World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
This again...
It wasn't a new charge. It was an aggravating factor.
It's the opposite of mitigating factors (for those who are confused). Jury says that for example someone is guilty of robbery. That's the charge and the verdict. Now the judge has to come up with the sentence and can apply mitigating factors like: it's his first offense, he showed remorse, admitted guilt and apologized to the victim, hence I will not give him maximum possible sentence...
Aggravating factors work the other way. The judge can say "he used a deadly weapon and is repeat offender: maximum sentence". Under UK law "terrorism connection" can be added as aggravating factor to any verdict. The judge added it here because Palestine Action is currently proscribed as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Nothing was withheld from the jury, nothing was added to the charges. Those articles are simply lying about it.
Yea, no, it most definitely is not that simple. Top UK lawyers are not bullshiters:
Either give them a trial as terrorists or don't.
It really is that simple. What is "terrorist connection"? Let's see.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policing-act-2026-factsheets/crime-and-policing-act-2026-counter-terrorism-and-national-security-factsheet https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/129/5801129en.pdf
"""The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 introduced a requirement for courts to consider whether a ‘terrorist connection’ is an aggravating factor when sentencing for a specific set of non-terrorism offences."""
So is "terrorist connection" an offense? No. It's an aggravating factor.
"""any offence is capable of being subject to a finding or a determination of a terrorist connection, if the offence is not a terrorism offence and is punishable with a maximum sentence of more than 2 years"""
"""maximum sentence for criminal damage is 10 years"""
It's all as clear as it can be.
The offense is criminal damage. The jury said they are guilty. The sentence can be more than 2 years. The judge can consider terrorist connection as a aggravating factor. He did.
Jury is not involved in sentencing. Nothing was withheld.
You can argue that The Counter-Terrorism Act and the whole notion of "terrorist connection as an aggravating factor" is wrong and that only jury should be able to determine if someone has a connection to terrorist organization but you definitely can't argue that the judge is adding some charges here without informing the jury. This is simply not what is happening. They are not even bending the rules here. They are doing exactly what the law allows them to do.
I'm not "arguing" anything in front of any court and I'm not saying the judge did not follow the letter of the law. Top UK lawyers are making the case that as tried this case poses grave constitutional threats. And they're going to litigate this as far as it goes.
What I am saying is that what you're presenting as a slam dunk ...isn't. This is unprecedented (the law is from 2020 and it's the first time it's used in such a case in such a way) and serious people are raising serious issues.
EDIT: oh and by the way, at the end of the day, legal schmegal, the Palestine Action people are actually morally squarely on the right. They are not terrorists. They are activists putting their lives between Elbit's butcher machines and Palestinian genocide victims. The cop who got injured should not have been in that Elbit factory because Elbit should not be allowed to build genocide machines period. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter really does apply here, and these are indeed freedom fighters. History will vindicate them. One day, everyone will have always been against this, but these folks will actually have the receipts. Tiocfaidh ár lá.
Maybe they are, but as someone born and raised in Central/Eastern Europe, they are - at best - morally dubious. Or incredibly easy to manipulate.
Palestine Action Plans Sabotage on UK Air Bases Used for Ukrainian Pilots Training
Pro-Palestinian activists reportedly destroy military equipment intended for Ukraine
What I find morally dubious is why Ukrainians are put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in genocide.
Russia is not the only barbarian in town.
"What I find morally dubious is why [literally any NATO country] is put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in school shootings", since they're using AR16 rifles, 5.56 or 9mm ammo, Glock or CZ pistols, etc.
The industry makes the tools, the governments (or, well, individuals) decide how to use them. If the tools are well made and have high capabilities, I want Ukraine to have access to them regardless of the fact that some traitorous, murderous, corrupt dictators are also using them elsewhere.
You make an argument that chooses a priority: "regardless of the fact that". Guess what, other people make their own priority arguments where they make their own "regardless of the fact that" calculations. If you get to call other people "morally dubious" for not following your absolute priority, so do they get to call you "morally dubious" for not following theirs. Then the conversation becomes "which genocide matters more, Putin's or Netanyahu's". Is that the conversation you really want to be having though?
Here's what I say instead and you should be able to see the pragmatism in this point of view:
Ukraine should have the tools to fight for its freedom which is why it should not be put by its allies in the position to have to navigate suppliers that are politically toxic and a source of uncertainty and division in its support base (the conflicting moral priority arguments in my first paragraph).
The cold hard logic is that Elbit is a politically toxic, politically compromised supplier that comes with unnecessary uncertainty and risk. The fact that there are large sections of western populations that hold very legitimate grievances against them is very much an opening for Russian propaganda and manipulation. The UK should not expose Ukraine to any of that.
So if you really care about Ukraine having a shot, you should simply demand the exclusion of Israeli linked suppliers. They are a strategic liability for Ukraine. It's just not worth the drama and uncertainty from the point of view of Ukraine focusing on what matters to them and for sure nobody needs to be giving Putin any more talking points about western hypocrisy.
You missed my point.
There are no "suppliers not 'complicit' in genocide" due to the variety of equipment Israel is using. One way or another, every major military industrial complex member from the West is there.
I'm saying that just as you wouldn't say that Ikea is complicit in murder because someone used one of their knives, you shouldn't say that the ammunition or hardware industry is complicit in genocide because someone is using their gear.
The arms industry is far from black and white. It's a spectrum of shitty grey. Some part of that spectrum is made up of actual Israeli companies like Elbit. That's not some neutral "IKEA" that "happens" to sell something that someone "happens" to use to do something bad. It's a company that's literally part of the military-industrial complex of a genocidal apartheid state. That's a part of the shitty spectrum of the arms industry that Ukraine should not be put in a position to depend on.
Or to put it differently: if Ukraine is made to depend on those motherfuckers, don't clutch your pearls if the consequences (political blowback and uncertainty due to direct action from pro-palestinian activism and movements in the west) of that really bad decision end up affecting Ukrainian capacity. Don't blame the activists trying to grind the gears of Israel's genocide to a halt. They were going to do that anyway AND THEY ARE MORALLY CORRECT TO TRY TO DO THAT. If that inadvertently ends up hurting the Ukrainian war effort, blame Ukraine's allies for exposing Ukraine to that strategic liability. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Or if you want it all the way down to brass tacks: Palestinians don't have an obligation to die for Ukrainans. Palestine solidarity actions in the West don't have an obligation to Ukraine to facilitate the industry that actively participates in Palestinian genocide. If the West's Ukraine armament strategy depends on such a fucked up moral catastrophe and also depends on their citizens going along with that moral catastrophe, the West's armaments strategy is just plain fucking stupid because it will keep producing friction and uncertainty and they should fucking do better.
Yes, but I fundamentally disagree.
Your first point, about being dependent on "complicit" military industrial complex elements - should the rest of the world now be dropping out of any relationship with the US MIL because Trump bombed a school? Should we just agree that having our military infrastructure and operations hindered by activists is OK, because they have the moral high ground?
War is a dirty, fundamentally amoral thing, always, but the company making the tools of war is - in my opinion - as "complicit" as Ikea is in the murder committed with one of their knives.
Go after the CEO! Put the entire management in prison, please! Let's FINALLY see some elites taking responsibility for their actions! But sabotaging a facility that has nothing to do with the cause "for the cause" is just not the way to do it. And, if nothing else, only because the elites gain on this. Because they just got a shitload of money off of insurance, and the Palestinian cause just got another label of "violent criminals who don't care who they hit".
Your second point, about "moral correctness" - OK, Elbit sucks and should die. But does that mean we get to sabotage any and all Elbit facilities? Or attack their employees? Even though their systems barely had anything to do with Gaza? They do UAVs, and those were not used for any form of attacks by Israel, only for reconnaissance. But if that's the case, where do we stop? Many of their systems used Nikon/Canon/other lenses - should we now also attack those companies?
I don't believe in collective responsibility. I don't believe that a dude putting together a recon drone should be punished for something that - maybe! - the CEO of the company has done.
I mean, shit, after war-torn Ukraine sent its grain to help starving Palestinians, you'd think there's some obligation to at least not get in their way, no? Especially considering, again, Elbit's systems were, in the vast majority, used for recon, not payload delivery. Especially considering that this specific facility was fully committed to the Ukrainian war effort and had nothing to do with what is going on in Palestine.
Except it is. We're talking about some basic legal concepts here: charges, verdict, sentencing and aggravating factors. To claim that the judge withheld something from the jurors and applied additional charges after the verdict is simply a lie. He applied aggravating factors during the sentencing. Something the law clearly allows him to do in this case.
Now I'm sure some lawyers will argue that the whole concept of terrorist connection as aggravating factor is wrong but this is not what this post or articles claim. They claim something that is clearly false.
I'm also not talking who is and isn't morally right. If you want to address what I'm talking here about (is terrorist connection additional charge or an aggravating factor?) then I'm happy to listen. If you want to talk about something else then please reply to someone else.
Other commenters: "fascists rewrote the law to allow grave miscarriages of justice that violate the very constitutional foundations of a free society."
You: "nothing to worry about here guys, everything is perfectly legal. It's not like "they're just following the law" literally lead to the Holocaust or something."
Trouble reading much?
OK so let us know the next time you get a speeding ticket, so I can tack on some terrorism bonus time for you to serve, long after the jury has spoken about your guilt in speeding.
All I need to do is show you have any kind of tangential connection to anything I call terror, and I can turn your small sentence into a large one.
That sounds like the kind of shit China and Russia do. Anyone wants to tolerate that shit happening here in the West is no longer welcome to live in the West, IMO.
This argument makes no sense and only shows your total lack of understanding here.
Of course you'll say that. You're exactly someone who should not be welcome here.
Good thing you have nothing to say about it then.
Why are you lying?
https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/offences-with-a-terrorist-connection-guidance/
I asked why you lied. Your comment is factually false.
Bullshit. The full context of the situation was denied to the jury.
Remember, the entire reason we have juries is to allow for jury nullification. That's literally the only benefit of juries. 12 random untrained people will never be better at deciding objective facts of guilt or innocence than a judge with a law degree and decades on the bench. We have juries as a final check against the kind of criminal corruption that has currently overtaken the UK government. The idea is that you can write whatever ridiculous laws you want, but at the end of the day you need to convince 12 average people that an offense worthy of punishment has been committed. The system is intended as a check against out of control government. Again, this is literally how the system is designed. (Judges will of course lie about this to protect their own power.) The government can write a law proscribing the death penalty for stealing a candy bar. But the jury system, if it works as intended, would prevent anyone from being convicted under that law.
The government here deliberately perverted the jury system to avoid jury nullification. They tried them under a minor offense. The jurors probably thought those convicted would get community service or a fine. That's the rightful and just punishment for such an offense. Any greater a penalty, and jury nullification would have been on the table. Instead, the government secured a conviction under a minor offense but was able to get a sentence on par with a serious felony.
For your talk of the system working as intended, you sure are ignoring the government's complete perversion of the jury system that is the very bedrock of our system of justice.
"Four Palestine Action activists have been found guilty of criminal damage "
"Corner was also found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm after striking Sgt Kate Evans twice with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. "
"An estimated £1m worth of damage was caused during the raid."
"""For damage over £5,000 or more serious cases:
Yes, the jury said they are guilty of a crime carrying up to 10 years of prison but thought they would just get a fine. Are you really that dense?
ah so the ruling elite all glaze isreal, which means anyone who doesn't agree with ethnic cleansing is a terrorist. I gotchu, yeah, very much legal and cool. All above board, nothing to see here. Gotta get those terrorists before they checks notes stop a genocide?
I think you're a bit confused here. It wasn't me who proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist group. UK government did. I just stated a fact here. Or was your comment addressed to the UK government? If so than I agree they suck.
I think it was pretty clear. Palestine Action are not terrorists, that's the insane part
Moreover, they tricked the jury. Instead of trying them for terrorism, they try them for a small offense and then turn it into terrorism without the jury having a say in it. It's sneaky even if it's technically allowed
Is this really that confusing? They were tried for criminal damage of property worth over $1m. That up to 10 years in prison. How is that a small offense?
The "terrorist connection" aggravating factor doesn't change the maximum sentence, it only changes the conditions of parole. Everything you said is simply wrong. This is pure misinformation. The charges were not turned into anything. They are not charged with or sentenced for terrorism. Even if the aggravating factor was revealed before the trial the jury would still just be considering if they committed criminal damage.
Weren't they the guys who set fire to a couple of storage and production facilities that held equipment meant to be sent to Ukraine?
Are you one of those sea lions that somehow learned how to type, but you just spend your whole day spreading lies?
Hmm?
Palestine Action Plans Sabotage on UK Air Bases Used for Ukrainian Pilots Training
Pro-Palestinian activists reportedly destroy military equipment intended for Ukraine
This is literally 10 seconds on Google.
Again. Why do you spread lies? Where are the fires you claimed?
Fine - no fires, my mistake. Just physical destruction of equipment and disruption of operations.