they pretend there's a constitution but it exists entirely in the minds of judges and shit. it's supposed to be this cloud of principles and important laws and precedents or some shit.
The UK does have a constitution, but it's spread across several dozen documents, caselaw and convention. Government action has in the past been struck down for being unconstitutional, which would be fairly impressive for a nation without one.
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
-Inviting support for a proscribed organisation.
-expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation,
and
-wearing clothing or carrying or displaying articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation.
I read it twice and I can't find it anywhere - what law are they supposed to have broken?
Terf Island doesn't have a consistution so basically whatever they want
wait what? am i falling for a dumb bit here or is there actually a country in the 21st century that still doesn't have a real constitution?
they pretend there's a constitution but it exists entirely in the minds of judges and shit. it's supposed to be this cloud of principles and important laws and precedents or some shit.
in practice it's numberwang, i think.
If by this you mean caselaw, sure.
We haven't got one
The UK does have a constitution, but it's spread across several dozen documents, caselaw and convention. Government action has in the past been struck down for being unconstitutional, which would be fairly impressive for a nation without one.
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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000:
-Inviting support for a proscribed organisation. -expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation,
and
-wearing clothing or carrying or displaying articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation.