https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/uk-police-ban- palestine-action-protest-outside-parliament-2025-06-23/
LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Britain said on Monday it would use anti-terrorism laws to ban the campaign organisation Palestine
Action, making it a criminal offence to belong to the group after
its activists damaged two UK military planes in protest at
London's support for Israel.
My question is: why did the Govt have to wait until they broke into a military base?
LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Britain said on Monday it would use anti-terrorism laws to ban the campaign organisation Palestine
Action, making it a criminal offence to belong to the group after
its activists damaged two UK military planes in protest at
London's support for Israel.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/uk-police-ban-palestine-action-protest-outside-parliament-2025-06-23/
LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Britain said on Monday it would use
anti-terrorism laws to ban the campaign organisation Palestine
Action, making it a criminal offence to belong to the group after
its activists damaged two UK military planes in protest at
London's support for Israel.
My question is: why did the Govt have to wait until they broke into a military base?
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/uk-police-ban-palestine-action-protest-outside-parliament-2025-06-23/
LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Britain said on Monday it would use anti-terrorism laws to ban the campaign organisation Palestine
Action, making it a criminal offence to belong to the group after
its activists damaged two UK military planes in protest at
London's support for Israel.
My question is: why did the Govt have to wait until they broke into a >military base?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:44:35 +0100, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/uk-police-ban-palestine-action-protest-outside-parliament-2025-06-23/
LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Britain said on Monday it would use
anti-terrorism laws to ban the campaign organisation Palestine
Action, making it a criminal offence to belong to the group after
its activists damaged two UK military planes in protest at
London's support for Israel.
My question is: why did the Govt have to wait until they broke into a
military base?
The government didn't have to wait. I suspect that it was already
considering doing so, and this was the proverbial camel-back straw.
On 23/06/2025 18:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:44:35 +0100, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/uk-police-ban-palestine-action-protest-outside-parliament-2025-06-23/
LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Britain said on Monday it would use
anti-terrorism laws to ban the campaign organisation Palestine
Action, making it a criminal offence to belong to the group after
its activists damaged two UK military planes in protest at
London's support for Israel.
My question is: why did the Govt have to wait until they broke into a
military base?
The government didn't have to wait. I suspect that it was already
considering doing so, and this was the proverbial camel-back straw.
It doesn't say much for the base perimeter security though does it?
There are bad actors from other hostile states right now who would do
much more than spray paint the planes if they got close enough.
Tends to suggest that if the current draconian anti-terrorism laws had
been around at the time they would have been used against the women suffragettes and also the women protesting at Greenham Common airbase.
Both used unconventional methods of protest like vandalism and the like
to get publicity for their cause - sometimes involving paint.
On 24/06/2025 09:51 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Or for the rules of engagement controlling the actions of guards
(the RAF Regiment, still?).
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:16:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:51 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Or for the rules of engagement controlling the actions of guards
(the RAF Regiment, still?).
Pretty certain military security was outsourced to SERCO/G4S/Atos yonks
ago.
You won't find any soldiers patrolling perimeters.
On 24/06/2025 02:40 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:16:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:51 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Or for the rules of engagement controlling the actions of guards
(the RAF Regiment, still?).
Pretty certain military security was outsourced to SERCO/G4S/Atos yonks
ago.
You won't find any soldiers patrolling perimeters.
It sounds as though it needs to be reviewed, wouldn't you say?
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:27:15 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 02:40 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:16:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:51 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. Or for the rules of engagement controlling the actions of guards
(the RAF Regiment, still?).
Pretty certain military security was outsourced to SERCO/G4S/Atos yonks
ago.
You won't find any soldiers patrolling perimeters.
It sounds as though it needs to be reviewed, wouldn't you say?
I wouldn't have any argument with that.
However I am a big fan (as was Mrs T. weirdly) of the idea that Britain
does not put soldiers on streets (we'll park Northern Ireland for now).
The internal policing of the UK should be undertaken by a civilian force
with the appropriate powers and training.
I never want to see soldiers acting as police in the UK. If I have to,
then there has been an almighty failure somewhere.
We're not French for Gods sake !
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:46:29 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |