PhilipTheBucket

joined 1 month ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 3 points 1 week ago

I am just uncomfortable telling people "just comply, or you'll make things worse,"

Yeah, I get that. A lot of it depends on the details. If ICE is arresting your family for literally nothing at all, and you may never see them again, then yes, not complying is going to make things worse, but it's hard for me to say that people "should" comply for that reason. Fuck 'em.

This is not that. This is just a bullshit traffic stop. I get that the frustration comes from the racism inherent in the system, it's not just the traffic stop, but you gotta be smart about when and how to resist. Getting stubborn and hostile with some random traffic cop and getting tons more charges thrown at you as a result is not going to undo the racism. It also bugs me that people (look around this thread) have some kind of idea that they're legally in the right if they decide to start arguing with the cops in this way, which... if you're going to decide to do that (either when getting the ticket or with ICE or anywhere in between), you should have a clear eyed understanding of what you're getting yourself into.

Basically, I definitely don't think it's a good thing people on the internet telling each other how it works and setting up for more things like this to happen to drivers who don't expect how it is going to play out.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au -2 points 1 week ago (23 children)

In my opinion the stop is not justified, so the officer has no legal basis to ID the driver.

... said any number of people, right before they got arrested.

There are circumstances where you can refuse to ID. Probably the only video I can ever remember which featured a supervisor showing up and actually taking the side of the suspect, was a cop hassling a person who was taking video of a police department, some patrolman came out and asked for ID, and the guy told him to get lost because he wasn't doing anything. That sort of falls into "bold move Cotton" territory, but it is legal, and when the supervisor showed up he told the cop so and ordered him to just leave the guy alone.

Refusing to ID on a traffic stop because you disagree with the reason for the stop is going to get you arrested, it's going to make it harder to fight the original citation even if you are in the right, and it's going to get you additional charges that are a much bigger deal than the original traffic citation. That's just reality, both legal reality and how it's going to happen in practice. You don't have to agree with the cop to have to provide ID, otherwise any random person ever pulled over for anything at all could just tell the cop to get lost, I don't agree, and the cop would have to leave and the person could go on their way.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 1 points 1 week ago

In which (unlikely) case, all that happened to him was damage to his vehicle, some minor injuries, an arrest, tow fees, having to show up in court, maybe some bond, and cost of a lawyer unless he wants to roll the dice with a public defender. And, in return, he gets nothing. But he didn't get any fines or probation or maybe jail, or a criminal record (although he does have the arrest on his record). Victory!

(This one's a little more complicated because they actually did use excessive force, so there's a slim chance that he might be able to sue them civilly and win. In which case it might be completely worth it. But, I would say in about 99% of these cases where someone disagrees with the reason for the stop and so decides to refuse to ID, the only additional results that happen to them are all heavily on the bad side.)

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Failure to use headlights during "inclement weather," and failure to wear a seat belt.

Is that bullshit? Yeah, arguably so. He'd have had a pretty good chance of beating it in court. Cops also show a marked statistical tendency to pull over black people more than white people, and the statistical tendency only shows up during the day and evaporates for traffic stops conducted at night, which makes it pretty hard to argue that it's any kind of correlation other than causation. So yeah, you could definitely say the initial stop was bullshit.

Unfortunately, a traffic stop for specifically identified infractions is absolutely a lawful stop even if it's kinda bullshit. And the guy really screwed himself over by refusing to ID, obstructing their attempts to get him out of the car, and then resisting them arresting him, all of which are unambiguous crimes which it's gonna be a lot more difficult for him to argue his way out of in court that the initial "inclement weather" bullshit. Maybe he can make something out of the fact that they used excessive force once he started obstructing, but more likely he's just going to be screwed. It's not like the system gets less racist if you're a giant unnecessary pain in the ass about it.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au -2 points 1 week ago (6 children)
[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 4 points 1 week ago

Completely agree. Yeah, it was definitely wrong for them to hit him in the face. Their whole job is to deal with people who are doing what they're not supposed to, without losing their shit in turn.

But yes, the initial cop was literally just doing his job, and Shouty McCanISpeakToYourSupervisor escalated it out of literally nowhere from his side, and then got apparently surprised when the cops' next move wasn't "Okay, well if he says 'no,' I guess we can't really do anything, free to go have a good day."

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

it does NOT permit officers to use violence to achieve identification

I searched for "violence" in both citations and did not find this statement.

Refusing to ID (edit: if you're stopped for a certain list of reasons, which includes "a traffic stop on the road" as probably the most unambiguous no-wiggle-room one of them) is an arrestable offence. Police do not need an arrest warrant if the crime is literally committed in front of them, to their face, and they're allowed to use force to effect the arrest.

I think your degree in Bird Law needs updating. I'm not really interested in having an extended he-said-she-said about it, people can read the citations (or investigate the literally thousands of YouTube videos which depict examples of the "ID pls->no->get out->no->window break->ohmygawd->arrest" story arc), and decide what they want to believe about how it works.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 1 week ago (30 children)

Here's the full bodycam footage. I was right about him failing to ID.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i88VDrI3VA

He commits a misdemeanor 21 seconds after the stop begins.

Cop: "Give me your driver's license, registration,"

Dude: "No."

Cop: "... and proof of insurance."

Dude: "No. Call your supervisor."

That "no" is enough to arrest him. Most cops won't do it, they'll have a conversation about it instead of just busting out the cuffs, but if you go out of your way to piss them off, sometimes they will not. We're past reasonable suspicion at that point. He pulled him over, explained the reason, and asked for ID, and the guy refused. This is an excellent way to get arrested, and refusing to cooperate with the arrest is an excellent way to get dragged out of the car and thrown around. IDK what the guy expected to happen. The only reason this is news is because the cop hit him in the face, but this was 100% a dude-created situation from start to finish.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 17 points 1 week ago

I'm not saying he should quit and go home and start watching YouTube videos while the world around him collapses into fascism. I'm saying he should fight.

Lots of federal employees did the "Okay, fire me then" game when Trump demanded various things from them. It still takes time, effort, and organization to fill the roles they left behind. It slows things down. You can sue the administration for their blatantly illegal attempt to remove you. You can show up with a megaphone outside the office, now yelling about how it's a power grab. You can do something other than just going along with it.

This isn't even "just following orders," because he clearly knows it's wrong. But, he's still putting people on cattle cars, because they told him if he didn't, he'd lose his job. THE RIGHT ANSWER IN THAT SITUATION IS, EVEN IF NO OTHER OPTION IS AVAILABLE, TO LOSE YOUR FUCKING JOB.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 5 points 1 week ago

Dude, watch the video. You're literally doing the "Who are you going to be believe, me or your lying eyes?" thing.

 

A group of people with purple filter

Earlier this year, an NHS trust in London banned staff from wearing badges in solidarity with Palestine. Novara Media revealed that the move came after a group of pro-Israel lawyers pursued the trust, insisting it was breaking the law.

This wasn’t the first time this particular group had directly influenced policy in British public bodies. In fact, it appears to have an outsize influence on public life in the UK, targeting not only the NHS but local councils, schools, high-profile creatives and private citizens. Its name is UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).

UK Lawyers for Israel is split into two entities – the UKLFI Charitable Trust, set up in 2016, and UKLFI Ltd, a private company. This sort of dual structure typically allows organisations to comply with UK charity law and receive tax-deductible donations, all while undertaking political activities not usually permitted to charities.

The limited company arm of the organisation was initially incorporated under the name Action 4 Peace Ltd in 2010, but changed its name to UKLFI Ltd a few months later. Though its new name was more explicit about the organisation’s aims, UKLFI has historically preferred to keep a low profile. “We don’t seek out publicity,” Caroline Kendall, its former director of operations, who now lives in Tel Aviv, told the Jewish Chronicle in 2016. “We only want to be effective, and often it’s operating below the radar.”

In more recent times, UKLFI has sought increasing attention. Natasha Hausdorff, who joined UKLFI in 2014, has since become something of a public figure. Hausdorff has written opinion pieces in the Telegraph, appeared on primetime BBC news shows and given evidence to the foreign affairs select committee.

Not all of the press UKLFI has received has been positive, however. In July, bands Massive Attack and Kneecap announced an alliance of musicians speaking out about Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. The artists’ statement cites “aggressive, vexatious campaigns operated by UKLFI”. UKLFI reported Bob Vylan and Kneecap to the police and sent letters that resulted in the cancellation of both groups’ shows, and reported Pink Floyd musician Roger Waters to the police for allegedly expressing support for the proscribed direct action group Palestine Action.

The same month, the political stunt group Led By Donkeys projected a video onto the Charity Commission’s offices demanding an investigation into UKLFI’s charitable trust arm.

So what is UKLFI, and who’s behind it?

Complaining to the manager.

Though UKLFI’s stated aim is to “use the law to counter attempts to undermine, attack and delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis, and supporters of Israel”, in practice its work has largely involved targeting expressions of support for Palestinians. For the most part, its work has involved countering the Palestinian civil society-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement by targeting local councils with threatening legal letters. UKLFI credits its letters with getting BDS motions withdrawn and overturned in Lancaster, Belfast and Dublin and at universities such as London City, Aberdeen and Warwick.

Nor is it only councils and higher education that UKLFI targets. In June, the group reported nutritionist Joan Faria to her professional standards body for a social media recipe that encouraged the boycott of Israeli dates, which it claimed was “unsolicited advice … not appropriate for a nutritionist”.

Another arm of its operations has been sustained attacks on human rights charities and NGOs. In 2022, shortly after Amnesty International published its landmark report calling Israel an apartheid state, UKLFI wrote to the Charity Commission, urging it to investigate the organisation.

The group also pressured the commission to investigate the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians in 2018, alleging that it “spread political propaganda, promoted antisemitism … and has connections with organisations linked to the Palestinian terrorist organisation, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine”. The Charity Commission decided to take no further action.

UKLFI reported the charity War on Want to the commission just three months later for “alleged links to terrorist organisations”, including the PFLP. Even though the Charity Commission cleared War on Want of any wrongdoing, PayPal – which bars Palestinians from accessing its services in the occupied territories, while allowing Israeli settlers to do so – removed War on Want from its donations platform.

Culture and education form another big part of UKLFI’s work. In 2021, the Turner prize-nominated research group Forensic Architecture pulled its exhibition from Manchester’s Whitworth Gallery after UKFLI lobbied to have a statement of solidarity with Palestinians – which it said “seems designed to provoke racial discord” – removed from the display.

UKFLI has also intervened in the British education system by lobbying educational publisher Pearson on multiple occasions, complaining about the alleged “pro-Palestinian bias” in textbooks and exam papers. In June 2023, UKLFI successfully lobbied Pearson to withdraw its Edexcel English Language International GCSE exam paper because its question about a doctor’s experiences of operating on a child in Al Shifa hospital in Gaza “could have distressed students who are supportive of Israel during the exam”.

More recently, the group has targeted its efforts on the NHS. In February 2023, it managed to persuade Chelsea and Westminster Hospital to remove Gazan children’s artwork from the corridors, claiming it made Jewish patients feel “vulnerable, harassed and victimised”.

The trust’s crusade against the NHS continued this year, when it targeted Barts Health – an NHS trust encompassing five London hospitals – with several letters of complaint. Novara Media revealed that one such letter accused the trust of being “criminally liable” for allowing staff to wear ‘free Palestine’ and watermelon pin badges on their lanyards. Barts updated their uniform policy soon afterwards to ban all visible symbols of Palestinian solidarity. Three NHS staffers are taking Barts Health to court for discrimination.

UKLFI has targeted several other businesses that have allowed staff to wear pro-Palestine pins during Israel’s genocide, from household names like the Post Office and Selfridges to a Lake District garden centre.

Many of the trust’s targets are almost comically wholesome: in February 2024, UKLFI celebrated the cancellation of a community kite-making workshop, citing claims that the children’s event was “reminiscent of 7 October paragliders”. UKLFI also went after a hobby company that makes model railways, arguing that packaging featuring graffiti of the word ‘Gaza’ “could be reminiscent of 7 October”.

The group also undertakes work on an international level. In 2011, its CEO Jonathan Turner claimed “UK lawyers” had a crucial role in stopping a 2011 flotilla from reaching the Gaza Strip and breaking Israel’s maritime blockade. Also working on blocking the flotilla was Israeli law firm Shurat HaDin, an alleged proxy for Israeli intelligence service Mossad (the organisation did not reply to Electronic Intifada’s request for comment on the accusation).

More recently, in September 2024, UKLFI reported International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim Khan KC to the UK’s Bar Standards Board for allegedly making “false” statements about Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant when saying he would pursue arrest warrants for them. The lobby group claims that Khan had misled the ICC by failing to provide it with “exonerating evidence” sent to the court by UKLFI. Arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were issued in November 2024 for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And in May last year, UKLFI filed a 70-page dossier of complaints against UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese in May 2024, accusing her of displaying “conduct entirely unbefitting of her role” and sharing “offensive” posts on social media” – offensive posts such as one calling Israel’s operation in Gaza as a “policy of revenge”.

Friends in high places.

Both the staff and supporters of UKLFI are deeply embedded in the British establishment. Six of its nine patrons currently sit in the House of Lords, including Baron David Pannick, who advised former prime minister Boris Johnson over the Partygate scandal. Another, Lord John Dyson, served as the second most senior judge in England and Wales, and formerly chaired the advisory council to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

The group also has deep links to legacy media. Its CEO Jonathan Turner and director Caroline Turner are the parents of Camilla Turner, political editor of The Sunday Telegraph. Last August, Turner co-authored a front-page story for the paper on a new report that accused the BBC of anti-Israel bias. Turner’s piece did not mention her father’s significant involvement in it. Hausdorff has written 12 times for the Telegraph since November 2023.

There are also suggestions that the group may have direct links to the state of Israel. In a 2019 article, American outlet Mondoweiss alleged that UKLFI has “at the very least” an “informal working relationship” with the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs after UKLFI hosted talks by the ministry’s former director general in 2017 and co-hosted a seminar with the ministry and Israeli embassy in London in 2012.

The group has acted explicitly in the interests of the state of Israel, threatening the UK government with legal action over its decision to suspend 8% of its arms licences to Israel.

UKLFI’s increasingly public profile has brought with it a significant amount of negative attention. In May, Turner attracted widespread criticism for suggesting that a positive consequence of Israel’s war on Gaza could be the reduction of obesity rates. Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, called Turner’s remarks “sickening” and said: “These repulsive comments illustrate exactly what it means to be ‘for Israel’ and how low its apologists are prepared to sink in their attempts to justify genocide in Gaza.”

With high-profile creatives speaking out against UKLFI and its tactics, and campaigners calling for an investigation of UKLFI’s charitable wing, are the lawfare group’s days of impunity about to come to an end?

 

Estonia summoned Russia's charge d'affaires on July 28 after a Russian border patrol vessel violated its territorial waters earlier in the week, Estonian public broadcaster ERR reported.

According to ERR, this marks the first time in 2025 that a Russian naval vessel has violated Estonia's maritime border.

The Russian vessel Sochi 500, part of the Svetlyak-class patrol series, entered Estonia's territorial waters east of Vaindloo Island without permission early on the morning of July 26, according to the Estonian Defence Forces. The ship remained in Estonian waters for approximately 35 minutes before departing.

Vaindloo Island is Estonia's northernmost point, located in the Gulf of Finland near vital shipping routes and only about 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the Russian maritime border.

Under Estonia's State Border Act, foreign military vessels are allowed to pass through Estonian territorial waters only if conducting an "innocent passage," and must notify the Estonian Foreign Ministry at least 48 hours in advance. The Russian vessel failed to provide such notice, the Estonian military said.

The Estonian Navy monitored the situation in real time, identified the vessel, and confirmed the border violation.

"This is a serious and unacceptable incident," Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said. "That message has been clearly communicated to the Russian charge d'affaires."

The Estonian Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian diplomat on July 28 to deliver a formal note of protest.

Read also: Russia’s war crime in Olenivka is a test for international justice

view more: ‹ prev next ›