Still struggling i see with accepting that the claim those on remand were peaceful protestors is untrue & a lie.
BTW its not a matter for a jury to decide if it was a peaceful protest or kit, so your attempting to hid behind the jury is farcical.
The jury will decide if the offences they are charged with have been made out. They are not charged with non peaceful protesting ad there is no such offence.
Its hilarious your squirming to avoid admitting you were incorrect when claiming these were peaceful protectors and your unwillingness to accept that burglary, cri.inal damage or assault are not peaceful protesting.
Whether their actions were justified or not is for a jury to decide. Whether its a form of peaceful protest or not is not a legal issue
My original post did not make mention of the Filton prisoners. I’ve already explained that. On that basis I feel no need to answer your questions or respond to allegations based on something I didn’t say.
However, since you keep raising the Filton case, I will make a few limited points, with the usual caveat that I am not familiar with every detail.
International human rights law sets a high threshold for restricting the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention. The offences of burglary, criminal damage and assault were already fully legislated for long before the current government, and the controversy here is not about the existence of those offences but about the use of counter‑terrorism powers and the proposed “terrorist connection” in relation to protest‑related actions. That is precisely what has prompted concerns from legal observers in the UK and internationally.
It is also true that extended pre‑trial remand is common in terrorism cases, but it is
not typical for defendants charged with burglary, criminal damage and assault, even when those offences are serious. That is why questions have been raised about whether treating the case as terrorism‑related is necessary and proportionate. None of this implies that due process has not been followed; it simply reflects the legal debate about proportionality.
I have no detailed knowledge about items allegedly removed from the premises, so I cannot comment on the burglary allegation beyond the fact that entry and damage appear to be accepted elements.
The criminal damage appears uncontentious in the sense that damage occurred. The legal issue is whether a defence of lawful excuse or a broader Article 10/11 justification can be made out on the facts.
As for assault, that covers a very wide range of conduct. Minor physical contact—such as brushing past security—can technically amount to assault. I have seen reports that no injuries were sustained, so it is reasonable to consider the charge in context and with regard to intent.
