Pro-Palestinian activists due to appear court after damaging planes at RAF base
The charges come after the group Palestine Action said two of its members entered RAF Brize Norton on June 20 and used electric scooters to approach two Voyager jets used for air-to-air refueling. The protesters used repurposed fire extinguishers to spray paint into the planes' jet engines and caused further damage with crowbars, according to the group, which released video footage of the incident.
The four, all between the ages of 22 and 35, are charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage and conspiracy to enter a prohibited place for purposes prejudicial to the interests of the U.K., counter-terror police said in a statement. The Crown Prosecution Service will argue that that the offenses have a 'terrorist connection,' police said.
Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for a series of incidents targeting Israeli defense contractors in the U.K. and other sites linked to the war in Gaza. Following the incident at RAF Brize Norton, the government introduced legislation to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. The measure means it will be a criminal offense to belong to or support the group, with a maximum of 14 years in prison.
Palestine Action rejects that assertion, saying its protests are designed to end international support for Israel's war in Gaza.
Planes from Brize Norton, 70 miles (112 kilometers) northwest of London, regularly fly to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, Britain's main air base for operations in the Middle East.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer hails ‘breakthrough' on security guarantees after crunch White House Ukraine talks
Sir Keir Starmer has hailed a "breakthrough" in efforts to end Vladimir Putin 's invasion of Ukraine as Donald Trump said he would broker a meeting between the Ukrainian and Russian presidents. The PM joined Voldymyr Zelensky, French president Emmanuel Macron and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte for crunch talks in the White House on Monday. And, following the meeting, Sir Keir said the UK and US would begin work on the specifics of security guarantees with the US as soon as Tuesday. "The two outcomes were a real significant breakthrough when it comes to security guarantees, because we're now going to be working with the US on those security guarantees," he told the BBC. "We've tasked our teams, some of them are even arriving tomorrow, to start the detailed work on that." Mr Trump said he had spoken directly with Vladimir Putin to begin planning a meeting between the Russian leader and Mr Zelensky, which will then be followed by a three-way meeting involving himself. The US president said Moscow will "accept" multinational efforts to guarantee Ukraine's security. Mr Zelensky, meanwhile, said he was "ready" for bilateral and trilateral meetings. But he told reporters following the White House meeting that if Russia does "not demonstrate a will to meet, then we will ask the United States to act accordingly". Nato secretary general Mark Rutte said the US and Europe would "do more" on tariffs and sanctions against Russia if the country "is not playing ball" on direct talks with Ukraine, in comments to Fox News. Sir Keir described the talks as "good and constructive" and said there was a "real sense of unity" between the European leaders, Mr Trump and Mr Zelensky. He said Mr Trump's plans to arrange the bilateral and trilateral meetings showed a recognition that Ukraine must be involved in talks. "That is a recognition of the principle that on some of these issues, whether it's territory or the exchange of prisoners, or the very serious issue of the return of children, that is something where Ukraine must be at the table." Mr Trump called the talks "very good". "During the meeting we discussed security guarantees for Ukraine, which guarantees would be provided by the various European countries, with a co-ordination with the United States of America," he posted on his Truth Social platform. "Everyone is happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. "At the conclusion of the meetings, I called president Putin and began arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between president Putin and president Zelensky. "After the meeting takes place, we will have a trilat which would be the two presidents plus myself." The US president met with Mr Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday, where he declared there was "no deal until there's a deal" to end more than three years of fighting in eastern Europe. "The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that while difficult, peace is within reach and I believe, in a very significant step, president Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine," he said on Monday. "And this is one of the key points that we need to consider." He later said: "We also need to discuss the possible exchanges of territory taken into consideration the current line of contact." Future three-way talks "have a good chance" of stopping the conflict, the US president said. But he appeared to share conflicting views on whether a ceasefire was necessary to stop the war. "I don't think you need a ceasefire," he originally said, before later explaining that, "all of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace". Mr Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, had suggested over the weekend that measures similar to Nato's article five mutual defence provision - that an attack on one member is an attack on the entire bloc - could be offered by the US without Kyiv joining the alliance. Sir Keir welcomed plans for "Article Five-style guarantees" during Monday's talks and said that they would fit with the work of his "coalition of the willing" group of countries. He said to Mr Trump: "With you coming alongside, the US alongside, what we've already developed, I think we could take a really important step forward today - a historic step, actually, could come out of this meeting in terms of security for Ukraine and security in Europe." Sir Keir also described potential future trilateral talks as a "sensible next step". The prime minister had disrupted his holiday plans over the weekend to join calls, including with Mr Trump and Mr Zelensky, before he headed to Washington. Mr Zelensky, whom Mr Trump greeted at the door of the West Wing with a handshake earlier in the evening, wore a black shirt with buttons and a black blazer to the meeting at the White House. His attire had appeared to become a point of irritation for Mr Trump during a previous meeting in February. Early in the meeting, the Ukrainian described the talks as "really good", saying they had been "the best" so far. Mr Zelensky said: "We are very happy with the president that all the leaders are here and security in Ukraine depends on the United States and on you and on those leaders who are with us in our hearts."
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Woman sexually assaulted on Gatwick flight denied compensation due to loophole
A woman who was sexually assaulted on a flight to the UK is ineligible for government compensation due to what her lawyers say is a gap in the law. The woman, who cannot be named and is referred to as Kelly, was attacked while sleeping on a Qatar Airways flight from Doha to Gatwick in September 2024. Her attacker was arrested when the plane landed at Gatwick and sentenced to prison in May. However, Kelly was denied a payout through the Criminal Injuries Compensation (CIC) Scheme That is because the attack occurred on a plane that was not registered in Britain. Law firm Leigh Day, which is representing her, has written to Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, urging her to change the law. Kelly, who is in her 20s and lives in London, said: 'I do not understand why I, and other victims like me, have been excluded from the CIC Scheme. 'I was attacked on a flight en route to the UK, I am a UK citizen, and this crime was investigated and prosecuted by British authorities. 'I should be entitled to compensation, and being excluded from the scheme is unfair and illogical. 'I am still suffering with the effects of the attack and want to move forward with my life.' The Civil Aviation Act was updated in 1996 to ensure criminal acts on foreign planes bound for the UK can be prosecuted in UK criminal courts. Leigh Day solicitor Claire Powell said: 'Our client suffered an horrific sexual attack on a UK-bound flight. 'She was refused compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme simply because it was a foreign flight and the rules have not been amended in line with the updates to the Civil Aviation Act. 'It is a gap that needs closing urgently and we trust the Justice Secretary will agree, particularly in light of this Government's commitment to addressing violence against women and girls.' A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'Our thoughts remain with this victim, and we remain resolute in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. 'The rules that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority follows, and the values of payments for injuries, are set by Parliament. 'Other routes are available for victims to receive support.' Kelly was attacked by Momade Jussab, of Swinfield Close, Feltham, who was sitting next to her and put his hands down her trousers. He was 66 when he was handed a six-and-a-half-year prison sentence at Lewes Crown Court in May after being found guilty of one count of sexual assault by penetration and two counts of sexual assault.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Appeasing bullies never works': Readers split over Trump's push for Putin-Zelensky peace talks
It comes after the US president used last night's White House talks with European leaders to float the idea of a three-way summit with the Ukrainian and Russian presidents, which he said he hoped to arrange within the next two weeks. He later confirmed on Truth Social that he had spoken to the Russian president to begin making arrangements, raising the prospect of the first meeting between Zelensky and Putin since 2019. Reacting to the news, our community were united in the view that peace is urgent, but many worried Trump's involvement could destabilise efforts. 'Appeasing bullies never works,' one reader warned, while another concluded grimly: 'Both Trump and Putin use war for their own ends – small countries do not count.' Some feared the US president would concede too much in pursuit of a Nobel Prize and while many argued Ukraine cannot defeat Russia outright, there were warnings that ceding land would only embolden Putin. Others felt Macron and other European leaders must play a central role in negotiations to balance Trump's unpredictability. Another recurring theme was scepticism about security guarantees, with many doubting promises from either Trump or Putin would be 'worth the paper they are written on'. Here's what you had to say: There needs to be a strong European voice In February Trump chewed Zelensky in his mouth and spat him out. Yesterday all changed – why? Because Zelensky was backed by seven European leaders. Of course, Ukraine will have to cede territory because there is no chance of Ukraine defeating Russia, as in bringing it to its knees. But Putin can't keep losing fighting men forever, so there could be a compromise. If Zelensky meets Putin and Trump, Trump will give too much away so he gets his peace prize. Macron is smart – there needs to be a strong European voice in quadripartite negotiations. Truthfirstwarcasualty Trump could never negotiate peace Art of the Deal my foot! Trump couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. If he had been the President of Ukraine instead of Zelensky, he would be taking orders from the Kremlin by now. Pomerol95 Where should talks be held? Where and how will any talks between Presidents of Ukraine and Russia occur? In my opinion, the "where" cannot be in USA, Russia, NATO nations, EU nations, or even the 46 Council of Europe nations. It is also likely that the host should not be a member of the ICC, and also be seen as neutral. That perhaps leaves Qatar as a front runner. Fair enough, as the ruler Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani is a diplomatically pragmatic and highly educated individual. His presence/oversight would solve the issue of such talks being not only neutral as possible, but being seen as such; obviously no member of NATO or EU can attend, let alone mediate. To keep the dialogue on path, there has to be a ceasefire, if only for a limited period, say seven days before, during, and after such a meeting. This to include no military actions, movements, supply, or any combat-related action. All else is solely between the two parties and their translators. Understandably, there will be facilities for private communication between parties and their governments or allies. We are not in the past era of "Great Powers" deciding things for others. The role of external parties is to facilitate the end of the conflict in a manner equitable to all parties. Jonathan Mills Appeasing bullies never works Trump isn't wrong – that is what Putin will demand to 'end' the war. But the big question for Ukraine, and for the rest of the world, is if he gets what he wants for being an aggressor, how long will his version of peace last? When will he decide to grab more land and make more demands on neighbours? The simple fact is appeasing bullies never works. Putin is the 'artful dodger' Given there's no ceasefire, and Trump knowingly put the onus back on Zelensky – by caving to Putin on territorial claims and Ukraine being prevented from joining NATO – Zelensky needs to stand his ground. Whilst Crimea is likely lost, he must oppose any further unlawful territorial gains from Putin. With respect to security guarantees from the US akin to NATO Article 5 stipulations, of course Putin has indicated his willingness to that, but I doubt they would be worth the paper they are written on. Putin will make claims Ukraine has been attempting to seize back Crimea or other parts of its territory, and all bets will be off. I reckon it's a ploy unwittingly agreed to by Trump – but would you trust either of these Presidents to keep their word? Trump regularly flip-flops and changes position all the time, and Putin is the 'artful dodger' when it comes to manipulating Trump and breaking peace agreements at will. StigStag The parallels with the 1930s are deeply worrying The parallels between now and the late 1930s are uncanny and deeply worrying, and the response of 'the leader of the free world' would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic, predictable, and serious. The continental Europeans know, or should remember, what it was like to have a war rage across their lands – something the Americans and British have never experienced. Surely we can learn and realise that the precautionary principle is key and take action to prevent another invasion. That means being appropriately armed and ensuring the territorial integrity of sovereign states is respected – and where military action has attempted to change that, then territorial integrity is restored by whatever means is necessary, hopefully by robust diplomacy. That means we need to cut Trump out of it and deal with this ourselves. Geejay Get serious in arming Ukraine This war has shown that agreements and opinions mean nothing. All that matters is capabilities. Ukraine already had a commitment from NATO to defend it in the Bucharest agreement. But Russia attacked anyway. However, this war has shown that Russia is no longer a first-class military power. The front has barely moved in three years – and that's despite Ukraine being severely outnumbered, having no tanks, aircraft, or long-range missiles, and being supplied with mostly old, outdated NATO weapons. If Europe got serious in arming Ukraine, how long would Russia last? So Ukraine definitely does have a hand at the table – especially considering how unpopular Trump and Putin are in Europe (and elsewhere) at the moment. Ajames Trump dividing Europe The truly scary thing is that Trump, via his tariffs and deals, has already succeeded to a large extent in dividing and thus dominating Europe. People are afraid to upset him – apparently Zelensky is wearing a suit to the meeting! Will they get tariffed, or lose their special deals? Or even be thrown out of the White House? A year ago, Europe would firmly have rejected the idea of Ukraine ceding territory – now it seems they may be putting pressure on Ukraine to do so, even though it isn't spoken out loud. Hungubwe Trump rambles, Putin manipulates Trump rambles, and clearly harbours grudges – not least against Joe Biden, who beat him in 2020. What all this has to do with the actual point of the meeting yesterday is difficult to fathom. It looks like just another Trump rant. There is plenty of precedent for postponing elections during wartime. Britain should have had one in 1940, but by cross-party agreement suspended them for the duration. Trying to get full and fair coverage when a war is raging is almost impossible. It seems to me both Trump and Putin are using war for different ends but with the same basic outcome – small countries do not count. Despite the bluster and accusations Trump threw at Biden yesterday, it was Putin who unleashed his forces against Ukraine on 24/2/2022. If that is not a blatant act of aggression then I do not know what is. Good thing European leaders were there yesterday. There is much more at stake in terms of our security in this war. Allowing Russia to keep its ill-gotten gains is not something we could support. Did they manage to pull Trump back from his favourable opinion of Putin? Who knows with Trump? We live in dangerous times. 49niner
