You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Everyone appears to be calling what has been happening in Gaza for the last 20 months a "war" but apparently it is only acceptable for one side to do the killing!
Do we understand what war actually means? It's about two sides causing death and destruction until one side is overwhelmed.
The current UK government has decided to back one side in this war, Israel, and it is apparently perfectly okay for them to help Israel cause death and destruction to Palestine.
I on the other hand support Palestine, since when has the UK government been able to decide who I can personally support in the Palestine-Israel conflict?
Just like the UK government wants Israel to prevail in this conflict I want Palestine to prevail, if Palestine had managed to cause sufficient death and destruction to Israel this war would have been over. The only reason it is carrying on unabated is because Israel has had such low casualties.
Given a choice between a dead Palestinian or a dead Israeli Sir Keir Starmer would very clearly prefer a dead Palestinian. I on the other hand would prefer a dead Israeli.
I base my conclusion on the fact that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine and under international law it is perfectly legal to violently oppose foreign occupation, my position in rooted in legality.
Sir Keir Starmer's position on the other hand is rooted in illegality - the illegal occupation of Palestine.
So is this a "war" as the media constantly tells us that it is or not? I have never heard of a war where only one side is expected to do the killing.
MOD - If you wish to discuss the wider subject of Gaza, do it in the main thread. This one is specifically about what happened on the base.
Some people got through a fence and painted some planes
/end
Well, they used paint to try and put a jet engine out of action.
Well, they used paint to try and put a jet engine out of action.
Which is criminal damage. Let's be honest, if that's terrorism, the RAF will run out of planes before PA run out of paint.
That's good - but if I'm honest I can't see that the judge will find in the favour of PA, because no matter what the 'real' definition of terrorism is, it meets the legal one.
I hope I'm wrong
Which is criminal damage. Let's be honest, if that's terrorism, the RAF will run out of planes before PA run out of paint.
I think it’s highly likely the RAF run out of planes long before any diy shed or car paint shop runs out of paint. We don’t actually have that many aircraft in the RAF
but if I'm honest I can't see that the judge will find in the favour of PA, because no matter what the 'real' definition of terrorism is, it meets the legal one.
Yeah that's the problem, which is why the Terrorism Act 2000 should be repealed. Until 25 years ago the UK didn't have any permanent anti-terrorist legislation, just some temporary measures to deal with the Troubles, and those temporary measures had to be regularly reapproved by Parliament.
Terrorism in the UK is a very small problem, relatively speaking, which is totally overblown by the media and exploited by politicians for their own agendas. More people are murdered in Croydon in one year than die from terrorism in the whole of the UK.
Reactionary politicians the world over love the spectre of terrorism because it is used to scare the population, justify repressive measures, whip up patriotism, and is used as excuses to go to war.
Standard criminal law can deal with any incidents of terrorism, as it did until recently. There is no reason to give someone who is motivated by politics any less rights than a serial killer.
And right now we are seeing how open to abuse by governments it is.
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.
Well, that's simply your own interpretation, doesn't make it any less 'true' for millions of Israelis. You're just applying your own form of revisionism to the argument. All my IDF-served Israeli friends (none of whom support the Israeli government or the genocide) think it's offensive. You don't get to decide what others find offensive. That's the problem with just shouting out ignorant vitriol.
Also, there is an awful lot of misunderstanding and lack of awareness of how antisemitism manifests. In this case, the IDF is formed only of Jewish Israeli citizens (Arab Israelis are exempt from service), and a very tiny number of Druze Christian and Circassian Muslim men. so in this sense, shouting 'death to the IDF' is in essence antisemitic, even if those shouting it are unaware of this fact, and are not themselves antisemites. The Glastonbury event organisation have themselves condemned the chants as antisemitic. Flip it round, and many have condemned the chanting of 'death to Arabs' in demonstrations in Israel and even here int he UK (shouted in Hebrew which seems to get round scrutiny by police). So by your logic, is that also just 'metaphorical'? It's important to condemn racism and prejudice equivocally. Anything else is hypocritical.
Personally. I don't think the chants warrant anything more than a commitment by 'offenders' to be less offensive, and maybe become better educated. I think a lot of the vitriol being expressed is coming from a good place, but is misguided and often misplaced. There just needs to be more understanding and empathy, and less hatred. The faux outrage expressed by some who condemn the chants is brought into sharp perspective by their seeming unwillingness to condemn genocide. Statements by discredited organisations such as the Board of Deputies and the CAA are little more than an attempt to distract from what's really going on. I such organisations were genuinely committed to peace as they claims, they'd be condemning the genocide as much as any other decent human beings. Yet they don't appear to be doing so.
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.
Using terms like 'stolen land' is pointless; are you going to equally cry the same for the whole of the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc? It's also pointless because Israel is a state recognised under international law (as is Palestine). Most Israelis are born there. So should they not have the same rights to statehood as anyone else, including the Palestinians?
Your comments just read as ignorance and hateful. To state 'they would have made other choices long ago'; what you actually mean is that they should leave, don't you? None of the Israelis I know, either in the UK or in Israel, live or have lived in any of the illegal settlements. So you would deny them the same birthright you demand for Palestinians? Remember that there were Jews living in that area for a very long time before the British decided to divvy up the land. So where are Jews meant to go if they should make 'other choices'? Any suggestions?
Using terms like 'stolen land' is pointless; are you going to equally cry the same for the whole of the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc?
It would be if Israel had stayed within its 1947 agreed borders. But it hasn’t. It has occupied land that is not its for 50+ years. I completely agree Israel has every right to exist in international law but only within those agreed borders
DELETED - comment by moderators noted.
Mod - thanks. Final warning to the rest of you. Keep on topic or the thread will be closed.
There are emergency screenings of this planned throughout the country before the government bans it
https://tokillawarmachine.com/#ScreeningsSection
I don't about other areas but the screening this Thursday at 7pm at Croydon Sports Arena is free
I'm not sure if this is wise in light of the impending vote to classify them as a terrorist organisation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czryyej6dk6o
Notice how neatly they mention in a report about PA's actions that the site has been ram-raided, when the group don't actually appear to mentioned in that report on the ram-raiding incident.
Well - that's embarrassing. On further investigation, it looks like it WAS them.
the group don't actually appear to mentioned in that report on the ram-raiding incident
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vmjjxvj0eo
If I disagree with your post can I express my disagreement by smashing up your car/flat in a peaceful manner?
No - because there is no justification for that. However there is a general principle in UK law that you can commit a crime to prevent a bigger one or to preserve life - the doctrine of necessity. this defense has been removed from protestors simply because it was successful.
So under the doctrine of necessity you can commit a crime to prevent a crime so long as its minimum needed and proportionate - unless you are a protestor when following recent legislation you cannot
The example often used is a criminal in jail can escape from that jail if it is on fire to preserve their life.
You can also forcibly prevent someone from committing a crime even tho that force would be normally an assault
Elbit Systems UK has previously denied that the facility supplies the Israeli military with arms.
A spokesperson said: "Any claims that this facility supplies the Israeli military or Israeli Ministry of Defence are categorically false."
Wtf?? Are they being smart-arses over the precise definition of "arms"??
"Elbit Systems Ltd. is an Israel-based international military technology company and defense contractor"
Elbit supplies the Israeli military with 85% of their drones and land-based equipment, as well as electronic warfare systems.
Elbit is very obviously a vital component to Israeli terrorist activities in Occupied Palestine, even if not all of their products** are destined for Israel, and therefore a perfectly legitimate target.
Edit : ** produced in the UK
385 for 26 against
I have never understood why in situations like this PA can not just rebrand and become "Action for Palestine"
I guess it's the group that's proscribed not the name
385 for 26 against
That is utterly depressing.
I guess it's the group that's proscribed not the name
But how do you define the group? Its not individuals that have been proscribed
I guess it's the group that's proscribed not the name
But how do you define the group? Its not individuals that have been proscribed
No idea. Maybe the members and aim of the group can be used legally to determine despite a name change it's the same group. But... Honestly... I've no idea
385 for 26 against
That is utterly depressing.
Yep
385 for 26 against
Appalling but probably not surprising.
My Wife and I watched the first episode of Netflix's 7/7 bombings documentary yesterday evening, that shows real terrorism, utterly horrific. One of the problems cited for the attack not being picked up & stopped was the fact that MI5 & the counter terrorism police were too small & had too many people on their radar to surveil & track them all. Now it appears, they're going to have to manage organisations & people who embarrass the government as well.
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)
Worried yet ?
One of the problems cited for the attack not being picked up & stopped was the fact that MI5 & the counter terrorism police were too small & had too many people on their radar to surveil & track them all. Now it appears, they're going to have to manage organisations & people who embarrass the government as well.
There is no reason to assume that MI5 are daft enough to consider Palestine Action to be actual "terrorists" so presumably they won't waste precious resources worrying about them.
The advantage for the government of proscribing Palestine Action as terrorists is quite simply that the Crown won't have to prove in court any criminality caused individuals whatsoever, just proving they are members of Palestine Action will be sufficient to lock them up.
The defence used by Starmer successfully when he was a lefty lawyer that it is lawful to cause criminal damage if it is to stop a greater crime being committed will become totally meaningless.
This is a hugely dangerous step but in keeping with a lurch away from liberal values in much of the Western world and a greater embrace of authoritarianism.
Quite what the Reform-Tory government will do in four years as a follow on act after Labour is anyone's guess. But I certainly expect them to expand on Labour's logic to include all sorts of protests groups.
And perhaps even go beyond the "any group which causes criminal damage is terrorist" to perhaps "any group which causes public inconvenience is a terrorist organisation".
After all if politicians are going to redefine the word "terrorist" to suit their own personal agendas then the only limit is their imagination. I am sure that Nigel Farage has his own personal Idea of what a terrorist is, and we will probably find out after he becomes prime minister.
Now Palestine Action is a proscribed organisation does that mean anyone wearing a keffiyeh, holding a "free, Palestine" sign or waving a Palestinian flag risk arrest and 6 months in jail?
Does expressing support/solidarity with the Palestinians equate to reasonable suspicion of support for Palestine Action?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/13
I just do not know how it can be enforced. Presumably a court would have to make a judgement that they were a member? How do you prove someone is a member of a proscribed organisation?
its awfully close to thought crime for me.
Does expressing support/solidarity with the Palestinians equate to reasonable suspicion of support for Palestine Action?
Of course not.
How do you prove someone is a member of a proscribed organisation?
Usual communications network and attendance stuff, I'd imagine. Who's in regular contact with whom. Who's in meetings together. Etc.
Usual communications network and attendance stuff, I'd imagine. Who's in regular contact with whom. Who's in meetings together. Etc.
Since Palestine Action has been involved in criminal activity from the very beginning I doubt that information will be easily available.
I have a huge range of contacts locally in connection with Palestine and criminal damage has been done more than once to a local Barclays Bank, broken windows and red paint (I strongly disapprove) Photos of the aftermath have been posted on WhatsApp groups but no one I know has ever claimed to be in Palestine Action. And why would they?
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)
Worried yet ?
No.
It's got to go the Lords yet, but I think that proscription will happen because of the volume of their attacks as I intimated ^^. The severity of some attacks and violence against people went too far.
Then the legal process will begin and you can be de-proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. The name of a group can be changed internally but that doesn't stop prosecution under proscription rules https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/09/15/factsheet-proscription/
The legal process will be interesting
The group has been charged now; Criminal Damage and National Security Act 2023 offences https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly1jejw4xeo
Worried yet ?
No.
It's got to go the Lords yet, but I think that proscription will happen because of the volume of their attacks as I intimated ^^. The severity of some attacks and violence against people went too far.
So basically you are no longer "worried" because you have changed your mind?
It will obviously sail through the Lords because it had the overwhelming support of the Commons.
Then the legal process will begin and you can be de-proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Dream on. The only way that an organisation which has been classed as terrorist is ever likely to be "de-proscribed" is if it forms or is part of a government somewhere.
And btw how do you think anyone can make the case for un-proscribing an organisation without expressing support for it? Just saying they should be legal is obviously expressing support for it.
One of the primary aims of proscribing an organisation is to silence any discussions concerning them.
Someone sent me this today
Spare a thought for the IDF today. They were out all day yesterday shooting innocent people trying to get bags of flour, and when they got home they had to find out the heartbreaking news that some people at Glastonbury don't like them. That cannot be good for your mental health.
So basically you are no longer "worried" because you have changed your mind?
I didn't say "no longer worried"
And btw how do you think anyone can make the case for un-proscribing an organisation without expressing support for it? Just saying they should be legal is obviously expressing support for it.
What a George W. Bush binary train of thought, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (2001). I doubt that's what anyone had in mind.
Can you not just make a legal case and state the facts, like any witness in any case would?
Can you not just make a legal case and state the facts, like any witness in any case would?
So you think someone can give a television interview, for example, making the case that say Hamas, or any other terrorist organisation, should be seen as legitimate freedom fighters and not terrorists without the risk of being prosecuted for supporting a terrorist organisation?
I'm not convinced.
Can you not just make a legal case and state the facts, like any witness in any case would?
So you think someone can give a television interview, for example, making the case that say Hamas, or any other terrorist organisation, should be seen as legitimate freedom fighters and not terrorists without the risk of being prosecuted for supporting a terrorist organisation?
I'm not convinced.
We were talking about de-proscription as a process under s4 of the Terrorism Act 2000, I thought.
Why would that include a TV interview; it isn't Judge Rinder. At this point I'll bow out
The only way that an organisation which has been classed as terrorist is ever likely to be "de-proscribed" is if it forms or is part of a government somewhere
Well Hezbollah had/have a number of MPs (I think) but they are still deemed a terrorist organisation. I'm not really sure how that works even with the very flexible definitions that the UK works with.
Asking for a friend but if one was to voice support for Palestine, Action, do I they go to prison? Palestine & Action? Palestine_Action?
Time to remove Elbit systems from the UK?, I’d be up for that, quite how anyone can choose to work at a company knowing their handiwork is being used to commit a genocide that leaves them accountable is astounding
Asking for a friend but if one was to voice support for Palestine, Action, do I they go to prison? Palestine & Action? Palestine_Action?
I sent an email to Starmer stating my support for Palestine Action with screenshot of my donation, and there's hundreds if not thousands of others done the same so we'll see.
Why would that include a TV interview; it isn't Judge Rinder
Because if there is an attempt to legally challenge and "de-proscribe" Palestine Action I would expect it to be backed up by a public campaign, isn't that how democracy works?
This is a genuine question as there is a team of lawyers who are currently organising meetings in South London to make the case for removing Hamas from the list of proscribed organisations in the UK.
Their campaign is twofold, political and legal. Here is an example of one of their meetings which I didn't attend, their meeting in my local mosque which I was going to attend was cancelled at the last moment.
So how can they make the case for Hamas without falling foul of the Terrorism Act 2000?
Edit : Obviously as lawyers they are not going to be stupid enough to fall foul of the Terrorism Act 2000 but I don't understand how they get round it, eg, claiming that Hamas are freedom fighters not terrorists sounds very much like expressing support for them.
Nicely put :
Palestine Action has targeted property to challenge a war in which tens of thousands of civilians have been killed.
The group’s protests embarrass the government: the UK continues to supply equipment to Israel’s military as it slaughters Palestinians. Despite overwhelming evidence that war crime is piling on war crime in Gaza, and reportedly contrary to the advice of its own lawyers, the British government will not say that Israel has broken international law.
The government should be doing all it can to end this conflict, not to criminalise protests against it. But you do not need to sympathise with Palestine Action’s aims to believe that its proscription sets a chilling precedent and undermines democracy.
And as the Guardian editorial points out :
It is lamentable that MPs backed it. But cynically listing two white-supremacist organisations on the same order – Maniacs Murder Cult, whose members have claimed violent attacks globally, and Russian Imperial Movement, which seeks to create a new Russian imperial state – made it harder for legislators to vote it down.
Yeah I reckon that is how Yvette Cooper managed to get overwhelming support for her ban. She obviously didn't have the confidence that a stand alone ban would get the backing. It's still shameful mind, imo.
I don’t see how this group is embarrassing the UK government
This group are not doing anything that will help achieve their aims, many of which I support. All they are doing is playing into the lefties nutter narrative. Does anyone, for 1 second, believe that committing criminal damage is going to make any difference to the plight of the Palestinian people? Does anyone think their actions are going to help achieve a sensible resolution, let alone see those responsible for the atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank held to account?
All this group are doing is making it easier for the Idf to carry on by using them to label all those who want to see a just settlement as extremists.
I don’t see how this group is embarrassing the UK government
Well that depends on how shameless you consider the UK government to be. My personal opinion is not too far from yours in some respects:
1. The UK government is utterly shameless and will not be embarrassed at all by evidence that they are supporting a genocide
2. committing criminal damage will not help the Palestinians (see 1)
3. Their actions will not see a sensible resolution or justice for the perpetrators. Nor will any other actions that can be realistically contemplated, given the entrenched psychopathic nature of Israeli society, and the greed and stupidity of their patrons in Washington.
But. Maybe I'm wrong. It would be unforgivable to not TRY, just in case a miracle happens.
I don’t see how this group is embarrassing the UK government
Of course they are an embarrassment to this deeply unpopular government. They are a constant headline-grabbing reminder of how totally out of step with the opinion of voters this government is on this particular issue.
The poll, conducted by Opinium Research between 30 May and 2 June, found that 57 percent of people think the UK should impose a full arms embargo, with only 13 percent opposed.
Only 13% of voters support the government's current policy on arms sales to Israel !
Now whether causing criminal damage, as opposed to other tactics, is counterproductive is a different question. But there is no doubt that the government will be embarrassed by the constant reminder that they are helping to prop up a criminal far-right genocidal regime.
Which is why they have resorted to firstly attempting to silence Palestine Action, and secondly vilifying them by accusing them of being terrorists, a well-used tactic by authoritarian anti-democratic governments.
eg, claiming that Hamas are freedom fighters not terrorists sounds very much like expressing support for them.
Then maybe under international law, that the Palestinian people have the right of an armed resistance in face of an occupying force.
Hamas being that armed resistance.
I don’t see how this group is embarrassing the UK government
This group are not doing anything that will help achieve their aims, many of which I support. All they are doing is playing into the lefties nutter narrative. Does anyone, for 1 second, believe that committing criminal damage is going to make any difference to the plight of the Palestinian people? Does anyone think their actions are going to help achieve a sensible resolution, let alone see those responsible for the atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank held to account?
All this group are doing is making it easier for the Idf to carry on by using them to label all those who want to see a just settlement as extremists.
Here you go, perhaps this will help inform you
https://twitter.com/rivkahbrown/status/1940816076163686840?s=46&t=qvPR6lBfBXtAWZ-6beFWyA
But don’t worry, it’s all democratic
Palestine Action website is now down, **** this bunch of ****s running scared from Israeli lobbyists
Time to rattle of another very sweary email to starmer and co telling them what I think of their stance
It is perhaps time to start taking this shit seriously Somafunk. It might not impact on you personally but it might impact on those actively involved in opposing the genocide, especially if they risk getting arrested on a demo for whatever reason and there is an investigation into their social media activity.
We received this following WhatsApp message from an administrator of the Croydon Palestine Solidarity Campaign (she is herself Palestinian and a solicitor)
Dear members
Shamefully, the High Court today failed to pause the proscription of Palestine Action. That means that from 00:01 tonight Palestine Action will be proscribed as a terrorist group and it will be an offence under the Terrorism Act to be a member of or to show support for Palestine Action.
This includes supporting them verbally, sharing posts, wearing their logo etc....
Comrades at NetPol have produced some very useful guidance on the far reaching and draconian impact of proscription, as well as the potential consequences, including up to 14 years imprisonment, for falling foul of this unjust law:
https://netpol.org/2025/06/26/palestine-action -ban-guidance
If you are arrested under terrorism charges, please be aware that your rights will differ from those in a normal arrest. You could be held indefinitely without charge and treated as a terrorist. Individuals who have experienced this under the PREVENT strategy have reported being held in lit rooms in white paper jumpsuits for days.
Furthermore, an arrest can lead to significant long-term consequences, including:
Loss of access to bank accounts
Inability to obtain DBS clearance
Difficulty securing a mortgage or credit
Potential impacts on your partner
Restrictions on your freedom to travel, as many countries may deny you entry
It is vital that we all take these warnings seriously and protect ourselves and our community. Therefore, I ask you NOT to post anything about Palestine Action in this chat or any platform of PSC Croydon. Such posts will be deleted. To be clear we do not agree with the decision but we have a duty of care to our members some of whom are vulnerable.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation during this sensitive time.
Stay safe, everyone.
It is perhaps time to start taking this shit seriously Somafunk. It might not impact on you personally but it might impact on those actively involved in opposing the genocide, especially if they risk getting arrested on a demo for whatever reason and there is an investigation into their social media activity.
Yes, indeed. British 'democracy' took a very dark turn yesterday, and it has frightening implications for the notion of 'free speech' in our country, and possibly beyond. Sensing 'sweary emails' to Kier Starmer aren't likely to get past the automated filters, let alone further screening, and you won't register at all on the radar of security services, so basically you're wasting your own time doing so anyway. They might prosecute you under a breach of the Communications Act, just for lols, but very unlikely unless you persist. In short, it's not an activity that's going to get you anywhere. At worst, it could lead to your computer etc being seized, and that could have implications for others you communicate with, so think on.
Friends in the legal world are very, very concerned with the implications this decision has on many aspects of freedom of speech, and the freedom to protest etc. Our rights are being eroded very rapidly; we now have fewer rights in terms of FoS and protest, than we did just a few years ago.
Also, it's unhelpful to persist with the tired old clichés such as blaming the 'Israeli lobby', as that's both ignorant and fails to address the real issue which lies way beyond Israel. Screaming 'oh but Israel' all the time just detracts from all the shadowy machinations of agencies well beyond Israel. And it helps perpetuate the hatred that fuels support for war, and the flow of money that generates. And keeps us all divided. Look instead to the real roots of those attempts to divide us; the rise in fascism and ethno-nationalism in Europe and the US hasn't happened by accident, and has accelerated massively in just a couple of decades. We've now moved from 'never again', to 'when'. Israel-Palestine is a distraction; Billions of dollars are being pumped in to making sure that whilst our focus is concentrated on that, we're not seeing what else is happening. One aspect of this is that it's now clear to see that our politicians really aren't in control; they're being manipulated and told what to do by external forces bent on undermining our societies. This is very disturbing, yet we can still do something about it. The talk of a new left-wing party forming is encouraging, signs of roots of resistance, but obviously far too small yet to have any impact. The option of direct action is always available to those who wish to take such risks, but such action needn't take place under any particular banner. I expect many small organisations will spring up in place of Palestine Action, and it will be a game of whack-a-mole for the government and security services to try to chase them all. Keep them busy, spread their resources so thin they snap. Remember that we are many, they are few. And divided, we are weak. Seek what unites, not divides us. In the last couple of days, I've come under attack on here, from people I would probably otherwise be allied with, simply because I have a different perspective. Don't let your own narrative become your prison. Listen to others, learn, grow stronger together.
I don’t see how this group is embarrassing the UK government
This group are not doing anything that will help achieve their aims, many of which I support. All they are doing is playing into the lefties nutter narrative. Does anyone, for 1 second, believe that committing criminal damage is going to make any difference to the plight of the Palestinian people? Does anyone think their actions are going to help achieve a sensible resolution, let alone see those responsible for the atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank held to account?
All this group are doing is making it easier for the Idf to carry on by using them to label all those who want to see a just settlement as extremists.
Here you go, perhaps this will help inform you
https://twitter.com/rivkahbrown/status/1940816076163686840?s=46&t=qvPR6lBfBXtAWZ-6beFWyA
The evidence in Gaza and the West Bank suggest that they have had no meaningful affect at all.
I still don’t understand why so many here think that committing criminal act repeatedly is ok because in this instance you happen to support their views.
I still don’t understand why so many here think that committing criminal act repeatedly is ok because in this instance you happen to support their views.
I don't understand what you don't understand :-). What I don't understand is how you can support someone's views but be so against them doing anything to further their (and your) aims?
I still don’t understand why so many here think that committing criminal act repeatedly is ok because in this instance you happen to support their views.
I think that if someone believes that committing a 'criminal act' to try to help prevent further genocide is justifiable, then that is commendable. Don't you?
I still don’t understand why so many here think that committing criminal act repeatedly is ok
Do they though? I know that Somafunk does but is it really a case of "so many" think it's ok?
Personally I strongly oppose Palestine Action's tactics (for a variety of reasons although under different circumstances I might) But I utterly oppose the false claim that they are "terrorists" which I consider to be deeply sinister and dangerous.
Yes I know that Labour politicians have decided to redefine what terrorism means but I find that deeply sinister and dangerous.
And not least because these same politicians will not classify bombing children, starving them, shooting them in the head, and burning them alive, as terrorism.
I don't need morally bankrupt politicians such as Yvette Cooper and Sir Keir Starmer to lecture me on what constitutes terrorism.
Personally I strongly oppose Palestine Action's tactics (for a variety of reasons although under different circumstances I might)
You've said that a few times but AFAIK you've not said what those "reasons" are (maybe I just didn't read that post). Is it because you think "breaking the law" is inherently "bad", or because you think doing so is counterproductive to the achieving the desired objective?
Yes I know that Labour politicians have decided to redefine what terrorism means
They haven't, they have decided to (rigidly) apply the definition as laid down by law from 2000. Not a good thing, either way but important I think because it tied the courts hands yesterday to support the appeals that what PA did 'isn't terrorism'
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1
I still don’t understand why so many here think that committing criminal act repeatedly is ok because in this instance you happen to support their views.
I'm not sure many are saying criminal acts are ok. We're saying they should be treated as criminal acts rather than terrorist acts.
Whilst pointing out that many rights and freedoms we enjoy now were won by people committing criminal acts
They haven't, they have decided to (rigidly) apply the definition as laid down by law from 2000. Not a good thing, either way but important I think because it tied the courts hands yesterday to support the appeals that what PA did 'isn't terrorism'
That's the beauty of drafting laws that are so broad that they can be interpreted any way you want - they give the freedom to politicians to prohibit anything they like.
I just had a look at the list of proscribed organisations. I thought at first I'd clicked on one of binners' memes by mistake
Yes I know that Labour politicians have decided to redefine what terrorism means
They haven't, they have decided to (rigidly) apply the definition as laid down by law from 2000.
I am not sure if you realise it but you have simply reiterated the point I made. It was Labour politicians in 2000 who laid down the definition of what constitutes terrorism.
I don't need Labour politicians to tell me that spraying red paint is terrorism but destroying hospitals and murdering children isn't.
When a Labour Home Secretary adds the IDF to the list of proscribed terrorist organisations I might start taking their opinions of what constitutes terrorism a tad more seriously.
Personally I strongly oppose Palestine Action's tactics (for a variety of reasons although under different circumstances I might)
You've said that a few times but AFAIK you've not said what those "reasons" are (maybe I just didn't read that post). Is it because you think "breaking the law" is inherently "bad", or because you think doing so is counterproductive to the achieving the desired objective?
Yes I did give reasons but that is no longer important because Yvette Cooper has decided that I cannot support them anyway, whether I want to or not.
I cannot believe just how low a Labour government has stooped. It has joined Nigel Farage in the gutter. And now heading for the sewer.
That's the beauty of drafting laws that are so broad that they can be interpreted any way you want - they give the freedom to politicians to prohibit anything they like.
Yes, I've said previously I think it is bad law, but it does make what PA did technically terrorism, and therefore the courts hands are tied to be able to say it isn't. And while this Gov is rightly taking the blame for the interpretations / decisions to call PA terrorists against what 'most people' consider a true definition, they didn't write the law.
It was Labour politicians in 2000 who laid down the definition of what constitutes terrorism.
Yes, true, but if you were referring to the parliamentary process from quarter of a century ago that created that act why would you phrase it in the present tense 'Labour politicians have decided to redefine what terrorism means'. As above, interpretation is on them but not the definition.
Or maybe we can play it the other way....can i congratulate Kier and chums for creating the NHS, brilliant work 😉
As above, interpretation is on them but not the definition.
So previous Labour politicians redefined the term "terrorism" to suit their own agenda and current Labour politicians have decided to interpret it in their own way but that's okay because they were/are both wrong??
I don't get the point you are trying to make. You seem to be saying it's a shit law introduce by Labour politicians but don't blame current Labour politicians for exploiting it .....is that correct?
but it does make what PA did technically terrorism, and therefore the courts hands are tied to be able to say it isn't.
Well we already have the first test cases
https://novaramedia.com/2025/07/05/protesters-arrested-for-holding-i-support-palestine-action-signs/
If you look at the clip in the link you will see a very elderly and frail old woman being led away by a copper, she is very clearly a terrorist!
So God bless Yvette Cooper thanks to her we can all sleep safely in our beds tonight! 🤨🥹
The country has been slipping into authoritarianism for a long time. If you're going to oppose the official narrative you need to tread very carefully, give the state even the slightest excuse and they'll use every weapon at their disposal to crush you. When we live in a time where people get arrested for speech, messing with military aircraft will bring the state down on you like a ton of bricks. This was a very foolish move by PA.
Sadly if a member of the "far right" had pulled a stunt like this I have no doubt that many in this thread would be cheering the government on.
I don't get the point you are trying to make. You seem to be saying it's a shit law introduce by Labour politicians but don't blame current Labour politicians for exploiting it .....is that correct?
No, it isn't. Let me make it as clear as I can
1. The current Gov didn't push the act through which created the 2000 law, which defines Terrorism in the terms I've linked above, so for you to say that "Labour politicians have decided to redefine" (present tense) isn't correct.
2. They HAVE decided to interpret the 2000 definition strictly, which I have said several times is IMHO not right, most recently "not a good thing" and for avoidance of doubt I am particularly against the bit that says that (paraphrase) "serious damage to property....in attempt to influence the government" constitutes terrorism. But I can't ignore that it does.
3. It is their choice on who / what orgs they take to parliament to approve proscription and on this I am also against, also that they did a job lot including two other orgs to complicate the decision
4. In spite of my opinions expressed in 2 and 3 - the 2000 act is clear in definition and so once the Gov by proper action in parliament proscribes PA as a rerrorist organisation, it makes it virtually impossible for a court to say it isn't. So any criticism of the judiciary has to be careful, they don't set law, they apply it, and on occasion interpret. IANAL but the only bit that seems vaguely open to interpretation against the 2000 law as written is whether paint in jet engines (section 2b) constitutes "serious damage to property"
Thanks jonv yeah I know that you think the decision to proscribe Palestine Action is wrong, you have said so on several occasions now!
I still don't understand why you keep pointing out that what the government has done with regards to PA is legal. I am not aware of a single person who has question the legality of the issue.
I am only aware of people who, like you, think that the decision is wrong.
Sadly if a member of the "far right" had pulled a stunt like this I have no doubt that many in this thread would be cheering the government on.
Well if a member of the far-right pulled a stunt like that I think it would surprise a lot of people, the far-right are not generally associated with peaceful demonstrations against genocides.
And if people on this thread did indeed cheer the government for using anti-terrorist legislation against peaceful far-right protestors it would definitely be shortsighted imo.
I don't oppose the classification of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation because I agree with them [Yvette Cooper please note] but because they are clearly not terrorists, whatever some daft law might say.
The problem with far-right protestors however is that they are not historically noted for the peaceful nature of their protests. In fact for almost a hundred years far-right protests and demonstrations have been strongly linked with violence and terrorising entire communities.
From the violent far-right marches in Jewish areas of London in the 1930s to the far-right attacks on hotels housing asylum seekers less than a year ago.
So there's that.
So God bless Yvette Cooper thanks to her we can all sleep safely in our beds tonight! 🤨🥹
And under the heading of "Anything Yvette Cooper can do, I can do something stupider (or die trying)" Lisa Nandy has been calling for the BBC to sack people over the Gaza documentary. Not the one that they were too biased and cowardly to broadcast, but the one they did broadcast and make available very briefly on iPlayer, which was narrated by a child who was the son of an agricultural scientist hired by Hamas to help feed the Palestinians.
Labour politicians have decided to redefine" (present tense)
I'm not a linguist (cunning or otherwise) but I'm pretty sure that isn't the present tense. According to my hazy memory it's "present perfect".
Sadly if a member of the "far right" had pulled a stunt like this I have no doubt that many in this thread would be cheering the government on.
Well there's no evidence of that being the case, so you can cheer up a bit!
Seems to be kicking off, presumably in London. An 83 year old priest has been arrested along with many others. Good on them for protesting and sticking two fingers up at this authoritarian government.
Who, what and how would you protest?
These thoughts run through my tiny brain these days ,even more so after a visit to 'Resistance'.
For anyone North of the wall (or visiting Edinburgh),I highly recommend >>Resistance | National Galleries of Scotland
This is quite an interesting read.