15 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

You are given to hysterical hyperbole as you attempt to characterize a group who pays more than their fair share as paying nothing. In the UK, the top 1% of income earners pay 1/3 of all income tax and capital gains tax revenues. The top 0.1% earn 5% of all salary paid, but pay 11% of all income tax. In contrast, the bottom 50% of earners earn 24% of all salary paid, but only pay 10% of income tax. In effect a large portion of the UK is getting a free ride or a very cushy subsidized ride on the backs of a small number of workers. Your claim that the 1% pay no tax is an absolute falsehood. The immorality is your attempt to characterize people who are compensated for their hard work as not contributing. This is consistent with the recycled political slogans you have carried forward from the 1970's.

I don't need unemployed "students" or left over social activists to tell me how to live my life. Nor do I need them getting in my way when I go to work, a 4 letter word that is foreign to most of them.

You are much better informed than I. I was regurgitating <something> I read <somewhere>. And I believe what I read was referring to the US where there may be far more loopholes for the rich than in the UK.

I suppose we’re having this conversation because you believe the PA activists are useless eaters. Because they have alternative means and don’t work conventional jobs, you think them expendable.

Wage-slaves have no time to stand up for what they believe. They’re chained to the loom and can’t afford to be fired.

However, if we talk about the “1%”, they have rarely invented anything new. They had a vision it would sell and so bought it from its creators, often for peanuts. What is the worth of a billionaire middleman, that bridge between creator and consumer? Did he "earn" that money?

No sloganeering. I expect my money’s worth. I have never paid taxes because I don’t like what they do with the money. I oppose wars, armies, police, prisons, judges aso. Govt(s) have not chosen to jail me yet for nonpayment. Here I am.

My contributions to my fellow man are different than that. My job is getting people to pay attention to society’s issues so as to effect change.

This is not altruistic. I literally cannot do otherwise. I certainly would not presume to tell you how to live your life so long as that pursuit is not stepping on others.

It’s not all about money. It’s about that money being spent on the public good.

On 6/17/2026 at 2:05 AM, Patong2021 said:

Ok, Unfortunately, it is unlikely that they pay anywhere near enough to cover the costs of goods and services that the UK gives them, nor the cost of the expenses incurred through their activities. Did you know that the top 10% of income earners pay 60% of the UK income tax? I don't think anyone from that income range was busy causing millions of pounds of damage.

Look at the list of who has been arrested. Most are unemployed, followed by working at publicly funded "social service" groups, or students or retirees. Can you name one of the most recent 107 arrested terror group members who is actually paying a significant amount of tax? Surely, you can name one?

I can't even name a President who's paying a significant amount of taxes. Remarkable. You say there are 107 activists arrested for sabotaging Elbit? Good on 'em. They may or mayt not pay taxes but they've certainly paid their dues to society.

12 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Why should I - this thread is about Palestine Action - a proscribed UK civil disobedience group where to declare support for it is an illegal activity. That is what we are discussing not hypotheticals about religious adherents. That said as an animal rightist would ban halal and kosher food and male circumcision as barbaric practices.

I'm not sure I know anybody who eats foreskins. Do they taste like chicken?

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“We [Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr] would feel uneasy at the fact that their [the Suffragettes ] actions killed at least four people and caused injuries to many others. We [Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr] might be stunned, even shocked, to learn that they [the Suffragettes] detonated a bomb at Westminster Abbey which damaged the Coronation Chair and (potentially) broke the Stone of Destiny.

https://eghammuseum.org/terrorists-the-suffragette-arson-and-bombing-campaign/

Palestine Action ban is lawful, Court of Appeal rules

The Home Office had challenged a High Court ruling that the group's proscription should be quashed.

You mixed two different reports there and also added bits and chopped it up and rearranged it .

Here is the original

"We would feel uneasy at the fact that their actions killed at least four people and caused injuries to many others. We might be stunned, even shocked, to learn that they detonated a bomb at Westminster Abbey which damaged the Coronation Chair and (potentially) broke the Stone of Destiny."

Why did you add Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr name to your version .

The second paragraph in your post has nothing to do with Palestine action .

Youve taken the BBC report and the Egham museum article and mixed them up to manipulate the info .

That's very deceptive and against forum rules

Edited June 18Jun 18 by Nick Carter icp

2 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You mixed two different reports there and also added bits and chopped it up and rearranged it .

Here is the original

"We would feel uneasy at the fact that their actions killed at least four people and caused injuries to many others. We might be stunned, even shocked, to learn that they detonated a bomb at Westminster Abbey which damaged the Coronation Chair and (potentially) broke the Stone of Destiny."

Why did you add Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr name to your version .

The second paragraph in your post has nothing to do with Palestine action .

Youve taken the BBC report and the Egham museum article and mixed them up to manipulate the info .

That's very deceptive and against forum rules

Struggling again Nick?

I haven’t mixed two reports.

I’ve quoted the report of the formal statement by Lady Chief Justice Barroness Carr in which she compared Palestine Action with the Suffragettes.

Then I juxtaposed her statement with the historically correct account of the suffragettes’ terrorism.

The judge’s statement v the actual history illustrates both the shocking historical ignorance of the judge and the logical fallacy of her justification for upholding the ban.

I have not added anything to the second text, I have inserted clarifications within parentheses and in a different script to the text.

A commonly accepted means of adding clarifications notes while making the distinction between the original text and the clarification notes absolutely clear.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve quoted the report of the formal statement by Lady Chief Justice Barroness Carr in which she compared Palestine Action with the Suffragettes.

Then I juxtaposed her statement with the historically correct account of the suffragettes’ terrorism.

The judge’s statement v the actual history illustrates both the shocking historical ignorance of the judge and the logical fallacy of her justification for upholding the ban.

I have not added anything to the second text, I have inserted clarifications within parentheses and in a different script to the text.

A commonly accepted means of adding clarifications notes while making the distinction between the original text and the clarification notes absolutely clear.

Suffragettes were jailed for their crimes, as they would be today if they committed similar crimes .

Suffragettes were campaigning for the right to vote .

Palestine Action are campaigning for the genocide of Jews .

They are two very different groups .

Once again the Palestinians are trying to latch onto some other groups cause :"Hey, lets be like the Suffragettes today , lets associate ourselves with them"

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Struggling again Nick?

I haven’t mixed two reports.

I’ve quoted the report of the formal statement by Lady Chief Justice Barroness Carr in which she compared Palestine Action with the Suffragettes.

Then I juxtaposed her statement with the historically correct account of the suffragettes’ terrorism.

The judge’s statement v the actual history illustrates both the shocking historical ignorance of the judge and the logical fallacy of her justification for upholding the ban.

I have not added anything to the second text, I have inserted clarifications within parentheses and in a different script to the text.

A commonly accepted means of adding clarifications notes while making the distinction between the original text and the clarification notes absolutely clear.

You intentionally confuse the suffragettes and the terrorist enablers and violent offenders of Pal. Action.

Suffragettes were focused on a domestic social issue. They did not advocate killing anyone or in delegitimizing others. Nor did they harass and physically menace children and families. They did not conceal their identities nor wear masks when carrying out their activities.

47 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Suffragettes were jailed for their crimes, as they would be today if they committed similar crimes .

Suffragettes were campaigning for the right to vote .

Palestine Action are campaigning for the genocide of Jews .

They are two very different groups .

Once again the Palestinians are trying to latch onto some other groups cause :"Hey, lets be like the Suffragettes today , lets associate ourselves with them"

The point of the juxtaposition evaded you.

The association with the Suffragettes was made by the judge.

Drink less coffee, Palestine action are not campaigning for the Genocide of Jews.

46 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

You intentionally confuse the suffragettes and the terrorist enablers and violent offenders of Pal. Action.

Suffragettes were focused on a domestic social issue. They did not advocate killing anyone or in delegitimizing others. Nor did they harass and physically menace children and families. They did not conceal their identities nor wear masks when carrying out their activities.

No I did not.

The judge made the comparison with the Suffragettes, there’s a clue in the BBC article I linked.

Your grasp of the history of the Suffragettes is a little lacking.

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

, Palestine action are not campaigning for the Genocide of Jews.

P.A want Jews forcibly removed from Isreal .

Forcibly removing people from their land is indeed genocide .

On 6/18/2026 at 9:02 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

So here’s the judge opening the door for appeal to the Supreme Court and ECHR:

“But Baroness Carr added that it was "a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism".

"It is not - as claimed - a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open," she added.

"It is a covert organisation which operates with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury."

The suffragettes absolutely meet the definition of a covert terrorist group. They engaged in arson and bomb attacks.

Their most militant wing travelled around the country teaching women how to make bombs and set arson fires.

“We [Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr] would feel uneasy at the fact that their [the Suffragettes ] actions killed at least four people and caused injuries to many others. We [Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr] might be stunned, even shocked, to learn that they [the Suffragettes] detonated a bomb at Westminster Abbey which damaged the Coronation Chair and (potentially) broke the Stone of Destiny. Or when we [Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr] learn that they [the Suffragettes ] attempted to blow up a reservoir and flood villages in Upper Windleden, or detonated a bomb at Holloway Prison that covered sleeping children in shards of glass, or bombed schools, or threw bombs onto crowded train carriages and tube station platforms, or tried to burn down the tennis club house at Wimbledon, or bombed a Dublin theatre while the audience were still inside, or burnt down Kew Garden’s tea pavilion or planted a bomb that was powerful enough to destroy an entire building with 200 people inside – when we learn all of this, our ideas about the Suffragettes might shift.“

Clearly Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr was drawing on a shockingly ignorant view of the history of direct action in the UK.

https://eghammuseum.org/terrorists-the-suffragette-arson-and-bombing-campaign/

Palestine Action ban is lawful, Court of Appeal rules

The Home Office had challenged a High Court ruling that the group's proscription should be quashed.

What would be the grounds for an appeal ?

That Palestine action are the same as the Suffragettes ?

Suffragettes also got jailed for their crimes .

Do didn't really think that through did you

Just saw Suffragettes and thought if we can align with them , Then we can achieve our aims just like they did .

Rather a simplistic line of thought there .