399
Palestine Action activists to be sentenced as terrorists without jury’s knowledge
(www.middleeasteye.net)
this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
399 points (98.3% liked)
World News
56066 readers
2608 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yep and this happens in a lot of different court cases like you see it often in average criminal trials where the judge throws out information and bans it due to "irrelevance" when it obviously is very relevant.
What is the check and balance mechanism for this? Judges can't act arbitrarily - they need to adhere to a standard I imagine
You're assuming Britain has genuine Rule Of Law rather than the Law being a tool to enforce the will of a few, a tall assumption.
No, they are most likely wondering what the intended checks and balances are. Not how they are used in practice (which we already know). I am also curious.
Well, sometimes the Supreme Court in the UK does do the right thing, though only after people have been Harassed-by-Court for months or even years and in practice only for people with enough money to afford the solicitor and barrister fees to take their case all the way up to it.
Sometimes it's even worse - when the Law it's actually in the books it might mean going all the way up to the European Court Of Human rights (which is not an EU organisation and still applies to the UK as long as they're a member of the European Convention On Human Rights).
The system of check and balances is at best there only for people with enough money to afford it. (Though I suppose they could do as one of my family members did in my home country and actually get a Law Degree and take the case herself all the way up to the ECHR, though in the UK I believe even the cheapest Universities are pretty expensive)
Then, of course, there's the other side of the injustice - actually punishing the guilty: the Crown Prosecution Service and other entities which prosecute crimes are pretty arbitary about who they go after as they can simply say "it's not in the Public Interest" and that's justification enough not to prosecute, with one's wealth being inverselly correlated to one's likelihood of being prosecuted (something indirectly admited by a previous head of the Serious Fraud Office - who are tasked with not just large scale Fraud but also Corruption - when they admitted they could only afford to prosecute as single large case per year) and the same for appealing even court rulings such as the one of the High Court Judge who, when convicting a public school educated criminal (read: so almost certainly somebody who is upper middle class or rich) for the crime of Fraud for the second time, sent him away with a veredict of Guilty but no penalty with the reasoning that "the shame of a conviction is punishment enough".
Thanks for taking your time to answer in a constructive way. I have to admit I wasn't expecting that (not because of you, but from the general attitude I've seen here on Lemmy lately).
Appeals