PC Charlie India 👮🇬🇧🇺🇦

PCDA Officer 📖 Trying to help communities. 👮Views are my own. 🚫 Don't report crime here 📞 999 or 101

[Brick Cop©️ @Brick_Cop]

Fixed it. 🤦🏼‍♂️

#ThinBlueLine 🚨

[Politics UK @PolitlcsUK]

🚨 BREAKING: Four Palestine Action activists have been jailed for a total of 22 years for causing £1.2m worth of damage and fracturing a police woman's spine at an Israeli weapons factory

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

There is a deep fracture running through the heart of Britain's justice system, and the acquittal of the Palestine Action ram-raiders has just torn it wide open.

An Israeli-owned arms factory was attacked in the early hours of the morning. A prison van was driven through a perimeter fence and used as a battering ram. Protesters entered the site wearing red jumpsuits, wielding sledgehammers, flares and fire extinguishers. Police were confronted. A serving officer's spine was fractured. None of this is disputed. Much of it was caught on camera. And yet six activists walked free.

They were cleared not because the acts did not occur, but because the law was quietly bent around their cause. Violence was reframed as protest. Weapons were downgraded to tools. Intent was dissolved into belief. The jury was not asked to judge what was done, but what the defendants claimed to feel. Justice was not blind; it was selective.

In any functioning legal system, motive does not neutralise violence. You do not get to ram-raid a factory because you "genuinely believe" you are on the right side of history. You do not get to swing a sledgehammer near a police officer because you "did not intend" to hurt anyone. You do not fracture a spine and then retreat behind moral sincerity. Since when did belief become a defence? Since violence began to be graded by politics.

The truth is uncomfortable but obvious. If the same acts had been carried out by a nationalist group – a prison van driven into a factory linked to Gaza, police injured in the process – the outcome would have been swift and brutal. There would have been terrorism charges, exemplary sentences, and sermons about deterrence. No indulgence. No benefit of the doubt. Everyone knows this. Including the police.

That is why the Police Federation's response matters. It was measured, restrained, and quietly damning. Officers expect the law to stand behind them when they are seriously injured in the line of duty. In this case, it did not. What they saw instead was hesitation, indulgence, and a system fearful of being seen as firm. A state that cannot protect its own officers evenly cannot expect loyalty in return.

This was not an isolated failure. It fits a pattern the public has learned to recognise. Tweets are criminalised. Jokes are investigated. Peaceful protesters are kettled, searched, and charged. Meanwhile, organised militant groups who cloak themselves in fashionable causes are handled with gloves, caveats and excuses. The law has not been rewritten; it has been selectively applied.

And that is why trust is draining away. Not because people want chaos, but because they can see that order is no longer neutral. Justice now depends on who you are, what you believe, and which slogans you carry. When juries are encouraged to weigh belief over action, the rule of law is already wobbling. When courts fear public reaction more than principle, the state has begun to retreat.

This verdict will be studied. It will be tested. Others will learn from it. The message sent was not that violence is unacceptable, but that violence is negotiable – provided it comes wrapped in the right ideology.

That is the real scandal. Not six people walking free, but a system quietly admitting it no longer applies the law evenly. When that happens, public anger is not irrational. It is the last remaining form of honesty.

"A prison van was driven through a perimeter fence and used as a battering ram. Protesters entered the site wearing red jumpsuits, wielding sledgehammers, flares and fire extinguishers."

[Vodka & Seledka 🇬🇧 @seledka_vodka]

Let me be very clear about what happened in the Palestine Action trial.

The defendants admitted in court that they did what the prosecution alleged. They broke into the factory. They damaged equipment. One of them harmed a police officer with a sledgehammer.

These actions are heavily illegal. In any other case - one not politically charged - reaching a guilty verdict would be straightforward.

But their defence was not structured to deny what they did. It was not structured to argue that their actions were legal.

Their defence was designed to compel the jury to acquit them despite the fact that what they did was illegal.

If that completely explodes your brain, you are not alone. I was exactly like you until I did some research.

There is a common law principle we still carry in our system. Juries can acquit someone purely on their conscience, regardless of the facts or the law. The legal term is nullification. The idea behind it is that should Britain ever descend into dictatorship, should the laws themselves become unjust, this acts as a last stop for citizens to protect themselves from a draconian state.

But the laws on grievous bodily harm, burglary, and criminal damage are not unjust. They are bog standard elements of any functioning justice system.

What happened here is that the jury acquitted - or could not reach a verdict - not because there was any question about whether the actions were illegal. They did so because the jury sympathised with the political convictions of the defendants. The defence argued that the intent behind illegal actions matters. That is why they walked free.

This is what happened.

If you are shocked and outraged, you are not alone. I had no idea this loophole existed in this form.

It throws the entire British justice system into question. What will matter from now on is not whether your actions are legal or illegal based on evidence. What will matter is whether the jury happens to agree with your politics.

We are absolutely doomed.

[Inspector Gadget @InspGadgetBlogs]

This is unfathomable. Read it and weep. It seems it's now acceptable to smash your way into a building, destroy the contents, attack security, and beat a police officer with a sledgehammer with zero consequences. We are in serious trouble in this country.
https://t.co/GjBB2v0qHg

[Brick Cop©️ @Brick_Cop]

Stop the world, I’d like to get off please.

How on earth could a jury not find a verdict on GBH with intent?

It’s on camera.

There is no lawful excuse of ‘defending someone with a sledgehammer’.

🤦🏼‍♂️

Who would want to be a Police Officer?

#ThinBlueLine 🚨

[Graham Wettone @grahamwettone]

Sadly - you appear to be making the same mistakes.
Engage with & listen to serving operational police officers - not the college or police chiefs.
Visit some front line teams - send the senior officers away & let the officers speak freely & honestly. They want policing to reform.

[John Sutherland @policecommander]

Please, please stop with the numbers nonsense.
They’re not extra.
They’re the same overworked, overstretched officers, staff and volunteers who already have far too much on their plates.
Everything can’t be a priority.

[Inspector Gadget @InspGadgetBlogs]

'British FBI' agencies:

1. National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) 1992
2. Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 2006
3. National Crime Agency (NCA) 2013
4. National Police Service (NPS) Announced in 2026

Actual FBI:
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1908

🧐 #TJF

[Brick Cop©️ @Brick_Cop]

Last night, we had 8 PCs abstracted, due to 136s, hospital guards and crime scenes. 👀

So understandably, we had to prioritise domestic abuse calls over shoplifting’s. Especially when the value of some is about £13. 🤷🏼‍♂️

We do not have the resources for this…🤦🏼‍♂️

#ThinBlueLine 🚨

[Graham Wettone @grahamwettone]

Exactly why HS needs to sit down & listen to operational officers on the front line before implementing reforms or making promises in public that policing doesn't have the resources to meet.
New national police service will NOT fix this - front line policing needs resources.

[Tom Gaymor 🎙️ @TomGaymor]

Frontline police officers barely have time to eat and sleep responding to demand, there is little/no provision for proactive policing and complex investigation.

All police officers want is to be properly funded and resourced, it has nothing to do with being outsmarted!

[Brick Cop©️ @Brick_Cop]

We have a ‘National Police Service’ who *checks notes* ‘protect us all’ it’s called the NCA…😂

Renaming things isn’t going to fix anything. Perhaps come and see the reality of Policing, that it needs to be funded properly and not used as a political football…

#ThinBlueLine 🚨

[PC Charlie India 👮🇬🇧🇺🇦 @CharlieIndia48]

This is an insult to every officer that currently serves.

[Home Office @ukhomeoffice]

Right now, criminals are outsmarting some police forces.

We're changing that.

Like doctors and lawyers, every officer in England and Wales will need a Licence to Practise so they have the skills needed to fight crime in your community.

[Inspector Gadget @InspGadgetBlogs]

The prisons are so overcrowded that criminals are being released early. That's great 'outsmarting' 🤡

[Brick Cop©️ @Brick_Cop]

Sorry, so the reason for all of our problems, isn’t austerity, isn’t funding, isn’t poor leadership…👀

It’s, *checks notes*, “Criminals are outsmarting Police Forces because they don’t have a licence to practice…” 😆

Who made that up? And who believes it? 🤦🏼‍♂️

#ThinBlueLine 🚨

[Brick Cop©️ @Brick_Cop]

It didn’t used to be this way. 🫡

#ThinBlueLine 🚨

[PC Charlie India 👮🇬🇧🇺🇦 @CharlieIndia48]

@MountyinaCounty Where are these going 👀

[PC Charlie India 👮🇬🇧🇺🇦 @CharlieIndia48]

@InspGadgetBlogs Crazy to think they are supposed to be on our team helping us bring justice to people that break the law 🫨