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
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 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The Vagrancy Act was repealed in England and Wales on 29 June 2026, so begging is no longer a crime in itself.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, claims that try to silence speech about suspected economic crime, which includes fraud, can be struck out early as SLAPPs.
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 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 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 studyOne broad phrase lets the Home Office keep out artists, politicians, commentators and academics. In 2026 the travel authorisation system made it fast, quiet and unappealable.Access to the UK restricted: “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. 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 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.
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 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.
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 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.