344
Activists Who Spray-Painted Barclays Set to Be Sentenced As Terrorists
(novaramedia.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2026
344 points (100.0% liked)
World News
57292 readers
1360 users here now
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
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
"Sentenced as terrorists" is not what is really happening here. As I said before, when a crime carries over 2 years of prison (and property damage of 200k does) the judge can consider "terrorist connection" as an aggravating factor. They belong to Palestine Action which is considered terrorist organization in UK. This proscription was recently upheld by Court of Appeals.
They are not being sentenced for being members of Palestine Action. The court is considering "terrorist connection" aggravating factor in property damage conviction. If the aggravating factor is added it will have an impact on the conditions of their parole, not the sentence itself*.
*Edit: it actually does affect the final sentence, like any other aggravating factor.
From the judgement:
That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.
On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.
I hope that this case is revisited, and the sentences reduced, because there is an element of scapegoating apparent, which is not just.
There's no such thing as "severity of the sentence". They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
As with "severity of the sentence" you don't know what you're talking about. That's not how any of it works.
I wasn't using legal language. By "the severity of the sentence", I just meant the length or onerousness of the sentence.
A flat lie, if you claim to have read the judgement, since it says:
Then, your ad hominem response "you don't know what you're talking about" renders your argument void. Try again, if you like. But I'd advise you to save face and admit your mistakes at this point.
You're right. They did add 2 years to the sentence because of various aggravating factors, terrorist connected being one of them. Good to know.
How can it be an aggravating factor if there was no terrorist connection at the time of the offence? The proscription of PA wasn’t backdated, and the vandalism happened before that, right?
INAL but I think that's why they are not being charged with terrorism, only terrorist connection is applied.
That 200k damage doesn't even hold up
you agree with the practice of inflating the cost of crime so that any action can be considered terrorism? seems a bit much for me and backing of government oppression.
terrorism has a meaning, and is not dependent on amounts of property damage.
this is the same thing as redefining illegal immigrants as enemy combatants so you can suspend habeous corpus, and other human rights
Where in my comment did I say I agree or disagree with any of it?
If you would understand my comment you would realize that is pretty much what I said.
‘ they are not being sentenced as terrorists, just sentenced as committing terroristic actions’ is an argument without purpose.
the discussion is around the inflation of the crime to scare people from pushing against what is happening.
Ok, so you don't care about the legal process that's being used here. That's cool. Personally I like being informed and find it interesting.
Thank you for the technical clarification.
The word "terrorist" is not merely a technical designator. It is highly emotionally charged and political. It is a word that evokes hundreds of victims in blind attacks on trains or on buildings and aeroplanes. It evokes fanaticism and destructiveness, frothing hatred and irrational bloodlust. "We do not negotiate with terrorists." Terrorists are the villains in every movie ever. A "terrorist connection" is a connection to all of that.
So splitting the legal hairs here is at best irrelevant. We live in a society not a courtroom. The government has slapped the Big Scary Word on a thing it shouldn't have.
And even if this government gets all the benefits of the doubt (personally I really don't think they should) because they are trying their best to balance between impossible political attractors (personally I think they are just enablers of a genocidal apartheid regime for political expediency), the next one or the one after the next one will not hesitate to use the Big Scary Word not as a technical designator but as a political sledgehammer.
I think it is important to to know what's happening and not just repeat narrative coming from one side. People argued with me that "terrorist connection" means people are being convicted of additional crimes without the knowledge of a jury. Now you're claiming the government is calling them terrorists while the "terrorist organization" proscription for Palestine Action was upheld by Court of Appeals. Palestine Action is using the threat of serious damage to property to intimidate people and advance ideological cause. They are publishing a "target map: https://targetmap.org/map. This is pretty much the definition of a terrorist organization according to UK laws.
We all would like UK government to sanction Israel but few governments in the world are willing to do that. Groups like Palestine Action try to change the status quo by committing crimes.I don't think terrorist organization proscription is an overreach by the government here. I think that instead of being intimidated by it we should admit that yes, in this case, we do support the terrorist.
That's a circular definition: the Labour government passed laws that defined Palestine Action as terrorists so therefore they are terrorist because the courts said they fit the description of the laws.
The other thing that you seem to have forfeited is a sense of proportionality. So, if you want to go around declaring yourself ...a "terrorist sympathizer", don't let me stop you. I'll keep on insisting that Palestine Action should have never been proscribed in the first place. All of the craziness follows from that first moment of Labour stupidity and overreach.
Ok, that's fair. For me the definition used for the proscription doesn't sound like something tailor made to fit Palestine Action nor does it look like a tool for squashing dissidents. I would say that is a group of people operated covertly to intimidate businesses supporting Palestine (for example damaging businesses providing relief to Palestine and hosting a map with targets, encouraging people to do the same) I wouldn't hesitate to call that terrorism. I think it's fine if you're worried about being called a "terrorist sympathizer". I don't really mind that. Palestine Action is committing crimes to achieve their goals and I'm not going to pretend they don't.
You might want to read the judgement then, because Johnson has a very different understanding - he very specifically names the Suffragettes as not being terrorists, despite their use of public and personal bombings and arson attacks to intimidate and influence policy. The law is not being applied equally, it is being used as a bludgeon against those who oppose genocide.
I did read it:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/R-v-Charlotte-Head-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf
I don't have that much time so I read the justification for terrorist connection aggravating factor and it's exactly what I said here. I don't see anything about Suffragettes in there. Can you point me to the part that talks about it?
Sorry, rereading I was completely unclear about which case I was refering to, and got my conflicts of interest mixed up - I meant the proscription judgement (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721?query=AMMORI&court=ewca%2Fciv) and Johnson wasn't on this panel, his judgement is just based on it. The Suffragettes actions are specifically brought up as "civil disobedience" rather than "direct action", which is a distinction the proscription kinda hinges on.
Ok, I read it and
Yes, it's a bad argument but it's bad from historical point of view, not legal one. I don't think misrepresenting Suffragettes invalidates the proscription.
That being said, obviously the government and courts are more eager to proscribe a leftist, anti-Israel organization than they would be a right wing one. I'm not claiming Palestine Action is wrong and the proscription is 100% justified. I'm just putting things into perspective. This is not illegal action by the government - this is supported by the courts and done according to the laws. The courts are not making things up and ignoring the fundamental principles of the legal process - they are applying the rules as defined by the government. And I'm not saying it makes this ok. I'm just clarifying the misinformation people are spreading here (like that they are sentenced for terrorism without the knowledge of the jury).
Where did you get this idea from? Aggravating and mitigating factors specifically apply to the length of the sentence in UK law.
I may be wrong but https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/129/5801129en.pdf
""" offence found to have a terrorist connection by definition in new sub-paragraph (3E), the offender will be subject to the release provisions in section 247A of the 2003 Act (for extended sentences for offences which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, release will be at the end of the full custodial term; for all other sentences release will be at the discretion of the Parole Board from the two-thirds point of the custodial term)."""
So I believe what "terrorist connection" aggravating factor does for conviction in crimes like property damage is that you can apply for parole after 2/3 of the full sentence. From what I read it definitely doesn't extend the sentence - the maximum sentence is still the same as maximum sentence for property damage. Not sure if the judge is forced to apply maximum sentence or not if terrorist connection is found. Can't find any info on that.
EDIT: I read the sentencing and minimum sentence is not affected, just the parole conditions.
You don't see how changes like that, extending the minimum time to be considered for parole (I.e released), would in practice extend a sentence?
It would extend the time spend in prison, not the sentence. The sentence is the maximum time someone can be held in prison. This is not extended. Parole rules determine the minimal possible time someone has to spend in prison. This is what changed.
I'm clearly not defending anything here, just explaining what happened. Don't confuse people by mixing legal terms.