Palestine Action

[Lurker#3]

I was knocking around Westminster/the strand/Trafalgar square where it was all going on last weekend. There was more than a minority there invoking hatred and pushing quite a disturbing narrative. Lots of death to Jews being chanted. Lots of gazebos trying to convert people to islam  when they were just trying to show support for dying kids.

It's not always the righteous, moral thing  that people try and make out and get outraged when there arrests. Of course there were thousands protesting peacefully and in good taste, but even they got whipped up a few times.

One of those things is (rightfully) illegal and the other happens on Birmingham New Street every day, so I'm not sure why you are conflating the two.

I am not conflating them, Squid. They were 2 very different points. But both groups were hijacking the moment and protest for their own agendas. I hate anybody that does that in any walk of life let alone when it's something as serious and as upsetting as non combatants being killed on a daily basis in a heart breaking war.

[tHEgLASSdOORS]

With Lurker. It’s crass and opportunistic.

[Hughie Reed 31]

How did these clowns manage to get off from the charges
One idiot clearly swinging a sledgehammer not guilty
The worlds gone Tom

[Pontificator]

from a KC on X

The acquittals were not based on sympathy for Gaza.
If they had been, the jury would likely have acquitted on all charges, which did not happen.


Aggravated burglary:
The prosecution needed to prove the sledgehammer was taken with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm.
The defence argued self-defence, claiming the defendants were surprised by the security guards’ reaction.


The jury did not accept self-defence, but the acquittals suggest they were not sure there was intent to use the sledgehammer against a person.
That is a reasonable jury conclusion given the burden of proof.


Violent disorder:
Lesser participants were acquitted, suggesting the jury was not sure the purpose was to engage in a large-scale fight.
No verdict was reached for the two alleged ringleaders, indicating jury disagreement over their involvement.


A re-trial hearing is scheduled for 18 February.
The author would be dismayed if the CPS did not seek a retrial, but has little confidence in the outcome.


Overall conclusion:
This was not a verdict endorsing criminal damage “for Gaza”.
While individual jurors may have held such views, the verdicts themselves do not support that interpretation, and claims to the contrary repeat misleading, ideological narratives rather than the facts.

[CIM]

Nutcases like Zack Polanski jubilant that someone broke a policewomans back with a sledgehammer and is allowed to walk free. We live in dangerous times with people willing to vote for the likes of him and Farage. Dangerous extremists.

[baggy1]

Whether or not the intent upon taking the sledgehammer was to inflict injury, the fact that it was used by the individual means that they should have a conviction for ABH, and probably GBH, and some jail time as a minimum at this point. It makes a mockery of jury trials if that isn't the outcome.

[Hughie Reed 31]

from a KC on X

The acquittals were not based on sympathy for Gaza.
If they had been, the jury would likely have acquitted on all charges, which did not happen.


Aggravated burglary:
The prosecution needed to prove the sledgehammer was taken with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm.
The defence argued self-defence, claiming the defendants were surprised by the security guards’ reaction.


The jury did not accept self-defence, but the acquittals suggest they were not sure there was intent to use the sledgehammer against a person.
That is a reasonable jury conclusion given the burden of proof.


Violent disorder:
Lesser participants were acquitted, suggesting the jury was not sure the purpose was to engage in a large-scale fight.
No verdict was reached for the two alleged ringleaders, indicating jury disagreement over their involvement.


A re-trial hearing is scheduled for 18 February.
The author would be dismayed if the CPS did not seek a retrial, but has little confidence in the outcome.


Overall conclusion:
This was not a verdict endorsing criminal damage “for Gaza”.
While individual jurors may have held such views, the verdicts themselves do not support that interpretation, and claims to the contrary repeat misleading, ideological narratives rather than the facts.

Utter bollocks
If I took a sledgehammer up the Albion on Saturday
I would be nicked and charged with carrying a dangerous weapon
With intent of causing grievous bodily harm
And you know it.

[igorbalis]

from a KC on X

The acquittals were not based on sympathy for Gaza.
If they had been, the jury would likely have acquitted on all charges, which did not happen.


Aggravated burglary:
The prosecution needed to prove the sledgehammer was taken with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm.
The defence argued self-defence, claiming the defendants were surprised by the security guards’ reaction.


The jury did not accept self-defence, but the acquittals suggest they were not sure there was intent to use the sledgehammer against a person.
That is a reasonable jury conclusion given the burden of proof.


Violent disorder:
Lesser participants were acquitted, suggesting the jury was not sure the purpose was to engage in a large-scale fight.
No verdict was reached for the two alleged ringleaders, indicating jury disagreement over their involvement.


A re-trial hearing is scheduled for 18 February.
The author would be dismayed if the CPS did not seek a retrial, but has little confidence in the outcome.


Overall conclusion:
This was not a verdict endorsing criminal damage “for Gaza”.
While individual jurors may have held such views, the verdicts themselves do not support that interpretation, and claims to the contrary repeat misleading, ideological narratives rather than the facts.

Utter bollocks
If I took a sledgehammer up the Albion on Saturday
I would be nicked and charged with carrying a dangerous weapon
With intent of causing grievous bodily harm
And you know it.

That depends on your motive surely?