But as the above tweet makes clear, official channels do. not. work, as the establishment controls them x

 

My god, Reece Smogg actually saying something half decent for once?!

 

Official channels do work though, sometimes you just have to apply pressure in different ways and the right change will come. I am happy the people got acquitted, but this was not a protest about voting rights etc. or a spur of the moment activity.

They do NOT work and never have.

Look at history - the Sufragettes, BLM and the Stonewall rioters hardly used "official channels" to get their changes to human rights of course!

I think Rooney would have been complaining about the Sufragettes' tactics back then :lol: Official channels, please, ladies!

Look at history - the Sufragettes, BLM and the Stonewall rioters hardly used "official channels" to get their changes to human rights of course!

 

Totally different circumstances in all of them though vs this matter. Like I have said before, juries and judges have a history of being kind to people fighting against social justice around rights, which is totally understandable, just look at a lot of climate change supporters too. But this is a different case in my opinion. Like I mentioned before, this was not a protest for voting rights. Just sets a very dangerous precedent in my opinion, but I respect the jury system.

The Godawful Suella Braverman, the corrupt Attorney General is thinking of appealing this verdict. Apparently glorification of slave traders is a high priority with all the other problems going on in the country.

What makes her think she has the power to appeal against a verdict?

Totally different circumstances in all of them though vs this matter. Like I have said before, juries and judges have a history of being kind to people fighting against social justice around rights, which is totally understandable, just look at a lot of climate change supporters too. But this is a different case in my opinion. Like I mentioned before, this was not a protest for voting rights. Just sets a very dangerous precedent in my opinion, but I respect the jury system.

 

Sooo we are only allowed to protest for voting rights now??

 

What makes her think she has the power to appeal against a verdict?

 

She can't get the court of Appeals to overturn the verdict but just to say it was wrong to apparently get clarification for future verdicts. Of course, it's about placating the rampant near far right contigent in ther party (of which she is definitely on that wing). Whether she does it or not she's obviously trying to ingratiate the gammon.