Elbit Systems have a weapons factory, also in Bristol, which was the site of a break-in by direct action activists who found quadcopter drones used to drop grenades on people in Gaza. The activists were imprisoned without trial.
Direct action like that in the video risks huge personal sacrifice.
The activists were imprisoned without trial.
How is this legal
To be clear, they broke into a factory and attacked someone with a hammer that they took with them for that purpose.
Then they publicly stated that they would do it again as soon as they got the chance. It’s that later statement which is why they had to be kept behind bars.
They had the option to apologise, say things got out of control and agree to bail conditions but they refused to do that so they are in prison by their own choice.
It would be negligent of the justice system to do nothing and release them to find another victim. They have since been tried and found guilty.
they broke into a factory and attacked someone with a hammer
Just to be clear, the protestors were not using a hammer, but the person they attacked was attempting to brutalise them with a hammer, so its actually better to describe the situation as:
Protestors defend themselves when a police officer attacked them with a hammer.
Your wording is very weaselly.
Evidence says otherwise: BBC News - Police officer unable to dress after Palestine Action hammer attack - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo?app-referrer=deep-link
24 November 2025
I love your evidence is from before the trial, when the video showed in court finally showed it was the other way around and the police officer lied as the police always do.
Really? Here’s something from after the trial where Corner was found guilty of GBH (his 32nd conviction)BBC News - Palestine Action activists guilty of Elbit Systems site raid - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2p99rxr5po?app-referrer=search
They put forward that defence in trial but the video obviously doesn’t back up their turn of events, because the victim wasn’t holding a hammer.
I suppose you will believe whatever suits your narrative but I prefer to base my opinion on actual facts.
but I prefer to base my opinion on actual facts.
A police officers statement is not a fact, and historically has always been a distortion to maximise victimisation of their institution and ensure they can inflict violence on the vulnerable.
Taking the narrative of a police officer positions you are very naive.
The activists were imprisoned without trial.
How is this legal
Because it isn’t true.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/local-news/palestine-action-activists-found-guilty-10950923
The facts of the case are being deliberately obscured to further agendas rather than promoting the truth.
Thank you
They’ve been in prison until this point. That’s nearly two years in prison without having been found guilty in a trial. The maximum is supposed to be six months.
To be clear, they broke into a factory and attacked someone with a hammer that they took with them for that purpose.
Then they publicly stated that they would do it again as soon as they got the chance. It’s that later statement which is why they had to be kept behind bars.
They had the option to apologise, say things got out of control and agree to bail conditions but they refused to do that so they are in prison by their own choice.
It would be negligent of the justice system to do nothing release them to find another victim.
There is a legal limit of 182 days to hold someone in custody, which is there for obvious and important reasons.
I’m well aware of the CTL and also that it can be extended in certain circumstances, as it was in this case. It even says this is possible in the link you provided.
There is recourse in law (again in the link you provided) to seek a review if you feel CTL is unjustly extended but it’s interesting that the people who were subsequently found guilty of their crimes didn’t seek a review when they could have done so.
You might conclude that the people who commited these crimes had the conviction in there beliefs to do it but not quite enough belief to actually accept the consequences of breaking the law. That’s pretty pathetic isn’t it?
It’s called being “held on remand” when they think someone is so dangerous that they have to be in prison until their trial. If that person gets found not guilty they occasionally get a “whoops, sorry” but I wouldn’t bet on it
Laws no longer apply when israel is involved unfortunatly
Those lyrics go hard
The artist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowkey
