"They have a video of people from this group attacking police with sledgehammers"
Do you have the name or names of the person accused of 'attacking police with sledgehammers'?
I've heard a lot about this, but it's difficult to get to actual sources about exactly what is alleged.
Even if this did happen as you say. attachking police with sledgehammers is assault, potentially even attempted murder. There's plenty of laws for that.
> Do you have the name or names of the person accused of 'attacking police with sledgehammers'?
You should be less flippant.
The accused's name is Samuel Corner. He and his friends are still on trial for their actions.
Here's the bodycam footage where you see Samuel Corner attack police seargent Kate Evans with a sledgehammer while she was on the ground, fracturing her spine. Watch from 3m05s to 3m10s:
The group's stated aim is to stop the UK or any UK companies giving Israel any military support. They target companies who they think supply Israel. They break in and smash them, and as you've hopefully just seen with your own eyes, they are not afraid to attack people with sledgehammers. They use violence to achieve their political aim. They are terrorists and belong in prison.
> Samuel Corner, 23, [...] Oxford University graduate from Devon [...] when asked why he struck Sgt Evans with the sledgehammer, he replied: "It was me not really knowing what I was doing
Thanks Samuel. That Oxford degree really shows, doesn't it?
It feels to me like there's a distinction between "on one occasion, one person in group X did Y" and "group X does Y", and it's the second of those that (for some choices of Y, including "attacking police with sledgehammers") could justify calling group X a terrorist group.
Obviously "on one occasion, a person in group X did Y" is evidence for "group X does Y". If Samuel Corner attacked a police sergeant with a sledgehammer during one Palestine Action, er, action, then that's the sort of thing we expect to see more often if PA is generally in favour of attacking police with sledgehammers. (Either as a matter of explicit open policy, or as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink thing where everyone in PA knows that if they start smashing up police as well as property then their PA comrades will think better of them rather than worse.)
But it falls way short of proof. Maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because Palestine Action is a terrorist organization after all; but maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because Samuel Corner is a thug or an idiot or was drunk or whatever. Or maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because the cops were already being violent with the Palestine Action folks and he was doing his (ill-advised) best to protect the others from the police. (This, as I understand it, is his account of things.)
(An Oxford University graduate attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer. I take it you would not say that that makes the University of Oxford a terrorist organization, and you wouldn't say that even if he'd done it while attending, say, a university social function rather than while smashing up alleged military hardware. It matters how typical the action is of the organization, what the group's leadership thinks of the action, etc.)
I took a look at the video. It's not easy to tell what's going on, but it looks to me as follows. One of the PA people is on the ground, being forcibly restrained and tasered by a police officer, complaining loudly about what the police officer is doing. (It isn't obvious to me whether or not her complaints are justified[1].) There is another police officer, whom I take to be Kate Evans, nearby, kneeling on the ground and helping to restrain this PA person. Samuel Corner approaches with his sledgehammer and attacks that second police officer. I can't tell from the video exactly what he's trying to do (e.g., whether he's being as violent as possible and hoping to kill or maim, or whether he's trying to get the police officer off the other person with minimal force but all he's got is a sledgehammer).
[1] I get the impression that she feels she has the right not to suffer any pain while being forcibly restrained by police, which seems like a rather naive view of things. But I also get the impression that the police were being pretty free with their tasering. But it's hard to tell exactly what's going on, and I imagine it was even harder in real time, and I am inclined to cut both her and the police some slack on those grounds.
It's highly misleading, even though not technically false, to say that Corner attacked Kate Evans "while she was on the ground"; she certainly was on the ground in the sense that she was supported by the floor, and even in the sense that she wasn't standing up -- I think she was crouching -- but it's not like she was lying on the ground injured or inactive; she was fighting one of the other PA people, and she was "on the ground" because that PA person was (in a stronger sense) "on the ground" too.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not approve of attacking police officers with sledgehammers just because they are restraining someone you would prefer them not to be restraining, even if you think they're doing it more violently than necessary. And I have a lot of sympathy with police officers not being super-gentle when the people they're dealing with are armed with sledgehammers.
But the story here looks to me more like "there were a bunch of PA people, who had sledgehammers because they were planning to smash up military hardware; the cops arrived and wrestled and tasered them, and one of the PA people lost his temper and went for one of the cops to try to defend his friend whom he thought was being mistreated, and unfortunately he was wielding a sledgehammer at the time" than like "PA is in the business of attacking cops with sledgehammers".
None of that makes Kate Evans any less injured. But I think those two possibilities say very different things about Palestine Action. Carrying sledgehammers because you want to smash equipment is different from carrying sledgehammers because you want to smash people. Attacking police because they are a symbol of the state is different from attacking police because they are attacking your friend. One person doing something bad in the heat of the moment because he thinks his friend is being mistreated is different from an organization setting out to do that bad thing.
There are plenty of documented cases of police being violent (sometimes with deadly effect) with members of the public. Sometimes they have good justification for it, sometimes not so much. Most of us don't on those grounds call the police a terrorist organization. Those who do say things along those lines do so because they think that actually the police are systematically violent and brutal.
I think the same applies to organizations like Palestine Action. So far as I can tell, they aren't systematically violent and brutal. Mostly they smash up hardware that they think would otherwise be used to oppress Palestinians. (I am making no judgement as to whether they're right about that, which is relevant to whether they're a Good Thing or a Bad Thing but not to whether they're terrorists.) Sometimes that leads to skirmishes with the police. On one occasion so far, one of them badly injured a police officer. It's very bad that that happened, but this all seems well short of what it would take to justify calling the organization a terrorist one.
> The group's stated aim is to stop the UK or any UK companies giving Israel any military support. They target companies who they think supply Israel. They break in and smash them, and as you've hopefully just seen with your own eyes, they are not afraid to attack people with sledgehammers. They use violence to achieve their political aim. They are terrorists and belong in prison.
Yet none of them are being prosecuted under the terrorism act, or on any charge related to terrorism.
I think they meet the definition of "terrorists" by their stated goals and acts. But it seems there's reticence by the CPS to break out the Terrorism Act.
Palestine Action is already a proscribed group because of spraypainting RAF planes. I would say this raid seems more terroristic than base invasion, but what do I know? I'm not the Home Secretary.
It raises questions, because while the Terrorism Act is heavily criticised for being overbroad and making a number of otherwise innocuous things crimes, the CPS haven't used it against this group of people, who'd face prison just for being a member, or claiming to be a member of Palestine Action. Maybe the CPS can't reliably prove they are?
> "My friends were in danger and they [the police] were getting quite hands-on.
They were petulantly resisting arrest (it looks on camera to scream instead of just complying calmly) while committing destructive/violent crimes. The police were very restrained here. There was no danger from the police, at all.
Now a police officer doing their job has a spinal injury. Palestine Action says they will not stop doing 'direct action' (sabotage, property destruction, violence). They deserve the proscription.
> The quote from the article continues. You cut it off.
I quoted three separate snippets from the article that I wanted to draw attention to, and gave you the URL to read the rest yourself.
I'm of the opinion that, someone who sledgehammers an unaware opponent and claims in their defense "I was just trying to help", they are being disingenuous. Especially as one of Britain's most elite and privileged youngsters.
If you'd like to quote more of the article:
> When asked by his barrister Tom Wainwright whether he was willing to injure a person or use violence during the break-in, he replied: "No, not at all".
Read that back to yourself while watching the attack footage again. Is this credible testimony?
Wow, thanks. It was really shameful for amiga386 to intentionally hide that critical context. They even omitted the comma showing that there was additional context (and replaced it with inappropriate snark).
If it wanted nuclear weapons, it would just buy some from Pakistan.
Their actions do not follow the conclusion you state.
What is clear now though to any Iranian is that they should get nuclear weapons asap.
Diplomacy is just a tool used by the west to string you along while they get ready to bomb you
GP is missing one very relevant example of Libya.
Gaddafi was persuaded by the west to abandon his nuclear programme, and 8 years later he was dead in a ditch.
Considering that his own population was vehemently opposed to his authoritarian regime, I don’t think it’s fair to say Gaddafi’s fate was tied to the end of the nuclear programme. I certainly hope he wouldn’t leash nuclear weapons on his fellow countrymen.
Thanks for picking up that minor spelling mistake. Can’t correct it now, unfortunately, but at least the message is understandable.
I do disagree with your premise that Gaddafi’s death was a natural consequence of the Western intervention. Whilst watching the events unfold at the time, I’d say he would be ousted and killed irrespectively of any intervention — either by the populace or by the various factions vying for power.
I have yet to see good argument as to why the reactors on nuclear subs are "proof" of the viability of domestic commercial electrical reactors.
They have different commercial viability, enriched fuel and safety requirements. Plus I don't think the primary use of reactors on subs is to generate electricity.
Not dismissing SMR for commercial use, but don't see how military subs / ships are relevant
> protected installations (such as residential areas or even hospitals) lose their protection if they are being abused by a warring party for military operations
You should maybe research where key millitary apparatus of the Israeli state is located. The headquarters of the IDF for example.
I am familiar with IDF headquarters, they are located in a clearly marked base, you can see it on Google Maps. This is similar to French army's Hexagone Balard in Paris or the Italian and Dutch armies HQ for example, from a cursory search, ask your local LLM for more.
It's in a residential area. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy.
The whole area is heavily militarized, there are bases everywhere, citizens are automaticlaly enrolled into the IDF - every Israeli citizen in a certain age group can be considered a legitimate millitary target if you follow your logic.
The arguments you are using for attacking Palestinian infastructure and people are more than applicable to Israeli infastructure and population.
In international law people have the right to resist occupation through millitary means. In a small area under occupation then there is no means to create a millitary setup that matches what the 'good guys' consider to be legitimate.
If you want to be consistent then allow Palestinians to have a millitary, air space, airports, ports, navy, jets, nuclear weapons etc. And then you can fight them on equal terms.
I listened to him being asked a question on UK / US trade and his answer was very generic - something something Amazon.
To be a forex trader, you would live and breathe detail on stuff like this. To be in the top 1% of forex traders you would be far beyond that.
yes he isn't in that position now, but I expected some novel insight that you could only get from a specialist, not something that anyone could come up with.
This isn't the only example.
I don't disagree with most of what he is saying, and I'm very happy for him that he has managed to break through in a small way to get his message out.
rich normally are rich enough to protect their savings from inflation.
e.g. by putting it in an effective monopoly - land or housing (housing is a monopoly if you also are rich enough to have some influence on what / where houses are built / not built)
> Govt debt to gdp is up against the 100% barrier. Looking at central bank balance sheet, it does look like you just avoided bankruptcy.
A country cannot go bankrupt. After the war the debt to gdp ratio was 250%, and from that position the government nationalised 20% of industry, built houses, create the NHS and welfare state and developed a nuclear programme.
> corporate tax rate of 25%
on profit yes, but if you are big enough you declare as little profit as possible.
> personal income tax of 45%
that's the highest band there is, payable only on income over £125,140
> sales tax of 20% Yikes.
well it's a tax on added value on every step thorough the retail chain, collectable by the end retailer. It's zero rate on food and child clothes and some other things.
Taxes are indeed on the wrong places in many cases: e.g. dividend tax on unearned income should be equalised with income tax, income tax thresholds should be increased in line with inflation / wages and not frozen as they currently are.
but I don't think overall tax burden is the issue here.
>A country cannot go bankrupt. After the war the debt to gdp ratio was 250%, and from that position the government nationalised 20% of industry, built houses, create the NHS and welfare state and developed a nuclear programme.
Correct that there isn't a bankruptcy legislation, but there's a factor of cant pay the creditors and you just stop. Which mostly implies that retirees go back to work.
If you'd like to invent a new word for it, fine but bankrupt is what many western countries are right now.
>but I don't think overall tax burden is the issue here.
This is without talking about property, tv, etc taxes. The total tax burden is probably over 100% and you're feeding people into specific tax free things like food. Definitely total tax burden problem.
The problem comes up against thermodynamics. The longer you run taxes at these high levels, the worse things get. That includes roads and everything. Even though in theory taxation should at least maintain those things. So your country becomes poorer and poorer. Not sustainable.
> but there's a factor of cant pay the creditors and you just stop
in the UK case then £895 of the debt is owned directly by the bank of England. So in the case of about 1/3rd of the debt the 'creditor' is your own central bank.
The government can of course pay interest on gilts by simply issuing more gilts. It's one of the advantages of running a country, intergeneration debt.
> The total tax burden is probably over 100%
Compared to what? income? capital gains? GDP?
total tax in UK through all taxes is 36.1% of GDP.
Taxes are not high in historical terms. USA for example had much higher tax rates (90% top income tax band) while it was arguably undergoing its phase of highest development.
Roads (and everything) get worse if governments do not invest in roads, or they invest in roads, but have outsourced to multiple layers of contractors who end up extracting a lot of the investment in profit and squeezing of labour costs and not in quality of road building.
Everything that provides any service or assistance to normal life has been sold off and rented back to us at enormous cost, often with many of extra financial scalping included in the systems we are forced to rely on.
And a percentage of the extracted wealth is used to push political and public narrative to incentivise the selling off more.
Local authorities are forced to sell off assets and fire direct employees, then get charged a fortune to provide basic services and child and adult social care.
And for contracts and outsourcing, the ownership of the contract itself is the thing that gives value, not providing the actual service. Creating a whole set of perverse incentives.
A council should look at a pot hole in a road as a massive opportunity. Here is a chance to provide good quality work for local people and local resources, but the opposite happens.
We have a whole layer of service retailers e.g. for electricity and gas and communications, who are not more than a spreadsheet speculating on long term prices, a call centre and a web site. Their entire business model being based on a) not messing up the spreadsheet calculation b) enough people being lazy and not renewing or switching their contract every year.
Our financial services industry has massive positive PR, seen as a net good for the country. When in reality it is focused not on basic things like providing banking and direct insurance, but in attracting our best and brightest individuals from around the country and instead of having them put their talents to something productive. Instead reward them for creating and maintaining complex systems to move wealth around, asset strip regions, hide it from tax and create a layer of gambling and financial products on top of these systems.
Capitalism, to oversimplify. The powers that be realised there was money to be extracted and they did it. Packaging it as beneficial for the people; the usual line is "healthy competition will lower the prices for consumers" but I have never seen this work in practice. We have a few areas with competition, like cell phones or health insurance, but the cost and service level differences between them is minimal and there is no competition. Or if there is, it's lower prices at worse service / quality - the race to the bottom.
Reprivatize shit and put it in the hands of someone competent. Also, increase wages so that government agencies don't depend so much on expensive consultants / contractors.
I've you've never been on the pointy end of pricy service monopolies you're not paying attention.
Competition works best for commodities. How is your electricity bill looking? And electricity is a fabulously strong example of a commodity. Have you noticed petrol prices are not that competitive even though petrol is a commodity?
3/4 of my leccy bill is a distribution cost: I think it is a fixed cost that any electricity supplier I choose oncharges. I can choose different suppliers that will make a small difference to the other variable kWh by time charges but it's not real competition. I could buy solar and batteries - but the initial investment and payback period is so long that it would cost me far more than the distribution cost I currently pay.
I agree. We don’t need to discuss the boundaries of competition. I was responding to GP saying they have NEVER seen competition work, which is simple ignorance.
The problem is rarely "capitalism", since most of the most glaring issues are either in highly regulated systems, or cases where the person receiving a service is not the one paying for it.
I think the average english person fundamentally lacks the mindset for capitalism to work, there is little trust in an individual, and too great a desire to have daddy government come make it safe. It's the unquestioning faith in top down measures that has lead to the current system, and pulling things back to public ownership won't fix that.
as a standards body, yes some of the output is high. I think it serves a useful function.
on the macro level though I can't see it myself.
EU area had everything going for it in terms of being able to make drastic progressive shifts forward in multiple areas. but instead since 2008 its been doing little but dealing with the contradictions of its own self-imposed constraints. be that debt crisis, energy policy, fortress border policy, emigration issues, Brexit and endless political dramas over reactionary political movements.
It's now fixated with re-armament, something that threatens to produce yet another lost decade.
Meanwhile, China and other parts of Asia have taken these same 20 years to create entire new sectors and lead the world in them.
Yeah, Europe needs to find its mojo again, that's for sure. But I wouldn't blame the EU for that. There was a general preference for consumption vs investment, if anything the EU was driving investment more than member states.
The rearmament might actually inject a good chunk of investment - let's see.
The EU itself imposed a limit of deficit spending to 3% GDP
The Eurozone included economies as diverse as Greece, Spain, Lithuania and Germany
These are some of the self-contradictions I'm referring to.
And the basic issue is that you cannot have a single monetary policy and impose half a fiscal policy, without political unification. And IMO that will never be squared.
I suppose the new glaring contradiction is that environmental policy and net zero policy has primacy (rightly in my view), but now so does making bombs.
Do you have the name or names of the person accused of 'attacking police with sledgehammers'?
I've heard a lot about this, but it's difficult to get to actual sources about exactly what is alleged.
Even if this did happen as you say. attachking police with sledgehammers is assault, potentially even attempted murder. There's plenty of laws for that.
It's not terrorism.
reply