The three protesters were charged under the Terrorism Act with carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion that they are supporters of a banned organisation, Hamas, which they denied.
so they were charged with doing something that in their view could reasonably be supporting a banned organisation, which is meaningfully different to actually supporting the organisation which the judge said there was no evidence for? I don't really get it still
I have the same question, what a terrible article
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/13/three-guilty-of-terror-offence-over-paraglider-images-at-uk-palestine-march
so they were charged with doing something that in their view could reasonably be supporting a banned organisation, which is meaningfully different to actually supporting the organisation which the judge said there was no evidence for? I don't really get it still