You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I am fine with Putin jailing anyone who vandalises his warplanes.
So maybe we should hand over these guys?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ld7ppre9vo
Well, this thread has changed my mind. Proscribing PA (at this point) would be an overreach to my mind now. Not doing so, and instead relying on the normal laws on criminal damage, if the perpetrators are caught, would be a more proportionate response to their actions (so far).
So maybe we should hand over these guys?
What happens at war isn't a good comparison really, is it. Unless PA are at war with the UK? Which they aren't, they are just pushing at the edges of what constitutes protest to make their point.
I agree we can just use existing laws as in Glasgow where PA activists were sentenced to 12 months sentences. As for non violent? As the judge said..
"have read the terms of the criminal justice social work reports. Some authors appear not to have grasped the scale of this disturbance, the consequences to employees of the company, the cost to the company and to the public purse. For example, in one criminal justice social work report it is said that 'the offence is non-violent in nature and was planned as well as intended to cause disruption'. Throwing pyrotechnics into areas where people are being evacuated could hardly be described as non-violent."
What happens at war isn't a good comparison really, is it.
You'd have to take that up with irc - he was the one who suggested it was OK for Putin to jail folk attacking his planes.
How many got hurt by the smoke bomb?
If you are concerned by a bit of paint, you are going to flip when you hear about the criminality and 'violence' of those dastardly women as the Greenham Common peace camp.
They was also involved in multiple intrusions onto the RAF Greenham Common airfield during their protests against the siting of American nuclear cruise missiles.
These actions included cutting(They actually ripped down 4 miles of the perimeter fence FOUR MILES !) and climbing the perimeter fence.
Other notable acts of civil disobedience include- Dancing on top of silos, where 44 women climbed the fence and danced on top of the silos for hours.
They even hosted a picnic on the base while dressed as teddy bears. These acts of civil disobedience were aimed at raising awareness and challenging the presence of nuclear weapons at the base.
Much like the acts by Palestinian Action
At no point did anyone attempt to label the Womens peace movement as a terrorist group, even though there were hundreds of incursions, hundreds of arrests and multiple imprisonments.
How many got hurt by the smoke bomb?
From reading the full remarks, it was throwing the smoke bombs at the staff as they were evacuating from a building under the impression there may have been a fire.
(Bold call deploying pyrotechnics, things going bang can escalate a response they you may not be expecting.)
The comments are balanced and proportionate from my POV.
What happens at war isn't a good comparison really, is it.
Not really, whole different set of laws and parameters.
This is ultimately a bunch of civilians with no allegiance to a hostile nation trying to influence the policy decisions of their own government.
Albeit through illegal and on this occasion, fruitless action.
I'm deeply uncomfortable with individuals being labelled 'terrorists' regardless of if it's an official title or a colloquialism used by the media.
This course of action will have far deeper repercussions for those individuals which I think isn't proportionate.
From reading the full remarks, it was throwing the smoke bombs at the staff as they were evacuating from a building under the impression there may have been a fire.
(Bold call deploying pyrotechnics, things going bang can escalate a response they you may not be expecting.)
The comments are balanced and proportionate from my POV.
Yeah, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't call it an act of terrorism, I don't think.
From reading the full remarks, it was throwing the smoke bombs at the staff as they were evacuating from a building under the impression there may have been a fire.
(Bold call deploying pyrotechnics, things going bang can escalate a response they you may not be expecting.)
The comments are balanced and proportionate from my POV.
Yeah, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't call it an act of terrorism, I don't think.
I don't think they were though? Or have I missed something obvious?
Ah - on reflection, I think IRC's inference was that it was violent, not an act of terrorism.
Zoe Gardner tearing into an ill informed gobshite is a pleasure to watch
https://twitter.com/NoJusticeMTG/status/1937328709469614371
Well, this thread has changed my mind. Proscribing PA (at this point) would be an overreach to my mind now.
Are you mad? That's not how the internet works! You've let yourself down, the forum down, Tim Berners-Lee down....
Zoe Gardner tearing into an ill informed gobshite is a pleasure to watch
More seriously, that is a great piece, and if they want to charge me for expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, the government knows where to find me.
If appears that there have been arrests, and arrests on terror charges rather than criminal damage or such like.
I suspect that if they're found guilty (which I appreciate is a way off yet) they'll be made quite the example of.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6m79n6q65o
The suspects aged 24, 29 and 36 are suspected of "the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, contrary to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000", the force said.
Why do they even need to do that? No warrant and the need to hold them without charge beyond 4 days suggests a lack of evidence, no? I hope the courts throw it out.
I have never been a fan of Palestine Action but right now they have my full support
People who wish to can donate here - pleasingly, it's more than doubled in a couple of days.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-action/
If appears that there have been arrests, and arrests on terror charges rather than criminal damage or such like.
I suspect that if they're found guilty (which I appreciate is a way off yet) they'll be made quite the example of.
The major issue for the government here is that the Prime Minister himself defended people who carried out pretty similar acts. The press have already seized on this, and it will be used as yet another example of how weak he is. By insisting on proscribing PA, and pushing for terrorism charges to be brought, the Labour government have simply given their opponents even more ammunition. Legal precedent already suggests that those accused can use the defence of trying to prevent greater crimes from taking place. So we could see a very lengthy, expensive trial, numerous appeals etc, ultimately amount to very little other than further damage to the Labour government. Proscribing PA is very much shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
This government seems to be making some very stupid, ill-advised and short-sighted decisions. Far from bringing down pro-Palestinian support, it will only strengthen it. It places the Labour leadership even further from stated aims of wanting peace in the Middle East. The embarrassing fiasco of trying to outlaw the band Kneecap (personally I think the young lad on trial for 'terrorism' is naive, daft and ignorant for not thinking about shouting out support for vile murderous organisations, but a terrorist he really isn't, and I hope he gets off) has only resulted in a massive hike in their popularity (and income, no doubt), and brought a big 'F-you' from the organisers of Glastonbury. Labour are now haemorrhaging support, and this is of real concern, with Farage waiting in the wings.
Starmer is the real embarrassment. I hope he enjoys his very comfortable, well earned dotage.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/palestine-action-starmer-echr/
The group, also known as Seeds of Hope, was found not guilty of causing criminal damage by a jury after they successfully argued that their ‘crime’ was carried out to prevent genocidal acts.
And this is where proscribing an organisation solves a big problem for the government of the day.
Had Seeds of Hope been classified as a terrorist organisation then there would have been no need at all to put them on trial for criminal damage, just being a member of Seeds of Hope would have been sufficient to lock them up for 14 years.
Likewise once Palestine Action has been classified as a terrorist organisation the government will not have to go through the tedious process of providing evidence of criminal damage to a jury, just proving membership will be sufficient. Guilty through association.
We really appear to be entering an era of authoritarianism. Not only is the government providing military and political support to a genocidal regime which is murdering and starving children.but now the government wants classify those who take extreme but non-violent action in response to this horrific situation as terrorists.
Repressive regimes have a tendency to label their opponents as "terrorists", this current Labour government is going down a well-worn path
And the alternative to this authoritarian government? Reform UK. Could it be more depressing?
" Legal precedent already suggests that those accused can use the defence of trying to prevent greater crimes from taking place. So we could see a very lengthy, expensive trial, numerous appeals etc, "
This "defence" didn't work in Glasgow.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wj144zd7po
The appeal was unsuccessful.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24725669.pro-palestine-activists-imprisonment-appeal-rejected/
Those of you that think PA is a terrorist group , hope do you feel about the Kinder Scout trespassers? Without their illegal actions you would not have the access you have in England today.
This "defence" didn't work in Glasgow.
According to your link they all pleaded guilty. The appeal was with regards to the sentence, not the conviction.
Those of you that think PA is a terrorist group , hope do you feel about the Kinder Scout trespassers? Without their illegal actions you would not have the access you have in England today.
Why don't you grow a backbone direct that at whoever you think that is?
Seems there is a broad if not unanimous consensus that proscribing PA and/or charging them under the Terrorism Act is wrong in this discussion.
Or are you having one of your 'argue with everything and anything' days?
Four arrested? They're lucky.
I can't help but wonder what would have happened to them if they had infiltrated one of the UK located USAF bases, (Fairford, Lakenheath, Mildenhall)
Four bodybags?
I wonder if the police were under pressure from some direction ? 
If appears that there have been arrests, and arrests on terror charges rather than criminal damage or such like.
I suspect that if they're found guilty (which I appreciate is a way off yet) they'll be made quite the example of.
The government doesn’t necessarily have to progress to trial with the arrest charges does it though?
They could be held for some time under the terror charges, as the case fades from public and press memories a bit, a switcheroo can be pulled and ‘criminal damage’ brought instead.
If their defence is any good (and I assume the attention will attract someone capable?) I’d have thought they’d be preparing to make just such a plea.
The only thing more embarrassing than the security breach in question would, be having a jury decide these “terrorists” we’re just common criminals and that the government is getting a bit flustered over the wrong things, better to quietly climb down once they’ve milked the desired headlines from this and secure an appropriate conviction.
I wonder if the police were under pressure from some direction ?
That zipi **** is a ****ing ghoul
Those of you that think PA is a terrorist group , hope do you feel about the Kinder Scout trespassers? Without their illegal actions you would not have the access you have in England today.
Why don't you grow a backbone direct that at whoever you think that is?
Seems there is a broad if not unanimous consensus that proscribing PA and/or charging them under the Terrorism Act is wrong in this discussion.
Or are you having one of your 'argue with everything and anything' days?
I couldn't be arsed looking back thru to see who it was. 🙂 lazy thats all
JSO folk got years in prison for a peaceful nonviolent protest.
..For themselves, trying to fly drones into Heathrow airspace or trying to bring the motorways around London to a standstill might well have had dangerous outcomes for others.
If the group that broke into Brize had been carrying copies of the Turner Diaries and painted 'Trump for King', I bet a bag of Tangfastics no one would have an issue with them being proscribed.
"Justice cannot be for one side, it must be for both"
-Elenor Roosevelt
Side note
I'm actually pretty happy that we live in a country where it's reasonably easy to break into a military base and no-one was killed to death by some trigger happy 18 year old conscript. That there is a public RoW through the grounds at Chequers or that a random MTB YouTuber can have a convo with the King who is both alone, and didn't end up in someone being thrown to ground surrounded by men with MP5's and ear-pieces is the sign of a reasonable society that has its shit together.
Those of you that think PA is a terrorist group , hope do you feel about the Kinder Scout trespassers? Without their illegal actions you would not have the access you have in England today.
As RM says, I don't think that anyone has agreed with this being a terrorist act, however, to address the point and they are actually spookily similar cases:
A handful of people (landowners) took it upon themselves to deny the people of this country their right to access common land
A handful of people (PA) took it upon themselves to deny the people of this country their right to expect the state to provide defence
I'll deal with the Suffragette argument while I'm here.
A handful of people (government) took it upon themselves to deny the women of this country their right to vote and to deny the people of this country their right to full democracy.
The nation wins every time over a reactionary handful. UK law doesn't generally apply on another continent.
Fact of the day: the first woman MP was elected in the same year as the RAF was formed
In the "Seeds of Hope" case the women targetted a specific aircraft that was being sent to Indonesia. Their defence was that the aircraft would be involved in genocide and they only damaged weapons systems.
There is no suggestion that the RAF Voyager aircraft were being sent to Israel and they aren't offensively armed
The bottom line is that PA don't have an e-scooter to stand on.
The proscription of PA is a different thing altogether, but that'll be dealt with in Parliament and in Court if necessary, so don't argue on here, write to your MP!
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
I have decided to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. A draft proscription order will be laid in Parliament on Monday 30 June. If passed, it will make it illegal to be a member of, or to invite support for, Palestine Action.
This decision is specific to Palestine Action and does not affect lawful protest groups and other organisations campaigning on issues around Palestine or the middle east.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-06-23/debates/25062337000014/PalestineActionProscription
cookeaa +1
The government doesn’t necessarily have to progress to trial with the arrest charges does it though?
By making the proscription announcement even before arrests, the government has painted itself into yet another corner
Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
But apparently that is too inconvenient, so ...
A handful of people (government) took it upon themselves to [insert whatever you want to fit the discussion at hand] and to deny the people of this country their right to [a basic right].
A handful of people (Labour Friends of Israel) took it upon themselves to advance the interests of a foreign power in denying the people of Britain right to express support for peaceful protesters.
Isn't this a fun game ?
..For themselves, trying to fly drones into Heathrow airspace or trying to bring the motorways around London to a standstill might well have had dangerous outcomes for others.
What were the prison terms handed out to farmers who blocked roads, or fuel depots?
"Justice cannot be for one side, it must be for both"
-Elenor Roosevelt
Well, indeed.
Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
Kinder scout trespassers didn't, suffragettes didn't, greenham common protesters didn't,
There is no suggestion that the RAF Voyager aircraft were being sent to Israel and they aren't offensively armed
No I haven't heard that suggestion either. What I have heard though, and I believe that it has been officially confirmed now, is that the RAF are conducting surveillance flights over Gaza with the intention of passing intelligence over to the IDF which is currently carrying out a genocide there. Over 500 surveillance flights apparently.
I have also heard that some if not all these surveillance flights have departed from Cyprus. Voyager aircraft are an important part of the logistical support in Cyprus.
So in that respect the aircraft are a perfectly legitimate target imo. Whether damaging them is the correct tactic is another issue. Previous to all this kicking off I would have said no, definitely not.
But now, thanks in no small part to the government's ridiculous response to the incident and their highly authoritarian reaction, it has highlighted the UK's complicity with the horrific genocide which is currently taking place, so I am no longer sure at all.
Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
Kinder scout trespassers didn't, suffragettes didn't, greenham common protesters didn't,
What did the rule of law decide in the case of Kinder Scout and the Suffragette movement?
This is just going around in argumentative circles, it would be handy to have an example from this century as well.
Let's just see what the Courts say
By making the proscription announcement even before arrests, the government has painted itself into yet another corner
I think Labour are falling into the same trap that every Government of the last 20 odd years have, where they´re letting the Rhetoric and the headlines drive policy and decissions. It´s a slippery slope and ultimatley leads to a public sense of them being out of touch, reactive and on a heading for election defeat, all the time nudging the national discourse more an more into Nigel´s prefered territory...
Let's just see what the Courts say
Absolutely, all of this circular argument and regurgitating various lines from around the meeja is just fueling the nonsense, and pushes the authorities/government to double down.
The actual closure will be a court ruling. I for one would hope sanity prevails and a Criminal Damage and Trespass verdicts (or similar) are handed down. Branding Anti-war protestors as "Terrorists" is what I would expect form an authoritarian regime, convicting them on that basis would be a clear message that our country is on an uncomfortable trajectory.
SKS especially should know how to apply the law appropriately, and the consequences of it´s missuse, but I worry that "looking tough" has overtaken good judgement lately...
it would be handy to have an example from this century as well.
Why? The reforms that established the freedoms which we enjoy today were mostly achieved a long time ago, and often at great personal costs to individuals, think Tolpuddle Martyrs or Peterloo.
Which is all the more reason why they should be jealously guarded today.
Freedoms can take a very long time to achieve but very quickly lost. Classing people as "terrorists" when they very clearly are not terrorists is very quick way for authoritarian governments to silence opposition to their morally questionable policies, think Saudi Arabia or Russia.
it would be handy to have an example from this century as well.
Why? The reforms that established the freedoms which we enjoy today were mostly achieved a long time ago, and often at great personal costs to individuals, think Tolpuddle Martyrs or Peterloo.
Which is all the more reason why they should be jealously guarded today.
Freedoms can take a very long time to achieve but very quickly lost. Classing people as "terrorists" when they very clearly are not terrorists is very quick way for authoritarian governments to silence opposition to their morally questionable policies, think Saudi Arabia or Russia.
Why?
So that modern examples can be considered that have been tested against modern provision such as the Human Rights Act 1998 (October 2000 onward) and the Terrorism Act 2000 (July 2000 onward)
We could really push the boat out and include the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 😉
There's quite an interesting article online about the Greenham Common protests. Some of the women were charged with criminal damage but presumably today, may well have been charged with terror offences.
Perhaps it's me, but there seem to be parallels with the Palestine Action protests. I'm sure that if the idea of not being behind Israel 100% wasn't so toxic the current protestors would be views in a similar light to the Greenham Common women.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/greenham-common-plan-to-crowd-the-prisons/5070695.article
proscribed.
"Justice cannot be for one side, it must be for both"
-Elenor Roosevelt
Yeah but that’s ****ing bollox, if you have money you can buy your preferred justice
Why?
So that modern examples can be considered that have been tested against modern provision such as the Human Rights Act 1998 (October 2000 onward) and the Terrorism Act 2000 (July 2000 onward)
We could really push the boat out and include the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 😉
The point that was being made, however, is something completely different. It is that what the law said at the time was contrary to what we now see as self evident - e.g. that women should have the right to vote, and that whatever the law says today can likewise not be considered to be an ultimate arbiter of what is right. Your little list of current legislation is therefore irrelevant.
If the group that broke into Brize had been carrying copies of the Turner Diaries and painted 'Trump for King', I bet a bag of Tangfastics no one would have an issue with them being proscribed.
A cursory look at the comments shows that you owe quite a few bags of Tangfastics.
It is an abuse of the anti terrorism laws in this case and would also be for a far right group for a similar scenario.
Surely they are considered to be national traitors, not terrorists. You'd expect charges of treason for their acts. Guess the lines are blurred these days?
Surely they are considered to be national traitors, not terrorists. You'd expect charges of treason for their acts. Guess the lines are blurred these days?
String 'em up !!!
A bit of a difference. One was a trespass and a civil court matter. One was criminal damage and illegal entry to an MoD base. Not really comparable
Is this legit?, Craig Murray (yeah….that one) exposes who owns the RAF plane and it’s a bit of a mind **** if true.
If you thought RAF jets were owned by the RAF, think again.
The RAF squadron targeted for a repaint by Palestine Action due to its involvement in supplying Israel’s genocide, does not in fact belong to the RAF at all. It belongs ultimately to Polygon Global Partners LLP, a Hedge Fund.
Through a chain of seven cutout companies, which I will take you through, the direct ownership is with Airtanker Ltd, which gives its address as RAF Brize Norton. It owns, maintains and operates the RAF’s Voyager refuelling aircraft, which have been providing mid-air refuelling to the Israeli Defence Forces as well as carrying, in their cargo role, munitions to the IDF.
A bit of a difference
Between what and what? Supposing you're referring to Greenham Common, there really wasn't, as the article makes clear. The bigger difference is that the GC women were allowed to make their case in court, whereas as we have seen in the case of JSO, the state is so scared of the truth that defendants are not allowed to present justifications for their actions, or their supporters to remind jurors of their rights.
What this and previous governments have done is make protest illegal and created draconian penalties for protest as well as legislating to prevent previously successful defenses being used
I know I'll get flamed for this but IIRC you do have a right to peaceful protest in this country, just not on, or around certain areas for some obvious, sometimes byzantine, and, occasionally ,very good reasons.
IANAL but...here is a bit of bedtime reading for everyone:
and finally some crucial info that the Protestors seemed to forget to google before they went over the (admittedly low) fence...
Of course, they could have just stayed outside the perimeter fence which would probably have been a completely different matter (there is almost certainly something there that would need checking before you did it though).
So, I'd reckon a few people are potentially facing between 1-5 years in the clink: at least 1 year for the trespass on a military site (knowingly so, it must be said), plus say another 1-4 years for vandalism and tampering with the military aircraft (this incidentally is a very big no-no just in case anyone was wondering, even if its "just" paint as its still endangering an aircraft), oh, the paint sprayer is in a fire extinguisher type thingy...and its pressurized...home-made...Ok, we'll come back to that one later in court..It was done in the middle of the night, e-scooters, balaclavas...Oh and possibly various other charges for filming there too. Soooo a fun mix of breaching the official secrets act and SOCAP as well plus the tampering with an aircraft.
I'm assuming they are having some interesting discussions with legal people right now where this is being explained in rather more detail. All in all, not quite the result Palestine Action were intending, or perhaps it was?
As I said - the governments have legislated to criminalise peaceful protest
I know I'll get flamed for this but IIRC you do have a right to peaceful protest in this country, just not on, or around certain areas for some obvious, sometimes byzantine, and, occasionally ,very good reasons.
You have the right to peaceful protest in the places where the government and police say you can protest. Much like in Russia.
When the government legislates to prevent legal defenses being used and to criminalise peaceful protest with draconian sanctions then you know the government is on the wrong side morally
When the government legislates to prevent legal defenses being used and to criminalise peaceful protest with draconian sanctions then you know the government is on the wrong side morally
So how many millions of quid of sabotage are justified for an organisation that is free to mount demos in city centres any time they want to peacefully protest?
PS the Glasgow judge covered that in his summing up. Throwing pyrotechnics into an area containing employees is not peaceful protest.
""have read the terms of the criminal justice social work reports. Some authors appear not to have grasped the scale of this disturbance, the consequences to employees of the company, the cost to the company and to the public purse. For example, in one criminal justice social work report it is said that 'the offence is non-violent in nature and was planned as well as intended to cause disruption'. Throwing pyrotechnics into areas where people are being evacuated could hardly be described as non-violent."
If I disagree with your post can I express my disagreement by smashing up your car/flat in a peaceful manner?
Seems reasonable that an organisation which can't limit itself to peaceful protest and targets the MOD gets proscribed.
Seems reasonable that an organisation which can't limit itself to peaceful protest and targets the MOD gets proscribed.
So you accept that their actions were terrorism, in the wider sense of the term, not the legal one?
A bit of a difference. One was a trespass and a civil court matter. One was criminal damage and illegal entry to an MoD base. Not really comparable
Are you referring to the Greenham Common article? A number of women went to prison so clearly not a civil matter. There was also a charge of criminal damage (to a USAF base soon to be housing nuclear weapons). My point was that both cases seem to be criminal damage (and with Greenham a breach of the peace), the former charged as such but the Palestine Action protest charged as terror offences.
From the Greenham Common article
They blockaded the base, lay down in the road in front of lorries carrying the nuclear warheads, pursued night-time convoys, put sugar in the petrol. Their protest was always peaceful.
On New Year’s Eve, 1982/83, there was a mass break-in to the base and the women danced on the silos at midnight. As a result, they were arrested. What followed was a series of hearings at Newbury Magistrates’ Court, where the women were brought before the court for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Later, some women snipped the wire of the perimeter fence and they were then charged with criminal damage
Using terrorism legislation for acts like this is totally OTT IMO, and as I've said before if it's applied and interpreted as it is being here then I don't see why it isn't then for JSO and others, 'without fear or favour' - and I absolutely wouldn't want that. It is being defined correctly according to law but that's the issue, the law simply isn't right.
But OTOH to those saying it's criminal damage...it is, but the qualification is that it's with the intent to influence the Gov for political aims and that takes it beyond eg: someone kicking wing mirrors off cars that have cut them up, or smashing up a bar in a fight.
Taken to extreme, some of the argumentation that if it doesn't cause injury then it isn't terrorism - a bomb in a crowded shopping centre causing deaths clearly is, but one that's called in ahead of time enabling the place to be evacuated and the result is 'only' destruction of property....just criminal damage? I know that's a thought piece and 'of course' a sensible person can tell the difference but laws are generally written in black and white and then interpreted by senior judges and courts, rather than every eventuality considered. Where's the line that says paint in a jet engine is OK but a few windows blasted out isn't?
How to balance all that is very difficult, not to excuse the current situation where it seems pretty clear to me that the Gov is getting it wrong.
doesn't cause injury then it isn't terrorism - a bomb in a crowded shopping centre causing deaths clearly is, but one that's called in ahead of time enabling the place to be evacuated and the result is 'only' destruction of property....just criminal damage?
It's not as complicated as you appear to think it is. Telling people to evacuate under the threat of death can easily be interpreted as attempting to terrorise people, the IDF do it all the time.
What Palestine Action did in Brize Norton was not designed to terrorise anyone, nor did it terrorise anyone.
If you want to establish what constitutes terrorism the clue is the word "terrorism".
So how many millions of quid of sabotage are justified for an organisation that is free to mount demos in city centres any time they want to peacefully protest?
I dunno - how many pence of damage are required to result in a charge of "terrorism"? If I spill your latte with my banner am I looking at 14 years in clink?
some of the argumentation that if it doesn't cause injury then it isn't terrorism
I don't know who is arguing that. I'd say that "terrorism" is an entirely meaningless term, because you only define it to mean the folk you don't like. As Ernie says, if you want to define it in a consistent way then you have to consider the word.
It's an absolute cliche but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
A lot of the freedoms we enjoy today came about after campaigns including criminal damage. To have those rights restricted under terrorism laws is tragically ironic.
The UK authorities really do seem to be determined to suppress the growing revulsion which Israel's genocide in Gaza is causing.
Have the police really got nothing better to do that investigate people chanting Free Free Palestine and Death Death to the IDF?
I mean it's not exactly a hate crime. Unless it made any members of the IDF among the crowd in Glastonbury feel uncomfortable and intimidated?
Presumably the police would not be investigating if Bob Vylan had led chants of "Viva Viva the IDF". It would appear that it is somehow illegal to oppose the IDF as they commit genocide in Gaza but perfectly legal to fully support and cheer them on.
Somafunk from these parts had better never get on the stage at Glastonbury, based on some of the stuff he's posted on Gaza thread they would throw away the key!
Somafunk from these parts had better never get on the stage at Glastonbury, based on some of the stuff he's posted on Gaza thread they would throw away the key!
Given what I’ve typed out/replied to the various Israeli government gobshites or IDF folk on Bluesky/twitter I’m surprised I’ve not had a knock at the door yet, they’d see the Palestinian action sticker and stop the war/end the apartheid/free Palestine stickers on my door and rear window of car, and if they were wise they’d **** off.
**** them, if folk are getting more upset over what I say than the IDF using children’s heads as target practice then they deserve everything that’s coming to them
The point that was being made, however, is something completely different. It is that what the law said at the time was contrary to what we now see as self evident - e.g. that women should have the right to vote, and that whatever the law says today can likewise not be considered to be an ultimate arbiter of what is right. Your little list of current legislation is therefore irrelevant.
The point being made in this thread was about protest; peaceful, violent or terrorism.
Your example that women should have the right to vote is a good example of the interests of the nation in women's rights and full democracy v government.
What history doesn't address is how we got there. Suffragists remained a peaceful movement while Suffragettes "broke away" into direct action and were by any standards, then and now, terrorists.
They bombed and set fire to buildings including an attempt on the Theatre Royal during a matinee performance because PM Herbert Asquith was there. The terror campaign only lasted a couple of years before WW1 came along and women were then involved in factory work, farming, etc.
Did the Suffragists win the day, continuing peaceful protest from 1897 to full democracy after WW1, or did the Suffragettes campaign of terror for a couple of years until 1914 win the day?
If you know the answer please share it because historians can't agree and history has been glossed over for the rest of us.
That's why my "little list of current legislation is therefore" relevant. We know what happens in modern times because it's very well-recorded.
The thing that we know is different now is democracy. In the early 20th century we didn't have full democracy and women didn't have a choice but to protest in some way, peacefully or not.
PA live in times where we have full democracy. They have the choice to vote and if they don't like the outcome they have the human rights of assembly and expressing yourself.
If you don't like the outcome of any of that then you're kicking against a hard-won democracy; there are leaders around the world doing exactly that to get their way
To give you a modern example from the UK using modern laws; you don't have to think too far back to the Conservative plan to send migrants to Rwanda. Rejected by the nation, Parliament and the Courts, our democracy does work 🙂
Have the police really got nothing better to do that investigate people chanting Free Free Palestine and Death Death to the IDF?
As a critic of the plan to proscribe PA, I have no problems with chants for a free Palestine. Chants calling for the death of anyone I can't agree with, and I think may be a crime in itself, regardless of specific terrorism legislation.
Your example that women should have the right to vote is a good example of the interests of the nation in women's rights and full democracy v government.
The nation was so interested in women's rights that it took 200 years to give them a vote, mysteriously coinciding with a world war during which women's labour was needed to keep the country going.
PA live in times where we have full democracy. They have the choice to vote and if they don't like the outcome they have the human rights of assembly and expressing yourself.
You'll be shocked when someone tells you what happened to the JSO protesters, or more dramatically what happened on Bloody Sunday or at Orgreave (papers now shredded by the police, coincidentally before a potential inquiry). The right to protest is limited to the right to protest where you're (arbitrarily) told you can protest, so no marches past a (closed) synagogue if it aims to embarrass the BBC.
To give you a modern example from the UK using modern laws; you don't have to think too far back to the Conservative plan to send migrants to Rwanda. Rejected by the nation, Parliament and the Courts,
And interrupted by an election before the Safety of Rwanda Act (officially declaring Rwanda "safe") could come into operation, so I don't think your example shows what you say it shows. On the contrary - it shows that "safety", like "terrorism" is just a convenient word to be used to further the aims of the ruling class, whether that's the monarchy, the tech giants or the owners of the RAF.
Timba the question whether the criminal damage caused by Palestine Action is morally justified under present-day conditions and "modern laws" is quite different to the issue of whether Palestine Action should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Should those responsible for criminal damage be prosecuted? Many would say yes, and indeed their time in court is often desired by those who make personal sacrifices to highlight and publicise perceived injustices.
On the other hand should they be classed as terrorists and prosecuted under anti-terrorist legislation? Certainly not, and doing so is a gross abuse of anti-terrorist legislation, plus a very dangerous lurch towards authoritarianism.
This dangerous move by the current government seems to be widely opposed by most people outside the Tory and Reform parties, I would suggest reading again the powerful and compelling arguments made by the former chief constable of South Yorkshire and the Guardian editorial.
More frightening is the fact that it sets a precedence for the authoritarian wings of any future Reform/Tory governments of the future. And the future in this case might possibly be just 4 years away.
With each day that passes the Starmer government appears to be blurring more and more the distinctions between Tory, Labour, and Reform.
Should those responsible for criminal damage be prosecuted? Many would say yes
Many say yes, even when no damage is actually done (e.g. Stonehenge orange powder), so it seems that prosecution for criminal damage and the like are just more excuses for the state to suppress dissent.
Chants calling for the death of anyone I can't agree with, and I think may be a crime in itself, regardless of specific terrorism legislation.
Even death to Hamas?
And when you call for the death of an organisation it doesn't necessarily mean the death of an individual.
I see that immediately the lies came pouring out from the likes of Kemi Badenoch who instantly claimed that 'death to the IDF' was anti-jewish.
The IDF does not represent Jewish people and many members of the IDF are not Jewish or even Israeli, a few are actually Muslim.
Unlike Hamas which I suspect is 100% Palestinian. I guess calling for the destruction of Hamas could be seen as anti-Palestinian?
On the other hand should they be classed as terrorists and prosecuted under anti-terrorist legislation? Certainly not, and doing so is a gross abuse of anti-terrorist legislation, plus a very dangerous lurch towards authoritarianism.
When any of those things happen then I'll worry about it:
Proscription has got to go to Parliament (tomorrow, so get writing to your MP)
Police have made arrests, but nobody has been charged and certainly not prosecuted
Any abuse of anti-terrorist legislation will be aired and debated in Parliament, the Courts or both
A dangerous lurch to authoritarianism or an incompetent government? Either way they'll be out at the next GE, assuming the top table aren't hoofed out before then
Democracy has its problems, but we rely on it
And on that note, I'll wait for the results
Proscription has got to go to Parliament (tomorrow, so get writing to your MP)
Done.
Any abuse of anti-terrorist legislation will be aired and debated in Parliament, the Courts or both
And the media. This is an article against proscription from, of all places, the Telegraph!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/28/palestine-action-terrorists-brize-norton/
Even death to Hamas?
I'm fairly equitable about wanting not to kill people, except in self defence, which is not what the IDF are currently involved in.
Grey area calling for the "death" of an organisation, I accept that. Every country has a right to self defence, so a military is required.
I'm fairly equitable about wanting not to kill people, except in self defence
Well that's the point, the Palestinian resistance has a legitimate right enshrined under international law to violently resist illegal foreign occupation.
They don't have to right to commit war crimes but they do have the right to kill members of an occupation force. So in that respect it is perfectly acceptable to call for the death of foreign occupiers.
The problem appears to be that some people treat the IDF's occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, as legal, it isn't.
The IDF's activities in the occupied territories are not legal under international law and the Geneva Convention.
Any abuse of anti-terrorist legislation will be aired and debated in Parliament, the Courts or both
Funny that claim because anti terrorism legislation has been and continues to be abused to stifle dissent with no outcry
Well this made me chuckle:
We were car #2 in a 4 car sandwich this afternoon. Car #4 held his hands up to hitting the guy behind us and shunting us into the other guy.
While chatting about hire cars, car #4 said he cycled to work at Brize Norton. I asked him if just cut the fence to get in.
Chilling effect of plans to proscribe PA. Your “democracy” in action.
Have the police really got nothing better to do that investigate people chanting Free Free Palestine and Death Death to the IDF?
As a critic of the plan to proscribe PA, I have no problems with chants for a free Palestine. Chants calling for the death of anyone I can't agree with, and I think may be a crime in itself, regardless of specific terrorism legislation.
I find the words of 'Bob Vylan' really quite depressing ( I also note the irony of an act naming themselves after an artist who has performed in Israel several times). Because whilst I totally understand the anger towards the Israeli state and military, shouting 'death, death to the IDF' is just naive, ignorant, crass and unintelligent. Also, if you are supposedly calling for 'peace', why would you then wish death upon other human beings? I find many of these outspoken 'celebrities' to be utter hypocrites when it comes to such matters. Whilst I don't believe such chants are tantamount to 'terrorism', I don't believe they are at all constructive or helpful. Shouting out 'up Hamas and up Hezbollah is also very stupid; it shoes just how ignorant many people actually are regarding the whole issue. Both are organisations full of evil people; expressing support for such is condoning rape, torture and murder. Just because 'the other side' do that and much worse, does not make it ok to support such extremist organisations. Hamas, let's not forget, raped, tortured and murdered innocent people on October 7th 2023, and whilst we can of course feel sympathy with a people who have every right to defend themselves, what took place that day was way beyond any justification. And so was the genocide that followed. That young Kneecap lad might think he's cool and 'edgy' by calling out in support of Hamas and Hezbollah, but in reality he's an ignorant dick. And now, so is Bob Vylan. And anyone else who thinks chanting ignorant hateful shit is cool. Oh look at you with your 'Free Palestine' stickers. You're so on fleek.
For context: as I mentioned earlier, I have family in Israel. At least one member is currently serving in the IDF reserves. But beyond that, he's just an ordinary lad like many millions across the Globe. Something people need to understand about the IDF and Israel, is that there, military service is compulsory for all Israeli citizens (not, as suggested here, non-Israelis). And yes, that includes Muslims, Christians Buddhists and atheists. You don't have a choice in Israel, you have to do your service. Refusal generally leads to jail, and the subsequent ostracisation from society. The vast majority of Israelis see it as their duty to serve. Calling for 'death, death to the IDF' is calling for death for people I love. So yeah; I am gonna be somewhat subjective. By contrast, the UK and US militaries are volunteer staffed. I know many people who have served in the IDF, most of them decent people. And pretty much all abhor what is going on right now. And there are prominent officers in the IDF who condemn the orders of the state. So it is not black and white; there is nuance, something many people just don't get.
I also have many friends from Palestine, Lebanon and much of the Middle East, and Iran. Most Iranians I know welcomed the recent attacks by Israel, as they wish to see regime change.They are mainly political refugees here, and would be murdered if they were to return home. Many have not seen family members in years, even decades. Again, it's not black and white. Nuance. Yes, we all condemn the killing of innocents in any war or conflict. The military action by Israel, USA and by complicity, the UK, is utterly reprehensible. The snivelling cowardice shown by our prime minister is morally repugnant. But it's vital, if you really are concerned with trying to create any sort of lasting peace, to not dehumanise anybody, regardless of which side their on. That means showing empathy not just for Hamas and Hezbollah, but for ordinary young Israelis who are used as pawns in a much wider and terrifying game. It is very clear to anyone who applies a modicum of intelligence to current world events, that people are being turned against each other through propaganda, lies and deceit. Muslims and Jews are pitted against each other, hatred is whipped up, and we have to ask who exactly this serves. There is no 'Jewish Conspiracy', there is no 'Threat from Islam'; the real threat is from those who seek to profit form such division and hatred. Follow the money, and you'll fine a lot of very 'respectable' people behind all this. Who will hail from all sorts of cultures and faiths. Who exploit already existing religious fundamentalism to fuel more wars. And they are being aided and abetted by our politicians who are actually elected to serve OUR interests as a society; it us down to us to show collective outrage, resistance and dissent. I have no issue with people chanting '**** Kier Starmer', as I had no issue with people at the same event shouting '**** the government and **** Boris'. Our leaders must answer to the people; if Starmer thinks he has the public on his side, he is very much mistaken.
In short; our real enemies are no those with whom we actually share so much in common; it's those who seek to divide us. Don't get sucked into playing their games. Save your hatred for those who really call the shots.
There's a lot in your post, and thanks for taking the time to time to write it down. I agree with your conclusion that
In short; our real enemies are no those with whom we actually share so much in common; it's those who seek to divide us.
but just to respond to a small part,
Calling for 'death, death to the IDF' is calling for death for people I love
this is not true, despite being the interpretation broadcast by the BBC on their lunchtime news bulletin. The "death of the IDF" is not the same as the death of individual members, just as calling for the end of Israel as an apartheid state is not the same as calling for the death of individual Israelis. I think in another post someone mentioned a Tory politician (Rab Butler) talks about the "death of Labour". 'Death' is a metaphor.
Regarding the predicament of Israelis with respect to military service, it's hard to have much sympathy. They live on stolen land and take the benefits of that. If they really had a moral objection to doing what they do, they would have made other choices long ago.