65
[Video] People Against Genocide target DSV in Bristol. DSV are a logistics firm which ship weapons for Elbit Systems. (i.imgur.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

alternative video upload: https://streamable.com/e/9u7ba2

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 6 months ago (16 children)

Elbit Systems have a weapons factory, also in Bristol, which was the site of a break-in by direct action activists who found quadcopter drones used to drop grenades on people in Gaza. The activists were imprisoned without trial.

Direct action like that in the video risks huge personal sacrifice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (15 children)

    The activists were imprisoned without trial.

    How is this legal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    It's called being "held on remand" when they think someone is so dangerous that they have to be in prison until their trial. If that person gets found not guilty they occasionally get a "whoops, sorry" but I wouldn't bet on it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    The activists were imprisoned without trial.

    How is this legal

    Because it isn't true.

    https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/local-news/palestine-action-activists-found-guilty-10950923

    The facts of the case are being deliberately obscured to further agendas rather than promoting the truth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    They've been in prison until this point. That's nearly two years in prison without having been found guilty in a trial. The maximum is supposed to be six months.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    To be clear, they broke into a factory and attacked someone with a hammer that they took with them for that purpose.

    Then they publicly stated that they would do it again as soon as they got the chance. It's that later statement which is why they had to be kept behind bars.

    They had the option to apologise, say things got out of control and agree to bail conditions but they refused to do that so they are in prison by their own choice.

    It would be negligent of the justice system to do nothing release them to find another victim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    There is a legal limit of 182 days to hold someone in custody, which is there for obvious and important reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    I'm well aware of the CTL and also that it can be extended in certain circumstances, as it was in this case. It even says this is possible in the link you provided.

    There is recourse in law (again in the link you provided) to seek a review if you feel CTL is unjustly extended but it's interesting that the people who were subsequently found guilty of their crimes didn't seek a review when they could have done so.

    You might conclude that the people who commited these crimes had the conviction in there beliefs to do it but not quite enough belief to actually accept the consequences of breaking the law. That's pretty pathetic isn't it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    To be clear, they broke into a factory and attacked someone with a hammer that they took with them for that purpose.

    Then they publicly stated that they would do it again as soon as they got the chance. It's that later statement which is why they had to be kept behind bars.

    They had the option to apologise, say things got out of control and agree to bail conditions but they refused to do that so they are in prison by their own choice.

    It would be negligent of the justice system to do nothing and release them to find another victim. They have since been tried and found guilty.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    they broke into a factory and attacked someone with a hammer

    Just to be clear, the protestors were not using a hammer, but the person they attacked was attempting to brutalise them with a hammer, so its actually better to describe the situation as:

    Protestors defend themselves when a police officer attacked them with a hammer.

    Your wording is very weaselly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Evidence says otherwise: BBC News - Police officer unable to dress after Palestine Action hammer attack - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo?app-referrer=deep-link

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    24 November 2025

    I love your evidence is from before the trial, when the video showed in court finally showed it was the other way around and the police officer lied as the police always do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Really? Here's something from after the trial where Corner was found guilty of GBH (his 32nd conviction)BBC News - Palestine Action activists guilty of Elbit Systems site raid - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2p99rxr5po?app-referrer=search

    They put forward that defence in trial but the video obviously doesn't back up their turn of events, because the victim wasn't holding a hammer.

    I suppose you will believe whatever suits your narrative but I prefer to base my opinion on actual facts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    but I prefer to base my opinion on actual facts.

    A police officers statement is not a fact, and historically has always been a distortion to maximise victimisation of their institution and ensure they can inflict violence on the vulnerable.

    Taking the narrative of a police officer positions you are very naive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Then perhaps base your opinion on what was said by the protestors themselves who stated in court that they were not in fact attacked with a hammer as you say.

    Isn't the more likely explanation that a violent thug gave a weak excuse for battering a woman and that excuse didn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Those lyrics go hard

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •