss a respected lawyer's legal opinion. Clearly in his opinion there is at least a chance of a prosecution.
STW trivia - I went to school with Rod Liddle. If you’d told teenage Drj that Liddle’s big mouth would one day get him locked up I’d have danced for joy. So - fingers crossed.
The scales of justice cannot afford to be seen to silence just one side :
Well they can but we would be back to the two-tier justice argument
The above article is behind a paywall - fortunately the wayback machine has got you covered...
I may be wrong but the people locked up for inciting violence last year (and rightly so) weren't done for terrorism?
As I said:
Call it out as a horrible piece of writing by a horrible man, and maybe look to make sure it doesn't cross the line into hate speech ..... but it's not terrorism.
and that's my point, if we're calling out peaceful protest, even protest that causes criminal damage as being not terrorism with all that entails, to then label this joke of an article as terrorism degrades the sense that we know what terrorism really is, and that it should only be used in appropriate situations.
Maybe he is right and that by calling it out as terrorism it points out how ridiculously wide that definition has become, even then I'd say this isn't because it's not seeking to influence Gov policy - it's sole purpose is to get clicks. My immediate impression on reading the article wasn't 'Terrorist!', I'll be honest, it was 'Rod Liddle being a **** like usual'
to then label this joke of an article as terrorism degrades the sense that we know what terrorism really is, and that it should only be used in appropriate situations.
He also refers to :
Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
Section 127, Communications Act 2003
Part III, Public Order Act 1986
He is obviously covering everything available under existing legislation. And he goes into the details of the specific pieces of legislation. Click on the link, it's all there.
Just had an encouraging email from our LibDem MP (for whom I voted) spelling out her & the LibDem's position on the proscribing of PA (she abstained) & Palestine in general, which pretty much aligns with my own. Sadly I don't think that they LibDems have enough clout to effect change.
On the PA & terrorism act front, anyone else finding this worrying?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9kdq84j3lo?app-referrer=deep-link
spelling out her & the LibDem's position on the proscribing of PA (she abstained)
Such a strong view that she sat on the fence and didn’t vote. How decisive
The fact that he was arrested is indeed a joke, although not particularly funny. What Ian doesn't mention in that piece is that he was arrested under the terrorism act and could have been held with the deprivation of rights that this allows. It seems that the police saw sense in the end, but worrying none the less.
Well this embarrassing too.:
“UK domestic counter-terrorism legislation defines terrorist acts broadly to include ‘serious damage to property’. But, according to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages, for purpose of intimidating a population or to compel a government to take a certain action or not,” said Türk. “It misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism to expand it beyond those clear boundaries, to encompass further conduct that is already criminal under the law.”
And this is particularly embarrassing, a government led by a renowned a barrister and former DPP is in breach of international law.
“As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law.”
Although can this authoritarian right-wing government be shamed? Probably not.
I'd spotted the UN story earlier, be interesting if any charges from these arrests go to court and get challenged using the HR defence
I believe that these signs have genuinely appeared in London
https://twitter.com/RiotFrank/status/1949821694287155369
The signs themselves are obviously not genuine !
So, the BBC reporting that PA can challenge being proscribed
BBC News - Palestine Action can challenge UK ban, court rules
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqlerg1n67no
However, the gossip from a usually fairly reliable source at the weekend was that they were proscribed (rightly or wrongly) because there are some quite serious court cases going through with strict reporting restrictions in place, and the proscription wasn't actually due to them painting planes.
Might be nonsense, but would explain the apparent over reaction to a bit of red paint.
the proscription wasn't actually due to them painting planes.
That was said right at the beginning. Yvette Cooper said that there was intelligence on Palestine Action which she unfortunately couldn't divulge (take that as meaning very fortunately) which justifies proscribing them as terrorists.
We were told something very similar in the run-up to the Iraq war. Apparently there was lots of top secret information which unfortunately couldn't be shared with the public.
Obviously it is complete bollocks. We all know why the IRA was classed as a terrorist organisation and also Al-Qaeda, the reasons aren't kept secret.
If the government needs time to reveal what is terrorist about Palestine Action then they should have waited to proscribe them instead of prejudging an ongoing court case.
When MPs voted to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation what were they basing their decision on?
I missed this at the time but we saw a wee bit of this arrest in Glasgow a few weeks back:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0qn8vz00no
He was leafleting and tbh was a bit aggro imo, though I don't know if that started before or after the police turned up, but we didn't catch the nuance of what he was arrested for- wearing a tshirt which said "Genocide in Palestine time to take action" with Palestine and Action in larger letters.
Another man arrested in Glasgow for holding this poster, and apparently a third for having one in a window
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0qn8vz00no
All three for the offence of "expressing support for a proscribed organisation"
However, the gossip from a usually fairly reliable source at the weekend was that they were proscribed (rightly or wrongly) because there are some quite serious court cases going through with strict reporting restrictions in place, and the proscription wasn't actually due to them painting planes.
Makes you think.
However, the gossip from a usually fairly reliable source at the weekend was that they were proscribed (rightly or wrongly) because there are some quite serious court cases going through with strict reporting restrictions in place, and the proscription wasn't actually due to them painting planes.
Should that turn out to be the case, that's really even worse - now we've got 200 people arrested using terrorism laws on the basis of something they don't know about and for which no-one's been convicted.
However, the gossip from a usually fairly reliable source at the weekend
Did this source also say that Iraq had WMD back in the day?
That was said right at the beginning. Yvette Cooper said that there was intelligence on Palestine Action which she unfortunately couldn't divulge (take that as meaning very fortunately) which justifies proscribing them as terrorists.
Were going to arrest you and charge you, but for reasons known only to us we are not going to tell you why, or based on what, and actually the legal precedent its based on hasnt actually been made yet.
Yeah that seems like a healthy way to run a legal system.
Yeah that seems like a healthy way to run a legal system.
She doesn't run the legal system. A healthy democracy includes human rights and a considerable understanding of the judiciary, which is what you'd expect from this government given the expertise of its leader.
Other PMs have been barristers, e.g. Thatcher and Blair, but PM Starmer is especially experienced
It's significant that Mr Justice Chamberlain has decided, having heard both the secret and not so secret evidence, that this merits a judicial hearing at the earliest opportunity and before too many people get convictions that can't be reversed
Other PMs have been barristers, e.g. Thatcher and Blair
Point of information, Thatcher had no legal qualifications, she was a chemist whose main claim to fame was that she helped to inflate the size of ice-cream so that little kiddies would get less ice-cream for their pennies
Her evilness started early. She then went on snatch their school milk.
It looks like our Home Secretary has been a tad economical with the verité with regards to why proscription was pushed.
@relapsed_mandalorian I know, what are the chances of a politician fibbing to get their way?
Other PMs have been barristers, e.g. Thatcher and Blair
Point of information, Thatcher had no legal qualifications, she was a chemist whose main claim to fame was that she helped to inflate the size of ice-cream so that little kiddies would get less ice-cream for their pennies
Her evilness started early. She then went on snatch their school milk.
Point of information; she was a barrister,
In 1951 she married a divorced businessman, Denis Thatcher, and began studying for the Bar exams. She qualified as a barrister in 1953, the year in which her twins Mark and Carol were born. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067670
Oh, and there isn't any evidence that she played a significant part in soft-scoop ice cream either 😉
Point of information; she was a barrister,
👍 Fairy nuff, I was aware that she worked as a chemist but I wasn't aware that she ever worked as a barrister, I wonder how many cases she actually took on? Anyway Suella Braverman also qualified as a barrister so it doesn't really add much to a political CV.
The ice-cream reference was with regards to her claim to fame, another claim to fame of hers is that just reduced taxes, there is no evidence of that either, just that she shifted who paid them and increased the overall tax burden.
Point of information; she was a barrister,
👍 Fairy nuff, I was aware that she worked as a chemist but I wasn't aware that she ever worked as a barrister, I wonder how many cases she actually took on? Anyway Suella Braverman also qualified as a barrister so it doesn't really add much to a political CV.
The ice-cream reference was with regards to her claim to fame, another claim to fame of hers is that just reduced taxes, there is no evidence of that either, just that she shifted who paid them and increased the overall tax burden.
There's a quite surprising number of barristers who become politicians.
They understand the appalling rates of pay for some barristers and are tempted into £91k + allowances in Parliament, which begs the question why these sharp, experienced minds make the decisions that they do in relation to the CJ system and other legal issues
To be perfectly honest I did think that Thatcher had dabbled in law, evening classes or sumfink, I wasn't aware that she had actually qualified as a barrister, I should have fact checked !
And yes it is quite astonishing that so many politicians should have a legal background. In the case of the Labour Party about 40 years ago it used to the teaching professions which dominated the PLP, now it appears to be barristers.
It is a reflection of how unrepresentative of the wider public establishment parties have become, and in part at least explains why mainstream political parties are in crisis in much of the Western world.
There's a quite surprising number of barristers who become politicians
Wasn't it traditionally something a gentleman could do to while away the afternoons after a taxing morning in court?
At least 532 people arrested at London protests against ban on Palestine Action
The total number of people arrested for supporting Palestine Action in central London is 522, the Metropolitan Police said.
18 people remained in custody as of Sunday afternoon but are expected to be bailed in the coming hours.
So 522 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and all are now expected to be released on bail by tomorrow morning.
But wait, how the hell does that work......shouldn't they be held in custody under the special enhanced powers which the Terrorism Act 2000 specifically provides?
It is obvious that none of these individuals are considered to be a terrorist threat and that it has bugger all to do with preventing terrorism and everything to do with silencing opposition to this current right-wing authoritarian government.
Obviously Labour think it is more acceptable to pretend that they are "preventing terrorism" with this bollocks than to admit that they are actually clamping down on free speech.
Labour are clearly taking the piss. On the one hand they justify the arrest of hundreds of people with some nonsense about terrorism, and then on the other hand they don't even pretend that these people pose any sort of threat.
My opinions of Labour under Sir Keir Starmer have always been extremely low but I am frankly stunned by the depths that Labour has now plummeted since forming a government.
Is this like... terrorist washing?
An artificial inflation of terrorist arrest statistics.
That’s Labour - tough on grannies, soft on genocide.
Some interesting statistics here :
Metropolitan police arrested 532 people during Saturday’s demonstration in Parliament Square
Arrests by age range
17-19......6
20-29......65
30-39......55
40-49......45
50-59......89
60-69......147
70-79......97
80-89......15
And people tend to think of terrorism as a young persons thing !
MOD - as the last few posts don’t appear to be about how embarrassed, or not, the RAF is, this post is being closed.