Report comment

Look at the way the legislation is drafted. "Endangering the safe operation" can (and did) catch people who were, to my mind, not endangering the safe operation, but rather the operation per se. If the operation cannot be carried out at all, it cannot be carried out safely, and thus a group of peaceful people intending and bringing no harm to safety, were convicted on the charge of endangering safety.

I'm as much of a fan of the rule of law as any of us, but when expressions of dissent and protest are as curtailed as they have been over the past 40 years, it does stick in the craw somewhat when peaceful protesters (and they were peaceful protesters) are convicted of charges that, on the evidence of the posts below mine, are linked by many to charges of terrorism.

These people were not, and are not terrorists. My own view is that they are clearly guilty of an offence, but that it is plain wrong for them to have been offences that they were charged with.