High Court Rules...

[noseall]

Read sec 21 of the Judgement.

Sorry, I thought you said 144. Gretas gonna love it.

 

[motorbiking]

oh dear. 138

Gotta read the whole thing

 

[noseall]

Gotta read the whole thing

Nope. I'm satisfied with what I have read thanks. 144 is pretty succinct. Greta will be thrilled. I'm sure she sends her thanks.

 

[morqthana]

It was irrelevant, we aren't at War, we aren't occupied by a foreign rogue state and need to mount a resistance and those committing the crimes could not be described as combatants.

Therefore it remains the case that "Nothing can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully?"

Those two statements are incompatible.

If being at war or being occupied means that it is justified to attack military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully, then saying that NOTHING can justify it can't be true, can it.

"Nothing" is an absolute - there can be no exceptions. As soon as you have just one then you no longer have "nothing".

So is it still "Nothing can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully", or is it that in times of war and/or occupation it can be justified?

 

[fillyboy]

we aren't occupied by a foreign rogue state

I disagree.

 

[motorbiking]

So is it still "Nothing can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully",

correct. There was no justification for their actions.

 

[motorbiking]

Nope. I'm satisfied with what I have read thanks. 144 is pretty succinct. Greta will be thrilled. I'm sure she sends her thanks.

what are you satisfied with? Do you know?

 

[morqthana]

correct. There was no justification for their actions.

You're talking there about specific people doing specific actions in specific circumstances.

Please deal with your statement that "Nothing can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully".

"Nothing" is absolute. There cannot be one single exception if it is to remain nothing.

Trying at this point to limit what you said to one specific scenario doesn't work.

You said "nothing". Providing one example of something you don't think was justifiable is not proof that nothing is justifiable.

 

[King Billy]

You are throwing in a lot of straw men.

This is how I would break it down:

The defendants admitted that they intentionally damaged the property.

The judge instructed the jury that these actions met the standard for the crime of criminal damage.

The judge instructed the jury that the defendants had no legal defence under English law.

However, the jury failed to reach a verdict. We need to look logically at the possible reasons why this happened.

Presumably, the jury accepted the defendants' admissions that they carried out those actions.

Presumably, the jury accepted the judge's guidance that none of the defences they put forward were legal under English law.

So, the only logical conclusion is that the jury must have based their decision on matters that had no legal basis.

There may not be a legal defence in law, but committing a lesser offence in order to prevent a more serious offence is justifiable.
Some of the jury agreed.

In UK law, committing a lesser crime to prevent a more major crime is not explicitly allowed as a general legal principle, but it may be justified

Let's take a hypothetical scenario.
I'm convinced that a neighbour is making a bomb to use in a terrorist act.
While he's away from the premises, I break in, and I'm in the process of destroying his apparatus, when he returns and attacks me. I'd be justified in defending myself, or an assistant in the process of destroying the weapons.
I would also be justified in breaking in to his premises.

 

[morqthana]

Were the East Berliners justified in damaging the Wall?

Were the ANC justified in bombing unoccupied government buildings?

 

[motorbiking]

You're talking there about specific people doing specific actions in specific circumstances.

Please deal with your statement that "Nothing can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully".

"Nothing" is absolute. There cannot be one single exception if it is to remain nothing.

Trying at this point to limit what you said to one specific scenario doesn't work.

You said "nothing". Providing one example of something you don't think was justifiable is not proof that nothing is justifiable.

If you create a scenario that is different from the facts then it’s irrelevant. My statement was based on the undisputed facts,

We were not at war, we still aren’t, they could not justify their actions. Zero defence. Therefore nothing can justify their attacks.

 

[King Billy]

Therefore nothing can justify their attacks.

In your opinion. But you were neither judge nor jury.
If a judge and jury decide their actions were justified, you're overruled, and your opinion irrelevant.

 

[motorbiking]

If the attacks could be justified the statute or case law would reflect it.

 

[fillyboy]

I have a feeling the next target could be the British Museum.

British Museum removes ‘Palestine’ from ancient Middle East displays

British Museum Palestine Middle East displays

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Vinty]

We were not at war, we still aren’t

Undeclared war maybe.
Isn't the UK supplying Israel with weapons and intelligence in its war against the Palestinians.