United Kingdom first · open data
The law,
shown openly.
Legal nuances, people's tribunals and case research, brought into the open. Follow the sources, distinguish the commentary, and learn how to navigate the system yourself.
Built for people and for AI: llms.txt · open data · tiles.json
Explore: People & public records · Research library
Not welcome to the UK: “not conducive to the public good”
In 2026 the Home Office kept out Ye, an MEP and other speakers at a far-right rally, the streamers Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur, a Finnish MEP and, in late October, the Swedish author Andreas Malm, whose exclusion drew an open letter from more than 1,400 academics. Each time the stated reason was that their presence was “not conducive to the public good”. The test needs no conviction. Most of these people were refused or lost an electronic travel authorisation, which has no appeal. Official statistics count only the Home Secretary’s personal exclusions (10 in 2025), not these refusals. The courts accept that free expression is engaged, but they give ministers great weight and have upheld exclusions.
Legal studyEveryone needs water, nobody can switch network, and it began in 1989 with no debt. It now owes about £20bn and paid interest equal to about 22p of every £1 of revenue last year. Here is how that happened, in plain English.Thames Water: a marvel of financial engineering
This page starts with the story in plain English: the rivers, the money and who was meant to stop it. A monopoly with one of the most predictable incomes in Britain ended up with debt of about 86% of its regulated value, on a one-star environmental rating, kept alive by emergency loans. A Commons committee blames “financial engineering and mismanagement”. The fuller record follows: the 178-page High Court judgment, the company’s criminal record, why no executive has been jailed, and who regulates the regulators.
Forensic comparisonwhat changed in the procurement guidance?Sovereign AI
Supporting evidence: nine wording changes between two versions of the Sovereign AI procurement guidance, with source files, metadata and archives.
Petition
UK Parliament · Petition 778631Create a taskforce to review laws containing the term “reasonable”
Whose perspective counts? A petition calling for a review of laws using “reasonable”, clearer wording, and explanations of how people’s circumstances are considered.
View petition ↗ · opens in a new tabResearch collectionUK · Research collectionPalestine Action
What is legal? What is normal? What is real? Cases, proscription, institutional accountability and the evidence behind the arguments.
CommentaryCommentary and research questionsMental health in the UK
The inverse Catch-22: mental health, disability support and institutional accountability. A satirical starting point, followed by evidence and questions—not a finding of benefit misuse.
Legal studyAn insult so absurd that nobody could believe it. The absurdity is a strong answer to a libel claim and, by itself, no defence to a criminal charge. Disclaimers do not change either answer.“Your mother was raped by a dog”: the absurdity paradox
Defamation is hard to predict for a simple reason. Words are judged through a hypothetical reasonable reader, the writer’s intention is irrelevant, and since 2014 that reader is imagined by a judge, not a jury. Take a specimen insult, “You are so ugly because your mother was raped by a dog”, sent as a private message. As libel it fails three times over: a message sent only to the person it insults is not published to anyone else; no reasonable reader takes it as a statement of fact, which is what the courts call “mere vulgar abuse”; and nobody’s reputation suffers serious harm. As a crime it does not need to be believed. Section 127 asks whether it was grossly offensive or indecent and sent over a public network. The Malicious Communications Act asks whether it was sent to cause distress. In 2026 a councillor argued that “you cannot melt people down”. He was convicted. Adding disclaimers (“I’m not accusing, I’m only asking, hypothetically”) does not help either way: the courts read the whole message, and the sender’s intention is irrelevant to what it means.
Legal studyBegging is no longer an offence. Section 5 can still apply without any victim coming forward, but likelihood must be proved by evidence.Aggressive begging: when does asking become a crime?
The Vagrancy Act was repealed in England and Wales on 29 June 2026, so begging is no longer a crime in itself. There is no offence of “aggressive begging”. Threatening, abusive or disorderly conduct can still fall under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which does not need anyone to say they were distressed, but the courts require evidence that someone present was likely to be. The Court of Appeal has said “aggressive” and “passive” are not the legal test.
Legal studyHow bizarre it is widely available on Amazon.The Anarchist Cookbook and section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Commercial availability and criminal liability are different questions. The court record documents an Amazon purchase; the law turns on the material, knowledge and reasonable excuse—not a title alone.
Legal studyPPT, the Guardian and the publicity paradoxAnonymity orders
An order can protect a person’s identity while its own existence becomes news. PPT illustrates the distinction between anonymity, reporting restrictions and secrecy about proceedings.
Legal studyIn England you can call a fraud a fraud. You just have to be able to prove it, or show it was your honest opinion on true facts, or have reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest. Here is where the line runs, tested on sentences we deliberately put on this page.Calling fraud a fraud: defamation law for people who mean it
Defamation law does not ban the word “fraud”. It asks what an ordinary reader would take your words to mean, and then whether you can defend that meaning. A bare allegation of dishonesty is normally treated as a statement of fact, so you need proof. Dictionaries, private definitions and a winking “*innocent face*” do not change the meaning. Context, a stated factual basis and an evaluative frame can turn a damning word into protected opinion, as Simon Singh’s “bogus” case shows. Since June 2025, a claim over speech about suspected economic crime, which includes fraud, may be struck out before trial if it meets all four statutory conditions of a SLAPP and the claimant cannot show it is more likely than not to succeed.
Legal studyThe system trusts jurors to judge the evidence, but gives judges control over the legal framework and the evidence they receive.Defences removed by the judge, not considered by the jury
Why can a judge rule out a defence before the jury hears it? Where does legal gatekeeping end and deciding the facts begin? A closer look at pre-trial rulings, criminal damage, reasonable excuse and jury independence.
Legal studySATIRE. Every gate below is a joke, except that you can really bark at gate 3. The recording stays in your browser and is never sent to us.Disclaimer Level Three: the most convoluted way to read one sentence
In English defamation law, what you meant does not decide what you said. The ordinary reasonable reader decides, reading the whole publication, disclaimers included. So every disclaimer is more text to be read, and a pile of them can start to suggest exactly what it denies. This page takes that problem to its logical end: seven gates, five captchas, a 72-hour freezer and an exam, all standing between you and one sentence. The last section is not satire. It sets out what actually works: writing so the meaning is clear the first time.
Legal studyShe reported herself two hours later. Her frankness was commended. The outcome was disbarment.Frameworks of truth: what does the system reward?
A disciplinary case, an argument about incentives, a proposal to distinguish what is asserted, signed, supported, checked and found, and the wider legal framework of knowledge, silence and dishonesty that surrounds them.
Legal studySection 127 of the Communications Act 2003 punishes sending a grossly offensive message over a public network. Nobody has to read it and nobody has to be offended. A private chat between friends is covered, and possibly a note that syncs to your own cloud.Grossly offensive: when a message becomes a crime
The offence is complete when the message is sent. In DPP v Collins (2006) the House of Lords said it is judged by “reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards”, and Lord Brown accepted that two racists chatting on the phone commit it although they would not in the street. In 2024 the High Court upheld the convictions of two Metropolitan Police officers over a private WhatsApp group with Wayne Couzens, found only because of an unrelated criminal investigation. The court said ordinary people messaging privately are “very likely” to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and repeated the Law Commission’s warning that indecent material saved only in private online storage could still complete the offence.
Legal studyFahad Ansari, Riverway Law and the challenge to UK proscriptionHamas deproscription
The application to remove Hamas from the UK’s proscribed list: who brought it, the reported appeal history, the legal route and the documents still needed to establish progress.
Legal studyZarah Sultana’s speech, the Commons explanation and the FOI trailHansard and the disputed record
What the published record shows, what the MP disputes, and why the later disclosure matters. The initial ‘not held’ response is not the end of the story.
Legal studyCraig Murray and the limits of anonymous reportingJigsaw identification
Not naming someone is not always enough. The Murray judgments examine identifying information in context—and distinguish deliberate publication from an intention to break the law.
Legal studySeven words on Twitter, a false allegation that a man was a child abuser, and a High Court judgment that explains, better than any textbook, how English law reads between the lines. We praise it, we argue with it, and we remember the man who brought it.“*Innocent face*”: McAlpine v Bercow, in praise of a judgment
On 4 November 2012 Sally Bercow tweeted “Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*” to more than 56,000 followers, two days after BBC Newsnight aired an abuse allegation against an unnamed senior Conservative from the Thatcher years. The allegation was false: the accuser had identified the wrong man. On 24 May 2013 Mr Justice Tugendhat held that the tweet meant McAlpine “was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care”. The judgment sets out who the law’s “reasonable reader” is, why a question and a stage direction can carry an accusation, and why the writer’s intention is irrelevant. Bercow settled and apologised in the High Court in October 2013. McAlpine died in January 2014. His name now stands for the rule that a wink is a statement.
Legal studyA single hypothetical message that a prosecutor could charge from six directions, and the one civil claim it would still survive.Message ultra: one message, six offences
We built one direct message, sent twice, that engages six criminal offences: sending a grossly offensive message over a public network (Communications Act 2003, s 127), sending it to cause distress (Malicious Communications Act 1988, s 1), threatening death (Online Safety Act 2023, s 181), a lie told to cause harm (s 179), expressing support for a proscribed organisation (Terrorism Act 2000, s 12(1A)) and harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997). The maximum sentences run from six months to fourteen years. As libel it still fails. We publish the insult in full and describe the other parts in brackets: this page analyses a threat and an expression of support for a banned group, and does not make either.
Legal studyToday a court screens the case on paper, and the state can take it over at any stage. We propose hearing both sides from the start.Private prosecution and staying in control
In England and Wales anyone may bring a private prosecution, although some offences need the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General. A case usually starts with a paper decision on a summons, and the Director of Public Prosecutions can take it over at any stage. We propose an open first hearing where both sides are heard. As an optional improvement, the Crown Prosecution Service would be invited to that hearing so the takeover question is settled there. Replacing the summons and limiting later takeover would need an Act of Parliament; notifying the Crown Prosecution Service could be done by court rules or practice.
Legal studyViolence, the hypothetical bystander and police conditionsPublic order and protest
The difference between riot, violent disorder, affray and the separate powers regulating protests. A source-led guide to the reasonable-firmness test and the amended statutory framework.
Public-record profileDefence advocacy, jury independence and the contempt proceedingsRajiv Menon KC
A dedicated record of Menon’s work and the proceedings arising from his Filton closing speech. Court decisions, the defence position and wider professional concerns are kept distinct.
Legal studyA riot needs 12 people, a common purpose and violence that would frighten a bystander who need not exist. When rioters damage property, the local police body pays, within strict limits.Regulated riots and the hypothetical person of reasonable firmness
In England and Wales, riot is defined by section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986: 12 or more people using or threatening unlawful violence for a common purpose, in a way that would make a person of reasonable firmness fear for their safety. That person is hypothetical and need not be present. The same definition triggers the Riot Compensation Act 2016, under which the local Police and Crime Commissioner compensates uninsured owners and insurers for direct property damage, up to £1 million per claim. The scheme dates back to the Riot Act 1714, is rarely used outside major disorder, and refuses claimants who took part in or helped cause the riot.
Legal studyActive criminal proceedings limit prejudicial publications. They do not suspend public debate. This chapter separates four things that are easy to blur: what the law forbids, what needs a risk assessment, what is protected discussion, and what we choose not to publish.What we can say, and what we can’t: reporting a live trial
Explaining the law is not itself a crime: the Crown Prosecution Service says so in terms for the offence of encouraging suicide, and we adopt it as our stated working assumption for every offence we discuss. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 forbids publications that create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active proceedings, whatever the intent; it does not forbid commentary in general, and the threshold is high and fact-specific. Fair and accurate contemporaneous court reports and good-faith discussion of public affairs have statutory protections, each with conditions. Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 needs a terrorist publication, defined conduct, and intention or recklessness; a link is not automatically an offence. We apply all of this to the trial of Sarah Wilkinson, listed for January 2027, and say which of our choices are law and which are house policy.
Public-record profileCourt record and public backgroundRoger Hallam
The Heathrow and M25 appeals, earlier trial reporting, mentions in other judgments, and the public background of a climate campaigner. Outcomes and sources kept distinct.
Public-record profileThe Filton proceedings, his account, and the public recordSean Middlebrough
A sourced profile of Sean “Shibby” Middlebrough. Read the later court reporting alongside his earlier account, without confusing different Filton defendants or trials.
Legal studyTwo things often called “the free speech bill”. One is a law already passed, for universities, being switched on in stages. The other is a draft bill from a think tank that would repeal several of the offences in this category. This page keeps track of both.Reform tracker: free speech laws in progress
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 received Royal Assent on 11 May 2023. Its duties on universities came into force on 1 August 2025; a complaints scheme for staff and visiting speakers starts on 1 September 2026; regulatory conditions follow on 1 April 2027. The government says it will repeal the Act’s right to sue and its duties on students’ unions. Separately, in July 2026 the Prosperity Institute published a draft Free Speech Bill that would repeal section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, replace three communications offences with one, repeal the hate speech offences, and create a civil wrong of interfering with free speech. That is a proposal, not a bill before Parliament.
Legal studyThe wider record: words, symbols and criminal proceedingsSpeech offences
A growing register of 45 case records covering UK speech and Hamas-related allegations, Palestine Action expression cases and a separate Jersey comparator, with dated outcomes, official scale figures and an explicit coverage audit.
Legal studyWhen the existence of proceedings is itself restrictedSuper-injunctions
Anonymity protects an identity. A super-injunction adds a restriction on revealing the existence of the order and proceedings. The difference matters for public scrutiny.
Legal studySection 69: after a jury convicts of an ordinary offence, a judge alone decides whether it had a terrorist connection.Terrorist connection add-on
Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 lets a judge find, after conviction, that an ordinary offence such as criminal damage had a terrorist connection. The jury is not asked. The finding brings a longer sentence, restricted release and police notification duties. In 2026 one judge found it in the Filton case and another rejected it for the Barclays5. Scotland requires the connection to be charged and proved.
Legal studyOnly states can be parties. They can bring almost anyone as counsel. And the Court itself has no code of conduct for those counsel, so who can discipline an advocate depends on which country’s bar they belong to, if any.Who gets to speak at the World Court? Parties, counsel and the missing ethics code
Before the International Court of Justice, only states may be parties in contentious cases. Each state is represented by an agent and may bring counsel and advocates of its choosing; the Statute sets no qualification for them. The Court’s Practice Directions deal with conflicts of position, such as former judges appearing as counsel, but not with honesty, and counsel “are not subject under international law to any compulsory code of conduct”. English barristers carry their own rules with them wherever they appear; academics who are not admitted anywhere may carry none. The Genocide Convention case South Africa v. Israel shows the system at work: members of one London chambers on opposite sides, and more than a dozen states intervening.
Research dossierBurnley · England and Wales · case update availableBarclays5
On 21 August 2026, the judge ruled out terrorist-connection sentencing in the Barclays5 case: the damage was not serious enough in the terrorism sense. Sentence for criminal damage had not been reported by 25 October. The earlier reporting is retained below as a historical record.
Research dossierFilton · England and Wales · case update availableFilton6
Four defendants from the Filton case were sentenced on 12 June 2026 after a judge found a terrorist connection; they have appealed. The original dossier also covers the initial six defendants and the wider Filton proceedings.
Research dossierSentencing law · Hansard · historical dossierSection 69 in Parliament
The 2021 House of Lords debate on who should decide a terrorist connection, with the statutory sources collected in July 2026. For the current law and the 2026 Filton and Barclays5 rulings, read the legal study Terrorist connection add-on.
Research dossierJudicial review · United Kingdom · historical dossierProscription litigation
The challenge to Palestine Action’s proscription and the litigation sources collected in July 2026.
Research dossierRemand · United Kingdom · historical dossierThe hunger strikes
Sources on the prison hunger strikes, custody conditions and reported bail decisions.
Legal nuanceBushell's Case · 1670 → Webster · 2026Jury conscience
Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict. There is no general prosecution appeal against an acquittal. In 2026 the Court of Appeal said the oath to try a case on the evidence leaves no right to do the opposite.
Legal nuanceTerrorism Act 2000 · s.1The definition of terrorism
Section 1 defines terrorism. It is not itself an offence. Serious damage to property can meet it, with no injury — but only if the other tests are met, and "serious" is a real threshold.
Legal nuanceTerrorism Act 2000 · ss.11–13Proscription
Once a group is banned, membership and inviting or recklessly expressing support are offences punishable with up to 14 years. Displaying an article is a different, summary offence: six months.
Legal nuanceDPP v Ziegler · 2021Lawful excuse
The Supreme Court held that blocking a road in protest can be lawful if prosecution would be disproportionate. Later cases confined that reading, and a different "lawful excuse" in the Criminal Damage Act turns on belief in consent, not on the merits of the cause.
Legal nuanceECHR Article 7 · Human Rights Act 1998Law does not work backwards
No one can be convicted, or given a heavier penalty, for conduct that was not criminal to that extent when they did it. An old law can still be applied to new facts that were already inside it.
TimelineUnited Kingdom · 1986 – 2026UK timeline
How dissent became a crime in Britain, one act, one clause, one exemplary sentence at a time. A UK timeline, 1986–2026.
Independent tribunalIndependent tribunal · concludedThe Gaza Tribunal: Inquiry into British Complicity
A two-day UK tribunal at Church House, Westminster, held after a bill for an official inquiry stalled. It concluded that the British government failed its obligation to prevent genocide.
Legal studyA former ambassador and blogger, sentenced for contempt over jigsaw identification, now reporting from the Palestine Action hearingsCraig Murray
Placeholder profile. In 2021 the High Court of Justiciary found Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador, in contempt of court for blog posts about the Alex Salmond trial that were likely to lead to the identification of complainers protected by a court order, and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment. The case is the leading modern example of jigsaw identification by a blogger. In November 2026 he published attendee accounts of the Supreme Court hearing on the Palestine Action ban, which we cite as partisan courtroom reports.
Legal studyTerrorism charges after a fire at a Czech arms factory with a disputed Elbit link. Accused, not convicted.Czech Elbit 10
After a fire at an LPP Holding factory in Pardubice on 20 March 2026, Czech prosecutors charged a terrorist attack and participation in a terrorist group. ČTK reports 11 people detained. Four of them deny involvement, according to ČTK. LPP says its planned cooperation with Elbit never went ahead. No trial date or verdict has been reported. Supporters call the group the Czech Elbit 10, now 11.
Public-record profileRichard James Schueler · crypto projects, litigation and the public recordRichard Heart
HEX, PulseChain and PulseX; the dismissed US civil case; Finnish criminal allegations; and the October 2026 detention in Türkiye. Separate proceedings, separate standards of proof.
Research dossierFederal proceedings · United States · historical dossierPrairieland · the United States
The Prairieland prosecutions and sentencing coverage, with government accounts distinguished from reporting and commentary.
Independent tribunalIndependent tribunal · concludedThe Belmarsh Tribunal
A travelling people's tribunal named after the London prison where Julian Assange was held, convened while he fought extradition to the United States.
Independent tribunalIndependent tribunal · concludedThe Gaza Tribunal (international)
An international people's tribunal that sat in Sarajevo and Istanbul and whose Jury of Conscience delivered a moral judgment that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
Independent tribunalIndependent tribunal · concludedUyghur Tribunal
A London people's tribunal that found, beyond reasonable doubt, that China committed genocide against Uyghurs — through measures to prevent births, not mass killing.
Primary sources first
Follow the statute, judgment or official record. Historical research imports are clearly dated and marked for review.
Findings attributed
A tribunal's findings are quoted as its own. We never present an accusation as a verdict.
Open data, AI first
Everything here is structured JSON, regenerated on every change, free to reuse.