“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
So the Court appears to have invented a test of scale that doesn't appear in statute. That does look like overreach.
It has been a while since I studied public law but “proportionality” has been used before by the courts to constrain public powers.
I personally think that Parliament should legislate the test of proportionality (if any) in the relevant laws and not leave it ambiguous. Lazy drafting.
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
A exceptionally weak straw man fallacy. No one else here wants that, and those who behave that way should be prosecuted under our extensive and comprehensive criminal law. Attacking people with a sledgehammer is already illegal.
(Notwithstanding the fact they were found innocent by a jury).
I think there will be a retrial on some aspects. And its not a strawman fallacy - its the reason that the ban was put in place.
Yes it was - you were suggesting people that people who oppose the ban on PA are in favour of smashing people up with sledgehammers.
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
A exceptionally weak straw man fallacy. No one else here wants that, and those who behave that way should be prosecuted under our extensive and comprehensive criminal law. Attacking people with a sledgehammer is already illegal.
(Notwithstanding the fact they were found innocent by a jury).
The jury failed to reach a decision on that particular charge, didn't they?
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
The court noted that there are laws against wielding sledgehammers etc. without resorting to the Terrorism Act 2000.
The problem is, some jurors are quite happy to see people wielding sledgehammers against people and property.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Why not ?
Because the power, passed by Parliament, does not state that the power can only be exercised if a certain amount of terrorism is committed. The organisation just has to be “concerned in terrorism, in the SOS’s opinion”.
Parliament probably shouldn’t have passed such a law, but they did.
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
The court noted that there are laws against wielding sledgehammers etc. without resorting to the Terrorism Act 2000.
There are presumably laws against ALL acts that might also be terrorism. I think its illegal to stab people while screaming about Alan's Snack Bar, isn't it?
The law in question here makes it illegal to express support for a group. Under what situations is that extra law appropriate? The Home Secretary has a policy on that which, the court has decided, was not followed.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
Read the judgment. I'm guessing the judges understand the law better than you? They say there are constraints on that subsection.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
The court has concluded that PA committed acts of terrorism so I can't understand it's conclusion that proscription was unlawful.
I wouldn't have described any of PA's acts as terrorism, but that's a different question.
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
The court noted that there are laws against wielding sledgehammers etc. without resorting to the Terrorism Act 2000.
There are presumably laws against ALL acts that might also be terrorism. I think its illegal to stab people while screaming about Alan's Snack Bar, isn't it?
The law in question here makes it illegal to express support for a group. Under what situations is that extra law appropriate? The Home Secretary has a policy on that which, the court has decided, was not followed.
I'll go all Godwin here - replace Palestine Action with the Nazi Party. In many countries it is illegal to express support for Nazism.
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
The court noted that there are laws against wielding sledgehammers etc. without resorting to the Terrorism Act 2000.
There are presumably laws against ALL acts that might also be terrorism. I think its illegal to stab people while screaming about Alan's Snack Bar, isn't it?
The law in question here makes it illegal to express support for a group. Under what situations is that extra law appropriate? The Home Secretary has a policy on that which, the court has decided, was not followed.
This will be an interesting test case (hopefully all the way to the Supreme Court) on limits on the exercise of arbitrary Government powers.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
So the Court appears to have invented a test of scale that doesn't appear in statute. That does look like overreach.
It has been a while since I studied public law but “proportionality” has been used before by the courts to constrain public powers.
I personally think that Parliament should legislate the test of proportionality (if any) in the relevant laws and not leave it ambiguous. Lazy drafting.
Good luck with drafting a proportionality test clear enough that it renders the SoS's discretion beyond challenge. A degree of unclarity about things as applying to the multitude of actual cases is inherent in law because it is inherent in reality.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
So the Court appears to have invented a test of scale that doesn't appear in statute. That does look like overreach.
No, the court has said that there is a test of scale that has always been used. Quoting one line of statute does not mean you understand the law in full.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
Read the judgment. I'm guessing the judges understand the law better than you? They say there are constraints on that subsection.
The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court regularly overturn each other. It’s not about “who understands the law better”.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
Which shows just how irrational a section of the left has become. The issue is far more nuanced than Israel Evil, Palestine Good.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
So the Court appears to have invented a test of scale that doesn't appear in statute. That does look like overreach.
It has been a while since I studied public law but “proportionality” has been used before by the courts to constrain public powers.
I personally think that Parliament should legislate the test of proportionality (if any) in the relevant laws and not leave it ambiguous. Lazy drafting.
Good luck with drafting a proportionality test clear enough that it renders the SoS's discretion beyond challenge. A degree of unclarity about things as applying to the multitude of actual cases is inherent in law because it is inherent in reality.
Of course. You don’t have to cover all eventualities but you can cover some of them. If the Home Office intended their “policy” to be the required process for proscription then that could have been included in the legislation, but it wasn’t.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Why not ?
Because the power, passed by Parliament, does not state that the power can only be exercised if a certain amount of terrorism is committed. The organisation just has to be “concerned in terrorism, in the SOS’s opinion”.
Parliament probably shouldn’t have passed such a law, but they did.
Nope, that's wrong. Read the judgment.
It’s not wrong. I am quoting the legislation.
You are interpreting one bit of the legislation. The judges, who again I suggest may know better than you, have laid out their reasoning in the judgment and have come to a different interpretation.
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
The court noted that there are laws against wielding sledgehammers etc. without resorting to the Terrorism Act 2000.
There are presumably laws against ALL acts that might also be terrorism. I think its illegal to stab people while screaming about Alan's Snack Bar, isn't it?
The law in question here makes it illegal to express support for a group. Under what situations is that extra law appropriate? The Home Secretary has a policy on that which, the court has decided, was not followed.
This will be an interesting test case (hopefully all the way to the Supreme Court) on limits on the exercise of arbitrary Government powers.
In the sense in which I think you mean 'arbitrary powers', I don't think the government has any. That's why I like living in my country.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
The court has concluded that PA committed acts of terrorism so I can't understand it's conclusion that proscription was unlawful.
I wouldn't have described any of PA's acts as terrorism, but that's a different question.
Seeing as the High Court decision was unanimous the government should stop wasting tax payers money on an appeal .
That’s not how this works at all
Unanimous High Court rulings are rarely overturned. Their judgement seems reasonable .
Ilott v Blue Cross saw the Claimant win at every level up to the Supreme Court, who then overturned every lower court ruling, to favour the Defendant. Likewise, the Asher's bakery case. Higher courts frequently overrule lower ones.
Seeing as the High Court decision was unanimous the government should stop wasting tax payers money on an appeal .
That’s not how this works at all
Unanimous High Court rulings are rarely overturned. Their judgement seems reasonable .
No offence but you have no idea what you’re talking about. This judgment was made by two judges. High Court judgments are often made by one judge. It’s not difficult for a ruling to be “unanimous” in the High Court.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Spot on Roger
I will always defend Labour but when they are fundamentally wrong, I will say so.
That I think is one of the key divisions v left and right.
Right blind alliegence almost brain washed lack of questioning and intellectual thought.
Left alliegence but not blind and questioning and challenging. more demanding.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Why not ?
Because the power, passed by Parliament, does not state that the power can only be exercised if a certain amount of terrorism is committed. The organisation just has to be “concerned in terrorism, in the SOS’s opinion”.
Parliament probably shouldn’t have passed such a law, but they did.
Nope, that's wrong. Read the judgment.
It’s not wrong. I am quoting the legislation.
You are interpreting one bit of the legislation. The judges, who again I suggest may know better than you, have laid out their reasoning in the judgment and have come to a different interpretation.
No - I also set out the other bit you referred to. This whole case hinges on judicial review of government powers and the wooly concept of proportionality, not the legislation itself.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
Read the judgment. I'm guessing the judges understand the law better than you? They say there are constraints on that subsection.
The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court regularly overturn each other. It’s not about “who understands the law better”.
Of course the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court sometimes disagree. However, the question I pose is whether The Hon Mr Justice Swift and The Hon Mrs Justice Steyn DBE understand the law better than you?
Is Ed M. on a redemption arc now? Do voters even remember him from 2015 or is that ancient history? Is there a kind of nostalgia for pre-Brexit politics that he can tap into?
My sense is he's probably too geeky and nasal sounding to be a strong leader of the opposition. But if he were already PM and the economy was doing maybe he'd win re-election.
Well, Ed Miliband is popular with 2024 Labour voters still, he has a +13% rating with them on this month's Yougov ratings. He also doesn't do too badly with LDs on -6%.
Reform voters hate him though, he is on -76% with them and he only does a little better with Tories on -67%.
With Green voters he doesn't do that well but at -26% he does better than Greens -61% rating for Starmer
Ed Miliband was reported to have asked Angela Rayner for a joint ticket with her on top. This suggests either that Miliband no longer fancies the top job or that he does not think he will get it. The former is quite plausible. Ed has been party leader and has recently seen what Number 10 has done to a string of Conservative prime ministers and, of course, Keir Starmer. The other choice is that he expects the zeitgeist to favour a Labour woman.
Perhaps they recognise they are not getting in again and simply want to use the large majority to push through some more left wing policies. Starmer's problem will always be the success the party had in 2024 as it encourages cliques to fantasise about what they might achieve. (See L Truss and Co.)
Seeing as the High Court decision was unanimous the government should stop wasting tax payers money on an appeal .
That’s not how this works at all
Unanimous High Court rulings are rarely overturned. Their judgement seems reasonable .
No offence but you have no idea what you’re talking about. This judgment was made by two judges. High Court judgments are often made by one judge. It’s not difficult for a ruling to be “unanimous” in the High Court.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly?
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
Read the judgment. I'm guessing the judges understand the law better than you? They say there are constraints on that subsection.
The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court regularly overturn each other. It’s not about “who understands the law better”.
Of course the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court sometimes disagree. However, the question I pose is whether The Hon Mr Justice Swift and The Hon Mrs Justice Steyn DBE understand the law better than you?
You’re being a right dickhead about this. There’s no need to make it personal. The law isn’t often certain - it’s about interpretation. The high court have decided that the the use of the power in this scenario was not lawful but the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court might disagree. That doesn’t mean they “understand the law” better, it just means they have a different opinion.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Spot on Roger
I will always defend Labour but when they are fundamentally wrong, I will say so.
That I think is one of the key divisions v left and right.
Right blind alliegence almost brain washed lack of questioning and intellectual thought.
Left alliegence but not blind and questioning and challenging. more demanding.
You truly think that people on the right blindly defended the last government?
Seeing as the High Court decision was unanimous the government should stop wasting tax payers money on an appeal .
That’s not how this works at all
Unanimous High Court rulings are rarely overturned. Their judgement seems reasonable .
No offence but you have no idea what you’re talking about. This judgment was made by two judges. High Court judgments are often made by one judge. It’s not difficult for a ruling to be “unanimous” in the High Court.
There were 3 judges !
I stand corrected on that point, but that doesn’t change the general principle against what you are arguing.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Why not ?
The law reserves that right to the government, the courts are now saying that judges have the ability to overrule the government's judgement on such matters but that isn't written anywhere. I expect the government will appeal and win.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
Read the judgment. I'm guessing the judges understand the law better than you? They say there are constraints on that subsection.
The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court regularly overturn each other. It’s not about “who understands the law better”.
Of course the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court sometimes disagree. However, the question I pose is whether The Hon Mr Justice Swift and The Hon Mrs Justice Steyn DBE understand the law better than you?
You’re being a right dickhead about this. There’s no need to make it personal. The law isn’t often certain - it’s about interpretation. The high court have decided that the the use of the power in this scenario was not lawful but the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court might disagree. That doesn’t mean they “understand the law” better, it just means they have a different opinion.
If you would like to make a case that actually engages with the judgment, go for it. Just posting one subsection and claiming that proves your case is unconvincing and became annoying.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
I had reason to go to hospital today. I've had periodic problems with arrhythmia over the years. In the past I've been with BUPA and the cardiologists have fixed it with a minimum of fuss and the whole thing is sorted relatively quickly.
Today I used the NHS and it was quite different. Everone was very nice but I never got near a cardiologist. I saw more nurses than I appeared in "Mash". Each one doing their own thing well but the highest I got was a Registrar who could only say after a day of tests. "You need to see a cardiologist' In BUPA the Cardiolgists did all the tests there and then. Maybe half an hour then a week later joined by an anaesthetist a few nurses a theatre -job done. £4,000 the lot
All fine and dandy if you won't miss £4k.
My point was that it would have cost the NHS more than that. To use maybe 6 or 7 people where one would do seemed like they were spending their money in the wrong places
Yebbut. The NHS needs extra staffing, because if someone is rushed in with a massive coronary, or there's a terrorist they need crash teams on standby permanently. Not saying it's perfect. Far from it. But it's there for emergencies. And it ain't concerned with anyone's bank balance or insurance status should it occur.
Excess capacity - which the NHS needs - doesn’t mean inefficiency which is Roger’s point
I think rogers point is that there are not enough senior decision makers (like yours truly!) so you have to work your way through a filtering process of Specialist Nurses, Physician Assistants and Resident Doctors before you get to the Big Cheesr. These are capable of managing most straightforward conditions.
Such a system of direct access to the top specialists is more expensive, but also limited by numbers. There simply aren't the numbers of us to see everybody immediately.
Didn’t the lower levels of people come in specifically to ration access to the consultant doctor in the first place?
Living somewhere with mostly private healthcare, I can see a specialist for almost anything within a week if I need to, for around £50/20mins, and I have insurance that pays 90% of that so it costs me a fiver.
While recruiting more trainee doctors is clearly a priority, and those training places are currently constrained, should the NHS also be prioritising the hiring of experienced specialists from overseas?
More immigration?
Of doctors, absobloodylutely!
We already bring in so many foreign doctors that it makes it much more difficult for British medicine graduates to get on the training pathways. Hence https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4062
Those two things are not related.
FPT. They are objectively related. It’s ridiculous to suggest they are not. As usual, you don’t have any idea what is going on in Britain from your gulf ivory tower.
One example that made me laugh, was when my godson was told that the medical school of his choice had a sudden shortage of places.
This was because the overseas aid budget was looking at a slight underspend, that year. So they increased the number of full ride scholarships for people from third world countries to study medicine at a UK university. Full overseas fees, so the uni was on it, like a tramp on chips.
I was most impressed by his reaction - no Reform style rants. Just decided to become a diplomat and work for the Foreigner Office, instead.
The Government caps home student fees, but lets universities charge overseas student lots more. Guess which students universities then want?
That is, how you say it? A BINGO!
A modest proposal
1) Back in the day, the military used to offer something like this - you signed up for the Army, Navy or Airforce, while at uni. You got all fees paid and something like £15K a year (this was the 90s). After you finished Uni, you went in as an officer. 2) So, offer the following to UK residents - full ride scholarship, plus yearly support to study medicine. When you finish you are *guaranteed* a training place. You are at the front of the queue. 3) You actually acquire a debt. Which is paid off *for you* over seven years as an actual NHS doctor. You do not, in that time, pay a penny. The amount paid off is back loaded - the last couple of years in the 7 will pay off most of it.
So, the offer is - got to uni, become an NHS doctor. For free - in fact you get enough money that you might not need to work! Provided you do seven years in the NHS. If you quit early, you end up with a proportion of the debt.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
Read the judgment. I'm guessing the judges understand the law better than you? They say there are constraints on that subsection.
The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court regularly overturn each other. It’s not about “who understands the law better”.
Of course the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court sometimes disagree. However, the question I pose is whether The Hon Mr Justice Swift and The Hon Mrs Justice Steyn DBE understand the law better than you?
You’re being a right dickhead about this. There’s no need to make it personal. The law isn’t often certain - it’s about interpretation. The high court have decided that the the use of the power in this scenario was not lawful but the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court might disagree. That doesn’t mean they “understand the law” better, it just means they have a different opinion.
If you would like to make a case that actually engages with the judgment, go for it. Just posting one subsection and claiming that proves your case is unconvincing and became annoying.
I actually quotes two subsections.
If you read the judgement you’ll understand that the case hinges on the Home Office policy, not the legislation. It’s that policy which the court found constrained the use of the power. It will be interesting to see whether the case is appealed on the interpretation of that policy, or on a general point of law on the exercise of powers. They are different things.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
Read the judgment. I'm guessing the judges understand the law better than you? They say there are constraints on that subsection.
The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court regularly overturn each other. It’s not about “who understands the law better”.
Of course the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court sometimes disagree. However, the question I pose is whether The Hon Mr Justice Swift and The Hon Mrs Justice Steyn DBE understand the law better than you?
You’re being a right dickhead about this. There’s no need to make it personal. The law isn’t often certain - it’s about interpretation. The high court have decided that the the use of the power in this scenario was not lawful but the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court might disagree. That doesn’t mean they “understand the law” better, it just means they have a different opinion.
If you would like to make a case that actually engages with the judgment, go for it. Just posting one subsection and claiming that proves your case is unconvincing and became annoying.
I actually quotes two subsections.
If you read the judgement you’ll understand that the case hinges on the Home Office policy, not the legislation. It’s that policy which the court found constrained the use of the power. It will be interesting to see whether the case is appealed on the interpretation of that policy, or on a general point of law on the exercise of powers. They are different things.
You should also note that I was giving my opinion on what the courts should do, not any comment on what the law actually is.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Why not ?
The law reserves that right to the government, the courts are now saying that judges have the ability to overrule the government's judgement on such matters but that isn't written anywhere. I expect the government will appeal and win.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
This is the issue for me. Polanski says "Over 2,700 people have so far been arrested for holding a sign opposing genocide and the proscription of Palestine Action," Polanski says."
No. They have not been arrested for holding a sign opposing genocide, its entirely for the latter.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Spot on Roger
I will always defend Labour but when they are fundamentally wrong, I will say so.
That I think is one of the key divisions v left and right.
Right blind alliegence almost brain washed lack of questioning and intellectual thought.
Left alliegence but not blind and questioning and challenging. more demanding.
You truly think that people on the right blindly defended the last government?
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Doesn't wording such as "the SoS believes" have an implicit "reasonably" in there? Otherwise it would mandate executive diktat and be unchallengeable?
The 'SoS believes' bit is actually essential to the meaning of the act. SFAICS without those words the SoS could add the Trustees of the Little Snoring Duck Pond Society to the list because he felt like it. The words exist to limit the SoS action to within the intention of the act.
But it is also true that the SoS can be challenged WRT the reality of the belief, the correctness of the belief and the reasonableness of the belief. But at least the act probably dissuades a SoS from proscribing our local badminton club.
I had reason to go to hospital today. I've had periodic problems with arrhythmia over the years. In the past I've been with BUPA and the cardiologists have fixed it with a minimum of fuss and the whole thing is sorted relatively quickly.
Today I used the NHS and it was quite different. Everone was very nice but I never got near a cardiologist. I saw more nurses than I appeared in "Mash". Each one doing their own thing well but the highest I got was a Registrar who could only say after a day of tests. "You need to see a cardiologist' In BUPA the Cardiolgists did all the tests there and then. Maybe half an hour then a week later joined by an anaesthetist a few nurses a theatre -job done. £4,000 the lot
All fine and dandy if you won't miss £4k.
My point was that it would have cost the NHS more than that. To use maybe 6 or 7 people where one would do seemed like they were spending their money in the wrong places
Yebbut. The NHS needs extra staffing, because if someone is rushed in with a massive coronary, or there's a terrorist they need crash teams on standby permanently. Not saying it's perfect. Far from it. But it's there for emergencies. And it ain't concerned with anyone's bank balance or insurance status should it occur.
Excess capacity - which the NHS needs - doesn’t mean inefficiency which is Roger’s point
I think rogers point is that there are not enough senior decision makers (like yours truly!) so you have to work your way through a filtering process of Specialist Nurses, Physician Assistants and Resident Doctors before you get to the Big Cheesr. These are capable of managing most straightforward conditions.
Such a system of direct access to the top specialists is more expensive, but also limited by numbers. There simply aren't the numbers of us to see everybody immediately.
Didn’t the lower levels of people come in specifically to ration access to the consultant doctor in the first place?
Living somewhere with mostly private healthcare, I can see a specialist for almost anything within a week if I need to, for around £50/20mins, and I have insurance that pays 90% of that so it costs me a fiver.
While recruiting more trainee doctors is clearly a priority, and those training places are currently constrained, should the NHS also be prioritising the hiring of experienced specialists from overseas?
More immigration?
Of doctors, absobloodylutely!
We already bring in so many foreign doctors that it makes it much more difficult for British medicine graduates to get on the training pathways. Hence https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4062
Those two things are not related.
FPT. They are objectively related. It’s ridiculous to suggest they are not. As usual, you don’t have any idea what is going on in Britain from your gulf ivory tower.
One example that made me laugh, was when my godson was told that the medical school of his choice had a sudden shortage of places.
This was because the overseas aid budget was looking at a slight underspend, that year. So they increased the number of full ride scholarships for people from third world countries to study medicine at a UK university. Full overseas fees, so the uni was on it, like a tramp on chips.
I was most impressed by his reaction - no Reform style rants. Just decided to become a diplomat and work for the Foreigner Office, instead.
The Government caps home student fees, but lets universities charge overseas student lots more. Guess which students universities then want?
That is, how you say it? A BINGO!
A modest proposal
1) Back in the day, the military used to offer something like this - you signed up for the Army, Navy or Airforce, while at uni. You got all fees paid and something like £15K a year (this was the 90s). After you finished Uni, you went in as an officer. 2) So, offer the following to UK residents - full ride scholarship, plus yearly support to study medicine. When you finish you are *guaranteed* a training place. You are at the front of the queue. 3) You actually acquire a debt. Which is paid off *for you* over seven years as an actual NHS doctor. You do not, in that time, pay a penny. The amount paid off is back loaded - the last couple of years in the 7 will pay off most of it.
So, the offer is - got to uni, become an NHS doctor. For free - in fact you get enough money that you might not need to work! Provided you do seven years in the NHS. If you quit early, you end up with a proportion of the debt.
You could do rather more that way. For example, university costs fees. You borrow money for it. From a proper company, not the student loan company. But then over the couse of the next decade, if you pay tax, that tax goes towards repaying the fees. If you go off to Dubai and contribute to their economy, that's fine - but you have to pay the fees back yourself.
At the moment, we are incentivising are brightest to get educated at our expense and then leave. We should be doing the opposite.
This is the issue for me. Polanski says "Over 2,700 people have so far been arrested for holding a sign opposing genocide and the proscription of Palestine Action," Polanski says."
No. They have not been arrested for holding a sign opposing genocide, its entirely for the latter.
And most of the signs read "I support Palestine Action" which can be taken as both opposing the ban, and supporting the group itself.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Dropping "genocide" would you agree that it constituted the collective punishment of the people of Gaza for the Oct 7th atrocity committed by Hamas?
This is the issue for me. Polanski says "Over 2,700 people have so far been arrested for holding a sign opposing genocide and the proscription of Palestine Action," Polanski says."
No. They have not been arrested for holding a sign opposing genocide, its entirely for the latter.
And most of the signs read "I support Palestine Action" which can be taken as both opposing the ban, and supporting the group itself.
And how many said "I oppose the ban on Palestine Action". I would have more sympathy for such a protest.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Why not ?
The law reserves that right to the government, the courts are now saying that judges have the ability to overrule the government's judgement on such matters but that isn't written anywhere. I expect the government will appeal and win.
Is it not the case that the Minister has said that that discretion will be operated in a particular way and subject to particular criteria and, in the view of this court, that has not been done in this case? Once it has been set out how the discretion is to be used the potential recipients of that determination have a reasonable expectation that they will be applied.
I have no knowledge or view as to whether or not the court here has got it right. It simply strikes me as eminently justiciable whether the Minister got it right standing the declared policy.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
Which shows just how irrational a section of the left has become. The issue is far more nuanced than Israel Evil, Palestine Good.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Spot on Roger
I will always defend Labour but when they are fundamentally wrong, I will say so.
That I think is one of the key divisions v left and right.
Right blind alliegence almost brain washed lack of questioning and intellectual thought.
Left alliegence but not blind and questioning and challenging. more demanding.
Comments like this make me despair. I think this site is testament to an open debate on all sides of the political spectrum. Suggesting that left vs right is some kind of team game where one side is less intelligent then the other is a really low and uninformed blow.
This is the issue for me. Polanski says "Over 2,700 people have so far been arrested for holding a sign opposing genocide and the proscription of Palestine Action," Polanski says."
No. They have not been arrested for holding a sign opposing genocide, its entirely for the latter.
And most of the signs read "I support Palestine Action" which can be taken as both opposing the ban, and supporting the group itself.
And how many said "I oppose the ban on Palestine Action". I would have more sympathy for such a protest.
Would that slogan on its own be legal? I'd hope so.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Genocide does not require the total extinction of a people.
The Dispaches on Palestine Action on Monday is well worth a watch. It is clear that the reason PA was proscribed was damage to property, and much of the government briefing untrue.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a reasonable and rational opinion.
the Home Secretary has adopted a policy in respect of the exercise of that discretionary power. The policy was first stated when the Terrorism Bill was before Parliament and has remained in materially the same form since. At the time the decision now under challenge was made, the policy on the exercise of the discretion appeared in a “policy paper” dated 27 February 2025 under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”.
So, there is a specific set of requirements and the court decided the Home Secretary had not followed them.
But IANAL.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Incredibly wide.
Read the judgment. I'm guessing the judges understand the law better than you? They say there are constraints on that subsection.
The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court regularly overturn each other. It’s not about “who understands the law better”.
Of course the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court sometimes disagree. However, the question I pose is whether The Hon Mr Justice Swift and The Hon Mrs Justice Steyn DBE understand the law better than you?
I would hazard a guess that they understand the law better than most people who comment on this blog, but that neither makes them infallible, not does it make it unreasonable to discuss their judgement critically.
We do not have a doctrine of judicial infallibility.
I had reason to go to hospital today. I've had periodic problems with arrhythmia over the years. In the past I've been with BUPA and the cardiologists have fixed it with a minimum of fuss and the whole thing is sorted relatively quickly.
Today I used the NHS and it was quite different. Everone was very nice but I never got near a cardiologist. I saw more nurses than I appeared in "Mash". Each one doing their own thing well but the highest I got was a Registrar who could only say after a day of tests. "You need to see a cardiologist' In BUPA the Cardiolgists did all the tests there and then. Maybe half an hour then a week later joined by an anaesthetist a few nurses a theatre -job done. £4,000 the lot
All fine and dandy if you won't miss £4k.
My point was that it would have cost the NHS more than that. To use maybe 6 or 7 people where one would do seemed like they were spending their money in the wrong places
Yebbut. The NHS needs extra staffing, because if someone is rushed in with a massive coronary, or there's a terrorist they need crash teams on standby permanently. Not saying it's perfect. Far from it. But it's there for emergencies. And it ain't concerned with anyone's bank balance or insurance status should it occur.
Excess capacity - which the NHS needs - doesn’t mean inefficiency which is Roger’s point
I think rogers point is that there are not enough senior decision makers (like yours truly!) so you have to work your way through a filtering process of Specialist Nurses, Physician Assistants and Resident Doctors before you get to the Big Cheesr. These are capable of managing most straightforward conditions.
Such a system of direct access to the top specialists is more expensive, but also limited by numbers. There simply aren't the numbers of us to see everybody immediately.
Didn’t the lower levels of people come in specifically to ration access to the consultant doctor in the first place?
Living somewhere with mostly private healthcare, I can see a specialist for almost anything within a week if I need to, for around £50/20mins, and I have insurance that pays 90% of that so it costs me a fiver.
While recruiting more trainee doctors is clearly a priority, and those training places are currently constrained, should the NHS also be prioritising the hiring of experienced specialists from overseas?
More immigration?
Of doctors, absobloodylutely!
We already bring in so many foreign doctors that it makes it much more difficult for British medicine graduates to get on the training pathways. Hence https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4062
Those two things are not related.
FPT. They are objectively related. It’s ridiculous to suggest they are not. As usual, you don’t have any idea what is going on in Britain from your gulf ivory tower.
One example that made me laugh, was when my godson was told that the medical school of his choice had a sudden shortage of places.
This was because the overseas aid budget was looking at a slight underspend, that year. So they increased the number of full ride scholarships for people from third world countries to study medicine at a UK university. Full overseas fees, so the uni was on it, like a tramp on chips.
I was most impressed by his reaction - no Reform style rants. Just decided to become a diplomat and work for the Foreigner Office, instead.
The Government caps home student fees, but lets universities charge overseas student lots more. Guess which students universities then want?
That is, how you say it? A BINGO!
A modest proposal
1) Back in the day, the military used to offer something like this - you signed up for the Army, Navy or Airforce, while at uni. You got all fees paid and something like £15K a year (this was the 90s). After you finished Uni, you went in as an officer. 2) So, offer the following to UK residents - full ride scholarship, plus yearly support to study medicine. When you finish you are *guaranteed* a training place. You are at the front of the queue. 3) You actually acquire a debt. Which is paid off *for you* over seven years as an actual NHS doctor. You do not, in that time, pay a penny. The amount paid off is back loaded - the last couple of years in the 7 will pay off most of it.
So, the offer is - got to uni, become an NHS doctor. For free - in fact you get enough money that you might not need to work! Provided you do seven years in the NHS. If you quit early, you end up with a proportion of the debt.
OK, but your proposal doesn't address what the fees level should be.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
I think Lemkin's position reflected Lemkin's particular campaign. The notion of "genocide" was always going to evolve from there.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% Peter Kates Labour 425 12% Josie McMaster Green 245 7% Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
A exceptionally weak straw man fallacy. No one else here wants that, and those who behave that way should be prosecuted under our extensive and comprehensive criminal law. Attacking people with a sledgehammer is already illegal.
(Notwithstanding the fact they were found innocent by a jury).
The case is, I think, still subjudice ? There is another charge being brought.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
Which shows just how irrational a section of the left has become. The issue is far more nuanced than Israel Evil, Palestine Good.
Roger and rational! Are you new here?
I presume everyone here is rational, except @squareroot2 obviously.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Dropping "genocide" would you agree that it constituted the collective punishment of the people of Gaza for the Oct 7th atrocity committed by Hamas?
That is essentially the crime both of Hamas and of the IDF, to deliberately kill civillians as a way of putting pressure on political enemies.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Genocide does not require the total extinction of a people.
The Dispaches on Palestine Action on Monday is well worth a watch. It is clear that the reason PA was proscribed was damage to property, and much of the government briefing untrue.
Palantir's ("ELITE—Enhanced Leads Identification & Targeting for Enforcement") use of data collation and mining to identify "targets" for ICE in Minnesota (benefits, license plate, utilities, phone, facial appearance, posts, border crossings back to 1987 information - 23 data sources):
Youtube ads are currently advising me that if I wear bamboo underpants, they will be stroked, then stolen, by my GF. Does this happen?
TBF Youtube ads have previously advised me that my teeth can be made entirely uncrooked at minimal cost in a period of months, that standing on a rug with a metal mesh in it will make Type 2 diabetes vanish, and that 7 minutes a day of relaxed Tai-Chi will give me a six pack in about 30 days.
(My cast iron rule, I'm sure as almost all PBers, is: never buy anything advertised on Youtube.)
My youtube ads are mostly for things I've already bought. The office supplies website I bought a printer from is the current main one.
I bought some laundry baskets from Wayfair. (Non-stop excitement in the Cookie household). For months afterwards, I was bombarded with emails from Wayfair about all their exciting laundry baskets. As far as the Wayfair algorithm understood me, I was monomaniacally obsessed with laundry baskets: buying laundry baskets was my sole interaction with it and as far as it was concerned it was all I did online. It was exhausting*.
*Vast overstatement.
Some people think AI is going to take over the world and yet this is the level of sophistication we get from automated algorithms.
Have you seen who is currently the leader of the free world......
... in part because social media algorithms convinced people of his message.
You mean its not really all the fault of the pesky windmills?
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of five 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'.[14][15] The acts in question include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.[14] Genocide is a crime of special intent (dolus specialis); it is carried out deliberately, with victims targeted based on real or perceived membership in a protected group.[15] The genocides recognised under the 1948 legal definition that led to trials in international criminal tribunals are the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Srebrenica massacre.[11]
It is interesting the Khmer Rouge period is included as a genocide despite it was largely a crime committed by Khmers on other Khmers (ethnic minorities were largely allowed to leave) and presumably not aimed at killing all of them.
Also Srebrenica is recognised as a genocidal act. I think 8,000 died, all Bosniak Muslims (apart from one Croat). While that was a troops-on-the-ground Einsatzcommando type activity it would be exactly the same if they had been bombed or shelled from afar.
Many of the activities of Russia in Ukraine are certainly genocidal, aimed not always at killing Ukrainians but at destroying their culture, eg kidnapping children and bringing them up as Russians
So Genocide has a broader meaning than just the activities of Eichmann and co, in fact that can be regarded as a poor example as the most extreme example in recent (recorded?) history.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
It's important to understand that plain words used in a legal context can very often carry rather more, or rather different implications or meaning than they carry in ordinary discourse.
(Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, but I well understand that from my own experience with contract law.)
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% (-4) Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% (+26) Peter Kates Labour 425 12% (-20) Josie McMaster Green 245 7% (-1) Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% (-2) Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1% (+1)
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
The court noted that there are laws against wielding sledgehammers etc. without resorting to the Terrorism Act 2000.
There are presumably laws against ALL acts that might also be terrorism. I think its illegal to stab people while screaming about Alan's Snack Bar, isn't it?
The law in question here makes it illegal to express support for a group. Under what situations is that extra law appropriate? The Home Secretary has a policy on that which, the court has decided, was not followed.
This will be an interesting test case (hopefully all the way to the Supreme Court) on limits on the exercise of arbitrary Government powers.
In the sense in which I think you mean 'arbitrary powers', I don't think the government has any. That's why I like living in my country.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford council website, so surely definitive.
Paul Belcome Constantine Golding Conservative 1815 52% Elected Andrew Mark Judson Reform UK 917 26% Not elected Peter James Kates Labour 425 12% Not elected Josie McMaster Green Party 245 7% Not elected Kay Kirkham Liberal Democrats 83 2% Not elected Sabine Ebert-Forbes Independent 29 1% Not elected
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford council website, so surely definitive.
Paul Belcome Constantine Golding Conservative 1815 52% Elected Andrew Mark Judson Reform UK 917 26% Not elected Peter James Kates Labour 425 12% Not elected Josie McMaster Green Party 245 7% Not elected Kay Kirkham Liberal Democrats 83 2% Not elected Sabine Ebert-Forbes Independent 29 1% Not elected
Yep. There had been a link floating about on X to a fake result posted this morning
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
A strong piece of evidence for the RNA origin of life.
A small polymerase ribozyme that can synthesize itself and its complementary strand https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt2760 The emergence of a chemical system capable of self-replication and evolution is a critical event in the origin of life. RNA polymerase ribozymes can replicate RNA, but their large size and structural complexity impede self-replication and preclude their spontaneous emergence. Here we describe QT45: a 45-nucleotide polymerase ribozyme, discovered from random sequence pools, that catalyzes general RNA-templated RNA synthesis using trinucleotide triphosphate (triplet) substrates in mildly alkaline eutectic ice. QT45 can synthesize both its complementary strand using a random triplet pool at 94.1% per-nucleotide fidelity, and a copy of itself using defined substrates, both with yields of ~0.2% in 72 days. The discovery of polymerase activity in a small RNA motif suggests that polymerase ribozymes are more abundant in RNA sequence space than previously thought.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
Big hold with over 50%. A relieved Tory HQ score a win in Keighley and Ilkley, Labour total implosion
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
Meanwhile, the Lords are lobbying for another round of planning appeals at Hinckley.
One day, two containment domes and one containment bottom placements: On both #CAP1000 reactor units under construction at #SPIC's #Lianjiang #NPP unit 1 and @CN_Nuclear_Corp's #Xudabao NPP unit 1, the containment was closed yesterday.
On the same day, the bottom containment part of #SPIC's #Bailong NPP unit 1 was put in place.
Lianjiang-1 is in the 29th month of construction. Xudabao-1 is in the 28th month of construction. Bailong-1 is in the 2nd month of construction. https://x.com/realTZV/status/2022024250048057604
Comments
I personally think that Parliament should legislate the test of proportionality (if any) in the relevant laws and not leave it ambiguous. Lazy drafting.
I wouldn't have described any of PA's acts as terrorism, but that's a different question.
I will always defend Labour but when they are fundamentally wrong, I will say so.
That I think is one of the key divisions v left and right.
Right blind alliegence almost brain washed lack of questioning and intellectual thought.
Left alliegence but not blind and questioning and challenging. more demanding.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly?
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
A modest proposal
1) Back in the day, the military used to offer something like this - you signed up for the Army, Navy or Airforce, while at uni. You got all fees paid and something like £15K a year (this was the 90s). After you finished Uni, you went in as an officer.
2) So, offer the following to UK residents - full ride scholarship, plus yearly support to study medicine. When you finish you are *guaranteed* a training place. You are at the front of the queue.
3) You actually acquire a debt. Which is paid off *for you* over seven years as an actual NHS doctor. You do not, in that time, pay a penny. The amount paid off is back loaded - the last couple of years in the 7 will pay off most of it.
So, the offer is - got to uni, become an NHS doctor. For free - in fact you get enough money that you might not need to work! Provided you do seven years in the NHS. If you quit early, you end up with a proportion of the debt.
If you read the judgement you’ll understand that the case hinges on the Home Office policy, not the legislation. It’s that policy which the court found constrained the use of the power. It will be interesting to see whether the case is appealed on the interpretation of that policy, or on a general point of law on the exercise of powers. They are different things.
So many people on here making comments about this without understanding the first thing about what judicial review is and its constraints.
No. They have not been arrested for holding a sign opposing genocide, its entirely for the latter.
But it is also true that the SoS can be challenged WRT the reality of the belief, the correctness of the belief and the reasonableness of the belief. But at least the act probably dissuades a SoS from proscribing our local badminton club.
For example, university costs fees. You borrow money for it. From a proper company, not the student loan company. But then over the couse of the next decade, if you pay tax, that tax goes towards repaying the fees.
If you go off to Dubai and contribute to their economy, that's fine - but you have to pay the fees back yourself.
At the moment, we are incentivising are brightest to get educated at our expense and then leave. We should be doing the opposite.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
I have no knowledge or view as to whether or not the court here has got it right. It simply strikes me as eminently justiciable whether the Minister got it right standing the declared policy.
However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
The Dispaches on Palestine Action on Monday is well worth a watch. It is clear that the reason PA was proscribed was damage to property, and much of the government briefing untrue.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/palestine-action-the-truth-behind-the-ban
The damage at the Elbit factories and similar could have been prosecuted under laws on Criminal Damage with no need to proscribe.
It didn't go much noticed here that the Filton 6 were found Not Guilty a week or so back.
https://bsky.app/profile/joenoonan.bsky.social/post/3mdzxusvouc2o
We do not have a doctrine of judicial infallibility.
https://x.com/i/status/2022282336184713491
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52%
Andrew Judson Reform 917 26%
Peter Kates Labour 425 12%
Josie McMaster Green 245 7%
Kay Kirkham LD 83 2%
Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
There is another charge being brought.
https://theramm.substack.com/p/ice-agents-drew-shapes-on-a-map-to
Hold with no significant change in share and well above current ward GE prediction on a good turnout. Theyll take it happily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
Legal definition of genocide
The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of five 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'.[14][15] The acts in question include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.[14] Genocide is a crime of special intent (dolus specialis); it is carried out deliberately, with victims targeted based on real or perceived membership in a protected group.[15] The genocides recognised under the 1948 legal definition that led to trials in international criminal tribunals are the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Srebrenica massacre.[11]
It is interesting the Khmer Rouge period is included as a genocide despite it was largely a crime committed by Khmers on other Khmers (ethnic minorities were largely allowed to leave) and presumably not aimed at killing all of them.
Also Srebrenica is recognised as a genocidal act. I think 8,000 died, all Bosniak Muslims (apart from one Croat). While that was a troops-on-the-ground Einsatzcommando type activity it would be exactly the same if they had been bombed or shelled from afar.
Many of the activities of Russia in Ukraine are certainly genocidal, aimed not always at killing Ukrainians but at destroying their culture, eg kidnapping children and bringing them up as Russians
So Genocide has a broader meaning than just the activities of Eichmann and co, in fact that can be regarded as a poor example as the most extreme example in recent (recorded?) history.
(Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, but I well understand that from my own experience with contract law.)
Labour imploded, Tories held relatively steady. Lab to Ref
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Contingencies_Act_2004
Paul Belcome Constantine Golding Conservative 1815 52% Elected
Andrew Mark Judson Reform UK 917 26% Not elected
Peter James Kates Labour 425 12% Not elected
Josie McMaster Green Party 245 7% Not elected
Kay Kirkham Liberal Democrats 83 2% Not elected
Sabine Ebert-Forbes Independent 29 1% Not elected
Sorry; duplication.
There had been a link floating about on X to a fake result posted this morning
https://peterhyman21.substack.com/p/8-reasons-why-the-cabinet-secretary
A small polymerase ribozyme that can synthesize itself and its complementary strand
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt2760
The emergence of a chemical system capable of self-replication and evolution is a critical event in the origin of life. RNA polymerase ribozymes can replicate RNA, but their large size and structural complexity impede self-replication and preclude their spontaneous emergence. Here we describe QT45: a 45-nucleotide polymerase ribozyme, discovered from random sequence pools, that catalyzes general RNA-templated RNA synthesis using trinucleotide triphosphate (triplet) substrates in mildly alkaline eutectic ice. QT45 can synthesize both its complementary strand using a random triplet pool at 94.1% per-nucleotide fidelity, and a copy of itself using defined substrates, both with yields of ~0.2% in 72 days. The discovery of polymerase activity in a small RNA motif suggests that polymerase ribozymes are more abundant in RNA sequence space than previously thought.
Who is she ?
One day, two containment domes and one containment bottom placements: On both #CAP1000 reactor units under construction at #SPIC's #Lianjiang #NPP unit 1 and
@CN_Nuclear_Corp's #Xudabao NPP unit 1, the containment was closed yesterday.
On the same day, the bottom containment part of #SPIC's #Bailong NPP unit 1 was put in place.
Lianjiang-1 is in the 29th month of construction.
Xudabao-1 is in the 28th month of construction.
Bailong-1 is in the 2nd month of construction.
https://x.com/realTZV/status/2022024250048057604