UK ban on Palestine Action unlawful, high court judges rule

[purpletablet]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/13/uk-ban-palestine-action-unlawful-high-court-judges-rule

Does this mean people will no longer be arrested for holding up a sign saying “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”?

People seem to think that it is unreasonable for the police to be able to take robust action to subdue and handcuff violent thugs who are swinging around weapons and who were in the middle of committing a crime. It was the police and security guards’ job to stop them. Do you think they should have just asked them nicely to put down their whips and sledgehammers and accompany them to the station?

Who has said it is unreasonable for the police to subdue and arrest people commiting a criminal activity

On this thread?
Or is that opinions in the papers ?

Literally in the post I quoted.

Also you yesterday when you said ‘The defence stated the attacker had been sprayed with a chemical substance by the police, could not see properly and was trying to protect another person at the time.’

I wonder if it were a Tommy Robinson supporter with a sledgehammer that the police had been trying to arrest people would give less time to the claim of ‘self defence’ if he then broke a female police officer’s spine with a sledgehammer as she lay on the floor.

In fact I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t give that argument any airtime at all, unless to dismiss it as obvious bollocks and to mutter darkly about how quick to violence those Tommy Robinson thugs are.

Is that not what was said at the court case rather than an opinion? It wasn't 'people' giving airtime to self defence it was lawyers in court. Do you not want people to talk about what happened in court? I think that it is pretty relevant if you want an understanding of verdicts reached.

I think it is possible to both give what was said in court and to distance yourself from that argument as obvious hogwash rather than a genuine defence in response to ‘violence from security guards’ and police who, lest we forget, were doing their jobs in response to people committing a crime.

I don't know I believe it's up to the courts to decide what is 'hogwash' and what isn't. They are the ones being presented with all of the evidence after all. I thought that was the whole point of the justice system otherwise why bother?

Your are missing what we said

both @KoalaKoKo and I are stating what the defence said in court
…nothing more.

Of note on another matter brought up here
‘ During the trial one juror asked the judge whether it would count as a lawful excuse if a defendant believed they were performing a life-saving action by destroying weapons used to kill civilians in an illegal genocide. Johnson said it would not.’ News paper quote, can’t remember which one I’m afraid.

I see, so you approve of the police’s actions in trying to subdue the assailants and just neglected to mention it.

Do you think that people should support an organisation who are so reckless and violent?

You've got to be kidding. Of course attacks on arms manufacturing sites are a threat to national security. Just because they are private not government owned doesn't change that.

Also, the contribution of UK-made arms components is a tiny fraction of Israel's military capability.

Thankyou !

@SharonEllis

You've got to be kidding. Of course attacks on arms manufacturing sites are a threat to national security. Just because they are private not government owned doesn't change that.

Agreed...I'm not going to get into the specifics of Elbit but as a general point these days, like it or or not, most ordnance/munitions are produced by the private sector....

You are projecting here. Personally I am against all violence and think that it is right the the person involved is being criminally charged. I also respect courts decisions knowing that they have far more evidence than I do. Other people have also agreed that criminal charges were the right thing. I don't really know what else you want from people? Should we start muttering about hanging and shooting people on sight too? Beating our chests and wailing?

My 'agenda' is exactly what my posts have said and sticking to the topic of the thread which was the unlawful proscription of Palestine Action which was done on the grounds of property damage. I don't agree with governments acting unlawfully, overstepping and restricting people's rights and I think an investigation should be done into why exactly that has happened in this case. That's all there is to my agenda.

I wasn’t talking about you.

The police have a right to arrest assailants with proportional means.
Of course I agree when the alternative would be all perps who resist arrest getting away scot free.

People support whole countries that are violent … it’s not up to me how people think.
But we are straying from the point of the thread here.

Agree
An assumption of another motive is disingenuous

Interesting that you don’t have opinions on people who support ‘whole countries that are violent’.

No it’s not!
We don’t live in a dictatorship and I am not a dictator

Why would having opinions about people mean that you are a dictator and we would be living in a dictatorship?

we can be against the Government illegally proscribing an organisation as terrorists
Who ever that organisation is

For me ( as it looks like some others on this thread ) It isn’t about what they stand for and whether we agree or disagree with them. It’s about the U.K. Government overstepping their rights in Law

I am anti hunt but if the Government decided to proscribe the Hunt as terrorists, when their actions didn’t meet that bar, I would still be here against that decision.

We cannot allow the Government to run roughshod over the Law

Which whole countries are violent?

Really???
Centuries of it throughout the world
It’s a matter of historical fact

Yes really! What whole countries are violent? Genuinely curious. You said it- you must have some countries in mind?

If a group acting for a cause I agreed with used violence and destruction to achieve their aims, it wouldn't matter to me if they were proscribed or not, because I would switch any support/activism/fundraising to a non violent, non criminal, non terrorist group with the same aims. My rights and my speech would be unaffected.

Google is your friend here
I’d do the homework myself but it’s not like my comment is far reaching or…news

Masses of countries come up.
Enjoy the research