3 ms·

The four words you're referring to are "I support Palestine Action", and there's nobody in prison "for a long stretch" just for saying that. There have been ov

The four words you're referring to are "I support Palestine Action", and there's nobody in prison "for a long stretch" just for saying that. There have been over 3000 people arrested for showing support for this proscribed organisation, and over 700 charged, but none actually prosecuted yet. It was only just decided two weeks ago that the government's act of proscribing Palestine Action was lawful. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/15/arrested-protesters-devastated-appeal-court-rules-palestine-action-ban-lawful https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/15/arrested-pro... Obviously, I think the Terrorism Act shouldn't silence speech like it does. Palestine Action are a pack of bumbling thugs, and the government's real reason for proscription is that those idiots successfully broke into an RAF base. Egg on face for military so government strikes back with proscription. The law does allow for these sorts of penalties you describe. But I think you will find that if the CPS does prosecute these cases, especially against people who literally stood in front of police stations and displayed those four words and no more, i.e. they dared the government to prosecute them for speech, I don't think they will be "put in prison for a long stretch". They may not even be prosecuted at all. They would have to do more, i.e. actually break into places and physically damage them, like Palestine Action have repeatedly done, to get a long prison sentence. But the threat of prison for speech is there in the law, that's why I don't like that law.

Cider9986 4mo ago
You shouldn't be judged based on your speech, only your actions. That's the problem with the Terrorism Act.
DrScientist 4mo ago
As you say the max penalty is 14 years in prison. I would argue the state harassment of these protestors is the actual terrorism - using state violence for political means. As you say there is also an underlying reason - but it's not the painting of the planes on the RAF base - it was well underway before then. The main driver was the Filton case. A really concerning development recently is that the judge has decided to sentence people on the basis of terrorism, despite the people not being convicted for terrorism charges - just criminal damage. Now they are recorded as terrorist for life - despite no jury ever convicting them of that. https://www.opendemocracy.net/inside-the-palestine-action-trial-that-could-redefine-protest-as-terrorism/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/inside-the-palestine-action-tr...
- amiga386 4mo ago
  That's the rub, though. The Filton 24 are actual terrorists and their abettors. Smashing up a company to further your political cause is terrorism. "I don't care if you use these weapons to murder and rape j..Zionists, but because those weapons are intended to strike Palestinians, I simply must SMASHY SMASH SMASH. Ha ha, crunch goes the policewoman's spine! Ow stop hurting me with those handcuffs! Why am I in prison?" That's what the IRA did when they bombed the UK - they not only threatened the safety of the public, they also deliberately inflicted massive economic damage to push their political objectives. Breaking into RAF Brize Norton was the icing on the cake. That's why the Home Secretary moved to proscribe the group the very next day. She hadn't felt the need to do that for the year or so since the Elbit break-in, nor the Leonardo break-in, but the moment some chucklefucks reveal the UK is so incompetent it can't defend its own RAF bases from intruders, those fuckers are going down. The group's past violence and destruction gave her the ammo to make the proscription stick. On the other hand, protesting the company - e.g. shouting at them, or holding a sign - is merely speech. I can't ever see that as being terrorism, which why I completely disagree with the Terrorism Act. Praising the violent group in public is speech too. It is just a nonsense that this speech is also criminalised, and that the maximum penalties are so high. A draconian law like that has a chilling effect on speech just by existing, even if nobody is ever prosecuted for their speech. But that said, watch for the outcome of these 700 charges against protestors, I bet they will be insubstantial or be dropped, and nobody who just held a sign will go to prison. The process itself is punishment.
  - DrScientist 4mo ago
    You are missing the point, this is not about the merits or otherwise of the case - that's for the jury to decide - it's about due process. The whole point of a jury is that you are, in the end, judged by your peers, not by the state. It's a key protection from abuse of state power. When the jury convicts they are giving the power to the judge to pass sentence within the remit of that conviction. If the jury convicts for one thing, and the judge sentences for another, then you could go to prison for life for a parking fine - it's clearly an abuse of process.
    - 4mo ago

Cider9986 4mo ago

You shouldn't be judged based on your speech, only your actions. That's the problem with the Terrorism Act.

DrScientist 4mo ago

As you say the max penalty is 14 years in prison. I would argue the state harassment of these protestors is the actual terrorism - using state violence for political means. As you say there is also an underlying reason - but it's not the painting of the planes on the RAF base - it was well underway before then. The main driver was the Filton case. A really concerning development recently is that the judge has decided to sentence people on the basis of terrorism, despite the people not being convicted for terrorism charges - just criminal damage. Now they are recorded as terrorist for life - despite no jury ever convicting them of that. https://www.opendemocracy.net/inside-the-palestine-action-trial-that-could-redefine-protest-as-terrorism/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/inside-the-palestine-action-tr...

amiga386 4mo ago
That's the rub, though. The Filton 24 are actual terrorists and their abettors. Smashing up a company to further your political cause is terrorism. "I don't care if you use these weapons to murder and rape j..Zionists, but because those weapons are intended to strike Palestinians, I simply must SMASHY SMASH SMASH. Ha ha, crunch goes the policewoman's spine! Ow stop hurting me with those handcuffs! Why am I in prison?" That's what the IRA did when they bombed the UK - they not only threatened the safety of the public, they also deliberately inflicted massive economic damage to push their political objectives. Breaking into RAF Brize Norton was the icing on the cake. That's why the Home Secretary moved to proscribe the group the very next day. She hadn't felt the need to do that for the year or so since the Elbit break-in, nor the Leonardo break-in, but the moment some chucklefucks reveal the UK is so incompetent it can't defend its own RAF bases from intruders, those fuckers are going down. The group's past violence and destruction gave her the ammo to make the proscription stick. On the other hand, protesting the company - e.g. shouting at them, or holding a sign - is merely speech. I can't ever see that as being terrorism, which why I completely disagree with the Terrorism Act. Praising the violent group in public is speech too. It is just a nonsense that this speech is also criminalised, and that the maximum penalties are so high. A draconian law like that has a chilling effect on speech just by existing, even if nobody is ever prosecuted for their speech. But that said, watch for the outcome of these 700 charges against protestors, I bet they will be insubstantial or be dropped, and nobody who just held a sign will go to prison. The process itself is punishment.
- DrScientist 4mo ago
  You are missing the point, this is not about the merits or otherwise of the case - that's for the jury to decide - it's about due process. The whole point of a jury is that you are, in the end, judged by your peers, not by the state. It's a key protection from abuse of state power. When the jury convicts they are giving the power to the judge to pass sentence within the remit of that conviction. If the jury convicts for one thing, and the judge sentences for another, then you could go to prison for life for a parking fine - it's clearly an abuse of process.
  - 4mo ago