Yvette Cooper’s Observer column is now the evidence in a contempt complaint - but will the law apply to a minister? Right, so look at this. Yvette Cooper, former Home Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, wrote in a national newspaper piece about Palestine Action while criminal proceedings linked to them are still live, and she’s done it in the one way that creates the maximum legal friction, because she’s not just arguing policy, she’s branding them with “violence, intimidation… weapons, and serious injuries”, and then she admits in the same breath that “important details cannot yet be publicly reported because of criminal proceedings”. So she’s telling you she knows the cases are active, she’s telling you she can’t publish the specifics, and she’s still pushing the most loaded framing she can get on the record anyway. Now Defend Our Juries say they’ve lodged a contempt of court complaint to the Attorney General, Richard Hermer, over that exact kind of ministerial commentary, because contempt exists for one reason: so powerful people don’t get to salt the ground around a trial and then act surprised when “fair jury” becomes a fantasy. So stay with me, because I’m going to put the line on screen, I’m going to show you why it’s not a harmless turn of phrase, I’m going to connect it to what Parliament has already voted through, and I’m going to spell out what this forces onto the table now: either ministers are bound by the rules they preach, or “rule of law” is just something they shout at everyone else. Right, so Yvette Cooper has chosen to write a newspaper column about a group that the state has just shoved under terrorism powers, while criminal cases linked to that group are still live, and she has done it in the one way that creates the most legal friction: not by arguing policy, not by talking in generalities, but by stitching together a picture of “violence, intimidation…