On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 10:08:50 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils,
maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the
definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition:
"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
On 15/02/2026 11:38, GB wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted
contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously:
-a-a-a-a A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to >>> -a-a-a-a acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 >>> -a-a-a-a Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal
-a-a-a-a activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature >>> -a-a-a-a and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the
-a-a-a-a definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and >>> -a-a-a-a persistence to warrant proscription.
-a-a-a-a (See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what
happens on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation
that promotes its political cause through criminality and
encouragement of criminality. "
But immediately after those words, the judges said: "A very small
number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act".
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be
allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's
labelled but it should be illegal.
I think the full text of the judgment explains that it isn't sufficient
to encourage criminality - the issue is whether it is a terrorist organisation.
A familiar analogy is the suffragette movement - they engaged in
criminal damage and arson and sometimes defacing currency. Each action
could be prosecuted, but it would surely be an overreach to say that the suffragette movement was a terrorist movement and that membership of
that organisation or speeches that supported the aims of that
organisation should be prosecuted as terrorism.
On 2026-02-15, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted
contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously:
A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to
acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000
Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal
activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature >>> and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the
definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and
persistence to warrant proscription.
(See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what happens
on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation
that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement
of criminality. "
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be
allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's labelled
but it should be illegal.
What's that got to do with anything? This case has nothing to do with
whether or not the group and what they did are "illegal" - there is no outcome of this case that can affect that. It has to do with whether
they are "terrorists" and whether the going on 3,000 people who have
been arrested for carrying peaceful placards are "terrorism supporters".
On 15/02/2026 17:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-15, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted
contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously:
A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to >>>> acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 >>>> Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal
activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature >>>> and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the
definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and >>>> persistence to warrant proscription.
(See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what happens
on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation
that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement
of criminality. "
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be
allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's labelled >>> but it should be illegal.
What's that got to do with anything? This case has nothing to do with
whether or not the group and what they did are "illegal" - there is no
outcome of this case that can affect that. It has to do with whether
they are "terrorists" and whether the going on 3,000 people who have
been arrested for carrying peaceful placards are "terrorism supporters".
At the time, PA was proscribed.
They chose to support it, fearlessly, and regardless of the consequences.
It seems a weird sort of martyrdom to then try and weasel their way out
of it on a technicality.
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA definition, >>> but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils,
maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the
definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are contentious and >>> only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of speech. The >>> definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a person from >>> their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-
antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition:
"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
On 15/02/2026 17:51, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:38, GB wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted
contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously:
A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to
acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000
Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal
activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature >>>> and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the
definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and
persistence to warrant proscription.
(See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what
happens on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation
that promotes its political cause through criminality and
encouragement of criminality. "
But immediately after those words, the judges said: "A very small
number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the
definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act".
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be
allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's
labelled but it should be illegal.
I think the full text of the judgment explains that it isn't sufficient
to encourage criminality - the issue is whether it is a terrorist
organisation.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether this is a terrorist
organisation, or simply one that encourages criminality on a significant scale. It should be illegal. That may mean a new law needs to be passed.
A familiar analogy is the suffragette movement - they engaged in
criminal damage and arson and sometimes defacing currency. Each action
could be prosecuted, but it would surely be an overreach to say that the
suffragette movement was a terrorist movement and that membership of
that organisation or speeches that supported the aims of that
organisation should be prosecuted as terrorism.
I do not agree with that. I fully support women's suffrage, but I think
some of the acts carried out in support of suffrage were terrorist.
On 15/02/2026 17:51, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:38, GB wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted
contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously:
-a-a-a-a A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to >>>> -a-a-a-a acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 >>>> -a-a-a-a Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal
-a-a-a-a activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature
-a-a-a-a and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the >>>> -a-a-a-a definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and >>>> -a-a-a-a persistence to warrant proscription.
-a-a-a-a (See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what
happens on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation
that promotes its political cause through criminality and
encouragement of criminality. "
But immediately after those words, the judges said: "A very small
number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the
definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act".
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be
allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's
labelled but it should be illegal.
I think the full text of the judgment explains that it isn't
sufficient to encourage criminality - the issue is whether it is a
terrorist organisation.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether this is a terrorist
organisation, or simply one that encourages criminality on a significant scale. It should be illegal. That may mean a new law needs to be passed.
A familiar analogy is the suffragette movement - they engaged in
criminal damage and arson and sometimes defacing currency. Each action
could be prosecuted, but it would surely be an overreach to say that
the suffragette movement was a terrorist movement and that membership
of that organisation or speeches that supported the aims of that
organisation should be prosecuted as terrorism.
I do not agree with that. I fully support women's suffrage, but I think
some of the acts carried out in support of suffrage were terrorist.
On 16 Feb 2026 at 14:27:10 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 15/02/2026 17:51, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:38, GB wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted
contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously:
A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to >>>>> acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 >>>>> Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal
activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature >>>>> and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the
definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and >>>>> persistence to warrant proscription.
(See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what
happens on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation
that promotes its political cause through criminality and
encouragement of criminality. "
But immediately after those words, the judges said: "A very small
number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the
definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act".
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be
allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's
labelled but it should be illegal.
I think the full text of the judgment explains that it isn't sufficient
to encourage criminality - the issue is whether it is a terrorist
organisation.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether this is a terrorist
organisation, or simply one that encourages criminality on a significant
scale. It should be illegal. That may mean a new law needs to be passed.
A familiar analogy is the suffragette movement - they engaged in
criminal damage and arson and sometimes defacing currency. Each action
could be prosecuted, but it would surely be an overreach to say that the >>> suffragette movement was a terrorist movement and that membership of
that organisation or speeches that supported the aims of that
organisation should be prosecuted as terrorism.
I do not agree with that. I fully support women's suffrage, but I think
some of the acts carried out in support of suffrage were terrorist.
As a matter of interest, which ones? Disruption and inconvience hardly qualify, do they?
On 16/02/2026 14:27, GB wrote:
On 15/02/2026 17:51, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:38, GB wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted
contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously:
-a-a-a-a A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to >>>>> -a-a-a-a acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 >>>>> -a-a-a-a Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal
-a-a-a-a activities, the general criminal law remains available. The >>>>> nature
-a-a-a-a and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the >>>>> -a-a-a-a definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and >>>>> -a-a-a-a persistence to warrant proscription.
-a-a-a-a (See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what
happens on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation
that promotes its political cause through criminality and
encouragement of criminality. "
But immediately after those words, the judges said: "A very small
number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the
definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act".
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be
allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's
labelled but it should be illegal.
I think the full text of the judgment explains that it isn't
sufficient to encourage criminality - the issue is whether it is a
terrorist organisation.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether this is a terrorist
organisation, or simply one that encourages criminality on a
significant scale. It should be illegal. That may mean a new law needs
to be passed.
Saying what exactly?-a We already have laws against criminal damage etc under which those responsible have been charged.
A familiar analogy is the suffragette movement - they engaged in
criminal damage and arson and sometimes defacing currency. Each
action could be prosecuted, but it would surely be an overreach to
say that the suffragette movement was a terrorist movement and that
membership of that organisation or speeches that supported the aims
of that organisation should be prosecuted as terrorism.
I do not agree with that. I fully support women's suffrage, but I
think some of the acts carried out in support of suffrage were terrorist.
Do say which, because the general consensus is that they just engaged in criminal damage activities.-a How are you defining 'terrorist'?
Hardly 'a technicality'.-a It having been decided that Palestine Action
was wrongly proscribed, and subject to any appeals against that being rejected, it was never legally proscribed and any prosecutions depending
on it are void ab initio.
On 16 Feb 2026 at 14:27:10 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 15/02/2026 17:51, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:38, GB wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted
contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously:
A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to >>>>> acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 >>>>> Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal
activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature >>>>> and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the
definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and >>>>> persistence to warrant proscription.
(See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what
happens on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation
that promotes its political cause through criminality and
encouragement of criminality. "
But immediately after those words, the judges said: "A very small
number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the
definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act".
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be
allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's
labelled but it should be illegal.
I think the full text of the judgment explains that it isn't sufficient
to encourage criminality - the issue is whether it is a terrorist
organisation.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether this is a terrorist
organisation, or simply one that encourages criminality on a significant
scale. It should be illegal. That may mean a new law needs to be passed.
A familiar analogy is the suffragette movement - they engaged in
criminal damage and arson and sometimes defacing currency. Each action
could be prosecuted, but it would surely be an overreach to say that the >>> suffragette movement was a terrorist movement and that membership of
that organisation or speeches that supported the aims of that
organisation should be prosecuted as terrorism.
I do not agree with that. I fully support women's suffrage, but I think
some of the acts carried out in support of suffrage were terrorist.
As a matter of interest, which ones? Disruption and inconvience hardly qualify, do they?
On 16/02/2026 16:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Hardly 'a technicality'.-a It having been decided that Palestine Action
was wrongly proscribed, and subject to any appeals against that being
rejected, it was never legally proscribed and any prosecutions
depending on it are void ab initio.
Do you have a reference for that?
On 16/02/2026 16:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/02/2026 14:27, GB wrote:
On 15/02/2026 17:51, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:38, GB wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted
contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously:
-a-a-a-a A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to
-a-a-a-a acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000
-a-a-a-a Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal >>>>>> -a-a-a-a activities, the general criminal law remains available. The >>>>>> nature
-a-a-a-a and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the >>>>>> -a-a-a-a definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and
-a-a-a-a persistence to warrant proscription.
-a-a-a-a (See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what
happens on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an
organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality
and encouragement of criminality. "
But immediately after those words, the judges said: "A very small
number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the
definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act".
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be
allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's
labelled but it should be illegal.
I think the full text of the judgment explains that it isn't
sufficient to encourage criminality - the issue is whether it is a
terrorist organisation.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether this is a terrorist
organisation, or simply one that encourages criminality on a
significant scale. It should be illegal. That may mean a new law
needs to be passed.
Saying what exactly?-a We already have laws against criminal damage etc
under which those responsible have been charged.
A familiar analogy is the suffragette movement - they engaged in
criminal damage and arson and sometimes defacing currency. Each
action could be prosecuted, but it would surely be an overreach to
say that the suffragette movement was a terrorist movement and that
membership of that organisation or speeches that supported the aims
of that organisation should be prosecuted as terrorism.
I do not agree with that. I fully support women's suffrage, but I
think some of the acts carried out in support of suffrage were
terrorist.
Do say which, because the general consensus is that they just engaged
in criminal damage activities.-a How are you defining 'terrorist'?
Bombing, and arson, for a start.
It's all very well to throw yourself in front of the King's horse at the Derby, but the poor old jockey was severely injured. I'm pleased to say
that Anmer was okay. If the horse had been hurt, there'd have been an outcry.
On 16/02/2026 16:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Hardly 'a technicality'.-a It having been decided that Palestine Action
was wrongly proscribed, and subject to any appeals against that being
rejected, it was never legally proscribed and any prosecutions depending
on it are void ab initio.
Do you have a reference for that?
Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
|"On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 16:40:32 -0000 (UTC), Nicholas Collin Paul de
|
|Glouce++ter wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
The EWHC determines that "defamation" is undefined (regardless ofwhat|
one might think is in dictionaries). T|
|
|
|Does it?"
|
Yes.
|"Where?"
|
Cf.2010/1414.html&query=(definition)+AND+(defamation)
"Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB)
Case No: IHJ/10/0230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 16/06/2010 B e f o r e
:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT ____________________
Between:
Dr. Sarah Thornton Claimant - and -
Telegraph Media Group Limited Defendant ____________________
Mr Justin Rushbrooke (instructed by Taylor Hampton Solicitors LLP) for
the Claimant Mr David Price (of David Price Solicitors & Advocates)) for
the Defendant
Hearing dates: 26 May 2010 ____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________
Crown Copyright --
[. . .]
27. To address these submissions it is necessary to consider what in law
is meant by the word "defamatory".
WHAT IS DEFAMATORY?
28. The jury must be directed by the Judge as to the definition of the
word defamatory. If the jury do not find the words to be defamatory,
then the claimant will fail.
29. In Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008 Neill LJ set out some of
the definitions. As editor of Duncan & Neill on Defamation 3rd ed ch 4
he did so again in 2009. The following is the list given in Berkoff
(save that I omit the two definitions omitted from ch.4 of Duncan &
Neill). I have put in square brackets the corresponding number in the
list in Duncan & Neill at para 4.02. And all the emphasis is added. The emphasis in bold type relates to the tendency or likelihood of damage
that must be demonstrated. The underlining relates to the effect upon
the publishees, and through them upon the claimant, that must be demonstrated:
"I am not aware of any entirely satisfactory definition of the word 'defamatory'. It may be convenient, however, to collect together some of
the definitions which have been used and approved in the past."
says
HTTPS://WWW.BAILII.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
"I am not aware of any entirely satisfactory definition of the word >>'defamatory'. It may be convenient, however, to collect together some of >>the definitions which have been used and approved in the past."
says
HTTPS://WWW.BAILII.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/ >2010/1414.html&query=(definition)+AND+(defamation)
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
Oh. I thought perhaps you were referring to an EWHC judgement that post- >dated the Defamation Act 2013. Section 1 of that Act contains a perfectly >good definition of defamation, so anything the EWHC previously said on the >matter is now irrelevant.
On 17/02/2026 in message <10n191b$1j2tk$2@dont-email.me> Handsome Jack wrote:
"I am not aware of any entirely satisfactory definition of the word2010/1414.html&query=(definition)+AND+(defamation)
'defamatory'. It may be convenient, however, to collect together some of >>> the definitions which have been used and approved in the past."
says
HTTPS://WWW.BAILII.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
Oh. I thought perhaps you were referring to an EWHC judgement that post-
dated the Defamation Act 2013. Section 1 of that Act contains a perfectly
good definition of defamation, so anything the EWHC previously said on
the
matter is now irrelevant.
1 Serious harm
(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or
is likely to
cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
(2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body
that trades
for profit is not rCLserious harmrCY unless it has caused or is likely to cause the
body serious financial loss.
It doesn't define "defamatory", it just says to be defamatory a
statement must be likely to cause serious harm. I don't think it follows
hat all statements that cause harm are defamatory.
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA
definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils,
maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the
definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are contentious
and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of speech.
The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a person
from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-
antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition:
"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
On 2026-02-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/02/2026 16:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Hardly 'a technicality'.-a It having been decided that Palestine Action
was wrongly proscribed, and subject to any appeals against that being
rejected, it was never legally proscribed and any prosecutions depending >>> on it are void ab initio.
Do you have a reference for that?
He's wrong.
It may become true in the future if the court makes an order
quashing the original proscription - presumably if the government either
does not appeal or loses the appeal
- but as I took care to point out in
my original post in this thread Palestine Action is still currently proscribed and expressing support for it is still a criminal offence at
the present time.
On 17/02/2026 08:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/02/2026 16:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Hardly 'a technicality'.-a It having been decided that Palestine Action >>>> was wrongly proscribed, and subject to any appeals against that being
rejected, it was never legally proscribed and any prosecutions
depending on it are void ab initio.
Do you have a reference for that?
He's wrong.
I don't think so.
It may become true in the future if the court makes an order
quashing the original proscription - presumably if the government either
does not appeal or loses the appeal
It's not open to the court to quash the proscription order, which was
and is a matter for the Home Secretary and Parliament.-a All it can do is say it was unlawful, which means that no court will enforce it, and puts
the onus on them to rescind it.
- but as I took care to point out in
my original post in this thread Palestine Action is still currently
proscribed and expressing support for it is still a criminal offence at
the present time.
Only potentially and only if an appeal against the judicial review is successful.
For the time being and perhaps forever it's not a valid proscription.
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA
definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils,
maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the
definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are
contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of
speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. They >>>>> may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a person >>>>> from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-
antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition:
"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he
approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
On 17/02/2026 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/02/2026 08:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/02/2026 16:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Hardly 'a technicality'.-a It having been decided that Palestine Action >>>>> was wrongly proscribed, and subject to any appeals against that being >>>>> rejected, it was never legally proscribed and any prosecutions
depending on it are void ab initio.
Do you have a reference for that?
He's wrong.
I don't think so.
Of course you don't.-a Because your view of the law is overly simplistic. incomplete and therefore inaccurate.
Not one, not two, but three reasons why you are mistaken.
- but as I took care to point out in
my original post in this thread Palestine Action is still currently
proscribed and expressing support for it is still a criminal offence at
the present time.
Only potentially and only if an appeal against the judicial review is
successful.
For the time being and perhaps forever it's not a valid proscription.
Again, you are mistaken.
The Supreme Court considered the conceptual circumstances in which we
find ourselves, albeit in a different context, in Ahmed v HM Treasury
(No 2) [2010] UKSC 5 [^4].
The most that can be said for now is that an authoritative view has been expressed by the High Court that the proscription order is unlawful;
that the orthodox implication of such a judicial conclusion is that the order is and always has been invalid; and that the normal consequence of such an order being invalid is that it cannot serve as a foundation for
an offence such as the section 12 offence, which requires support to be invited or expressed for an organisation that was lawfully proscribed at
the time of the alleged offence.
In due course, an appellate court might agree with the High Court's conclusion and issue a quashing order, which we would normally expect to
be fully retrospective in effect, meaning that Palestine Action had
never been a proscribed organisation and that inviting support for it
had never been a criminal offence.
However, it is also possible that an appellate court might disagree with
the High Court by ruling the proscription order to be lawful.
In those
circumstances, the High Court's judgment notwithstanding, the
proscription order would be rCo and would always have been rCo valid.-a That,
in turn, would mean that ever since the order was made, it would have
been an offence to invite or express support for Palestine Action. Those
who have already been charged with offences under section 12 will
therefore find themselves in a period of unavoidable uncertainty.
whether the High Court's view will turn out to be the right one, the
'right' view, for present purposes, being that which is eventually
reached by the most senior appellate court to address the issue.
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA
definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils, >>>>>> maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the
definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are
contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of
speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. They >>>>>> may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a
person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-
antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition:
"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he
approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA
definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils, >>>>>>> maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the >>>>>>> definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are
contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of
speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. >>>>>>> They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a
person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-
antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition:
"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he
approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/Gaza situation.
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to
discuss it. Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very
complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you a
lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and talk
about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
On 18/02/2026 09:50 am, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA
definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils, >>>>>>>> maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the >>>>>>>> definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are
contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of
speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. >>>>>>>> They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a
person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition- >>>>>>>> antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition:
"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he
approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/Gaza
situation.
That might be true. Or it might not.
How did you come by your data?
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to
discuss it. Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very
complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you a
lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and talk
about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
I cannot agree. One cannot start to properly analyse the situation
without reference to the many times that Israel - a legitimate state and member of the United Nations - has been attacked by the regular armed
forces of neighbouring states, its people attacked by terrorists (in
Israel and elsewhere) and have been the target of bombardment by many
missile attacks from neighbouring territories.
Maybe not all that "complex", but certainly nuanced.
On 18/02/2026 09:50 am, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition:
"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he
approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/Gaza
situation.
That might be true. Or it might not.
How did you come by your data?
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to discuss it.
Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very
complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you a
lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and talk
about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
I cannot agree. One cannot start to properly analyse the situation
without reference to the many times that Israel - a legitimate state and member of the United Nations - has been attacked by the regular armed
forces of neighbouring states, its people attacked by terrorists (in
Israel and elsewhere) and have been the target of bombardment by many missile attacks from neighbouring territories.
Maybe not all that "complex", but certainly nuanced.
On 18/02/2026 09:50 am, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA
definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils, >>>>>>>> maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the >>>>>>>> definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are
contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of
speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. >>>>>>>> They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a
person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition- >>>>>>>> antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition:
"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he
approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/Gaza
situation.
That might be true. Or it might not.
How did you come by your data?
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to discuss it.
Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very
complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you a
lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and talk
about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
I cannot agree. One cannot start to properly analyse the situation
without reference to the many times that Israel - a legitimate state and member of the United Nations - has been attacked by the regular armed
forces of neighbouring states, its people attacked by terrorists (in
Israel and elsewhere) and have been the target of bombardment by many missile attacks from neighbouring territories.
Maybe not all that "complex", but certainly nuanced.
On 18 Feb 2026 at 12:11:02 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2026 09:50 am, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA >>>>>>>>> definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils, >>>>>>>>> maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the >>>>>>>>> definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are
contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of >>>>>>>>> speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. >>>>>>>>> They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a >>>>>>>>> person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition- >>>>>>>>> antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition: >>>>>>>> "Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he
approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/Gaza
situation.
That might be true. Or it might not.
How did you come by your data?
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to
discuss it. Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very
complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you a
lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and talk
about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
I cannot agree. One cannot start to properly analyse the situation
without reference to the many times that Israel - a legitimate state and
member of the United Nations - has been attacked by the regular armed
forces of neighbouring states, its people attacked by terrorists (in
Israel and elsewhere) and have been the target of bombardment by many
missile attacks from neighbouring territories.
Maybe not all that "complex", but certainly nuanced.
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance against civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
On 18/02/2026 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 18/02/2026 09:50 am, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA >>>>>>>>> definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local
councils,
maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the >>>>>>>>> definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are
contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of >>>>>>>>> speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English >>>>>>>>> law. They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a >>>>>>>>> person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition- >>>>>>>>> antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition: >>>>>>>> "Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he
approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/Gaza
situation.
That might be true. Or it might not.
How did you come by your data?
How do you come by your data regarding your favourite food or meals?
One cannot start to properly analyse the actions of Saddam Hussein or
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to discuss it.
Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very
complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you a
lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and
talk about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
I cannot agree. One cannot start to properly analyse the situation
without reference to the many times that Israel - a legitimate state
and member of the United Nations - has been attacked by the regular
armed forces of neighbouring states, its people attacked by terrorists
(in Israel and elsewhere) and have been the target of bombardment by
many missile attacks from neighbouring territories.
Maybe not all that "complex", but certainly nuanced.
Bashar al Assad or the Iran Republican Guard without reference to the
many times that their nations have been targeted with sanctions and
bombed by the USA and threatened by secret revolutionary movements.
Thus, the torture of ordinary people is in a sense understandable and excusable. If you have no moral compass, that is.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Feb 2026 at 12:11:02 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2026 09:50 am, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA >>>>>>>>>>definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local >>>>>>>>>>councils,
maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the >>>>>>>>>>definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are >>>>>>>>>>contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of >>>>>>>>>>speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. >>>>>>>>>>They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a >>>>>>>>>>person from
their political party.
useful link: >>>>>>>>>>https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition- >>>>>>>>>>antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition: >>>>>>>>>"Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he >>>>>>approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/Gaza >>>>situation.
That might be true. Or it might not.
How did you come by your data?
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to
discuss it. Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very >>>>complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you a >>>>lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and talk >>>>about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
I cannot agree. One cannot start to properly analyse the situation >>>without reference to the many times that Israel - a legitimate state and >>>member of the United Nations - has been attacked by the regular armed >>>forces of neighbouring states, its people attacked by terrorists (in >>>Israel and elsewhere) and have been the target of bombardment by many >>>missile attacks from neighbouring territories.
Maybe not all that "complex", but certainly nuanced.
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance >>against
civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
What would your solution be for the eradication of terrorists embedded in
the civilian population and its structures?
Bashar al Assad or the Iran Republican Guard without reference to the | many times that their nations have been targeted with sanctions and | bombed by the USA and threatened by secret revolutionary movements. | Thus, the torture of ordinary people is in a sense understandable and | excusable. If you have no moral compass, that is. || | |"Torture"? |
Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance
against
civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
What would your solution be for the eradication of terrorists embedded in
the civilian population and its structures?
Our government had 30 years' experience of that and should be able to provide some tips.
On 16/02/2026 18:08, GB wrote:
On 16/02/2026 16:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/02/2026 14:27, GB wrote:
On 15/02/2026 17:51, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:38, GB wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a >>>>>>> terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted
unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted >>>>>>> contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously: >>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a A very small number of Palestine Action's activities
amounted to
-a-a-a-a acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the >>>>>>> 2000
-a-a-a-a Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal >>>>>>> -a-a-a-a activities, the general criminal law remains available. The >>>>>>> nature
-a-a-a-a and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the >>>>>>> -a-a-a-a definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale >>>>>>> and
-a-a-a-a persistence to warrant proscription.
-a-a-a-a (See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what
happens on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an
organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality >>>>>> and encouragement of criminality. "
But immediately after those words, the judges said: "A very small
number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the
definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act".
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should be >>>>>> allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how it's
labelled but it should be illegal.
I think the full text of the judgment explains that it isn't
sufficient to encourage criminality - the issue is whether it is a
terrorist organisation.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether this is a terrorist
organisation, or simply one that encourages criminality on a
significant scale. It should be illegal. That may mean a new law
needs to be passed.
Saying what exactly?-a We already have laws against criminal damage
etc under which those responsible have been charged.
A familiar analogy is the suffragette movement - they engaged in
criminal damage and arson and sometimes defacing currency. Each
action could be prosecuted, but it would surely be an overreach to
say that the suffragette movement was a terrorist movement and that >>>>> membership of that organisation or speeches that supported the aims >>>>> of that organisation should be prosecuted as terrorism.
I do not agree with that. I fully support women's suffrage, but I
think some of the acts carried out in support of suffrage were
terrorist.
Do say which, because the general consensus is that they just engaged
in criminal damage activities.-a How are you defining 'terrorist'?
Bombing, and arson, for a start.
How are you defining 'terrorism' and thereby distinguishing it from
other criminal activity?
Is all arson 'terrorism' for example?
It's all very well to throw yourself in front of the King's horse at
the Derby, but the poor old jockey was severely injured. I'm pleased
to say that Anmer was okay. If the horse had been hurt, there'd have
been an outcry.
Is all endangering of someone's life 'terrorism'?
On 18/02/2026 05:06 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 18/02/2026 09:50 am, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA >>>>>>>>>> definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local >>>>>>>>>> councils,
maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the >>>>>>>>>> definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are
contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of >>>>>>>>>> speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English >>>>>>>>>> law. They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a >>>>>>>>>> person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition- >>>>>>>>>> antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition: >>>>>>>>> "Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he >>>>>> approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/
Gaza situation.
That might be true. Or it might not.
How did you come by your data?
How do you come by your data regarding your favourite food or meals?
I only have one person to ask as to matters like that.
How many would you need to ask to be able to conclude that "Most Jews"
have this or that view?
One cannot start to properly analyse the actions of Saddam Hussein or
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to discuss it.
Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very
complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you
a lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and
talk about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
I cannot agree. One cannot start to properly analyse the situation
without reference to the many times that Israel - a legitimate state
and member of the United Nations - has been attacked by the regular
armed forces of neighbouring states, its people attacked by
terrorists (in Israel and elsewhere) and have been the target of
bombardment by many missile attacks from neighbouring territories.
Maybe not all that "complex", but certainly nuanced.
Bashar al Assad or the Iran Republican Guard without reference to the
many times that their nations have been targeted with sanctions and
bombed by the USA and threatened by secret revolutionary movements.
Thus, the torture of ordinary people is in a sense understandable and
excusable. If you have no moral compass, that is.
"Torture"?
That seems to be a new topic.
But are you really saying that Israel has no right to attempt to degrade
the arms and fighting forces of hostile neighbours and must simply turn
the other cheek when its people are continually murdered in various
sorts of attack?
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[rCa]
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance
against
civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
What would your solution be for the eradication of terrorists embedded in >>> the civilian population and its structures?
Our government had 30 years' experience of that and should be able to
provide some tips.
I canrCOt quite recall the UK fighting a war against terrorists that had manufactured and used tens of thousands of bombardment rockets, had constructed an extensive tunnel network, operated from hospitals, schools, and religious buildings, and which the civilian population had voted into power.
On 17/02/2026 14:45, Simon Parker wrote:
On 17/02/2026 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/02/2026 08:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/02/2026 16:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Hardly 'a technicality'.-a It having been decided that Palestine
Action
was wrongly proscribed, and subject to any appeals against that being >>>>>> rejected, it was never legally proscribed and any prosecutions
depending on it are void ab initio.
Do you have a reference for that?
He's wrong.
I don't think so.
Of course you don't.-a Because your view of the law is overly
simplistic. incomplete and therefore inaccurate.
But most usually right.
<lengthy very remote and unsupported possibilities snipped>
Not one, not two, but three reasons why you are mistaken.
But I'm not, as I will be proved.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Feb 2026 at 12:11:02 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2026 09:50 am, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA >>>>>>>>>> definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local councils, >>>>>>>>>> maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the >>>>>>>>>> definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are
contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of >>>>>>>>>> speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English law. >>>>>>>>>> They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a >>>>>>>>>> person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition- >>>>>>>>>> antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition: >>>>>>>>> "Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether he >>>>>> approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does that question arise?
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/Gaza
situation.
That might be true. Or it might not.
How did you come by your data?
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to
discuss it. Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very
complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you a
lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and talk >>>> about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
I cannot agree. One cannot start to properly analyse the situation
without reference to the many times that Israel - a legitimate state and >>> member of the United Nations - has been attacked by the regular armed
forces of neighbouring states, its people attacked by terrorists (in
Israel and elsewhere) and have been the target of bombardment by many
missile attacks from neighbouring territories.
Maybe not all that "complex", but certainly nuanced.
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance against
civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
What would your solution be for the eradication of terrorists embedded in
the civilian population and its structures?
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[rCa]
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance >>>>against
civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
What would your solution be for the eradication of terrorists embedded in >>>the civilian population and its structures?
Our government had 30 years' experience of that and should be able to >>provide some tips.
I canrCOt quite recall the UK fighting a war against terrorists that had >manufactured and used tens of thousands of bombardment rockets, had >constructed an extensive tunnel network, operated from hospitals, schools, >and religious buildings, and which the civilian population had voted into >power.
On 19/02/2026 07:40, Spike wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[rCa]
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance >>>>> against
civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
What would your solution be for the eradication of terrorists embedded in >>>> the civilian population and its structures?
Our government had 30 years' experience of that and should be able to
provide some tips.
I canrCOt quite recall the UK fighting a war against terrorists that had
manufactured and used tens of thousands of bombardment rockets, had
constructed an extensive tunnel network, operated from hospitals, schools, >> and religious buildings, and which the civilian population had voted into
power.
So, slaughter them all, men women and children, medical staff, everyone. Pour encourager les autres.
That's presumably what you see as the solution.
And there is no doubt that collective punishment is an Israeli strategy which obviously doesn't cripple Hamas but does buy popularity at the
polls for the Netanyahu government.
Do you recall the IRA bombs in London or were you too young then? I know there weren't tens of thousands of rockets, but there were lots of
civilian deaths, and let's not forget poor Sefton. Our intelligence community and police Special Branch were amateurs compared with today's Mossad. But it was never possible to eradicate the IRA and keep our population safe so, inevitably, there had to be a political solution
once Thatcher had stopped her Iron Lady posturing for the cameras.
On 18 Feb 2026 at 19:00:44 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance against
civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
What would your solution be for the eradication of terrorists embedded in
the civilian population and its structures?
Some sort of political settlement is the usual solution, at least since mediaeval times.
On 19/02/2026 in message <mvnt4aF9iknU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[rCa]
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance >>>>>against
civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
What would your solution be for the eradication of terrorists embedded in >>>>the civilian population and its structures?
Our government had 30 years' experience of that and should be able to >>>provide some tips.
I canrCOt quite recall the UK fighting a war against terrorists that had >>manufactured and used tens of thousands of bombardment rockets, had >>constructed an extensive tunnel network, operated from hospitals, schools, >>and religious buildings, and which the civilian population had voted into >>power.
They certainly had guns and munitions of some sort, they even attacked Downing Street if I remember correctly.
We didn't respond by blowing babies to pieces and I regard any
suggestion they are an acceptable casualty of war (even supposing a
terrorist attack can be regarded as war) as abhorrent. We are in the
21st century now.
On 2026-02-19, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 in message <mvnt4aF9iknU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[rCa]
I agree with all that. But there must come a point when the vengeance >>>>>> against
civilians becomes a war crime, however great the provocation.
What would your solution be for the eradication of terrorists embedded in >>>>> the civilian population and its structures?
Our government had 30 years' experience of that and should be able to
provide some tips.
I canrCOt quite recall the UK fighting a war against terrorists that had >>> manufactured and used tens of thousands of bombardment rockets, had
constructed an extensive tunnel network, operated from hospitals, schools, >>> and religious buildings, and which the civilian population had voted into >>> power.
They certainly had guns and munitions of some sort, they even attacked
Downing Street if I remember correctly.
They fired three shells from a mortar in a van, trying to hit the
Cabinet Room so as to kill all the highest members of the government.
One of the shells landed in the garden outside, but the Cabinet Room
has bomb-proof windows so nobody from the government was hurt. No 10
still proudly show off the shrapnel marks on the outside walls.
The "Real IRA" also fired an anti-tank rocket at the MI6 building in Vauxhall; it struck a window but the building is so bomb-proof that
it did almost no damage.
On 16/02/2026 23:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/02/2026 18:08, GB wrote:
On 16/02/2026 16:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/02/2026 14:27, GB wrote:
On 15/02/2026 17:51, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:38, GB wrote:
On 13/02/2026 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action as a >>>>>>>> terrorist organisation has found that the Home Secretary acted >>>>>>>> unlawfully in proscribing it, on both the grounds that she acted >>>>>>>> contrary to her own policy when doing so, and that it is a
violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of >>>>>>>> association.
The court seems to concur with my views as expressed previously: >>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a A very small number of Palestine Action's activities >>>>>>>> amounted to
-a-a-a-a acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the >>>>>>>> 2000
-a-a-a-a Act. For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal >>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a activities, the general criminal law remains available. The >>>>>>>> nature
-a-a-a-a and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the >>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, >>>>>>>> scale and
-a-a-a-a persistence to warrant proscription.
-a-a-a-a (See paragraphs 138-140 of the judgement.)
That's a very subjective view. I will be interested to see what >>>>>>> happens on appeal.
The judgment says: "At its core, Palestine Action is an
organisation that promotes its political cause through
criminality and encouragement of criminality. "
But immediately after those words, the judges said: "A very small
number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the >>>>>> definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act".
I find it hard to see why an organisation that does that should >>>>>>> be allowed to exist within our society. I don't much care how
it's labelled but it should be illegal.
I think the full text of the judgment explains that it isn't
sufficient to encourage criminality - the issue is whether it is a >>>>>> terrorist organisation.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether this is a terrorist
organisation, or simply one that encourages criminality on a
significant scale. It should be illegal. That may mean a new law
needs to be passed.
Saying what exactly?-a We already have laws against criminal damage
etc under which those responsible have been charged.
A familiar analogy is the suffragette movement - they engaged in
criminal damage and arson and sometimes defacing currency. Each
action could be prosecuted, but it would surely be an overreach to >>>>>> say that the suffragette movement was a terrorist movement and
that membership of that organisation or speeches that supported
the aims of that organisation should be prosecuted as terrorism.
I do not agree with that. I fully support women's suffrage, but I
think some of the acts carried out in support of suffrage were
terrorist.
Do say which, because the general consensus is that they just
engaged in criminal damage activities.-a How are you defining
'terrorist'?
Bombing, and arson, for a start.
How are you defining 'terrorism' and thereby distinguishing it from
other criminal activity?
Is all arson 'terrorism' for example?
Significant criminal activity carried out with political intent? What's
the definition in the Terrorism Act?
It's all very well to throw yourself in front of the King's horse at
the Derby, but the poor old jockey was severely injured. I'm pleased
to say that Anmer was okay. If the horse had been hurt, there'd have
been an outcry.
Is all endangering of someone's life 'terrorism'?
Clearly not.
On 17/02/2026 16:11, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/02/2026 14:45, Simon Parker wrote:
On 17/02/2026 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/02/2026 08:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/02/2026 16:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Hardly 'a technicality'.-a It having been decided that Palestine >>>>>>> Action
was wrongly proscribed, and subject to any appeals against that >>>>>>> being
rejected, it was never legally proscribed and any prosecutions
depending on it are void ab initio.
Do you have a reference for that?
He's wrong.
I don't think so.
Of course you don't.-a Because your view of the law is overly
simplistic. incomplete and therefore inaccurate.
But most usually right.
<lengthy very remote and unsupported possibilities snipped>
Not one, not two, but three reasons why you are mistaken.
But I'm not, as I will be proved.
How will that be proved? Certainly not by a court choosing to void the proscription order ab initio.
You're falling into a logical fallacy, I fear, but I'll wait to hear
your explanation.
On 18/02/2026 17:56, JNugent wrote:
On 18/02/2026 05:06 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 18/02/2026 09:50 am, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 11:31 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 15:33, JNugent wrote:Why does that question arise?
On 16/02/2026 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/02/2026 14:19, Nick Odell wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I don't think we can say that the entire UK accepts the IHRA >>>>>>>>>>> definition,
but certain organisations in the UK have done - eg, local >>>>>>>>>>> councils,
maybe government departments, political parties.
It should be remembered that the IHRA definition consists of the >>>>>>>>>>> definition plus some "examples" some of the examples are >>>>>>>>>>> contentious and
only accepted by those who don't care much about freedome of >>>>>>>>>>> speech. The
definition and the examples do not create crimes in English >>>>>>>>>>> law. They
may be pretexts for disciplining an employee or suspending a >>>>>>>>>>> person from
their political party.
useful link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-
definition- antisemitism
Personally I like Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley's definition: >>>>>>>>>> "Anti-semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews."
Seven words. No wiggle-room.
Which Jews? Those who support Israel, or those that don't?
Does that mean it's OK to ask your friendly local rabbi whether >>>>>>> he approves of Israeli government actions in Gaza and the West Bank? >>>>>>
It seems a definite non-sequitur to me.
Most Jews are willing to discuss their opinions about the Israel/
Gaza situation.
That might be true. Or it might not.
How did you come by your data?
How do you come by your data regarding your favourite food or meals?
I only have one person to ask as to matters like that.
How many would you need to ask to be able to conclude that "Most Jews"
have this or that view?
I didn't say this or that view, I said that most Jews are willing to
discuss Israel/Gaza because one way or another they can see it is
important.
Especially with the moronic Campaign Against Antisemitism
telling all British Jews that they face a horrific epidemic of
antisemitism and must be vigilant whenever they think they see it.
So if I had a friendly local rabbi I would feel free to discuss it. >>>>> Obviously not in a hostile, accusatory way.
Anyone who tries to evade the subject by saying the issue is very
complex, nuanced, it's really not possible to take sides, tells you >>>>> a lot about their defective moral compass. You can then move on and >>>>> talk about local shops that sell gefilte fish.
I cannot agree. One cannot start to properly analyse the situation
without reference to the many times that Israel - a legitimate state
and member of the United Nations - has been attacked by the regular
armed forces of neighbouring states, its people attacked by
terrorists (in Israel and elsewhere) and have been the target of
bombardment by many missile attacks from neighbouring territories.
Maybe not all that "complex", but certainly nuanced.One cannot start to properly analyse the actions of Saddam Hussein or
Bashar al Assad or the Iran Republican Guard without reference to the
many times that their nations have been targeted with sanctions and
bombed by the USA and threatened by secret revolutionary movements.
Thus, the torture of ordinary people is in a sense understandable and
excusable. If you have no moral compass, that is.
"Torture"?
That seems to be a new topic.
To you, a new topic. For the rest of us, part of the same topic which is governments oppressing, imprisoning, killing innocent noncombatant civilians.
Maybe you need to meet refugees once in a while, as I do. I expect
you'll ask me how many. Well, actually at least 40 so far. From Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. Maybe eventually
I'll meet refugees from America who have been arrested and beaten up by
ICE.
Obviously not. But Israel does not comply with international law.
But are you really saying that Israel has no right to attempt to
degrade the arms and fighting forces of hostile neighbours and must
simply turn the other cheek when its people are continually murdered
in various sorts of attack?
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the rain of
missiles fired at it and the constant threat of invasion by irregular
forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence against
an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that you
need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
As per the
advice of our attorney general when Blair asked for advice about whether
it was lawful for the UK to attack Iraq. The eventual advice was that a
UN resolution could be interpreted as giving lawful authority. However neither Israel nor the USA respect any UN resolutions unless the
resolutions approve of their own actions.
And there is no right to attack civilian settlements even if there are terrorists sheltering among the civilians.
I suppose either you know this, or you need to do some research.
You haven't fought shy of offering opinions on Israel's rights (or
lack of them) so far, have you?
So why have you not read, understood and absorbed my opinions? Are you> very forgetful?
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the rain of >>>missiles fired at it and the constant threat of invasion by irregular >>>forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence against an >>attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that you >>need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times?
As per the advice of our attorney general when Blair asked for advice >>about whether it was lawful for the UK to attack Iraq. The eventual >>advice was that a UN resolution could be interpreted as giving lawful >>authority. However neither Israel nor the USA respect any UN resolutions >>unless the resolutions approve of their own actions.
Not relevant!
That seems to run counter to accepted military tactics as seen today.
And there is no right to attack civilian settlements even if there are >>terrorists sheltering among the civilians.
On 2/19/26 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The "Real IRA" also fired an anti-tank rocket at the MI6 building in
Vauxhall; it struck a window but the building is so bomb-proof that
it did almost no damage.
I did a quick Google and the IRA killed about 50 civilians in the UK.
Which was more than Hamas Rockets prior to October 2023.
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run
such a system.
On 21/02/2026 in message <mvtaehF83neU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
I canAt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run >>such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of the >UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country
and are free from harassment by Israel.
On 21 Feb 2026 09:42:25 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 in message <mvtaehF83neU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket
defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run >>> such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of the
UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country
and are free from harassment by Israel.
But for that to happen, Palestinians also have to recognise the right of Israel to exist.
The two-state solution is clearly the right outcome, and is officially or unofficially recognised as such by the vast majority of governments worldwide. It's just that the main resistance to it comes from the two
groups of people who, ironically, have to most to benefit from it being successful.
Mark
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 11:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[rCa]
The "Real IRA" also fired an anti-tank rocket at the MI6 building in
Vauxhall; it struck a window but the building is so bomb-proof that
it did almost no damage.
I did a quick Google and the IRA killed about 50 civilians in the UK.
Which was more than Hamas Rockets prior to October 2023.
I think you are omitting a significant factor.
An interesting question might be: What would the number of killed have been if the Iron Dome anti-rocket system didnrCOt run 24/7/365?
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run
such a system.
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the rain
of missiles fired at it and the constant threat of invasion by
irregular forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence against
an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that you
need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times?
As per the advice of our attorney general when Blair asked for advice
about whether it was lawful for the UK to attack Iraq. The eventual
advice was that a UN resolution could be interpreted as giving lawful
authority. However neither Israel nor the USA respect any UN
resolutions unless the resolutions approve of their own actions.
Not relevant!
That seems to run counter to accepted military tactics as seen today.
And there is no right to attack civilian settlements even if there are
terrorists sheltering among the civilians.
I suppose either you know this, or you need to do some research.
You haven't fought shy of offering opinions on Israel's rights (or
lack of them) so far, have you?
So why have you not read, understood and absorbed my opinions? Are
very forgetful?
I had never asked you the question(s) about Israel's right (or, as the
case may be for some, lack of right) to defend itself against constant murderous aggression.
On 21 Feb 2026 09:42:25 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 in message <mvtaehF83neU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
I canAt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>>defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run >>>such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of the >>UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country
and are free from harassment by Israel.
But for that to happen, Palestinians also have to recognise the right of >Israel to exist.
The two-state solution is clearly the right outcome, and is officially or >unofficially recognised as such by the vast majority of governments >worldwide. It's just that the main resistance to it comes from the two
groups of people who, ironically, have to most to benefit from it being >successful.
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the rain
of missiles fired at it and the constant threat of invasion by
irregular forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence
against-a an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that you
need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times?
But "it" hasn't.
Israel keeps conflating Hamas and Palestinians and so
do ALL Israelis who I correspond with on Facebook. Conflating Israelis
and Jews is antisemitic so what is it called when you conflate Hamas and Palestinians
Oh, nothing because nobody else has that sort of protection.
As per the-a advice of our attorney general when Blair asked forNot relevant!
advice about whether-a it was lawful for the UK to attack Iraq. The
eventual advice was that a-a UN resolution could be interpreted as
giving lawful authority. However-a neither Israel nor the USA respect
any UN resolutions unless the-a resolutions approve of their own actions. >>
And there is no right to attack civilian settlements even if thereThat seems to run counter to accepted military tactics as seen today.
are terrorists sheltering among the civilians.
Accepted by whom? It may have been done 80 years ago but I doubt it was acceptable then and, at least morally, it isn't now.
Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket
defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run
such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of
the UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own countryAll they ever had to do was stop attacking Israel.
and are free from harassment by Israel.
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21 Feb 2026 09:42:25 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 in message <mvtaehF83neU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>>> defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to
run such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of
the UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country
and are free from harassment by Israel.
But for that to happen, Palestinians also have to recognise the right of
Israel to exist.
The only arguments I have seen for Israel's right to exist come from
long quotes from a bible (not sure which one, there are several) so have
no legal authority. If there is a persuasive argument I'm sure it can't
mean existing in somebody else's country.
On 20/02/2026 18:05, JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the rain
of missiles fired at it and the constant threat of invasion by
irregular forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence
against an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that you
need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times?
When has Iran mounted an attack on Israel? When has Lebanon mounted an attack on Israel? Who fired first?
As per the advice of our attorney general when Blair asked for advice
about whether it was lawful for the UK to attack Iraq. The eventual
advice was that a UN resolution could be interpreted as giving lawful
authority. However neither Israel nor the USA respect any UN
resolutions unless the resolutions approve of their own actions.
Not relevant!
And there is no right to attack civilian settlements even if thereThat seems to run counter to accepted military tactics as seen today.
are terrorists sheltering among the civilians.
Not acceptable - in fact, regularly condemned by the UN and by experts
in international law, and even by Israeli human rights groups.
Attacking civilians on the pretext that they are using human shields did happen in Vietnam, perpetrated by the Americans. The My Lai massacre is
one of many examples.
And when Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja he will have had the same
aim in mind. Was that massacre acceptable to you?
I suppose either you know this, or you need to do some research.
You haven't fought shy of offering opinions on Israel's rights (or
lack of them) so far, have you?
So why have you not read, understood and absorbed my opinions? Are
very forgetful?
I had never asked you the question(s) about Israel's right (or, as the
case may be for some, lack of right) to defend itself against constant
murderous aggression.
There is really no point in continually stating the obvious, that Israel
has the "right to defend itself".
The IDF blundered badly on 7th October, as the Israeli government and
IDF freely acknowledge. If they had done their job competently there
would have been no 7th October massacre. To then wreak savage revenge on civilians who cannot escape bombardment is not self-defence. Instead, it resembles what the Nazis did in Oradour-sur-Glane.
I'm sure you understand that, so why continue to defend the indefensible?
On 22/02/2026 08:51 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21 Feb 2026 09:42:25 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>On 21/02/2026 in message <mvtaehF83neU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>>>>defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run >>>>>such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of the >>>>UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country >>>>and are free from harassment by Israel.
But for that to happen, Palestinians also have to recognise the right of >>>Israel to exist.
The only arguments I have seen for Israel's right to exist come from long >>quotes from a bible (not sure which one, there are several) so have no >>legal authority. If there is a persuasive argument I'm sure it can't mean >>existing in somebody else's country.
Try reading:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on 29
November 1947
<https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/a-res-181-ii.php>
That isn't taken from the Bible (in whatever form).
On 20/02/2026 09:34 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the rain of >>>>>missiles fired at it and the constant threat of invasion by irregular >>>>>forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence against-a >>>>an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that you >>>>need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times?
But "it" hasn't.
What? You aren't even trying to be serious.
Israel keeps conflating Hamas and Palestinians and so do ALL Israelis who >>I correspond with on Facebook. Conflating Israelis and Jews is >>antisemitic so what is it called when you conflate Hamas and Palestinians
The rocket attacks have also come from Lebanon.
Should Israel just have swallowed that, plus all the deaths, injuries and >destruction?
Do you believe that if any country in Europe were being constantly
Oh, nothing because nobody else has that sort of protection.
bombarded with rockets, it would take no action against the source(s)?
As per the-a advice of our attorney general when Blair asked for advice >>>>about whether-a it was lawful for the UK to attack Iraq. The eventual >>>>advice was that a-a UN resolution could be interpreted as giving lawful >>>>authority. However-a neither Israel nor the USA respect any UN >>>>resolutions unless the-a resolutions approve of their own actions.
Not relevant!
And there is no right to attack civilian settlements even if there are >>>>terrorists sheltering among the civilians.That seems to run counter to accepted military tactics as seen today.
Accepted by whom? It may have been done 80 years ago but I doubt it was >>acceptable then and, at least morally, it isn't now.
So you say.
It is doubtful that the second world war could have been won by the Allies >if German cities had not been bombed. At least, not without much more >massive casualties for the armed forces and continued death and
destruction from the skies for people in the UK, especially in cities.
But all of this is by the by. Underlying your postings here seems to be a >belief that Israel doesn't have a right (or a duty) to defend its people
and that terrorists in nearby countries should be allowed to do as they >like.
If you don't believe that, please explain what defensive measures a
country under constant attack may take (in your opinion).
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:>>>>> Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>>>>> defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary >>>>>> to-a run such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance
of-a the UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back. >>>>> There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own
country and are free from harassment by Israel.
But for that to happen, Palestinians also have to recognise the
right of Israel to exist.
The only arguments I have seen for Israel's right to exist come from
long quotes from a bible (not sure which one, there are several) so
have-a no legal authority. If there is a persuasive argument I'm sure
it can't-a mean existing in somebody else's country.
Try reading:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on 29
November 1947
<https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/a-
res-181-ii.php>
That isn't taken from the Bible (in whatever form).
It was based on arguments from a bible to "prove" ownership of Palestine
and massive pressure form America who desperately wanted an ally in the Middle East.
On 22/02/2026 in message <n00r5eFq42oU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 09:34 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the
rain-a of missiles fired at it and the constant threat of invasion >>>>>> by-a irregular forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence
against an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that
you need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times?
But "it" hasn't.
What? You aren't even trying to be serious.
I am serious and explained in detail why, Hamas and Palestinians cannot
be conflated.
No response to that?
Israel keeps conflating Hamas and Palestinians and so-a do ALL
Israelis who I correspond with on Facebook. Conflating Israelis-a and
Jews is antisemitic so what is it called when you conflate Hamas and
Palestinians
The rocket attacks have also come from Lebanon.
Should Israel just have swallowed that, plus all the deaths, injuries
and destruction?
Oh, nothing because nobody else has that sort of protection.Do you believe that if any country in Europe were being constantly
bombarded with rockets, it would take no action against the source(s)?
Is there any country in Europe that has taken over another country, displaced 750,000 people, slaughtered 50,000 people over 80 years,
including children for throwing stones?
Is there a country in Europe that has responded to a terrorist attack by trying to wipe a country of the face of the Earth? 60,000 dead, 100,000 maimed, including new born babies?
As per the-a advice of our attorney general when Blair asked for
advice about whether-a it was lawful for the UK to attack Iraq. The >>>>> eventual advice was that a-a UN resolution could be interpreted as >>>>> giving lawful authority. However-a neither Israel nor the USA
respect-a any UN resolutions unless the-a resolutions approve of
their own actions.
Not relevant!
And there is no right to attack civilian settlements even if there >>>>> are terrorists sheltering among the civilians.That seems to run counter to accepted military tactics as seen today.
Accepted by whom? It may have been done 80 years ago but I doubt it
was acceptable then and, at least morally, it isn't now.
So you say.
It is doubtful that the second world war could have been won by the
Allies if German cities had not been bombed. At least, not without
much more massive casualties for the armed forces and continued death
and destruction from the skies for people in the UK, especially in
cities.
But all of this is by the by. Underlying your postings here seems to
be a belief that Israel doesn't have a right (or a duty) to defend its
people and that terrorists in nearby countries should be allowed to do
as they like.
If you don't believe that, please explain what defensive measures a
country under constant attack may take (in your opinion).
I have explained in detail and made a comparison with our own action
against terrorism.
On 22/02/2026 09:05 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:>>>>> Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an >>>>>>>anti-tactical-rocket
defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to-a >>>>>>>run such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of-a >>>>>>the UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back. >>>>>>There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country >>>>>>and are free from harassment by Israel.
But for that to happen, Palestinians also have to recognise the right of >>>>>Israel to exist.
The only arguments I have seen for Israel's right to exist come from >>>>long quotes from a bible (not sure which one, there are several) so >>>>have-a no legal authority. If there is a persuasive argument I'm sure it >>>>can't-a mean existing in somebody else's country.
Try reading:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on 29 >>>November 1947 >>><https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/a- >>>res-181-ii.php>
That isn't taken from the Bible (in whatever form).
It was based on arguments from a bible to "prove" ownership of Palestine >>and massive pressure form America who desperately wanted an ally in the >>Middle East.
The serried ranks of the entire United Nations (including the Soviet Union >and the many non-Christian countries of Asia and Africa) based their >decision on the Old Testament, did they?
And you are projecting a bit if you have concluded that the political >situation in the Middle East was the same in 1947 as it later became.
On 21/02/2026 09:42 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>>defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run >>>such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of the >>UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
So are they allowed to murder civilians?
The interested parties should take their beliefs to the United Nations for >debate there (your belief that the UN is party to a conspiracy is... >unusual). Attacking a legitimate state is bound to end badly.
All they ever had to do was stop attacking Israel.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country >>and are free from harassment by Israel.
On 22/02/2026 09:11 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 22/02/2026 in message <n00r5eFq42oU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 09:34 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the rain-a of
missiles fired at it and the constant threat of invasion by-a irregular
forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence against >>>>>>an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that you >>>>>>need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times?
But "it" hasn't.
What? You aren't even trying to be serious.
I am serious and explained in detail why, Hamas and Palestinians cannot >>be conflated.
Hamas have done their utmost to prove the opposite.
No response to that?
Israel keeps conflating Hamas and Palestinians and so-a do ALL Israelis >>>>who I correspond with on Facebook. Conflating Israelis-a and Jews is >>>>antisemitic so what is it called when you conflate Hamas and >>>>Palestinians
The rocket attacks have also come from Lebanon.
Should Israel just have swallowed that, plus all the deaths, injuries and >>>destruction?
Oh, nothing because nobody else has that sort of protection.Do you believe that if any country in Europe were being constantly >>>bombarded with rockets, it would take no action against the source(s)?
Is there any country in Europe that has taken over another country, >>displaced 750,000 people, slaughtered 50,000 people over 80 years, >>including children for throwing stones?
Why would that make the slightest difference? Aren't you REALLY saying
that those pesky Jews asked for it and they've got it coming, military, >civilians, women and children, lock stock and barrel?
Is there a country in Europe that has responded to a terrorist attack by >>trying to wipe a country of the face of the Earth? 60,000 dead, 100,000 >>maimed, including new born babies?Again, what difference does that make?
This is existential for Israel. Or perhaps you haven't realised what Hamas >(etc) are about?
As per the-a advice of our attorney general when Blair asked for advice
about whether-a it was lawful for the UK to attack Iraq. The eventual >>>>>>advice was that a-a UN resolution could be interpreted as giving lawful
authority. However-a neither Israel nor the USA respect-a any UN >>>>>>resolutions unless the-a resolutions approve of their own actions.
Not relevant!
And there is no right to attack civilian settlements even if there are >>>>>>terrorists sheltering among the civilians.That seems to run counter to accepted military tactics as seen today.
Accepted by whom? It may have been done 80 years ago but I doubt it was >>>>acceptable then and, at least morally, it isn't now.
So you say.
It is doubtful that the second world war could have been won by the >>>Allies if German cities had not been bombed. At least, not without much >>>more massive casualties for the armed forces and continued death and >>>destruction from the skies for people in the UK, especially in cities.
But all of this is by the by. Underlying your postings here seems to be a >>>belief that Israel doesn't have a right (or a duty) to defend its people >>>and that terrorists in nearby countries should be allowed to do as they >>>like.
If you don't believe that, please explain what defensive measures a >>>country under constant attack may take (in your opinion).
I have explained in detail and made a comparison with our own action >>against terrorism.
What reason do you have to draw such parallels?
JNugent wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:42 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>>> defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to
run such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance
of-a the UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
So are they allowed to murder civilians?
Israel has slaughtered close to 100,000 Palestinians and maimed a
similar figure in the last 80 years so it seems so.
The interested parties should take their beliefs to the United Nations
for debate there (your belief that the UN is party to a conspiracy
is... unusual). Attacking a legitimate state is bound to end badly.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own
country and are free from harassment by Israel.
All they ever had to do was stop attacking Israel.
That's somewhat one sided, all Israel had to do was not displace and slaughter Palestinians.
On 22/02/2026 in message <n01g9tFti67U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 09:05 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:Try reading:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:>>>>> Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical- >>>>>>>> rocket
defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is
necessary-a to run such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the
connivance-a of the UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want
their country back.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own >>>>>>> country and are free from harassment by Israel.
But for that to happen, Palestinians also have to recognise the
right of Israel to exist.
The only arguments I have seen for Israel's right to exist come
from long quotes from a bible (not sure which one, there are
several) so have-a no legal authority. If there is a persuasive
argument I'm sure-a it can't-a mean existing in somebody else's country. >>>>
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on 29
November 1947
<https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/a-
res-181-ii.php>
That isn't taken from the Bible (in whatever form).
It was based on arguments from a bible to "prove" ownership of
Palestine and massive pressure form America who desperately wanted an
ally in the Middle East.
The serried ranks of the entire United Nations (including the Soviet
Union and the many non-Christian countries of Asia and Africa) based
their decision on the Old Testament, did they?
Yes, that's my understanding, Google says:
Biblical Arguments Presented: Throughout 1947, various groups submitted memoranda to the UN, including the United Israel World Union, which
argued that the Bible and its historical/genealogical records should be considered in determining rights to the land.
Jerusalem's Special Status: The UN acknowledged the deep religious significance of the area, particularly for Jews, Christians, and
Muslims. This resulted in the decision to place Jerusalem and its surrounding holy sites under a special international regime (corpus separatum) rather than granting it to either the Jewish or Arab state.
In addition any challenge on Facebook is met with reams of quotes from
the bible (again, presumably the poster's)
And you are projecting a bit if you have concluded that the political
situation in the Middle East was the same in 1947 as it later became.
What it later became was somewhat worse. Israel took over the whole of Palestine and then pretended to be miffed when the Palestinians rejected
a couple of strips of land in compensation.
JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 09:11 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 09:34 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the >>>>>>>> rain-a of missiles fired at it and the constant threat of
invasion-a by-a irregular forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence >>>>>>> against an attacking nation.What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times?
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief
that-a you need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you. >>
But "it" hasn't.
What? You aren't even trying to be serious.
I am serious and explained in detail why, Hamas and Palestinians
cannot be conflated.
Hamas have done their utmost to prove the opposite.
Israel keeps conflating Hamas and Palestinians and so-a do ALL
Israelis who I correspond with on Facebook. Conflating Israelis
and-a Jews is antisemitic so what is it called when you conflate
Hamas and Palestinians
The rocket attacks have also come from Lebanon.
Should Israel just have swallowed that, plus all the deaths,
injuries-a and destruction?
No response to that?
Can't see it relevance to an Israel/Gaza discussion.
Oh, nothing because nobody else has that sort of protection.
Do you believe that if any country in Europe were being constantly
bombarded with rockets, it would take no action against the source(s)?
Is there any country in Europe that has taken over another country,
displaced 750,000 people, slaughtered 50,000 people over 80 years,
including children for throwing stones?
Why would that make the slightest difference? Aren't you REALLY saying
that those pesky Jews asked for it and they've got it coming,
military, civilians, women and children, lock stock and barrel?
You seem to be conflating Jews and Palestinians, my understanding is
that is antisemitic.
Is there a country in Europe that has responded to a terrorist attack
by trying to wipe a country of the face of the Earth? 60,000 dead,
100,000 maimed, including new born babies?
Again, what difference does that make?
It is a response to a similar point you made.
This is existential for Israel. Or perhaps you haven't realised what
Hamas (etc) are about?
Hamas wants Palestine back and many Palestinians see it as a resistance organisation and perhaps their only hope to live in peace.
As per the-a advice of our attorney general when Blair asked for >>>>>>> advice about whether-a it was lawful for the UK to attack Iraq. >>>>>>> The-a-a eventual advice was that a-a UN resolution could be
interpreted as-a-a giving lawful authority. However-a neither Israel >>>>>>> nor the USA-a respect-a any UN resolutions unless the-a resolutions >>>>>>> approve of-a their own actions.
Not relevant!
And there is no right to attack civilian settlements even if
there-a-a are terrorists sheltering among the civilians.
That seems to run counter to accepted military tactics as seen today.
Accepted by whom? It may have been done 80 years ago but I doubt
it-a was acceptable then and, at least morally, it isn't now.
So you say.
Indeed, me and, I hope, all decent civilised people.
It is doubtful that the second world war could have been won by the
Allies if German cities had not been bombed. At least, not without
much more massive casualties for the armed forces and continued
death-a and destruction from the skies for people in the UK,
especially in-a cities.
But all of this is by the by. Underlying your postings here seems
to-a be a belief that Israel doesn't have a right (or a duty) to
defend its-a people and that terrorists in nearby countries should be >>>> allowed to do-a as they like.
If you don't believe that, please explain what defensive measures a
country under constant attack may take (in your opinion).
I have explained in detail and made a comparison with our own action
against terrorism.
The obvious may not be what you think it is.
What reason do you have to draw such parallels?
Nothing beyond the obvious.
On 17/02/2026 14:45, Simon Parker wrote:
On 17/02/2026 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't think so.
Of course you don't.-a Because your view of the law is overly
simplistic. incomplete and therefore inaccurate.
But most usually right.
<lengthy very remote and unsupported possibilities snipped>
Not one, not two, but three reasons why you are mistaken.
But I'm not, as I will be proved.
Only potentially and only if an appeal against the judicial review is
successful.
For the time being and perhaps forever it's not a valid proscription.
Again, you are mistaken.
The Supreme Court considered the conceptual circumstances in which we
find ourselves, albeit in a different context, in Ahmed v HM Treasury
(No 2) [2010] UKSC 5 [^4].
The most that can be said for now is that an authoritative view has
been expressed by the High Court that the proscription order is
unlawful; that the orthodox implication of such a judicial conclusion
is that the order is and always has been invalid; and that the normal
consequence of such an order being invalid is that it cannot serve as
a foundation for an offence such as the section 12 offence, which
requires support to be invited or expressed for an organisation that
was lawfully proscribed at the time of the alleged offence.
It is indeed 'the most that can be said for now'.-a But that's actually a hell of a lot.
And it agrees in full with what I've been saying.-a It's unlikely to change.
In due course, an appellate court might agree with the High Court's
conclusion and issue a quashing order, which we would normally expect
to be fully retrospective in effect, meaning that Palestine Action had
never been a proscribed organisation and that inviting support for it
had never been a criminal offence.
Quite so.-a And I'm saying, if the government does actually appeal, that that will be the result.
However, it is also possible that an appellate court might disagree
with the High Court by ruling the proscription order to be lawful.
It is of course possible.-a But just because there are two possibilities (like either the sun will rise tomorrow or it won't) does not make them equally likely.
I've set out very clearly, as I did with Auriol Grey, my conclusion.
Despite the rambling nature and extent of your post, I have no idea what
you believe.-a All you seem to be arguing is that I have no right to conclude as I have rather than giving any opinion of your own.
In those circumstances, the High Court's judgment notwithstanding, the
proscription order would be rCo and would always have been rCo valid.
That, in turn, would mean that ever since the order was made, it would
have been an offence to invite or express support for Palestine
Action. Those who have already been charged with offences under
section 12 will therefore find themselves in a period of unavoidable
uncertainty.
Yes.
Best by far for the government to accept that, once again, it was
totally wrong and accept the court's decision.-a The alternative is to continue with prosecuting pensioners for inoffensively holding hand-
written signs.-a And that really isn't a good look.
Until the appeal process has been concluded we simply cannot know
whether the High Court's view will turn out to be the right one, the
'right' view, for present purposes, being that which is eventually
reached by the most senior appellate court to address the issue.
In the meantime any proper lawyer would have an opinion.-a It's what
they're there for.
On 23/02/2026 08:51 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:42 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>>>>defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run >>>>>such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of-a >>>>the UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
So are they allowed to murder civilians?
Israel has slaughtered close to 100,000 Palestinians and maimed a similar >>figure in the last 80 years so it seems so.
Even if true (doubtful), in what possible way is that an answer to the >question I asked?
The interested parties should take their beliefs to the United Nations >>>for debate there (your belief that the UN is party to a conspiracy is... >>>unusual). Attacking a legitimate state is bound to end badly.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country >>>>and are free from harassment by Israel.
All they ever had to do was stop attacking Israel.
That's somewhat one sided, all Israel had to do was not displace and >>slaughter Palestinians.
You're not really in the know about the history of Israel and its
neighbours since 1947, are you?
Try reading:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on 29 >>>>>November 1947 >>>>><https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/a- >>>>>res-181-ii.php>
That isn't taken from the Bible (in whatever form).
It was based on arguments from a bible to "prove" ownership of Palestine >>>>and massive pressure form America who desperately wanted an ally in the >>>>Middle East.
The serried ranks of the entire United Nations (including the Soviet >>>Union and the many non-Christian countries of Asia and Africa) based >>>their decision on the Old Testament, did they?
Yes, that's my understanding, Google says:
Biblical Arguments Presented: Throughout 1947, various groups submitted >>memoranda to the UN, including the United Israel World Union, which >>argued that the Bible and its historical/genealogical records should be >>considered in determining rights to the land.
And from that, you move to a position where the whole world (or enough of
it to form a majority at a United Nations vote) is sold on the Old
Testament claims.
Jerusalem's Special Status: The UN acknowledged the deep religious >>significance of the area, particularly for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. >>This resulted in the decision to place Jerusalem and its surrounding holy >>sites under a special international regime (corpus separatum) rather than >>granting it to either the Jewish or Arab state.
Sounds sensible.
And?
In addition any challenge on Facebook is met with reams of quotes from >>the bible (again, presumably the poster's)
I don't know what you are talking about. You have had no such argument
from me.
On 23/02/2026 08:57 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 09:11 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 09:34 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the rain-a of
missiles fired at it and the constant threat of invasion-a by-a irregular
forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-defence against
an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that-a you
need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times?
But "it" hasn't.
What? You aren't even trying to be serious.
I am serious and explained in detail why, Hamas and Palestinians cannot >>>>be conflated.
Hamas have done their utmost to prove the opposite.
No response to that?
Israel keeps conflating Hamas and Palestinians and so-a do ALL Israelis
who I correspond with on Facebook. Conflating Israelis and-a Jews is >>>>>>antisemitic so what is it called when you conflate Hamas and >>>>>>Palestinians
The rocket attacks have also come from Lebanon.
Should Israel just have swallowed that, plus all the deaths, injuries-a >>>>>and destruction?
No response to that?
Can't see it relevance to an Israel/Gaza discussion.
You CAN'T see what constant murderous attacks on Israel have to do with >Israel's need to defend its people?
Come on...
Oh, nothing because nobody else has that sort of protection.
Do you believe that if any country in Europe were being constantly >>>>>bombarded with rockets, it would take no action against the source(s)?
Is there any country in Europe that has taken over another country, >>>>displaced 750,000 people, slaughtered 50,000 people over 80 years, >>>>including children for throwing stones?
Why would that make the slightest difference? Aren't you REALLY saying >>>that those pesky Jews asked for it and they've got it coming, military, >>>civilians, women and children, lock stock and barrel?
You seem to be conflating Jews and Palestinians, my understanding is that >>is antisemitic.
However defined, there's a lot of it about, isn't there?
Happily, not from me.
Is there a country in Europe that has responded to a terrorist attack by >>>>trying to wipe a country of the face of the Earth? 60,000 dead, 100,000 >>>>maimed, including new born babies?
Again, what difference does that make?
It is a response to a similar point you made.
The only way to answer the question is to say what you think would happen
IF a European country was being constantly attacked with rockets and high >explosives and with incursions by terrorist forces.
You cannot possibly be of the belief that it would just be swallowed and
no action taken. Why would that be?
This is existential for Israel. Or perhaps you haven't realised what >>>Hamas (etc) are about?
Hamas wants Palestine back and many Palestinians see it as a resistance >>organisation and perhaps their only hope to live in peace.
Take it to the United Nations. Have it heard in debate.
Oh sorry... the UN is part of the international Jewish conspiracy, isn't
it?
I have explained in detail and made a comparison with our own action >>>>against terrorism.
You have not explained at all.
What defensive measures against constant murderous attacks (over decades)
do you say Israel is entitled to pursue?
The obvious may not be what you think it is.
What reason do you have to draw such parallels?
Nothing beyond the obvious.
On 17/02/2026 16:11, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/02/2026 14:45, Simon Parker wrote:
On 17/02/2026 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't think so.
Of course you don't.-a Because your view of the law is overly
simplistic. incomplete and therefore inaccurate.
But most usually right.
Off the top of my head I can think of a single instance where you have
been right.-a I can also think of a single post in which it was
demonstrated that you made 12 legally flawed statements.
I am also minded of the numerous examples where you have demonstrated a woefully lamentable understanding of causation.
Do you have examples, other than the obvious one, where you can prove, rather than merely assert, that you are "usually right"?
<lengthy very remote and unsupported possibilities snipped>
Possibilities you had, nevertheless, not considered owing to your overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore inaccurate understanding of the law.
Tangentially, each possibility I presented was supported with a
reference to relevant case law, along with link to the corresponding judgments meaning that your claim that they were "unsupported" is
clearly erroneous.
Do you consider this to be an example where you are "most usually right" despite being clearly wrong?
Not one, not two, but three reasons why you are mistaken.
But I'm not, as I will be proved.
The current situation is as I presented it and includes numerous
possible paths.
You are aware of only the most likely path.-a To repeat myself, "your
view of the law is overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore inaccurate."
If the eventual path taken does turn out to be the most likely and
obvious path, that makes you no less less ignorant of the possible alternative paths and no less wrong for being ignorant of them.
Nothing you say can change that so there is little point in attempting
to discuss it with you, notwithstanding your inability to entertain the possibility that your knowledge is incomplete and therefore wrong, even after somebody kindly takes the time and trouble to proffer you an opportunity to expand your knowledge and understanding.
Only potentially and only if an appeal against the judicial review
is successful.
For the time being and perhaps forever it's not a valid proscription.
Again, you are mistaken.
The Supreme Court considered the conceptual circumstances in which we
find ourselves, albeit in a different context, in Ahmed v HM Treasury
(No 2) [2010] UKSC 5 [^4].
The most that can be said for now is that an authoritative view has
been expressed by the High Court that the proscription order is
unlawful; that the orthodox implication of such a judicial conclusion
is that the order is and always has been invalid; and that the normal
consequence of such an order being invalid is that it cannot serve as
a foundation for an offence such as the section 12 offence, which
requires support to be invited or expressed for an organisation that
was lawfully proscribed at the time of the alleged offence.
It is indeed 'the most that can be said for now'.-a But that's actually
a hell of a lot.
I deliberately included a number of caveats in the statement.-a For
example, as demonstrated in my previous post, (and snipped by you,
likely as a result of your seeming inability to countenance a dissenting view, even when fully supported), the "orthodox implication" is not
always applied, and the "normal consequence" does not follow in all cases.
The likely outcome is by no means the only outcome nor is it a certain outcome.-a Sadly, I do not expect you to grasp such subtlety and see
little point in attempting to discuss it further with you.
And it agrees in full with what I've been saying.-a It's unlikely to
change.
In due course, an appellate court might agree with the High Court's
conclusion and issue a quashing order, which we would normally expect
to be fully retrospective in effect, meaning that Palestine Action
had never been a proscribed organisation and that inviting support
for it had never been a criminal offence.
Quite so.-a And I'm saying, if the government does actually appeal,
that that will be the result.
Sadly (for you), the Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, does not share your certainty.-a Rather than dismissing all pending actions against supporters of Palestine Action he has instead stated, "In light of Friday's ruling we decided that there is no merit
in hearing the cases until we know what is going on with the appeal."
He added that the 31 cases involving defendants charged under section 13
of the Terrorism Act 2000, which were due to be heard on Monday, would
be adjourned until April 27.
Should he instead have reached out to you and then issued a statement saying, "In light of my recent conversation with self-proclaimed erudite contributor a forgotten corner of the Internet, Norman Wells, I have directed that all pending cases concerning supporters of Palestine
Action be dismissed as the government will lose their appeal resulting
in a fully retrospective quashing order being issued meaning no criminal offence occurred.-a Norman has assured me that his perceived outcome is "unlikely to change" so who am I to disagree with him?"
However, it is also possible that an appellate court might disagree
with the High Court by ruling the proscription order to be lawful.
It is of course possible.-a But just because there are two
possibilities (like either the sun will rise tomorrow or it won't)
does not make them equally likely.
Are you able to cite any instances where the sun hasn't risen?-a Each possibility I raised was supported with a cite where it had occurred.
When discussing matters, as we do here, it is highly beneficial to be cognisant of all material facts and possible outcomes.
If we fail to acknowledge alternative possibilities beyond those of
which we are aware and anticipate, how can we ever hope to expand our knowledge and understanding, especially in cases where said
understanding is overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore inaccurate?
I've set out very clearly, as I did with Auriol Grey, my conclusion.
Despite the rambling nature and extent of your post, I have no idea
what you believe.-a All you seem to be arguing is that I have no right
to conclude as I have rather than giving any opinion of your own.
I suggest re-reading my previous post, paying greater attention second
time around as you seem to have missed parts of it, misunderstood others
and forgotten some.
In those circumstances, the High Court's judgment notwithstanding,
the proscription order would be rCo and would always have been rCo valid. >>> That, in turn, would mean that ever since the order was made, it
would have been an offence to invite or express support for Palestine
Action. Those who have already been charged with offences under
section 12 will therefore find themselves in a period of unavoidable
uncertainty.
Yes.
To which part of the paragraph to which you are replying are you saying, "Yes"?
Best by far for the government to accept that, once again, it was
totally wrong and accept the court's decision.-a The alternative is to
continue with prosecuting pensioners for inoffensively holding hand-
written signs.-a And that really isn't a good look.
The paragraph to which you are replying sets out the possibility than an appellate court might disagree with the High Court by ruling that the proscription is lawful.
Your response makes no sense in context.-a If the possibility is that the government is successful in their appeal, why is it "best by far" for
them to "accept the court's decision"?
Do you consider this to be another example where you are "most usually right", even though it is clear you have lost track of to what it is
that you are replying?
Until the appeal process has been concluded we simply cannot know
whether the High Court's view will turn out to be the right one, the
'right' view, for present purposes, being that which is eventually
reached by the most senior appellate court to address the issue.
In the meantime any proper lawyer would have an opinion.-a It's what
they're there for.
If you've paid a lawyer for their professional opinion and believe you haven't received that for which you paid, I recommend raising it with
the senior partner designated to handle complaints in the first instance.
On 23/02/2026 in message <n02pi9F5inpU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
Try reading:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on 29 >>>>>> November 1947
<https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/a-
res-181-ii.php>
That isn't taken from the Bible (in whatever form).
It was based on arguments from a bible to "prove" ownership of
Palestine and massive pressure form America who desperately wanted
an-a ally in the Middle East.
The serried ranks of the entire United Nations (including the Soviet
Union and the many non-Christian countries of Asia and Africa) based
their decision on the Old Testament, did they?
Yes, that's my understanding, Google says:
Biblical Arguments Presented: Throughout 1947, various groups
submitted memoranda to the UN, including the United Israel World
Union, which argued that the Bible and its historical/genealogical
records should be considered in determining rights to the land.
And from that, you move to a position where the whole world (or enough
of it to form a majority at a United Nations vote) is sold on the Old
Testament claims.
Jerusalem's Special Status: The UN acknowledged the deep religious
significance of the area, particularly for Jews, Christians, and
Muslims. This resulted in the decision to place Jerusalem and its
surrounding holy sites under a special international regime (corpus
separatum) rather than granting it to either the Jewish or Arab state.
Sounds sensible.
And?
In addition any challenge on Facebook is met with reams of quotes
from the bible (again, presumably the poster's)
I don't know what you are talking about. You have had no such argument
from me.
I said "In addition any challenge on Facebook is met with reams of
quotes from-a the bible (again, presumably the poster's)"
So what I am talking about is posts on Facebook.
Interesting one this morning in https://www.facebook.com/trtworld
US envoy Mike Huckabee says "it would be fine" under "Biblical right" if Israel seizes all land from Nile to Euphrates, encompassing Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iraq.
On 23/02/2026 in message <n02pmmF5inpU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 23/02/2026 08:51 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:42 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>>>>> defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary >>>>>> to-a run such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance >>>>> of the UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
So are they allowed to murder civilians?
Israel has slaughtered close to 100,000 Palestinians and maimed a
similar figure in the last 80 years so it seems so.
Even if true (doubtful), in what possible way is that an answer to the
question I asked?
You asked "So are they allowed to murder civilians?", it is my answer.
The interested parties should take their beliefs to the United
Nations for debate there (your belief that the UN is party to a
conspiracy-a is... unusual). Attacking a legitimate state is bound to >>>> end badly.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own
country and are free from harassment by Israel.
All they ever had to do was stop attacking Israel.
That's somewhat one sided, all Israel had to do was not displace and
slaughter Palestinians.
You're not really in the know about the history of Israel and its
neighbours since 1947, are you?
Yes, i is a constant battle by Palestinians to recover their country.
On 23/02/2026 in message <n02q8nF5lkgU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 23/02/2026 08:57 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 09:11 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 09:34 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end >>>>>>>>>> the-a-a rain-a of missiles fired at it and the constant threat >>>>>>>>>> of-a invasion-a by-a irregular forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self-
defence-a-a-a against an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief >>>>>>>>> that-a you need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked >>>>>>>>> you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times? >>>>But "it" hasn't.
What? You aren't even trying to be serious.
I am serious and explained in detail why, Hamas and Palestinians
cannot be conflated.
Hamas have done their utmost to prove the opposite.
No response to that?
Israel keeps conflating Hamas and Palestinians and so-a do ALL >>>>>>> Israelis who I correspond with on Facebook. Conflating Israelis >>>>>>> and-a Jews is antisemitic so what is it called when you conflate >>>>>>> Hamas and Palestinians
The rocket attacks have also come from Lebanon.
Should Israel just have swallowed that, plus all the deaths,
injuries and destruction?
No response to that?
Can't see it relevance to an Israel/Gaza discussion.
You CAN'T see what constant murderous attacks on Israel have to do
with Israel's need to defend its people?
Can't see it relevance to an Israel/Gaza discussion where Israel's
"defence" consist of blowing new born babies to pieces.
Come on...
Oh, nothing because nobody else has that sort of protection.
Do you believe that if any country in Europe were being constantly >>>>>> bombarded with rockets, it would take no action against the
source(s)?
Is there any country in Europe that has taken over another country, >>>>> displaced 750,000 people, slaughtered 50,000 people over 80 years,
including children for throwing stones?
Why would that make the slightest difference? Aren't you REALLY
saying that those pesky Jews asked for it and they've got it
coming,-a military, civilians, women and children, lock stock and
barrel?
You seem to be conflating Jews and Palestinians, my understanding is
that is antisemitic.
However defined, there's a lot of it about, isn't there?
It should have read "conflating Jews and Israelis" of course. Did you
intend to make an antisemitic statement?
Happily, not from me.
In this case most definitely from you.
Is there a country in Europe that has responded to a terrorist
attack-a by trying to wipe a country of the face of the Earth?
60,000 dead,-a 100,000 maimed, including new born babies?
Again, what difference does that make?
It is a response to a similar point you made.
The only way to answer the question is to say what you think would
happen IF a European country was being constantly attacked with
rockets and high explosives and with incursions by terrorist forces.
You cannot possibly be of the belief that it would just be swallowed
and no action taken. Why would that be?
This is existential for Israel. Or perhaps you haven't realised what
Hamas (etc) are about?
Hamas wants Palestine back and many Palestinians see it as a
resistance organisation and perhaps their only hope to live in peace.
Take it to the United Nations. Have it heard in debate.
Oh sorry... the UN is part of the international Jewish conspiracy,
isn't it?
Not sure if you have noticed but the USA and Israel only take any notice
of the UN when it rules in their favour, otherwise they ignore it.
[snipped]
I have explained in detail and made a comparison with our own
action against terrorism.
You have not explained at all.
What defensive measures against constant murderous attacks (over
decades) do you say Israel is entitled to pursue?
The obvious may not be what you think it is.
What reason do you have to draw such parallels?
Nothing beyond the obvious.
What do you think I think it is?
On 21/02/2026 16:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21 Feb 2026 09:42:25 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 in message <mvtaehF83neU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>
I canAt think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket
defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run >>>> such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of the >>> UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country
and are free from harassment by Israel.
But for that to happen, Palestinians also have to recognise the right of
Israel to exist.
They do, of course, recognise that right. You shouldn't assume that the >extremists speak for all Palestinians.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 08:50:23 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 16:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21 Feb 2026 09:42:25 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>
On 21/02/2026 in message <mvtaehF83neU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote: >>>>
I can-At think of any other country that runs an anti-tactical-rocket >>>>> defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to run >>>>> such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of the >>>> UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country >>>> and are free from harassment by Israel.
But for that to happen, Palestinians also have to recognise the right of >>> Israel to exist.
They do, of course, recognise that right. You shouldn't assume that the
extremists speak for all Palestinians.
I'm not suggesting that none of them do. Or even that the majority don't.
But as long as the extremists have political power, a two-state solution
will be practically impossible.
Mark
On 23/02/2026 11:51 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/02/2026 in message <n02pmmF5inpU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 23/02/2026 08:51 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:42 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Spike wrote:
I canrCOt think of any other country that runs an >>>>>>>anti-tactical-rocket
defence on such a scale. Perhaps ask yourself why it is necessary to-a >>>>>>>run such a system.
That is simple. Israel is occupying Palestine (with the connivance of >>>>>>the UN, UK and USA) and the Palestinians want their country back.
So are they allowed to murder civilians?
Israel has slaughtered close to 100,000 Palestinians and maimed a >>>>similar figure in the last 80 years so it seems so.
Even if true (doubtful), in what possible way is that an answer to the >>>question I asked?
You asked "So are they allowed to murder civilians?", it is my answer.
Do you know the difference between a question and an answer?
The interested parties should take their beliefs to the United Nations >>>>>for debate there (your belief that the UN is party to a conspiracy-a >>>>>is... unusual). Attacking a legitimate state is bound to end badly.
There will be no solution until the Palestinians have their own country
and are free from harassment by Israel.
All they ever had to do was stop attacking Israel.
That's somewhat one sided, all Israel had to do was not displace and >>>>slaughter Palestinians.
You're not really in the know about the history of Israel and its >>>neighbours since 1947, are you?
Yes, i is a constant battle by Palestinians to recover their country.
Israel is a sovereign state, brought into being by a UN resolution.
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/02/2026 in message <n02q8nF5lkgU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 23/02/2026 08:57 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 09:11 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 09:34 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:33 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
I was asking you how far Israel might go in seeking to end the-a-a rain-a
of missiles fired at it and the constant threat of-a invasion-a by-a
irregular forces (aka terrorists).
It is well known that any nation has the right to self- defence-a-a-a
against an attacking nation.
But there is no right to attack another nation in the belief that-a you
need to degrade its weapons, when it has not attacked you.
What about when it HAS attacked you - not once, but multiple times? >>>>>But "it" hasn't.
What? You aren't even trying to be serious.
I am serious and explained in detail why, Hamas and Palestinians cannot
be conflated.
Hamas have done their utmost to prove the opposite.
No response to that?
Israel keeps conflating Hamas and Palestinians and so-a do ALL Israelis
who I correspond with on Facebook. Conflating Israelis and-a Jews is
antisemitic so what is it called when you conflate Hamas and >>>>>>>>Palestinians
The rocket attacks have also come from Lebanon.
Should Israel just have swallowed that, plus all the deaths, injuries >>>>>>>and destruction?
No response to that?
Can't see it relevance to an Israel/Gaza discussion.
You CAN'T see what constant murderous attacks on Israel have to do with >>>Israel's need to defend its people?
Can't see it relevance to an Israel/Gaza discussion where Israel's >>"defence" consist of blowing new born babies to pieces.
Do you know what a strawman is?
Come on...
Oh, nothing because nobody else has that sort of protection.
Do you believe that if any country in Europe were being constantly >>>>>>>bombarded with rockets, it would take no action against the >>>>>>>source(s)?
Is there any country in Europe that has taken over another country, >>>>>>displaced 750,000 people, slaughtered 50,000 people over 80 years, >>>>>>including children for throwing stones?
Why would that make the slightest difference? Aren't you REALLY saying >>>>>that those pesky Jews asked for it and they've got it coming,-a military,
civilians, women and children, lock stock and barrel?
You seem to be conflating Jews and Palestinians, my understanding is >>>>that is antisemitic.
However defined, there's a lot of it about, isn't there?
It should have read "conflating Jews and Israelis" of course. Did you >>intend to make an antisemitic statement?
Happily, not from me.
In this case most definitely from you.
Most certainly not. What I do observe is a general political movement on
the left against Jewish people, no matter who they are or where they live.
I know it isn't new.
I can remember adults talking about "jewboys" when I was a child. I was >hoping we had moved on from that into a more civilised world. But
apparently not (for everyone at least).
Is there a country in Europe that has responded to a terrorist attack-a >>>>>>by trying to wipe a country of the face of the Earth? 60,000 dead,-a >>>>>>100,000 maimed, including new born babies?
Again, what difference does that make?
It is a response to a similar point you made.
The only way to answer the question is to say what you think would happen >>>IF a European country was being constantly attacked with rockets and high >>>explosives and with incursions by terrorist forces.
You cannot possibly be of the belief that it would just be swallowed and >>>no action taken. Why would that be?
No response.
This is existential for Israel. Or perhaps you haven't realised what >>>>>Hamas (etc) are about?
Hamas wants Palestine back and many Palestinians see it as a resistance >>>>organisation and perhaps their only hope to live in peace.
Take it to the United Nations. Have it heard in debate.
Oh sorry... the UN is part of the international Jewish conspiracy, isn't >>>it?
Not sure if you have noticed but the USA and Israel only take any notice >>of the UN when it rules in their favour, otherwise they ignore it.
That's what I knew you would say (and predicted in terms in my last post).
[snipped]
I have explained in detail and made a comparison with our own action >>>>>>against terrorism.
You have not explained at all.
What defensive measures against constant murderous attacks (over decades) >>>do you say Israel is entitled to pursue?
The obvious may not be what you think it is.
What reason do you have to draw such parallels?
Nothing beyond the obvious.
What do you think I think it is?
I don't understand you at all. You seem determined to deny that Israel has >any rights to defend its people.
Most certainly not. What I do observe is a general political movement on the left against Jewish people, no matter who they are or where they live.
I know it isn't new.
I can remember adults talking about "jewboys" when I was a child. I was hoping
we had moved on from that into a more civilised world. But apparently not (for
everyone at least)
Israel is a sovereign state, brought into being by a UN resolution.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
Most certainly not. What I do observe is a general political movement on the >> left against Jewish people, no matter who they are or where they live.
I know it isn't new.
I can remember adults talking about "jewboys" when I was a child. I was hoping
we had moved on from that into a more civilised world. But apparently not (for
everyone at least)
Whereas, smearing a whole group of people on "the left" as being anti-semitic,
and of always having been so,.is presumably your own personal version of being "civilised".
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:n03756F7q8mU2@mid.individual.net...
Israel is a sovereign state, brought into being by a UN resolution.
Which is of course, complete and utter garbage.
And which just so happens to be the complete opposite of the actual
truth.
On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British
Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, unilaterally declared the establishment of the State of Israel thus triggering
the first Arab Israeli War of 1948. During the course of which
700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and were
forced to seek refuge in neighbouring countries
And the reason for the War ?
Because Israel's Unilateral Declaration of Statehood flew
directly in the face of -
UN Resolution 141, of 29th Nov 1947 * Passed towards the end of the
British Mandate, which proposed the partition of Palestine; and a *Two
State Solution.
So that right from the very foundation of the State, Israel was
diametrically opposed to any idea of a Two State Solution.
Or to a Palestinian State.
While the first UN Resolution to specifically reference Israel was
Resolution 194 passed on Dec 11th 1948,* seeking to establish a
Palestinian Right of Return to their homes and for compensation
payable for any damage done to their property.
A Resolution which, it maybe goes without saying, like every other
UN Resolution, has been studiously ignored by the State of
Israel, in the ensuing 78 years
Resolution 273 admitting Israel to the UN * (presumably in the vain
hope of persuading her to recognise UN resolutions ) was passed
on May 11th 1949.
A list of all the other UN resolutions which have been ignored
by the State of Israel can be found on here
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
On 24/02/2026 08:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n03756F7q8mU2@mid.individual.net...
Israel is a sovereign state, brought into being by a UN resolution.
Which is of course, complete and utter garbage.
And which just so happens to be the complete opposite of the actual
truth.
On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British
Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, unilaterally
declared the establishment of the State of Israel thus triggering
the first Arab Israeli War of 1948. During the course of which
700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and were
forced to seek refuge in neighbouring countries
And the reason for the War ?
Because Israel's Unilateral Declaration of Statehood flew
directly in the face of -
UN Resolution 141, of 29th Nov 1947 * Passed towards the end of the
British Mandate, which proposed the partition of Palestine; and a *Two
State Solution.
So that right from the very foundation of the State, Israel was
diametrically opposed to any idea of a Two State Solution.
Or to a Palestinian State.
While the first UN Resolution to specifically reference Israel was
Resolution 194 passed on Dec 11th 1948,* seeking to establish a
Palestinian Right of Return to their homes and for compensation
payable for any damage done to their property.
A Resolution which, it maybe goes without saying, like every other
UN Resolution, has been studiously ignored by the State of
Israel, in the ensuing 78 years
Resolution 273 admitting Israel to the UN * (presumably in the vain
hope of persuading her to recognise UN resolutions ) was passed
on May 11th 1949.
A list of all the other UN resolutions which have been ignored
by the State of Israel can be found on here
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
The United Nations' resolution is what gives Israel its legitimacy
We are all well aware that there were things "going on" before that. If there are still any post-war National Servicemen alive and communicative, they'll tell you a tale or two.
On 24/02/2026 09:34 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
Most certainly not. What I do observe is a general political movement on the
left against Jewish people, no matter who they are or where they live.
I know it isn't new.
I can remember adults talking about "jewboys" when I was a child. I was
hoping
we had moved on from that into a more civilised world. But apparently not >>> (for
everyone at least)
Whereas, smearing a whole group of people on "the left" as being
anti-semitic,
and of always having been so,.is presumably your own personal version of
being "civilised".
You have snipped most of it of course,
but I didn't say that everyone on the left is antisemitic.
Within my own social circles I know some who are not and there must be many more. But the recent and current fad for anti-Semitism is definitely a left-wing thing. You surely are not going to argue against that quite obvious fact, given recent history, especially within the Labour Party over the last few years?
You have snipped most of it of course, but I didn't say that everyone on
the left is antisemitic. Within my own social circles I know some who
are not and there must be many more. But the recent and current fad for antisemitism is definitely a left-wing thing.
to argue against that quite obvious fact, given recent history,
especially within the Labour Party over the last few years?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:n0647aFlpr8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/02/2026 08:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n03756F7q8mU2@mid.individual.net...
Israel is a sovereign state, brought into being by a UN resolution.
Which is of course, complete and utter garbage.
And which just so happens to be the complete opposite of the actual
truth.
On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British
Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, unilaterally
declared the establishment of the State of Israel thus triggering
the first Arab Israeli War of 1948. During the course of which
700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and were
forced to seek refuge in neighbouring countries
And the reason for the War ?
Because Israel's Unilateral Declaration of Statehood flew
directly in the face of -
UN Resolution 141, of 29th Nov 1947 * Passed towards the end of the
British Mandate, which proposed the partition of Palestine; and a *Two
State Solution.
So that right from the very foundation of the State, Israel was
diametrically opposed to any idea of a Two State Solution.
Or to a Palestinian State.
While the first UN Resolution to specifically reference Israel was
Resolution 194 passed on Dec 11th 1948,* seeking to establish a
Palestinian Right of Return to their homes and for compensation
payable for any damage done to their property.
A Resolution which, it maybe goes without saying, like every other
UN Resolution, has been studiously ignored by the State of
Israel, in the ensuing 78 years
Resolution 273 admitting Israel to the UN * (presumably in the vain
hope of persuading her to recognise UN resolutions ) was passed
on May 11th 1949.
A list of all the other UN resolutions which have been ignored
by the State of Israel can be found on here
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
The United Nations' resolution is what gives Israel its legitimacy
I see
So you're agreeing...
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:n06433FlpiuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/02/2026 09:34 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
Most certainly not. What I do observe is a general political movement on the
left against Jewish people, no matter who they are or where they live. >>>>
I know it isn't new.
I can remember adults talking about "jewboys" when I was a child. I was >>>> hoping
we had moved on from that into a more civilised world. But apparently not >>>> (for
everyone at least)
Whereas, smearing a whole group of people on "the left" as being
anti-semitic,
and of always having been so,.is presumably your own personal version of >>> being "civilised".
You have snipped most of it of course,
Which was totally irrelevant.
but I didn't say that everyone on the left is antisemitic.
But you did associate anti-semitism exclusively with the "left";
As in "a general political movement on the left"
On 24/02/2026 17:05, JNugent wrote:
You have snipped most of it of course, but I didn't say that everyone
on the left is antisemitic. Within my own social circles I know some
who are not and there must be many more. But the recent and current
fad for antisemitism is definitely a left-wing thing.
No, it definitely isn't a left-wing thing. It has nothing to do with
being left wing or right wing unless you subscribe to the foolish belief that condemnation of Israel's government, of the IDF, of the genocide in Gaza, amounts to antisemitism. When we see a caricature of the Star of
David resembling a swastika, you can call that antisemitic but you would
be wrong. It is a sensible attempt to liken Israel's actions to those of Nazi Germany.
Antisemitism, in its genuine form, is really only seen among rich public school kids, of whom Farage was one example but I've met many others
from that demographic.
-aYou surely are not going
to argue against that quite obvious fact, given recent history,
especially within the Labour Party over the last few years?
I have tried to explain in the past that the antisemitism scandal in the Labour Party was fake and phoney and politically motivated, but you are surely unable to take that on board.
On 24/02/2026 07:55 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n06433FlpiuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/02/2026 09:34 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
Most certainly not. What I do observe is a general political movement on >>>>> the
left against Jewish people, no matter who they are or where they live. >>>>>
I know it isn't new.
I can remember adults talking about "jewboys" when I was a child. I was >>>>> hoping
we had moved on from that into a more civilised world. But apparently not >>>>> (for
everyone at least)
Whereas, smearing a whole group of people on "the left" as being
anti-semitic,
and of always having been so,.is presumably your own personal version of >>>> being "civilised".
You have snipped most of it of course,
Which was totally irrelevant.
but I didn't say that everyone on the left is antisemitic.
But you did associate anti-semitism exclusively with the "left";
As in "a general political movement on the left"
I did not use the word "exclusively".
Why are you saying that I did?
[irrelevant text snipped]
On 24/02/2026 07:32 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n0647aFlpr8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/02/2026 08:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n03756F7q8mU2@mid.individual.net...
Israel is a sovereign state, brought into being by a UN resolution.
Which is of course, complete and utter garbage.
And which just so happens to be the complete opposite of the actual
truth.
On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British
Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, unilaterally >>>> declared the establishment of the State of Israel thus triggering
the first Arab Israeli War of 1948. During the course of which
700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and were
forced to seek refuge in neighbouring countries
And the reason for the War ?
Because Israel's Unilateral Declaration of Statehood flew
directly in the face of -
UN Resolution 141, of 29th Nov 1947 * Passed towards the end of the
British Mandate, which proposed the partition of Palestine; and a *Two >>>> State Solution.
So that right from the very foundation of the State, Israel was
diametrically opposed to any idea of a Two State Solution.
Or to a Palestinian State.
While the first UN Resolution to specifically reference Israel was
Resolution 194 passed on Dec 11th 1948,* seeking to establish a
Palestinian Right of Return to their homes and for compensation
payable for any damage done to their property.
A Resolution which, it maybe goes without saying, like every other
UN Resolution, has been studiously ignored by the State of
Israel, in the ensuing 78 years
Resolution 273 admitting Israel to the UN * (presumably in the vain
hope of persuading her to recognise UN resolutions ) was passed
on May 11th 1949.
A list of all the other UN resolutions which have been ignored
by the State of Israel can be found on here
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
The United Nations' resolution is what gives Israel its legitimacy
I see
So you're agreeing...
No.
I am saying what I said.
Not anything you can just dream up.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:n06pisFp1euU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/02/2026 07:32 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n0647aFlpr8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/02/2026 08:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n03756F7q8mU2@mid.individual.net...
Israel is a sovereign state, brought into being by a UN resolution. >>>>>>
Which is of course, complete and utter garbage.
And which just so happens to be the complete opposite of the actual
truth.
On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British
Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, unilaterally >>>>> declared the establishment of the State of Israel thus triggering
the first Arab Israeli War of 1948. During the course of which
700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and were
forced to seek refuge in neighbouring countries
And the reason for the War ?
Because Israel's Unilateral Declaration of Statehood flew
directly in the face of -
UN Resolution 141, of 29th Nov 1947 * Passed towards the end of the
British Mandate, which proposed the partition of Palestine; and a *Two >>>>> State Solution.
So that right from the very foundation of the State, Israel was
diametrically opposed to any idea of a Two State Solution.
Or to a Palestinian State.
While the first UN Resolution to specifically reference Israel was
Resolution 194 passed on Dec 11th 1948,* seeking to establish a
Palestinian Right of Return to their homes and for compensation
payable for any damage done to their property.
A Resolution which, it maybe goes without saying, like every other
UN Resolution, has been studiously ignored by the State of
Israel, in the ensuing 78 years
Resolution 273 admitting Israel to the UN * (presumably in the vain
hope of persuading her to recognise UN resolutions ) was passed
on May 11th 1949.
A list of all the other UN resolutions which have been ignored
by the State of Israel can be found on here
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
The United Nations' resolution is what gives Israel its legitimacy
I see
So you're agreeing...
No.
I am saying what I said.
Not anything you can just dream up.
I'm not "dreaming" anything up.
On 25/02/2026 09:17 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n06pisFp1euU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/02/2026 07:32 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n0647aFlpr8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/02/2026 08:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n03756F7q8mU2@mid.individual.net...
Israel is a sovereign state, brought into being by a UN resolution. >>>>>>>
Which is of course, complete and utter garbage.
And which just so happens to be the complete opposite of the actual >>>>>> truth.
On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British
Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, unilaterally >>>>>> declared the establishment of the State of Israel thus triggering
the first Arab Israeli War of 1948. During the course of which
700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and were
forced to seek refuge in neighbouring countries
And the reason for the War ?
Because Israel's Unilateral Declaration of Statehood flew
directly in the face of -
UN Resolution 141, of 29th Nov 1947 * Passed towards the end of the >>>>>> British Mandate, which proposed the partition of Palestine; and a *Two >>>>>> State Solution.
So that right from the very foundation of the State, Israel was
diametrically opposed to any idea of a Two State Solution.
Or to a Palestinian State.
While the first UN Resolution to specifically reference Israel was >>>>>> Resolution 194 passed on Dec 11th 1948,* seeking to establish a
Palestinian Right of Return to their homes and for compensation
payable for any damage done to their property.
A Resolution which, it maybe goes without saying, like every other >>>>>> UN Resolution, has been studiously ignored by the State of
Israel, in the ensuing 78 years
Resolution 273 admitting Israel to the UN * (presumably in the vain >>>>>> hope of persuading her to recognise UN resolutions ) was passed
on May 11th 1949.
A list of all the other UN resolutions which have been ignored
by the State of Israel can be found on here
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
The United Nations' resolution is what gives Israel its legitimacy
I see
So you're agreeing...
No.
I am saying what I said.
Not anything you can just dream up.
I'm not "dreaming" anything up.
You dreamt up an entire village, if not a small town of strawmen.
On 23/02/2026 11:24, Simon Parker wrote:
On 17/02/2026 16:11, Norman Wells wrote:
But most usually right.
Off the top of my head I can think of a single instance where you have
been right.-a I can also think of a single post in which it was
demonstrated that you made 12 legally flawed statements.
I am also minded of the numerous examples where you have demonstrated
a woefully lamentable understanding of causation.
Who are *you* to judge?
Do you have examples, other than the obvious one, where you can prove,
rather than merely assert, that you are "usually right"?
If you have a point, it's for you to make it.
<lengthy very remote and unsupported possibilities snipped>
Possibilities you had, nevertheless, not considered owing to your
overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore inaccurate understanding
of the law.
Tangentially, each possibility I presented was supported with a
reference to relevant case law, along with link to the corresponding
judgments meaning that your claim that they were "unsupported" is
clearly erroneous.
They were irrelevant and unsupported in the case we're considering.
It's a matter anyway of probability, not remote possibility.
Do you consider this to be an example where you are "most usually
right" despite being clearly wrong?
But I'm not.
Not one, not two, but three reasons why you are mistaken.
But I'm not, as I will be proved.
The current situation is as I presented it and includes numerous
possible paths.
You are aware of only the most likely path.-a To repeat myself, "your
view of the law is overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore
inaccurate."
If the eventual path taken does turn out to be the most likely and
obvious path, that makes you no less less ignorant of the possible
alternative paths and no less wrong for being ignorant of them.
Hardly.-a It's called having a legal opinion.-a Based on probability.
I am not interested in remote possibilities that do not apply in the
present case.
Nothing you say can change that so there is little point in attempting
to discuss it with you, notwithstanding your inability to entertain
the possibility that your knowledge is incomplete and therefore wrong,
even after somebody kindly takes the time and trouble to proffer you
an opportunity to expand your knowledge and understanding.
It's a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff.-a What you've provided
is just an awful lot of copied and pasted chaff with no consideration of
its relevance.
It is indeed 'the most that can be said for now'.-a But that's
actually a hell of a lot.
I deliberately included a number of caveats in the statement.-a For
example, as demonstrated in my previous post, (and snipped by you,
likely as a result of your seeming inability to countenance a
dissenting view, even when fully supported), the "orthodox
implication" is not always applied, and the "normal consequence" does
not follow in all cases.
But it will be, and they will.-a It's a legal opinion.
The likely outcome is by no means the only outcome nor is it a certain
outcome.-a Sadly, I do not expect you to grasp such subtlety and see
little point in attempting to discuss it further with you.
And it agrees in full with what I've been saying.-a It's unlikely to
change.
And are you agreeing with it or not?-a Once again, you seem to be very reluctant to have any opinion at all.
In due course, an appellate court might agree with the High Court's
conclusion and issue a quashing order, which we would normally
expect to be fully retrospective in effect, meaning that Palestine
Action had never been a proscribed organisation and that inviting
support for it had never been a criminal offence.
Quite so.-a And I'm saying, if the government does actually appeal,
that that will be the result.
Sadly (for you), the Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Paul
Goldspring, does not share your certainty.-a Rather than dismissing all
pending actions against supporters of Palestine Action he has instead
stated, "In light of Friday's ruling we decided that there is no merit
in hearing the cases until we know what is going on with the appeal."
He added that the 31 cases involving defendants charged under section
13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which were due to be heard on Monday,
would be adjourned until April 27.
Should he instead have reached out to you and then issued a statement
saying, "In light of my recent conversation with self-proclaimed
erudite contributor a forgotten corner of the Internet, Norman Wells,
I have directed that all pending cases concerning supporters of
Palestine Action be dismissed as the government will lose their appeal
resulting in a fully retrospective quashing order being issued meaning
no criminal offence occurred.-a Norman has assured me that his
perceived outcome is "unlikely to change" so who am I to disagree with
him?"
That would be very sound of course.
But he's probably not allowed to do
what you say.-a He wants absolute legal certainty.
However, it is also possible that an appellate court might disagree
with the High Court by ruling the proscription order to be lawful.
It is of course possible.-a But just because there are two
possibilities (like either the sun will rise tomorrow or it won't)
does not make them equally likely.
Are you able to cite any instances where the sun hasn't risen?-a Each
possibility I raised was supported with a cite where it had occurred.
When discussing matters, as we do here, it is highly beneficial to be
cognisant of all material facts and possible outcomes.
It still doesn't make them relevant or equally likely.
If we fail to acknowledge alternative possibilities beyond those of
which we are aware and anticipate, how can we ever hope to expand our
knowledge and understanding, especially in cases where said
understanding is overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore inaccurate?
I've set out very clearly, as I did with Auriol Grey, my conclusion.
Despite the rambling nature and extent of your post, I have no idea
what you believe.-a All you seem to be arguing is that I have no right
to conclude as I have rather than giving any opinion of your own.
I suggest re-reading my previous post, paying greater attention second
time around as you seem to have missed parts of it, misunderstood
others and forgotten some.
What is your opinion then?
You've posted reams of stuff but haven't
actually said.
What good is that to anyone?
In those circumstances, the High Court's judgment notwithstanding,
the proscription order would be rCo and would always have been rCo
valid. That, in turn, would mean that ever since the order was made,
it would have been an offence to invite or express support for
Palestine Action. Those who have already been charged with offences
under section 12 will therefore find themselves in a period of
unavoidable uncertainty.
Yes.
To which part of the paragraph to which you are replying are you
saying, "Yes"?
All of it.
Best by far for the government to accept that, once again, it was
totally wrong and accept the court's decision.-a The alternative is to
continue with prosecuting pensioners for inoffensively holding hand-
written signs.-a And that really isn't a good look.
The paragraph to which you are replying sets out the possibility than
an appellate court might disagree with the High Court by ruling that
the proscription is lawful.
Your response makes no sense in context.-a If the possibility is that
the government is successful in their appeal, why is it "best by far"
for them to "accept the court's decision"?
Because it's such a remote possibility that the government should have regard to the uncertainty experienced by those who have been prosecuted
and accept the court's decision, thereby ending it.
Do you consider this to be another example where you are "most usually
right", even though it is clear you have lost track of to what it is
that you are replying?
Which I haven't.
Until the appeal process has been concluded we simply cannot know
whether the High Court's view will turn out to be the right one, the
'right' view, for present purposes, being that which is eventually
reached by the most senior appellate court to address the issue.
In the meantime any proper lawyer would have an opinion.-a It's what
they're there for.
If you've paid a lawyer for their professional opinion and believe you
haven't received that for which you paid, I recommend raising it with
the senior partner designated to handle complaints in the first instance.
I have given my considered opinion.-a You haven't.
Is that because, horror of horrors, you actually agree with me?
On 23/02/2026 15:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 11:24, Simon Parker wrote:
On 17/02/2026 16:11, Norman Wells wrote:
But most usually right.
Off the top of my head I can think of a single instance where you
have been right.-a I can also think of a single post in which it was
demonstrated that you made 12 legally flawed statements.
I am also minded of the numerous examples where you have demonstrated
a woefully lamentable understanding of causation.
Who are *you* to judge?
Who are *you* to judge that you are "most usually right"?
I am more than happy to compare our bona fides.-a I can assure you that
mine will consist of significantly more than, "My wife was a shop
steward at work and once attended court."
Over to you.
Do you have examples, other than the obvious one, where you can
prove, rather than merely assert, that you are "usually right"?
If you have a point, it's for you to make it.
*My point* was that "your view of the law is overly simplistic,
incomplete and therefore inaccurate" and not only have I demonstrated
that perfectly in this brief exchange but your use of a "But" rebuttal
can be taken as you acknowledging my point, for which I am, of course, grateful.
*Your point* is that you are "most usually right".-a As you believe "If
you have a point, it's for you to make it" it is therefore incumbent
upon you to prove that you are most usually right.-a Absent such evidence being adduced, your claim remains unsupported meaning it is
unsubstantiated, baseless, or not upheld by facts, and is rendered
invalid or untenable.
Over to you.
<lengthy very remote and unsupported possibilities snipped>
Possibilities you had, nevertheless, not considered owing to your
overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore inaccurate understanding
of the law.
Tangentially, each possibility I presented was supported with a
reference to relevant case law, along with link to the corresponding
judgments meaning that your claim that they were "unsupported" is
clearly erroneous.
They were irrelevant and unsupported in the case we're considering.
In your opinion..., which is based on a view of the law that is "overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore inaccurate."
It's a matter anyway of probability, not remote possibility.
In your opinion..., which is based on a view of the law that is "overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore inaccurate."
As I have already said, to understand the matter fully, one needs to be aware of all possible paths open to the court, not just the most likely path.-a Furthermore, one should be aware of the circumstances that might give rise to the court considering taking an alternative paths.
Some of us strive to have a complete understanding of the matters before
us whilst others prefer to bask in the seeming comfort of their ignorance.
To consider an example, the CPS has reported a 53.4% conviction rate for
-aadult rape cases in England and Wales from reported rapes that lead to
a charge, which is approximately only 5% of cases.-a In the first
instance, there is a one in 20 chance of a reported rape leading to a charge.-a In your world of legal probabilities, there is no need to interview the rape victim and no need to gather evidence.-a Just have the victim role a d20.-a If they roll 1-19 that's the end of the matter, but
if they roll a 20 the case proceeds to charge.-a At which point there's
no need to hold an actual trial to examine the evidence (that hasn't
been gathered in your world based on legal probabilities).-a Instead, the victim can roll five d20 dice.-a If the combined total of the five dice
is 53 or above, it results in a conviction.-a If it is below 53, then it
is considered to be a "not guilty" verdict.-a Perhaps you would be so
kind as to outline how sentencing works in the probabilistic legal
landscape you envision because I confess I haven't the first clue.
Alternatively, and I just put this out there as a possibility, you are mistaken in thinking this is "a matter anyway of probabilities".-a As
part of our training, some of us were taught (repeatedly!) that "each
case turns on its own facts and merits".-a Decisions in court are made
based on specific evidence adduced, established facts and the
substantive issues of a particular case rather than there being an
automatic application of a judgment based on a probabilistic application
of previous rulings.
In short, you are very much mistaken.
And as you see this as some sort of unforgivable failing, rather than admitting that you were not aware of the options I detailed in my post,
you are now digging a deeper and deeper hole thereby proving my point
with each thrust of your spade.
Over to you.
Do you consider this to be an example where you are "most usually
right" despite being clearly wrong?
But I'm not.
We must agree to differ.
Not one, not two, but three reasons why you are mistaken.
But I'm not, as I will be proved.
The current situation is as I presented it and includes numerous
possible paths.
You are aware of only the most likely path.-a To repeat myself, "your
view of the law is overly simplistic, incomplete and therefore
inaccurate."
If the eventual path taken does turn out to be the most likely and
obvious path, that makes you no less less ignorant of the possible
alternative paths and no less wrong for being ignorant of them.
Hardly.-a It's called having a legal opinion.-a Based on probability.
I am not interested in remote possibilities that do not apply in the
present case.
How can one examine what does and does not apply in the present case
when one is not aware of all the possibilities?-a How can one calculate
the probabilities of all paths when one is only aware of the most likely outcome and is ignorant of the circumstances that might give rise to alternative paths?
Nothing you say can change that so there is little point in
attempting to discuss it with you, notwithstanding your inability to
entertain the possibility that your knowledge is incomplete and
therefore wrong, even after somebody kindly takes the time and
trouble to proffer you an opportunity to expand your knowledge and
understanding.
It's a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff.-a What you've
provided is just an awful lot of copied and pasted chaff with no
consideration of its relevance.
Again, we must agree to differ.
It is indeed 'the most that can be said for now'.-a But that's
actually a hell of a lot.
I deliberately included a number of caveats in the statement.-a For
example, as demonstrated in my previous post, (and snipped by you,
likely as a result of your seeming inability to countenance a
dissenting view, even when fully supported), the "orthodox
implication" is not always applied, and the "normal consequence" does
not follow in all cases.
But it will be, and they will.-a It's a legal opinion.
We must agree to differ.
The likely outcome is by no means the only outcome nor is it a
certain outcome.-a Sadly, I do not expect you to grasp such subtlety
and see little point in attempting to discuss it further with you.
And it agrees in full with what I've been saying.-a It's unlikely to
change.
And are you agreeing with it or not?-a Once again, you seem to be very
reluctant to have any opinion at all.
As I already did in the post to which you are replying, I recommend re- reading my original post, more carefully this time around, and you may
well find that which you missed first time around.
Or you might not.-a Either way, it is there, regardless of whether or not you can manage to find it.
In due course, an appellate court might agree with the High Court's >>>>> conclusion and issue a quashing order, which we would normally
expect to be fully retrospective in effect, meaning that Palestine
Action had never been a proscribed organisation and that inviting
support for it had never been a criminal offence.
Quite so.-a And I'm saying, if the government does actually appeal,
that that will be the result.
Sadly (for you), the Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Paul
Goldspring, does not share your certainty.-a Rather than dismissing
all pending actions against supporters of Palestine Action he has
instead stated, "In light of Friday's ruling we decided that there is
no merit in hearing the cases until we know what is going on with the
appeal."
He added that the 31 cases involving defendants charged under section
13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which were due to be heard on Monday,
would be adjourned until April 27.
Should he instead have reached out to you and then issued a statement
saying, "In light of my recent conversation with self-proclaimed
erudite contributor a forgotten corner of the Internet, Norman Wells,
I have directed that all pending cases concerning supporters of
Palestine Action be dismissed as the government will lose their
appeal resulting in a fully retrospective quashing order being issued
meaning no criminal offence occurred.-a Norman has assured me that his
perceived outcome is "unlikely to change" so who am I to disagree
with him?"
That would be very sound of course.
We must agree to differ.
But he's probably not allowed to do what you say.-a He wants absolute
legal certainty.
You're not certain whether the Chief Magistrate can run ahead of the
Court of Appeal and must wait for their decision before potentially disposing of cases and only think "he's probably not allowed to do it"? Wow!-a Just wow!
However, it is also possible that an appellate court might disagree >>>>> with the High Court by ruling the proscription order to be lawful.
It is of course possible.-a But just because there are two
possibilities (like either the sun will rise tomorrow or it won't)
does not make them equally likely.
Are you able to cite any instances where the sun hasn't risen?-a Each
possibility I raised was supported with a cite where it had occurred.
When discussing matters, as we do here, it is highly beneficial to be
cognisant of all material facts and possible outcomes.
It still doesn't make them relevant or equally likely.
They are relevant because they are possible options open to the Court of Appeal.-a Not only have I not said they are "equally likely" but I've
even pointed out that this is not the case.-a Again, I recommend re-
reading my original post.-a You seem to have missed significant parts of
it in your fervour to demonstrate you were right all along, which is a pointless exercise as I've cited judgments proving you were mistaken and nothing you say can change that.
I would hope that most people reading my original post might have had crystallised for them the various paths available to the Court of Appeal
and the triggers that may cause them to tread a particular path when
making their judgment.
But that's "most people".-a Some, or more accurately one poster in particular, seems to have taken it as a challenge to prove that up is
down and black is white and he's off digging an ever bigger hole for himself, thereby proving the very thing he is trying to disprove.-a I
would suggest to him that the First Law of Holes applies to his position
but I do not think he would listen.
Over to you.
In those circumstances, the High Court's judgment notwithstanding,
the proscription order would be rCo and would always have been rCo
valid. That, in turn, would mean that ever since the order was
made, it would have been an offence to invite or express support
for Palestine Action. Those who have already been charged with
offences under section 12 will therefore find themselves in a
period of unavoidable uncertainty.
Yes.
To which part of the paragraph to which you are replying are you
saying, "Yes"?
All of it.
You accept and publicly acknowledge that everything I said in the
previous paragraph, i.e. "all of it", is correct?-a Wonders never cease. Praise Jebus!
Best by far for the government to accept that, once again, it was
totally wrong and accept the court's decision.-a The alternative is
to continue with prosecuting pensioners for inoffensively holding
hand- written signs.-a And that really isn't a good look.
The paragraph to which you are replying sets out the possibility than
an appellate court might disagree with the High Court by ruling that
the proscription is lawful.
Your response makes no sense in context.-a If the possibility is that
the government is successful in their appeal, why is it "best by far"
for them to "accept the court's decision"?
Because it's such a remote possibility that the government should have
regard to the uncertainty experienced by those who have been
prosecuted and accept the court's decision, thereby ending it.
In civil cases the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment about 20% of
the time, giving a one-in-five chance of success.
Statistically, the success rate for the Court of Appeal reversing
decisions such as this is around 7%.-a This is owing to the fact that a number of requests for appeal are refused before they even reach a full hearing.
If the government thinks the High Court has erred, and they clearly do,
they have a right to request permission to appeal.-a This is not automatically granted and, as noted in the preceding paragraph,
permission is usually refused in the first instance by the High Court as this is tantamount to acknowledging that the court accepts that the
decision may not be right or that there is a realistic prospect of
success with the appeal.
It would be prudent to point out at this point that the government
overcame the first hurdle earlier this week when the High Court granted permission to appeal.
Said appeal will "turn on its own facts and merits".-a The government
will not be invited to role five d20 and be considered successful if
they roll 59 or above. [^1]
I have given my considered opinion.-a You haven't.
Or maybe you missed it in your fervour to try and demonstrate that you
had not excluded possibilities of which you were not aware until I
posted them.-a I remind you, again, of the First Law of Holes.
Is that because, horror of horrors, you actually agree with me?
Contrariwise, I think we may be approaching the point where you actually agree with me, namely that the "orthodox implication" is not always
applied, and the "normal consequence" does not follow in all cases.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 24:12:40 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
12 files (21,036K bytes) |
| Messages: | 195,978 |