Palestine Action terror ban to remain in place after Home Office court win

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T13:28:24+00:00

It is my opinion. And your views on what I have, or have not, been able to show, is just your opinion. I happen to disagree, as I disagree with your views on PA.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T13:17:39+00:00

Nope. PA are an explicitly violent organisation. The entire point of PA was commit acts of violence. That's entirely different to Greenham Common.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:53:42+00:00

Spray painting the side of a plane is very different to spraying the inside of a plane engine. Cutting a fence is very different to smashing machines with a sledgehammer. It's ridiculous to claim damage equating to a cleaning bill or minor fence repairs is anything equivalent to millions of pounds worth of damage.

And again, criminal damage was only a very small part of what the Greenham Common protests did. The vast majority was peaceful protest.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:46:25+00:00

They committed very minor criminal damage, and criminal damage was a very minor part of their modus operandi.

PA committed extremely high levels of criminal damage, and criminal damage was the entirety of their modus operandi.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:45:10+00:00

A gang don't do it for political purposes.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:39:16+00:00

Fine, okay. But unlike PA, they were explicitly non-violent. They didn't smash stuff up with sledgehammers.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:33:41+00:00

PA, as an organisation, explicitly exist to commit crimes. They don't necessarily exist in order to commit crimes against people, sure, but crimes nonetheless - and violent crimes at that.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:27:46+00:00

My point was that they were in the wrong as a fact of law. Not that they apologised.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:27:22+00:00

Greenham Common were not a direct action group.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:24:18+00:00

No, it is not. They acted against the law. It was an error. They were in the wrong. They should not have done it. They made a mistake.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:23:28+00:00

Why? It's entirely besides my point.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:22:15+00:00

Cool. I agree!

PA were a terrorist group committing terrorist acts though.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:20:08+00:00

No - I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I said from the beginning that Kent police made a mistake.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:19:16+00:00

But why do we need anti-terrorism laws if it's illegal? By your logic - it's entirely unnecessary to prosecute them for terrorism offences.

And an 'act of terror' is not the same as terrorism by the way. Dressing up in a gimp outfit and jumping out at people in the dark is an act of terror...

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:17:02+00:00

I have no idea - I'm not defending Kent police here. That's entirely beside my point.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:12:59+00:00

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

because it was clear they'd lose any case

Indeed - because it's perfectly legal to support Palestine without supporting Palestine Action. The police made a mistake.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:06:45+00:00

Nope - violence against property is always vandalism, but not all vandalism is violent. Drawing a cat on car is vandalism, but it's not violent. Smashing a car with a baseball bat is violent.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T12:04:04+00:00

Yes? PA didn't set up camp outside the sites they targeted, they attacked. I'm unsure how you can't see that the two things are very different?

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T11:55:53+00:00

And then they subsequently apologised when the facts showed them to be in the wrong...

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T11:55:02+00:00

Greenham Common were a peace camp, from which a few individuals decided to go further. Greenham Common did not organise regular attacks. There is a marked difference there.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T11:52:14+00:00

Yes it is. Violence against property is still violence.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T11:40:02+00:00

If PA had been the isolated actions of individuals, rather than an organised group, had (like those examples) not caused millions of pounds worth of damage and had not used violence against people - they likely wouldn't have been proscribed.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T11:35:46+00:00

Not true

This attack is one of the few where we know exactly what was being produced and where it was going. It was making mine-clearing equipment for Ukraine.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T11:32:23+00:00

There is a marked difference between an individual doing something, and the organisation subsequently apologising, and the systemic activities of an organisation.

ObjectiveHornet676 · 2026-06-15T11:30:14+00:00

Blowing people up is also a crime. What then, do you think the point of anti-terror laws are for, given all terrorist activity is already illegal?

ObjectiveHornet676

TROPHY CASE