[piltdownman]

I mean the opening statements of the KC for the accused perfectly refutes such nonsensical claims.

As Raza Husain KC told the court - “There are reasons of profound importance as to why, in the 32 executive orders that have been made adding organisations to proscribed lists, no direct action civil disobedience organisation appears...Such proscription is repugnant to the tradition of the common law and contrary to the European convention on human rights.”

“The Defendant has deployed this most repressive of regimes against PA, notwithstanding that, on her own evidence, only four out of hundreds of its actions are even capable of meeting the definition of serious property damage.”

“The decision to proscribe PA is an unprecedented and disproportionate interference with articles 9, 10 and 11 [freedom of thought, expression and protest].

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/26/ban-on-pales...

[JetSetWilly]

I'm sure you'll also find that lawyers make statements in favour of hopelessly guilty murderers. That's what they are paid to do. Your "freedom of expression" does not include hitting people with sledgehammers and attacking and disabling national defence infrastructure. Of course, we should withdraw from the HRA precisely because it is perverted in this way by lawyers, but those bald statements do not in fact show that hitting people with sledgehammers is legitimate freedom of expression or protest, and it appears that committing such acts is the principle reason for PA to exist.