So as good as their word, after 18 people protested outside New Scotland Yard with placards reading 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action' they have all been arrested by the Metropolitan Police.
They will now of course find themselves in a sort of legal limbo as charges will be dropped (indeed rendered null & void) if the appeal by the Govt. fails to overturn the judgement that the proscription of Palestine Action was itself illegal.
h/t Guardian
@Oldfartrant What needs to happen is the immediate arrest of Netanyahu, followed by a trial for crimes against humanity. He needs to spend the rest of his life in prison.
It is absurd that the Met is enforcing a law found to to be unconstitutional.
Sure it's under appeal, but then the arrests can wait until after the appeal.
There is no reason, the Met couldn't issue a caution and leave them.
see answer to @NicelyManifest just now... you are right the Met have chosen to arrest (after initially pausing then off ours changing their minds) - I see the shadowy hand of the Home Office behind this
@ChrisMayLA6 @TCatInReality @NicelyManifest
... and how many decades have passed where (some of us) have viewed the police as corrupt tools of the establishment ?
we can add the 2020s to that list.
@NicelyManifest @ChrisMayLA6 @TCatInReality
in a previous life I worked in one of the Hillsborough inquiries - I saw first hand how corrupt the police are .. in that case the South Yorkshire Police
@rapsneezy @NicelyManifest @ChrisMayLA6
Haven't Hillsborough, the Catholic Church scandals and Epstein proved enough times over that prioritising the institution's reputation is a bad idea?
@TCatInReality @rapsneezy @ChrisMayLA6 The institutions and the public know so. But the power sustaining this deeply flawed bias is in the wrong hands.
Democracy largely fails the public - even the vital matter of 'trust in representatives' is rarely held or sustained. So we need to think beyond representative democracy.
And you know for sure the system will not drive that possibility.
@NicelyManifest @rapsneezy @ChrisMayLA6
My view of democracy has been shaken by a book called "Against Elections".
In short, our current forms of representative democracy put way too much power in the hands of elected reps - effectively making an elected aristocracy. This is ripe for corruption, disconnect from the public and lack of expertise.
The book argues for splitting apart functions, elections to much narrower roles and much greater use of sortition (ie, citizen roles like juries)
@TCatInReality @rapsneezy @ChrisMayLA6 Sounds interesting - I love to read about many things, not least fighting power - such as the public action taken to eventually push Milosovic into fleeing his dictatorship ...
If it is too easy for a system to be corrupted then another path is needed or the system must be re-engineered.
For example, regular public involvement in politics. Like a public 'jury' that can challenge matters in debating chambers.
@NicelyManifest @TCatInReality @ChrisMayLA6
I did find NN Taleb's ideas interesting.
1. Centralisation of power definitely attracts corruption and subversion. The UK is one of the most centralised of western democracies. French mayors have a lot more power.
2. Distance from your citizens. Remote politicians and civil servants, mean their decisions have little personal consequence for them. Personal consequences - skin in the game - leads to better decisions. Lead from front, not back.
@rapsneezy @ChrisMayLA6 @TCatInReality How fascinating! It is such a bitter repeated insult to harmed people - as much so with Grenfell also - that denial is dragged out sooooo long.
Systems of power start inquiries into matters that need no inquiry as precedent already set - and drag these inquiries out forever then fail to implement the findings.
Repeated way way too often in my opinion.
@ChrisMayLA6 So false arrest.
Are there no pro-bono legal people who can support them?
No, while the appeal is still running the High Court explicitly said the proscription would stand... thus, if the law is rendered null, the charges will be too, but the arrests were legitimate (in a legal sense, not a moral one) under the law existing on the day. It will be an interesting issue of retrospective application of the law, but I imagine there will be a way round any accusations of false arrest - although it would be fun if this doesn't get into the final judgement
@ChrisMayLA6 That's not my understanding. Yes, the proscription reasons in place pending an appeal. But unless the High Court judgment is overturned in appeal, the ban is void ab initio, and all the arrests are illegal, including today's arrests.
Because in the case the Govt. was given the leave to appeal, and I imagine the Judge thought it would be less disruptive to have the law change & then be changed back if the Govt. win its appeal.
@ChrisMayLA6 I agree with Chris on this point. It's common for implementation to be delayed until the appeals process is complete, to avoid a cycle of actions swinging back and forth between legality and illegality.
@ChrisMayLA6 @2legged But it favours possibility over current certainty.
Logistics favouring the guilty in this instance.
@NicelyManifest A judgment under appeal is not certain. If it was certain, then there would be a huge problem.
Do you not think that if the Govt.'s appeal fails, part of that judgement will be a measure to ensure the police are not exposed to what would be a large number of cases of false arrest?
@ChrisMayLA6 I'm sure the government would love such a getout!
But I don't see any legal basis for a getout. If the prescription was void ab initio (as the High Court found), then police actions under its provisions were illegal.
I see no basis for finding that the ban was initially legal, but somehow became illegal. If it was illegal all along, it would be outrageous for courts to just say "tough luck" to arrestees. But the govt probably wants thst denial of rights.
Well, in that case (and I don't dispute you argument), there may be some difficult cases for th Police & the Home Office, as I imagine the Met will suddenly find they were required by the Home Office to make the arrests... leaving it open for a compensation scheme - perhaps?
@ChrisMayLA6 Yes, compensation claims are inevitable if the ban is finally overturned. And because of the severe consequences of the "terrorist" label, damages may be non-trivial.
There will be some big internal debates about the composition, but the givt would be very foolish to fight with the cops on this. Many of the cops were very unhappy about the arrests, but remsined loyal to govt. Dumping blame and costs on cops would do huge damage to that #MetPol—govt relationship.
@2legged @ChrisMayLA6 @NicelyManifest
I dont know all the legal niceties, but when IPP (imprisonment for public protection) was judged unlawful in 2012, those already sentenced since 2005 were still detained - on the basis that it wasnt unlawful until judged unlawful
There are still people detained on #ipp as far as I know (certainly were last year)
Its a disgraceful, situation and remains unresolved afaik
So, yes, I wouldnt be surprised to see some vindictive legal manoeuvring by govt
@OliverNoble I too dunno the legal niceties of that. But it raises an interesting set of unusual dilemmas.
Hhow do you re-sentence someone years after the event? The original trial judge may dead, and certainly won't be up to speed on that case. It's hard to even apply a crie formula, the sentence was basically "ai dinno, so leep it under ongoing review".
Emeritus Prof Christopher May
Daniel Durrans
Doug 🌈🇨🇦 
Veronica Olsen
Fluffy Kitty Cat
TC Won't Give In To Lies
Sneezy
Neil Moffatt
Claire McNab
Oli
Dan Sloane