>> It is no surprise to us that the courts have backed police attempts to counteract effective resistance to state-militarism and to corporate power.

Actually, the courts back up the law (thats the thing that you keep trying to break).


>> However, today's court judgement effectively legitimises the monitoring and surveillance of anyone who takes part in protests, or raises their voice against the manufacture of weapons at EDO.

You call it protests. But thats a lie. It is protests + illegal actions such as damage to property etc.


>> Lord Justice Gross's judgement states that Mr Catt's involvement in the campaign, for which he has never been convicted of a crime, "belies any reasonable expectation of privacy, at least for the duration of the Smash EDO campaign."

I think this means prevention rather than waiting the common sense inevitable.
Still, its the judges job to make a decision - not yours or mine.


>> Gross goes on to justify the judgement by giving the example of the £300,000 worth of damage caused to the factory's production line during Israel's massacre in Gaza. He omits to mention that those responsible for the damage were found not-guilty by a jury on the basis that they had acted to prevent war crimes.

But it happened. And "those responsible for the damage".... were..... responsible for the damage. So its a fair point based on facts.


>> The campaign against EDO MBM will continue until the factory's manufacture of weapons components in Brighton ceases.
Uh huh. So you are trying to shift it out of brighton onto my doorstep then?