What like the Suffrsgettes? Or The Chartists or CND or the Greenhan common women or the Sheffield Outrages? We actually have less dissent than ever it’s just through a prism of social media. 40 years ago the police were baton charging my dad and others at Orgreave 80 odd years ago the world was at war. A hundred odd years ago the world was at war.
Whilst I don’t condone what Palestine action did at Brize Norton, it was criminal damage and not terrorism. I don’t see much difference between what they did and what the suffragettes did.
Just seen a protest on line in Leeds against immigrants and they were waving the union flag behind the speaker and it was upside down.pathetic patriots.
And the 60s. Apart from 1968 which was "the summer of love". Student riots in France, race riots in the USA. Can't think of any in the UK though, but I'm sure there were some.
The suffragettes actually did commit acts of domestic terror. They fire bombed theatres and letter bombed the homes of MPs and those who opposed them.
In the words of Paul Weller... 'What you see is what you get You've made your bed, you'd better lie in it You choose your leaders and place your trust As their lies wash you down and their promises rust You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns And the public wants what the public gets' Nowt changes.
In the words of Joe Strummer and Mick Jones ‘If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they’d send a limousine anyway’
The judicial review of whether the proscription was lawful will be very interesting. It would appear to make sense to adjourn all prosecutions arising from Saturday (and any subsequent demonstrations) until after the JR is heard. If the proscription is struck down, then presumably all the prosecutions will fall.
Cooper won't walk. She won't get sacked either. There's too much riding on it for the govt I suspect so they'll double down on their views whatever the outcome. 'The court has made a serious error' type stuff. It wont be the 'terrorism' of Palestine Action - it will be the misapplication of the law by the courts.
I'm quite sure that she has acted in good faith, but will accept the view of the court should it go against the government. Should she feel strongly that the High Court has got it wrong, she would be able to appeal to the Court of Appeal and/or the Supreme Court. Ultimately, if she feels that an adverse judgement is wrong after all available avenues of appeal she would have the option of persuading the Cabinet that the government should legislate to amend the law. I think that to state she should resign if the case goes against her rather reflects the simplistic knee-jerk type of debate our politics has been reduced to. I'm sure she'll give it all a lot of thought and act accordingly, bearing in mind the comments contained in any judgements handed down.