How apt is the Banksy painting today in light of the sentencing of the #Filton4

The reason there was shock and upset about the appropriately heavy sentencing for the Palestine Action thugs is because these ppl assumed they’d get away with it. About half the time they do. Hopefully that will change now.

But the other three didn’t - and the one who did wasn’t convicted of intentionally doing so. The terrorism sentencing added on without telling the jury should be seen as an outrage for anyone interested in basic British liberty and fairness.

"b-but judges' ability to add 'terrorist connections' during sentencing is in the 20120/21 Acts!" We know it is, eejits - we're saying it shouldn't be! A charge added after trial can't be defended. It trashes the core principle of trial by peers that protects due process. 🙄

There are lots of people on here drinking the security services Kool Aid over the sentencing of the Filton Four. They believe the judge was right to overturn the jury's decision to convict four anti-genocide activists of criminal damage and make it a terrorism offence instead, overturning centuries of legal precedent. Why? Because, they claim, the four activists broke / smashed / shattered a police woman's spine. But that obviously can't be the explanation because three of the activists had nothing to do with that incident and yet they were convicted as terrorists by the judge anyway. Even Samuel Corner, the activist who was convicted over this incident (which left the police woman with a minor fracture, according to the medical authorities who testified), shouldn't have been sentenced as a terrorist for it because that is not what the jury, which heard the actual evidence, decided. The jury convicted Samuel Corner of grievous bodily harm *without intent*. The prosecution had charged him with GBH *with intent* because they needed that as his conviction to build a public mood in support of the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. If Corner could be presented as having entered Israel's Elbit weapons factory with intent to commit violence, then the implication would be that the other activists were in on that plan – a conspiracy – and the government would be off the hook of violating fundamental legal norms by proscribing Palestine Action. By stripping out intent, the jury pulled the rug from under the government's feet. Judge Johnson's task was put the rug firmly back in place by riding roughshod over the jury's decision and sentencing them as terrorists anyway. The timing couldn't be more convenient. On Monday, the Appeal Court will be deciding on the government's appeal against the High Court declaring its proscription of Palestine Action unlawful. If you're peddling the "But they smashed the back of a police woman" line you've been fed by the Daily Mail and BBC, it's because that is exactly what the government needs you spouting as it upends our age-old rights to jury trials, as it stamps out an honourable tradition of direct action dating back to the Suffragettes and before, and as it gives itself cover for continuing complicity in a genocide. Stop being a cuck. Don't fall for this psy-op.

I spent all day in Woolwich Crown Court yesterday for the Filton activists' sentencing hearing with my colleague @daniaakkad. The court heard that the Terrorism Act was never intended to cover direct action protest. It heard that all of the defendants had been cleared of violent intent and sentencing them as terrorists would mark a historic first for charges of criminal damage. It heard that the Suffragettes, who did "a bit of smashing themselves", would have been labelled as terrorists but have now been vindicated by history. It heard the activists' goal was to stop the supply chain of drones and weaponry to Israel as it commits genocide in Gaza. It heard that attaching a terrorism connection to a case without it ever being heard by a jury was unconstitutional and posed a threat to the criminal justice system itself. It heard that the "terrorism connection" has been disproportionately used against minority groups and those advocating for them while not being used for neo-Nazis and white supremacists, including the man who killed Jo Cox MP. It heard that the law has been reinterpreted since the action took place, meaning the activists could have had no idea that what they did could have been caught up in terrorism laws at the time of the protest. It heard that the prosecution submitted key evidence just eight days before the hearing, giving the defence no time to review it or even discuss it with their clients. Despite all of this, Judge Jeremy Johnson, who has already tried to refer the defence's lead barrister for contempt of court and been forced to apologise for it, sentenced the defendants as terrorists. The judgment was handed down within minutes, indicating Judge Johnson had already made his mind up before the hearing had begun. Being in court yesterday felt akin to witnessing a colonial crime: punishing activists with terrorism offences in order to set a precedent that taking direct action to stop a UK-backed genocide will not be tolerated.

Why can't they be charged under terror legislation if that will be the basis of their sentencing? It's because no jury would ever convict people on this confected, political nonsense

Sentencing the Innocent - Judge Johnson had proven his fascist credentials through rulings much earlier in the Filton trial than his vicious sentencing. Indeed, He had arguably already shown them when he released Tommy Robinson from a prison sentence, or craigmurray.org.uk/archives/…

It's NOT WITHIN THE JURY'S REMIT to determine the trifold criteria for Terrorism; they had to find every presented admissible defence to Criminal Damage & GBH was neither mitigating nor exculpatory. IF IT WERE Direct Terrorism Charges you'd be right; BUT NOT aggravated sentencing

Normal people, watching the judge read out the sentencing yesterday.

Colorado Dems blocked a bill that proposed life sentences 4 adults caught sex traficking children California Dems voted down 3 strikes u r out pedo law Washington state sentencing guidelines comm(d) recommend reduced sentences 4 adults caught in online underage sex stings

The sentencing of young direct action protesters for “terrorism”, a grave crime for which they were never charged is a monstrous miscarriage of justice, a carbuncle on the face of a formerly admired face. The face of British justice.