Palestine Action to be banned in UK after break-in at RAF base
The UK Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base, the PA news agency understands.
Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action.
Advertisement
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.
A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide.
Advertisement
The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.'
The UK 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 UK 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.
Advertisement
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 UK 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.
Advertisement
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 UK 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
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action to be banned after vandalism of planes at RAF base
The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an 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. A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' 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'. But Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International UK, said the human rights organisation was 'deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups'. Mr Southerden said: 'Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them. 'Instead of suppressing protest against the UK's military support for Israel, the UK should be taking urgent action to prevent Israel's genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.'
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
The Sun
38 minutes ago
- The Sun
Murderer caught after cops follow trail of blood from victim, 47, who was stabbed in TV remote row as son pays tribute
A MURDERER was caught after cops followed a trail of blood from the victim after he was stabbed in a TV remote row. James Murray, 47, died in Wythenshawe, Manchester, after being fatally knifed by his flatmate Scott Thomson, 57. 2 2 The pair of pals had moved in together after initially meeting at a hostel. But as the months went by the "co-dependent" relationship soured as Thomson became increasingly suspicious of his flatmate. Tensions surrounding a new TV bought for the flat began to flare, with Thomson claiming that Murray was hogging the remote. On December 4 last year, an argument over the TV remote escalated, with tragic consequences. Thomson grabbed a 19cm blade and lashed out at his flatmate with the large knife causing fatal damage. The weapon caused an 8cm wound, penetrating through Murray's ribcage and going "straight into his heart". He manage to stagger outside bleeding but Murray then collapsed and died in the street despite the efforts of paramedics to save him. A trail of blood led officers to Thomson's flat, where further evidence of the violent altercation was discovered. Thomson fled the scene but was arrested the next day after approaching cops and admitting his involvement. Thomson was handed a life sentence with a minimum term of 18 years for killing Murray in a hearing at Manchester Crown Court yesterday. In a powerful victim impact statement read out in court, James' son said: 'I would like to pass on thanks to my family liaison officer for all the help and support they have provided to me and my family throughout this process. "There is no way to fully express the depth of pain and loss that my father's murder has caused. 'My dad, James, was funny, laid back, and incredibly personable. He had a gift for making people laugh, often by winding us up in a way that only he could. "That was his way—he brought joy and light into every room he entered. He may not have been an angel, he may not have lived the best life, but he was my dad. 'Since the day he was taken from us, my life has changed completely. I am constantly reminded of what has happened. I consistently feel the pain of his murder, there is not a day that goes by that I don't feel the weight of his absence. "I struggle to sleep. I struggle to have a 'normal' day. Even the simplest things have become difficult without him here. 'What hurts the most is knowing that due to Scott Thompson taking my dad's life, I no longer have the opportunity to create new memories with my dad or share my life with him. No milestones, no quiet chats, no laughter, no future together. "The loss of his life is greater than just the loss of a person—it's the loss of time, connection, and a relationship that can never be replaced. 'No sentence can bring him back, but I hope justice can reflect the seriousness of the pain inflicted on our family, and the irreplaceable life that was taken from us. 'The way in which James was taken from the world is a constant memory, a constant image for which I will never be able to unsee and this being solely due to Scott Thomson's actions on December 4 2024. 'I want Scott Thomson to know his actions will never be forgotten or forgiven.' If he is ever released from prison Thomson will be subject to licence for the rest of his life. Senior Investigating Officer Duncan Thorpe said: 'Firstly, our thoughts remain with James' family and friends at this time. 'This was a tragic and totally avoidable incident that highlights the devastating impact knife crime can have. There is no doubt that this issue could have been resolved without weapons. 'Today's sentencing should be a strong deterrent for those carrying and using a knife.'
