Palestine Action to be banned after break-in at RAF base
Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action.
The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire.
The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine.
The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police.
The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'.
Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers.
Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group.
Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA.
Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned.
The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.'
CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.'
Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Harry Dunn: What happened in the case of teenage motorcyclist?
Almost six years since the death of motorcyclist Harry Dunn outside a US military base in the UK, an investigative review has criticised the way Northamptonshire Police handled the driver of the car involved in the collision, US diplomat Anne Sacoolas, was handed an eight-month jail term, suspended for 12 months, after pleading guilty to criminal did a road collision end up with the victim's family losing confidence in the police and the Northamptonshire force being criticised in an official report? Who was Harry Dunn? Mr Dunn's mother, Charlotte Charles, said the 19-year-old was "larger than life" with a "great" sense of 27 August 2019, he died in a crash near RAF Croughton, Northamptonshire, after Sacoolas's car struck his motorbike moments after she left the car was driving on the right-hand side of the road when it should have been on the had diplomatic immunity asserted on her behalf by the US administration. They then both left the UK. Who is Anne Sacoolas? Sacoolas was described in the 2025 investigative review of the case as "a married mother of three" who had "held a US drivers' licence and had done so since the age of 15".At the time of the collision in 2019, her husband Jonathan was a US intelligence officer and the couple and their three children had been in the UK for a few family's four-year-old daughter and 11-year-old son had been in the car with their mother when the collision happened. They had been attending a barbecue at RAF a court hearing in Virginia in 2021, a barrister said that Ms Sacoolas herself had been "employed by an intelligence agency in the US" at the time of the crash and her work was "especially a factor" in her leaving the immunity gives some people, such as foreign diplomats and, in some cases, their families, protection from arrest and prosecution in their host had, however, been a secret agreement between the UK and US governments that allowed for the prosecution of diplomats for crimes committed outside their duties but gave their families greater protection. Why did the crash cause a diplomatic row? Following the fatal crash, Mr Dunn's parents Mrs Charles and Tim Dunn, aided by spokesperson Radd Seiger, began a campaign to have the case brought to led them to the White House and a meeting in October 2019 with Donald Trump, then in his first term as US the meeting, he revealed Sacoolas was in the next room, but the family felt "ambushed" and did not meet December 2019, the UK's Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) authorised Northamptonshire Police to charge Sacoolas with causing Mr Dunn's an extradition request for her to be brought to the UK was rejected by the US the then-Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, when she was Foreign Secretary, raised the case with the US government. How did Anne Sacoolas end up in court? In the absence of extradition, the family launched a civil claim for damages against Sacoolas and her husband in the December 2021, the CPS said Sacoolas would appear at court in the UK to face unspecified a month later it said the court date had been postponed to allow "ongoing" discussions with the US national's legal a change in the law meant Sacoolas was able to appear in court via video-link and she pleaded guilty on screen at the Old Bailey to causing death by careless driving on 20 October 2022. The 45-year-old was originally charged with causing death by dangerous driving, but the CPS accepted her plea to the lesser was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months, once again appearing via video-link after the US government advised Sacoolas not to attend her sentencing was also disqualified from driving for 12 months. What did Harry Dunn's family say after the hearing? Mrs Charles said: "Getting to court and getting to where we are now has been the most monumental thing for me because I can talk to him now and tell him we've done it. Promise complete."Mr Dunn Snr said: "I go up to the crash site quite a lot - I went there a couple of days ago to strim and put some daffodils in ready for the spring."Hopefully we've given hope to other families that they can do the same as us and get justice and believe and fight because it will happen in the end, it will happen." What has happened since the sentencing? A second funeral for Mr Dunn was held in March 2024 after human tissue was found on clothing returned to the inquest in June 2024 concluded Mr Dunn died as a result of a road traffic collision, and the coroner called for driver training to be given to US personnel working in the UK. Northamptonshire Police launched an investigation into how the case was handled from the beginning. What did the investigation find? The review, written by a former senior police officer, made 38 separate found that, while officers believed Sacoolas was in a state of shock at the time, she "could and should have been arrested" after the also revealed that Mr Dunn was subjected to drug testing after the collision, but Sacoolas was review said none of the officers at the scene managed to gather footage from their body-worn cameras. It was also very critical of the chief constable at the time, Nick Adderley, who was sacked for gross misconduct in 2024 for lying about his career in the Royal said he made "erroneous statements" about Sacoolas's immunity status, and should not have criticised the family's spokesperson, Radd Seiger, at a press conference. The force has apologised for failing to "do the very best for the victim".Mrs Charles said: "I'm absolutely bewildered that the most fundamental of policing was not carried out. I'm struggling to get my head around that."Mr Seiger said Mr Adderley "nearly derailed" attempts to get justice for Mr Dunn but that Northamptonshire Police, under a new chief constable, was now "headed in the right direction". Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
The week that showed why voters are so angry with Britain's politicians
If you were to try and sum up the British state this week, you would be spoiled for choice. After a few days in which failure after failure came to light – from the damning review into the official response to grooming gangs to the slow-motion crash of the High Speed 2 project to the ability of pro-Palestine activists to damage RAF planes on an airfield unhindered – you might charitably opt for 'incompetent'. A better phrase would be 'head in the sand'. The failures in these cases, as with the inability of the Westminster system to respond to public demands on migration, rein in the out-of-control spending of the benefits system or perform its most fundamental function of providing security from criminals, all have different underlying causes. But at the core of each is a strange lassitude, a body politic that no longer responds to crises that seem startlingly obvious to voters, remaining instead locked in a spiral of internal obsessions, agonising over the idea that to confront gangs might trigger episodes of racism and continuing with projects that long ago failed any sane cost-benefit analysis. The result is a state that is less 'managed decline' than 'unmanaged collapse', with no obvious pressure valve in sight prior to the next election. One way or another, something will happen to force the British state to pull its head from the sand. The question is whether it happens in time to prevent an explosion. Or not. A week of failures In recent years it became popular to discuss the 'volatility' of the British electorate. People who had previously voted loyally for one party were suddenly up for grabs; votes swung wildly between parties, giving first one, then the other a crushing majority or unexpected defeat at the ballot box. It's true that one way of reading this pattern is to simply say that voters are less loyal to an ideal than they were in the past. Another interpretation, however, would be to view these as attempts by voters to find some way – any way – of shocking Westminster out of its default pathway. If there were any doubt remaining, the failures laid bare over the last week illustrate just how badly a course correction is needed. First, we had Baroness Casey's review into the grooming gangs scandal. This made for tough reading. It laid out how police officers had responded to children pleading for their help: 'sometimes turning a blind eye but often actively enabling abuse', and accused some of being 'incompetent at best' and 'corrupt at worst'. It showed how officials had attempted to dismiss the issue of ethnicity out of hand, uncomfortable with the implications for Britain's multicultural success story, terrified of 'community tensions'. It all but accused the Home Office of fabricating data to maintain there was no particular problem with men from Pakistani backgrounds. Worse still, in doing so it told us very little we didn't already know. We knew that officials were tacitly or actively complicit in what unfolded. We knew that they had effectively deemed it better for society if children were raped and government covered it up, than to risk 'tensions' by intervening. We knew that they had arrested parents who had tried to save their children. News reports and official reviews had laid this story bare for over a decade. Yet even with the failures visible to all, Westminster has proved utterly unwilling to look closely at the extent of offending across Britain, to learn the lessons necessary to fight ongoing abuse, and to deliver justice to those who were wronged. It was more important to protect what was left of the narrative of a diverse nation united than to look honestly at the consequences of previous waves of migration. This is still going on. Casey's review highlighted that 'a significant proportion' of the live police cases she examined involved foreign nationals and asylum seekers. Examining the extent of criminal activity by these groups is hard, given that the Government refuses regularly to publish data on the subject. But data from Freedom of Information requests has shown that a quarter of all sex assaults on women successfully prosecuted in Britain are carried out by foreign nationals, with another 8 per cent by offenders of 'unknown' nationalities. One response to this would be to publish this evidence, alongside data on fiscal contributions and benefits withdrawals, and use it to inform policy on migration. Yet for a political class that sees immigration less as a tool to reshape the country for the better and more as a necessity, the economic and cultural lifeblood of the nation, these are figures to be hidden away. Indeed, for those who see it as an axiomatic good with no need for supporting evidence, there is a moral imperative to crush opposition to it. Virtue comes not in addressing associated problems – the province of populists – but in being blind to them. High speed to nowhere And this scandal is only one manifestation of a deeper disease: Britain appears to be effectively incapable of changing course, locked into assumptions and decisions made decades ago. The unravelling of the High Speed 2 project is another prime example from the last week. The economic case for the project collapsed almost as soon as it was published. A project linking London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, originally set to cost £53 billion in today's money, grew out of all control, with costs spiralling past £120 billion before the sheer scale of the failure triggered the Conservative government's decision to slash the project down to a far less ambitious link between London and Birmingham. Even this, however, is set to cost £67 billion. A project that has been slashed in scope has still somehow risen in price. In the process, the cost-benefit ratio has crumbled. We can attribute some mistakes to naivety at the outset; beliefs about greater efficiencies, or the correct way to allocate risk between the government and contractors. But over the course of the project, even as costs rose, the value of the line somehow kept pace – until suddenly it didn't. The project is now delayed again, with inquiries underway into how the cost of infrastructure has grown so rapidly and the Cabinet Office facing accusations of ignoring concerns over fraud and financial mismanagement. The grooming of children and failed infrastructure projects are about as far away as it is possible to be in policy terms. The manner of the failures, though, is instructive: signals that something is going awry are getting scrambled, incentives for individuals to act are lacking. No-one capable is across the details and willing to speak out about failures. A failed state The list of policy failures in Britain is long. Some symptoms are directly visible in the state's activities. Take the sheer size of NHS waiting lists in a system that translated a 27 per cent cash increase in the budget from 2019 to 2022 into an absolute reduction in the number of people it treated. A 16 per cent rise in the number of full-time equivalent junior doctors alongside an 11 per cent increase in the number of nurses, has led to productivity levels 8 per cent below the 2019 baseline. We could also talk about the spiralling levels of debt, and the fiscal plans that have caused the Office for Budget Responsibility to warn that we are on an unsustainable course, or the benefits system which appears utterly unable to distinguish between the disabled and the workshy. Into this category, also, goes the shoplifting epidemic, the release of prisoners to make room in overcrowded jails, the inability of the state to combat actual crime paired with its obsession with policing speech in case stray thoughts ignite the riots politicians fear are permanently just around the corner. Other signs of failure are in the private sector, in inflation-adjusted wages that are still below their 2008 peak, in housing that remains stubbornly out of reach of those without substantial assistance from the bank of mum and dad. People in Western countries know what failed states look like. They look like Somalia, or South Sudan. The government's grip disintegrates, power fragments and society fragments with it. Basic services collapse and with it the safety of the population. But as the American economist Mancur Olson has pointed out, developed states have a different failure mode. They become too stable, insulated from political upheaval, bound up by interest groups that use their grasp on the institutions to strangle anything which might disrupt their position. Britain's failure mode looks a lot more like the second than the first. We might not be matching the fall of Rome for debauchery, but we are certainly doing our best with a particular form of decadent self-indulgence: from social capital to physical capital, our leaders are eating the seed-corn, running the country down without replacing what they take out. 'There's a bunch of obvious, relatively surface phenomena, like the NHS, or the stupid boats, that are the visible manifestations of things not working,' says Dominic Cummings, the former adviser to Boris Johnson, in an interview with The Telegraph that you can read in full on Sunday. 'But I think what's happening at a deeper level is we are living through the same cycle that you see repeatedly in history play out, which is that over a few generations, the institutions and ideas of the elites start to come out of whack with reality. 'The ideas don't match, the institutions can't cope. And what you see repeatedly is this cycle of elite blindness, the institutions crumbling – and then suddenly crisis kicks in and then institutions collapse.' The Blob For a useful short-hand, we can borrow the description of these elites which is often attributed to Cummings: 'the Blob' – an emergent phenomenon with no governing intelligence and no clear leaders, instead resulting from people from the same classes, with the same beliefs and the same incentives, taking the same decisions across public life. Where do the civil servants on the prestigious Fast Stream (a program to accelerate the careers of graduates coming into Whitehall) come from? From families who overwhelmingly had university-educated parents working in 'higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations', arriving in government after education at Oxbridge or other Russell Group universities where the consensus is stifling: one in five academics feel unable to teach controversial views. Given that one in five academics vote for Right-wing parties, and three quarters for the Left, it's not terribly hard to work out which views might count as controversial in this milieu. We might equally ask where Cabinet ministers, senior judges – and, yes, newspaper columnists – come from. The resulting gaps between the political classes and the public can be vast. Shortly after the 2019 election, one study concluded that Conservative MPs were not only more socially liberal than Conservative voters, but of the median for all voters, adopting positions not that far away from Labour's base. The result is that even when signals of voter discontent do cut through the noise surrounding Westminster, they are sometimes simply ignored. In 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 the party or cause offering reductions in migration won. The electorate's reward for this was Boris Johnson's systematic dismantling of our borders, a quadrupling in net migration over its 2019 level to 906,000 per year. There's nothing wrong with having some merit in your meritocracy, but when people are drawn from the same backgrounds, they will tend to think in the same ways. In the political system, this manifests as a blindness to the idea that the values of politicians can drift from those held by voters, an unwillingness to deliver what the population want; self-centred governance by an establishment class propped up by its hold on the traditional party duopoly and the major institutional organs of British life. One manifestation of this group's beliefs is a form of pathological compassion driven by insulation from its effects: an unwillingness to jail prisoners, turn away illegal migrants or crack down on benefits cheats because to do so would be cruel. The end result of this 'kindness' is often to kill the system that provided for those who were genuinely in need. In toxic combination with these beliefs is a political structure that works actively to evade accountability, with decision-makers rarely facing serious consequences for their failures; so long as they follow process, scrutiny is generally evaded. The crisis of competence Alongside the problem of willingness is the problem of ability. Public fury with politicians is not helped at all by their willingness to make grandiose claims that they fail to live up to. In the words of political strategist James Frayne, 'politicians of all parties have created a toxic climate by assuring voters they can solve practically any problem regardless of size and complexity, while permanently under-delivering'. This has 'fuelled immense public cynicism because voters assume failure derives from incompetence and corruption – always moral corruption, sometimes even financial corruption. This cynicism has become one of the most defining and corrosive aspects of modern electoral politics. Voters increasingly think the worst of politicians and what drives them. They are prone to think they're mostly interested in lining their own pockets or clinging on to power.' 'On HS2, people will be asking whether politicians found themselves under the influence of big businesses, rather than delivering jobs for the North. On the grooming gangs, others will be asking whether politicians sacrificed vulnerable kids to make sure they didn't lose friends and votes. Such feelings absolutely aren't levelled at any party in particular. While Labour will get more short-term anger on grooming gangs, that's only because they were forthright in suggesting calls for proper investigations were politically-motivated. There is a widespread sense that all politicians are the same.' This leaves open a fundamental question: is there a fundamental limit on the British state's ability to deliver things that it seemed able to do just two decades ago? Or, is the disconnect between reality and the signals reaching politicians (through the ideological predisposition of their civil servants) so great that many MPs and ministers are no longer capable of reaching sane evaluations? Reforming the state In Nigel Farage's view, 'everything the British state touches collapses, regardless of colour'. With his party surging in the polls – the beneficiary of two decades of failed red and blue governance – he has every right to pin the blame for these failures on the selection into government of a certain cadre of establishment true believer. 'There are two types of people in politics; those who want to be something, and those who want to do something', Farage says. 'And the be-something's have dominated for decades: Oxbridge kids who want to be PM, cabinet minister, MP – not driven by thoughts about how to make the country better.' The resulting consensus is stifling. 'Everyone wants to be nice. If you're nice, you're liked and socially acceptable. And anyone with a different opinion is unacceptable'. But this doesn't work when the state is failing: 'When Starmer u-turns on rhetoric, don't believe it will lead to reality because it won't. He's saying it to fend off Reform. He has no intention of acting on it.' Competence, too comes in for a blast. 'As a result, we get cabinets full of people lacking in real life experience. They haven't run businesses. They haven't achieved anything. It's mediocrity – we're governed by people who are unqualified to be a middle manager in an Asda in Birmingham'. For Farage, there is only one way left out. 'This country needs political surgery through every single sector of public life. We need a very gentle, British, political revolution. I'm the moderate. If I don't succeed, watch what comes after me.' The canonisation of Saint Luigi The appearance of a new piece of graffiti under a paint-spattered archway in east London would normally draw no more attention than the tagged scrawl it overwrote. In February, however, a new painting briefly drew attention from segments of the world's press. The artwork shows Luigi Mangione, in his green hoodie, framed by the yellow painted bricks of the arch – a halo against a black background. In December 2024, Mangione was arrested on suspicion of the murder of Brian Thompson, the chief executive of UnitedHealthcare who was gunned down in the street. And almost overnight, he became a cult hero for an extraordinary number of disaffected Americans, who described him as 'Saint Luigi' – a description that images of Mangione bearing a red sacred heart, right hand raised in blessing, make almost literal. Whatever else we might think about Mangione, on this specific and narrow point, it is probably not a good signal of the health of society when its elite class is widely despised. In Britain, this has thankfully achieved expression primarily through political means, although last year's Southport riots were a warning sign about what might come if failures continue. King's College Professor David Betz made headlines with his prediction that Britain could fall into civil war without a change of course. Yet his concerns are shared by some of those on the ground. In the words of one former police officer, in the aftermath of recent public disorder police forces set about working out what to do in response, handling 'resourcing, moving people around the country, calling in the Armed Forces if needed. What they've never really thought about is what they would do if officers decided the risk was too great, and simply didn't come to work. Policing might be able to fill gaps by cancelling days off and extending shifts, but that tempo can't be maintained for long.' More ominously still, 'they've never really considered what would happen in a conflict where officers identified with one side enough to join it. Police officers are vetted, but not with that in mind. And police equipment already goes missing at rather an alarming rate. It's not unlikely that if serious violence started officers might start disappearing to defend their homes and families with their issued weapons – including firearms – if they lose faith in the state's ability to do so.' One more roll for the ballot box Adam Smith's remark that there is 'a great deal of ruin in a nation' was not meant to be an invitation to politicians to attempt to quantify the exact degree. Regrettably, generations of British leaders seem to have acted as if things will probably be fine whether they succeed or fail. The last year of British politics has given every indication of a system under intolerable strain. With the establishment facade beginning to crack, Westminster has a short window in which to change course voluntarily. If that passes, revolution – whether in the form of Prime Minister Nigel Farage, or something more dramatic – could be the result.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
RAF base's only defence against Palestine Action was 6ft wooden fence
For almost 80 years, RAF Brize Norton has been one of the country's most important military airfields, serving as an embarkation point for members of the Royal family and senior politicians as they fly around the globe. So one could be forgiven for expecting security around the Oxfordshire airbase to be watertight. In reality, however, things are a little more porous, with sections of the eight-mile perimeter protected only by a six-foot wooden fence that would not look out of place surrounding a suburban garden. In the early hours of Friday morning, two members of the protest group Palestine Action – which will now be proscribed as a terrorist organisation – took advantage of the seemingly lax defences to enter the airfield and attack two military aircraft. Video footage posted by the group showed two people using electric scooters to cross the base's runway. One can be seen approaching an aircraft and spray-painting its engine, before driving away down the empty airstrip. They were then able to disappear into the night, leaving the RAF red-faced and the Ministry of Defence to announce an urgent review of security. Brize Norton serves as the hub for UK strategic air transport and refuelling, including flights to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. It is also where the aircraft used by dignitaries, including the monarch and prime minister, are based. As would be expected, large parts of the base, especially near the gates, are surrounded by high metal fences topped with menacing-looking razor wire. The perimeter in these areas also bristles with security cameras and hi-tech CCTV to monitor the comings of goings of all personnel. Armed guards patrol the gates in a show of strength aimed at deterring anyone who has no lawful business. But just a short stroll along a grass verge, the barbed wire comes to an abrupt end, to be replaced by a panel fence that looks like it could have been purchased from a DIY store. The section in question is plain to see for anyone travelling the four miles between the villages of Carterton and Bampton along station road. Stretching for around 170 metres, it skirts along the end of the runway and is protected from the road by just a small line of wooden and concrete bollards. One resident said: 'I've lived in this area for years and every time I drive past the fence I think: 'That would be easy to break into'.' It is not topped with barbed wire or any other anti-climbing defences, and would provide little resistance to a determined terrorist with a spring in their step. There is even a hole in the fence at one point for anyone who cannot quite manage the climb. Red warning signs attached to the fence declare: 'No unauthorised access. Protected site under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Trespass on this site is a Criminal Offence. This site is also regulated by military bylaws.' At one end of the section, kennels belonging to the RAF Police's dog section are located. But, while a number of RAF Police vehicles were parked close by, there were no visible personnel patrols on Friday afternoon during the three hours that reporters from The Telegraph were at the site. On the other side of the fence, and just a short distance from the road, Airbus Voyager aircraft, the air-to-air refuellers targeted by Palestine Action, can be seen on the tarmac. Security for the Brize Norton airfield is the responsibility of the RAF Police and Military Provost Guard Service (MPGS), which secures Army, Navy and RAF bases. But former members have suggested the unit is poorly funded and does not have the resources to effectively secure such large sites. One RAF source told The Telegraph the level of security across all military was not up to standard, and that 'more dogs, more coppers and more money' was needed to properly secure the sensitive sites. 'We have barbed wire around the bases and cameras, but is its perimeter fence completely covered for the miles it takes up?' the source said. 'No, because Brize Norton is f---ing huge.' He added: 'If we could have another 50 coppers and 50 dogs the security at Brize Norton would improve. But is the security as tight at a fast jet base? Not really. 'To have watertight security at a base like Brize Norton, you'd have to invest countless people and god knows the amount of money. But maybe that's what we have to do now if this is the way things are going.' The source added: 'MPGS are responsible for recruiting the right people and getting them in the right places, but they haven't done that. ' It's a symptom of a lack of investment on security. We don't have tens of millions of pounds to put up CCTV across all the bases.' Another former military source added: 'The security at these non-nuclear bases can be very patchy. The perimeter fences are too long to be able to have them under surveillance 24 hours a day. 'But when Glastonbury's fence is harder to breach than RAF Brize Norton, you know you have an issue. 'While it may be challenging to secure an entire eight-mile perimeter, you would think they ought to be able to protect aircraft sitting on the runway. Someone's head is going to have to roll over this.'
