I have a fear about what Yvette Cooper did last week. I believe that what she did in promoting the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025 makes a mockery of the rule of law.
When the law imposes penalties that are obviously disproportionate to the crime (if there has been a crime) committed, then those who seek to impose such sanctions do not uphold the rule of law, and all that flows from it. They do, instead, turn it into a laughing stock, the subject of ridicule, and something for which respect is lost across society.
This is what I think is going to happen with regard to this law. Whatever the merits of the issue that the law claims to address (and this is not a matter open for discussion here now), the question is whether the penalties imposed are appropriate, which is a reasonable question to ask. The reason is that there is a long history of juries refusing to find people guilty of offences when they are aware of the possibility that a disproportionate and unreasonable penalty might be imposed as a result. I think that this might be the case when cases resulting from the regulation (and those now seem likely) are brought to court.
The problem is not, however, ever limited to the one bad piece of law that has been promoted by a government. The discontent spreads very quickly, most especially when the government in question is already suffering a credibility problem.
The issue then becomes one of government competence.
And the question asked is whether they are simply abusing the rule of law for personal gain.
Soon thereafter, doubts began to rise as to whether other law needs to be complied with, because if some law is obviously inappropriate, might not others be as well?
Obviously, this has not happened yet in reaction to the events of last week, but what can be said with confidence is that Labour already looks like a lame duck government that has no idea what it is doing, and which never did have a clue as to why it wanted to be in office in the first place. Add to those obvious issues the fact that it has now passed a law that makes it a laughing stock because it obviously seeks to overturn natural justice and replace it with draconian measures, and its actions will lose, for many, whatever shred of credibility they once had.
This is where Labour is going. There is no known road back from there.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
When people face jail simply for protesting, the risk arises that people will think that they may as well do something worthy of the consequences. This has potential to escalate significantly.
“And the question asked is whether they are simply abusing the rule of law for personal gain.”
No. It is an ideological problem, or, rather more specifically, that Uk gov, is being prompted by a foreign government to implement laws in the interests of that foreign government rather than in the interests of Uk citizens.
To some extent one could argue the same with respect to finance & gov policy favouring companies whose actions are inimicable to those of Uk citizens.
That the UK gov aquieses to this (the changes in Terrorism laws) suggests that it has become an agent of a foreign gov. I’m not sure that last year, UK citizens (can I still call them serfs – ironically – or is that an act of terrorism? – does the use of irony now fall within Uk terrorism legislation?) voted for this – but there we are. They did.
The impression gained is that each & every sucessive government is worse than the previous one, with the Uk sinking lower & lower.
Whilst I agree with the premise of your post Mike, I also think Labour’ s unreasonableness is also driven by private sector objectives (who have been co-opted into state provision of just about everything) an of course short term profit motives.
The simple point is that spraying paint is not terrorism.
As defined in section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, it does not involve:
(a) serious violence against a person,
(b) serious damage to property,
(c) endangering a person’s life,
(d) creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public, or
(e) serious interference with or disruption of an electronic system.
People who take direct action are rightly liable to being prosecuted if they break any criminal laws, be that criminal trespass or criminal damage or obstruction of the highway or breach of the peace or whatever.
But at its highest any damage in this case was not “serious”.
I don’t support the actions of the protesters here, but treating legitimate protest as terrorism is the sort of thing authoritarian regimes do, in Russia or China or elsewhere.
For good reason, we did not treat the women protesters at Greenham Common, or of Extinction Rebellion, with all of the expense and inconvenience they produced for the government and others, as terrorists.
Andrew is right. It’s been made clear that anyone can protest within the legal limits providing they don’t do it under the P…… A…… banner. Quite weird really. Our MPs are clearly being leant on by Netanyahu’s supporters.
There seems to be a growing gulf between the public view of whats happening in Gaza & the Government one.
Not only that but there does not appear to be a way to change it politically as both major parties are Zionist.
A situation that is both ‘interesting’ in UK Political terms and could potentially lead to Israel being cast adrift at some point in the future
Probably the Front Benches more than the average member.
Commentators whom the Establishment think are being taken seriously are more in danger of state sanction.
There are other forums on which voice our views on this topic.
Read a report of a new non-violent direct action group calling itself “Yvette Cooper” carrying out a protest.
Next for the proscription list I fear.
I expected a thread about the NHS this weekend, not another about Yvette Cooper.
Just saying.
There is nothing to say about Labour and the NHS.
It published a glossy brochure with no meaningful content. That is it.
That would make an excellent tweet/post/poster in its own right.
I might do it for Twitter later.
What’s worrying about it is the word private is mentioned 37 times, usually saying that we can’t afford to keep it public or in the phrase public private partnership.
Note that they wish to restrict the right to trial by jury, ostensibly to help clear the court backlog created by the failed austerity policy that the other establishment party followed.
You are right that bad law leads to civil disobedience, acquittals and overall lack of support for a government but I’m not sure this one will be the catalyst that say targeting disabled people could be (or say the poll tax back in the day).
There is good reason why imperialism, wars and stifling of pro-Palestinian voices have been successful for so long. I’m hope I’m wrong and young people in particular will see this as symptomatic of wider government betrayal of a decent society, nationally and internationally.
I must say I’m a bit surprised that Cooper went along with this. I might not like her but I did think she was a seasoned politician with decades of Parliament experience who’s also very good at self-preservation. This is something I would’ve more associated with McSweeney and his over-excitable boys.
This brought her nothing but ridicule. If she didn’t expect this to end up (which she clearly didn’t) with a 83-year-old female minister being arrested on terrorism charges, then I really was wrong about her all along. She even had Campbell telling her not to do it.
Labour’s lost the vote of the Muslim community (dozens of MPs, starting with Streeting, can’t be elected without it, Harris lost US vote most likely because she lost the support of the Muslim community, and this in a country with much, much smaller Muslim community), liberals (this is something I can’t see Cameron, May, Sunak or even Johnson doing, I can only see Badenoch doing it) and generally everyone who cares.
Interesting article here
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jul/06/destruction-of-palestine-is-breaking-the-world
Could have been posted in at least one other place today
Shows the impact Gaza is having on the world and makes the point that Universities have had done to them whet they have done to others
Good article
With regard to jury trials…
Several things have slready happened to make a future “Clive Ponting” verdict less likey.
– changes in law which prohibit motivation being used as a defence or even mentioned in court. (See recent climate protest cases)
– contempt proceedings against protesters outside the Old Bailey court with placards replicating the words on a famous plaque INSIDE the building about z jury’s right to issue perverse verdicts (relating to a case involving 2 Quaker preachers in 1670)
https://www.thejusticegap.com/not-only-a-right-but-a-duty-a-history-of-perverse-verdicts/
The use of terrorism powers makes convictions less important as pre trial conditions, dawn raids, and powers of seizure are very intimidating even if a defendant is not charged or convicted (see Asa Winstanley’s case).
We are seeing, over seversl years, a relentless growth in authoritarianism, increasingly repressive (but politically selective) use of state power and a press that is either cowed or complicit.
But the government and their controllers do not have the support of the public. They have lost the battle for hearts and minds, but they DO still have enormous powers
over our bodies. Especially when we are divided over (relatively) trivial matters.
But juries aren’t stupid…
The whole sorry story underlines that we’re living in a time of backlash politics. This coming Wednesday’s mass lobby at Westminster, organised by the Climate Coalition, could be something of a litmus test. Watch out for:
Whether Labour MPs turn up in significant numbers and make specific commitments, not just sympathetic noises.
Whether Ed Milliband engages meaningfully, or just sticks to pre-approved soundbites.
Whether the lobby gains serious media attention.
How opposition parties, especially the Greens and Lib Dems, use the moment to apply pressure, and if it’s reported by the mainstream media.
Maybe the next step is to limit jury trials. They are already talking about abolishing them for “minor” offences (see todays Guardian) . Because the justice system is under so much pressure of numbers of cases…..Or maybe just cut to the chase, and by- pass jury trial in cases the Government decides is necessary because of” imminent danger” (Salus populi suprema lex, and all that …)