this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
141 points (99.3% liked)

United Kingdom

7010 readers
437 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
141
Lawyers ‘Scared’ to Do Their Jobs After Charges Against Palestine Action Barrister (novaramedia.com)
submitted 3 months ago by okwithmydecay@leminal.space to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tedd_deireadh@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This quote really says it all.

“It is starting to feel like it’s about the politics of the subject matter of the trial, rather than the core principles of how a barrister represents his client.”

As an aside, this is an amazing title.

Former shadow attorney general Baroness Shami Chakrabarti also expressed her concern about Menon’s prosecution...

[–] Semjeza@fedinsfw.app 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"Shadow" means you had the role for the opposition.

So she was the Attorney General for the opposition party, rather than the incumbent.

Former means she is now no longer an attorney general of any sort.

Yes, it is a great title and apologies if explaining it lessens the magic.

[–] tedd_deireadh@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

It absolutely doesn't lessen it! Thanks for explaining!

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's the point, isn't it?

[–] Tango@piefed.ca 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Juries can practice jury nullification if they want and nobody can stop them, but barristers aren't supposed to suggest it. Imagine if, say, a prosecutor told an Israeli jury that they didn't technically need evidence to arrive at a "guilty" verdict for a Palestinian defendant, just "their conscience". Jury nullification can't become just another trial strategy, or the whole legal system becomes worthless.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is so wildly general, I can't comment in good faith. As it stands, the whole legal system does seem to be worthless, unless one has plenty of money for legal fees and social status, and even then, as long as they are arguing the "preferred" view.

[–] Tango@piefed.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree; I'm just pointing out that the judge was unlikely to be targeting the barrister for any political reason. Courts always discourage any overly obvious suggestion of jury nullification, regardless of the case being tried or whether it does or does not relate to Israel.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 3 months ago

Fair.

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't really work. The right wing aggressors will always see the purpose of law is to punish their enemies (which it is). The idea that it contains a technicality for the sake of fairness that you're literally not allowed to tell people about so its not entirely one sided is not the same.

[–] Tango@piefed.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

With an argument like that, it sounds like you have a lot of contempt for the court system. So if the barrister also argued in open court that "ignoring all law and evidence is the right thing to do"...

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, you use a dog whistle for that.

[–] Tango@piefed.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Given that even before his closing statement, the judge had already warned him not to encourage jury nullification, he can't have been that subtle.

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Noi meant for the thing you said

If the jury don't know their options, then what's the point of them?

What do you think the purpose is of keeping something like that a part of the system?

[–] Tango@piefed.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The whole point of a jury system is that jurors aren't morons.

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 1 points 3 months ago

So they're supposed to know but its illegal to tell them?

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The status chasing and money chasing establishment esquires are afraid, the freedom fighters with a law degree say "Bring that shit on you motherfuckers!".

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 3 months ago

As much as I wish that were true, it isn't. People have families and lawyers, prosecution and defense, often make enemies with potential safety consequences, plus the financial considerations you mentioned, which include legal fees, student loans, , mortgages, children to keep fed, clothed, and in school. People with regular jobs don't want to take a weekday off work for peaceful protest in designated "free speech zones" and the like (dependent on country, obviously), for fear they'll lose their jobs, face arrest and legal fees, lose their homes, much less anything like France's Yellow Vest protests or Germany's anti-nuclear waste on rails protests. But even with those instances, things I mentioned are still real risks. Britain was arresting elderly people and the United States has a long history of arresting clergy.

[–] BrightCandle@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Really they all need to down tools until its reversed and the barrister compensated. Every one of them is risking criminal charges for doing their job, that is unacceptable.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago

Granted. Council, he is fined fifty pounds for turning up.