Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that just because you say something about Israel and Gaza does not mean that you should be threatened with arrest under the terrorism act?

482 replies

cakeorwine · 18/07/2025 18:59

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

She had a sign saying "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide"

She was threatened with arrest under the terrorism act because a certain group that has been deemed to be a terrorist group also share those same views - and therefore the lady was supporting a terrorist group.

In the encounter, which she filmed, one officer told her: “Mentioning freedom of Gaza, Israel, genocide, all of that all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government.”

He went on to say that the phrase “Free Gaza” was “supportive of Palestine Action”, adding it was an offence “to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, namely Palestine Action is an offence under section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act”. The officer told her she had committed that offence.

I can think of many groups who share those same beliefs. Having that belief does not mean you support that group.

A Kent police spokesperson said: “Under the Terrorism Act it is a criminal offence to carry or display items that may arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation such as Palestine Action.”

Armed police threatened to arrest Kent protester for holding Palestinian flag

Officers accused Laura Murton who also had a sign saying ‘Free Gaza’ of supporting a proscribed organisation

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
pointythings · 19/07/2025 09:40

In Labour's case, I think it's because they're genuinely too stupid to understand the consequences of their bright ideas.

Not just Labour - the previous government did it too. It's politicians in general.

pointythings · 19/07/2025 09:39

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:36

Stop making their job more difficult.

Show quote history

What, by protesting? That is a legal right we have, because we live in a democratic country that has freedom of speech. The police are going to have to deal with the complexities that brings. Are you really saying you are in favour of not allowing people to protest? That would be very authoritarian of you.

CranfordScones · 19/07/2025 09:39

When Labour introduced the Terrorism Act in 2000, it emphasised that the law would only target crimes involving “the threat or use of serious violence”. Some MPs at the time had feared that it may be used against protest groups. The then-home secretary Jack Straw reassured them: there was no reason to believe that such group’s actions “would fall remotely” under the law’s scope.

In Labour's case, I think it's because they're genuinely too stupid to understand the consequences of their bright ideas. "I want this law but only to be used when I consider it should be and only against people I don't like" - which isn't how laws work. Other, less charitable, interpretations are available.

See also, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:36

pointythings · 19/07/2025 09:34

What about the example I posted then? Those people were wrongly arrested. The police admitted it and were forced to issue an apology. So clearly they do get it wrong.

They also royally screwed up the case of Andrew Malkinson - there's considerable evidence that they made very serious errors which led to his conviction for a crime he did not commit. 17 years behind bars is pretty serious stuff.

Stop idealising the police.

Show quote history

Stop making their job more difficult.

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:35

cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 09:32

"Tell us who you are or we will arrest you for being a potential terrorist"

Is this the kind of country people want to live in?

I really should have learned posters' intentions from the Kneecap thread. It's all too obvious.

pointythings · 19/07/2025 09:34

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 08:41

That was under the guise of official police business. Do you not know the difference between legitimate and illegitimate arrests? To use that example is in extremely bad taste.

Show quote history

What about the example I posted then? Those people were wrongly arrested. The police admitted it and were forced to issue an apology. So clearly they do get it wrong.

They also royally screwed up the case of Andrew Malkinson - there's considerable evidence that they made very serious errors which led to his conviction for a crime he did not commit. 17 years behind bars is pretty serious stuff.

Stop idealising the police.

Original poster
cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 09:32

"Tell us who you are or we will arrest you for being a potential terrorist"

Is this the kind of country people want to live in?

OP posts:
Comtesse · 19/07/2025 09:32

I think those police officers got a bit carried away. Would not like to see that interpretation applied more widely.

Original poster
cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 09:31

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:22

I know what the Met has said. I also know this woman was threatened with arrest and not arrested. Maybe if idiots didn't keep pushing the limits with regards to protests, they would be as peaceful as we are being led to believe. With regards to today's (latest) coalition protest, it's clear that the police are going to be vigilant for anyone conducting themselves in alliance with terrorism. Free Palestine/Israel genocide etc banners will be fine. As much as the dopes presenting them don't know their intended meaning.

Show quote history

She was threatened with arrest under Section 12. Then that threat was withdrawn when she gave her details.

Isn't that strange?

Surely you can't just threaten someone with arrest under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act unless they give you their details

Either they are breaking the law by expressing support for a proscribed organisation and should be arrested or they are not and should not be threatened with arrest

Threatening someone with arrest under the UK Terrorism Act because they don't give you their details seems like a draconian thing to do.

And if the police have grounds for suspicion, then they should arrest someone.

But it's not a hard question to answer:

Should the police arrest people with such signs under the UK Terrorism Act?

OP posts:
Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:30

Dideon · 18/07/2025 22:00

Ha ha starey eyed moonchild . More like Ben -gvir and Daniella Weiss’s love child !

Edited
Show quote history

You've already had one post, which was a personal attack, deleted, haven't you?

Battytwatty · 19/07/2025 09:26

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 , the Palestinians voted in Hamas 2006/2007 and proceeded to launch rockets continuously into Israel from then on. The aid money they received from all the western countries they used to build tunnels and make themselves billionaires. They committed a disgusting atrocity on Oct 7th and then could have ended the war by releasing the hostages which they refuse to do. Useful idiots like that person are a Hamas propoganda dream

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:24

Willyoujustbequiet · 19/07/2025 09:22

This

Show quote history

There are two sections: those that know exactly what it means and those too stupid to know. The former, of course, will happily accommodate the latter in their naivety and misplaced good intentions. I am glad the Met are going to be all over this, today.

Willyoujustbequiet · 19/07/2025 09:22

BeRedRobin · 19/07/2025 08:58

If you're inciting death and violence you should be arrested. Including that goon who chanted death to the IDF. Same with from river to the sea. Don't pretend you don't know what that means.

This

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:22

cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 09:13

So is that a yes - the police should be arresting anyone with a sign saying "Gaza should be free" under Section 12 of the UK Terrorism Act or a No

(You might want to check what the Met Police have said on this )

Show quote history

I know what the Met has said. I also know this woman was threatened with arrest and not arrested. Maybe if idiots didn't keep pushing the limits with regards to protests, they would be as peaceful as we are being led to believe. With regards to today's (latest) coalition protest, it's clear that the police are going to be vigilant for anyone conducting themselves in alliance with terrorism. Free Palestine/Israel genocide etc banners will be fine. As much as the dopes presenting them don't know their intended meaning.

Original poster
cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 09:13

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:08

Head.banging. brick. wall.

Show quote history

So is that a yes - the police should be arresting anyone with a sign saying "Gaza should be free" under Section 12 of the UK Terrorism Act or a No

(You might want to check what the Met Police have said on this )

OP posts:
Original poster
cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 09:11

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:08

Head.banging. brick. wall.

Show quote history

Yes I am

You seem to think that expressing an opinion about what should happen in Gaza is the same as expressing support for a proscribed organisation

You can't answer the ETA question.

OP posts:
Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:08

cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 09:06

You clearly don't understand the difference in that statement.

Do you think the police will be arresting anyone on a demonstration who have that statement on a placard under the UK Terrorism Act Section 12?

If not, why not? Surely they are "expressing support for a proscribed organisation"

They would then be failing in their duty to detect terrorists.

Show quote history

Head.banging. brick. wall.

Original poster
cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 09:06

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:01

You clearly don't understand that anything that denotes support for Palestine is being tainted by distortion of history of the conflict. The fact that you say this is nothing about the conflict, reaffirms that. Free Palestine and from the river to the sea doesn't mean Palestinians will be living free of Israel oppression. As you don't understand or believe that, westerners will continue to scratch their heads as to why they are now attracting police attention.

Show quote history

You clearly don't understand the difference in that statement.

Do you think the police will be arresting anyone on a demonstration who have that statement on a placard under the UK Terrorism Act Section 12?

If not, why not? Surely they are "expressing support for a proscribed organisation"

They would then be failing in their duty to detect terrorists.

OP posts:
Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 09:01

cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 08:47

I am deliberately not talking about my beliefs on here so please don't put words in my mouth and attempt to derail the conversation

I will ask again:

Which of those statements I posted do you think should be illegal?

  1. I believe in an independent Basque country
  2. Expressing support for ETA

Which of those is expressing support for a proscribed organisation?

Show quote history

You clearly don't understand that anything that denotes support for Palestine is being tainted by distortion of history of the conflict. The fact that you say this is nothing about the conflict, reaffirms that. Free Palestine and from the river to the sea doesn't mean Palestinians will be living free of Israel oppression. As you don't understand or believe that, westerners will continue to scratch their heads as to why they are now attracting police attention.

BeRedRobin · 19/07/2025 08:58

If you're inciting death and violence you should be arrested. Including that goon who chanted death to the IDF. Same with from river to the sea. Don't pretend you don't know what that means.

Original poster
cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 08:47

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 08:45

Do you think Laura and the rest of the protestors got the memo from Hamas? Of course, the OP believes free Gaza and from the river to the sea means a happy life for the region.

Show quote history

I am deliberately not talking about my beliefs on here so please don't put words in my mouth and attempt to derail the conversation

I will ask again:

Which of those statements I posted do you think should be illegal?

  1. I believe in an independent Basque country
  2. Expressing support for ETA

Which of those is expressing support for a proscribed organisation?

OP posts:
Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 08:45

ArtTheClown · 19/07/2025 08:40

That's the one. It certainly wouldn't mean the extermination of Jews, would it?

Oh no never, absolutely not! After all, it's in the Hamas charter that they want nothing more than to live peacefully alongside their Jewish neighbours.

Do you think Laura and the rest of the protestors got the memo from Hamas? Of course, the OP believes free Gaza and from the river to the sea means a happy life for the region.

Original poster
cakeorwine · 19/07/2025 08:42

ArtTheClown · 19/07/2025 08:40

That's the one. It certainly wouldn't mean the extermination of Jews, would it?

Oh no never, absolutely not! After all, it's in the Hamas charter that they want nothing more than to live peacefully alongside their Jewish neighbours.

As I said, this is about what is legal and illegal to say under the Terrorism Act and expressing support for a proscribed organisation

What do you think expressing support for a proscribed organisation looks like

The ETA is such a group

Which of those statements I posted do you think should be illegal?

  1. I believe in an independent Basque country
  2. Expressing support for ETA
OP posts:
KimberleyClark · 19/07/2025 08:42

It’s verging on totalitarianism.

Dangermoo · 19/07/2025 08:41

TheCrenchinglyMcQuaffenBrothers · 18/07/2025 22:04

…..“Wayne Couzens handcuffed and arrested Sarah Everard before he raped and strangled her, a court has heard”….

ffs, indeed.

Show quote history

That was under the guise of official police business. Do you not know the difference between legitimate and illegitimate arrests? To use that example is in extremely bad taste.

Swipe left for the next trending thread