I agree with most of that but the article I was replying to was about the Lawyer accused of being in Contempt of Court.
The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Wandering Yid
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Yes it was that, that sparked my comment. Keeping the jury in the dark as to the real charges and prosecuting the defence lawyer for guiding the jury in the law contrary to the States wishes. Outrageous and presumably possible because of the Terrorism Act 2000.
One of the main planks of the present governments arguments is using the defence industry to boost the UK economy and of course protect Israel's massive entrenched presence in the British Arms Industry. So clearly they are sensitive to anything that damages that, at whatever cost in human lives it seems.
Last edited:
It was just a judge over-stepping. The appeal court threw it out. No Law has been changed
According to Google AI...The judge was able to refer to Contempt of Court Act 1981, ruling evidence inadmissible (relevance/prejudice test), the Terrorism Act 2000 and Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA)
In my humble opinion it was a massive overreach which probably came from pressure applied by one or both of two places: either UK Government or the Defence companies supplying the IDF and other Israeli Forces.
To consider that merely revealing the defendants motives in court would breach UK national security is fanciful. The fact that it would shed light on the shady contractual arrangements of these companies is fa more likely. However, from my personal knowledge, the latter would be difficult (probably impossible) to justify under the Official Secrets Act.
I didn't know it had been thrown out. Very glad to hear that however, as of May 2026, the UK government is actively proposing significant changes to both terrorism legislation and the structure of jury trials. Changes to the law in direct response to public protest which does not suit the agenda of this government. I accept that in itself is not new, that's what governments do, however they already abuse the powers of the terrorism act, in my view, as I illustrated with the attack on the 3 men by a known deranged individual being designated terrorism thereby enabling the more Draconian powers in the 2000 act. Now they want to widen and strengthen these powers. The independence of the judiciary has been vital in the protection the ordinary citizen in a country without a written constitution. The direction of this government and to some extent the population, especially in England, is towards fascism as we once again follow America.
IMO this is government trying to hang on to their powers which is being eroded as the public become less reliant on MSM for their news. We have many independent news sources now and the whole world can see itself. The establishment hate that. The establishments everywhere although countries like China and Russia already have such laws in place their systems are designed for it.
I suppose China has adopted capitalist methods and is becoming more like the West and the West are trying to adopt more population control and becoming more like the so-called communist states in political control
Here's one thing that does spring to mind: when a couple of People With Legitimate Concerns set fire to Peacehaven mosque last November, with at least two worshippers inside when they did so, there was no COBRA meeting about that and the perpetrators were charged with arson rather than under terror offences
Now hang on...
There is little doubt that offences against Jews and Synagogues are treated more seriously than those against Muslims and Mosques but that has always been true historically.
Angela Rayner cleared of all accusations of dodging stamp duty by the HMRC
By complete coincidence, this is now all that Starmer can hear...
By complete coincidence, this is now all that Starmer can hear...
You must log in or register to see media
So at the end of a well reasoned argument about draconian powers you then essentially ask for the government to have more draconian powers to lock people up. This guy is likely 'roaming the streets' because he has served his sentence for previous crimes and doesn't meet the criteria for being sectioned for mental health.
It raises different issues.
Extra powers are not needed.
The existing ones need to be applied properly. This is not happening because the mental health services - like most public services - are underfunded and unable to function satisfactorily.
There have been a number of high profile instances of seriously mentally ill people committing violent crimes. This is another example, it seems. The one in Nottingham where three people were killed by a paranoid schizophrenia, who should have been sectioned, is perhaps the most well known.
The issue, as Spurf rightly says, is why these people are not being detained under the MHA because they are a danger to themselves and others. Dressing the issue up as terrorism is wide of the mark. Having meetings about how to properly fund these services so they have the resources to do their jobs properly is what the government should be doing. Then dangerous people wouldn’t be living in their communities free to commit acts of this nature. They would be detained and looked after and society would be safer.
Guess who's back in Private Eye?
...and it doesn't even mention Gavin Barwell's nepo baby slithering onto the council in spite having an advertising hoarding where his forehead should be
...and it doesn't even mention Gavin Barwell's nepo baby slithering onto the council in spite having an advertising hoarding where his forehead should be
You must log in or register to see images
You are both calling for more mentally ill people to be sectioned but I really doubt that guy met the criteria. In my opinion the Government is right to use it's powers of detention sparingly and it would be very worrying to me if more people were locked up. The balance between individual freedoms and protecting the community is very tricky to get right but I think we generally err too much on the authoritarian side already.
Powell's famous diatribe in opposition to the impending Race Relations Act is normally summarised in the single 'title' quote you allude to.
Ironically, in Isolation, if simply focused on the dangers to community and societal cohesion by an imbalance of immigration, then that phrase although inflammatory and hyperbolic, is not the worst aspects of his oration.
Far more troubling and more a betrayal of the more overtly racist nature of his opinions, is his willingness to quote and sympathise with the ill-perceived and xenophobic utterances of his constituents and the like.
Farage is undoubtedly the Powell of his day in many ways, and is able to manipulate media and public that was not possible in the '60's but he does lack both the intelligence and gravitas of the elder 'statesman'. For that we should be extremely grateful as it may well be his downfall.
Presumably he didn't meet the criteria that's why he was free. The question is, should somebody who has stabbed 3 people on the street be freely walking about. If he was unknown to the authorities then it's understandable, however in this case authority has spoken and they did know him. That implies a dysfunction in the system of care for potentially dangerous individuals.
Personally I think we have too many people locked up for the wrong reasons but surely people who are prone to violently attack random strangers are top of any list of who SHOULD be locked up. Locking up does not have to be a 6 foot cell and bread and water BTW, it can be a caring and pleasant enviroment and IMO opinion that's what it should be. The idea of care in the community has only ever been about saving money and has not been about seriously trying to help people with mental health issues.
So, yeah, this is clearly intimidation
In the original image, Farage left the name, photo and NUJ number of the journalist for all his followers to see
In the original image, Farage left the name, photo and NUJ number of the journalist for all his followers to see
You must log in or register to see images
One of my brothers was sectioned 3 years ago in The Bethlem for 2 months following a suicide attempt.
I attended all of his psyche evaluations. I can tell you that that place was ****ing scary. People screaming and shouting, coming up to me asking for money, my phone, food, cigarettes, etc. (mostly in a pretty threatening manner). It was all too apparent why the word 'bedlam' came into being.
Nobody who doesn't have to be in there would want to go within a mile of it. My brother was no risk to anyone else, but was certainly at risk from other occupants. There was a 3 or 4 day wait in hospital while a space was found for him. It's 1out, 1 in, because these places are overrun, as are the prisons and hospitals.
In her police days, my wife committed 6 officers per day to provide round the clock observation of a minor in hospital, who was a significant threat to herself... because there was nowhere for her to go for 2 weeks. That's 84 working days and a desperately needed bed in a single room...and this is repeated all over the country.
It's a ****ing mess.
The whole system is in crisis. The only surprise is that this type of incident doesn't happen more often.
Last edited:
