this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
209 points (98.2% liked)

UK Politics

4262 readers
367 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, 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. (These things should be publicly discussed)

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The street artist's latest work appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Monday and was immediately covered up by Metropolitan Police officers.

The force is now investigating the graffiti, which is on an external wall of the Queen's Building, as potential “criminal damage”.

It means Banksy, who has remained anonymous for more than 25 years, could finally be unmasked as he would be required to publicly disclose his name if brought to court.

The artwork, which shows a protester holding a white picket sign spattered with red paint, has now been concealed by large sheets of black plastic and two metal barriers.

Less than 24 hours after it first appeared on the Grade I-listed building, HM Courts and Tribunals (HMCTS) confirmed it would be removed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 125 points 1 week ago (1 children)

how dare he besmirch the good name of the royal courts who stripped away rights from the british public to protest genocide

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Just to be clear.

Court do not make laws. Parliament dose. At best they interpret laws. And even then only when questionable interpretation or contradictory laws exist.

Parliament created the laws. The met enforced them. CPS decide if they go to court. From there only a jury has any nullification rights. Judges etc are required to rule based on the multiple laws created.

[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"its not my fault i shot someone, it was my job!"

-the police

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

How many protesters accused of supporting PA. Have actually been to court so far.

Honest question. As so for I've not seen any in the news. But may have missed a few.

I have seem the police and CPS release a lot soon after arrest. Makeing me wonder if the CPS is confident on the courts accepting the proscription.

I can see lawyers using both Starmers case during Blares government and ECHR free speech requirements to challenge the validity of the law.

PS you really do not want to go back to a time when Judges acted on their own political motives.

That opens up the court system to a fuck more injustice then it dose justice. We already see way to much prejudicial sentencing and interpretation of evidence. Historical claims womens dressed in a way that encouraged rape. Current Valuing of policemans statements over non police and racial prejudice is valuation of evidence.

Start adding an expectation for judges to judge the moral validity of laws. And it is very unlikely to go in a positive direction.

[–] luisgutz@feddit.uk 10 points 1 week ago

According to this report by Cray Murray, the judge and courts were not impartial, and are likely responsible for the Palestine Action being outlawed https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch ives/2025/07/we-accept-of-course-that-it-is-draconian-and-deliberately-so/

[–] hector@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Their judges have made a number of decisions ensuring guilty verdicts of those accused for protesting. Climate, environmental, and anti genocide so far.

One of which forbade the accused from telling their motivation after high profile acquittals on protesters they were tring to imprison for a decade or more.

The courts of the uk are not bystanders they are active belligerants in taking away the ancient rights of English Common Law.

The English had freedom of expression to a large degree centuries before the rest of the continent. Banned books were openly sold for instance. They were allowed to criticize their leaders to a higher degree.