Yes indeed, Joshua- also the reasoning seems to be that with there still being virtue in keeping diplomatic and back channels open since the IRGC is actually set up as an arm of government all such contacts would cease but this is a fluently mendacious -as it happens- theocracy where through the chilling doctrine of Velayat-e-faki the Supreme Ayatollah can and DOES override any other decision making machinery on a self interested whim or in a spasm of panic. And I still “hae me douts “ over the Palestine Action’s proscription. To be frank I suspect that-should it be a dangerous entity - then its leaders must be satisfied to have achieved perverse additional notoriety through its banning. How exactly has that helped the national interest?
If, as Chamberlain J seems to have implied, it is within the Secretary of State’s power to proscribe organisations manifesting as “civil disobedience” (but which actually seek to cause major disruption to society for political purposes, as defined in s1(1), can she finally get on with proscribing Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil?
It's very impressive, even with the help of judicial assistants. Chamberlain J must have pre-drafted some of his judgment having read the papers. But there's not much the CA could have done in advance, given that the grounds of appeal were not filed until an hour before the hearing. There were a few typos but not as many as I usually publish.
It seems to me that it is important in this context to ask ourselves quite where Peter (now Lord) Hain’s “direct action” , e.g., the Lords (was it?) cricket ground vandalism might have fitted into Yvette Cooper’s category of “serious criminal damage offences”. I only ask as indeed I am asking myself. I am both worried and uncertain at present about where I stand over these issues. I used to be blissfully sure that I was generally with the protesters in such circumstances and certainly tolerance and forbearance seem to be in danger of flying out of the window wholesale. I am disapproving of costly damage that will have to be rectified to military aircraft since I AM for defence of the realm. I have no problem over a prosecution for that discrete allegation but if proscription is such an “oven ready” “remedy” ready to take off the shelf then why-I have to ask myself - has the vile, extravagantly monied and terrorism and assassination sponsoring Islamic Republican Guard - the “hit squad” of the equally vile Iranian regime not been proscribed LONG AGO as huge numbers of Parliamentarians here and globally and lawyers and academics and high church persons have been urging for DECADES?
Yes indeed, Joshua- also the reasoning seems to be that with there still being virtue in keeping diplomatic and back channels open since the IRGC is actually set up as an arm of government all such contacts would cease but this is a fluently mendacious -as it happens- theocracy where through the chilling doctrine of Velayat-e-faki the Supreme Ayatollah can and DOES override any other decision making machinery on a self interested whim or in a spasm of panic. And I still “hae me douts “ over the Palestine Action’s proscription. To be frank I suspect that-should it be a dangerous entity - then its leaders must be satisfied to have achieved perverse additional notoriety through its banning. How exactly has that helped the national interest?
If, as Chamberlain J seems to have implied, it is within the Secretary of State’s power to proscribe organisations manifesting as “civil disobedience” (but which actually seek to cause major disruption to society for political purposes, as defined in s1(1), can she finally get on with proscribing Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil?
Remarkable that Chamberlain,J. & the Court of Appeal can produce detailed, reasoned judgments in such a short time.
It's very impressive, even with the help of judicial assistants. Chamberlain J must have pre-drafted some of his judgment having read the papers. But there's not much the CA could have done in advance, given that the grounds of appeal were not filed until an hour before the hearing. There were a few typos but not as many as I usually publish.
It seems to me that it is important in this context to ask ourselves quite where Peter (now Lord) Hain’s “direct action” , e.g., the Lords (was it?) cricket ground vandalism might have fitted into Yvette Cooper’s category of “serious criminal damage offences”. I only ask as indeed I am asking myself. I am both worried and uncertain at present about where I stand over these issues. I used to be blissfully sure that I was generally with the protesters in such circumstances and certainly tolerance and forbearance seem to be in danger of flying out of the window wholesale. I am disapproving of costly damage that will have to be rectified to military aircraft since I AM for defence of the realm. I have no problem over a prosecution for that discrete allegation but if proscription is such an “oven ready” “remedy” ready to take off the shelf then why-I have to ask myself - has the vile, extravagantly monied and terrorism and assassination sponsoring Islamic Republican Guard - the “hit squad” of the equally vile Iranian regime not been proscribed LONG AGO as huge numbers of Parliamentarians here and globally and lawyers and academics and high church persons have been urging for DECADES?
The answer is said to be because the UK wants to keep diplomatic premises in Tehran as a base for MI6.