B O'Brien
@bobrien.bsky.social
Pro-Labour, anti-anti-politics. Enjoy rational debate, despise populism of Left or Right, supporter of parliamentary democracy. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." (Christopher Hitchens).
How is this helpful to Gazans?
November 26, 2025 at 4:07 PM
How is this helpful to Gazans?
Thanks. I think this will be the case mentioned by someone else in the thread, which is not of supporters of PA since proscription but to members of it before proscription.
November 26, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Thanks. I think this will be the case mentioned by someone else in the thread, which is not of supporters of PA since proscription but to members of it before proscription.
Well the most likely explanation is not a criminal conspiracy but unpardonable incompetence. It is such a serious error I would say the resignation of the head of the OBR should be appropriate and then disciplinary action against the most senior person who authorised it (if a different person).
November 26, 2025 at 3:33 PM
Well the most likely explanation is not a criminal conspiracy but unpardonable incompetence. It is such a serious error I would say the resignation of the head of the OBR should be appropriate and then disciplinary action against the most senior person who authorised it (if a different person).
Your fancy is that some people were told about the leak before the leak happened. But why wouldn't the leakers just pass the information on privately? Why go to the trouble of putting it on a website?
Nice try at a new conspiracy theory, though. I am certain it will catch on on SM.
Nice try at a new conspiracy theory, though. I am certain it will catch on on SM.
November 26, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Your fancy is that some people were told about the leak before the leak happened. But why wouldn't the leakers just pass the information on privately? Why go to the trouble of putting it on a website?
Nice try at a new conspiracy theory, though. I am certain it will catch on on SM.
Nice try at a new conspiracy theory, though. I am certain it will catch on on SM.
Eh? Who knew the leak was going to happen?
November 26, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Eh? Who knew the leak was going to happen?
I doubt if you could say that, as the leak was made publicly, to the whole world, not just to selected people.
November 26, 2025 at 3:09 PM
I doubt if you could say that, as the leak was made publicly, to the whole world, not just to selected people.
I think it is more the gilt yield that is the key indicator. The yield - ie the %age interest the government must pay on new borrowing - went down once the Chancellor started speaking. After she finished, the yield went up again, though now going down...basically nothing very dramatic.
November 26, 2025 at 3:08 PM
I think it is more the gilt yield that is the key indicator. The yield - ie the %age interest the government must pay on new borrowing - went down once the Chancellor started speaking. After she finished, the yield went up again, though now going down...basically nothing very dramatic.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 removed the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary. It is now the Judicial Appointments Committee.
November 26, 2025 at 12:41 PM
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 removed the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary. It is now the Judicial Appointments Committee.
I see. Does this sound like a responsible organisation, then? Your belief is that they encourage a violent break-in and just leave it up to the perpetrators to choose their own weapons. I don't think you're giving them a glowing report, exactly.
November 26, 2025 at 12:01 PM
I see. Does this sound like a responsible organisation, then? Your belief is that they encourage a violent break-in and just leave it up to the perpetrators to choose their own weapons. I don't think you're giving them a glowing report, exactly.
Ok. I didn't realize you accept that blame applies to PA. The line you draw is that even so it doesn't make PA a violent organisation. Would you at least accept that it is naïve of them to send volunteers into such a situation without assessing violence to be a very plausible consequence?
November 26, 2025 at 11:58 AM
Ok. I didn't realize you accept that blame applies to PA. The line you draw is that even so it doesn't make PA a violent organisation. Would you at least accept that it is naïve of them to send volunteers into such a situation without assessing violence to be a very plausible consequence?
Ok, you don't want to use my analogy, which is fair enough as I agree it is not fully defined.
I think we are at an impasse. I remain utterly astonished by your line of reasoning. You seem like a rational person, too.
I think we are at an impasse. I remain utterly astonished by your line of reasoning. You seem like a rational person, too.
November 26, 2025 at 11:46 AM
Ok, you don't want to use my analogy, which is fair enough as I agree it is not fully defined.
I think we are at an impasse. I remain utterly astonished by your line of reasoning. You seem like a rational person, too.
I think we are at an impasse. I remain utterly astonished by your line of reasoning. You seem like a rational person, too.
So who has said that government lawyers engineered the change of judge? I have searched and searched news articles and not one person AFAIK is quoted, anywhere, as claiming that.
November 26, 2025 at 11:42 AM
So who has said that government lawyers engineered the change of judge? I have searched and searched news articles and not one person AFAIK is quoted, anywhere, as claiming that.
The appointment of judges and the assigning of judges to cases is a function of the judiciary alone. Comment on judges by the government would be political interference. In the context of this case, it would be particularly improper as the government is one of the parties in it.
November 26, 2025 at 10:16 AM
The appointment of judges and the assigning of judges to cases is a function of the judiciary alone. Comment on judges by the government would be political interference. In the context of this case, it would be particularly improper as the government is one of the parties in it.
You are in fact just elaborating reasons why juries could be thought of as not in defendants' best interests.
November 26, 2025 at 10:03 AM
You are in fact just elaborating reasons why juries could be thought of as not in defendants' best interests.
Advocating that juries convict or acquit without regard to the law and evidence is unwise. If one jury acquits because they think some higher, non-legal principle applies, another jury can, equally, convict not because of the evidence but because of their own prejudices.
November 26, 2025 at 10:02 AM
Advocating that juries convict or acquit without regard to the law and evidence is unwise. If one jury acquits because they think some higher, non-legal principle applies, another jury can, equally, convict not because of the evidence but because of their own prejudices.
No they have not. The cases you are referring to are all on hold pending the outcome of a judicial review into the proscription. There have been no verdicts.
November 26, 2025 at 10:00 AM
No they have not. The cases you are referring to are all on hold pending the outcome of a judicial review into the proscription. There have been no verdicts.
You seem to be saying that some judges are independent and others are not independent (presumably you mean independent of the government). Who are you citing there? Nobody in this article for example has suggested such a thing:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
Removal of judge in Palestine Action ban legal challenge ‘deeply concerning’
Unusual last-minute change means panel of three will now hear case rather than Mr Justice Chamberlain
www.theguardian.com
November 26, 2025 at 9:57 AM
You seem to be saying that some judges are independent and others are not independent (presumably you mean independent of the government). Who are you citing there? Nobody in this article for example has suggested such a thing:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
Some lawyers make a living out of defending murderers. It doesn't make them sympathetic to murder. I think you might be a bit confused about the legal profession.
November 26, 2025 at 9:46 AM
Some lawyers make a living out of defending murderers. It doesn't make them sympathetic to murder. I think you might be a bit confused about the legal profession.
Commenting would be a violation of common law and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and would also be impossible as the government is one of the parties in the case.
November 26, 2025 at 9:43 AM
Commenting would be a violation of common law and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and would also be impossible as the government is one of the parties in the case.
Hate speech. Reported.
November 26, 2025 at 9:40 AM
Hate speech. Reported.
It isn't in their power to do so. Nobody in that article has alleged that.
November 26, 2025 at 9:35 AM
It isn't in their power to do so. Nobody in that article has alleged that.
I have read it all. Nobody except Social Media accounts has alleged government interference. Eg nobody quoted here has alleged that. You might want to read it.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
Removal of judge in Palestine Action ban legal challenge ‘deeply concerning’
Unusual last-minute change means panel of three will now hear case rather than Mr Justice Chamberlain
www.theguardian.com
November 26, 2025 at 9:30 AM
I have read it all. Nobody except Social Media accounts has alleged government interference. Eg nobody quoted here has alleged that. You might want to read it.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...