Simon Parkes

@SaulStaniforth Policing has never relied on the consent of offenders - it would be bizarre if it did and unlikely to be very effective.

"Protesters are shouting at officers as they remove people, carrying them from the crowd, they are shouting at them, 'shame on you'" We're told we have policing by consent. The reality has always been that the police are an arm of the state.

I can’t understand how intelligent people seem to live in a parallel universe where sentencing hasn’t always involved mitigating and aggravating factors. As a principle it is as old as the legal system itself and it is almost self-evidently necessary. Nobody would seriously want to see the same sentence handed down to a desperate first-time shoplifter, stealing food to feed their family, as to a habitual thief, stealing to make themselves richer. They have committed the same offence but one has substantial mitigation, the other substantial aggravation. Parliament has decided that a connection to terrorism should be an aggravating factor. It is not normal to introduce aggravating factors before the Jury. Cases must be tried on their merits. Again, nobody would sensibly argue that a defendant’s long history of similar offences should be put before the Jury as to do so would be to risk a miscarriage of justice.

The law should be fair and easy for jurors to understand. Want to sentence someone as a terrorist, then charge them with terrorism. How is that controversial?

You are failing to distinguish between different suffragette organisations. Millicent Fawcett, whose statue appears in Parliament Square, expressly rejected violence as a means of achieving women’s suffrage. When we are talking about violent action, we are really talking about the breakaway faction led by Emmeline Pankhurst but even that group fractured with one of her daughters eschewing violence and the other supporting it.

@nw_nicholas There were 48 instances of bombs being set by suffragettes in the 2½ years up to WW1. Police officers were injured at their protests. They made proscribed "terrorists" Palestine Action look lame in comparison. Suffragette Bombs, 1912 – 1914: standingwellback.com/suffragette-bo…

The Appeal Court used the Suffragettes as an example of non-violent direct action. The Suffragettes:

No, the Court of Appeal did not cite the suffragettes as an example of non-violent direct action. The Counsel for Ms Ammori claimed PA was similar in nature to the suffragettes - the court disagreed that PA’s actions followed in a line of non-violent direct action - the argument advanced by Ms Ammori. The Court did not claim the suffragettes were an example of non-violent direct action - that was Ms Ammori and her barrister.

A misreading of the law. Parliament did not pass primary legislation banning Palestine Action. Had it done so the question could not have arisen as judges cannot overturn primary legislation. But Parliament proscribed Palestine Action using secondary legislation. That does give the Courts a role in determining whether that (secondary) legislation is consistent with the Primary Legislation from which it draws its authority. I shouldn’t really have to explain this to an MP but there we are. If you don’t like it, pass primary legislation to change the law.

It's great that the ban on Palestine Action has been upheld, but this question should never have been decided by judges in the first place. Parliament makes the law. It voted to ban Palestine Action. It's for the British people to hold Parliament accountable, not judges.

@AdnanHussainMP You don’t actually know that because you don’t know exactly what was destroyed, or to which customer it was being sent. Moreover, as you know, genocide is determined by the ICJ, which has not made any such ruling despite various attempts to misrepresent its earlier findings.

The property in question being weapons of genocide.

You are stretching a point beyond exhaustion. There was no “Suffragette Movement” in that sense. There were several groups, some larger, many smaller. A minority of those groups advocated what we might call direct action. Those groups themselves, and their critics in the wider campaign, considered themselves to be terrorists, as did the Government. Emmeline Pankhurst’s own daughters were divided on the merits of direct action and it is debatable whether that action had any positive impact on the arrival of women’s suffrage. It is also important to note that the Suffragette whose statue stands in Parliament Square, Millicent Fawcett, did not support violent direct action, forcing those who did to split away from her campaign group, led by Emmeline Pankhurst.

In upholding the proscription of Palestine Action, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr showed she was historically illiterate. Contrary to her claims, the Sufragettes were neither a peaceful civil disobedience group nor did they operate "transparently in the open". Their hundreds of bombing and arson attacks are known to have injured at least two dozen people, many of them postal workers, left with severe burns. Their bomb and arson squads organised this violence through underground cells. Leaders were kept in a network of safe houses to avoid discovery by police. And leader Emmeline Pankhurst used body doubles and assumed names to evade police capture. There's even a 2015 Hollywood movie, Sufragette, showing all this. This sudden level of ignorance by our political and judicial class is entirely manufactured. The Sufragette movement was far, far more violent and clandestine than anything Palestine Action has been doing. That's not an argument against the Suffragettes. It's argument exposing the utter hypocrisy of the politicians, judges and media peddling lies to justify crushing an organisation trying to expose UK government complicity in Israel's genocide.

You are a Labour MP. Your Party has a big majority in the House of Commons. You cannot rely on the Courts to do the job that Parliament should be doing. Parliament passed the legislation that Courts must work with, Parliament is where the Executive, which proscribed PA, is held to account. It is Parliament that is responsible for this and you should do your job in Parliament and not try to pass the buck to the judiciary.

A very dark day for justice. Upholding the proscription of Palestine Action is a dangerous abuse of counter-terrorism powers. When protest is treated as terrorism, dissent is criminalised and the foundations of our democracy are weakened. theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/j…

Only she didn’t say that did she? As you must know if you have followed the case, which I know you have, it was Counsel for Ms Ammori who compared PA to the Suffragettes. What Lady Chief Justice Carr actually said was this “It is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes operating transparently in the open.” In other words she was saying the courts disagreed with that argument. To then claim she was somehow arguing the Suffragettes were paragons of peace and harmony is disingenuous. She was simply dealing with Counsel’s argument.

The Lady Chief Justice said proscription of Palestine Action “struck a fair balance” and that PA is not a peaceful civil disobedience group like the Suffragettes

TODAY: The Court of Appeal will decide whether the UK government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group was lawful. Follow along here… 👀

Does anybody actually read anything these days or do they just get their news from here? Lady Chief Justice Carr did not say the Suffragettes were peaceful, she was responding directly to the argument made by Counsel for Ms Ammori that Palestine Action were like the Suffragettes. Her full text is: “It is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes operating transparently in the open.” bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

Suffragettes were not peaceful

Again, that isn’t true. During sentencing the Defence absolutely has the right to argue for the defendant when it comes to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In this case the Defence argued that having 8 days to prepare that argument was inadequate - clearly the Judge disagreed. I expect that will form part of any appeal.

It's pretty damned obvious that it's not possible for a defendant to mount any form of adequate legal defence against offences they are not charged with. Please RT this until this injustice is corrected. Thank you.

Judges have to apply the laws passed by Parliament. If they are brought into disrepute it is because of the actions of Parliament and it is for Parliamentarians to resolve it. In the meantime, all MPs should be supporting the judiciary in upholding the laws passed by Parliament, even if they disagree with those laws. More than anyone, MPs must stand for the rule of law, if they don’t, why shouldn’t anyone else?

Parliament should reverse the decision to proscribe Palestine Action urgently before we see large numbers of elderly people in particular being dragged before our courts. Classifying protest through direct action as terrorism brings Parliament & our judicial system into disrepute

Crikey, you are going to get a surprise if you think this is the most conservative judiciary in UK history! There is quite a long list of people who would disagree with you if only they could speak - starting with Anne Boleyn and including her accuser, Thomas Cromwell and running through to the 1960s and Lord Denning. Today’s judiciary is much more liberal than at almost any time in our history - the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to quash prorogation is a case in point. Too many people have extreme reactions to events - the judiciary is never as good as those who laud its judgments believe, nor is it as bad as those who oppose them would have it. And that’s probably the best we can expect.

The Starmer government & perhaps the most conservative judiciary in UK history, are turning Britain into an outpost of the Israeli state in which opposing genocide is a crime while arming it & participating in it are legal & lauded

The High Court itself suspended the part of its judgment that revoked the proscription as it recognised the Government would appeal. It did that by choosing not to make the Order quashing the proscription. So the High Court’s judgment was never in force meaning the Government’s proscription remained lawful throughout the period of appeal. You see conspiracy where there is none - all of this is in the public domain and very easy to find.

BREAKING: The Court of Appeal has backed the government's appeal against the High Court and reinstated the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. As I've been noting for some time, this was always going to happen. The police ignored the High Court's ruling of proscription as unlawful and continued arresting people as terrorists for holding placards stating: "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action." On Friday, Judge Johnson upgraded the criminal damage convictions of the Filton Four to terrorism offences in his sentencing, even though at the time of sentencing Palestine Action was not, in the eyes of the courts, considered a terrorist organisation. It was as though the High Court decision never happened. We have been subjected to legal threatre to make it look as if the judiciary have carefully weighed our most cherished and basic rights against the interests of the British state in continuing its complicity in the Gaza genocide. This has all been a stitch-up to keep the focus on the faux-illegality of opposing a genocide rather than the very real illegality of the British state colluding in atrocities that have killed many tens of thousands – and more likely, hundreds of thousands – of civilians in Gaza. Anyone who has supported this dangerous farce should hang their heads in shame.

I don’t see what she has said that could be considered a contempt. She has not, at least in this clip, discussed what happened in the Jury Room. She has referred to matters that either were, or were not, presented in open court and that is lawful. She has referred to the outcome of the first trial and that is lawful. By all means challenge her views but I can’t see why she isn’t entitled to express them.

This is extraordinary. Time and again, Palestine Action activists and supporters act like the law shouldn’t apply to them

Good that you posted the relevant legislation, less good that you selectively quoted from it. It clearly involved serious damage to property (that was their intent) and the Judge found, in evidence recovered from the group, they absolutely intended to intimidate employees and get the government to change its policy, which, by definition, would be an ideological or political objective. Given the Court of Appeal today confirmed Palestine Action is a group that “overtly promotes violent action amounting to terrorism” it seems reasonable for a Judge to have come to the same conclusion in this case. Of course, the defence can and almost certainly will appeal both the conviction and the sentence. I expect the Judge’s actions will be scrutinised. That’s how justice works and it would be good for this to be appealed, preferably to the Supreme Court, because then we will have clarity about how these laws should work.

@NaomiFromKent Did it involve serious violence against a person❌ Was is designed to influence the government or intimidate❌ Was it to advance a political ideological or religiousl cause❌

No, you need to listen to what people are actually saying. Yes it's criminal to commit GBH, even without intent (a detail of the jury's verdict you choose to ignore). But it is not TERRORIST. Not complicated.

Here you go again, trying to minimise the injury. The radiologist’s report, based on the XRay, found the fracture. Whether it was obvious to someone who isn’t a radiologist, or whether they were more concerned about a more serious potential injury is speculation. The original XRay showed the injury. That is a fact accepted by both parties. To claim it wasn’t even detected by the XRay, or MRI is plain false. Again, the only reason you can have for making that claim is to mislead and minimise the trauma felt by the police officer in a bid to make Corner seem a more sympathetic character. It’s pretty disingenuous though. And, to be clear, that link was to a website that can hardly be considered biased towards the Government.

@LHP_CEO @LynnBraben From your own source "An X-ray scan showed no obvious acute injury,"

When Sam Corner swung that sledghammer to damage weapons, if he saved just ONE child's life, it'd make him a hero. When he swung it again, it was to defend his friend Ellie, who'd been tasered TWICE. Sam was pepper sprayed so couldn't see and his eyes would've been burning, but still he helped his friend. The jury accepted the defence that there was no intent to harm, which is why they were guilty of the LESSER charge of GBH WITHOUT intent!

That is simply untrue. It was found on the original XRay by a radiologist at the time. Those who support Corner and others are simply lying about the injuries because they know it is indefensible to have a man assault a woman with a sledgehammer. To defend their man they therefore try to pass the injuries off as trivial, barely worth mentioning. That’s pretty despicable. The Jury found there was no intent to injure Evans but that the injury was reasonably foreseeable and, therefore, still grevious bodily harm. realmedia.press/the-filton-tri…

@LHP_CEO @LynnBraben 24 jurors, who saw and heard the prosecutions evidence but who were not allowed to hear all the defence, found there was no intent to "fracture her spine". A fracture so severe it wasn't even visible on the first scan btw and wasn't found until weeks later....

I haven’t seen anybody suggesting then Sergeant Evans spine was smashed. It was fractured and there is no dispute on that point. It is also incorrect to say it wasn’t picked up on the XRay - it was picked up by a Radiologist at the time. The MRI scan showed no bony injury or spinal compression but the expert evidence suggested the injury she received was consistent with a moderate to severe blow, or the injuries you might receive in a traffic accident. Your attempt to diminish these injuries because it suits your agenda is pretty low by any standard.

As former British ambassador Craig Murray notes, a raft of recent legislation has given the police and courts enormous, authoritarian powers, including the right to treat any form of civil disobedience as terrorism because it seeks to "influence the government". The timing of Judge Johnson's sentencing of the Filton Four as terrorists on Friday, after a jury had found them guilty only of a relatively minor charge of criminal damage – as well as the renewed cacophony of fake news about a policewoman having her spine broken / smashed, rebutted by Murray in his latest article – is not accidental. As Murray points out, the purpose is to smooth the path for the Court of Appeal to reverse the High Court's recent ruling that it was "unlawful" of the government to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. The Appeal Court will issue its decision tomorrow (Monday). The government is desperate to ensure the crushing of Palestine Action continues and thereby prevent the group from drawing attention to the UK's continuing complicity in Israel's atrocities, such as our hosting of Israeli factories that make killer drones for use in Gaza. More from Murray here: craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/…

Well that’s ok then. When this man hit a woman with a sledgehammer he didn’t intend to hurt her and the fracture of her spine that he caused, which even the defence admits was consistent with the injury from a medium to severe blow, or a car accident, doesn’t matter because it only needed pain relief for a few months. Now that’s all cleared up we can get back to him being a hero and not, as some might have wrongly thought, a thug whose actions have had a lasting impact on the victim of his crime.

@DianaJohnsonMP This is an ignorant & disingenuous post. If you paid heed to the court proceedings rather than using the propaganda of those who support genocide to attack your political opponent you’d understand that an injury that required only paracetamol was caused unintentionally.

Are you @ZacPolanski really saying that attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer and fracturing their spine is not gut wrenching and deserving of punishment?