The Police - keeping us safe

It’s ridiculous BUT can we have people supporting groups such as HAMAS, PALESTINE ACTION or a banned NAZI party? Im being devil’s advocate but surely the issue is why are these groups banned in the first place and who’s banning them? There are plenty of people who would ban protests by Tommy Robinson and his group also
 
Are we playing spot the odd one out?

Palestine Action are a protest group with no (as far as I'm aware) history of political violence. Banning them for walking onto a military base unchallenged is idiotic at best.
Aren’t they banned as a terrorist group?
 
Aren’t they banned as a terrorist group?
They were banned under the terrorism act but nothing they've done (as far as I know) falls under the definitions given in the act - hence the ban being idiotic (or worse).

I'd be very surprised if it isn't overturned when the appeal is heard, but we're in the ludicrous situation where the government has been allowed to argue that having the ban in place while any legal discussion occurs isn't detrimental to the group if the ban is overturned. It's Kafka-esque.
 
Are we playing spot the odd one out?

Palestine Action are a protest group with no (as far as I'm aware) history of political violence. Banning them for walking onto a military base unchallenged is idiotic at best.

They attacked people, including police officers, with a sledgehammer at a defence contractors building near Bristol. The BBC report said "Sledgehammers, axes, whips and other homemade weapons were seized, police added."
I don't agree with the government proscribing them as terrorists but don't kid yourself that they are peaceful protestors.
 
They attacked people, including police officers, with a sledgehammer at a defence contractors building near Bristol. The BBC report said "Sledgehammers, axes, whips and other homemade weapons were seized, police added."
I don't agree with the government proscribing them as terrorists but don't kid yourself that they are peaceful protestors.
Was anyone convicted of assault? I can't find any reference to court cases other than the convictions for criminal damage.

The reports make it sound as though the police were injured trying to prevent criminal damage and weren't actually attacked.

CPS - criminal damage convictions
 
They attacked people, including police officers, with a sledgehammer at a defence contractors building near Bristol. The BBC report said "Sledgehammers, axes, whips and other homemade weapons were seized, police added."
I don't agree with the government proscribing them as terrorists but don't kid yourself that they are peaceful protestors.
Perhaps they'll get support from our government, and those in charge at the BBC, if they start committing genocide.
 
They were banned under the terrorism act but nothing they've done (as far as I know) falls under the definitions given in the act - hence the ban being idiotic (or worse).

I'd be very surprised if it isn't overturned when the appeal is heard, but we're in the ludicrous situation where the government has been allowed to argue that having the ban in place while any legal discussion occurs isn't detrimental to the group if the ban is overturned. It's Kafka-esque.
To be fair they fall squarely into the definition based on the legislation. You can disagree with that by all means and we can debate the legislation and interpretation but its there:

Relevant UK Terrorism Law: Terrorism Act 2000

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is defined broadly. Key points include:

Section 1: Definition of Terrorism

> Terrorism means the use or threat of action where the action:

Is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, and

Is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause, and

Involves serious violence, serious damage to property, or creates a serious risk to public health or safety.


Under the law, property damage or disruption—if politically motivated—could fall within the definition of terrorism, even if it doesn't involve violence against people.

That said I can see cases where charges were made in relation to violence against police, emergency workers and security personnel. In Aug 24, March 25 and June 25.

So all the elements are there under the legislation. You can disagree with that but you can't say they are not covered.
 
Last edited:
Was anyone convicted of assault? I can't find any reference to court cases other than the convictions for criminal damage.

The reports make it sound as though the police were injured trying to prevent criminal damage and weren't actually attacked.

CPS - criminal damage convictions

They haven’t been to trial yet.

 
They attacked people, including police officers, with a sledgehammer at a defence contractors building near Bristol. The BBC report said "Sledgehammers, axes, whips and other homemade weapons were seized, police added."
I don't agree with the government proscribing them as terrorists but don't kid yourself that they are peaceful protestors.

In 2025 .. who uses a whip as a weapon other than a WWE wrestler?
 
They haven’t been to trial yet.

Ah, okay - makes sense. However, interesting to see that they haven't been charged with assault, but with:

"...wounding police sergeant Kate Evans with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of another.

It is also alleged he caused actual bodily harm to Angelo Volante and Pc Aaron Buxton."

The assault is an allegation but not something they've been charged with.

Backs up the idea that the injuries to the Police weren't inflicted through a deliberate act of violence against them.

To be fair they fall squarely into the definition based on the legislation. You can disagree with that by all means and we can debate the legislation and interpretation but its there:
I'm not convinced.

Direct action to sabotage a weapons/systems firm isn't an action which fulfils subsection 1(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public

Direct action is very much not designed to influence the government - they deliberately bypassed that bit.
 
Ah, okay - makes sense. However, interesting to see that they haven't been charged with assault, but with:

"...wounding police sergeant Kate Evans with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of another.

It is also alleged he caused actual bodily harm to Angelo Volante and Pc Aaron Buxton."

The assault is an allegation but not something they've been charged with.

Backs up the idea that the injuries to the Police weren't inflicted through a deliberate act of violence against them.


I'm not convinced.

Direct action to sabotage a weapons/systems firm isn't an action which fulfils subsection 1(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public

Direct action is very much not designed to influence the government - they deliberately bypassed that bit.
We can agree to disagree mate. I'll be honest, I'm not actually arguing that they should be proscribed.

I'm just telling you that their actions are clearly covered in the legislation that's been set out for some time.

I'm also seeing a lot of assumptions online about the legislation, it's content (which has not only been around for a while but has been largely considered decent legislation across the world) It's worth people reading it first before making daft statements

Full disclosure, I work in counter terrorism though not in this field, more in prevention. The last thing that those working in the field want, is ambiguity or further public tension at a time when resources are already incredibly reduced, demand is extremely high and complexity is through the roof.

We're having our own struggles in lobbying for the things that we needed way before October 7th and the demand on prevention has almost doubled since the Southport attack.

Like everything else over the past 15 years, there's a lot being asked of people who do not have the full set of tools that they need.
 
Last edited:
I’m sure someone has looked at the legislation and found a way to make it stick to proscribe Palestine Action.

Let’s just remind ourselves what has happened in the name of upholding our legislation in recent years.

* Young women hauled (some pulled by their hair) from a candle lit vigil to support Sarah Everard - subsequently damages and an apology

* People arrested for having a blank placard just in case they wrote ‘Not My King’ on it.

* And now teachers, a priest and the elderly arrested for campaigning against genocide whilst holding Palestine action placards.
 
Back
Top