The Police - keeping us safe

Break into Brize Norton and vandalise planes that are used to deploy on operations daily is not good and has impacted britains defence capabilities globally by doing so.

These people are vandals and by the letter of the law have been deemed to be a terrorist organisation, rightly or wrongly.

I empathise with their goal of genocide awareness but they have completely gone the wrong about it and have done themselves no favours.
 
Quicksilvera said:
Break into Brize Norton and vandalise planes that are used to deploy on operations daily is not good and has impacted britains defence capabilities globally by doing so.
Click to expand...
Hang on - If spray painting a couple of planes has impacted our global defence capabilities, we have a bigger problem
(even if we take the 'reports' of 1 plane out of action for a couple of days as serious)

Emmersons_BrazillianDong said:
Im not trying to bring a direct equivalence to these two events by the way.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you raised it then

If people think they should be proscribed - it's fine by me

I'm uncomfortable with it
 
1finny said:
Hang on - If spray painting a couple of planes has impacted our global defence capabilities, we have a bigger problem
(even if we take the 'reports' of 1 plane out of action for a couple of days as serious)


Not sure why you raised it then
Click to expand...

"Im not trying to bring a direct equivalence to these two events by the way. They are hugely different and one is clearly much bigger than the other, but there are many people who support the narrative of the extreme right wing.

I'm just trying to make the point that just because you beleive in a cause, doesn't mean it can be excused easily, but I appreciate this isn't a concept easy for humans to understand."

Funny, seems that the ability to read also goes out of the window when you agree with a cause too. You're a good bloke Finny, so I'll leave it there.

I'm trying to be objective
 
Last edited:
Angus said:
I have just read the reports of the case for the first time. If the BBC article is correct one person has been charged with two offences of ABH as well as much more serious charge of wounding a police officer during the course of her arresting another.

You seem to know more about the case than me so what is the caveat re the wounding charge?
Click to expand...
It'd help if you linked to the article you've read. The one linked above that I was responding to clearly states they have only been charged with the wounding (which I accept is assault). The article implies that the wounding was caused when they drove through doors and also implies that they weren't intentionally targeting the police (from my reading of it as English language rather than legalese - there may be more nuance that I've missed).

The original argument was whether they intentionally set out to attack the police with a sledgehammer.

BoroBosco said:
They attacked people, including police officers, with a sledgehammer
Click to expand...

I think there's enough evidence to suggest they didn't. I presume we'll need to wait and see how the court cases go.
 
Last edited:
1finny said:
Hang on - If spray painting a couple of planes has impacted our global defence capabilities, we have a bigger problem
(even if we take the 'reports' of 1 plane out of action for a couple of days as serious)


Not sure why you raised it then

If people think they should be proscribed - it's fine by me

I'm uncomfortable with it
Click to expand...
Taking a plane out of action for a couple of days is very serious and has a huge impact across the globe.
 
Quicksilvera said:
Taking a plane out of action for a couple of days is very serious and has a huge impact across the globe.
Click to expand...
It may well do - but my point remains, if 1 plane out of action for a couple of days is a huge impact across the globe......Palestine Action aren't the only problem.
We may need to address the fact we might need another plane or two
 
1finny said:
It may well do - but my point remains, if 1 plane out of action for a couple of days is a huge impact across the globe......Palestine Action aren't the only problem.
We may need to address the fact we might need another plane or two
Click to expand...
Palestinian action shouldn’t have done it and by doing it more and more won’t be sympathetic towards their cause.
 
NYboro said:
I'm not at all sure I agree with that assessment. They are highlighting the fact that the UK Government is enabling genocide.
Click to expand...
They also highlighted the dreadful security around this key site.
This, even without committing any action, will have been a huge embarrassment to those at the site and beyond.
Can't help thinking this was a factor in the 'anger' from Cooper and could well have influenced her action.
 
NYboro said:
I'm not at all sure I agree with that assessment. They are highlighting the fact that the UK Government is enabling genocide.
Click to expand...
To those who care yes, i am in that camp and I agree about Israel and the UK Government but doing what they did wont sit well with the national majority and nobody will take them seriously.

Look at the reaction to just stop oil etc.
 
Makes you wonder how we convinced the Soviets that NATOs nuclear deterrent was ever ready for action with all those pesky peace camps round the bases back in the 80s. Them ladies didn't muck about with paint...
Teddy Bears Picnic vs the British Army
As ever, there will be lies and exaggerations fed to a willing press to get Joe Public onside with the harsh treatment meted out, then the subsequent convictions (if any) will be overturned much later on. The idea that a bunch of motivated protesters can put any part of UK armed forces out of action is laughable. What are they gonna do when people are shooting at them to put them out of action? Call the Home Secretary and get them to beef up the terrorism law?
 
theboydom said:
Makes you wonder how we convinced the Soviets that NATOs nuclear deterrent was ever ready for action with all those pesky peace camps round the bases back in the 80s. Them ladies didn't muck about with paint...
Teddy Bears Picnic vs the British Army
As ever, there will be lies and exaggerations fed to a willing press to get Joe Public onside with the harsh treatment meted out, then the subsequent convictions (if any) will be overturned much later on. The idea that a bunch of motivated protesters can put any part of UK armed forces out of action is laughable. What are they gonna do when people are shooting at them to put them out of action? Call the Home Secretary and get them to beef up the terrorism law?
Click to expand...
Out of action no, delayed? Yes.

Delays can have a serious effect on combat effectiveness and really put a spanner in the works in terms of units/SF deployments. They happen multiple times daily.

That one plane being out of action could potentially have had massive repercussions and yes cost the tax payer millions.
 
Quicksilvera said:
Break into Brize Norton and vandalise planes that are used to deploy on operations daily is not good and has impacted britains defence capabilities globally by doing so.

These people are vandals and by the letter of the law have been deemed to be a terrorist organisation, rightly or wrongly.

I empathise with their goal of genocide awareness but they have completely gone the wrong about it and have done themselves no favours.
Click to expand...

Er..... how exactly does this impact on Britain's defence capabilities globally. Palestine Action alleged that these aircraft (which incidentally did not belong to the RAF but to a private equity group) were to be used to support missions over Gaza in support of an illegal genocide. If true, this has nothing to do with Britain's defence. In any event the effect of spraying some paint on a few aircraft is not going to have any realistic effect on Britains defence capability.
 
The judgment from Friday's hearing for an interim injunction is now available:


PA argued that its acts are not designed to influence the government (as required by s. 1(1)(b) of the 2000 Act) because its actions are directed only at “corporate enablers of Israel’s military industrial complex”. The court dismissed this argument saying that the attack on the air base was intended to influence the UK Government to cease providing this support for Israel.

But when you think about it the better argument is that such acts could never influence the government to accede to its political position. On the contrary acts of protest of this kind only ever serve to antagonise the government. This is borne out by the government's response, which is to seek to ban Palestine Action, rather than to stop providing military support to Israel. What PA's actions are in fact intended to do is to influence (not intimidate) public opinion and this is what the government are seeking to prevent.
 
redrobbo said:
Er..... how exactly does this impact on Britain's defence capabilities globally. Palestine Action alleged that these aircraft (which incidentally did not belong to the RAF but to a private equity group) were to be used to support missions over Gaza in support of an illegal genocide. If true, this has nothing to do with Britain's defence. In any event the effect of spraying some paint on a few aircraft is not going to have any realistic effect on Britains defence capability.
Click to expand...
Palestine Action did not have any verified evidence showing exactly what these aircraft were being used for when they vandalised them and it’s very much a he said she said.

These aircraft are capable of carrying troops, equipment, and supplies, but there is no confirmation that they were delivering military aid to Israel, it is very much a rumour what these planes were being used for and they were not some planes belonging to a ‘private equity group’, this is complete nonsense.

Whilst Palestine Action believed the planes were involved in supporting Israel during the conflict in Gaza, this has not been substantiated by independent sources or the UK Ministry of Defence.

Regardless , there is no defending the damage caused. Actions like this risk undermining the organisation’s credibility and alienating broader public support, which can ultimately weaken the impact of their message.
 
Scrote said:
It'd help if you linked to the article you've read. The one linked above that I was responding to clearly states they have only been charged with the wounding (which I accept is assault). The article implies that the wounding was caused when they drove through doors and also implies that they weren't intentionally targeting the police (from my reading of it as English language rather than legalese - there may be more nuance that I've missed).

The original argument was whether they intentionally set out to attack the police with a sledgehammer.



I think there's enough evidence to suggest they didn't. I presume we'll need to wait and see how the court cases go.
Click to expand...
I don’t know anything about what happened but something else you may want to be aware of:

“In UK law, recklessness, as a form of mens rea (criminal intent), generally means taking an unjustified risk, where the individual is aware of a risk of harm but chooses to proceed anyway.”
 
Quicksilvera said:
Out of action no, delayed? Yes.

Delays can have a serious effect on combat effectiveness and really put a spanner in the works in terms of units/SF deployments. They happen multiple times daily.

That one plane being out of action could potentially have had massive repercussions and yes cost the tax payer millions.
Click to expand...
"Delays can have a serious effect on combat effectiveness" perhaps delays can have a lesser effect on combat readiness than failing to guard such vital pieces of equipment properly can have? It's just such a blessing that, of the list of viable threats the UK armed forces have ranged against them, none of them will ever involve sabotage...
I, unlike the poor sods arrested, can wait and see what actually happened when the truth eventually comes out. I see from the BBC reports today we are finally getting to the truth of what happened when MI5 decided to ring a reporter to ask them to back off a story. That's only after 2 'inquiries' and numerous lies to a British Court...
 
Quicksilvera said:
Palestine Action did not have any verified evidence showing exactly what these aircraft were being used for when they vandalised them and it’s very much a he said she said.

These aircraft are capable of carrying troops, equipment, and supplies, but there is no confirmation that they were delivering military aid to Israel, it is very much a rumour what these planes were being used for and they were not some planes belonging to a ‘private equity group’, this is complete nonsense.

Whilst Palestine Action believed the planes were involved in supporting Israel during the conflict in Gaza, this has not been substantiated by independent sources or the UK Ministry of Defence.

Regardless , there is no defending the damage caused. Actions like this risk undermining the organisation’s credibility and alienating broader public support, which can ultimately weaken the impact of their message.
Click to expand...
The Voyager planes are owned by AirTanker Services, a private limited company with a long-term contract with the RAF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top