Chillingly, holding up a copy of Private Eye can now get you arrested
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
a day ago
- The National
Force the 1% to cough up for their climate damage
Land ownership in Scotland is incredibly concentrated in a small number of hands. Fewer than 500 people own more than half of our private land. This motley group includes our own aristocrats, whose families have owned huge estates for centuries and whose wealth is often a result of their forebears' brutal actions during the Highland Clearances. But in recent decades they've been joined by a new group, the elite of global capitalism. The biggest landowner in Scotland used to be the Duke of Buccleuch, but now it's Danish billionaire Anders Povlsen. And the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum isn't far behind. READ MORE: More Scots need to benefit from Scotland's screen industry, John Swinney says And he might not be in the same league as Povlsen or the Sheikh in terms of hectares, but Scotland's most infamous landowner is undoubtedly Donald Trump. Thankfully, the US president has now returned home after a brief stint of shaking hands, being drowned out by bagpipes and teeing off at his Scottish golf courses. Last year, I proposed a private jet tax which would see Trump and his cronies charged a 'super rate' of up to £250,000 every time they fly here for non-government business. This is something which should be within the powers of the Scottish Government, but is now a decade overdue. In the aftermath of the independence referendum, all parties agreed to devolve air passenger duty to the Scottish Parliament. An Act was passed by MSPs to replace it with a new Scottish air departure tax. But it can't start until the UK Government resolves an issue with the exemption for lifeline island flights – and neither they nor the [[Scottish Government]] seem to be in any rush to do that. If this was resolved, the Scottish Government could immediately bring in a super-tax on private jets, reflecting the fact that they are about twenty times more polluting than regular flights. Personally, I'd rather ban most private air travel. It is the perfect example of how the world's richest 1% are disproportionately responsible for the climate crisis. Unfortunately, full powers over air travel are still reserved to Westminster for now. Trump doesn't care about the climate, but he would care about the £250,000 tax bill every time his huge private plane arrives here. Some super-rich elites would undoubtedly take the financial hit and still fly here anyway, but the money raised could at least then be used to fund climate-friendly policies like cheaper buses and trains. And private air travel is just one example of how the super-rich play by different rules to the rest of us, all whilst avoiding paying their fair share. For too long, they have been allowed to avoid not just paying their fair share in tax, but also having their often deeply damaging activities scrutinised. All while ordinary people suffer the consequences of budgets for schools, hospitals and social care being squeezed. Tax is the price we pay for living in a civilised society, one with public services capable of meeting all of our needs throughout our lives. But the richest among us do not pay nearly enough towards maintaining the services needed for that kind of society. The Scottish Greens have long called for a wealth tax, one which would see the richest 10% of people who hold almost half the total wealth of the country taxed fairly. Introducing just a 1% annual tax on all wealth and assets above £1 million would massively boost the efforts to create a fairer, better Scotland for everyone. For context, the other 90% of Scots households hold nowhere near enough wealth to be considered for such a tax, with the average having about £214,000 in assets. This would be an extremely well-targeted tax, raising billions from those who can more than afford to pay. We are not the only people calling for a wealth tax. Just this week, leading economists from across the world have called on Labour to introduce a UK-wide wealth tax to tackle extreme levels of inequality and poverty. They have warned the Government what the Greens have argued for years: that far too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of far too few people in the UK, and it is damaging society at large. Sadly, Labour seem determined to rule this out. It is time for Keir Starmer to seriously rethink his approach and what he wants his legacy to be: a society where everyone has what they need to get by, or one where far too many children are left in desperate poverty whilst a tiny number of people hoard more wealth than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes. The Scottish Greens are clear on what we need to do: tax the super-rich now, for the good of people and planet.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Spectator
Palestine Action shouldn't be unbanned
Yesterday, the High Court allowed Palestine Action to challenge the Home Secretary's decision to ban it. Since its proscription, under terrorism legislation, it has been an offence to be a member of the group, or to invite support for it. While it was not a final determination, the High Court hearing was revealing. Mr Justice Chamberlain's decision followed judicial consideration of a file of 'closed material' – evidence not disclosed to the claimant – and an open hearing which was reported in the press The judge ruled that Palestine Action could proceed to bring a judicial review; but only on two specific grounds: a human rights claim under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and an argument that the Home Secretary should have consulted the group before issuing the proscription order. The court rejected the claimant's remaining six grounds as not reasonably arguable and the ban on the group will remain in force in the interim. During the most recent proceedings the court was told that more than 170 people had been arrested since the ban on Palestine Action took effect, and that the police had been somewhat overzealous in their enforcement efforts. In particular, it was said that a man in Leeds had been detained for holding up a copy of an article in Private Eye that had lampooned the ban, and that others had been arrested for what was described as a seated, silent protest. The issues around freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, under the ECHR, are likely to found the main basis of Palestine Action's grounds of action when the full case is heard in the autumn. The discussion surrounding the proscription of Palestine Action is often framed through the lens of freedom of speech. Arguably, that should not be seen as the central issue. In a debate in the House of Lords last week, the security minister, Lord Hanson, explained very concisely the rationale for the proscription order against Palestine Action: 'Palestine Action has perpetrated attacks in which it has forced entry onto premises armed with weapons and smashed up property, and members of the organisation have used serious violence against responding individuals.' The Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Home Secretary to proscribe a group if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism.' The legislation defines terrorism to include not only violence against individuals intended to influence the government or intimidate the public (or a section of the public), but also actions involving serious damage to property. Palestine Action is the first group to be proscribed based on that part of the definition. When Yvette Cooper informed Parliament of her intention to ban Palestine Action, members of the group had just broken into RAF Brize Norton in the early hours of 20 June and caused damage to aircraft – with repair costs estimated at up to £7 million. Cooper also emphasised that this was not the first time members of the group had taken direct action against targets affecting UK national security. Previous incidents attributed to the group included attacks on Thales in Glasgow, Instro Precision in Kent, and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. The Glasgow attack reportedly caused significant financial damage to components essential for submarines and seriously alarmed staff who were present at the time. Cooper said that in late 2023, Palestine Action released what it called The Underground Manual. The document encouraged the formation of cells, offered practical guidance on how to carry out actions against private companies and government buildings on behalf of Palestine Action. It linked to a website featuring a map of specific targets across the UK. These activities are not just expressions of free speech and go rather further than simple public disorder. Rather, they fall much more within the realm of violent direct action. It is said that the proscription of Palestine Action could have a chilling effect on other people who wish simply to engage in peaceful protest against the war in Gaza. Whatever your views on the conflict, it is evident that people should be free to support Palestinian rights and self-determination. Yet there are ways to do this without being a member of or a supporter of a group like Palestine Action. The Home Secretary makes a reasonable point when she argues that we should not conflate its activities with reasonable pro-Palestinian advocacy. There is absolutely no need for peaceful protestors to associate themselves with a group concerned in unlawful acts involving violence. I have previously argued that, if anything, the police have been unusually lenient in policing pro-Palestine protests, allowing frequent, thinly veiled calls for the destruction of Israel – such as the now-apparently normalized chant, 'from the river to the sea.' Those who have witnessed the frequent marches in London might reasonably conclude that protesters – at least those simply calling for freedom for Palestine and an end to the war in Gaza – should have little to fear from the Metropolitan Police, provided that constables are properly briefed about the extent of the order banning Palestine Action. With Keir Starmer now expected to recognise a Palestinian state in September, tensions over the Israel–Gaza conflict will likely remain high when the case returns to court in November. Given the public evidence now available, it seems hard to argue that proscription of Palestine Action was not a legitimate response to their recent activities. Damage to national security infrastructure – such as aircraft and submarine components – is among the gravest forms of property damage imaginable, and should clearly be seen as 'serious' for the purpose of the terrorism legislation. The decision to hold a full hearing is likely to be seen as a blow to the Home Secretary. Clearly, the High Court will have to carefully consider the claimant's submissions under the ECHR. But it would be particularly unfortunate if it reached the view that human rights laws could allow those who engage in, or support, violent and destructive activity to act with impunity.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
‘At 80, to be treated like a terrorist is shocking': arrested on suspicion of supporting Palestine Action
Palestine Action's co-founder has won a bid to bring a high court challenge over the group's ban as a terrorist organisation, which has made membership of or support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. About 200 people have been arrested on suspicion of publicly protesting in support for PA since it was banned. They include: Retired teacher Farley was picked up by police at a silent demonstration in Leeds for holding a sign that made a joke about the government's proscription of Palestine Action taken from an issue of the fortnightly satirical magazine Private Eye. He was arrested under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which he described as a 'pretty terrifying and upsetting experience'. Farley, who had never been arrested before, told the Guardian: 'I clearly wasn't any kind of physical threat.' The Private Eye editor, Ian Hislop, said the arrest was 'mind-boggling'. Retired teacher Sorrell, from Wells, Somerset, was arrested for holding a placard at a pro-Palestine rally in Cardiff, and she was held by police for almost 27 hours, during which officers forced their way into her house and searched it. She said officers removed 19 items from her home, including iPads, a Palestinian flag, books on Palestine, material related to Extinction Rebellion and the climate crisis, as well as drumsticks for – and a belt that holds – her samba drum. 'At 80, to be treated like a dangerous terrorist is deeply shocking. I've been very traumatised by this. Every morning I wake up feeling sick, nauseous. [I have] had to take anti-sickness pills,' she told the Guardian. Retired teacher Also from Wells and a friend of Sorrell, Fine was held for the same period of time. The women have been bailed until October. Their bail conditions prohibit contact with each other and spending any nights away from their homes. She said that during her detention officers refused to let her have the antibiotics she was taking for a serious gum infection, and failed to call her husband, who is recovering from cancer treatment, to tell him about her arrest, despite having agreed to do so. Retired priest Parfitt, from Henbury in Bristol, was arrested on the same day the group was outlawed. She was attending a demonstration in Parliament Square in London. She was sitting in a camp chair surrounded by other protesters, holding a placard stating her support for Palestine Action. As she was led away by police, she called the ban 'total nonsense' and said it symbolised a 'loss of civil liberties in this country', according to the BBC. Hinton is a retired magistrate; Baines is a former charity director Hinton and Baines were among eight people arrested by Devon and Cornwall officers at a peaceful demonstration. 'She's a pillar of the community, so it's a very brave thing for her to have done,' Baines said of Hinton. 'Part of why we were protesting is that this mission creep of laws against protests is really frightening people. This is about freedom of speech,' he told Cornwall Live. He added: 'We're not advocating for Palestine Action. We're resisting the proscription of Palestine Action. We're resisting the politicised use of terror laws to suppress a non-violent campaign of sabotage. We're resisting the criminalisation of peaceful protest because it's already being used to intimidate and threaten people just for having Palestine flags.'
