Abridged from source. Source in title.

You may not sympathise with the Elbit four’s methods. But you should be outraged by their treatment under the law

The jurors who found the pro-Palestine activists guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism

Geoffrey Robertson

The Guardian: 20 Jun 2026

Juries have always had the power to temper law with mercy. It is among the oldest protections against an overbearing state. The difficulty is that judges seldom tell juries the power exists, leaving counsel to invoke it only obliquely.

The Elbit four did not act in ignorance of the consequences. Bentham held that a citizen may disobey a law they believe to be unjust, provided they are willing to accept the punishment. On that view, the protesters who knew very well they were breaking the law against criminal damage should have pleaded guilty. While on trial, they openly acknowledged participating in the factory break-in and damaging the drones. What no defendant should have to face is punishment for a crime of terrorism that was never charged.

Their leading counsel, Rajiv Menon KC, took to the floor to remind the jury of their historical right to acquit, and invited them to weigh the use to which the drones were being put. The judge, Mr Justice Johnson, referred Menon to the high court to be tried for the crime of contempt of court for breaching his order not to mention the jury’s right to acquit.

At a secret hearing during the first trial, Mr Justice Johnson had ruled that the protest carried a “terrorist connection”. This was unprecedented in the history of direct action trials. His reasoning was that the defendants’ purpose was to “influence” the British government – which is the purpose of almost every political protest ever mounted. The judge’s ruling was kept secret from both the jury and the public, and the UK press was barred from reporting on it.

The Elbit four will be labelled as “terrorists” because they were convicted, in substance, of an offence that was never charged, never put to the jury, and never proven by the prosecution. The jurors who found them guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism. The prosecution was not required to establish the terrorist connection beyond reasonable doubt, or to any standard at all. As “terrorists”, they will serve longer times in prison before they are up for parole and 15 years on a list that makes them police suspects for real terrorism crimes. 

cool. 4 more id'd for mossad to take care of later.

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Abridged from source. Source in title.

You may not sympathise with the Elbit four’s methods. But you should be outraged by their treatment under the law

The jurors who found the pro-Palestine activists guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism

Geoffrey Robertson

The Guardian: 20 Jun 2026

Juries have always had the power to temper law with mercy. It is among the oldest protections against an overbearing state. The difficulty is that judges seldom tell juries the power exists, leaving counsel to invoke it only obliquely.

Discover more

Moderation tools

Multilateral Organizations

Politics

News subscription service

world news

The Elbit four did not act in ignorance of the consequences. Bentham held that a citizen may disobey a law they believe to be unjust, provided they are willing to accept the punishment. On that view, the protesters who knew very well they were breaking the law against criminal damage should have pleaded guilty. While on trial, they openly acknowledged participating in the factory break-in and damaging the drones. What no defendant should have to face is punishment for a crime of terrorism that was never charged.

Their leading counsel, Rajiv Menon KC, took to the floor to remind the jury of their historical right to acquit, and invited them to weigh the use to which the drones were being put. The judge, Mr Justice Johnson, referred Menon to the high court to be tried for the crime of contempt of court for breaching his order not to mention the jury’s right to acquit.

At a secret hearing during the first trial, Mr Justice Johnson had ruled that the protest carried a “terrorist connection”. This was unprecedented in the history of direct action trials. His reasoning was that the defendants’ purpose was to “influence” the British government – which is the purpose of almost every political protest ever mounted. The judge’s ruling was kept secret from both the jury and the public, and the UK press was barred from reporting on it.

The Elbit four will be labelled as “terrorists” because they were convicted, in substance, of an offence that was never charged, never put to the jury, and never proven by the prosecution. The jurors who found them guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism. The prosecution was not required to establish the terrorist connection beyond reasonable doubt, or to any standard at all. As “terrorists”, they will serve longer times in prison before they are up for parole and 15 years on a list that makes them police suspects for real terrorism crimes. 

Their conviction will go to the ECHR.

Sentenced for a crime never charged is a clear abuse of justice.

Edited July 6Jul 6 by Chomper Higgot

Leftist political violence should be above the law.

"The exact charges they faced and were convicted of include:

Criminal Damage: All four activists—Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, and Fatema Zainab Rajwani—were convicted of criminal damage. This charge stemmed from using a prison van to ram into the Elbit Systems UK site in Bristol and using sledgehammers and crowbars to destroy £1.2 million worth of military equipment and drones.

Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) Without Intent: Samuel Corner was additionally convicted of this violent offense. The charge was filed after he struck a female police sergeant in the back with a seven-pound sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. He was cleared of the more serious charge of GBH with intent."

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"The exact charges they faced and were convicted of include:

Criminal Damage: All four activists—Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, and Fatema Zainab Rajwani—were convicted of criminal damage. This charge stemmed from using a prison van to ram into the Elbit Systems UK site in Bristol and using sledgehammers and crowbars to destroy £1.2 million worth of military equipment and drones.

Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) Without Intent: Samuel Corner was additionally convicted of this violent offense. The charge was filed after he struck a female police sergeant in the back with a seven-pound sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. He was cleared of the more serious charge of GBH with intent."

lucky for them they werent in the usa

Individuals who engage in unlawful acts motivated by a higher moral purpose should be viewed with understanding rather than faced with conviction.

5 hours ago, Yagoda said:

cool. 4 more id'd for mossad to take care of later.

Thought they had their hands full with Hamas and Hezbollah.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

"The exact charges they faced and were convicted of include:

Criminal Damage: All four activists—Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, and Fatema Zainab Rajwani—were convicted of criminal damage. This charge stemmed from using a prison van to ram into the Elbit Systems UK site in Bristol and using sledgehammers and crowbars to destroy £1.2 million worth of military equipment and drones.

Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) Without Intent: Samuel Corner was additionally convicted of this violent offense. The charge was filed after he struck a female police sergeant in the back with a seven-pound sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. He was cleared of the more serious charge of GBH with intent."

I trust you've read my post about Corner and his hammer. I finally got a handle on what really happened.

8 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I trust you've read my post about Corner and his hammer. I finally got a handle on what really happened.

What really happened?

Edited July 7Jul 7 by Yellowtail

11 hours ago, Yagoda said:

lucky for them they werent in the usa

Lucky not to be in the U.S. is something very many people feel, far more than most Americans understand.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What really happened?

Read the post.

When local police officer Lieutenant Thomas Gross arrived on the scene, called by a Prairieland warden, most protesters had headed home. Yet the officer still pulled his gun, aiming at the back of a fleeing straggler, prompting another protester named Benjamin Song to fire eight rounds of suppressive fire. Lieutenant Gross was grazed in the shoulder and, after a brief stint at the hospital, fully recovered.

The federal government argued during trial that Song had fired directly at Gross. Song’s lawyer, however, claimed that the bullet—which shows evidence of impact with a hard surface—was a ricochet and that Song’s actions likely saved the lives of the other protesters. Song’s support team goes even further and, pointing to recently released camera footage, claims that the ricochet was from Gross’s own shot and that Song shot into the ground 60 feet away from Gross.

“I never want to see anyone get hurt,” said Song in a statement released after their sentencing. “I never want to see good people, standing up for what they believe in, gunned down in the street. What we all saw happen to Renee Good and Alex Pretti is my worst nightmare.”

Edited July 7Jul 7 by unblocktheplanet
add

3 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Read the post.

I did. Some criminals went to jail.

84 year old Reverend Sue Parfitt arrested under the UK Terrorism Act for giving speech outside New Scotland Yard on the anniversary of the proscription of Palestine Action.

Stood on a soap box, Sue explained her motivation.

“What can I do in my age and frailty? Very little… one of the best things that I can do is to support the organisation known as Palestine Action because they have been brave enough to, some of them, smash up the weapons that are producing the genocide.

So I ask you too to support Palestine Action! Join me.”

Sue Parfitt has also been instrumental in Extinction Rebellion, Christian Climate Action, Just Stop Oil , Friends of the Earth, as well as Palestine Action.

Sue Parfitt, Bodies on the Line: Christians, Civil  Resistance and the Climate Crisis

Jonathon Porrit, Love, Anger & Betrayal

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Lucky not to be in the U.S. is something very many people feel, far more than most Americans understand.

got it. you personally arent lucky or good enough to be one of us.

12 hours ago, Yagoda said:

got it. you personally arent lucky or good enough to be one of us.

Well insomuch as I’m not thumping a keyboard in your mum’s basement.

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well insomuch as I’m not thumping a keyboard in your mum’s basement.

When an 80-year-old man relies on clichés like "living in your mum's basement" to insult strangers on an English-language forum, he is deploying a heavily outdated, copy-and-paste internet trope.

For an isolated senior citizen, throwing around phrases like "basement dweller" serves a very specific, desperate psychological purpose. It is a protective shield designed to flip his own grim reality onto his targets.

28 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

When an 80-year-old man relies on clichés like "living in your mum's basement" to insult strangers on an English-language forum, he is deploying a heavily outdated, copy-and-paste internet trope.

For an isolated senior citizen, throwing around phrases like "basement dweller" serves a very specific, desperate psychological purpose. It is a protective shield designed to flip his own grim reality onto his targets.

Perhaps you missed your own rush to a baseless ageist trope, though to be fare, he does need all the help he can get and perhaps can’t be choosy with what’s on offer.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well insomuch as I’m not thumping a keyboard in your mum’s basement.

Why would you be in his mum's basement?

17 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Why would you be in his mum's basement?

When did I say so would?

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well insomuch as I’m not thumping a keyboard in your mum’s basement.

yeah i know my mom tossed you out after you had too many accidents in the guest bathroom.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Yagoda

34 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

yeah i know my mom tossed you out after you had too many accidents in the guest bathroom.

‘Guest bedroom’

Is that what she told you?… bless.

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well insomuch as I’m not thumping a keyboard in your mum’s basement.

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When did I say so would?

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well insomuch as I’m not thumping a keyboard in your mum’s basement

9 hours ago, emptypockets said:

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well insomuch as I’m not thumping a keyboard in your mum’s basement

“I’m not” is not “I will/would”

Your pockets are empty, better luck next time.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“I’m not” is not “I will/would”

Your pockets are empty, better luck next time.

Wow, that comment must have pushed you to your intellectual limit.

Hilarious.

Dont give up your day job.