this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2025
7 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

5495 readers
204 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So all it takes is a little rightwing shit-stirring and the courts surrender.

But a few hundred thousand people protesting a genocide are completely ignored.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not really. This is why I linked the judgement. The judge writes in detail are what aspects of, and to what extent, lawful protest and unlawful actions can be relevant to such a decision, and he says it is of low weight.

The factors to which he ascribes a high weight are that:

  1. upholding planning regulation is important
  2. the hotel deliberately took the risk that they might be breaking planning regulations
  3. he thought the council's argument that it was a breach of planning rules was strong (although this is a judgement for interim relief, not the final judgement).

Having read it, it still sounds insane. The risk if interim relief were not granted but the changes at the hotel turn out to require planning permission with respect to those three factors are that the breach goes on for a bit longer. The risk if it were granted but the changes turn out to be lawful is that over a hundred people are turfed out, the government has to find a yet-more expensive way of accommodating them, something which may be impossible if the relevant factors of this case become precedent in others.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 9 months ago

That's really informative, thanks. I agree with your assessment.