Forum menu
" 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