Is spraying red paint on an aeroplane a terroist act?

[cycle tramp]

But supposing that was the last fortune cookie?

Supposing 'democracy is fragile and may be shattered by the loudest voice' was the best one of the packet?

What if the next cookie says 'only when you travel with two inner tubes can you be sure of your arrival' ? Or even 'only a couple with two duvets will find happiness' ?

[Jdsk]

Relevant section of Terrorism Act 2000

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/3

(6)Where the Secretary of State believes—

(a)that an organisation listed in Schedule 2 is operating wholly or partly under a name that is not specified in that Schedule (whether as well as or instead of under the specified name), or

(b)that an organisation that is operating under a name that is not so specified is otherwise for all practical purposes the same as an organisation so listed,

he may, by order, provide that the name that is not specified in that Schedule is to be treated as another name for the listed organisation.
(7)Where an order under subsection (6) provides for a name to be treated as another name for an organisation, this Act shall have effect in relation to acts occurring while—

(a)the order is in force, and

(b)the organisation continues to be listed in Schedule 2,

as if the organisation were listed in that Schedule under the other name, as well as under the name specified in the Schedule.
(8)The Secretary of State may at any time by order revoke an order under subsection (6) or otherwise provide for a name specified in such an order to cease to be treated as a name for a particular organisation.

(9)Nothing in subsections (6) to (8) prevents any liability from being established in any proceedings by proof that an organisation is the same as an organisation listed in Schedule 2, even though it is or was operating under a name specified neither in Schedule 2 nor in an order under subsection (6)

"Police in Canterbury today informed a protestor that the phrase "Israel is committing genocide in Gaza" could be considered a declaration of support for Palestine Action and therefore a terrorism offence."
https://bsky.app/profile/madoc.bsky.soc ... ztdhbql22h

I suspect that this will be followed by an apology.

Kent police apologise to protester threatened with arrest for holding Palestine flag
Force agrees to pay damages to Laura Murton, 43, who also had sign saying ‘Israel is committing genocide’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ura-murton

Jonathan

[cycle tramp]

..goid to know the Kent Police changed their minds..

..otherwise the next news story may have been 'Kent Police arrest most of the U.N assembly'.

[Jdsk]

Cooper has said that Palestine Action has been violent: that it is not a non-violent group. What exactly is she claiming? Does she mean violent to people?

"Hygate and Javaid then climbed through a door on the roof and got inside the factory, setting off an internal fire alarm which sparked an evacuation of the premises and confusion and panic among staff.
"While that evacuation was taking place the pair set off pyrotechnics including smoke bombs. Some were thrown into the area from where the staff were evacuating, causing smoke to pool dangerously close to staff members."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/245 ... s-protest/

This is the most direct action against people of which I am aware.

This from last year. There's also restricted info that we won't hear about

A vehicle was used to ram the entrance of the Bristol HQ of defence technology firm Elbit Systems on Bolingbroke Way in Patchway, on the outskirts of Bristol, shortly before 04:00 BST.

Employees and police officers who intervened were assaulted, Avon and Somerset Constabulary said, and six people were arrested.

Sledgehammers, axes, whips and other homemade weapons were seized, police added.

During the incident, two officers were assaulted with a sledgehammer, police said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mnnje4wlro

That's without googling, there are probably other reports if you look hard enough

"Six Palestine Action activists have been cleared of committing aggravated burglary over a break-in at an Israeli defence firm’s UK site."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ems-filton

Jonathan

[tim-b]

"Hygate and Javaid then climbed through a door on the roof and got inside the factory, setting off an internal fire alarm which sparked an evacuation of the premises and confusion and panic among staff.
"While that evacuation was taking place the pair set off pyrotechnics including smoke bombs. Some were thrown into the area from where the staff were evacuating, causing smoke to pool dangerously close to staff members."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/245 ... s-protest/

This is the most direct action against people of which I am aware.

This from last year. There's also restricted info that we won't hear about

A vehicle was used to ram the entrance of the Bristol HQ of defence technology firm Elbit Systems on Bolingbroke Way in Patchway, on the outskirts of Bristol, shortly before 04:00 BST.

Employees and police officers who intervened were assaulted, Avon and Somerset Constabulary said, and six people were arrested.

Sledgehammers, axes, whips and other homemade weapons were seized, police added.

During the incident, two officers were assaulted with a sledgehammer, police said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mnnje4wlro

That's without googling, there are probably other reports if you look hard enough

"Six Palestine Action activists have been cleared of committing aggravated burglary over a break-in at an Israeli defence firm’s UK site."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ems-filton

Jonathan

It's also an argument against jury trials.

Burglary
We see the defendants enter the building as trespassers by bursting through a door in a truck.
They unlawfully damage property inside.
One inflicts GBH on a police sergeant, fracturing her lumbar spine with a sledgehammer https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo

Aggravated Burglary
The defendants are carrying a variety of weapons of offence that they took with them

The law is extremely clear, sections 9 and 10 of the Theft Act 1968:

9 Burglary.

(1)A person is guilty of burglary if—

(a)he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or

(b)having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.

(2)The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm F1... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.

[F2(3)A person guilty of burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding—

(a)where the offence was committed in respect of a building or part of a building which is a dwelling, fourteen years;

(b)in any other case, ten years.

(4)References in subsections (1) and (2) above to a building, and the reference in subsection (3) above to a building which is a dwelling, shall apply also to an inhabited vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to any such vehicle or vessel at times when the person having a habitation in it is not there as well as at times when he is.]
10 Aggravated burglary.

(1)A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; and for this purpose—

(a)“firearm” includes an airgun or air pistol, and “imitation firearm” means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not; and

(b)“weapon of offence” means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use; and

(c)“explosive” means any article manufactured for the purpose of producing a practical effect by explosion, or intended by the person having it with him for that purpose.

(2)A person guilty of aggravated burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60

[mattheus]

It's also an argument against jury trials.

Aggravated Burglary
The defendants are carrying a variety of weapons of offence that they took with them

The law is extremely clear, sections 9 and 10 of the Theft Act 1968:

...<snip>(1)A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; and for this purpose—
...<snip>

Is it really? You might need to consider some other aspects of our law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Case law example:
In 2001, two people were charged with conspiracy to cause criminal damage to a Trident submarine in a Barrow-in-Furness shipyard. Though the two admitted their intention to trash the submarine, the two said they were planning to do so due to nuclear bombs being immoral and illegal. The judge told the juries that such ideals were not a defence against the charge. The jury brought a verdict of not guilty on these two anti-nuclear protesters

[Jdsk]

Excellent explainer from the Secret Barrister: "Palestine Action: what just happened?"
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2026/02/ ... -happened/

Jonathan

[tim-b]

It's also an argument against jury trials.

Aggravated Burglary
The defendants are carrying a variety of weapons of offence that they took with them

The law is extremely clear, sections 9 and 10 of the Theft Act 1968:

...<snip>(1)A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; and for this purpose—
...<snip>

Is it really? You might need to consider some other aspects of our law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Case law example:
In 2001, two people were charged with conspiracy to cause criminal damage to a Trident submarine in a Barrow-in-Furness shipyard. Though the two admitted their intention to trash the submarine, the two said they were planning to do so due to nuclear bombs being immoral and illegal. The judge told the juries that such ideals were not a defence against the charge. The jury brought a verdict of not guilty on these two anti-nuclear protesters

From your own wiki link, it's a perverse verdict that won't affect future cases unless there's a pattern

A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it

[tim-b]

Excellent explainer from the Secret Barrister: "Palestine Action: what just happened?"
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2026/02/ ... -happened/

Jonathan

That's an interesting article. I guess that we'll wait to see if there's a retrial

[mattheus]

From your own wiki link, it's a perverse verdict that won't affect future cases unless there's a pattern

"perverse" is your opinion. The jury thought otherwise. Why should we take your view over theirs? (and another 12 jury members in the Filton case ...)

[tim-b]

From your own wiki link, it's a perverse verdict that won't affect future cases unless there's a pattern

"perverse" is your opinion. The jury thought otherwise. Why should we take your view over theirs? (and another 12 jury members in the Filton case ...)

It isn't my opinion. Jury nullification is a US term, a perverse verdict or jury equity are UK terms.

[Jdsk]

The judgment:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ammo ... epartment/

... it's very much about there being no need for immediate interim relief.

And there's discussion of an appeal.

Appeal refused:
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/terror ... dium=email

Permission granted for application for judicial review of the proscription:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/huda ... artment-2/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... llenge-ban

Proscription ruled unlawful:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/huda ... artment-3/

Jonathan

[deeferdonk]

As a reminder: The group has successfully challenged the ban, but they remain proscribed for the time being, and expressing support for Palestine Action or taking part in its activities remains a criminal offence.

I wonder if hypothetically I expressed gladness at the decision, that would be illegal!?

[DaveReading]

As a reminder: The group has successfully challenged the ban, but they remain proscribed for the time being, and expressing support for Palestine Action or taking part in its activities remains a criminal offence.

I wonder if hypothetically I expressed gladness at the decision, that would be illegal!?

The Met have stated that they will no longer be arresting people for supporting Palestine Action, so I think you're safe.

[Jdsk]

As a reminder: The group has successfully challenged the ban, but they remain proscribed for the time being, and expressing support for Palestine Action or taking part in its activities remains a criminal offence.

I wonder if hypothetically I expressed gladness at the decision, that would be illegal!?

The Met have stated that they will no longer be arresting people for supporting Palestine Action, so I think you're safe.

But they are gathering evidence which could be used later:
https://news.met.police.uk/news/met-res ... ion-506156

Jonathan