Scrutable

Having re-read this thread, and other online articles, it's clear that...

TopBadger wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:22 pm I may not have been paying adequate attention

Is indeed the case. PA is beyond a protest group... when I examine my own biases I expect I probably wasn't inclined to look too hard at them in the first instance simply because the stuff they're pulling is somewhat insignificant compared to what Israel is doing in Gaza.

Tristan wrote: Thu Aug 21, 2025 12:09 pm

bob sterman wrote: Thu Aug 21, 2025 12:03 pm

Tristan wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 9:46 pm

And there we have it again. This assumption that all they did was throw some paint on an aircraft.

That’s nowhere near the full extent of what PA have done. Assuming you’ve actually read this thread then it’s a bad faith argument to characterise them this way.

Sabotage is probably the most appropriate description rather than terrorism or vandalism.

It's worth reading that Paul Mason article. In it he describes how countries like Germany have a middle ground option legally, where organisations can be designated as extremist (short of terrorist) which leads to additional oversight, surveillance etc. We don't have that here, so proscription under the terrorist laws are the only option. It may still be that that is still appropriate, though I can see an argument for being able to use a middle ground option in some circumstances.

To me this would seem to be the right solution. People are largely railing against the epithet "terrorist" and see it as broader evidence of a government doing anything and everything to maintain a friendship with a state they see as carrying out genocide.

The situation has two faces, it seems - a legal one and a social one. Legally, the government can proscribe an organisation by successfully describing them as terrorist and carrying a vote in Parliament, the police can arrest those who publicly support that organisation as a result, and the government doesn't have to say in detail why they believe this decision is correct.

Socially, this is rather like policing by consent - the police have power because the public suffer them to have that power. Unless the police maintain public confidence, they cannot do their jobs. Similarly, the Government doesn't have to say in detail why they want to proscribe PA, but they have clearly lost public confidence/consent in making that decision - for right or wrong. They will not regain that confidence either until they reverse the decision, find a different way to proscribe them, or explain why they are actual terrorists.

Of the cited examples, the three with a more detailed explanation do not meet any threshold of "terrorism" as far as I can see. The two with details held back may do, and I do sympathise that keeping those details under wraps may be necessary for legal reasons, but in doing so the government is in a very tricky bind. The public does not and will not believe that PA is a terrorist organisation unless those details are released and accord with that judgement. The fact then that old people are being arrested for supporting an organisation which seems clearly not terrorist in turn seems very silly.

Clearly, though, it seems PA are certainly extreme (is there a difference between extreme and extremist?) when it comes to protesting, and proscription doesn't seem wrong - but having no mechanism to do it other than calling them terrorist, when that does not seem to fit the bill, is making the government look particularly weak.

Thanks, all, that's very informative.
I think 'terrorist'' may indeed be an inadequate term to describe certain kinds of malign action, since it has been assigned particular meanings in common usage, and perhaps the Germans have it right in using other kinds of legislation which the U.K. currently lacks.
But if it is the case that PA has been circulating instructions on how to form cells and destroy evidence, and targeting defence industry and other military targets...
... ok, call me paranoid, but I'm currently living in Poland, where anxieties are quite high...
... doesn't that sound like a bit like asymmetric warfare?
Who might imaginably be behind that?

Spoiler:

Allo V Psycho wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 2:41 pm <Snip>


But if it is the case that PA has been circulating instructions on how to form cells and destroy evidence, and targeting defence industry and other military targets...
... ok, call me paranoid, but I'm currently living in Poland, where anxieties are quite high...
... doesn't that sound like a bit like asymmetric warfare?
Who might imaginably be behind that?

Spoiler:

Never thought I'd be a prepper, but here we are, kitting out the basement with an emergency radio, calor gas cooker, logs for the fire, etc...

Yup, the Russians would be remiss if they at the least haven't got someone in the peripherally on signal chats with them inciting attacks on valuable assets like air refueling tankers.

At the very least. Something with almost zero risk / effort and loads of deniability

Useful idiots are particularly useful if you can persuade them to perform sabotage for you.

Between Russian agents and undercover police, does PA have any real members at all?

I don't know if this is actually practicable, but do we need specific anti-terrorism legislation at all?

The problem is that it potentially treats exactly the same crime in a different way based on the motivations of the perpetrator, which are fundamentally unknowable.

If a psychotic person decides that the woman sitting across from him in the Tube carriage is a threat, so he gets up and stabs her, does it make a difference if he is a Muslim? Or if he is a Muslim and shouts "Allahu Akbar" at the same time (something which, I get the impression, Muslims shout a lot in moments of great stress)? If the police then go round to his house and start looking at his YouTube history, how many jihadi videos does he have to have watched to conclude that he had a political motive?

Ditto for a white person who stabs a black woman and emits a raclal slur as he does it — is he necessarily a sympathiser of Patriotic Alternative?

There is always going to be a spectrum, from 9/11 and the IRA at one end to lone idiots at the other. But even for the "big boys" I wonder how much of what they are/were doing wasn't already covered by existing legislation.

In the case of PA, for me it's a case of a plague on everyone's house. Damaging planes that are used to send aid to Ukraine is an own goal comparable in some ways to when the IRA murdered two Australian tourists in Germany, having mistaken them for British soldiers. And the people getting arrested for supporting PA could have chosen to express their support for Palestine in many other ways that didn't involve advocating for PA. But the government's use of anti-terrorism legislation to in effect turn anyone who is Very Angry About Israel into a terrorist sympathiser just looks ridiculous — and yet it's an almost inexorable consequence of the framing. The "Plasticine Action" t-shirts highlight the absurdity — everyone knows what someone who wears this means, and yet no court in the land would convict someone for wearing it. (Or if they did, someone would presumably produce "Play-Doh Reaction" t-shirts, and so ad infinitum.)

sTeamTraen wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 11:11 pm I don't know if this is actually practicable, but do we need specific anti-terrorism legislation at all?

The problem is that it potentially treats exactly the same crime in a different way based on the motivations of the perpetrator, which are fundamentally unknowable...

The legal system already has to do this, in terms of motive and premeditation, and the punishments are different because would take more to deter someone who has a stronger motivation.

(The paradox is always that there's no point punishing for a crime which has already been committed, but the point is to deter someone else.)

shpalman wrote: Sun Aug 24, 2025 11:09 am

sTeamTraen wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 11:11 pm I don't know if this is actually practicable, but do we need specific anti-terrorism legislation at all?

The problem is that it potentially treats exactly the same crime in a different way based on the motivations of the perpetrator, which are fundamentally unknowable...

The legal system already has to do this, in terms of motive and premeditation, and the punishments are different because would take more to deter someone who has a stronger motivation.

(The paradox is always that there's no point punishing for a crime which has already been committed, but the point is to deter someone else.)

It also seems to hit a singularity of some kind when you get to suicide bombers.

Interesting letter in the new Private Eye from Name Partly Withheld.

Jamie H. wrote:The professional agitators behind Palestine Action have managed to hoodwink an alarming number...into picking up a criminal record... Since their last gig - Just Stop Oil - ran out of road, they have hijacked the Palestinian cause as a vehicle for violently attacking corporate targets.
By framing their group's proscription as a freedom of speech issue...they have convinced a lot of people to engage with the...state-baiting that is their raison d'etre. ...as ever with the hard left, the cause is less important than the act of protest itself.

Is this correct?

The prosecution of the Kneecap singer Liam O'Hanna (an Irish spelling is also available) for supporting a designated terrorist organisation, ie Palestine Action, has been thrown out due to procedural failings by the police and/or CPS. The CPS appealed against the lower court's decision to throw it out, but lost. The reason was, too late to prosecute. They left it to the last day to prosecute, but seemingly forgot the correct type of departmental consent for such a case, which then came 2 days too late.

This has led to conspiracy/cock-up discussions. Was it politically convenient to let it fall? Was it an inside job to get it to fail? Or just a cock-up?

It is very curious in the first place that they left it so long to prosecute. What were they waiting for? Many others have been prosecuted for the same offence without delay. And seemingly unbelievable they didn't understand the correct consent mechanism and how long it would take, as many others have been so prosecuted. But then they did try to appeal against the very obvious out-of-time ruling. But perhaps that was always hopeless.

IvanV wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:04 pm The prosecution of the Kneecap singer Liam O'Hanna (an Irish spelling is also available) for supporting a designated terrorist organisation, ie Palestine Action, has been thrown out due to procedural failings by the police and/or CPS.

It was Hezbollah, not Palestine Action.

IvanV wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:04 pm The prosecution of the Kneecap singer Liam O'Hanna (an Irish spelling is also available) for supporting a designated terrorist organisation, ie Palestine Action, has been thrown out due to procedural failings by the police and/or CPS. The CPS appealed against the lower court's decision to throw it out, but lost. The reason was, too late to prosecute. They left it to the last day to prosecute, but seemingly forgot the correct type of departmental consent for such a case, which then came 2 days too late.

This has led to conspiracy/cock-up discussions. Was it politically convenient to let it fall? Was it an inside job to get it to fail? Or just a cock-up?

It is very curious in the first place that they left it so long to prosecute. What were they waiting for? Many others have been prosecuted for the same offence without delay. And seemingly unbelievable they didn't understand the correct consent mechanism and how long it would take, as many others have been so prosecuted. But then they did try to appeal against the very obvious out-of-time ruling. But perhaps that was always hopeless.

So long from when? From the alleged offence (well no longer alleged I guess but only technically) or from when the video came to light (late April/early May, after their Coachella performance)?

discovolante wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 7:49 pm

IvanV wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:04 pm The prosecution of the Kneecap singer Liam O'Hanna (an Irish spelling is also available) for supporting a designated terrorist organisation, ie Palestine Action, has been thrown out due to procedural failings by the police and/or CPS. The CPS appealed against the lower court's decision to throw it out, but lost. The reason was, too late to prosecute. They left it to the last day to prosecute, but seemingly forgot the correct type of departmental consent for such a case, which then came 2 days too late.

This has led to conspiracy/cock-up discussions. Was it politically convenient to let it fall? Was it an inside job to get it to fail? Or just a cock-up?

It is very curious in the first place that they left it so long to prosecute. What were they waiting for? Many others have been prosecuted for the same offence without delay. And seemingly unbelievable they didn't understand the correct consent mechanism and how long it would take, as many others have been so prosecuted. But then they did try to appeal against the very obvious out-of-time ruling. But perhaps that was always hopeless.

So long from when? From the alleged offence (well no longer alleged I guess but only technically) or from when the video came to light (late April/early May, after their Coachella performance)?

David Alan Green has written a substack about it (https://emptycity.substack.com/p/the-kn ... -collapsed?) which gives a timeline which suggests that the first approach to the CPS was on 2nd May, and a 'charging decision' was sought on 19th May.
Given the alleged offence took place on 21st November, they should have known that everything (including the authority of the AG) would be time limited.

discovolante wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 7:49 pm

IvanV wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:04 pm The prosecution of the Kneecap singer Liam O'Hanna (an Irish spelling is also available) for supporting a designated terrorist organisation, ie Palestine Action, has been thrown out due to procedural failings by the police and/or CPS. The CPS appealed against the lower court's decision to throw it out, but lost. The reason was, too late to prosecute. They left it to the last day to prosecute, but seemingly forgot the correct type of departmental consent for such a case, which then came 2 days too late.

This has led to conspiracy/cock-up discussions. Was it politically convenient to let it fall? Was it an inside job to get it to fail? Or just a cock-up?

It is very curious in the first place that they left it so long to prosecute. What were they waiting for? Many others have been prosecuted for the same offence without delay. And seemingly unbelievable they didn't understand the correct consent mechanism and how long it would take, as many others have been so prosecuted. But then they did try to appeal against the very obvious out-of-time ruling. But perhaps that was always hopeless.

So long from when? From the alleged offence (well no longer alleged I guess but only technically) or from when the video came to light (late April/early May, after their Coachella performance)?

Apologies for the PA/Hizbullah mix-up. I suppose having had the experience of repeated PA prosecutions, they might have overlooked the different requirements for a prosecution for supporting Hizbullah.

I was unaware that this only came to the attention of the authorities so late: even DAG doesn't mention that, nor other pieces I read.

The headline for DAG's piece is "The Kneecap prosecution collapsed because police and prosecutors did not take terrorism law seriously", ie, where don't-think-it-is-really-very-important results in lack of care to get it right. He suggests that the appeal indicates that they weren't trying to make a mistake on purpose to avoid an inconvenient trial. But to me, as I said, that's not obvious. Maybe the appeal was always pretty hopeless and so part of the performative nature of it. But on balance, I think he is probably right, they just didn't think it was really so very important in the broader context of things, so weren't so very careful about it.

IvanV wrote: Thu Oct 02, 2025 10:05 am

discovolante wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 7:49 pm

IvanV wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:04 pm The prosecution of the Kneecap singer Liam O'Hanna (an Irish spelling is also available) for supporting a designated terrorist organisation, ie Palestine Action, has been thrown out due to procedural failings by the police and/or CPS. The CPS appealed against the lower court's decision to throw it out, but lost. The reason was, too late to prosecute. They left it to the last day to prosecute, but seemingly forgot the correct type of departmental consent for such a case, which then came 2 days too late.

This has led to conspiracy/cock-up discussions. Was it politically convenient to let it fall? Was it an inside job to get it to fail? Or just a cock-up?

It is very curious in the first place that they left it so long to prosecute. What were they waiting for? Many others have been prosecuted for the same offence without delay. And seemingly unbelievable they didn't understand the correct consent mechanism and how long it would take, as many others have been so prosecuted. But then they did try to appeal against the very obvious out-of-time ruling. But perhaps that was always hopeless.

So long from when? From the alleged offence (well no longer alleged I guess but only technically) or from when the video came to light (late April/early May, after their Coachella performance)?

Apologies for the PA/Hizbullah mix-up. I suppose having had the experience of repeated PA prosecutions, they might have overlooked the different requirements for a prosecution for supporting Hizbullah.

I don't think there is any difference, from my reading, any prosecution under the Terrorism Act requires the consent of the AG/SG

Gfamily wrote: Thu Oct 02, 2025 10:12 am

IvanV wrote: Thu Oct 02, 2025 10:05 am Apologies for the PA/Hizbullah mix-up. I suppose having had the experience of repeated PA prosecutions, they might have overlooked the different requirements for a prosecution for supporting Hizbullah.

I don't think there is any difference, from my reading, any prosecution under the Terrorism Act requires the consent of the AG/SG

As DAG points out, under Section 117(2A), AG consent is required only when it is a foreign terrorist organisation that support is shown for. For British terrorist organisations, DPP consent suffices (S117 (2)). This was the precise point the police/CPS appear to have overlooked, resulting in the delay past the end date.

Worth keeping an eye on this story. It’s early days but I can see the “I Support Palestine Action” crowd looking a bit silly soon. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79727zeqyvo

Whereas my 87 year old friend was arrested yesterday at a demo for loudly thanking the police for protecting the citizens from pensioners wielding cardboard. (I have a video - it took ten officers to gently manoeuvre him into the back of a Black Maria, while one held his NHS walking stick for him after they helped him to his feet from his camping chair.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg721mym6no

Edit: Apologies. From "Terrorists wielding soggy cardboard"

Edit again: Event commander, Ch Insp Paul Cash, said: "Thankfully this operation has been delivered successfully and without any police officers or members of the public getting hurt."

What does your pal think about people who support an organisation who threaten to use and actually use sledgehammers against the police?

Surely (and I write that word knowing that there is no such thing as 'sure') support for Palestine is a very different thing from support for Palestine Action, if the account in the BBC link is accurate. Were I in a position to demonstrate support for Palestine, then I personally would aim to be careful to avoid any action organised by, or associated with, Palestine Action, until the situation became clearer.
The current situation with regard to Palestine Action seems to me to pose the possibility of promoting discord among well intentioned people, as comments on this forum show, and I am afraid i cannot help but wonder in whose overall interests such discord may be.

Allo V Psycho wrote: Wed Nov 19, 2025 5:20 pm Surely (and I write that word knowing that there is no such thing as 'sure') support for Palestine is a very different thing from support for Palestine Action, if the account in the BBC link is accurate. Were I in a position to demonstrate support for Palestine, then I personally would aim to be careful to avoid any action organised by, or associated with, Palestine Action, until the situation became clearer.

Exactly. You’re absolutely entitled to share the views and say much of what Palestine Action say without any concern about legality. The issue arises when you endorse them as an organisation, given their actions such as (allegedly) striking the plod with a sledgehammer. That risk was always clear to anyone who wasn’t deliberately ignoring it.

People can argue about whether what they've done passes the threshold for terrorism or not, but what this does is show them to be a group of violent criminals rather than the martyrs they’ve been portrayed as. Those who embraced slogans like “we are all Palestine Action” or “being called terrorist for caring about Palestine” were, frankly, naive at the very best (and more likely wilfully obtuse).

I wonder if you could even go further and protest against them being labelled terrorist whilst not actually supporting them and whilst acknowledging their violence. That's clearly NOT what the "I Support Palestine Action" crowd were doing and I have very limited sympathy for those who found themselves arrested for it, regardless of how middle class or old they were.

People are looking for a vehicle to show their support for Palestine. Palestine Action has made itself very visible, and alternatives have not. My father had considerable difficulty seeing the difference between supporting Palestine and supporting Palestine Action, and he is an intelligent man. But even in recognising that, who else with the ability to create a noise is there to support. This, I suspect, is why Palestine Action retains support.

Personally I would have nothing to do with an organisation that carries out criminal stunts such as those mentioned in the news article concerning the prosecution of Palestine Action members, when they entered the factory of an Israeli defence company to smash it up with sledgehammers, as Tristan cited at this link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79727zeqyvo

This is the most serious criminal action by Palestine Action members that has been brought to our attention, as it involved a violent assault on a police officer with a sledge hammer causing her injury, which fortunately was rather less serious than it might have been given what he did to her.

But nonetheless they are not being charged with terrorist offences. So the CPS did not think this was terrorism. And violent actions by demonstrators for a variety of causes are not so uncommon. Throwing bricks at the police is quite common. So far this is the only violent action by Palestine Action I am aware of. Maybe they have realised that such violence is actually counterproductive in relation to their cause, and they have put a lid on it, and this will remain an isolated case. I don't know.

So still we have seen nothing that indicates why Palestine Action should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, unless some much worse case is upcoming. Unless there is something we still don't know, it still looks like that proscription is more reminiscent of the things Trump does than things a moderate centrist party does. And that in itself has caused anger. And so now are people protesting against the proscription of Palestine Action - a proscription still being contested at law - and they have been arrested for supporting terrorism. Well you can be against proscription and not necessarily in favour of the organisation. It's a bit like being in favour of free speech, but not necessarily particular items of free speech. But there's one for the lawyers.

IvanV wrote: Wed Nov 19, 2025 6:20 pm And so now are people protesting against the proscription of Palestine Action - a proscription still being contested at law - and they have been arrested for supporting terrorism. Well you can be against proscription and not necessarily in favour of the organisation. It's a bit like being in favour of free speech, but not necessarily particular items of free speech. But there's one for the lawyers.

If their placard and t-shirt says “I support Palestine Action” then we can safely assume they do, in fact, support Palestine Action.

“I support the rights of Palestinians and Palestine Action is the only group with enough visibility to promote that objective, even though I don’t support the violent actions of Palestine Action itself” probably wouldn’t fit on a placard.

headshot wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 8:27 am “I support the rights of Palestinians and Palestine Action is the only group with enough visibility to promote that objective, even though I don’t support the violent actions of Palestine Action itself” probably wouldn’t fit on a placard.

This is utter nonsense. You wouldn’t dream of saying the same in the following circumstances:

“I’m worried about immigration policy, and Britain First is really vocal on that issue, so my ‘I support Britain First’ T-shirt doesn’t actually mean I support Britain First.”

“I care deeply about women’s safety, and the English Defence League happens to be loud about it, so wearing ‘I support the EDL’ just means I support women, not the EDL.”

“I oppose low wages, and the BNP once talked about workers’ rights, so an ‘I support the BNP’ placard is really just about my economic concerns.”

The idea there are no other vocal groups on Palestine is ridiculous.