jail time for do gooders

The fiend that fractured the police officer's back with a sledge-hammer ought to have been given 10 years minimum.

Conside rthat well meaning almost crippling a person merely doing their job?

Their problem was they didn't smash a female police constable in the back with a sledgehammer. Rookie error.

A bunch of well meaning middle class people (who took a sledgehammer to the spine of a police officer)

FFS, some people 

Jun 12, 2026 -- 10:58PM, jamee1 wrote:

Their problem was they didn't smash a female police constable in the back with a sledgehammer. Rookie error.

I didn't realise this was the same bunch. Best news I've heard all day.

What ought to worry forumites is they were sentenced to prison for terrorist offences despite NOT having been convicted or even tried for terrorist offences.

The judge used a legal workaround to avoid letting the jury decide on that point.

hurty words = prison time .........why shouldnt  assualt with a deadly weapon ?

Grenade misfires.

theyve pulled the pin on grenade

Any man (or even woman) that takes a sledgehammer to an unarmed police woman wants putting away for a long time.

Or even an armed one for that matter.

It seems that, to those who support countries run by verminous terrorists, anything goes, even here.

That idiots like grenade can serve on Jurys explains some of the verdicts

Should wip the smile off their smug middle class faces, should have got a lot longer esp the sledgehammer wielding thug. Hopefully they'll get taught a thing or two in prison that their parents clearly didn't.

Probly get put on the Filth wing in Belmarsh

Tis where they belong.

Justice Johnson said he took into account that Rajwani was only 20 at the time of the attack.

He also considered the impact of several mental health issues and disorder diagnoses for Head, Kamio and Rajwani as making custody more difficult for them.

They were not ordered to pay compensation , but Justice Johnson said the damaged company and the injured police officer could bring legal proceedings to seek compensation.

Head and Rajwani were seen wiping away tears after the ruling was delivered

Around 500 protesters gathered outside Woolwich Crown Court - with more than 100 arrested, police say.

Hopefully widespread condemnation from the establishment politicians...

james edwards screaming weeks ago they had been let off...

nearly as good with crime as he is with stewards inquirys.

'Completely unjust': John McDonnell joins protesters outside court

Former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell has appeared outside Woolwich Crown Court to support protesters.

McDonnell thinks the link is unjust.

"By introducing this terrorist element retrospectively, it's completely unjust," he said.

"And I think, actually, if a jury had heard that, I think they'd be free now. So I'm actually astounded that this has happened. I'm very angry about it as well.

"That's why they should be released today. There's a debate to be had about whether it was a crime as well, because they believed that they were trying to prevent the further killing of Palestinian children."

mebbe not

155 years dressed in orange…..

Maybe a remittance for over a million when the manure are let loose……

The ones supporting them in the capital landfill should be sprayed in shampoo,soon get rid tbh.

This was a retrial, original 'verdict' not guilty, in spite of it being filmed.

https://news.sky.com/story/six-palestine-action-activists-cleared-of-aggravated-burglary-at-israel-linked-defence-firm-13493449

You've a Labour MP asserting that the sledge hammer attacker should go free,
no wonder the country is fooked.

a 'not guilty' doesnt end with a 're-trial'.

mummy and daddy  couldnt buy em outta this !

The jury also failed to reach a verdict

Cider 13 Jun 26 13:15 
This was a retrial, original 'verdict' not guilty, in spite of it being filmed.

wasnt a not guilty yfdsc.

Of the 24 people charged over the August 2024 incident, six were initially tried and acquitted of aggravated burglary in February this year. The jury failed to reach a verdict on the criminal damage charges – leading to the current retrial, in which two of the six activists were found not guilty.

What ought to worry forumites is they were sentenced to prison for terrorist offences despite NOT having been convicted or even tried for terrorist offences.

The judge used a legal workaround to avoid letting the jury decide on that point.

This isn't true. They were sentenced for the crimes they committed. That it was an act of terrorism was an aggravating factor used in sentencing by the judge.

The facts of aggravating or mitigating factors has always solely been for the judge to decide on and then subsequent appeal courts if neccesary and never anything to do with a jury.

String em up, terrorist supporting filth

With rusty barbed wire?

I hope the court will throw the book at the mother of that scum who knifed Mr Nowak to death in Southampton merely out of his sick mentality against white people. The scum could not have behaved in that despicable and horrific manner but for the environment and upbringing by his parents. A kid does not become a murderer and a racist on their own.

The whole family want banging up, the brother was on the phone
with his lies for ages, while watching the lad bleed to death.

Corner is a separate issue because he was convicted of GBH as well as criminal damage. Serious violence against a police officer obviously deserves serious punishment.

But that does not answer the wider point.

A terrorism connection at sentencing for people convicted only of criminal damage is a dangerous precedent. Maybe the judge was legally entitled to do it, but that does not make it unimportant or beyond criticism.

I can promise you that these "Pinkos" will regret getting some "Foot Up"

I thought the zeitgeist amongst the intelligentsia was to condemn all violence, whatever the root cause and theoretical justification. That lasted long

A terrorism connection at sentencing for people convicted only of criminal damage is a dangerous precedent. Maybe the judge was legally entitled to do it, but that does not make it unimportant or beyond criticism.

Not if it clearly is terrorism it isn't.

Terrorism is the calculated use of violence to create fear in a population and achieve a political objective