A British judge has sentenced four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists, handing them custodial sentences ranging from four to eight years.
The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.
In a preliminary ruling in March 2025, Johnson found an “appearance” of a terrorism connection in the case, as he said the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. This information was withheld from the jury who convicted them.
the UK is officially a shithole country now
Fascism has been achieved
Adding an offence later in the case and withholding information to a jury has to be grounds a mistrial.
Zionism overrules all other laws, it would seem.
Free the Palestine Action prisoners!
Remove the shameful judge!
Looks like they are one step behind the US and catching up fast.
In terms of personal rights suppression, the UK is already miles ahead.
I guess one day we’ll all just be cogs in Elon’s machine with no rights whatsoever. I was hoping to die before then but it’s going fast.
Fucking Mosley must be laughing right now from hell.
I know that image from The Wall movie, but I guess it’s also its own piece given the signature. That watercolor sky is absolutely beautiful.
Looks like sugar water painting.
Didn’t know that was a thing. Very cool.
I’m working through a book on sculpting while learning Blender. It’s been surprisingly difficult to get the proportions correct when I print the studies.
Fucking Mosley must be laughing right now from hell.
Why would he? Was he Palestinian advocate?
No because fascism is manifesting heavily long after he’s dead.
“Unprecedented”?
The English courts have been sentencing civilians as terrorists for centuries.
Such a standard to be met:
He added that those convicted acted “for the purpose of advancing a political and/or ideological cause”.
Guess the legal system has no standards.
I thought the standard was " the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons."?
How does wanting to disarm a foreign government terrorism?? By that logic the entirety of the UK government is a bunch of terrorists for wanting to disarm uh Russia and Iran I assume?
UK has stopped making sense a long time ago
The only terrorist I see is the judge. They should be extradited to Hamas for trial.
If you do anything to oppose genocide you’re a terrorist. If you support genocide the red carpet is rolled out for you in the West.
If you support genocide the red carpet is rolled out for you.
FTFY
The only terrorists are the regime of the UK that support actual terrorists and choose to terrorize their own citizens to protect them.
So i can’t use hammer to brutally beat police officer ? Facism has good day ahead
Daily reminder that the Middle East Eye refuses to disclose it’s owner, which is extremely suspicious. That’s because the Middle East Eye is directly run by Qatar’s embassy in London.
Next time, please at least quote The Guardian or another British media outlet.
Is Israel committing genocide?
That’s because the Middle East Eye is directly run by Qatar’s embassy in London.
Citation needed.
Also, please elaborate on exactly why, even if it were true, that would be so fucking scary.
Jesus christ, every time with this guy. Can you please try not to be so fucking obvious? The guardian is just as biased as MEE, the only difference is that their bias is in favor of Israel instead. You sound like a raging islamophobe btw.
News is the UKs worst export and that’s fucking saying something.
Are you suggesting Middle East Eye is secretly run by Zionists or Israel itself in an effort to further drive antisemitism? Similar to the way Evangelical Christianity grows stronger the more its adherents feel persecuted, one of the goals of Zionism is to increase antisemitic sentiment to make more Jewish people feel they have no safe place in the world other than to move to Israel? Interesting, I hadn’t considered this. /s?
The OWNER has been disclosed, it’s the source of FUNDING being obscured. But considering who owns it, the Qatari connection absolutely makes sense:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09814915
"1 officer / 0 resignations
BESSASSO, Jamal Awn Jamal
Correspondence address7th Floor, 1 Sussex Place, Hammersmith, London, England, W6 9EA
Role ActiveDirectorDate of birthDecember 1969Appointed on8 October 2015
NationalityDutchCountry of residenceUnited Kingdom
Identity verification due21 October 2026"
So who is Jamal Awn Jamal Bessasso? Well…
Former director of planning and human resources for Al Jazeera in… wait for it… Qatar.
Al Jazeera, as good as they are, has a notable blind spot with Qatar due to THEIR funding, most folks recognize that, so it makes sense MEE would be the same.
This doesn’t mean either source is necessarily out of line when reporting non-Qatari interests, but definitely grain of salt worthy otherwise.
Didn’t they break a cop’s back? “Middle East Eye” isn’t mentioning that because it’s not exactly an unbiased source of information. They’re just innocent “protesters” LOL.
Using violence to achieve a political goal is pretty much the definition of terrorism. Using violence to influence a government is terrorism. It would be bias for the judge to grant some kind of exemption simply because the government involved is Israel.
They were doing violence (broke a person’s back) to influence the British government’s relationship with Israel. That’s terrorism.
Consider expanding your sources of information beyond sites that are giving incomplete information with the goal of making you feel angry.
“They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.
Your tirade about violence is quite silly actually, because it’s far too indiscriminate. The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*). Placing them in the same category as motherfucking ISIS is simply making a mockery of the principle of proportionality, which is a cornerstone of any liberal democracy.
(*) The incident with the policewoman is not indicative of their modus operandi. They did not hope to affect political change by injuring police officers, the same way that, say ISIS used murder as a political tool of terror. It’s the difference between murder and manslaughter.
“They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.
“They” were more than four people. There were eight others involved that were acquitted. Again, read some more news sources.
The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*)
How do you know the mindset of these people better than a jury of their peers that saw all of the evidence?
Also in many places it is first degree murder (not manslaughter) if you accidentally kill someone while in the commission of another crime. Modus operandi kinda goes out the window when you’re already engaged in a crime and that results in other crimes.
The intent of the original crime (property destruction) was to influence the government. That intent can be transferred to other crimes they committed (the acts of violence) while doing the original crime. Their intent was to influence the government. They committed crimes and violence happened during the commission of those crimes. The original intent applies to the violent crimes they committed. The intent of the violence was to influence the government.
Anyway it obviously was enough to convince a jury of their peers.
Pro-tip: if you’re going out to do crimes to try to influence the government, maybe refrain from hitting a policewoman multiple times with a fucking sledgehammer. I’m not going to be crying over someone that does something like that going to prison for a long time.
Not sure if you noticed but this is not the US. UK law doesn’t have a felony murder rule, intent to commit one crime (property destruction) doesn’t automatically transfer to another (killing) if violence occurs.
If someone dies during an unlawful act like arson, it’s usually manslaughter under the Homicide Act 1957, not murder, unless intent to kill or cause serious harm is proven. If you want to educate yourself on UK law, read up on R v Mitchell (1983) and R v Woollin (1999).
In this scenario, the jury convicted based solely on property damage, with terrorism charges withheld and defences (e.g. legal justification to save lives) barred by the judge.
If protesters set fire to a government building to influence policy and someone dies, they’d likely face manslaughter unless intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is proven. Transferred malice only applies if harm to a different person was unintended but foreseeable.
This is a property destruction was premeditated crime, and apparently while planning this crime they didn’t consider what they’d do when the cops showed up?
Come on, you have to be smarter than this. When you get to the point when you feel the need to put so much effort in defending the actions of a monster that broke a woman’s back with a sledgehammer, how do you convince yourself that you’re still on the side that cares about people’s lives?
To make matters worse this woman has been harassed because she while doing her job she had her back broken. How does this make any sense in terms of basic human decency? Because you see some imagery from a war you’re allowed to do horrible things to other people?
Only a jury of their peers didn’t convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.
So you don’t think that the intent of the original crime doesn’t apply to subsequent crimes committed during the same act?
Or do you know that you’re wrong and can’t admit it and still feel the need to say stuff anyway?
The double negative is breaking my brain.
So, taking into account that:
Judge Jeremy Johnson kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage.
All defences on the charge of criminal damage were banned by the Judge before he heard the evidence, meaning the defendants weren’t allowed to argue that their actions were legally justified as they acted to save lives and prevent a greater crime. He also barred the defendants from telling the jury about their motivations for taking action, their emotional reactions to the massacres of Palestinians or the illegality of Israel’s actions.
It seems that in this case the intent didn’t matter when it came to allowing the defendants to fully make their case in front of a fully informed jury but it mattered when it came to sentencing them after a conviction had been secured.
Can’t have it both ways mate.
EDIT: Turns out the leading UK lawyers are saying the exact same things:
- https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/top-lawyer-palestine-action-terror-sentencing-5HjdbTp_2/
- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/four-palestine-action-protesters-terrorists-constitutional-threat
“It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.
“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”
Can’t have it both ways mate.
Things are often withheld from the jury. Do you have no familiarity with the legal system.
Their intent was to influence government through property damage which escalated to violence.
Do you think Israel’s intent of saving lives by destroying Hezbollah and Hamas is justified?. These organizations have weapons and kill people. Israel is destroying their weapons. Some people might get hurt or killed while they do this, but by your logic everything is justified if your intent is to destroy weapons to save lives.
If these criminal’s acts are justified because their intent was to “save lives” then the above paragraph is equally valid since it follows the same logic.
You can’t have it both ways. Either both Israel’s and this group’s acts of violence are justified or neither are justified. Which is it?
Lol no, I’m not following you up Stupid Mountain.
In all seriousness, has protesting actually ever done anything?
If they wanted to make a difference, surely there are better ways.
