Scrutable

I was reading an article which I can't be arsed to relocate, where a read that a Labour MP who was persuaded to vote to proscribe PA now regrets that. Though the vote was something like 330 to 30, so probably it was going through anyway. That MP said that some government security body advised them it absolutely had to be proscribed because they are a lot worse than publicly reported, and there has been serious personal violence against people. But there seems to be no evidence of that in the public domain. If the government does have evidence of serious personal violence by PA, then they really ought to put that in the public domain.

People cite the Suffragettes, and I think that is a reasonable comparison. I would cite the Greenham Common protesters. But we do have new restrictions on protest, which have been brought in to try to limit the likes of Just Stop Oil causing major traffic disruption. And that is short of designating JSO as terrorists. But nevertheless PA wrecked the jet engines of military aircraft by spraying paint into them. Or so I read in Wikipedia. When I saw it on the news it was described as only cosmetic damage. So I don't know how much damage in reality was done to those engines by doing that. But if they were causing very expensive damage to military aircraft, not just cosmetic, I can understand the government/RAF/our security agencies were exceedingly pissed off about that. But that's still not anywhere near terrorism in most people's books.

At the same time, I'm not surprised that PA want to make a loud noise. Because what is going on in both Gaza and the West Bank (BBC) is unconscionable, and our government seem to act as apologists for that. And a very loud noise about it needs to be made.

I don't know whether they are or not, and I don't think we can know at this stage as some of the cases relating to PA haven't gone to trial yet.

What I do know is that I don't trust people out there who claim PA were banned because of the RAF spray paint thing. That minimises their actions, some of which have caused much more serious damange and appear to have involved violence. Upcoming trials will confirm that either way. It also sounds like the proscription was also partly based on intelligence relating to plans PA had for future escalating action. We likely won't see what that is, but then we rarely get to see that kind of intelligence anyway.

So, maybe by some definition they are. Maybe they're not. But I'm not losing too much sleep over them being proscribed.

The fact is they have been proscribed though, and I have zero sympathy for the "I Support Palestine Action" crowd. I don't care how elderly or middle class they are. I don't care that Jemima and Hugo had places at Durham starting next month that they might lose. These people are knowingly asking to be arrested.

It's possible to protest against what's happening in Gaza without tying yourself to a proscribed organisation. If they cared enough about the issue rather than grandstanding then that's what they'd do.

I heard an interview with a minister a week or so ago where he said that once the country was given all of the information about PA, they would understand the reasons for proscribing them...but that, at the moment, there were active trials and information under the Official Secrets Act which meant they couldn't tell the nation what the Government knows.

So I assume there's some pretty serious allegations/crimes that are being discussed behind closed doors, that the public will eventually get to know about.

Tristan wrote: Tue Aug 19, 2025 12:01 pm It's possible to protest against what's happening in Gaza without tying yourself to a proscribed organisation. If they cared enough about the issue rather than grandstanding then that's what they'd do.

I tried to make this point to my father (late 80s but still very fit and compos) a week ago. He was very angry about the arrests. He seemed to have considerable difficulty understanding and accepting that "it is reasonable to protest against what is going on in Palestine" and "proscribing PA" are two quite separate and distinct points. I wonder if it is a difficulty other people also have.

But we do regularly see that a particular organisation becomes the primary representative for a particular common and reasonable point of view, but more broadly have unacceptable features. Sinn Fein became the de facto representative of the republican view in Northern Ireland, for example. Hamas has made itself the only realistic representative of the Palestinians in Gaza.

So actually are there other lines of protest against for British people upset about what is happening in Palestine, or has PA taken over that position? Bit of a sideline from my original question, I know, but perhaps not irrelevant.

I think part of the problem is that the police have also been a bit overzealous in managing this.

Is an arrest over this t-shirt necessary?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... za-protest

headshot wrote: Tue Aug 19, 2025 1:17 pm I think part of the problem is that the police have also been a bit overzealous in managing this.

Is an arrest over this t-shirt necessary?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... za-protest

No, it was a mistake. He was dearrested within 5 minutes. But evidently a mistake the man hoped the police would make, to gain publicity. The man has subsequently raised a lot of money for Palestinian causes by selling his T-shirt.

Perhaps this actually demonstrates Tristan's point, that you can protest effectively without tying yourself to a proscribed organisation.

There was also the case of someone being arrested with a placard reproducing a joke from Private Eye. It was a bit less obvious as it did include the phrase "Palestine Action", but with a different meaning. After questioning, he was released without charge. The police mentioned "learning points" from the incident, which apparently the plasticene T-shirt arresting officer hadn't learnt.

There's a reason why trials have to be done in public.

Palestinian Action have not had any evidence presented against them that shows them to be a terrorist organization, and no opportunity to refute said evidence.

Until the government presents evidence in public, they will not be considered a terrorist organization by the public.

That’s just not how it works. There is no obligation for the evidence used to proscribe an organisation to be made public. The evidence may include publicly available information but it may also include sensitive and classified information. There is absolutely no obligation to declassify that intelligence.

Anyway, there will be an appeal on this heard, but that doesn’t mean all the information presented at that appeal has to be public.

Proscribing PA is not the same as a trial. There ARE trials that are coming for the actions of PA, but those aren’t the same as the proscription itself.

Now imagine Farage as PM with a system that relies on “trust us” with no evidence presented.

I don’t imagine that would end up well.

Tristan wrote: Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:37 pm That’s just not how it works. There is no obligation for the evidence used to proscribe an organisation to be made public. The evidence may include publicly available information but it may also include sensitive and classified information. There is absolutely no obligation to declassify that intelligence.

Anyway, there will be an appeal on this heard, but that doesn’t mean all the information presented at that appeal has to be public.

Proscribing PA is not the same as a trial. There ARE trials that are coming for the actions of PA, but those aren’t the same as the proscription itself.

There is provision for information in trials to be kept secret, kept secret even from the defendant who will in principle never know what that evidence that found them guilty was. This is a very problematic situation. I understand it is very difficult when there is evidence whose exposure will cause national damage. But if you let people give evidence in secret - as currently happens - they will lie. We are suppose to believe that they are good chaps who won't do that. Fortunately for a couple of defendants being fitted up by the security services, on rare occasion they have been caught out as liars by someone who was in court allowed to hear the evidence, and able to call it out.

So I am afraid it is very unsatisfactory when I am told these are very naughty people, but we are not allowed to tell you about it. Evidence has to be tested by people who are competent to test it.

IvanV wrote: Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:16 pm

Tristan wrote: Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:37 pm That’s just not how it works. There is no obligation for the evidence used to proscribe an organisation to be made public. The evidence may include publicly available information but it may also include sensitive and classified information. There is absolutely no obligation to declassify that intelligence.

Anyway, there will be an appeal on this heard, but that doesn’t mean all the information presented at that appeal has to be public.

Proscribing PA is not the same as a trial. There ARE trials that are coming for the actions of PA, but those aren’t the same as the proscription itself.

There is provision for information in trials to be kept secret, kept secret even from the defendant who will in principle never know what that evidence that found them guilty was. This is a very problematic situation. I understand it is very difficult when there is evidence whose exposure will cause national damage. But if you let people give evidence in secret - as currently happens - they will lie. We are suppose to believe that they are good chaps who won't do that. Fortunately for a couple of defendants being fitted up by the security services, on rare occasion they have been caught out as liars by someone who was in court allowed to hear the evidence, and able to call it out.

So I am afraid it is very unsatisfactory when I am told these are very naughty people, but we are not allowed to tell you about it. Evidence has to be tested by people who are competent to test it.

Are you talking about criminal trials or the proscription of PA? These are separate things.

Tristan wrote: Tue Aug 19, 2025 9:29 pm Are you talking about criminal trials or the proscription of PA? These are separate things.

I was talking about criminal trials. They are separate things. But the fact that the security forces have been caught lying in criminal trials where there is in camera evidence makes me very suspicious about any situation where the government says in effect, we have evidence, but for security reasons you shall not know what it is.

Tristan wrote: Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:37 pm That’s just not how it works. There is no obligation for the evidence used to proscribe an organisation to be made public. The evidence may include publicly available information but it may also include sensitive and classified information. There is absolutely no obligation to declassify that intelligence.

Anyway, there will be an appeal on this heard, but that doesn’t mean all the information presented at that appeal has to be public.

Proscribing PA is not the same as a trial. There ARE trials that are coming for the actions of PA, but those aren’t the same as the proscription itself.

It's exactly how this works in practice. There will be no public consensus on whether PA is a terrorist organization until the government makes evidence public.

The governments procedures for labeling an organization "proscribed" are clearly not trusted by the public.

dyqik wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:23 pm

Tristan wrote: Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:37 pm That’s just not how it works. There is no obligation for the evidence used to proscribe an organisation to be made public. The evidence may include publicly available information but it may also include sensitive and classified information. There is absolutely no obligation to declassify that intelligence.

Anyway, there will be an appeal on this heard, but that doesn’t mean all the information presented at that appeal has to be public.

Proscribing PA is not the same as a trial. There ARE trials that are coming for the actions of PA, but those aren’t the same as the proscription itself.

It's exactly how this works in practice. There will be no public consensus on whether PA is a terrorist organization until the government makes evidence public.

The governments procedures for labeling an organization "proscribed" are clearly not trusted by the public.

So are you saying a terrorist organisation with good PR shouldn't be proscribed unless government de-classifies everything relating to them?

Tristan wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:17 pm

dyqik wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:23 pm

Tristan wrote: Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:37 pm That’s just not how it works. There is no obligation for the evidence used to proscribe an organisation to be made public. The evidence may include publicly available information but it may also include sensitive and classified information. There is absolutely no obligation to declassify that intelligence.

Anyway, there will be an appeal on this heard, but that doesn’t mean all the information presented at that appeal has to be public.

Proscribing PA is not the same as a trial. There ARE trials that are coming for the actions of PA, but those aren’t the same as the proscription itself.

It's exactly how this works in practice. There will be no public consensus on whether PA is a terrorist organization until the government makes evidence public.

The governments procedures for labeling an organization "proscribed" are clearly not trusted by the public.

So are you saying a terrorist organisation with good PR shouldn't be proscribed unless government de-classifies everything relating to them?

Of course not. You are being very silly about this.

PA isn't a terrorist organization. They have committed no acts of terror. They might have intended to become a terrorist organization, but we've seen no evidence of it. There's a rather massive gap between declassifying everything, and presenting any evidence at all.

If I say that you are a terrorist, because I've gotta secret information, does that make you a terrorist?

The Home Secretary outlined the grounds for proscription in parliament and there's a record of these in Hansard, which anyone can access. A summary of them is here:

1. Thales Defence Factory – Glasgow (2022)
Damage: Over £1 million worth of damage, including to components essential for submarines.
Methods Used: Activists deployed pyrotechnics and smoke bombs, causing panic among staff during evacuation.
Impact: The sheriff who sentenced the perpetrators noted the violent nature of the attack and its impact on national security. He rejected claims that the action was non-violent.

2. Elbit Systems UK – Bristol (2024)
Status: The incident is sub judice, so specific details were withheld to avoid prejudicing ongoing criminal trials.
General Impact: It was described as involving serious property damage and contributing to the escalation of violent tactics.

3. Instro Precision – Kent (2024)
Status: Also sub judice, with limited public detail.
Nature of Attack: Part of a coordinated campaign targeting UK defence infrastructure.

4. RAF Brize Norton – Oxfordshire (20 June 2025)
Incident: Two activists allegedly broke into the base and sprayed red paint on the engines of two Airbus Voyager military aircraft.
Significance: This was described as a serious breach of national security and the immediate trigger for the proscription decision.

5. Jewish-Owned Business – North London (May 2025)
Incident: The glass front of the building was smashed, and the premises were defaced with red paint, including the slogan "Drop Elbit".
Characterization: Cooper described this as intimidatory and unacceptable, not legitimate protest.

Additional Notes
Palestine Action published an "Underground Manual" in late 2023, encouraging the formation of covert cells, providing target maps, and offering operational security advice. The group has a presence in all 45 UK policing regions and has pledged to escalate its campaign.

Their activists have been charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, and actual bodily harm. Those are the sub-judice items, so we'll find out more about those as they actually get to trial.

So, they have provided evidence. More evidence will come to light during/after upcoming trials. And some of the evidence may remain classified.

Attacking and sabotaging defence infrastructure goes well beyong peaceful protest.

Tristan wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:15 pm So, they have provided evidence. More evidence will come to light during/after upcoming trials. And some of the evidence may remain classified.

Attacking and sabotaging defence infrastructure goes well beyond peaceful protest.

Thank you for finding that summary of the evidence. I had a quick look myself and failed to find it.

But nothing there seems to be evidence of terrorism as most of us would understand it. Putting the defence aspect aside, it seems pretty much in line with what Just Stop Oil and Fathers for Justice have done, and they have not been proscribed as terrorists. Many people would suggest that what these other organisations did was pretty unacceptable. Other measures have been taken to try and prevent such very disruptive protest actions - in the view of many, excessive measures - but falling far short of designating them as terrorists.

As for the defence aspect, there have been defence aspects to other protests. For example, Greenham Common, where from time to time there were break-ins and damage to defence infrastructure. It was another era, but there has never been a suggestion the Greenham Common protestors were terrorists. I agree that attacking defence infrastructure really is pretty unacceptable, to the extent it actually reduces our defence capability. But probably it should be addressed more in line with how the Just Stop Oil type actions have been addressed, rather than designating the people who do it as terrorists.

There is some mention of some people being on charge for actual violence, in particular violent disorder. We don't know what that is. But a degree of violence, in particular violent disorder, is not uncommon in protests. You will get banged up for violent disorder in a protest. But it doesn't make you a terrorist. Consider the many infamous protest riots from poll tax riots to more recent riots. There has never been a suggestion that this makes people terrorists. Consider the anti-capitalist protests we had a while ago. There was damage to commercial property. The situation was exceedingly scary for people caught up in these protests. People got sent to prison for it, and in some cases the measures against some of these protestors seemed excessive. Others got their just deserts for being violent. But we never thought these protestors were terrorists, even though they were violent.

Look, I agree that “terrorist” is a serious label. But I don’t think the comparisons with Just Stop Oil, Fathers for Justice or Greenham Common really hold up when you look at what PA have actually done.

This isn’t just about disruption. They’ve broken into military bases, used crowbars and fire extinguishers to damage aircraft engines, and published a manual encouraging covert sabotage and cell formation. That’s not the same as blocking roads or climbing gantries. (Though I also don't want to understate the what JSO did. I think custodial sentences were right)

The RAF Brize Norton incident wasn’t symbolic. It was a deliberate attempt to disable military aircraft, and one of them might be a write-off. That’s not protest, it’s sabotage. And when you’re targeting defence infrastructure in a way that could impact operational capability, it’s not surprising that the security services start taking a different view. Particularly with what's happening in Ukraine and the grpwing threat Russia poses to Europe.

Greenham Common protests too a different approach. It was explicitly non-violent. Palestine Action has had activists charged with GBH and violent disorder, and the CPS has linked some of those charges to terrorism. We’ll see what comes out in court, but the idea that this is just another protest group doesn’t really stack up.

I’m not saying the proscription shouldn’t be scrutinised. But based on what’s already public, this isn’t just civil disobedience. It’s a campaign that’s crossed into sabotage, and that’s why it’s being treated differently. I do think there's a case to be made for proscription and on balance it's probably right.

Is it fair to assume that individual governments and security agencies are likely to find it useful to have a broad definition of 'Terrorism', as it gives them scope for acting against organisations with which they may have particular issues?

Whereas transnational organisations can have a broader outlook, recognising that some organised protest is legitimate and should not be caught up with 'anti-Terrorism' legislation

UN Definitions include (though not necessarily formally adopted):

Acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

also

Criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act,

EU definition

According to EU law, terrorist offences are acts committed with the aim of:
* seriously intimidating a population
* unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act
* seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation

I find it hard to see how the illegal activities of Palestine Action fall under either of those definitions

^ right

I personally don't feel terrorized if a protestor throws paint over an aircraft... I did feel terrorized when the IRA were leaving bombs in bins, and when Al Qaeda were blowing up buses.

I may not have been paying adequate attention, but I'm not aware of any actions they've taken in a similar vein, and so labelling PA a terrorist group seems excessive to me at this point in time.

Paul Mason recently wrote about this in The New World (fka The New European):

And PA has done more than just “throw red paint”. Its activists have threatened people with sledgehammers; they daubed “Happy Nakba Day” on a Jewish shop in Prestwich, one of the centres of Jewish life in Manchester, on the anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. They smashed a Jewish-owned estate agents in Stamford Hill, London. And by attacking the Voyagers at Brize Norton they carried out one of the classic “hybrid” actions that defence planners expect at the start of a shooting war.

PA’s “Underground Manual” incites people to form autonomous groups, plan and execute serious crimes, and then destroy the evidence. It has landed dozens of perpetrators in jail, because of the aggravated nature of the offences they commit. Comparing them to the Suffragettes makes exactly the wrong point. The Suffragettes were fighting an undemocratic system: PA is using coercion to overturn policies decided by the democratic parliament the suffragettes fought for.

I can’t vouch for Mason’s sources, but he’s not noted for his pro-Israeli views, and he’s committed the above to print in a UK newspaper which would presumably carry some risk if he was provably lying.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:22 pm ^ right

I personally don't feel terrorized if a protestor throws paint over an aircraft...

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.

nekomatic wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:27 pm Paul Mason recently wrote about this in The New World (fka The New European):

He articulates how I feel about this really well.

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

TopBadger wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:22 pm ^ right

I personally don't feel terrorized if a protestor throws paint over an aircraft...

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.

On that specific incident - they sprayed paint into the engines - rendering them unusable until repaired. So essentially this functioned as an act of sabotage. Sabotage is probably the most appropriate description rather than terrorism or vandalism.

Palestine Action seemed to think the A330 Voyagers had been involved in refueling IDF jets. However, they had not been - and in fact are unable to. Not compatible.

Maybe PA were unaware that these jets are multifunctional? i.e. can carry passengers as well as fuel. And have been involved in things like evacuating civilians from Afghanistan? Landing Afghan refugees at Brize Norton?

So the PA acts had zero effect on IDF activities - and a significant effect on the UK's ability to evacuate civilians from war zones.

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

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

TopBadger wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:22 pm ^ right

I personally don't feel terrorized if a protestor throws paint over an aircraft...

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.