View article →

We held all eight Hunger Strikers in the light this morning at 8am. Here is a loving plea for sanity from another network (Land Workers Alliance) sharing news of Amu in HMP Bronzefield

Fivepenny Farm

Solidarity with the hunger strikers | Fivepenny Farm

Jyoti Fernandes speaking in solidarity with Amu and the Palestine Action hunger strikers

Vigil happening all day today outside BBC, London till 6pm Some hunger strikers are now hospitalised and close to death.

“In the worst crisis humanity has ever faced, the government chose to legislate to silence dissent, rather than implementing policies to avert disaster. People of conscience are imprisoned, while others remain free to continue destroying our life support systems. “

Just Stop Oil – No More Oil and Gas

Four Just Stop Oil supporters jailed for up to 30 months for M25 gantry action while two walk free – Just Stop Oil

Six Just Stop Oil who were denied all legal defences during their trial were today given sentences of up to 30 months at Southwark Crown Court for ...

A vigil was held outside Bronzefield prison where two people are on hunger strike whilst being held on remand for taking preventative actions against crimes against humanity. Leaflets were handed out and in discussion with some of the people working in prison, they had no idea there was a hunger strike happening.

Let me frame this in a way that directly attributes the comparison to the Crown’s own prosecutorial standards. --- Directly Attributing the Comparison to Crown Standards Crown’s Own Standard of Criminal Damage Under UK law, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) uses precise monetary valuations of property damage as a basis for charging decisions, sentencing ranges, and the application of terrorism or national-security legislation. In the cases of the Filton 18 (Elbit Systems UK) and the Brize Norton activists (RAF Voyagers), the Crown has formally quantified damage in the range of £1–7 million and treated these sums as legally significant enough to justify prolonged remand, terrorism framing, and organisational proscription. Applying the Same Standard to Gaza Air Operations By the Crown’s own logic, the monetary cost of damaged property is a critical metric. If we apply this exact same metric to the Israeli air operations in Gaza—operations commanded by an official whom the UK has chosen to shield—we see an incomparable scale of harm. According to the World Bank, UN, and EU assessments, the direct physical damage in Gaza by October 2024—caused primarily by aerial bombardment—stood at around US$30 billion, with total reconstruction needs estimated at US$70–80+ billion. The destruction includes the levelling of entire residential districts, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, and schools—harm that is not only vastly larger in economic terms, but also includes the mass killing of civilians. Legal Asymmetry and Crown Interest The Crown has chosen to prosecute UK activists for non-lethal property damage using the harshest legal tools available—counter-terrorism law—while simultaneously granting immunity and hospitality to a foreign commander responsible for a scale of destruction that is tens of thousands of times greater. In other words, the Crown’s own prosecutorial standards of measuring harm reveal a stark legal asymmetry: the UK treats minor, non-lethal property damage by domestic protestors as a terrorism-level crime, while it refuses to apply the same logic or accountability measures to a foreign military actor whose actions have resulted in incomparably greater harm. --- If you want, I can turn this into: A formal legal memorandum A section of a legal brief on selective enforcement Or a comparative chart for easier courtroom reference.

Below is a clear, legally grounded placement of Elbit Systems within the framework we have been analysing. No accusations—only the legal position Elbit occupies when the UK is assessed under: the Genocide Convention, Customary International Humanitarian Law, the ICC Act 2001, the Arms Trade Treaties / UK Export Control Regime, and state-responsibility doctrine. This is the most accurate way to answer “Where is Elbit Systems in this?”. --- 1. Elbit Systems is not a neutral civilian company in this legal context Elbit is Israel’s largest private arms supplier, providing: drones used in targeting and strike planning, surveillance and fire-control systems, munitions and components, communications and battlefield management systems, parts integrated into aircraft and missile systems. Under international law, a corporation with this profile is classified as a defence manufacturer that produces means and methods of warfare. This places it directly inside the legal ecosystem governing war-crimes risk, genocide-risk, and arms-transfer law. --- 2. Under the UK’s legal framework, Elbit systems sits within the category of “potential corporate complicity” Under the ICC Act 2001, a company can be implicated if its officers: intentionally, knowingly, or with wilful blindness assist, enable, or contribute to war crimes or genocidal acts. The ICC Act does not grant corporations immunity. Corporate officers may be individually liable. Elbit therefore sits in the category of: Corporate actor whose products materially contribute to operations that are under ICC investigation and ICJ scrutiny. This does not prove guilt— but places the company within the zone of potential complicity. --- 3. Under the Genocide Convention (Articles I & III), Elbit’s role triggers “duty to prevent” obligations for states like the UK If a corporation supplies systems used in: indiscriminate attacks, collective punishment, targeting civilian infrastructure, or actions the ICJ describes as plausibly genocidal, then states providing economic or logistical support to that corporation have a heightened duty to prevent escalation. What this means: The UK’s continued facilitation of Elbit’s operations (licences, tax status, police protection) engages UK state responsibility. Elbit’s participation becomes part of the risk chain the UK must assess under law. Thus, in legal terms, Elbit is not “separate”— it is part of the causal pathway states must evaluate. --- 4. Under the Arms Trade Treaty and UK Export Control law, Elbit sits in the category: “high-risk end-user/producer.” Under ATT Articles 6 & 7, the UK must deny export licences when there is: a clear risk of war-crimes use, risk of serious violations of IHL, or contribution to genocide-risk conditions. Elbit’s core products are: drones used for strikes on densely populated civilian areas; thermal/optical targeting systems on aircraft linked to mass-casualty bombings; fire-control suites for artillery and precision-guided munitions. These functions meet the ATT definition of likely involvement in serious IHL violations. Thus, Elbit is legally positioned as: A high-risk actor whose operations should trigger licence suspensions or refusals. --- 5. Under state-responsibility doctrine (ILC Articles 16 & 41), Elbit sits in the category of “assisted entity”. A state violates international law if it: provides assistance, coordinates, facilitates, supports, or shields an entity that is committing internationally wrongful acts. Elbit is: a direct producer of tools used in the Gaza bombardment, a beneficiary of UK police protection and intelligence coordination, and a commercial partner of UK defence industries. Thus, in doctrine, Elbit sits in the position where the UK’s support, protection, or enabling conditions may translate to state responsibility. --- 6. Under domestic UK criminal law (Terrorism Act 2000), Elbit is paradoxically treated as a protected victim The Crown prosecutes activists who damage Elbit property as: “terrorists,” “threats to national security,” or “serious organised criminals”. This places Elbit in the bizarre legal category: “Protected infrastructure essential to national security.” This is the opposite of its position under international law. This contradiction is the most important point. --- 7. The single sentence answer: Elbit Systems is positioned, in law, as a defence corporation whose products materially contribute to a conflict that international courts have identified as carrying a plausible risk of genocide—placing it squarely in the chain of actors that the UK is legally obliged to regulate, restrict, and potentially investigate, yet which the Crown currently treats as a protected national-security asset rather than a high-risk contributor to internationally unlawful harm. ---

This would make an interesting HQ for the Change Shifters Collective. Facilitating all kinds of projects. Environmental monitoring. Peace initiatives. Research and analysis. Community Power. Facilitation. Alternative economics. News and trends. The work is already happening, though to take things to a successful level we need a space where mutual aid happens between heart warriors. Where big ideas have space to breath.

Country Life

Magna Carta Island for sale on the Thames, complete with the stone tablet on which Magna Carta itself is said to have been sealed

This beautiful house on a private island on the River Thames isn

Police make more arrests outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Whilst the trial of people who stopped the factory production of weapons that are likely to be used in plausible genocide at an Elbit System factory UK. Elbit System manufacture weapons for the IDF. They or Israels biggest weapons company. Some of the people incarcerated are on hunger strike.

"Mr. Morris (acting for brown-haired Jordan Devlin) then takes over cross-examination, and asks Buxton to look once more at the footage, this time slowed down. When the video first shows the three people in red, Mr. Morris asks the officer whether he had noticed the security guard on his right holding a sledgehammer. He replies that he can’t remember. He was also asked when he’d first seen the footage and whether it was before writing his first statement. After challenging Mr. Morris as to whether it was a strike or whether it was a push that the guard administered with the sledgehammer on Devlin’s neck, Buxton does agree that his statement claimed the sledgehammer was in Devlin’s hands, but now realises that it was the guard who was actually holding it. The barrister asked the officer whether he knew why the guard had a sledgehammer, and he answered that he didn’t. Morris ended by asking whether he had identified himself as a police officer verbally at any point – (he hadn’t), and to confirm whether he’d used the PAVA spray on people’s eyes – (he did)."

Real Media - The View From Below

The Filton Palestine Action Trial - SECOND WEEK - Real Media - The View From Below

Daily reports from the second week of the trial at Woolwich Crown Court of six Palestine Action members who, in August last year, raided an Elbit S...

Life Is Sacred: A Global Compendium of Public Justice Expressions https://image.nostr.build/09248dabcd7e75dd3b8afab5c91506fa5110ee9ff8c1c14b7b5a55d12d72e503.jpgPreface This work begins from two observations with global reach: life is treated as sacred, and justice must be visible to be legitimate. These principles appear across civilisations, languages, and legal systems—written, oral, communal, sacred, and state‑based. Together, the volumes demonstrate a near‑universal legal expectation: unjust killing violates what societies regard as most sacred, and justice must be seen to be accepted. Across 336 distinct languages, peoples, and legal traditions, covering the vast majority of humanity, the pattern holds. It appears in constitutions, customary law, Indigenous jurisprudence, ceremonial processes, and international norms. It reflects a foundational global customary principle: life has inherent sanctity, and legitimate governance requires public accountability. Future volumes will include endangered languages, smaller Indigenous nations, historical legal forms, and diaspora or cross-border traditions. Scope Note (applies to all volumes) This volume forms part of a multi‑volume compendium containing 336 distinct languages, peoples, and legal-cultural traditions. Together, they represent the majority of the world’s population. Entries are not exhaustive, but they demonstrate a consistent global pattern: life is regarded as sacred, and justice must be made visible. Additional volumes will expand the record without altering this underlying global norm. Life Is Sacred: A Global Compendium of Public Justice Expressions VOLUME I — Preface & Languages A–F Across world cultures, two legal–moral principles appear with striking universality: Life is sacred — expressed through concepts of divinity, dignity, ancestral trust, land-connection, and vital force. Justice must be publicly seen — courts, councils, assemblies, rituals, and community witnesses ensure legitimacy. Hidden justice is treated as injustice. These principles appear in oral law, state law, Indigenous jurisprudence, sacred texts, and customary courts on every continent. They form a global foundation for legal interpretation.

"At the Royal Courts of Justice right now."

If you want to follow the FIlton Trial, it is being covered by

Real Media - The View From Below

Real Media - The News You Don't See

We are a cooperative of journalists dedicated to public interest journalism and challenging mass media distortion.

The prosecution case is currently being made. They however are not facing terrorism offences and only one is charged with Violent Disorder.

I’ll give you text you can directly copy–paste to: 1. Replace the old preface with a new perspective; 2. Add a scope note into each existing volume; 3. Frame Volume V as “the rest / living expansion”. You can adjust headings to taste. --- 1. Updated Preface (replace the old one) > Preface This work begins from two simple observations that prove, on inspection, to be global in scope: 1. Life is treated as sacred. Across civilisations, human life is described as holy, inviolable, dignified, entrusted by God or ancestors, bound to land and waters, or animated by a vital force. Even when the vocabulary differs, the legal and moral intuition is the same: taking life unjustly is not merely wrong; it is a betrayal of the most basic order of things. 2. Justice must be visible to be legitimate. Courts, councils, kgotla, parliaments, palaver trees, sentencing circles, church courts, kivas, longhouses, village squares, chiefs’ palaces, mosques, temples, men’s houses, and community halls all express the same requirement: justice that is hidden, opaque, or concealed from the people is not accepted as justice. It must be done, and it must be seen. These principles appear in written constitutions and case law, in international instruments, in Indigenous legal orders, in religious jurisprudence, and in unwritten customary systems. They are not the property of any one culture or tradition. Scope and population coverage The four volumes currently assembled contain 336 distinct languages, peoples, or legal-cultural traditions. Together, they represent: Every inhabited continent; All major language families and world religions; The primary legal traditions (common law, civil law, Islamic, Hindu, Confucian, Indigenous, customary); Hundreds of Indigenous nations and minority cultures. Because they include the world’s largest languages and legal systems – alongside many of the smallest and most endangered – these volumes collectively reflect the lived experience of virtually the entire human population. The precise demographic counts shift with time, but in broad terms the compendium now covers the legal and moral intuitions of most of the planet’s people. The conclusion is straightforward: The sacrality of life and The requirement that justice be public and visible are not local preferences. They are near-universal legal expectations, found in the practices and vocabularies of peoples spread across the earth. They can therefore be argued as elements of emerging global customary law: norms that courts and institutions should treat as baseline in interpreting constitutions, statutes, and international obligations (including duties to prevent atrocity crimes). Method Each entry in the compendium does two things: It identifies, in the language or cultural frame of that people, how the idea that life is sacred is expressed (lexically, conceptually, or through core metaphors); and It notes how justice being seen to be done is embodied in that tradition’s legal or procedural practice (public hearings, visible decisions, communal witnessing, ritualised reconciliation, and so on). The result is not an anthropological catalogue for its own sake. It is an evidential map. It shows that if a court, government, or institution treats life as expendable, or justice as something that can be done in the dark, it is not merely contradicting one culture’s values; it is moving against the grain of human civilisation as a whole. Future volumes This compendium is incomplete by design. Many languages are uncounted; many peoples have yet to appear by name. Future volumes are reserved for: Endangered and unrecorded languages; Smaller Indigenous nations and local legal orders not yet included; Historical legal systems; Diaspora and mixed traditions that cross state and linguistic boundaries. The aim is not to “finish” the list, but to keep open a structure into which new voices can continue to be named. The underlying pattern, however, is already clear: wherever you listen on this planet, you hear, in different words, the same two claims – life is sacred, and justice must be seen. --- 2. Short scope note for the start of each existing volume Put this near the top of Volume I, II, III, IV (e.g. under the volume title): > Note on scope (shared across volumes) This volume is part of a multi-volume compendium currently containing 336 distinct languages, peoples, or legal-cultural traditions. When considered together, the volumes represent the legal and moral intuitions of the great majority of the world’s population. Entries are not exhaustive for any region, but they are sufficient to demonstrate a strong global pattern: across cultures, life is treated as sacred, and justice is expected to be public and visible. Further volumes will continue to add smaller and endangered languages, Indigenous nations, and historical systems that deepen – rather than overturn – this pattern. You can paste that same note into each volume, unchanged. --- 3. Front matter for Volume V – “The Rest” / Living Expansion Here is text you can reuse when you are ready to start Volume V: > Life Is Sacred: A Global Compendium of Public Justice Expressions VOLUME V — Endangered, Uncounted, and Emerging Traditions Purpose of this volume Volumes I–IV have assembled 336 languages, peoples, and legal-cultural traditions. They already demonstrate that the principles “life is sacred” and “justice must be seen to be done” are global norms. Volume V is different in emphasis. It is dedicated to: Endangered and critically endangered languages; Small and often unnamed Indigenous nations; Minority and migrant legal cultures that cross state borders; Historical legal systems whose ideas still echo in present practice; Newly documented customary orders that may not yet appear in major databases. The goal is not to change the conclusion of the earlier volumes, but to make it sharper: even in the smallest communities, even in places with no census category, we continue to find the same twin intuitions – that unjust killing is a violation of what is most sacred, and that justice must be done in a way that can be seen, known, and recognised by the community. In this sense, Volume V is a living annex: a space kept open for new research, testimony, and linguistic or legal work that brings additional voices into the global record. You can now drop: The new Preface into the front of the whole work. The scope note into each existing volume. The Volume V front matter wherever you want to begin the next expansion.

Below is a **precise, legally grounded list** of what can correctly be described as **“life-giving measures”** in the sense you mean: 1. **They protect life.** 2. **They make Justice publicly visible.** 3. **They align with legal obligations** (domestic, ECHR, ICC Act 2001, Genocide Convention). 4. **They restore the rule of law where it has been weakened.** These are measures a court, prosecutor, government department, or public authority can take **without political discretion**—because they arise from **existing legal duties**. I will list them in three categories: * **A. Measures that protect human life directly** * **B. Measures that restore Justice visibly** * **C. Measures that express the State’s duty to prevent atrocity crimes** These are expressed simply, in neutral legal terms—nothing rhetorical, nothing abstract. --- # **A. LIFE-GIVING MEASURES (DIRECT PROTECTION OF LIFE)** ### 1. **Immediate review of all arms export licences where there is a “clear risk” of serious IHL violations** Required by: * Export Control Act 2002 * Strategic Export Licensing Criteria * *CAAT v Secretary of State (2019)* – Court of Appeal This measure protects life by preventing weapons from being used unlawfully. --- ### 2. **Suspension of intelligence-sharing that could contribute to unlawful targeting** Required by: * Common Article 1 (duty to “ensure respect” for Geneva Conventions) * ILC Articles on State Responsibility (Art 16 – aiding or assisting wrongful acts) Direct effect: prevents foreseeable harm to civilian populations. --- ### 3. **Enabling ICC evidence-gathering and witness protection** Required by: * ICC Act 2001 (domestic cooperation duties) This facilitates accountability, which is a recognised preventive tool. --- ### 4. **Applying sanctions to actors credibly implicated in mass atrocity crimes** Required by: * SAMLA 2018 * UK Human Rights Sanctions Regulations Sanctions are a preventative mechanism under UK law. --- ### 5. **Ensuring humanitarian corridors and aid-facilitation where UK assets or permissions are involved** Required by: * ICJ provisional measures obligations (binding) * UN Charter Article 94(1) This is a direct life-protecting measure. --- # **B. LIFE-GIVING MEASURES THAT MAKE JUSTICE *SEEN* TO BE DONE** ### 6. **Ending excessive pre-trial remand for non-violent defendants** Required by: * Article 5 ECHR (trial within a reasonable time) * Domestic custody time limits (CrimPR/POA 1985) Justice is “seen to be done” when pre-trial detention is proportionate. --- ### 7. **Transparent review of prosecutions where terrorism labels have been over-extended** Required by: * Proportionality and legality principles (Articles 10/11 ECHR) * Common-law fairness * Case law on protest rights This restores public confidence that criminal law is being applied responsibly. --- ### 8. **Releasing or granting bail to non-violent detainees where risk tests are not met** Required by: * Bail Act * Human Rights Act (right to liberty) This visibly restores proportionality and legal balance. --- ### 9. **Publishing genocide-risk assessments (as required by the ICJ finding of “plausible risk”)** Required by: * State duty to prevent genocide (Bosnia v Serbia, ICJ 2007) * Duty to take “all measures reasonably available” Transparency is itself a life-giving mechanism. --- ### 10. **Judicial insistence on effective remedies against proscription decisions affecting peaceful expression** Required by: * *Ammori v SSHD* litigation principles * Article 13 ECHR Justice is seen when courts protect lawful dissent. --- # **C. LIFE-GIVING MEASURES THAT EXPRESS THE STATE’S DUTY TO PREVENT ATROCITY CRIMES** ### 11. **Applying the precautionary principle recognised in genocide-risk jurisprudence** Required by: * *Gambia v Myanmar* (ICJ 2020) * *South Africa v Israel* (ICJ 2024) Plausible risk triggers State action. --- ### 12. **Issuing guidance that all departments must avoid contributing to a situation adjudged to present a plausible genocide risk** Required by: * Genocide Convention Article I * ILC State Responsibility Articles 16 & 41 * ICC Act 2001 (complicity provisions) Cross-government coordination is a legal requirement, not a policy preference. --- ### 13. **Initiating domestic investigations into potential UK complicity under ICC Act 2001** Required by: * ICC Act 2001 Part 5 * Duty to prosecute grave breaches (Geneva Conventions Act) This expresses justice in its most serious form. --- ### 14. **Implementing corporate-complicity reviews for UK-registered companies operating in high-risk sectors** Required by: * POCA (criminal property) * Corporate criminal liability * Sanctions framework * Export control rules Life is protected when supply chains are cleaned of complicity risks. --- ### 15. **Ensuring that the policing of protest complies strictly with human-rights norms and avoids chilling dissent** Required by: * Articles 10 & 11 ECHR * Case law: *DPP v Ziegler*, *Laporte*, *Redmond-Bate* * Judicial findings in Kent Police apology (October 2025) Non-violent protest is a safety-valve in a democratic society. --- # **14. Why these are “life-giving measures” in legal terms** They meet all four criteria: ### 1. They **protect human life** through preventing arms transfers, wrongful targeting, and obstruction of aid. ### 2. They **honour binding international obligations** which are designed specifically to prevent atrocity crimes. ### 3. They make **Justice visible** by restoring proper process, fair trials, and proportionality. ### 4. They **restore public confidence** that the law applies equally to the State and to citizens. These are the measures a judge or official could correctly classify as both **legally necessary** and **life-giving**. --- If you want, I can now produce: * A **complete cross-government life-giving action plan** (10 hours, operational steps); * A **shorter judicial-review appendix** listing these as *required remedies*; * A **structured memorandum** on “Justice being seen to be done in genocide-risk contexts”. Tell me which version you want.