Jerry_Atrick

The only ATMs you pay for here are those in motorway services and in some of the convenience shops in the bigger cities. I can't think of the last time I paid for withdrawing cash from an ATM.

That is not true. Government and its representatives can be criminally responsible. If it was unconstitutional, it could have been challenged in the courts, and lawyers even then, looking for their next fee and publicity would have approached many to commence an action. The government is elected democratically and makes laws on behalf of those who elect it. Therefore it was democractically done. The constitution (includes the writtten constitution, the body of conventions, and the developed case law to that point) defines the powers and obligations of the government. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been against the law. An action could have been brought against the government. In fact, apparently there were many challenges to the High Court, with the focus of the interpretation of the law rather than whether it was constitutional. No doubt, as part of those challenges, if the legal opinion was that it was unconstitutional, especially given the controversy at the time, it would have been constitutionally challenged. Your perception of a threat is sort of illogical. A valid law will may have consequences of not complying with that law. That is the same, say for not acquiring a licence to drive. You may be the best driver in the world, but if you do not fulfill your obligation to have a current drivers licence at the time of driving you will be fined and/or imprisoned. If you do not have a valid excuse for performing your duties under the law, you will have a consequence (usually). If you consider it a threat, I suppose every possible criminal punishment is a threat. In the context of the above, this is illogical, except that one of the things you will have learned is to seek legal advice on situations where you believe you have been wronged, even by government or its agencies. You wouldn't be punished for slipping up (i.e. a genuine mistake), You would be punsihed for intentionally not complying. This is called the guilty mind or mens rea. It is an element that is required to be proved of most crimes. You may have been anxious and felt you were under duress, however, these may have been grounds for being excluded. Did you review what the exclusions were and what your options were? If not, maybe that is a lesson learned. Did you not receive shelter, food, clothing and pay. Did you not learn practical skills or the like? (Genuine question). Your definition of duress is correct, but in the context it was the punishment for not meeeting your legal obligations, which is almost everywhere in the law. However, I do get that this was not for safety or the well being of society, so I agree, it was not right. But there is little you can do now, except take the learnings from it as positives and move forward.

Oops. Ahh.. OK.. this is not the militarisation of the police like the US.. The police here do not use brutal tactics as they do in the USA. They are trained to first de-escalate and they don't usually send in fire-armed police as a first option unless the threat assessment is very serious. Whether you think it is right, PA is a proscribed terroirist organisations and there are laws against showing support to proscribed terrorist organisations. And the police have to uphold the law irrespective of their own political beliefs. Frankly, anything coming out og the UN Human Rights agency, council or whatever they call themselves has to be treated initially with some degree of scepticism. Apparently up to 10% UNRWA, a body within the UNHROC were affiliated with islamist militant groups including HAMAS. Yes, they are supposed to have all gone now, but does that remove the bias that allowed them there in the first place? Secondly, look at the members of the UN Human Rights Council: https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/membership I would suggest that those who have an honest repect the basic freedoms and rights of people ar probably in the minority. It is strange that they have sent delegations to Australia report on violence against women, yet have not sent delegations to Saudi, Pakistan and the like - other member nations. You can guess, I don't hold them in high esteem. The article purposts that PA has been a proscribed terrorist organisation becausde they damaged a few planes. Unfortunately, their website notifies they are proscribed, requests a donation in some obscure crytocurrency, so I cannot go to the source for their actual policies, agenda, etc. On the internet, it mainly talsk about them targetting Israeli firms in protest and limits it to property. However, the UK government has documented the following in https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803/pdfs/uksiem_20250803_en_001.pdf "Palestine Action 5.2 Palestine Action is a pro-Palestinian group with the stated aim to support Palestinian sovereignty by using direct criminal action tactics to halt the sale and export of military equipment to Israel. Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), “Five Eyes” allies and the UK defence enterprise. Palestine Action has also broadened its targets from the defence industry to include financial firms, charities, universities and government buildings. Its activity has increased in frequency and severity since the start of 2024 and its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Its activities meet the threshold of being concerned in terrorism as set out in the Terrorism Act 2000. There are varying defnitions of terrorism, but this is what Google spat out: Terrorism is the calculated use or threat of serious violence against people or property, intended to intimidate the public or coerce a government for political, religious, or ideological goals, often by creating widespread fear . Key elements include violent acts (murder, damage, endangering life) and specific intent (influencing government/public, advancing a cause). Definitions vary, but generally focus on these core components. So, it would seem the general definition is not limited to violence, despite being played down by the artiucle you present. Now, the UK may be unfairly acting against Palestinians and Muslims/Islam in general, but I don't think so on the evidence and definitions. After all, the UK, to its moneatry costs in exports of education, are not sanctioning the Muslim Bortherhood, where others do: https://www.ft.com/content/f256cc27-b80f-4fce-88cf-e80cb2451ef5 Also, as a display of how police tactics try (possibly too much) to de-escalate, here is a video documenting a policewoman receiving potentially life changing injuries at the hands of a PA protestor: Unf, I couldn't find the video my son dug up, which was far more graphic. And this was before they were proscribed? Peaceful prtest, eh? Just like Sydney jews were actively encouraged not to walk near the Palestinaian protests in Sydney and Melbourne because they were in danger.. because of the possibility ov violence purely because they were Jewish. But I gues it is OK for some Palestinian supporter to taunt the Jews at Bondi after the attack? Actually, it is a free world so yes, but I recall the Jews getting heated but no violence emanating from it. Wake up and put your prejudices aside for a change. I am happy to say there are times where the UK police go too far, but seriously, peaceful protest! FFS! Israel also have stuff to answer for. But to paint the Palestinian protests in the UK as peaceful is generally a joke.. Yes there have been few - very few of them. Shall we mention intimidation and threats of violence on the campuses etc.. where Jes had to be protected or refused entry to the campus. The lsit goes on. UK police are generally very good.

I hope Philadelphia's Sherrif is true to his word. Although, in terms of ICE, it could lead to a dangerous showdown. Maybe even the spark that sets off a civil war. I lived in Philadelphia for about 6 months in all.. they are rougher than New Yorkers and straight talking

Can you please point to the law in the UK that prevents protesting in support of Palestine as I know of no such law and I have a feeling you are confused. Also can you please point to a situation where the police have acted unlawfully in abuse of power against a peaceful pro Palestinian protest. You may not have all the facts

I hope you're not conflating UK police with US police. Most here are still unarmed and there is hot debate about whether or not they should be as a matter of routine be given tasers

If the system ain't broke, don't fix it

From chat gpt: you're welcome.

Saba ought to know better than to lend her car out.

Jeepers, that brings back memories..

That's thie thing about life. Ship happens. Pick yourself up, learn from it, and move on.

Stay safe.. hope it doesn't reach your property

Just remember GON, you're a pawn in their game. Certainly won't make life better for you, and you are very, very dispensible. I have firends and ex-colleagues in the US emailing me to see what opportunities are over here.. But, they are the travelled ones. But don't take my word for it. Move their like you say you have been invited to. Find out for yourself. Just don't forget to rescind your Aussie citizenship on the way.