Forum menu
Vulnerability to drone attack is a good point Is it not cost effective to have multimillion pound planes kept in hangars with closed doors?
That is so obvious presumably there is disadvantages as well.
At no point did anyone apart from the most rabid Daily Mail reader think JSO were terrorists though.
Well, there’s the previously mentioned Lord Walney, government advisor on “extremism” for one
I'm far from being a legal expert, but I'm sure there's something in English law that states its acceptable to commit one crime if trying to prevent a much greater one. This was pretty much the gist of Kier Starmer's defence (of the Fairford Five). So it kind of undermines Starmer somewhat, if something he actually did himself brings into question actions he might take in the near future. That there is legal precedent, that of the original 'Fairford Five' only two were ever convicted of any crimeI believe, and they were the relatively minor crimes of criminal damage. Not terrorism. So to try to apply the terrorism act would already be undermined by this precedent surely? And if the government were to push for this, it would make Starmer look even more hypocritical and weak than he already is.
I remember nothing in the 2024 Labour Party election manifesto that mentioned aiding genocide and the invasion of sovereign lands to support other nations' colonial and imperial interests. Therefore the government has no public mandate to act in such a way. Doing so would therefore surely be undemocratic?
What recourse do we have, if peaceful and fair means of protest are taken away from us?
If a far right group were damaging military airplanes, publicising that they were, and protecting their members who carried out the attacks… they’d be proscribed. And it would be different people saying it was unnecessary.
And plenty of people on here would be calling them all sorts of things but because they agree with the cause think they should be let off
Let off? I'd give them a shiney medal and pat on the back for giving RAF security a necessary wake up call. They've already been given the stage they were seeking so that bit's covered.
If a far right group were damaging military airplanes, publicising that they were, and protecting their members who carried out the attacks… they’d be proscribed.
And it would be equally daft to label any far-right groups "terrorist" for simply doing that.
Far-right groups have a long history of terrorising people and communities, there is no need for spurious accusations.
A history stretching back from the 1930s right up to last summer.
And plenty of people on here would be calling them all sorts of things but because they agree with the cause think they should be let off
Have you thought its best not to judge everyone else by your own standards? You cant see the problem with terrorism laws and proscribing organisations being used for this?
Yes arrest and charge them but terrorism laws are for the most extreme cases and as such infringe the most of civil liberties. Once you start using them for this where do you stop?
Although on the right vs left scenario. Lets be realistic here a cursory look at how JSO were treated vs the farmers and fuel campaigners shows that the right are always treated leniently.
Exactly, and if a supposed "left wing" government (I'm exaggerating for effect, bare with me) classifies a peaceful protest as terrorism and we let them get away with it, what the hell will the next "proper" right wing government do? Put Marines on the streets?
Give this government a couple of years, they'll get there.
Now his government is banning Palestine Action for doing the same.
Fair point. I think this time the targets were wide of the mark though.
It was Brize Norton. Not a nuclear weapons base. The security is scaled appropriate to the risk - and Brize is low risk.
If anyone wants Fort Knox security for a place like Brize, they best be ready to pay a shedload more tax every week.
Go look at Heathrow - you could readily get in with a pair of chunky wire cutters. But you'd be detected in seconds.
Exactly, and if a supposed "left wing" government (I'm exaggerating for effect, bare with me) classifies a peaceful protest as terrorism and we let them get away with it,
But it wasn’t a peaceful protest. They illegally entered military bases to cause criminal damage to equipment. That’s not peaceful protest
Yes it is. No violence was offered so its peaceful. I have a dictionary you could borrow
Quite a letter in the Guardian from the former Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
I am a former chief constable, and once attempted to become a Labour police and crime commissioner. I’m not therefore someone easily categorised as a supporter of terrorism or criminal activity. The decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group is beyond satire (Report, 20 June). I suspect that embarrassment over hilarious security failures at an RAF base may be clouding judgment and good sense.
Proscribing a group for peaceful protest – albeit illegal – is a disgrace. It is nearly as disgraceful as the continued UK support for the apartheid, ethnic-cleansing Israeli state. If the home secretary is so keen to proscribe an organisation, why not proscribe the terror group known as the Israel Defense Forces? They kill innocent people daily, and yet my voted-for government does absolutely nothing.
Words mean nothing. Israel’s leadership ignores them, yet our government persists in arming it. The proposal to proscribe Palestine Action is undemocratic and, frankly, shameful. It is an abuse of an important law – one here being used to suppress support for Palestinians. The home secretary appears to have left reason behind.
Meredydd Hughes
Bradwell, Derbyshire
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/22/ban-on-palestine-action-as-terrorists-is-shameful
People waited 14 years to get Tory prime ministers out of Downing Street, and this is what we get after all that waiting.
^ speak your mind!
even if your voice shakes
Met chief “shocked” regarding the protest planned for Monday in support of Palestine Action, “shocked eh?….i say **** him and his bunch of racist sexist thugs masquerading as police officers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79q1jv8p24o
Met chief “shocked” regarding the protest planned for Monday in support of Palestine Action, “shocked eh?….i say **** him and his bunch of racist sexist thugs masquerading as police officers
You do realise the moment that our Labour government announces Palestine Action has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation it will become a criminal offence to express any support for them don't you?
Even former chief constables will have to be careful what they write in letters to the Guardian.
So make the most of your current freedom to express support for Palestine Action, Labour look certain to deny you that right very soon.
Met chief “shocked” regarding the protest planned for Monday in support of Palestine Action, “shocked eh?….i say **** him and his bunch of racist sexist thugs masquerading as police officers
You do realise the moment that our Labour government announces Palestine Action has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation it will become a criminal offence to express any support for them don't you?
So?, should I care?, I’ll be adding another Palestine Action sticker on the rear window of the car as the originals from last year were beginning to peel in the heat last week , and I’ll order another few, stick them on my front door
Interesting to compare this to the action taken by a group of women when they smashed up a Hawk fighter jet back in 1996. The UK government approved the sale of Hawk fighter jets to Indonesia who were using them to commit genocide. The women got onto the airbase undetected, smashed up the jet with hammers as a protest action and then had to phone security as they hadn't been detected. In court they were found not guilty as whilst they had committed a crime it had been caried out to prevent an even greater crime, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Hope
Yes it is. No violence was offered so its peaceful. I have a dictionary you could borrow
I have an Act of Parliament that says that certain "peaceful acts" are excluded. Tunnelling, locking-on, public nuisance, obstructing access to Parliament, obstructing transport works (see also tunnelling and locking-on) and interference with key infrastructure.
The European Convention of Human Rights still maintains your right to assemble and express yourself, but even the ECHR doesn't apply on private land. Laws protect "the public" from over-exuberance, while maintaining their right to protest.
I have an Act of Parliament that says that certain "peaceful acts" are excluded
Excluded from what? Being peaceful?
The proposal to proscribe Palestine Action is undemocratic and, frankly, shameful. It is an abuse of an important law
I think sums it up perfectly. Shame his message isn't getting wider coverage
Yes it is. No violence was offered so its peaceful. I have a dictionary you could borrow
I have an Act of Parliament that says that certain "peaceful acts" are excluded.
Well that's the whole point, it was a peaceful act, as TJ correctly points out.
Politicians have decided to include peaceful acts as examples of "terrorism". An absurd development and also a very dangerous one.
And not least when you consider that the current government refuses to classify the IDF as a terrorist organisation despite the overwhelming evidence that it is. A point eloquently made at the top of this page by the former chief constable of South Yorkshire.
Well that's the whole point, it was a peaceful act, as TJ correctly points out.
Computer hacking is a "peaceful" act by that definition, it doesn't involve anything other than a few 1s and 0s. Let me know how you feel about that when "peaceful" demonstrators stop you accessing your bank account. It isn't always about the rights of a few protesters but the majority of the public; it's about proportionality 🙂
There has to be a limit to "peaceful" and that was breached at Brize.
Was it terrorism? Nah, that's just an embarrassed reaction from someone "tough on crime"
It isn't always about the rights of a few protesters but the majority of the public; it's about proportionality 🙂
It’s not at all about the rights of a few protesters. It’s about the right of EVERYONE to protest. If you want to talk about proportionality you need to address the balance between right to dissent in a democracy with the impact of some paint.
Computer hacking is a "peaceful" act by that definition, it doesn't involve anything other than a few 1s and 0s. Let me know how you feel about that when "peaceful" demonstrators stop you accessing your bank account. It isn't always about the rights of a few protesters but the majority of the public; it's about proportionality
Sorry are you seriously asking me how I "feel" about non-violent crime??
I have already stated on this thread that I strongly disapprove of Palestine Action's tactics. The fact that I don't approve of them doesn't somehow mean that I should support the idea of classifying non-violent crime as terrorism.
I leave that sort of irrational authoritarian nonsense to the likes of Kemi Badenoch and Donald Trump.
The difference being made of peaceful vs violent is a poor way of defining terrorism. It kind of works because of historical terrorist activities - murdering, blowing things up, etc., but in the modern world a 0's and 1's attack is also terror inducing - we saw the impact of a power station going out of sync in Spain, an attack on the national precision navigation and timing infrastructure would be non-violent* by the definitions being bandied about but devastating to all of us - more so I'd argue than an individual bomb in a city centre. It certainly scares me more.
Anyway - that's not the point, to me the issue is still that by the legal definitions the PA actions meet the definition of terrorism and so if the Gov is so inclined, they can on a legal basis proscribe them. I don't agree but they can, legally. But by the same hand, 'without fear and favour', we can't have them deciding that exactly the same act (JSO damaging property in an attempt to influence the Gov on ideological/ political/religious grounds, etc) then isn't to be treated the same. So they're either all terrorists, or none of them. I'm inclined that better legal minds than mine are wrestling this over, I wonder if the Secret Barrister is doing something on it, usually pretty balanced assessments.
* taken to full extent could cause multiple deaths but indirectly - bad example maybe but I'm drawing a difference between a direct bomb / bullet and this type.
It isn't always about the rights of a few protesters but the majority of the public; it's about proportionality 🙂
It’s not at all about the rights of a few protesters. It’s about the right of EVERYONE to protest. If you want to talk about proportionality you need to address the balance between right to dissent in a democracy with the impact of some paint.
Nothing that I wrote prevents protest.
There's a point where proportionality is the overriding principal; the ECHR protects everyone, not just protesters
There's a point where proportionality is the overriding principal;
Whatever that means.
But arguing that pots of paint is a disproportionate response to bombing children requires mental gymnastics of Olympic level.
Anyway - that's not the point, to me the issue is still that by the legal definitions the PA actions meet the definition of terrorism and so if the Gov is so inclined, they can on a legal basis proscribe them.
Who the hell has claimed that the government doesn't have the legal right to proscribe Palestine Action?
Maybe I have missed something but has someone actually made that claim or are you simply arguing with yourself?
As the former chief constable of South Yorkshire said.....Proscribing a group for peaceful protest – albeit illegal – is a disgrace.
The fact that the government has the power to do so is totally irrelevant to the point.
In the same that many of Donald Trump's authoritarian executive orders are perfectly legal but nevertheless a disgrace.
Calling them terrorists is just playing with words. Best sorted by prison sentences for anyone damaging RAF aircraft or similar games
Seemed to work for Just Stop Oil.
Seemed to work for Just Stop Oil.
if by “work ok” you meant “shut down protest with grotesquely harsh prison sentences” then yes, you’re right.
Seems to “work ok” for Putin as well.
I can only think the security weren't on the cameras/sensors. Having camped next to Fairford, it wouldn't be hard to walk up to the fence and cut the wire and walk in.
In the same that many of Donald Trump's authoritarian executive orders are perfectly legal but nevertheless a disgrace.
Well indeed. It’s a bit disturbing that whereas on the Trump thread his antics are roundly condemned, when the same philosophy is transplanted to a domestic context the punters are howling for blood. And then we ask how Reform are getting votes?
Maybe I have missed something but has someone actually made that claim or are you simply arguing with yourself?
Does a claim need to be made before a point can be made to the contrary? You really can be pretty rude, I don't know whether you mean to be.
You really can be pretty rude, I don't know whether you mean to be.
Yeah I didn't go to charm school. If a couple of punters on here want to keep banging on about the government having legal power to proscribe Palestine Action then I will point out that no one is disputing that.
The problem with authoritarian governments isn't generally that they act illegal but the reverse, they have laws which allow them to act in an immoral manner.
The issue being discussed is the morality of proscribing Palestine Action, not the legality of the issue.
Although on the right vs left scenario. Lets be realistic here a cursory look at how JSO were treated vs the farmers and fuel campaigners shows that the right are always treated leniently.
I thought both were treated far too leniently. Both protest had illegal elements that should have been treated harshly by the law
Surely, to be a terrorist, you need to be terrifying someone?
Blowing up random cars and cafes. Kidnapping, killing etc
They could be painting those jets with the pilots sat in them, and they wouldnt be causing and risk to them, let alone terror.
I would go as far as to say, unless youve actually killed someone, posed a real risk of killing someone, or implied a future risk of killing somone, youre just a protestor.
Absolutely appalled the Government have failed to take a strong oppostion to geonicide, let alone supported it. Unforgivable.
Surely, to be a terrorist, you need to be terrifying someone?
Blowing up random cars and cafes. Kidnapping, killing etc
Well exactly - dropping bombs on hospitals, shooting people queuing for food, dropping atom bombs on cities, starting fire storms in cities, raping American nuns. But apparently it’s more serious to pour paint on an aeroplane.
Absolutely appalled the Government have failed to take a strong oppostion to geonicide, let alone supported it. Unforgivable.
I agree but I guess that Starmer is trying to suck up to Trump.
I also think that he has an almost phobic response to anything Corbyn-like. His pro- Palestinian stance was often misconstrued (willfully in many cases I suspect) as anti-semitic.
The irony being, I think the actions of Israel and Zionists in general will certainly be conflated as Jewish actions and the impact on the Jewish community will suffer.
The irony being, I think the actions of Israel and Zionists in general will certainly be conflated as Jewish actions and the impact on the Jewish community will suffer.
That would please the Israeli Zionist/right wing government greatly, I imagine Netanyahu and his ghouls will be rubbing their bloodstained hands together at the thought of misguided attacks on the Jewish community
But you'd be detected in seconds.
Sounds good. Perhaps the RAF should pop over for some tips to set up security somewhat higher than what they had but short of that nuclear strawman.