International law guarantees an unequivocal right of resistance, including armed resistance, to people under illegal occupation. Legal experts say that UK terrorism legislation breaches international law by blocking this right.
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
84 points (96.7% liked)
United Kingdom
6614 readers
193 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
However the jury are not sitting in an international court so that’s beyond their remit.
A jury's remit is whatever the jury decides is it's remit.
With right wing nutters trying to undermine the rule of law all over the place, I feel like stuff like this isn't helping.
That’s not how it works.
I tried googling if you all have jury nullification, but just got AI slop and stuff about America...
The most I know about the UK legal system is the cool wigs, and what I learned from Sherlock and Misfits.
But I'd assume a jury can do whatever they want. As long as you're not self snitching, you don't have to explain anything. And we're talking about government support of an ongoing genocide, it's hard to expect jurours to solely follow the letter of the law.
Like I said tho, I'm completely ignorant of your justice system. Was Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret accurate by any chance?
Damn, that shits crazy:
The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force it to bring in a guilty verdict. When it failed to do so, the judge ended the trial. As punishment, the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court.[35]
Four jurors refused to pay the fine, and after several months, Bushell sought a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the Court of Common Pleas, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd" and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with
No wonder that dude founded Pennsylvania
You can't not have jury nullification without destroying the right to trial by jury. Either the jury has the power to decide or it doesn't.
Everything is within your remit. Fuck anyone who tells you otherwise.
Well yeah. The Court's job is to enforce the law of the land, and if that is not compatible with international law, the law must be changed.