I like the defense. Hate crime to erect it and continue displaying it. Not a crime to remove it. I like it it but a jury might not.
I would have thought that the circumstances surrounding the case were so specific and unique that it couldn’t set a precedent in law.
Jumpy conservative politicians obviously think differently and that the use of human rights as a defence of riotous behaviour is a loophole they need to close. Especially since they’ve taken so much time and effort to clamp down on our human rights of late. It’s almost as if they’ve factored in civil unrest to the roll out of their policies. Can’t have even a whiff of juries setting people free on the basis that the individual has rights…
Wasn’t totally unfit for the job Suella made attorney general because Geoffrey Cox was not into breaking the law in a limited and specific way?
Expect her feeble “looking for clarification” to be given the short shrift it deserves by the CoA.
And they’ll keep going until they get the answer they want. Braverman is almost as bad as Patel.
Whether you agree that the protesters were right to do what they did or not; doesn’t alter whether or not they were guilty of breaking the law.
Don’t like, then the law needs changing, not simply turning a blind eye to when it’s “our guys” who could be penalised by it.
5 comments
I like the defense. Hate crime to erect it and continue displaying it. Not a crime to remove it. I like it it but a jury might not.
I would have thought that the circumstances surrounding the case were so specific and unique that it couldn’t set a precedent in law.
Jumpy conservative politicians obviously think differently and that the use of human rights as a defence of riotous behaviour is a loophole they need to close. Especially since they’ve taken so much time and effort to clamp down on our human rights of late. It’s almost as if they’ve factored in civil unrest to the roll out of their policies. Can’t have even a whiff of juries setting people free on the basis that the individual has rights…
Wasn’t totally unfit for the job Suella made attorney general because Geoffrey Cox was not into breaking the law in a limited and specific way?
Expect her feeble “looking for clarification” to be given the short shrift it deserves by the CoA.
And they’ll keep going until they get the answer they want. Braverman is almost as bad as Patel.
Whether you agree that the protesters were right to do what they did or not; doesn’t alter whether or not they were guilty of breaking the law.
Don’t like, then the law needs changing, not simply turning a blind eye to when it’s “our guys” who could be penalised by it.