this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026

112 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

6877 readers

476 users here now

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.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

112

Ban on Palestine Action was lawful, court of appeal rules (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 months ago by RubberDuck@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 92 points 2 months ago (3 children)

UK government weaponising the British justice system to punish its own citizens on behalf of a foreign state committing genocide. Dark days for this country.

[–] spagbolioli@feddit.uk 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

at this point only the green party would tell israel to fuck off

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Where do they stand on requiring ID to use most of the internet? They seem like the only choice left

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago

*the world

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago

it's actually a lovely country, you should visit sometime

anyone that wants to protest can form a new group called say "pally lovers r us" and have fun marching and doing speeches and stuff. just avoid military facilities and you're good

[–] jacksontwos@lemmy.zip 46 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Shows the judiciary isn't fit for purpose. These judges need to be deposed.

[+] ohulancutash@feddit.uk -13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They are following the law. That’s what they are there for.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Upholding a corrupt law is not following the law.

https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/centre-for-the-study-of-corruption/2025/08/08/why-it-matters-whether-palestine-action-are-really-terrorists/

We can see clearly that these laws are not being applied to terrorists and instead being applied to anti-corruption organizations. This is an obvious perversion of the 2000 law. To use the law in this way is not only dishonest and morally corrupt, but it also infringes on the very foundation of democracy.

The only way you could rationalize using this law in this way is if you were defending a genocide which is exactly what is happening. I am not sure if you are actually an advocate of genocide, but by declaring it is lawful it shows that you are.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A simplistic argument to be sure. In that linked article however,

But in the eyes of the law, in the UK, PA can be labelled as terrorists. Under the Terrorism Act 2000 this applies if they plan or carry out ‘serious damage to property’ if that is ‘designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public’ and when that is ‘for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’

Therefore, following the law, proscription is lawful. It’s not the courts’ place to legislate. The fault is with MPs not judges.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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/

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus 43 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Kinda sounds like Israel owns the "justice" system.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Don't get it twisted, Israel was a British colony from the start.

[–] spagbolioli@feddit.uk 8 points 2 months ago

Yes, it is an extension of western foreign policy, pop the jews in there, act indignant when israel's neighbours fight back against their oppression "you can't hurt the jews look at what they've gone through" it's pretty much the perfect colony

[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 39 points 2 months ago (1 children)

“It is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes operating transparently in the open. It is a covert organisation that operates using secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy the property of third parties.

The suffragettes conducted a fucking bombing campaign, often directly against politicians - PA have been extremely restrained in comparison.

[–] HieroProtagonist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

The suffragettes conducted a fucking bombing campaign, often directly against politicians - PA have been extremely restrained in comparison.

This is the thing: If a movement has an radical, even violent arm, the politicians are more inclined to get the "moderate" part of the movement on their side... soooo... make your own conclusions..

[–] Babalugats@feddit.uk 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Colour me fucking shocked.

From the FT

The Court of Appeal judgment was handed down by Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, Master of the Rolls Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Andrew Edis, Lord Justice Clive Lewis and Lady Justice Philippa Whipple.

A quick search of who they are, and what they stand for should show you all you need to know.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Yes, we've investigated ourselves and we found that we did nothing wrong.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 17 points 2 months ago

Yeah, that's the problem. Terrorism laws were a kneejerk reaction to 9/11 and 7/7 that handed sweeping undemocratic powers to ministers without adequate checks that liberal-minded people have consistently been saying would lead to exactly this kind of obvious abuse. The courts have little choice but to accept it - the time to stop it was when the law was passed, but no party (except maybe the Lib Dems) would overturn it because liberalism is dead and not a vote winner.

[–] Exeous@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

“Lawful” not mean moral

[–] WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago

Just another in a long list.