Given this event was one of the supposed major contributors to proscription, does the fact that a jury of the people not wanting to convict them mean the proscription might've been a bit overblown?
UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, 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. (These things should be publicly discussed)
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.
The proscription was always overblown. Just Kid Starver bending the law for Israel.
Article doesn't say why they were found not guilty.
Specifically, the jury found that their plea of not guilty was based on the fact that they were preventing a greater harm by their actions to be right
Thanks
Because the jury said so.
Why do you think starmer wants to get rid of jury trials?