Palestine Action

[Vic]

Why?

Please answer citing relevant sections of the Terrorism Act.

 

[domalino]

Revealed: How Palestine Action was banned

Exclusive: Documents seen by Declassified reveal serious concerns within the UK government and MI5 about proscribing Palestine Action.

www.declassifieduk.org

The documents detail how the government’s Proscription Review Group (PRG) conceded in March 2025 that a ban on Palestine Action would be “novel and unprecedented”.

This was because “there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed… mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property”.

The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), which is based within MI5, also concluded that “the majority of direct action by Palestine Action would not be classified as terrorism… but does often involve criminality”.

 

[KS55]

I expect the judge will be critical of the scope of the Terrorism Act, but say he's not above Parliament, and there is a statutory appeal against proscription (to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission).

I have changed my mind overnight about the Brize Norton affair. I now think it was not terrorism as it did not fall within the definition thereof: ie it was not designed to strike terror into the civilian population. It was, of course, a criminal offence and there are laws to deal with that.
Could the judge rule that the proscription was overreach?

 

[Brewster's millions]

The founders have made it clear that they do not have or direct policies. They just organise protests. There is no evidence that PA organised the Brize Norton fiasco.
It is worth noting what the head of human rights at the UN has said about the proscription along with a large number of distinguished UK lawyers and five UN rapporteurs.
The up coming case will be a close run thing.

Well if the founders of Palestine Action say they can’t be proscribed as a terrorist group, then surely they can’t be a terrorist group, as the people behind all of this are nice respectable middle class types and they can’t be wrong.

Case closed.

We should probably just ask them whether the Brize Norton incident was terrorism as well, and just take their word for it. After all, Starmer didn’t say it was terrorism within fifteen minutes of it happening, so that’s got to mean something, right?

Would save a lot of time and effort with all these court case things, and indeed enforcing the law, which can be really inconvenient at times. Particularly if anyone with a bloated sense of self-importance disagrees with it.

 

[KS55]

Well if the founders of Palestine Action say they can’t be proscribed as a terrorist group, then surely they can’t be a terrorist group, as the people behind all of this are nice respectable middle class types and they can’t be wrong.

Case closed.

We should probably just ask them whether the Brize Norton incident was terrorism as well, and just take their word for it. After all, Starmer didn’t say it was terrorism within fifteen minutes of it happening, so that’s got to mean something, right?

Would save a lot of time and effort with all these court case things, and indeed enforcing the law, which can be really inconvenient at times. Particularly if anyone with a bloated sense of self-importance disagrees with it.

Just silly. Can’t you muster a real argument in favour of proscription?

 

[Brewster's millions]

Just silly. Can’t you muster a real argument in favour of proscription?

Perhaps the idea that their activities fit with the definition of terrorism, as outlined by UK law?

In particular inflicting serious damage to property in order to influence UK government policy and advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

A long shot, I know.

 

[Vic]

Well if the founders of Palestine Action say they can’t be proscribed as a terrorist group, then surely they can’t be a terrorist group, as the people behind all of this are nice respectable middle class types and they can’t be wrong.

Case closed.

We should probably just ask them whether the Brize Norton incident was terrorism as well, and just take their word for it. After all, Starmer didn’t say it was terrorism within fifteen minutes of it happening, so that’s got to mean something, right?

Would save a lot of time and effort with all these court case things, and indeed enforcing the law, which can be really inconvenient at times. Particularly if anyone with a bloated sense of self-importance disagrees with it.

"Bloated sense of self-importance"?

I bow to your expertise.

 

[KS55]

Perhaps the idea that their activities fit with the definition of terrorism, as outlined by UK law?

In particular inflicting serious damage to property in order to influence UK government policy and advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

A long shot, I know.

Well, that’s a decent start. If you developed those you could get a job with the Home Office. For and against in this case in a close run thing but I believe a free country should err on the side of not banning things.

 

[Vic]

Perhaps the idea that their activities fit with the definition of terrorism, as outlined by UK law?

In particular inflicting serious damage to property in order to influence UK government policy and advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

A long shot, I know.

Has it influenced government policy?

Is stopping genocide a political, religious, racial or ideological cause?

 

[Brewster's millions]

Has it influenced government policy?

Is stopping genocide a political, religious, racial or ideological cause?

Is that how it works?

You can only be terrorist if your actions result in a clear, discernible change in government policy, and if that fails to happen then we just call it quits?

Interesting.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Has it influenced government policy?

Is stopping genocide a political, religious, racial or ideological cause?

And how do you define "serious damage"? So much to argue against. It needs to be done, if only to clarify for the future.

 

[KS55]

And how do you define "serious damage"? So much to argue against. It needs to be done, if only to clarify for the future.

The Blair/Straw act (2000) is a ridiculous nonsense. Some of its worst features eg s44 have been remedied by amending legislation but it is still really oppressive.
The most laughable incident, among many, was the woman arrested on suspicion of terrorism for walking on a cycle track. Yes, she would have been ok on a bike, but not on foot.

 

[BobKowalski]

Perhaps the idea that their activities fit with the definition of terrorism, as outlined by UK law?

In particular inflicting serious damage to property in order to influence UK government policy and advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

A long shot, I know.

Reform will be shitting themselves then. They’re wandering up and down the country encouraging “…serious damage to property in order to influence UK government policy and advance a political, religious, racial (and) or ideological cause.”

 

[Vic]

Is that how it works?

You can only be terrorist if your actions result in a clear, discernible change in government policy, and if that fails to happen then we just call it quits?

Interesting.

So what are you doing to stop the genocide?

 

[frothy]

Reform will be shitting themselves then. They’re wandering up and down the country encouraging “…serious damage to property in order to influence UK government policy and advance a political, religious, racial (and) or ideological cause.”

Do they?

 

[BobKowalski]

Do they?

Yes.

 

[Vic]

I expect the judge will be critical of the scope of the Terrorism Act, but say he's not above Parliament, and there is a statutory appeal against proscription (to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission).

I was wrong. He said the suppression of protest is too urgent to wait for POAC, so the case can be heard at the high court.

Palestine Action High Court challenge can go ahead, judge rules

Membership of the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

More disgraceful protests from the terrorist supporters today. Couple of videos of these scumbags (rightly) being banged up:





Fantastic to see the police spending their time effectively and nicking these terrorist supporting jihadi's.

This is what makes Britain great - arresting people exercising their right to peaceful protest because we don't like people talking about a foreign nation's genocide.

Keep arming the genocide. Keep covering for the genocide. And bang these bastards up who dare to speak up against it.

Proud to be British

 

[hilts]

I think we will all sleep safer in our beds tonight

 

[Vic]

More disgraceful protests from the terrorist supporters today. Couple of videos of these scumbags (rightly) being banged up:





Fantastic to see the police spending their time effectively and nicking these terrorist supporting jihadi's.

This is what makes Britain great - arresting people exercising their right to peaceful protest because we don't like people talking about a foreign nation's genocide.

Keep arming the genocide. Keep covering for the genocide. And bang these bastards up who dare to speak up against it.

Proud to be British

View attachment 165394

They'll be charged under section 13 of the Terrorism Act, so not actually classed as "terrorists" (see s.40).

But I hope it's not illegal to highlight the stupidity of all this by calling him a blind terrorist or her a frail terrorist.

It's almost as if the Police want to help make the case at the high court that proscription is suppressing peaceful protest against genocide. Either that or police overtime is a bit short at the moment.