
ROBERT HARDMAN: I was in the midst of a mob of deluded conspiracy theorists united by a loathing of Israel, Trump and UK foreign policy
At one end of Whitehall, the Government was solemnly announcing plans to add the direct action group Palestine Action to the UK's current list of 81 proscribed (banned) terrorist organisations.
At the other end, its supporters were doing their best to muster a show of strength –while they still can. For once they are added to the list, alongside certified enemies of Western civilisation such as Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (that's Hamas to you and me), then this lot will qualify for mass arrests if they try a repeat of Monday's protest.
For you don't have to be an operative or even a card-carrying member of one of these banned groups to be arrested. As it is, they tend not to be quite as hot on cards and membership subs as your average golf club. Merely being heard to 'express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation' constitutes a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, a product of the early Blair years.
I am not a lawyer but can confidently predict that Monday's principal chant – 'We are Palestine Action' – would fall foul of the law once that organisation joins the club.
The Palestine Action leadership had originally planned a demonstration outside Parliament by way of reaction to the Home Secretary's response to last week's assault on Royal Air Force aircraft. Having broken into RAF Brize Norton, having made a mockery of the Ministry of Defence's pathetic security provision and having caused damage estimated in the tens of millions, this mob are now deemed to have crossed the line between direct action and sabotage.
Had they tried this sort of wanton vandalism back in the days when the RAF Regiment patrolled air bases with live ammunition, we might have been covering a funeral on Monday. As it was, it seemed inconceivable they would be allowed within shouting distance of Parliament. Sure enough, the police had restricted Palestine Action to Trafalgar Square.
There were at least 500 of them, and they managed to bring much of central London to a halt by blocking all southbound traffic. A little after midday, I saw a No 29 bus stuck next to the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields. The driver was still there nearly three hours later. At one point the bus became a refuge for a brave counter-demonstrator who arrived with an Israeli flag.
The police were being called every name under the sun but remained calm and in regular 'soft' uniforms and hi-vis bibs. Periodically, a snatch squad would wade in and haul out a protester amid much synthetic outrage from the rest. 'Let him go!' chanted the herd, while a little flock of self-appointed busybodies in 'Legal Observer' tabards fussed around, desperate to record evidence of police heavy-handedness (I saw none).
Those stuck in the traffic for several hours on another sunny day will have thought: 'If only.' If the police were at fault Monday, it was in letting the capital remain gummed up for hours. I have to say that I did not feel I was in the midst of terrorists. Deluded, obsessive, ranty, repetitive conspiracy theorists united in a pathological loathing of Israel, Donald Trump and British foreign policy, perhaps. But the prevailing vibe was more Lib Dem conference than jihadi.
We had plenty of students, of course, but if one demographic could have been said to predominate, it was the recently retired white middle class. For every protester in a hijab, I could count three grey-haired (or bald) baby-boomers dressed for rambling, save for the Palestinian keffiyeh over the shoulders. Perhaps I am guilty of crude generalisation but then I can only say the feeling was entirely mutual after I was twice accused of 'supporting genocide' on the grounds that I was wearing a linen jacket.
I met an articulate retired scientist who said he could see nothing wrong in crippling RAF aircraft which, thus, can no longer defend the realm. 'They have been complicit in war crimes,' he told me matter-of-factly.
At the start of the demo, a group of young mothers laid a rainbow-coloured blanket on the road and encouraged their children to do some drawing.
Drums and megaphones kept up a modest din but we had no stage and no 'keynote speakers'. There was also a notable Irish flavour to it all – plenty of Irish tricolours and slogans plus a sound system pumping out rebel songs like Come Out Ye Black And Tans.
After two and a half hours, several vanloads of rather different police eventually turned up with helmets and body armour and methodically cleared the road, scooping up a few more road-blockers for arrest.
After a few squawks of 'fascist!', the crowd started melting away.
There in the mix, I spotted Piers Corbyn, swivel-eyed bonkers elder brother of Jeremy. No lost cause is truly lost until Corbyn Senior is on board. He was wearing a 'Resist! Defy! Do Not Comply!' T-shirt on Monday.
By teatime, compliance was complete.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Will the UK stay out of Trump's war in Iran?
Just a week ago, after a sit-down meal with Donald Trump at the G7 summit, Keir Starmer was telling reporters that 'nothing the president said suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict'. It seemed, and must have seemed to UK government officials too, that weeks of calling for de-escalation and diplomacy had paid off – that Donald Trump was not about to intervene in Israel's war in Iran. Then, on Saturday night, the US launched an enormous strike on three nuclear sites in Iran. Deputy political editor Jessica Elgot talks through Starmer and his government's response to the escalating crisis since. And Helen Pidd asks, given the UK's close relationship to the US, might it still be dragged into this conflict?


Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
The Wargame podcast: Fictional British government faces a terrifying choice in final episode
Under yet another attack from Russia, a fictional British government of former ministers and military chiefs face a terrifying choice in the final episode of The Wargame. The home secretary, played by Amber Rudd, asks a key question. "We have the nuclear deterrent. In what circumstances would we use it prime minister?" Sir Ben Wallace, a former defence secretary who is playing the PM, offers his view - but is it one that is shared by the rest of his wartime cabinet? The British side is struggling to respond to mounting pressure from an imagined Kremlin in episode five of the Sky News and Tortoise podcast series, released on Tuesday. The Russian leam has unleashed waves of missile strikes and is demanding the UK agrees to an unconditional ceasefire. 28:54 NATO allies still not fully committed to rallying to help, the UK's options are dangerously limited. The dilemma exposes the particular peril for a nuclear-armed nation, such as Britain, that has allowed its conventional fighting power to shrink too far. It means, in a crisis, the UK no longer has the ability to sustain a fight conventionally, so escalating to nuclear war would have to happen far more rapidly - or else admit defeat. 4:35 Rebuilding conventional military capability and capacity as well as restoring wider national resilience, though, will be expensive. Whether or not the government and the public want to pay for this kind of conventional deterrence, well that's the big choice.


Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
PM warns of 'era of radical uncertainty' - and says UK will increase defence spending
Sir Keir Starmer said the UK is set to increase spending on defence, security and resilience to 5% of GDP by 2035 to meet an "era of radical uncertainty" - but without promising any additional cash. The move - part of a new spending pledge by the NATO alliance - was panned as deceptive "smoke and mirrors" by critics, who pointed to the very real risk of escalating conflict between Iran, the US and Israel, as well as Russia's full-scale war in Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Sky News the timeline for the increase was "very slow" and warned Russia could attack a NATO country within five years. "In my view, this is slow because we believe that starting from 2030, Putin can have significantly greater capabilities," he told chief presenter Mark Austin. 1:32 The prime minister, Donald Trump and the other leaders of NATO's 32 member states are expected to approve the investment goal when they meet at a summit in The Hague, which opens later today. It replaces a previous target to spend 2% of GDP purely on defence. The announcement will be celebrated as a win for the US president, who has been demanding his allies spend more on their own defences instead of relying on American firepower. Overnight, he claimed to have secured another success, declaring that Iran and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire - just hours after Iran launched missiles against two American military bases in retaliation to a US decision to attack three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. Perhaps it will mean he will switch attention back to achieving a goal to end Russia's war in Ukraine, which will be another key focus of the gathering in the Dutch capital. NATO planners have crunched the summit down to a short main session tomorrow, with a final communique much briefer than usual - all steps designed to reduce the chance of the US president leaving early. He is already scheduled to arrive late and last this evening, provided he turns up. There is huge nervousness about Mr Trump's commitment to an alliance that has been the bedrock of European security since it was founded more than 75 years ago. He is not a fan though, and has previously accused Europe and Canada of an overreliance on American firepower for their own security, calling for them to do more to defend themselves. This pressure has arguably been a bigger motivator in prompting certain allies to agree to spend more on their militaries than the threat they say is posed by Russia, Iran, China and North Korea. Spain's position could create friction this week. The Spanish prime minister, while agreeing to the new investment goal, has said his country is not obliged to meet it. The UK was also slow to say yes - a stance that was at odds with a defence review endorsed by Sir Keir that was centred around a "NATO-first" policy. As well as agreeing to the defence and security investment goal, the British government is also publishing a new national security strategy on Tuesday that will highlight the importance of a wider definition of what constitutes security, including energy, food and borders. There will also be a focus on a whole-of-society approach to resilience in an echo of the UK's Cold War past. It described the commitment to invest in defence, security and national resilience as an aligning of "national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since 1945". Sir Keir said: "We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe. "That's why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to NATO and drive greater investment in the nation's wider security and resilience." The funding will be split, with 3.5% of GDP going on core defence and 1.5% on homeland security and national resilience - a new and so far less clearly defined criteria. Progress on investment will be reviewed in 2029. The defence goal is higher than the government's current ambition to lift defence expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2034, from 2.3% currently. The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027 - a figure that has been boosted by the addition of the whole of the budget for the intelligence agencies. This level of intelligence spending had not previously been included and has drawn criticism from defence experts because it is not the same as tanks, artillery and troops. The government, in its statement, is now focusing on an even higher-sounding number, claiming that it will hit 4.1% of the new NATO target by 2027. However, this is merely based on adding the new 1.5% spending goal for "resilience and security" to the already stated 2.6% defence spending pledge. A Downing Street spokesperson was unable immediately to say how much of GDP is currently spent on whatever is included in the new resilience category. It could include pre-announced investment in civil nuclear energy as well as infrastructure projects such as roads and railways. For the UK, 1.5% of GDP is about £40bn - a significant chunk of national income. Sir Ben Wallace, a former Conservative defence secretary, accused the government of "spin" over its spending pledge because it does not include any new money anytime soon. "The threat to our country is real not spin," he told Sky News. "This government thinks it can use smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and Donald Trump. This is an insult to our troops who will see no significant new money. It fools no one."