[iamacyborg]

You mean folks choosing to protest under the guise of a proscribed organisation?

Protesting in favour of Palestine remains legal, doing so under the name of a proscribed organisation is not.

Admittedly, the reason for them being proscribed is rather idiotic.

[pjc50]

That's exactly it. The proscription is ridiculous and delegitimises the whole concept of proscribed organization. It collapses into "mere support for Palestine is an arrestable offense". This didn't work against Sinn Fein and it will not work now.

[iamacyborg]

> It collapses into "mere support for Palestine is an arrestable offense".

It explicitly doesn’t do that, folks are still very much free to protest in support of Palestine.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The proscription is ridiculous

They broke into a military base. If that was sanctioned by the organisation, they should be shut down.

[pjc50]

That's the organisation. The knock on effects are quite considerable. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/nov/27/sally-rooney-p...

Also the whole thing moved incredibly quickly; it went from new organization to banned almost immediately. I'm fairly sure that other groups previously like the Greenham Common camp didn't get this treatment.

It was reasonable to arrest people who actually broke into the base and those who organized it. Going after those speaking in support is what's excessive.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It was reasonable to arrest people who actually broke into the base and those who organized it. Going after those speaking in support is what's excessive

Speaking out, yes. Helping organize? No.

Where the UK took it over the top was in using terrorist statute to shut down the organisation. That was unnecessary. But if the organisation helped organise the action—and this is not yet proven—its assets should have been frozen while the organisation and its leaders are investigated. If the organisation were found to have knowingly aided and abetted the break-in, it should have been shut down.

All of this could have been done using mostly civil and a little criminal law. None of it required terrorism laws.

[masfuerte]

> Also the whole thing moved incredibly quickly; it went from new organization to banned almost immediately.

Are you sure? They were founded in 2020.

You can argue that destroying property may be legitimate protest, but that is not all they did. In 2024 they used sledgehammers to destroy machinery in an Elbit factory. Again, arguably legitimate protest. But then they attacked police officers and security guards who came to investigate with those same sledgehammers. That is in no way legitimate.

If the government was going to proscribe them for anything it should have been for that. The RAF thing was indeed bullshit.

Anyway, it seems to me that to simultaneously believe that

a) telling a group of people that they can't use a particular name is an unacceptable attack on our freedoms yet

b) physically attacking people with sledgehammers is OK

requires quite some mental gymnastics.

[subscribed]

The same PM who proscribed PA defended in court a woman who did exactly what PA was doing, painting warplanes in protest.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The same PM who proscribed PA defended in court a woman who did exactly what PA was doing, painting warplanes in protest

Out of curiosity, who?

[subscribed]

I know it's Torygraph but the reporting matches other sources and this article seems complete.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/20/starmer-defended...

[mosura]

Exposing the military for being an inept paper tiger is a truly heinous crime.

[ben_w]

I think it's general knowledge that the UK military is a paper tiger, I think Charlie Stross said something about it being enough to defend one small village or something like that (he occasionally comments on this site so may correct me).

I think that damaging what little remains of its defences, which may exist mostly to keep the nukes safe so nobody tries anything, is still a really bad idea. Especially given that the US is increasingly unstable and seems like it may stop responding to calls from assistance from anyone else in NATO, and the UK isn't in the EU any more and therefore can't ask the entire EU for help either just the bits that are also in NATO. Theoretically the UK could also ask Canada for help, but right now it seems more likely that Canada will be asking all of NATO except for the USA for military aid to keep the USA out.

(What strange days, to write that without it being fiction…)

[bawolff]

Destroying military equipment neccesary for national defense is a good way to get in legal trouble in pretty much any country.

They should consider themselves lucky they did it in an enlightened country like Britian. Many places in the world that would be a death sentence.

[Cyph0n]

So you understand that the proscription is the core problem, but in the same breath, still focus the blame on protestors for fighting this proscription?

By the way, in case you somehow overlooked it, the whole point of people protesting under the banner of Palestine Action is to protest the illegitimate proscription.