On 01/08/2026 01:39 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-01, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 01/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of their
rights.
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but well >>>> worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
That's nearly 2 hours long, so I'd agree with "lengthy". TLDW.
Can I just check that my overall understanding is correct. The trial
judge Johnson made certain directions concerning what could be said
during the trial of a PA activist.
Menon did not abide by those instructions.
That is the prosecution's argument I believe, yes.
As a consequence, he faced a contempt hearing, before a different judge, >>> which has now been stayed by the COA.
The COA hearing is to be heard before any contempt proceedings.
You refer to prosecution. Are you referring to the contempt hearing?
(I'm not quibbling about your choice of words, but prosecution usually
implies criminal charges, so it would be good to clarify.)
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their
clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
It is an affront against human rights for an advocate to have to say to
the client "if you want to make these points you will have to sack me
and make the points by yourself as a litigant in person".
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their clients >by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 09:11:08 +0100, The Todal wrote:
It is an affront against human rights for an advocate to have to say to
the client "if you want to make these points you will have to sack me
and make the points by yourself as a litigant in person".
That doesn't neccessarily mean (a) it doesn't happen and (b) you can do anything about it.
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd882iFaqj9U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their
clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
Surely the accused's legals representative should be able to point out
the law to the jury? There is a placard on the wall of the Old Bailey confirming jury nullification is acceptable after all.
If the barrister provides incorrect information then presumably the
judge would step in?
On 02/08/2026 07:57, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2026 01:39 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-01, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 01/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of their >>>>> rights.
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but
well
worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
That's nearly 2 hours long, so I'd agree with "lengthy". TLDW.
Can I just check that my overall understanding is correct. The trial
judge Johnson made certain directions concerning what could be said
during the trial of a PA activist.
Menon did not abide by those instructions.
That is the prosecution's argument I believe, yes.
As a consequence, he faced a contempt hearing, before a different
judge,
which has now been stayed by the COA.
The COA hearing is to be heard before any contempt proceedings.
You refer to prosecution. Are you referring to the contempt hearing?
(I'm not quibbling about your choice of words, but prosecution usually >>>> implies criminal charges, so it would be good to clarify.)
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their
clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
There are plenty of rules, and senior lawyers who are Kings Counsel (as
is Rajiv Menon, as are his colleagues in his chambers) know them well.
Know them far better than members of the public, or most journalists.
This case is an important power struggle between lawyers and the
political establishment. Judges always have the power to stop a
barrister in mid flow and tell him to stop making a particular point,
and to tell the jury that as a matter of law the point must be disregarded.The judge can even stop the trial in an extreme case and discharge the jury.
It is an affront against human rights for an advocate to have to say to
the client "if you want to make these points you will have to sack me
and make the points by yourself as a litigant in person".
The underlying problem in this case is Israel's genocide, its slaughter
of civilians in breach of international law, and the judge's decision
that this reason for attacking the Elbit factory must not be mentioned
to the jury. The judge wanted the jury to have the impression that the attack was senseless vandalism and that any underlying motive was delusional.
On 02/08/2026 09:11, The Todal wrote:
On 02/08/2026 07:57, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2026 01:39 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-01, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 01/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of
their rights.
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but >>>>>> well
worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
That's nearly 2 hours long, so I'd agree with "lengthy". TLDW.
Can I just check that my overall understanding is correct. The trial >>>>> judge Johnson made certain directions concerning what could be said
during the trial of a PA activist.
Menon did not abide by those instructions.
That is the prosecution's argument I believe, yes.
As a consequence, he faced a contempt hearing, before a different
judge,
which has now been stayed by the COA.
The COA hearing is to be heard before any contempt proceedings.
You refer to prosecution. Are you referring to the contempt hearing? >>>>> (I'm not quibbling about your choice of words, but prosecution usually >>>>> implies criminal charges, so it would be good to clarify.)
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their
clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
There are plenty of rules, and senior lawyers who are Kings Counsel
(as is Rajiv Menon, as are his colleagues in his chambers) know them
well. Know them far better than members of the public, or most
journalists.
This case is an important power struggle between lawyers and the
political establishment. Judges always have the power to stop a
barrister in mid flow and tell him to stop making a particular point,
and to tell the jury that as a matter of law the point must be
disregarded.The judge can even stop the trial in an extreme case and
discharge the jury.
It is an affront against human rights for an advocate to have to say
to the client "if you want to make these points you will have to sack
me and make the points by yourself as a litigant in person".
As a matter of interest, could a client allow his barrister to address
the jury most eloquently. Then, before the barrister's quite concluded,
the client jumps to his feet and says he wants to defend himself. He can then harangue the jury until the judge's patience is exhausted (and
probably beyond that).
The underlying problem in this case is Israel's genocide, its
slaughter of civilians in breach of international law, and the judge's
decision that this reason for attacking the Elbit factory must not be
mentioned to the jury. The judge wanted the jury to have the
impression that the attack was senseless vandalism and that any
underlying motive was delusional.
That's a pretty outrageous statement. I'm sure the judge gave some
reasons for placing limits on the arguments that could be presented, and wanting the defendants to appear delusional was most definitely not one
of them!
I'm sure the jury were perfectly aware of the situation in Gaza, and
they could infer the defendants' motives perfectly well. In any case, I expect the COA will determine whether the judge's instructions were legal.
Are these defendants the ones who took along a whip to attack security guards and hit a police officer on the spine with a sledge hammer?
Proper do-gooders!
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd882iFaqj9U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their
clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
Surely the accused's legals representative should be able to point out
the law to the jury? There is a placard on the wall of the Old Bailey confirming jury nullification is acceptable after all.
You refer to prosecution. Are you referring to the contempt hearing?
(I'm not quibbling about your choice of words, but prosecution usually
implies criminal charges, so it would be good to clarify.)
Contempt proceedings are criminal proceedings and Mr Menon might face a
fine or imprisonment if convicted.
On 02/08/2026 09:11, The Todal wrote:
It is an affront against human rights for an advocate to have to say to
the client "if you want to make these points you will have to sack me
and make the points by yourself as a litigant in person".
As a matter of interest, could a client allow his barrister to address
the jury most eloquently. Then, before the barrister's quite concluded,
the client jumps to his feet and says he wants to defend himself. He can then harangue the jury until the judge's patience is exhausted (and
probably beyond that).
quote from Menon's speech to the jury:
And I will start now with the first, which is Palestine and IsraelrCOs attack on Gaza. Now, after you were sworn, which seems a very long time
ago, ladies and gentlemen, and before the prosecution opened its case,
His Lordship gave you some initial oral directions which included some directions on what he called the war in Gaza. His Lordship told you that whilst you were entitled to your views about the war in Gaza, whatever
those views might be they were irrelevant to your consideration of the
case. And that was a perfectly fair point to make at that stage of the trial. You knew virtually nothing about the case, and so, prejudging
matters based on your pre-existing views, when you were yet to hear any evidence, would have been quite wrong and contrary to the affirmations
that each of you had just made. But, the position now is very different.
You have heard evidence about IsraelrCOs attack on Gaza, and about
Palestine more generally from those defendants who have given evidence.
And none of that evidence, by the defendants, has been challenged or contradicted by the prosecution. None of it. For example, you have heard evidence that thererCOs a genocide taking place in Gaza, that Israel was founded on top of Palestinian land and that Britain played a key role in this.
snip
Now, all that evidence is evidence in the case. You are entitled to take
it into account and give it what weight you think it justifies. Indeed,
you may think it would be wrong, even perverse to ignore that evidence
you have heard about the killing and destruction that has been taking
place in Gaza now for over two years. Look, how are you to assess the evidence as a whole in this case? How are you to assess the character of
the defendants, the credibility of their accounts, their conduct during
the action in Filton, their state of mind at critical times during the chronology of actions that culminated in the action; how are you able to assess any of that if you ignore the wider context of what has been happening in Gaza, and the impact that those events have had on these defendants? Additionally, are you supposed to forget your pasts, your knowledge of the world? Your experiences of life, your principles, your values, your wisdom, your common sense, your sense of what is right and wrong and fair and reasonable when you consider the evidence in this
case? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
On 02/08/2026 09:17, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd882iFaqj9U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their >>>clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
Surely the accused's legals representative should be able to point out >>the law to the jury? There is a placard on the wall of the Old Bailey >>confirming jury nullification is acceptable after all.
That is not the law. It is just something the law, which does not
encourage it, is powerless to prevent.
Each juror, before he is admitted to the jury swears 'I will faithfully
try the defendant and give a true verdict *according to the evidence*'.
The barrister was trying to subvert that by effectively saying decide >according to your conscience, ie not on the facts but how you feel.
However legal such an action by a jury may be, it is not something any >officer of the court should be advocating. Jury nullification is
something for the jury alone to decide, without prompting. It is
something that should be used only as a last resort against a tyrannical >law. It's the nuclear deterrent of the legal world, not to be used or >advocated lightly or routinely.
On 02/08/2026 09:11, The Todal wrote:
On 02/08/2026 07:57, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2026 01:39 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-01, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 01/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of their >>>>>> rights.
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but >>>>>> well
worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
That's nearly 2 hours long, so I'd agree with "lengthy". TLDW.
Can I just check that my overall understanding is correct. The trial >>>>> judge Johnson made certain directions concerning what could be said
during the trial of a PA activist.
Menon did not abide by those instructions.
That is the prosecution's argument I believe, yes.
As a consequence, he faced a contempt hearing, before a different
judge,
which has now been stayed by the COA.
The COA hearing is to be heard before any contempt proceedings.
You refer to prosecution. Are you referring to the contempt hearing? >>>>> (I'm not quibbling about your choice of words, but prosecution usually >>>>> implies criminal charges, so it would be good to clarify.)
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their
clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
There are plenty of rules, and senior lawyers who are Kings Counsel (as
is Rajiv Menon, as are his colleagues in his chambers) know them well.
Know them far better than members of the public, or most journalists.
This case is an important power struggle between lawyers and the
political establishment. Judges always have the power to stop a
barrister in mid flow and tell him to stop making a particular point,
and to tell the jury that as a matter of law the point must be
disregarded.The judge can even stop the trial in an extreme case and
discharge the jury.
It is an affront against human rights for an advocate to have to say to
the client "if you want to make these points you will have to sack me
and make the points by yourself as a litigant in person".
As a matter of interest, could a client allow his barrister to address
the jury most eloquently. Then, before the barrister's quite concluded,
the client jumps to his feet and says he wants to defend himself. He can
then harangue the jury until the judge's patience is exhausted (and
probably beyond that).
The underlying problem in this case is Israel's genocide, its slaughter
of civilians in breach of international law, and the judge's decision
that this reason for attacking the Elbit factory must not be mentioned
to the jury. The judge wanted the jury to have the impression that the
attack was senseless vandalism and that any underlying motive was
delusional.
That's a pretty outrageous statement. I'm sure the judge gave some
reasons for placing limits on the arguments that could be presented, and wanting the defendants to appear delusional was most definitely not one
of them!
I'm sure the jury were perfectly aware of the situation in Gaza, and
they could infer the defendants' motives perfectly well. In any case, I expect the COA will determine whether the judge's instructions were legal.
Are these defendants the ones who took along a whip to attack security
guards and hit a police officer on the spine with a sledge hammer?
Proper do-gooders!
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd8pkjFdbdeU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 09:17, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd882iFaqj9U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their
clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
Surely the accused's legals representative should be able to point
out the law to the jury? There is a placard on the wall of the Old
Bailey confirming jury nullification is acceptable after all.
That is not the law.-a It is just something the law, which does not
encourage it, is powerless to prevent.
But it is correct I believe? A jury can find somebody not guilty
whatever the judge may say?
Each juror, before he is admitted to the jury swears 'I will
faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict *according to the
evidence*'.
The barrister was trying to subvert that by effectively saying decide
according to your conscience, ie not on the facts but how you feel.
In practice jurors will make a decision based on their interpretation of what they have heard in evidence, few of them will be members of the
legal profession.
officer of the court should be advocating.-a Jury nullification is
something for the jury alone to decide, without prompting.-a It is
something that should be used only as a last resort against a
tyrannical law.-a It's the nuclear deterrent of the legal world, not to
be used or advocated lightly or routinely.
Jurors can only apply jury nullification if they are aware of it
so in my view they should be told , perhaps it should be in their instruction
pack?
Certainly trying to prevent people protesting against the slaughter of Palestinians is tyrannical?
On 02/08/2026 09:17, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is not the law. It is just something the law, which does not
encourage it, is powerless to prevent.
Each juror, before he is admitted to the jury swears 'I will faithfully
try the defendant and give a true verdict *according to the evidence*'.
The barrister was trying to subvert that by effectively saying decide according to your conscience, ie not on the facts but how you feel.
On 02/08/2026 10:43, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Quite so.
We as ordinary citizens can do nothing about it. But our lawyers, not
our politicians, are our guardians of civil liberties and human rights
and we depend on them to resist oppressive behaviour either from the judiciary or from the police and the government.
In practice jurors will make a decision based on their interpretation of >>what they have heard in evidence, few of them will be members of the >>legal profession.
That's why the judge is there; to tell them what the law is and what the >logical consequences are of their findings on matters of fact, ie guilt or >not.
However legal such an action by a jury may be, it is not something any >>>officer of the court should be advocating.-a Jury nullification is >>>something for the jury alone to decide, without prompting.-a It is >>>something that should be used only as a last resort against a tyrannical >>>law.-a It's the nuclear deterrent of the legal world, not to be used or >>>advocated lightly or routinely.
Jurors can only apply jury nullification if they are aware of it
No, not so. Finding someone not guilty of stealing a loaf if the >consequence is hanging doesn't involve any knowledge of anything. That's a >moral judgement. But the official line is that the case should be decided >on the facts, so a thief should be found guilty, with any consequences of >that, as provided by democratically enacted laws, following.
so in my view they should be told , perhaps it should be in their >>instruction pack?
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if you
wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
Certainly trying to prevent people protesting against the slaughter of >>Palestinians is tyrannical?
That's a political matter, not one for the law or the courts.
JNugent wrote:
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their
clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
Surely the accused's legals representative should be able to point out
the law to the jury? There is a placard on the wall of the Old Bailey confirming jury nullification is acceptable after all.
If the barrister provides incorrect information then presumably the
judge would step in?
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 09:11, The Todal wrote:
It is an affront against human rights for an advocate to have to say to
the client "if you want to make these points you will have to sack me
and make the points by yourself as a litigant in person".
As a matter of interest, could a client allow his barrister to address
the jury most eloquently. Then, before the barrister's quite concluded,
the client jumps to his feet and says he wants to defend himself. He can
then harangue the jury until the judge's patience is exhausted (and
probably beyond that).
I wouldn't be surprised if the judge can prevent that if they want to.
I had a (civil, not criminal) experience once a the Royal Courts of
Justice* once, which went something like this:
OUR LAWYERS: If you notify the court and the claimant shortly before
the hearing that you have sacked us as lawyers and are
seeking new representation, the judge will have no option
but to adjourn the hearing to another date.
THE JUDGE: <doesn't adjourn the hearing>
which then lead to:
THE JUDGE: Do you have any objection to these orders?
ME: I don't even know what possible grounds there are that
I might object to them under.
THE JUDGE: That's a "no" then.
* in a most disappointing courtroom... I walked through the impressive
and characterful Victorian neo-Gothic Harry Potter theme park that is
the RCJ, following signs here and there, until I exited the back of
the building, crossed a car park, and ended up in some shitty 1970s
office block.
It is an affront against human rights for an advocate to have to say to|| | |That doesn't neccessarily mean (a) it doesn't happen [. . .]" | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
the client "if you want to make these points you will have to sack me |
and make the points by yourself as a litigant in person". |
Palestinians is tyrannical? || | |That's a political matter, not one for the law or the courts." | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 12:57:07 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That is not the law. It is just something the law, which does not
encourage it, is powerless to prevent.
Nonsense. It's trivial to lock up jurors who reach the wrong decision
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: |----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[. . .] | |according to your conscience, ie not on the facts [. . .] |
| | |However legal such an action by a jury may be, it is not something any| |officer of the court should be advocating. [. . .] |
|[. . .] |
|[. . .] a tyrannical | |law." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Indeed, officers of courts are against consciences; and they fabricate
false facts or they rely on out-of-context facts for tyrants to
pretend that applicable laws be irrelevant. E.g. Joan of Arc is
murdered by a court order by pretending that a law does not permit her
to wear trousers.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------| |"It's the nuclear deterrent of the legal world[. . .]" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|
So what is the ex-law about forbidding jurors to eat before they come
up with some decision instead of a right decision?
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd906rFdbdeU3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
In practice jurors will make a decision based on their interpretation
of what they have heard in evidence, few of them will be members of
the legal profession.
That's why the judge is there; to tell them what the law is and what
the logical consequences are of their findings on matters of fact, ie
guilt or not.
But, apparently, not to tell them they are free to find the accuse not guilty even if they have been steered towards, or even told, to find him guilty?
However legal such an action by a jury may be, it is not something any >>>> officer of the court should be advocating.-a Jury nullification is
something for the jury alone to decide, without prompting.-a It is
something that should be used only as a last resort against a
tyrannical law.-a It's the nuclear deterrent of the legal world, not
to-a be used or advocated lightly or routinely.
Jurors can only apply jury nullification if they are aware of it
No, not so.-a Finding someone not guilty of stealing a loaf if the
consequence is hanging doesn't involve any knowledge of anything.
That's a moral judgement.-a But the official line is that the case
should be decided on the facts, so a thief should be found guilty,
with any consequences of that, as provided by democratically enacted
laws, following.
so in my view they should be told , perhaps it should be in their
instruction-a pack?
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if you
wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Certainly trying to prevent people protesting against the slaughter
of Palestinians is tyrannical?
That's a political matter, not one for the law or the courts.
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a-a tyrannical law" as you said.
On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 12:57:07 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 09:17, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is not the law. It is just something the law, which does not
encourage it, is powerless to prevent.
Nonsense. It's trivial to lock up jurors who reach the wrong decision
Each juror, before he is admitted to the jury swears 'I will faithfully
try the defendant and give a true verdict *according to the evidence*'.
We really need to define "evidence" here. Because we all know that words
in law can mean different thing to words in use
The barrister was trying to subvert that by effectively saying decide
according to your conscience, ie not on the facts but how you feel.
When did consciences become illegal ? Are they that evil ? Should we eliminate them in our education system ?
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd906rFdbdeU3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
In practice jurors will make a decision based on their interpretation
of what they have heard in evidence, few of them will be members of
the legal profession.
That's why the judge is there; to tell them what the law is and what
the logical consequences are of their findings on matters of fact, ie
guilt or not.
But, apparently, not to tell them they are free to find the accuse not guilty even if they have been steered towards, or even told, to find him guilty?
However legal such an action by a jury may be, it is not something any >>>> officer of the court should be advocating.-a Jury nullification is
something for the jury alone to decide, without prompting.-a It is
something that should be used only as a last resort against a
tyrannical law.-a It's the nuclear deterrent of the legal world, not
to-a be used or advocated lightly or routinely.
Jurors can only apply jury nullification if they are aware of it
No, not so.-a Finding someone not guilty of stealing a loaf if the
consequence is hanging doesn't involve any knowledge of anything.
That's a moral judgement.-a But the official line is that the case
should be decided on the facts, so a thief should be found guilty,
with any consequences of that, as provided by democratically enacted
laws, following.
so in my view they should be told , perhaps it should be in their
instruction-a pack?
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if you
wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Certainly trying to prevent people protesting against the slaughter
of Palestinians is tyrannical?
That's a political matter, not one for the law or the courts.
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a-a tyrannical law" as you said.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"> Certainly trying to prevent people protesting against the slaughter of|
Palestinians is tyrannical? || | |That's a political matter, not one for the law or the courts." | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Politicians and courts make laws. Laws require actions against
crimes. We let courts obey and use laws made up by politicians.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
On 2 Aug 2026 at 12:45:19 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 09:11, The Todal wrote:
On 02/08/2026 07:57, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2026 01:39 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-01, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 01/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
A leading barrister faces prosecution for reminding a jury of their >>>>>>> rights.
This very worthwhile and authoritative presentation is lengthy but >>>>>>> well
worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRvw66sjJU
That's nearly 2 hours long, so I'd agree with "lengthy". TLDW.
Can I just check that my overall understanding is correct. The trial >>>>>> judge Johnson made certain directions concerning what could be said >>>>>> during the trial of a PA activist.
Menon did not abide by those instructions.
That is the prosecution's argument I believe, yes.
As a consequence, he faced a contempt hearing, before a different
judge,
which has now been stayed by the COA.
The COA hearing is to be heard before any contempt proceedings.
You refer to prosecution. Are you referring to the contempt hearing? >>>>>> (I'm not quibbling about your choice of words, but prosecution usually >>>>>> implies criminal charges, so it would be good to clarify.)
He's accused of criminal contempt. He could get two years prison.
For defending his client.
Are lawyers (of whatever standing) simply entitled to defend their
clients by any means they choose, then?
Are there no rules at all?
There are plenty of rules, and senior lawyers who are Kings Counsel (as
is Rajiv Menon, as are his colleagues in his chambers) know them well.
Know them far better than members of the public, or most journalists.
This case is an important power struggle between lawyers and the
political establishment. Judges always have the power to stop a
barrister in mid flow and tell him to stop making a particular point,
and to tell the jury that as a matter of law the point must be
disregarded.The judge can even stop the trial in an extreme case and
discharge the jury.
It is an affront against human rights for an advocate to have to say to
the client "if you want to make these points you will have to sack me
and make the points by yourself as a litigant in person".
As a matter of interest, could a client allow his barrister to address
the jury most eloquently. Then, before the barrister's quite concluded,
the client jumps to his feet and says he wants to defend himself. He can
then harangue the jury until the judge's patience is exhausted (and
probably beyond that).
The underlying problem in this case is Israel's genocide, its slaughter
of civilians in breach of international law, and the judge's decision
that this reason for attacking the Elbit factory must not be mentioned
to the jury. The judge wanted the jury to have the impression that the
attack was senseless vandalism and that any underlying motive was
delusional.
That's a pretty outrageous statement. I'm sure the judge gave some
reasons for placing limits on the arguments that could be presented, and
wanting the defendants to appear delusional was most definitely not one
of them!
I'm sure the jury were perfectly aware of the situation in Gaza, and
they could infer the defendants' motives perfectly well. In any case, I
expect the COA will determine whether the judge's instructions were legal.
It is entirely likely that 12 randomly chosen people would have no idea that the criminal damage was of an Israeli arms manufacturer nor that the defendants' behaviour was related to Gaza.
Are these defendants the ones who took along a whip to attack security
guards and hit a police officer on the spine with a sledge hammer?
Proper do-gooders!
That I'm afraid is unacceptable obfuscation and grossly misleading. It was accepted by the courts that only one of defendants committed GBH and that the others were not responsible for this outrageous behaviour as they did not anticipate it. And it was not his criminal assault that was being defended in this case.
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a-a tyrannical law" as you said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who
insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if you >>>wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. If
they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find him not guilty and no-one >can gainsay them. That will be an end to it.
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of the >evidence.
Certainly trying to prevent people protesting against the slaughter of >>>>Palestinians is tyrannical?
That's a political matter, not one for the law or the courts.
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a-a tyrannical law" as you said.
That depends on which law you are being non-specific about.
so in my view they should be told , perhaps it should be in their >>>>instruction-a pack?
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if you >>>wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
You're not giving the jury much credit for common sense, are you? They are >fully aware that the verdict is for them to decide, on any basis they see >fit, taking into account their oath.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
|----------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Are you advocating a total free-for-all, ie decide whatever you like | |even on no basis whatsoever, ignoring the trial process entirely, ie | |effectively no trial at all, [. . .]" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Norman Wells and show-trial judges advocate deciding whatever they
like, ignoring a Geneva convention and a Rome statute which prohibit
genocide - i.e. laws which outlaw these show trials.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
On 03/08/2026 02:08 AM, Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce++ter wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Are you advocating a total free-for-all, ie decide whatever you like |
|even on no basis whatsoever, ignoring the trial process entirely, ie |
|effectively no trial at all, [. . .]" |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Norman Wells and show-trial judges advocate deciding whatever they
like, ignoring a Geneva convention and a Rome statute which prohibit
genocide - i.e. laws which outlaw these show trials.
The prisoners were not charged with "genocide". No-one has ever
suggested that they were.
The charges were based on the criminal damage caused and the serious assault(s) on a police officer or officers.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd906rFdbdeU3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
In practice jurors will make a decision based on their interpretation >>>> of what they have heard in evidence, few of them will be members of the >>>> legal profession.
That's why the judge is there; to tell them what the law is and what the >>> logical consequences are of their findings on matters of fact, ie guilt >>> or not.
But, apparently, not to tell them they are free to find the accuse not
guilty even if they have been steered towards, or even told, to find him
guilty?
That would be a complete mistrial and obvious grounds for appeal.-a It doesn't happen.-a The only possibility is if the judge instructs the jury to acquit on certain charges because no conceivable case exists in law or has been made out.-a He can never instruct the jury to convict or even steer them in that direction without almost certainly being struck off. That is the jury's decision and theirs alone.
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if
you wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not guilty.
If they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find him not guilty and
no-one can gainsay them.-a That will be an end to it.
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.
Like this, totally factually, then?They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of the
evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the possibilities.
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who
insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me" [ ... ]
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce++ter wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
|----------------------------------------------------------------------| >>> |"Are you advocating a total free-for-all, ie decide whatever you like | >>> |even on no basis whatsoever, ignoring the trial process entirely, ie | >>> |effectively no trial at all, [. . .]" | >>> |----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Norman Wells and show-trial judges advocate deciding whatever they
like, ignoring a Geneva convention and a Rome statute which prohibit
genocide - i.e. laws which outlaw these show trials.
The prisoners were not charged with "genocide". No-one has ever
suggested that they were.
The charges were based on the criminal damage caused and the serious
assault(s) on a police officer or officers.
You seem to have forgotten that *after* the verdict their offences were re-classified administratively as "terrorism" and higher penalties applied.
On 03/08/2026 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>wrote:Like this, totally factually, then?
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if you >>>>>wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. If >>>they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find him not guilty and >>>no-one can gainsay them.-a That will be an end to it.
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of the >>>evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the >>possibilities.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You will shortly be escorted to the
jury room where you will agree upon your verdict in this case.
What transpires in that room is secret. No recordings or written records >are made or kept. No-one may question you about what, if anything, you >discuss. You are beyond reproach. You may decide not to discuss
anything. No-one will know. You may decide on any basis (or none) you >choose, however perverse. You may decide you want to get out of there as >quickly as possible to get on with your lives. In that case you may
decide that a quick unanimous not guilty (and guilt-free) verdict is the
way to proceed. I cannot advise you one way or the other. You must
decide for yourselves.
In case you are troubled by the oath you took when being empanelled on
this jury, I can, however, state without fear of contradiction, that no
gods exist, so there will be no retribution either in this life or at any >time afterwards. You may therefore reasonably conclude that this was just
a silly irrelevance you can ignore with complete impunity."
On 03/08/2026 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman WellsLike this, totally factually, then?
wrote:
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if
you wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not guilty.
If they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find him not guilty and
no-one can gainsay them. That will be an end to it.
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of the
evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the
possibilities.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You will shortly be escorted to the
jury room where you will agree upon your verdict in this case.
What transpires in that room is secret. No recordings or written
records are made or kept. No-one may question you about what, if
anything, you discuss. You are beyond reproach. You may decide not to discuss anything. No-one will know. You may decide on any basis (or
none) you choose, however perverse. You may decide you want to get out
of there as quickly as possible to get on with your lives. In that case
you may decide that a quick unanimous not guilty (and guilt-free)
verdict is the way to proceed. I cannot advise you one way or the
other. You must decide for yourselves.
In case you are troubled by the oath you took when being empanelled on
this jury, I can, however, state without fear of contradiction, that no
gods exist, so there will be no retribution either in this life or at
any time afterwards. You may therefore reasonably conclude that this
was just a silly irrelevance you can ignore with complete impunity."
On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 12:40:32 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 02/08/2026 10:43, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Quite so.
We as ordinary citizens can do nothing about it. But our lawyers, not
our politicians, are our guardians of civil liberties and human rights
and we depend on them to resist oppressive behaviour either from the
judiciary or from the police and the government.
Really ?
I always assumed they just wanted to make a conmfortable living. Fairness
and justice are for other people to worry about. Which, to be fair, we
do.
On 2026-08-02, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
quote from Menon's speech to the jury:
And I will start now with the first, which is Palestine and IsraelrCOs
attack on Gaza. Now, after you were sworn, which seems a very long time
ago, ladies and gentlemen, and before the prosecution opened its case,
His Lordship gave you some initial oral directions which included some
directions on what he called the war in Gaza. His Lordship told you that
whilst you were entitled to your views about the war in Gaza, whatever
those views might be they were irrelevant to your consideration of the
case. And that was a perfectly fair point to make at that stage of the
trial. You knew virtually nothing about the case, and so, prejudging
matters based on your pre-existing views, when you were yet to hear any
evidence, would have been quite wrong and contrary to the affirmations
that each of you had just made. But, the position now is very different.
You have heard evidence about IsraelrCOs attack on Gaza, and about
Palestine more generally from those defendants who have given evidence.
And none of that evidence, by the defendants, has been challenged or
contradicted by the prosecution. None of it. For example, you have heard
evidence that thererCOs a genocide taking place in Gaza, that Israel was
founded on top of Palestinian land and that Britain played a key role in
this.
snip
Now, all that evidence is evidence in the case. You are entitled to take
it into account and give it what weight you think it justifies. Indeed,
you may think it would be wrong, even perverse to ignore that evidence
you have heard about the killing and destruction that has been taking
place in Gaza now for over two years. Look, how are you to assess the
evidence as a whole in this case? How are you to assess the character of
the defendants, the credibility of their accounts, their conduct during
the action in Filton, their state of mind at critical times during the
chronology of actions that culminated in the action; how are you able to
assess any of that if you ignore the wider context of what has been
happening in Gaza, and the impact that those events have had on these
defendants? Additionally, are you supposed to forget your pasts, your
knowledge of the world? Your experiences of life, your principles, your
values, your wisdom, your common sense, your sense of what is right and
wrong and fair and reasonable when you consider the evidence in this
case? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
Is that the but he's being criminally prosecuted for? For referring
to the evidence presented before the court, and not even mentioning nullification?
On 02/08/2026 13:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
quote from Menon's speech to the jury:
And I will start now with the first, which is Palestine and IsraelrCOs
attack on Gaza. Now, after you were sworn, which seems a very long time
ago, ladies and gentlemen, and before the prosecution opened its case,
His Lordship gave you some initial oral directions which included some
directions on what he called the war in Gaza. His Lordship told you that >>> whilst you were entitled to your views about the war in Gaza, whatever
those views might be they were irrelevant to your consideration of the
case. And that was a perfectly fair point to make at that stage of the
trial. You knew virtually nothing about the case, and so, prejudging
matters based on your pre-existing views, when you were yet to hear any
evidence, would have been quite wrong and contrary to the affirmations
that each of you had just made. But, the position now is very different. >>> You have heard evidence about IsraelrCOs attack on Gaza, and about
Palestine more generally from those defendants who have given evidence.
And none of that evidence, by the defendants, has been challenged or
contradicted by the prosecution. None of it. For example, you have heard >>> evidence that thererCOs a genocide taking place in Gaza, that Israel was >>> founded on top of Palestinian land and that Britain played a key role in >>> this.
snip
Now, all that evidence is evidence in the case. You are entitled to take >>> it into account and give it what weight you think it justifies. Indeed,
you may think it would be wrong, even perverse to ignore that evidence
you have heard about the killing and destruction that has been taking
place in Gaza now for over two years. Look, how are you to assess the
evidence as a whole in this case? How are you to assess the character of >>> the defendants, the credibility of their accounts, their conduct during
the action in Filton, their state of mind at critical times during the
chronology of actions that culminated in the action; how are you able to >>> assess any of that if you ignore the wider context of what has been
happening in Gaza, and the impact that those events have had on these
defendants? Additionally, are you supposed to forget your pasts, your
knowledge of the world? Your experiences of life, your principles, your
values, your wisdom, your common sense, your sense of what is right and
wrong and fair and reasonable when you consider the evidence in this
case? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
Is that the but he's being criminally prosecuted for? For referring
to the evidence presented before the court, and not even mentioning
nullification?
The judge wasn't willing to be specific, as I think is clear from the transcript. But jury nullification was indeed mentioned in Menon's
summing up.
quote
Now, the key point to summarise, rather than just read the whole thing
out, is that the facts and the verdicts you return, having considered
the facts, are solely for you. In short, nobody, not even His Lordship,
can direct you what factual conclusions to reach; nobody, not even His Lordship, can direct you to convict.
On 03/08/2026 in message <ndb6s3Fop8kU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net> NormanLike this, totally factually, then?
Wells wrote:
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if >>>>>> you wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not
guilty.-a-a If they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find him
not guilty and no-one can gainsay them.-a That will be an end to it.
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of the
evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the
possibilities.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.-a You will shortly be escorted to
the jury room where you will agree upon your verdict in this case.
What transpires in that room is secret.-a No recordings or written
records are made or kept.-a No-one may question you about what, if
anything, you discuss.-a You are beyond reproach.-a You may decide not
to discuss anything.-a No-one will know.-a You may decide on any basis
(or none) you choose, however perverse.-a You may decide you want to
get out of there as quickly as possible to get on with your lives.-a In
that case you may decide that a quick unanimous not guilty (and guilt-
free) verdict is the way to proceed.-a I cannot advise you one way or
the other.-a You must decide for yourselves.
In case you are troubled by the oath you took when being empanelled on
this jury, I can, however, state without fear of contradiction, that
no gods exist, so there will be no retribution either in this life or
at any time afterwards.-a You may therefore reasonably conclude that
this was just a silly irrelevance you can ignore with complete impunity."
I have never been on a jury is that a quote?
If not then it's a good basis for instructions, just make it less
facetious.
On 03/08/2026 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 03/08/2026 in message <ndb6s3Fop8kU1@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net> NormanLike this, totally factually, then?
Wells wrote:
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available if >>>>>>> you wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not
guilty.-a-a If they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find him >>>>> not guilty and no-one can gainsay them.-a That will be an end to it.
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of
the evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the
possibilities.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.-a You will shortly be escorted to
the jury room where you will agree upon your verdict in this case.
What transpires in that room is secret.-a No recordings or written
records are made or kept.-a No-one may question you about what, if
anything, you discuss.-a You are beyond reproach.-a You may decide not
to discuss anything.-a No-one will know.-a You may decide on any basis
(or none) you choose, however perverse.-a You may decide you want to
get out of there as quickly as possible to get on with your lives.
In that case you may decide that a quick unanimous not guilty (and
guilt- free) verdict is the way to proceed.-a I cannot advise you one
way or the other.-a You must decide for yourselves.
In case you are troubled by the oath you took when being empanelled
on this jury, I can, however, state without fear of contradiction,
that no gods exist, so there will be no retribution either in this
life or at any time afterwards.-a You may therefore reasonably
conclude that this was just a silly irrelevance you can ignore with
complete impunity."
I have never been on a jury is that a quote?
If not then it's a good basis for instructions, just make it less
facetious.
It's actually a charter for irresponsibility.
On 2026-08-03, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 13:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
quote from Menon's speech to the jury:
quote
Now, the key point to summarise, rather than just read the whole thing
out, is that the facts and the verdicts you return, having considered
the facts, are solely for you. In short, nobody, not even His Lordship,
can direct you what factual conclusions to reach; nobody, not even His
Lordship, can direct you to convict.
But certainly the part of his speech that you quoted here, at least,
says nothing about jury nullification. It says simply that the judge
cannot *direct* the jury to convict, and that's a fact, and not a
"secret" one like the fact that the jury can decide to acquit despite
the facts. The prosecution is presumably going to have to do better
than that if it wants to convict him of contempt.
On 03/08/2026 17:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-03, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 13:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
quote from Menon's speech to the jury:
quote
Now, the key point to summarise, rather than just read the whole thing
out, is that the facts and the verdicts you return, having considered
the facts, are solely for you. In short, nobody, not even His Lordship,
can direct you what factual conclusions to reach; nobody, not even His
Lordship, can direct you to convict.
But certainly the part of his speech that you quoted here, at least,
says nothing about jury nullification. It says simply that the judge
cannot *direct* the jury to convict, and that's a fact, and not a
"secret" one like the fact that the jury can decide to acquit despite
the facts. The prosecution is presumably going to have to do better
than that if it wants to convict him of contempt.
The judge's rulings included:
"The jury were not to be informed that a judge may not direct the jury to convict."
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Re-Rajiv-Menon-KC.pdf
On 02/08/2026 18:38, Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce++ter wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| >> |"> Certainly trying to prevent people protesting against the slaughter of| >> |> Palestinians is tyrannical? | >> | | >> |That's a political matter, not one for the law or the courts." | >> |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| >>
Politicians and courts make laws. Laws require actions against
crimes. We let courts obey and use laws made up by politicians.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
No, courts are there to apply laws enacted by politicians democratically elected to make such laws.
It's what democracy is.
On 2026-08-03, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But certainly the part of his speech that you quoted here, at least,
says nothing about jury nullification. It says simply that the judge
cannot *direct* the jury to convict,
On 03/08/2026 16:58, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 03/08/2026 in message <ndb6s3Fop8kU1@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net> NormanLike this, totally factually, then?
Wells wrote:
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available >>>>>>>> if you wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not
guilty.-a-a If they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find him >>>>>> not guilty and no-one can gainsay them.-a That will be an end to it. >>>>>
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of
the evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the
possibilities.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.-a You will shortly be escorted to
the jury room where you will agree upon your verdict in this case.
What transpires in that room is secret.-a No recordings or written
records are made or kept.-a No-one may question you about what, if
anything, you discuss.-a You are beyond reproach.-a You may decide not >>>> to discuss anything.-a No-one will know.-a You may decide on any basis >>>> (or none) you choose, however perverse.-a You may decide you want to
get out of there as quickly as possible to get on with your lives.
In that case you may decide that a quick unanimous not guilty (and
guilt- free) verdict is the way to proceed.-a I cannot advise you one >>>> way or the other.-a You must decide for yourselves.
In case you are troubled by the oath you took when being empanelled
on this jury, I can, however, state without fear of contradiction,
that no gods exist, so there will be no retribution either in this
life or at any time afterwards.-a You may therefore reasonably
conclude that this was just a silly irrelevance you can ignore with
complete impunity."
I have never been on a jury is that a quote?
If not then it's a good basis for instructions, just make it less
facetious.
It's actually a charter for irresponsibility.
I have thought for many years that swearing by Almighty God or
affirming, are procedures that urgently need to be brought up to date
but maybe never will.
There is a phrase on police statements that could usefully be adopted in
a courtroom -
"I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable
to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to
be false or do not believe to be true"
So, rather than fearing the wrath of the imaginary deity, it would be
more worrying for the witness to bear in mind that he might actually be prosecuted if he tells lies.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 16:03:15 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-03, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But certainly the part of his speech that you quoted here, at least,
says nothing about jury nullification. It says simply that the judge
cannot *direct* the jury to convict,
They used to be able to. Maybe they should again ?
They can certainly direct a jury to acquit (not sure why ?)
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 16:03:15 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-03, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But certainly the part of his speech that you quoted here, at least,
says nothing about jury nullification. It says simply that the judge
cannot *direct* the jury to convict,
They used to be able to. Maybe they should again ?
They can certainly direct a jury to acquit (not sure why ?)
On 02/08/2026 20:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/08/2026 18:38, Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce++ter wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| >>> |"> Certainly trying to prevent people protesting against the
slaughter of|
Palestinians istyrannical?-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a |
|
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a |
|That's a political matter, not one for the law or the
courts."-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| >>>
Politicians and courts make laws. Laws require actions against
crimes. We let courts obey and use laws made up by politicians.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
No, courts are there to apply laws enacted by politicians democratically
elected to make such laws.
Where does case law fit into that?
It's what democracy is.
What type of democracy?
On 03/08/2026 17:47, The Todal wrote:
On 03/08/2026 16:58, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 03/08/2026 in message <ndb6s3Fop8kU1@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>> Wells wrote:Like this, totally factually, then?
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available >>>>>>>>> if you wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not
guilty.-a-a If they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find him >>>>>>> not guilty and no-one can gainsay them.-a That will be an end to it. >>>>>>
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of >>>>>>> the evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the
possibilities.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.-a You will shortly be escorted to >>>>> the jury room where you will agree upon your verdict in this case.
What transpires in that room is secret.-a No recordings or written
records are made or kept.-a No-one may question you about what, if
anything, you discuss.-a You are beyond reproach.-a You may decide
not to discuss anything.-a No-one will know.-a You may decide on any >>>>> basis (or none) you choose, however perverse.-a You may decide you
want to get out of there as quickly as possible to get on with your >>>>> lives. In that case you may decide that a quick unanimous not
guilty (and guilt- free) verdict is the way to proceed.-a I cannot
advise you one way or the other.-a You must decide for yourselves.
In case you are troubled by the oath you took when being empanelled >>>>> on this jury, I can, however, state without fear of contradiction,
that no gods exist, so there will be no retribution either in this
life or at any time afterwards.-a You may therefore reasonably
conclude that this was just a silly irrelevance you can ignore with >>>>> complete impunity."
I have never been on a jury is that a quote?
If not then it's a good basis for instructions, just make it less
facetious.
It's actually a charter for irresponsibility.
I have thought for many years that swearing by Almighty God or
affirming, are procedures that urgently need to be brought up to date
but maybe never will.
There is a phrase on police statements that could usefully be adopted
in a courtroom -
"I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be
liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I
know to be false or do not believe to be true"
So, rather than fearing the wrath of the imaginary deity, it would be
more worrying for the witness to bear in mind that he might actually
be prosecuted if he tells lies.
Witnesses can of course be prosecuted for perjury or perverting the
course of justice if they deliberately lie under their present oath. However, we were not considering the witness's oath, but the one taken
by jurors.
Witnesses, unlike jurors, give their evidence in public in open court
where they can be heard, judged and recorded.-a Jurors don't.
No amendment of the juror's oath can possibly make any difference unless accompanied by its deliberations no longer being private and secret. Otherwise, no-one would know or be able to establish anything.
On 03/08/2026 17:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-03, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 13:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
quote from Menon's speech to the jury:
quote
Now, the key point to summarise, rather than just read the whole thing
out, is that the facts and the verdicts you return, having considered
the facts, are solely for you. In short, nobody, not even His Lordship,
can direct you what factual conclusions to reach; nobody, not even His
Lordship, can direct you to convict.
But certainly the part of his speech that you quoted here, at least,
says nothing about jury nullification. It says simply that the judge
cannot *direct* the jury to convict, and that's a fact, and not a
"secret" one like the fact that the jury can decide to acquit despite
the facts. The prosecution is presumably going to have to do better
than that if it wants to convict him of contempt.
-aThe judge's rulings included:
-a-a "The jury were not to be informed that a judge may not direct the
jury to convict."
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Re-Rajiv-Menon-KC.pdf
On 03/08/2026 18:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 17:47, The Todal wrote:
I have thought for many years that swearing by Almighty God or
affirming, are procedures that urgently need to be brought up to date
but maybe never will.
There is a phrase on police statements that could usefully be adopted
in a courtroom -
"I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be
liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I
know to be false or do not believe to be true"
So, rather than fearing the wrath of the imaginary deity, it would be
more worrying for the witness to bear in mind that he might actually
be prosecuted if he tells lies.
Witnesses can of course be prosecuted for perjury or perverting the
course of justice if they deliberately lie under their present oath.
However, we were not considering the witness's oath, but the one taken
by jurors.
Witnesses, unlike jurors, give their evidence in public in open court
where they can be heard, judged and recorded.-a Jurors don't.
No amendment of the juror's oath can possibly make any difference unless
accompanied by its deliberations no longer being private and secret.
Otherwise, no-one would know or be able to establish anything.
I agree. But the juror's "oath" should merely be a declaration, an undertaking.
There is no available sanction against a juror who fails to "give a true verdict according to the evidence" and that is because in most cases
there is no objective definition of a true verdict. It is entirely up to
the juror how he assesses the evidence and what he considers to be a
true verdict.
On 03/08/2026 18:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 17:47, The Todal wrote:
On 03/08/2026 16:58, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 03/08/2026 in message <ndb6s3Fop8kU1@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net>Like this, totally factually, then?
Norman Wells wrote:
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available >>>>>>>>>> if you wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not
guilty.-a-a If they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find >>>>>>>> him not guilty and no-one can gainsay them.-a That will be an end >>>>>>>> to it.
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of >>>>>>>> the evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the
possibilities.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.-a You will shortly be escorted >>>>>> to the jury room where you will agree upon your verdict in this case. >>>>>>
What transpires in that room is secret.-a No recordings or written >>>>>> records are made or kept.-a No-one may question you about what, if >>>>>> anything, you discuss.-a You are beyond reproach.-a You may decide >>>>>> not to discuss anything.-a No-one will know.-a You may decide on any >>>>>> basis (or none) you choose, however perverse.-a You may decide you >>>>>> want to get out of there as quickly as possible to get on with
your lives. In that case you may decide that a quick unanimous not >>>>>> guilty (and guilt- free) verdict is the way to proceed.-a I cannot >>>>>> advise you one way or the other.-a You must decide for yourselves. >>>>>>
In case you are troubled by the oath you took when being
empanelled on this jury, I can, however, state without fear of
contradiction, that no gods exist, so there will be no retribution >>>>>> either in this life or at any time afterwards.-a You may therefore >>>>>> reasonably conclude that this was just a silly irrelevance you can >>>>>> ignore with complete impunity."
I have never been on a jury is that a quote?
If not then it's a good basis for instructions, just make it less
facetious.
It's actually a charter for irresponsibility.
I have thought for many years that swearing by Almighty God or
affirming, are procedures that urgently need to be brought up to date
but maybe never will.
There is a phrase on police statements that could usefully be adopted
in a courtroom -
"I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be
liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which
I know to be false or do not believe to be true"
So, rather than fearing the wrath of the imaginary deity, it would be
more worrying for the witness to bear in mind that he might actually
be prosecuted if he tells lies.
Witnesses can of course be prosecuted for perjury or perverting the
course of justice if they deliberately lie under their present oath.
However, we were not considering the witness's oath, but the one taken
by jurors.
Witnesses, unlike jurors, give their evidence in public in open court
where they can be heard, judged and recorded.-a Jurors don't.
No amendment of the juror's oath can possibly make any difference
unless accompanied by its deliberations no longer being private and
secret. Otherwise, no-one would know or be able to establish anything.
I agree. But the juror's "oath" should merely be a declaration, an undertaking.
There is no available sanction against a juror who fails to "give a true verdict according to the evidence" and that is because in most cases
there is no objective definition of a true verdict. It is entirely up to
the juror how he assesses the evidence and what he considers to be a
true verdict.
On 03/08/2026 19:32, The Todal wrote:
On 03/08/2026 18:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 17:47, The Todal wrote:
On 03/08/2026 16:58, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 03/08/2026 in message <ndb6s3Fop8kU1@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>> Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net>Like this, totally factually, then?
Norman Wells wrote:
No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available >>>>>>>>>>> if you wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities.
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not
guilty. If they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find >>>>>>>>> him not guilty and no-one can gainsay them. That will be an end >>>>>>>>> to it.
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of >>>>>>>>> the evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the >>>>>>>> possibilities.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You will shortly be escorted >>>>>>> to the jury room where you will agree upon your verdict in this case. >>>>>>>
What transpires in that room is secret. No recordings or written >>>>>>> records are made or kept. No-one may question you about what, if >>>>>>> anything, you discuss. You are beyond reproach. You may decide >>>>>>> not to discuss anything. No-one will know. You may decide on any >>>>>>> basis (or none) you choose, however perverse. You may decide you >>>>>>> want to get out of there as quickly as possible to get on with
your lives. In that case you may decide that a quick unanimous not >>>>>>> guilty (and guilt- free) verdict is the way to proceed. I cannot >>>>>>> advise you one way or the other. You must decide for yourselves. >>>>>>>
In case you are troubled by the oath you took when being
empanelled on this jury, I can, however, state without fear of
contradiction, that no gods exist, so there will be no retribution >>>>>>> either in this life or at any time afterwards. You may therefore >>>>>>> reasonably conclude that this was just a silly irrelevance you can >>>>>>> ignore with complete impunity."
I have never been on a jury is that a quote?
If not then it's a good basis for instructions, just make it less
facetious.
It's actually a charter for irresponsibility.
I have thought for many years that swearing by Almighty God or
affirming, are procedures that urgently need to be brought up to date
but maybe never will.
There is a phrase on police statements that could usefully be adopted
in a courtroom -
"I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be
liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which
I know to be false or do not believe to be true"
So, rather than fearing the wrath of the imaginary deity, it would be
more worrying for the witness to bear in mind that he might actually
be prosecuted if he tells lies.
Witnesses can of course be prosecuted for perjury or perverting the
course of justice if they deliberately lie under their present oath.
However, we were not considering the witness's oath, but the one taken
by jurors.
Witnesses, unlike jurors, give their evidence in public in open court
where they can be heard, judged and recorded. Jurors don't.
No amendment of the juror's oath can possibly make any difference
unless accompanied by its deliberations no longer being private and
secret. Otherwise, no-one would know or be able to establish anything.
I agree. But the juror's "oath" should merely be a declaration, an
undertaking.
Which it is effectively at present.
But what is an undertaking if non-compliance with it cannot be
discovered and it cannot be enforced? It's all meaningless mumbo-jumbo, presumably designed to impress the uneducated masses.
On 3 Aug 2026 at 21:11:17 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 19:32, The Todal wrote:
On 03/08/2026 18:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 17:47, The Todal wrote:
On 03/08/2026 16:58, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 03/08/2026 in message <ndb6s3Fop8kU1@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>>> Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd9kgpFh1sqU2@mid.individual.net>Like this, totally factually, then?
Norman Wells wrote:
Juries are charged with finding the defendant guilty or not >>>>>>>>>> guilty. If they think it's blatantly unfair, they will find >>>>>>>>>> him not guilty and no-one can gainsay them. That will be an end >>>>>>>>>> to it.No, that's like saying of course nuclear weapons are available >>>>>>>>>>>> if you wish, as if it's perfectly routine.
It's to ensure the jurors are aware of the possibilities. >>>>>>>>>>
I see no harm in making clear to them they can do this.
They should not be advocated to do so other than on the basis of >>>>>>>>>> the evidence.
I am not suggesting they be "advocated" just made aware of the >>>>>>>>> possibilities.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You will shortly be escorted >>>>>>>> to the jury room where you will agree upon your verdict in this case. >>>>>>>>
What transpires in that room is secret. No recordings or written >>>>>>>> records are made or kept. No-one may question you about what, if >>>>>>>> anything, you discuss. You are beyond reproach. You may decide >>>>>>>> not to discuss anything. No-one will know. You may decide on any >>>>>>>> basis (or none) you choose, however perverse. You may decide you >>>>>>>> want to get out of there as quickly as possible to get on with >>>>>>>> your lives. In that case you may decide that a quick unanimous not >>>>>>>> guilty (and guilt- free) verdict is the way to proceed. I cannot >>>>>>>> advise you one way or the other. You must decide for yourselves. >>>>>>>>
In case you are troubled by the oath you took when being
empanelled on this jury, I can, however, state without fear of >>>>>>>> contradiction, that no gods exist, so there will be no retribution >>>>>>>> either in this life or at any time afterwards. You may therefore >>>>>>>> reasonably conclude that this was just a silly irrelevance you can >>>>>>>> ignore with complete impunity."
I have never been on a jury is that a quote?
If not then it's a good basis for instructions, just make it less >>>>>>> facetious.
It's actually a charter for irresponsibility.
I have thought for many years that swearing by Almighty God or
affirming, are procedures that urgently need to be brought up to date >>>>> but maybe never will.
There is a phrase on police statements that could usefully be adopted >>>>> in a courtroom -
"I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be
liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which >>>>> I know to be false or do not believe to be true"
So, rather than fearing the wrath of the imaginary deity, it would be >>>>> more worrying for the witness to bear in mind that he might actually >>>>> be prosecuted if he tells lies.
Witnesses can of course be prosecuted for perjury or perverting the
course of justice if they deliberately lie under their present oath.
However, we were not considering the witness's oath, but the one taken >>>> by jurors.
Witnesses, unlike jurors, give their evidence in public in open court
where they can be heard, judged and recorded. Jurors don't.
No amendment of the juror's oath can possibly make any difference
unless accompanied by its deliberations no longer being private and
secret. Otherwise, no-one would know or be able to establish anything.
I agree. But the juror's "oath" should merely be a declaration, an
undertaking.
Which it is effectively at present.
But what is an undertaking if non-compliance with it cannot be
discovered and it cannot be enforced? It's all meaningless mumbo-jumbo,
presumably designed to impress the uneducated masses.
I am sorry, but when I make a formal promise to something it makes a difference to me. I will keep that promise, except perhaps in the exceedingly unlikely event that (as with a jury nullification case) a higher moral principle is involved.
On 03/08/2026 22:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Which you alone will judge and decide.
On a purely subjective basis.
Who are you to decide that a higher moral principle is involved?
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a-a tyrannical law" as you said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who
insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
except inasmuch
as all value ultimately derives from human labour, in which case the
cost to us of war is vastly higher than that of a protest here or there,
and the protestors are therefore in fact trying to save us money and
may ultimately succeed in doing so.
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who
insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
except inasmuch
as all value ultimately derives from human labour, in which case the
cost to us of war is vastly higher than that of a protest here or there,
and the protestors are therefore in fact trying to save us money and
may ultimately succeed in doing so.
The real cost of the protest was the human cost. The security guards
were thoroughly traumatised. I hope they sue the protestors for
compensation. As to the assault on the police ...
And, of course, all this posturing has had no effect at all on any wars.
It would be better if people concentrated on doing good, rather than
virtue signalling.
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a-a tyrannical law" as you said. >>>The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who
insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 23:02:11 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 22:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Which you alone will judge and decide.
On a purely subjective basis.
Who are you to decide that a higher moral principle is involved?
And who might you be to decide otherwise ?
On 4 Aug 2026 at 13:23:40 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said. >>>>The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who
insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
except inasmuch
as all value ultimately derives from human labour, in which case the
cost to us of war is vastly higher than that of a protest here or there, >>> and the protestors are therefore in fact trying to save us money and
may ultimately succeed in doing so.
The real cost of the protest was the human cost. The security guards
were thoroughly traumatised. I hope they sue the protestors for
compensation. As to the assault on the police ...
And, of course, all this posturing has had no effect at all on any wars.
It would be better if people concentrated on doing good, rather than
virtue signalling.
I agree that for several reasons nothing done in this country is going to have
an effect on current wars, not least because the British government could not influence them even if it wanted to. But I'm not totally sure that the cumulative pressure of popular demonstrations in the US didn't ultimately have
an effect on the resolution of the Vietnam war.
On 04/08/2026 06:13 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 13:23:40 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said. >>>>>The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who
insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
except inasmuch
as all value ultimately derives from human labour, in which case the
cost to us of war is vastly higher than that of a protest here or there, >>>> and the protestors are therefore in fact trying to save us money and
may ultimately succeed in doing so.
The real cost of the protest was the human cost. The security guards
were thoroughly traumatised. I hope they sue the protestors for
compensation. As to the assault on the police ...
And, of course, all this posturing has had no effect at all on any wars. >>> It would be better if people concentrated on doing good, rather than
virtue signalling.
I agree that for several reasons nothing done in this country is going to have
an effect on current wars, not least because the British government could not
influence them even if it wanted to. But I'm not totally sure that the
cumulative pressure of popular demonstrations in the US didn't ultimately have
an effect on the resolution of the Vietnam war.
Were there very *many* employees at USA defense [sic] contractors
premises who were attacked with sledge hammers?
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/08/2026 in message <nd906rFdbdeU3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
Certainly trying to prevent people protesting against the slaughter of >>>> Palestinians is tyrannical?
That's a political matter, not one for the law or the courts.
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a-a tyrannical law" as you said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said. >>>>The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who
insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies will
on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors who
cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms companies
will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost?
On 4 Aug 2026 at 18:30:14 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 06:13 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 13:23:40 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said. >>>>>>The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
except inasmuch
as all value ultimately derives from human labour, in which case the >>>>> cost to us of war is vastly higher than that of a protest here or there, >>>>> and the protestors are therefore in fact trying to save us money and >>>>> may ultimately succeed in doing so.
The real cost of the protest was the human cost. The security guards
were thoroughly traumatised. I hope they sue the protestors for
compensation. As to the assault on the police ...
And, of course, all this posturing has had no effect at all on any wars. >>>> It would be better if people concentrated on doing good, rather than
virtue signalling.
I agree that for several reasons nothing done in this country is going to have
an effect on current wars, not least because the British government could not
influence them even if it wanted to. But I'm not totally sure that the
cumulative pressure of popular demonstrations in the US didn't ultimately have
an effect on the resolution of the Vietnam war.
Were there very *many* employees at USA defense [sic] contractors
premises who were attacked with sledge hammers?
I remember none. In fact, I can't recollect it happening in this country either. Police were violently attacked in both countries though.
On 04/08/2026 07:54 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 18:30:14 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 06:13 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 13:23:40 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>>
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said. >>>>>>>The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of >>>>>>> increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not >>>>>> sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
except inasmuch
as all value ultimately derives from human labour, in which case the >>>>>> cost to us of war is vastly higher than that of a protest here or there, >>>>>> and the protestors are therefore in fact trying to save us money and >>>>>> may ultimately succeed in doing so.
The real cost of the protest was the human cost. The security guards >>>>> were thoroughly traumatised. I hope they sue the protestors for
compensation. As to the assault on the police ...
And, of course, all this posturing has had no effect at all on any wars. >>>>> It would be better if people concentrated on doing good, rather than >>>>> virtue signalling.
I agree that for several reasons nothing done in this country is going to have
an effect on current wars, not least because the British government could not
influence them even if it wanted to. But I'm not totally sure that the >>>> cumulative pressure of popular demonstrations in the US didn't ultimately have
an effect on the resolution of the Vietnam war.
Were there very *many* employees at USA defense [sic] contractors
premises who were attacked with sledge hammers?
I remember none. In fact, I can't recollect it happening in this country
either. Police were violently attacked in both countries though.
And that is quite enough for a decision to be made as to how deal with
the terrorists.
On 04/08/2026 16:45, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 23:02:11 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 22:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Which you alone will judge and decide.
On a purely subjective basis.
Who are you to decide that a higher moral principle is involved?
And who might you be to decide otherwise ?
Precisely.-a No-one is.
Your moral principles are yours, not anyone else's.
On 04/08/2026 17:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/08/2026 16:45, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 23:02:11 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 22:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Which you alone will judge and decide.
On a purely subjective basis.
Who are you to decide that a higher moral principle is involved?
And who might you be to decide otherwise ?
Precisely.-a No-one is.
Your moral principles are yours, not anyone else's.
That applies to all the people who formulate laws, including against
murder and rape.
On 04/08/2026 07:01 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a-a tyrannical law" as you >>>>>> said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who
insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies will
on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors who
cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms companies
will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost?
Premiums, right across the portfolio, will increase.
On 04/08/2026 23:13, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:01 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you >>>>>>> said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies will >>> on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors who
cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms companies
will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost?
Premiums, right across the portfolio, will increase.
Companies who don't insure arms companies will be able to undercut them.
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:30:36 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 23:13, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:01 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you >>>>>>>> said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of >>>>>>> increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not >>>>>> sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies will >>>> on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors who
cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms companies >>>> will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost?
Premiums, right across the portfolio, will increase.
Companies who don't insure arms companies will be able to undercut them.
Precisely. You don't have to pay more to insure your Honda because Rolls Royces cost a lot to repair.
On 2026-08-05, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Uh, I think you accidentally stumbled on the only way that GB isn't
entirely wrong here. Your Honda might crash into a Rolls Royce, so the
Rolls Royce being expensive to repair can increase your Honda insurance premiums.
On 05/08/2026 13:31, Max Demian wrote:
On 04/08/2026 17:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/08/2026 16:45, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 23:02:11 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/08/2026 22:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Which you alone will judge and decide.
On a purely subjective basis.
Who are you to decide that a higher moral principle is involved?
And who might you be to decide otherwise ?
Precisely.-a No-one is.
Your moral principles are yours, not anyone else's.
That applies to all the people who formulate laws, including against
murder and rape.
But by consensus, not individually, and moreover by those elected by the people to represent them.-a There's rather more chance therefore that
they express the views of the majority who will have to live under them.
On 4 Aug 2026 at 23:15:15 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:54 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 18:30:14 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 06:13 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 13:23:40 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of >>>>>>>> increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not >>>>>>> sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
except inasmuch
as all value ultimately derives from human labour, in which case the >>>>>>> cost to us of war is vastly higher than that of a protest here or there,
and the protestors are therefore in fact trying to save us money and >>>>>>> may ultimately succeed in doing so.
The real cost of the protest was the human cost. The security guards >>>>>> were thoroughly traumatised. I hope they sue the protestors for
compensation. As to the assault on the police ...
And, of course, all this posturing has had no effect at all on any wars. >>>>>> It would be better if people concentrated on doing good, rather than >>>>>> virtue signalling.
I agree that for several reasons nothing done in this country is going to have
an effect on current wars, not least because the British government could not
influence them even if it wanted to. But I'm not totally sure that the >>>>> cumulative pressure of popular demonstrations in the US didn't ultimately have
an effect on the resolution of the Vietnam war.
Were there very *many* employees at USA defense [sic] contractors
premises who were attacked with sledge hammers?
I remember none. In fact, I can't recollect it happening in this country >>> either. Police were violently attacked in both countries though.
And that is quite enough for a decision to be made as to how deal with
the terrorists.
Possibly so, but you seem to have arbitrarily changed the subject again!
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:30:36 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 23:13, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:01 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you >>>>>>>> said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of >>>>>>> increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not >>>>>> sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies will >>>> on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors who
cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms companies >>>> will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost?
Premiums, right across the portfolio, will increase.
Companies who don't insure arms companies will be able to undercut them.
Precisely. You don't have to pay more to insure your Honda because Rolls Royces cost a lot to repair.
On 04/08/2026 23:13, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:01 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you >>>>>>> said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of
increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not
sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies will >>> on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors who
cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms companies
will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost?
Premiums, right across the portfolio, will increase.
Companies who don't insure arms companies will be able to undercut them.
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 17:18:53 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Uh, I think you accidentally stumbled on the only way that GB isn't
entirely wrong here. Your Honda might crash into a Rolls Royce, so the
Rolls Royce being expensive to repair can increase your Honda insurance
premiums.
Premiums are based on general risk, not individual events.
Imagine your premiums if you wrote off a train (which I have seen). -u10,000,000 wouldn't even scratch teh surface.
On 05/08/2026 12:24 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 23:15:15 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:54 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 18:30:14 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 06:13 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 13:23:40 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of >>>>>>>>> increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not >>>>>>>> sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
except inasmuch
as all value ultimately derives from human labour, in which case the >>>>>>>> cost to us of war is vastly higher than that of a protest here or there,
and the protestors are therefore in fact trying to save us money and >>>>>>>> may ultimately succeed in doing so.
The real cost of the protest was the human cost. The security guards >>>>>>> were thoroughly traumatised. I hope they sue the protestors for
compensation. As to the assault on the police ...
And, of course, all this posturing has had no effect at all on any wars.
It would be better if people concentrated on doing good, rather than >>>>>>> virtue signalling.
I agree that for several reasons nothing done in this country is going to have
an effect on current wars, not least because the British government could not
influence them even if it wanted to. But I'm not totally sure that the >>>>>> cumulative pressure of popular demonstrations in the US didn't ultimately have
an effect on the resolution of the Vietnam war.
Were there very *many* employees at USA defense [sic] contractors
premises who were attacked with sledge hammers?
I remember none. In fact, I can't recollect it happening in this country >>>> either. Police were violently attacked in both countries though.
And that is quite enough for a decision to be made as to how deal with
the terrorists.
Possibly so, but you seem to have arbitrarily changed the subject again!
It's the same subject. The victim was a police officer but could easily
have been a security guard, night watchman or any bystander who
witnessed the terrorists' crimes and tried either to intervene or call
the police.
On 05/08/2026 05:39 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:30:36 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 04/08/2026 23:13, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:01 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you >>>>>>>>> said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of >>>>>>>> increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not >>>>>>> sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies will >>>>> on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors who >>>>> cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms companies >>>>> will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost?
Premiums, right across the portfolio, will increase.
Companies who don't insure arms companies will be able to undercut them.
Precisely. You don't have to pay more to insure your Honda because Rolls
Royces cost a lot to repair.
Do you have verified data on that?
To be fair I bet the person involved did find it hard, when renewal time
came around for their car insurance.
On 2026-08-05, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 17:18:53 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Uh, I think you accidentally stumbled on the only way that GB isn't
entirely wrong here. Your Honda might crash into a Rolls Royce, so the
Rolls Royce being expensive to repair can increase your Honda insurance
premiums.
Premiums are based on general risk, not individual events.
Yes, and hitting a Rolls Royce or other expensive car is a general risk
when driving.
Imagine your premiums if you wrote off a train (which I have seen).
-u10,000,000 wouldn't even scratch teh surface.
Yes, I wrote but then deleted a reference to Selby in my post.
To be fair I bet the person involved did find it hard, when renewal time
came around for their car insurance.
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 17:57:55 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
To be fair I bet the person involved did find it hard, when renewal time
came around for their car insurance.
That would be the least of their worries, I suspect.
If you thought insurance was dodgy, look into *re* insurance ....
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:30:36 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 23:13, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:01 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you >>>>>>>> said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of >>>>>>> increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not >>>>>> sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies will >>>> on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors who
cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms companies >>>> will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost?
Premiums, right across the portfolio, will increase.
Companies who don't insure arms companies will be able to undercut them.
Precisely. You don't have to pay more to insure your Honda because Rolls Royces cost a lot to repair.
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:48:37 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 12:24 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 23:15:15 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:54 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 18:30:14 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 04/08/2026 06:13 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Aug 2026 at 13:23:40 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of >>>>>>>>>> increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not >>>>>>>>> sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
except inasmuch
as all value ultimately derives from human labour, in which case the >>>>>>>>> cost to us of war is vastly higher than that of a protest here or there,
and the protestors are therefore in fact trying to save us money and >>>>>>>>> may ultimately succeed in doing so.
The real cost of the protest was the human cost. The security guards >>>>>>>> were thoroughly traumatised. I hope they sue the protestors for >>>>>>>> compensation. As to the assault on the police ...
And, of course, all this posturing has had no effect at all on any wars.
It would be better if people concentrated on doing good, rather than >>>>>>>> virtue signalling.
I agree that for several reasons nothing done in this country is going to have
an effect on current wars, not least because the British government could not
influence them even if it wanted to. But I'm not totally sure that the >>>>>>> cumulative pressure of popular demonstrations in the US didn't ultimately have
an effect on the resolution of the Vietnam war.
Were there very *many* employees at USA defense [sic] contractors
premises who were attacked with sledge hammers?
I remember none. In fact, I can't recollect it happening in this country >>>>> either. Police were violently attacked in both countries though.
And that is quite enough for a decision to be made as to how deal with >>>> the terrorists.
Possibly so, but you seem to have arbitrarily changed the subject again!
It's the same subject. The victim was a police officer but could easily
have been a security guard, night watchman or any bystander who
witnessed the terrorists' crimes and tried either to intervene or call
the police.
Your mind is wandering again. We were talking about whether protest campaigns can ever affect government policy.
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:50:56 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 05:39 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:30:36 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>>
On 04/08/2026 23:13, JNugent wrote:Precisely. You don't have to pay more to insure your Honda because Rolls >>> Royces cost a lot to repair.
On 04/08/2026 07:01 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:Premiums, right across the portfolio, will increase.
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as you >>>>>>>>>> said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, who >>>>>>>>> insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the form of >>>>>>>>> increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm not >>>>>>>> sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies will >>>>>> on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors who >>>>>> cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms companies >>>>>> will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost? >>>>>
Companies who don't insure arms companies will be able to undercut them. >>>
Do you have verified data on that?
I simply know what I am talking about. Insurance is a highly competitive business, dependent on careful assessment of individual (or fine category) assessment of risk.
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:50:56 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 05:39 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:30:36 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 04/08/2026 23:13, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 07:01 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:Premiums, right across the portfolio, will increase.
On 03/08/2026 09:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2026 17:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Indeed, it's a " a last resort against a tyrannical law" as >>>>>>>>>> you said.
The "protest" was ultimately against the UK insurance industry, >>>>>>>>> who insured Elbit. The insurers will pass the cost on, in the >>>>>>>>> form of increased premiums, which will be met by you and me.
I don't know about you but I'm not in the arms business, so I'm >>>>>>>> not sure in what way the cost "will be met by you and me"
I'm sure you understand perfectly well how insurance works.
Yes, it works by setting premiums at a level such that the policies >>>>>> will on average make a profit.
So if, say, arms companies are repeatedly targeted by protestors
who cause insurable losses, then the insurance premiums for arms
companies will increase.
Neither of us are arms companies, nor are we customers of arms
companies. So why do we care and why do you think we bear any cost? >>>>>
Companies who don't insure arms companies will be able to undercut
them.
Precisely. You don't have to pay more to insure your Honda because
Rolls Royces cost a lot to repair.
Do you have verified data on that?
I simply know what I am talking about. Insurance is a highly competitive business, dependent on careful assessment of individual (or fine
category)
assessment of risk.
On 05/08/2026 17:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Aug 2026 at 17:30:36 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Companies who don't insure arms companies will be able to undercut them.
Precisely. You don't have to pay more to insure your Honda because Rolls
Royces cost a lot to repair.
By 'Rolls Royces' I presume you mean BMWs with a RR badge, rather than products of an arms company? (Some of whose risks may be uninsurable.)
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 17:18:53 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Uh, I think you accidentally stumbled on the only way that GB isn't
entirely wrong here. Your Honda might crash into a Rolls Royce, so the
Rolls Royce being expensive to repair can increase your Honda insurance
premiums.
Premiums are based on general risk, not individual events.
Imagine your premiums if you wrote off a train (which I have seen). -u10,000,000 wouldn't even scratch teh surface.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:38:48 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,566 |