‘Palestine Action’ marchers - arrests today.

That lobbyists have caused this proscription makes me extremely uncomfortable but the court case hopefully will reveal if Palestine Action have been wrongly proscribed.

Yes I absolutely feel exactly the same.

Foreign powers should have no say in our domestic law.

At the moment, and that's because apparently the 'full facts' about what the Palestine group get up to are unknown to the public, because of sub judice, I am not comfortable with this group being so categorised.
At the moment, I think they are 'criminal' and not 'terrorist'. (I am prepared to change my mind, if the 'full facts' convince me.)
What I really don't like, is the idea that this proscription has occurred due to the lobbying of a foreign power

Got it in one Maremia.

Correction, just checked, it’s the Maniacs Murder Cult. They and the Russian Imperialists do exist, more is the pity.

And by putting the Palestine group in with those other terrorist organisations, the proscription was guaranteed, wasn't it. A masterly stroke from whoever arranged this.

silverlining48

Apparently, the proscribing of the Palistine Assistance group was attached to the proscribing at the same time of two other groups, the Maniacs Murder Group and the Russian Imperial movement. You couldn’t make it up but that was the choice. It was criticised by many MPs who felt the PA issue should be dealt with separately from the other two, but in the end they were left with little choice.

Now why the PA were included with these two violent sounding groups, neither of which I have ever heard if, I don’t know, but MPs felt they had no choice but vote this in as a group of 3 together, or none at all.
Had they not agreed it would have been all over the papers that they refused to proscribe the MMG and the RIM groups. MPs were angry and called it sneaky which it was, as it increased pressure on them to vote in favour. So they were more or less forced and tricked into it.

The issue remains about lobbying from a foreign power.

Acts intending to damage property but not kill or severely injure should not be labelled as terrorism. A direct quote from one of the Freedom of Information papers.

👍. Thanks for that information. I run out of steam at times 😵‍💫

Apparently, the proscribing of the Palistine Assistance group was attached to the proscribing at the same time of two other groups, the Maniacs Murder Group and the Russian Imperial movement. You couldn’t make it up but that was the choice. It was criticised by many MPs who felt the PA issue should be dealt with separately from the other two, but in the end they were left with little choice.

Now why the PA were included with these two violent sounding groups, neither of which I have ever heard if, I don’t know, but MPs felt they had no choice but vote this in as a group of 3 together, or none at all.
Had they not agreed it would have been all over the papers that they refused to proscribe the MMG and the RIM groups. MPs were angry and called it sneaky which it was, as it increased pressure on them to vote in favour. So they were more or less forced and tricked into it.

The issue remains about lobbying from a foreign power.

Acts intending to damage property but not kill or severely injure should not be labelled as terrorism. A direct quote from one of the Freedom of Information papers.

At present it is illegal to support Palestine Action.
Should people break the law over drink driving for instance because they don't agree with it.
It would be mayhem if people broke laws they didn't like.

It is a bit complicated, but the vote to proscribe PA was wrapped up with a few other proscriptions, but I was listening to TRIP and it was clear that many Labour MPs were very unhappy about the proscription, and did not agree with the decision.

However, we none of know the reason yet - it can’t be simply for criminal damage! So it will be interesting to hear.

Sorry fat fingers, 26 voted no.

Whitewavemark2

I do think that governance has been poorly managed over this.

I have been listening to various commentaries, and I do agree that although the police had no alternative but to arrest over 500 people, there has got to be a real issue with pressure on our courts and prisons. Next week they could find themselves arresting 1000 and the week after 2000 - .

Filling our courts snd prisons with peaceful protesters when they should be full of violent criminals and murderers waiting trail is not a very sensible decision imo.

I am aware that many - in fact the majority - labour MPs felt very uncomfortable over this proscription.

Criminal damage must be punished. I await the result of the courts decision re PA with interest.At least we may have a better idea what brought on this decision, because at present we don’t .

Whitewavemark2 you posted that many Labour MP’s

felt very uncomfortable over this proscription

What makes you think that when the votes were 385 yes, 36 no, only 10 Labour MP’s voted against the Government.

Source BBC website.

Sorry, that was *Whitewave's post I quoted
I am aware that many - in fact the majority - labour MPs felt very uncomfortable over this proscription.
And answered.

Filling our courts snd prisons with peaceful protesters when they should be full of violent criminals and murderers waiting trail is not a very sensible decision imo.
True but they are protesting out on the streets protesting for a proscribed group. As I said earlier, they seem to have lost the original purpose of protesting about what is happening in Gaza and this has turned into an anti-Government protest group.
What a pity the criminal acts perpetrated by a few of the founder members has resulted in this debacle. It's a distraction from what is happening.
The baby's been thrown out with the bathwater as the saying goes.

I am aware that many - in fact the majority - labour MPs felt very uncomfortable over this proscription.

So why did they vote as they did? Only 26 voted against proscription. Did not have the courage of their convictions or were privy to more information than is available to the general public?

Oreo

If they’re worried about being hurt while being arrested then they should all walk into the police vans instead of waiting to be carried off.I bet they were thrilled with themselves for protesting.Silly old things.

They will be silly old things with a police record. If they offend again they could get a custodial sentence.
Not much sympathy with them.

Yes. I thought you made a totally valid point AGA.

A couple of posters keep emphasising “the elderly” .
I just don’t know what the point of that is.

If they’re worried about being hurt while being arrested then they should all walk into the police vans instead of waiting to be carried off.I bet they were thrilled with themselves for protesting.Silly old things.

Lathyrus3

Yes I can see they might need to be picked off the road in a somewhat different way by the Police. And it would put an extra burden on policing.

But apart from that I can’t see that being elderly makes any difference really.

I agree that an elderly person committing an offence should be treated the same as anyone else committing the same offence. I was just pointing out the police difficulties with a lot of elderly people some who needed help getting into vehicles.
If one was hurt they would be blamed.

I do think that governance has been poorly managed over this.

I have been listening to various commentaries, and I do agree that although the police had no alternative but to arrest over 500 people, there has got to be a real issue with pressure on our courts and prisons. Next week they could find themselves arresting 1000 and the week after 2000 - .

Filling our courts snd prisons with peaceful protesters when they should be full of violent criminals and murderers waiting trail is not a very sensible decision imo.

I am aware that many - in fact the majority - labour MPs felt very uncomfortable over this proscription.

Criminal damage must be punished. I await the result of the courts decision re PA with interest.At least we may have a better idea what brought on this decision, because at present we don’t .

Quote AGAA4 Thu 14-Aug-25 14:05:49
Elderly can mean frail. More easily hurt in a confrontation. I can understand the police being concerned.

The police are reported by much now , they have cause to be
concerned. Surely anyone with frail health will know what to expect from their bodies and so avoid

Lathyrus3

Yes I can see they might need to be picked off the road in a somewhat different way by the Police. And it would put an extra burden on policing.

But apart from that I can’t see that being elderly makes any difference really.

I agree. Elderly people can commit murder or GBH or fraud or shoplifting or anything really. Remember the diamond geezers in the Hatton Garden robbery?

Yes I can see they might need to be picked off the road in a somewhat different way by the Police. And it would put an extra burden on policing.

But apart from that I can’t see that being elderly makes any difference really.

Elderly can mean frail. More easily hurt in a confrontation. I can understand the police being concerned.

I really don’t see what being “elderly” has to do with anything.

It’s an emotive word.

Elderly = harmless?
Elderly =Wise?
Elderly = not responsible for actions?
Elderly = treat differently?

There must be a reason for emphasising ”elderly”.

I mistrust emotive language and those who use it.

The police have said they are uncomfortable arresting elderly people as they are trained to deal with hardened criminals but what else can they do if elderly people break the law?