Always have been a police state, anti terrorism laws are ALWAYS used to silence ‘dissident’ voices
From 5 July 2025, it is an offence under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 to be a member of Palestine Action,[7] fundraise for it,[8][9] wear or display items arousing reasonable suspicion of membership,[10] or if someone invites support or even “expresses an opinion or belief supportive of” Palestine Action “reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support” it.[11] These offences carry a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison for membership or inviting support, and up to 6 months in prison or a fine for displaying supporting items.[7][10][11][9]
Is Palestine Action a specific movement/group or is palestine Action literally just supporting Palestine? Asking from a non UK perspective.
It’s a specific group that was proscribed after breaking into RAF Brize Norton and vandalizing tankers.
Removed by mod
They threw paint into jet engines, which now have to be stripped down and rebuilt. They also went at the planes with a crowbar, and damaged security barriers at the perimeter. The damage is estimated at £7 million.
The army has nothing to do with any of this.
Removed by mod
It uses Direct Action which are methods that governments tend to associate with terrorism
Fuck that law. Isn’t that the law Putin used against Navalgny?
What does it mean to be a member? I’m still getting email updates and stuff and I’ll go to protests they organise.
I support Palestine action and I think this proscription is crazy.
wear or display items arousing reasonable suspicion of membership
Bro, they’re making it illegal to wear a fucking keffiyeh. What a shitty fucking law.
People in the UK should protest en masse so that this damn police state can’t arrest everyone.
Head garments regulations are a recurring debate in France as well, what a coincidence it’s always about Muslim clothes and not Babushka’s scarfs
Palestine action? Never heard of them. We support Action for Palestinian.
Fuck you, government. I do not respect your existence, and day by day, am losing respect for the laws you demand we follow. Fuck your rules.
I mean, I get it. Anarchy looks so great sometimes. But I like roads and schools and hospitals and firemen; and we need to.elect someone who ensure those persist.
And then it’s down to choosing the least-worst bunch to do that. And that’s how it’s been for decades.
So, ask yourself: is changing out this regime and losing a bit of healthcare and a bit of infrastructure and a bit of other things that make life livable here, is that a reasonable exchange?
If you say yes, I respect you. If you say no, I respect you. But we can’t vote single-issue: we have a choice between leadership packages, and we need to evaluate them as a whole. The yanks lost their election by voting single-issue, and ended up allowing the worst choice ever to win.
So vote carefully.
deleted by creator
The dichotomy of anarchy and voting is confusing. Anarchy in context probably means lawlessness. Defining anarchy as lawlessness ignores anarchy as a political philosophy.
Roads, schools, hospitals and fire departments do not require bosses. Anarchy keeps infrastructure without bosses.
Voting puts bosses in place to make decisions. Anarchy prefers consensus building between effected parties.
People deserve to make more decisions in how their lives are run. A lack of respect for laws passed by our bosses is fitting.
Voting for bosses that make laws to chain people who can run their own school or hospital is unnecesary. Vote because it is the extent of power afforded to us now. Concurrently build better systems and power structures like anarchy.
I think you mean anarchism.
A fair point.
Anarchism is the ideology. Anarchy is the implentation. Anarchism can cause less confusion in people conditioned to think anarchy is a society without law or order.
Good catch.
I don’t think you know what anarchism means.
Also, governments can build infrastructure without supporting foreign genocide.
The Original Commenter (OC) of this thread isn’t saying they want to abolish government entirely. They are saying that government has been twisted and no longer represents the wishes of its people.
US does police state better.
US is Judge Dredd.
UK is 1984.
Apt considering the setting
Does it different. In the US the violence is more up front. Here it’s done through mechanisms of the state.
Germany does it the best
In Germany we are at a point where it’s difficult to identity antisemitism became everyone who doesn’t actively support the genocide in Gaza is called an antisemite
Same as everywhere else
Removed by mod
They aren’t antisemites. They stand with Israel /s
Removed by mod
We did it the best from 1933-1945, but currently we are nowhere near the american police state.
I’d argue the Stazi were far more effective than the Gestapo, and that German police stating peaked in the mid 1980s.
Fair enough with the Stasi. I could see how why, but I Am not capable of comparing the effectiveness of both.
The Gestapo relied almost entirely on public informants. The Stasi had an extensive and qualitative surveillance apparatus.
Some Aussie comedian on KGB News has just said that the disabled should be shot or starved into work …but a few people holding signs is the problem. How baffling.
deleted by creator
It’s so much easier for the frog to not realize it’s being boiled in the UK because there’s no consolidated constitution to point to
Not sure that matters too much, frogs in the US are boiling fine too. The constitution can be brushed aside just as easily.
Can verify : am frog
One frog may feel powerless but many frogs together strong.
That’s just because the R’s expressly don’t care about constitutionality. If the UK had a written constitution, both parties are still at a level of integrity where they’d want to (at least appear to) be keeping it, so a judicial challenge to these terrorist acts might have actually struck them down.
There’s still a judicial challenge happening. And just because the UK doesn’t have written constitution doesn’t mean there’s no constitution at all. Most of it is even written down, just not in one place.
Hmm true, there is the ECHR. But it is implemented into british law in such a way that there’s nothing stopping laws being passed which are incompatible with it. Whereas with the US and other constitutions you have judicial review.
That’s not specific to having a constitution. Judges in the Netherlands for example also cannot do a judicial review to determine the constitutionality of any passed laws. And that’s with a written constitution. There’s also no supreme court. The closest thing is the Raad van State (the “state council”), which evaluates all laws on proportionality, constitutionality, and executability, and then advises the government what to do with a law. It’s convention that that advice is followed, but it’s not required.
Interesting, I didn’tknow about that
Only antisemites think genocide is bad. /s
Can you support “the political prisoners of Palestine Action”?
Can you say “Palestine Action is not a terrorist organization”?
Can you say “Outlawing Palestine Action is terrorism”?
Or is that also illegal?
Fucking fascists… A sad end to the Labour Party, but it was clear what would happen after they stabbed Corbyn in the back.
Hold up one saying “I support Yevette Cooper”, i doubt they’ll arrest you for that.
Even if they were trying to use this sort of rule with wholesome intentions, I’m not sure how targeting groups by name instead of deed makes sense. It’s like doing a healthy diet by giving up Coca-Cola by name even though Pepsi and RC have the same nutritional profile and availability. Enjoy the Whack-a-mole game!
Taken to its logical conclusion, someone should start a pro-Palestinian squad and call it the Reform Party.
The group in question broke onto an airbase and put a couple of RAF planes out of action. They crossed a red line for the government.
Oh boy wait till you hear what the suffragettes were willing to do for another righteous cause, a bit over a century ago. I don’t know man, maybe the government should start reexamining its policies if ordinary people among its citizens are willing to start breaking into airbase and damaging their own planes.
They were willing to commit mass murder in London and Dublin, and to assassinate the Prime Minister. Also deeply keen on removing all Jews from the House of Commons. Things that today would indeed mark them as a terrorist organisation.
Later, Emmeline Pankhurst would found a political party with the aim of requiring all civil servants to prove their racial purity back at least 3 generations, and many of the more prominent members of the WSPU became prominent members of the British fascist movement, several being detained as a precaution during the second European fuss.
As a campaign, the WSPU was an abject failure. It put women’s votes back a decade, and Pankhurst failed to ensure that working class women were excluded from the franchise (she also wanted working class men excluded).
It was only a cataclysm the scale of WWI, and the groundwork of the suffragists working in opposition to the suffragettes, which brought votes for all.
Nothing they did makes them terrorists, no matter what you think of the action they took
They caused £7 million pounds damage. Now if someone damaged YOUR property and the police did nothing how would you feel? As the £7 million will now have to be found from tax payers money can you not see why the government is pissed… regardless of the cause this sort of action has consequences.
Nobody said there shouldn’t be consequences, but they have been labeled as terrorists, which is not a fair or correct response.
And… I never said anything about that. If you do something, there are consequences. Those consequences vary but when it is a large sum of money quite often the consequences are disproportionate to the crime (and we can all agree it is a crime, in the literal sense)
So in other words you had nothing to add to what we were actually talking about and decided you wanted to talk about something else instead?
If someone damaged my property, I’d feel pretty aggrieved… and it still wouldn’t make them a terrorist. And the police wouldn’t do nothing, because damaging property is a crime. That property being a few planes doesn’t magically change the equation. Just like the government wouldn’t be doing nothing if they hadn’t designated PA as a terrorist organisation, because a whole raft of criminal charges would still apply.
Literally, and I want to stress this, literally nobody has suggested that PA should not face appropriate and proportionate consequences for their actions. And you knew that. You knew damed well that people have no problem with the government taking action, as long as that action is legal and democratically responsible. Yet you deliberately chose to dishonestly equate opposition to terrorist designation with support for them getting off scot free, even though that’s an obviously false and mendacious equivalence.
You are not very skilled at this dishonesty malarkey. Consider yourself called out.
Eh? I never said that, I just said there are consequences and people are up in arms… You took what I said and ran with it. Should they do nothing about damage that tax payers will have to pay? Really should they? I never said it wasn’t terrorism either or in fact never said it wasn’t… I’m way more aggrieved they took the winter fuel payment away from my 82 yr old mother because it directly affects me. I was pointing out, simply, that it was £7 million pounds plus damages. 7 million. Tax payers will have to pay that somehow because that is how the military is funded, directly or indirectly. Now consider yourself being called out for trying to shame me when I was just saying it is a large figure - nothing more, nothing less. Whether I feel it is proportional or not is not what I meant and you damn well know it as well, you are just as guilty of what you accuse me of. Go try and shame someone else
if someone damaged YOUR property
I’m not supporting a genocide, why would someone damage my property?
out of action
paint
Paint and crowbars. The engines will have to be stripped down and rebuilt.
Removed by mod
Still not terrorism
An attack on military assets for a political aim.
No , terrorism is targetting civilians for political aim
So the beheading of Lee Rigby wasn’t terrorism? Your definition doesn’t match the law or the dictionary.
What this has to do with palestine action?
In 2003, anti-war activists broke into RAF Fairford to stop US bombers heading to Iraq and didn’t get any terrorism charge. It’s pretty clear that it’s all about crushing real actions against genocide
That’s over 20 years ago, before 7/7 changed strategy.
Uk has the obligation to stop all military cooperation with israel that’s the big crimes that people involved in should be in jail for up to 15 years
So, not terrorism
Removed by mod
Ah “liar”. They were tankers, not fighter jets. And paint thrown in an engine requires the engine to be completely stripped down for parts to be inspected and cleaned because it’s a plane not a lawnmower. They also went at the planes with a crowbar.
The moron, Yvette Cooper thinks that this is the sort of violent thug that needs to be locked up whilst neo nazi and other hate groups causing direct harm to (checks notes) voters continues unabated.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/8d95/live/2ee739a0-59ba-11f0-9074-8989d8c97d87.jpg.webp
Two neo-Nazi groups were proscribed at the same time…
There’s a palpable difference in daily harms to UK residents, whether physical or online.
They could just say I support Palestine and be fine.
But then they won’t be able to impress their basement friends with their edginess.
deleted by creator
BBC News - 29 arrests after protest in support of Palestine Action, police say https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gd3pkr9x1o
Sux
They’re feckless cowards.
