On the face of it the English High Court ruling that the Palestine Action proscription is unlawful makes the decision that the proscription remains in place pending appeal utterly illogical. But what if the High Court ruling is deliberately designed to fail at appeal?
I believe that it is. They chose an extremely narrow path to rule that proscription was unlawful and produced an extremely weak judgment. This gives an impression of fairness in the judicial system – except that nothing has changed, the ban remains in force. And it remains in force because the judgment is designed for the government to win at appeal.
The judgment for the most part is precisely what you would expect from three hand-picked, known right-wing, judges. They:
- State that Palestine Action is a terrorist group within the meaning of the 2000 Terrorism Act (para 134);
- State that they do not accept the United Nations assertion that the UK definition of Terrorism is incompatible with international norms (para 141);
- State that in any case international law has no impact on English statute law (para 142);
- State that all those arrested for showing support for Palestine Action – specifically including for holding placards – were rightly arrested as they were deliberately committing a criminal act (para 118);
- State that there was no need for Yvette Cooper to consult before the proscription (para 60);
- Repeat the Crown’s assertions of the Filton case as fact with no reference at all to the findings of the jury (paras 34, 139);
- State that comparisons with Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are not valid as those organisations have not carried out serious property damage (para 144);
- State that the motive of Palestine Action in trying to stop Genocide is not “material” (para 70);
- Argue that the interests of national security and protection of the rights and freedoms of others justify the interference with freedom of speech and assembly (para 128).
The judges have therefore supported the government on almost all of its key propositions. You may well ask, how did they find all that and still find the proscription unlawful?
Well, they chose a deliberately narrow and precarious path through. They first found that the proscription was unlawful in that it contradicted the Home Office’s published policy on how the discretion of the Secretary of State would be applied in deciding whether to proscribe a terrorist organisation.
It is important to understand this. The ruling is that Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation, but that the Secretary of State is not obliged to proscribe all terrorist organisations but may use her discretion.
I have read the judgment again and again and it is incredibly obscure as to in what way the Home Secretary did not follow her policy. It seems to be that she did not consider the factors peculiar to Palestine Action, but merely proscribed as though that automatically followed a determination that an organisation is terrorist. Rather than consider the question in the round, she merely looked at the “operational advantages” of proscription.
I assume the underlying assumption is that this means she failed to take into account the disadvantages of proscription, but it does not say that. I don’t think I am being obtuse. You try.
92. This conclusion may appear to rest on a very narrow basis – the Home Secretary had, after all, formed the belief that Palestine Action is an organisation concerned in terrorism and in these proceedings the claimant does not challenge that decision. However, this conclusion is a direct and necessary consequence of the policy the Home Secretary has applied to the exercise of her discretion to proscribe such organisations. The purpose of the policy is that not all organisations that meet the concerned in terrorism requirement should be proscribed.
93. Any decision-maker who adopts a policy for a particular purpose is at liberty to disapply or modify that policy in a particular case, but any such disapplication or modification must be express and must be for a sufficient reason. In this case, the Home Secretary’s approach was to apply the policy (a policy of long-standing, dating back to the time the 2000 Act was enacted), without modification.
94. The operational consequences and advantages of proscription is not a factor consistent with the policy for the obvious reason that such consequences and advantages will apply equally to any organisation that could be proscribed – i.e. any and every organisation that meets the requirement to be an organisation concerned in terrorism. In principle the position could be otherwise if in a particular case, by reason of an organisation’s structure, membership, activities or otherwise, the measures in the 2000 Act that are the consequences of proscription would be unusually effective. In such a case, it could be consistent with the policy to regard the operational consequences of proscription as an “other factor”. But that is not the present case. There is no such evidence so far as concerns Palestine Action. Nor in the present case could it be contended that the reliance placed on the consequences of proscription was immaterial to the exercise of the discretion or the application of the policy. Both in the note of the meeting of the Proscription Review Group and in the 26 March 2025 ministerial submission, the operational advantages are relied on as providing a clear case to use the discretion to proscribe. Each suggests that it is an important matter going to the exercise of the discretion, if not the central consideration in that exercise in that case.
95. The consequence and conclusion of this point is that, notwithstanding the latitude that the policy provides, the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was not consistent with her policy. The closed material does not affect our conclusion on this ground.
There are two problems with this aspect of the judgment.
Firstly it seems so obscure that it is designed to fail at appeal.
The notion that its proscription was unlawful because the Secretary of State had failed to follow, not the established law, but the precise procedures in some buried Home Office policy document that nobody had ever read, is not one that I would have expected to carry the day compared to all the other issues.
It is indeed an established legal point, but one used in objections to planning applications rather than cases of alleged terrorism. Which is what I believe the Court of Appeal will say.
Secondly it leaves it open to the Secretary of State just to change the published policy, then proscribe again.
The second ground on which the court found against the government is that the proscription is incompatible with Articles X and XI of the European Convention on Human Rights – Freedom of Speech and Assembly.
But again this is not what you think.
Remember the judges found that the 2700 people arrested for opposing the ban have been quite rightly arrested, as expressing support for Palestine Action is a criminal act. The court does not hold that their right to freedom of speech is infringed.
In fact the court rehearses all the ways that speech will be chilled and people will be de-platformed as a result of the proscription, but does not find they are unreasonable to combat “terrorism”.
128. The Home Secretary’s pleaded case is that the purpose of proscription was to “disrupt and degrade PA so as to protect the rights of others and maintain national security”. The submissions on behalf of the Home Secretary sought to define the objective as “controlling terrorism” or “controlling terrorist organisations” through proscription of organisations that engage in “terrorism” as defined in s.1 of the 2000 Act. It seems to us that the latter is a description of the means of obtaining the objective. The identified legitimate aims of the proscription decision are “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” and “the interests of national security”. Those aims appear in each of articles 10(2) and 11(2), respectively and are objectives that, in principle, are capable of warranting an interference with each Convention right.
129. Although the claimant raised the question whether there is a rational connection between the means chosen and the aim in view, no basis for suggesting there is not a rational connection was put forward. Proscription is rationally connected to the objective of disrupting Palestine Action so as to protect the rights of others and the interests of national security. That is so whether the objective was limited to curtailing actions by Palestine Action causing serious property damage within the meaning of section 1 of the 2000 Act, or extended more broadly
When after all this support for the government, the judgment finally delivers the key paragraph on why the proscription was unlawful, it suddenly leaps out at you: the result of a proportionality exercise the judgment had not previously defined or given a methodology.
140. Considering in the round the evidence available to the Home Secretary when the decision to proscribe was made, the nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities, so far as they comprise acts of terrorism, has not yet reached the level, scale and persistence that would justify the application of the criminal law measures that are the consequence of proscription, and the very significant interference with Convention rights consequent on those measures.
It is a goal entirely against the run of play in the previous 139 paragraphs. I am afraid to say that I think the marked lack of intellectual underpinning again makes it a structure designed to fail.
Three known very conservative judges were appointed at the last moment to replace the liberal judge Chamberlain, who was unceremoniously booted off the case. It seemed astonishing that these known sympathisers with the security state had found the proscription unlawful.
But they cannot really think both that it is unlawful, and that it should continue pending appeal. That is utterly illogical.
They cannot really think it is an unlawfully disproportionate interference with freedom of speech, and that those arrested for holding placards opposing it were criminals and rightfully charged.
That is a logical impossibility also. Yet both sit side by side in this judgment.
The judges are not stupid. It can only be that they do not really mean it when they state one of those opinions. All the signs are that it is para 140, swinging entirely unsupported and exposed and waiting to be struck down, that they do not really mean.
If they believed in their own judgment, the judges would have quashed the proscription pending appeal.
Palestine Action was a proscribed organisation before this judgment and it is a proscribed organisation after this judgment. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
That is why it is essential that the Scottish judicial review goes ahead. I for one am very interested to discover whether the paragraph
142. We doubt that the consensus claimed exists: see and compare R v Gul (Mohammed) [2013] UKSC 64, [2014] AC 1260 per Lords Neuberger and Judge at paragraphs 44 – 51. In any event, this submission faces the further obstacle that, when taking her decision, the Home Secretary was entitled to rely on the definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act. Indeed, she was required to apply that definition. Had she purported to rely on any other definition for the purposes of her decision she would have acted unlawfully. A “consensus” in international law is not a trump card in English law; any such consensus cannot permit either disregard of or derogation from an English statute save to the extent permitted by statute.
which specifically references “English law”, applies equally in Scotland. The English legal tradition is that the “Crown in parliament” is sovereign and may do absolutely anything it wishes, irrespective of international law, individual rights or any other consideration. The Scottish legal tradition is that the people are sovereign and protected from arbitrary or oppressive executive action.
Should Huda Ammori again win at appeal, Shabana Mahmood will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. It would be extremely difficult for the Supreme Court to rule against the highest courts of both England and Scotland. So there is reason to continue the Scottish action even if the English case continues to win.
Should the UK government win at appeal in England, the Scottish case becomes still more crucial.
The UK government has succeeded in postponing the Scottish case, in order to give time to prepare for the admission of secret evidence. This is an incredible authoritarian procedure where they can submit “intelligence” to the court, which neither I nor my legal team will ever be permitted to know about, let alone have a chance to reply.
My interest will be “represented” by a “special advocate” with whom I shall never be able to communicate and thus will have no ability to give them the answer to whatever lies the UK government has put forward – probably about non-existent Iranian funding or entirely invented bomb plots.
This system is simply fascist. We have no idea to what extent the “secret evidence” used in the English case contributed to the court’s agreement that Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation.
We push on. I hate to say this, but we are now desperately short of funds to continue this action. I cannot keep asking the same supporters to give more, but if you know people who can afford it and will contribute, please activate them.
You can donate through the link via Crowd Justice, which goes straight to the lawyers, or through this blog.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/scottish-challenge-to-proscription/
Alternatively by bank transfer:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Or crypto:
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
I think you’re right to smell a rat.
Yes. The celebrations are premature. The details of the judgement are appalling.
It is a common trick of modern repressive governments to redefine words for legal purposes, giving them a completely different meaning, but relying on the mass of people to respond emotionally to the original meaning.
No reasonable person could think anything Palestine Action has done comes anywhere near terrorism, as the word is normally understood. Terrorists are people who machine-gun groups of civilians, or plant bombs in public places to kill people, things like that. But the government defines “terrorist” to mean something completely different, for purposes of a specific law. It then tells people “We must imprison people who support terrorist organisations”, and most people think “Yes, of course”, with an image in mind of people with AK47s mowing down terrified civilians, or a bomb exploding at the Boston marathon, etc. Then that law is applied to people protesting against British government support of real terrorism by the IDF …
I have doubts Craig, about handing over money to fund legal arguments because lawyers are intent upon hiding behind technical arguments like this – they know the deep, underlying assumptions of the law are unspeakable and must be kept from the public. In this case they cannot publicly state that the law is derived from violence (constituent power) and that they adhere to Schmitt’s fascist, legal theories (the sovereign is s/he who declares the state of emergency). Will your case in Scotland be founded on the principle of a Scottish law derived from the people and not the state or sovereign or will that be sidelined as ‘too radical’ or too much for a judge to swallow at one helping? Isn’t the English ruling upon PA more a rerun of the seditious libel case resulting from William Jones pamphlet of 1783 upon the principles of government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_of_the_Dean_of_St_Asaph) – that was defused on a technicality and the substantive issue as to whether the jury had the right to decide what was seditious and not the government, was dodged and left hanging?
If you never try, you’ll never know. Trying involves the paying of fees.
Otherwise, we would all still be under the entirely false impression that the Hillsborough survivors, victims, families and friends were guilty.
We’ll see how things pan-out, but your suspicions may well prove sound.
For one thing, given the furore generated by the Mandelson ” revelations ” ( code for * we * all knew exactly what was going on, but didn’t give a f*** until it leaked, oozed, out ), the PTB may consider it politic to feign a ( temporary ) victory for Free Speech and the right to protest/object – though the concerted attempts to dampen that particular fire seem to be succeeding and it will soon be swallowed by the Memory Black Hole, eg note the frenzied ” Starmer is such a nice man ” frothing from, predictably, that Trans-Pravda the Guardian – among other kid-on joke-journalism sources.
It does beg the question – again…….given his *outstanding* achievement of being the most unpopular PM EVER, the ongoing multi-vehicle car-crash that is his Party & Governance, the relentless downward trajectory of the UK Economy – and prospects, why is such an abject failure still being protected?
My guess is that the reason for him being protected is the same as the reason why he was – effectively – installed as 1st, Labour leader, 2nd, PM, ie to lead & promote England-As-UK’s part in the Proxy War against Russia and by extension, BRICS.
He is clearly the Deep State’s man in #10 with the now obligatory blackmailable shady past and, conveniently, compliant ideological biases.
He has a war to start and will probably be in-situ until that aim is realised: or, as I think increasingly more likely, it fails miserably and the war-poodles in EUK +U.S are forced to retreat, tail-between-legs to face the reality of dismal domestic conditions/prospects to add to their geopolitical disasters.
After which, it will be time to install Farage to complete the sale of the UK to his corporate backers. Maybe throw-in another wee * pandemic * to continue the state of perma-crisis that provides perfect cover for the State/Corporate vassalisation of that quaint old notion, ie the People
Who could replace him, another replicant?
I’m thinking a plank of wood with the quiff that is now a standard part of the Political Muppet Class uniform might be next in line for the ” top job “. Or maybe a cardboard cut-out of Starmer, I mean, who could tell the difference?
Another zionist pedo !
Don’t worry, absolutely nothing will change. The UK will still be beholden to Tel-Aviv/Washington, the 1% will still be oppressing the 99%, the wokerati will still tell us it’s all wonderful and the illegals will still keep coming.
You’re almost certainly right about that, Stevie: ditto in the U.S.
The perverted Plutocracy has achieved such control over the political class/system that there is currently no prospect of getting anything other ( in power ) than what you describe.
Even this latest Great White/Green Hope, ie Zack The Flipper, whilst, on paper, a much more wholesome candidate for PM than his peers – albeit that being a subterranean bar; eg his position on Gaza – though I’ve yet to hear him lay into Netanyahu and the psychos that he has surrounded himself with: is he, like all the rest of them, scared to speak the truth about that degenerate embodiment of homicidal Zionism, or maybe he thinks one shouldn’t get ad hominem about mass murderers?
Yet, despite at least being on the right side of that argument, he still adheres to the ” unprovoked aggression ” by, who else? why, that personification of Slavic barbarity – Vlad P – fairy tale narrative; which, for me, renders him just another malleable stooge who will do nothing to expose/counter the aforementioned takeover and subversion of UK ( and Western ) Politics by the Corporate/Zionist nexus of nihilism. The ghoulish entity that profits, immensely, from human pain, suffering & death; that instigates and promotes war and conflict as a business strategy and for whom compassion and desire for more harmonious global relations are weaknesses to be scorned and exploited.
why is Putin’s aggression a fairytale narrative? Did he not launch an invasion? Has he not been repeatedly targeting and striking civilian infrastructure in the same way Netanyahu has? Did he not try to take the capital Kyiv? Has he not launched weapons into NATO countries like Poland? Methinks you doth protest too much…
People try to blame NATO for missile proximity to Russia, completely forgetting the lessons of the Bay of Pigs and what was called the Cuban Missile Crisis, which should really be known as the Turkey Missile Crisis. The argument really does fall apart.
It’s interesting that those who (correctly) identify the West as being rapacious and imperialist can’t acknowledge the same about Russia’s oligarchs. We have our Palestine, Las Malvinas, former Yugoslavia, Gulf Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, Venezuela (and that’s probably being conservative, e.g. Chagos)… Russia has its Afghanistan, Georgia, South Ossetia, Kazakhstan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Belarus, Ukraine… (and that’s probably also being conservative, e.g. Moldova)
At the end of the day, we should be able to agree that modern day would-be Caesars are bad, end of.
oh yes, how could I forget: the Korean Peninsula, Pakistan, Viet Nam and Chechnya
NTF. ZZZZzzzzz; spare us the ” both sides as bad as each other ” nonsense. We’re addressing the current situation, ie the Proxy War being waged by US/* NATO* on Russia. I, and others, have stated several times our perception/understanding of the roots, motivation & intent of this horrible, total unnecessary carnage.
You don’t agree, big deal; I stopped getting into pointless, intractable arguments with strangers online some time ago.
A little suggestion……never end any statement with ” end of “. It’s never the end, in any real sense; only the end of the person saying it’s capacity to consider they might not be omniscient.
Ditto re the quasi-religious ” Climate Crisis ” dogma
Let’s put this ‘Russian aggression’ in context.
Russian overseas military bases [2023], 21; Troops ~ 40,000 (+ ~26,000 in Russian Ukraine).
American overseas military bases, ~800; Troops ~ 170,000
USA ‘Military sites’ in the UK, 22; ‘Military personel’ >11,000.
Go figure …
“oh yes, how could I forget: the Korean Peninsula, Pakistan, Viet Nam and Chechnya”
Do you know, I never knew that Russia invaded Vietnam, Korea or Pakistan. I’ve always been under the impression it was the US in the first two cases, shows how wrong you can be. Also new to me is that Chechenya is a sovereign country. I always though it was part of Russia. Every day’s a school day, as they say.
Bayard, in case it wasn’t obvious, I was adding such conflicts to the list of conflicts – I didn’t state which Russia or US had engaged in those specific ones but I’d have thought it was quite obvious… Though with regard to Viet Nam, weapons were certainly provided by Russia to the Viet Cong and Soviet troops stationed in Viet Nam. Pakistan was obviously (disastrously) signed into existence by the British.
By your logic, it would be perfectly fine for the British Military to launch all out war upon Scotland. Or on Ireland.
“the illegals will still keep coming”? No human being is illegal. Under global capitalism and modern production systems, the nation state is obsolete.Your contempt for working class people caught in the network of violent border controls does you no credit.
preach!
I quickly skimmed the judgement last night and it is weak sauce which may well be overturned on appeal as the main grounds for proscription (from my first reading) appear to be upheld. More emphasis on the Scottish Judicial Review.
Craig, your analysis is objectively logical. It also agrees with my working principle that there is no separation of powers and given a choice between behaving with common sense or acting out greed, anger and stupidity, this government will always chose the latter. So we have Face Validity and Content Validity. The only thing missing is Empirical Validity. Effectively, the High Court has simply avoided making a decision that would constrain the Appeals Court, a cringing example of judicial submission to a political agenda. But perhaps this leads to an Assange-type outcome, where bad law allows government face-saving retreat. It cannot be a pleasant outlook to prosecute thousands of peaceful OAPs for carrying a bit of paper when Labour is looking at May locals trending toward a catastrophic GE and a hot European war. Let’s hope Scotland will provide some sanity. I’ve put £100 into the chest and will do so again. More power to your arm.
I’m afraid I see it as more sinister than that: I think this was a prepared strategy with the judges fully involved and playing a designated role. If you read the Met Police’s statement in conjunction with this hypothesis, that looks all too well prepared.
@Craig, is it the case that, should the government win on appeal, PA will have no recourse to appeal the grounds on which the High Court did find for the government?
As I understand it, PA could certainly appeal the grounds of the original High Court decision where they can show that this decision was wrong in fact or in law. They can also petition the European Court of Human Rights, although this is a long and laborious process.
The boss class can do this because it doesn’t need to disguise the colonial nature of the government and state.
You’ve got it dead right Mr Murray. The whole High Court proceedings and the outcome were to create the impression that there is a functioning judicial system, independent from the executive and consistent with the so-called separation of powers. This loose ‘safeguard’ in our mostly unwritten constitution. I use ‘constitution’ without using the capital C because, of course, there are no rights afforded to citizens of the UK as of rights in a proper constitution; rights merely exist for so long as they haven’t been legislated away.
The British State has shown its hand by not releasing immediately, those arrested, tried and imprisoned or bailed on an act now found to be unlawful. It reminds me so much of South Africa in the 1960s. People like my father, a member of the SACP arrested and held without charge for 90 days. Then when lawyers argued habeus corpus, they’d be released only to be immediately re-arrested and held for 90 days with no charges or trial. Rinse and repeat.
Only our rulers are not so crude. They’ve had years to refine their systems of oppression and retaining control. So yes, the judgment will be successfully appealed or, if necessary, to maintain the lie of a fair and independent judiciary, wait until it proceeds before the Supreme Court thereby ensuring that it is the end of the matter and the population has no further legal redress.
the ECHR would be further legal redress.
But, as in Murray’s case about being unjustly accused and convicted of retroactively (and absurdly selectively) applied “jigsaw identification”, either such a judge will be threatened/bought by the State, or there will be no such case at the ECHR in the first place because the terrorist government will enact a false flag and claim it as justification for this whole charade and leaving the ECHR.
“the ECHR would be further legal redress.” Yes in theory but even suppose the complainant were able to overcome the procedural requirements it takes years before any consideration by judges of the ECHR. And there are the costs of such an application.
So in reality, this theoretical legal remedy is a hollow thought. No more.
RE false flag, at the Munich Security Conference “Dear Kier” just said the sands are shifting beneath the Epstein Class’ feet and that the Epstein Class need to manufacture consent amongst populations for transitioning from a civilian footing to a full on war/MIC footing. Von der Leyen said that it’s time to activate article 42(7) : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html which states:
“if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory”
Such armed aggression is not taking place (in the context of “external threats”) so why has she called to activate it? (Oh and by “qualified majority”)
Because the article also states:
“This clause is supplemented by the solidarity clause (Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), which provides that Member States are obliged to act jointly where one of them is the victim of a terrorist attack or a natural or man-made disaster.”
…which means there is a State-sponsored false flag inbound and that it will be used to manufacture consent.
Interestingly about the Solidarity Clause it states here https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/solidarity-clause.html that:
“provides the option for the EU and EU countries:
to act jointly;
to prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of an EU country ;
to provide assistance to another EU country which is the victim of a natural or man-made disaster.”
So technically they wouldn’t even need a false flag because the measure is about preventing a hypothetical terrorist threat… However, rapidly transitioning through manufacturing public consent as per “Dear Kier”‘s statement would require a false flag event.
Interesting that Von der Leyen feels that it’s necessary to activate Article 42(7) to prevent a hypothetical threat, but she doesn’t feel it necessary to meet pre-existing legal obligations to prevent genocide and not help facilitate it…
Also, technically, Austerity should be considered a “man-made disaster”
Makes you wonder if the purpose of ICE at the Winter Olympics is not in fact to protect the American participants, but to act as “little green men” enacting the role of an “external threat” carrying out an “armed attack”…?
I’m sure that Meloni (the third largest weapons supplier to Israel) deciding to join Trump’s replacement for the UN would have nothing whatsoever to do with framing such an “external threat” “armed attack”.
/s
Further interesting reading here: https://journals.lub.lu.se/njel/article/view/28035/24625
“As such, what makes the clause distinctive is that once it is invoked, without requiring unanimity, it bypasses EU institutions, leaving responsibility to act with each member state.”
– https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/the-eus-mutual-defence-clause-meets-geopolitical-reality
For avoidance of doubt (and since the website seems to be unavailable at the moment), lest the wording get “modified” before it becomes visible again, the eur-lex page above stated:
“The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union).”
(visible here: https://web.archive.org/web/20260208144153/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html )
A constitution is a published written document of higher law, which lower laws must comply with and changes to which require meeting a higher bar than changing lower law. Britain does not have a constitution. It is one of extremely few countries in the world not to have one.
Glenn Greenwald was instinctively suspicious of the ruling yesterday, well before your close analysis. He said that one of the most unlikely things that could happen in today’s world is a huge victory for free speech in the UK. The news from Britain simply didn’t ring true.
Thank you for your instant analysis and reasoning. Rats can’t be sick, they can not regurgitate what they consume, but they get metabolically used to certain poisons and carry on being rats.
They need our money, not enough that they bypass their own treasury with the tax evasion of their rich party donors, loop holes galore for those who see nothing wrong with genocide, the Elbits and Tescos and sodastreamers who all want to ruin and run most of the middle east, because
Locos such as kids Starver, Macaroon and NoHerz Merz are smarting at a war with Russia.
Chemically challenged Clowns like Rubio dare to speak of noble causes and reasons to bolster defences.
There is no noble cause when you threaten your allies, want to steal their territory, hold up legitamit commercial deliveries of oil and steal it for Trumps personal slushfunds.
There isn’t a noble cause or nation when you cannot act on global child abusers and rapists you used to party with, ignoring dozens of women who are demanding justice.
There is nothing noble in causing civil war in your immigrant nation by murdering civilian with IDF trained, unaccountable ICE mercenaries hunting brown skinned immigrants.
Starmer and Shabana Mahmood Goebbels are on the same directional course as the Trump Government, both kowtowing to ziodevil Netayahu. To outlaw public opinion and arrest old grannies, bending judges and courts because they can hide behind the sovereignty of a rotten stultified Parliament is ignoring one important thing, we the people, our need to see international courts rules adhered to, the fact that the UN and many nations have recognised the state of Palestine.
I shall try and contribute again if possible.
I think you have it back to front, the zionazi are proxies not a cabal, like the boss class in Britain, the zionazis do American Caesar’ bidding.
But the zionazis have the epstein pictures !
That means that the Seppoes have them.
Another line Chomsky kept pushing, in the face of glaring bribery of US politicians by Israel lobbyists.
Wonder why Noam was so determined to gaslight people on this issue?
Where do you think the zionazis get the bribe money from?
It only becomes a victory when the proscription is lifted, and that looks very unlikely.
Keep fighting Craig. Appreciate so much what you are doing: for the Palestinian people, the rights of the people of this country to protest, and for those who have been wrongly arrested.
Creeping fascism must be resisted by any means necessary.
This is depressing reading, but it makes sense; it explains the Met response to the ruling, which is that it is continuing to gather evidence against activists. My cursory research shows that there is no rule or law that prevents a judge that sat on this case also sitting on the appeal. Do we yet know whether any judges involved in the decision will also sit for the appeal?
A judge can’t sit to hear an appeal against his own judgment.
(But in the academic world an academic can.)
“The court does not hold that their right to freedom of speech is infringed”.
Well, that is obviously untrue. Therefore we know that this court lies. So we can ignore everything it says.
“Secondly it leaves it open to the Secretary of State just to change the published policy, then proscribe again.”
Leaves openIs designed to pave the way for the Secretary of State to…With no more to go on other than my conviction that the judiciary has become, for the most part, corrupt. On first hearing the news I was elated but minutes later thinking of them leaving a right to appeal my heart sank, this is an extremely cruel ruse. Not sure I understood all of what Craig has written and implications but have any appeal judges had what they can consider narrowed so they have to uphold the appeal. Not exactly sure why they went through all this rigmarole as they have the msm covering their back so to speak.
….probably about non-existent Iranian funding or entirely invented bomb plots.
Certainly seems to open the door to an abuse of process and ultimately, injustice. There seems to be a false assumption that intel agencies are somehow independent of govt; when, in reality, as we saw with Iraq and the dodgy dossier, they aren’t. They very much see their role as to make the case and manufacture consent for govt policy, esp. foreign policy.
Unlike dictatorships, and one-party states like China, the public in democracies, need a rationale; a pretext or casus belli to support a policy they otherwise wouldn’t. And that’s where MI6 and the CIA come into play, along with our incurious, unquestioning MSM. We’ve seen it over protests in Iran being blown out of all sensible proportion, forming a pretext for military intervention. Today, as the Munich Security Conference meets, we’ve had countless bizarre headline reports claiming Russia poisoned Navalny with some exotic South American dart frog toxin. The assumption in all western media, is that the Russian state is the only plausible perpetrator, why? Russia handed over the samples to be tested; would they have done so had they poisoned him with some exotic poison? And of all ways to kill a person that you’re holding in custody, this seems the least likely option when a fellow inmate with a grudge and a shiv, would suffice. Only those seeking to frame with limited opportunity/time would choose such a strange method.
The statements that come out of Westminster are beyond parody: Skripals, David Kelly, WMD, Russia, Novichok, covid, climate, and now toad poison. And the great British public lap it up. I guess ‘you get what you vote for’.
climate change is demonstrably not parody. Those who deny it are walking parodies.
I see what you did there. 😉
“climate change is demonstrably not parody.”
Please point me to the words “climate change” in the comment above yours.
So the statements from Westminster about “climate” (only – if you insist on not reading “change” into the context of the above sentence) are parody?
https://phys.org/news/2026-02-uk-climate-intelligence-quietly.html
Stevie Boy
I haven’t really looked into it, but after a brief google search I found out that Leonid Solovyov, one of Navalny’s lawyers, said a colleague(?) had visited him two days before his death and that “everything was normal”. On 15 February, the day before his death, Navalny appeared in a courtroom via video link. Bizarrely, and out of character, he was smiling, laughing and joking, as if demob happy? Did he know his ordeal would all be over soon – possibly via something to be self-administered?
That same evening, sources “both inside and outside the colony” described unusual things happening; “the prisoners were suddenly driven into barracks ahead of time, very serious searches took place, even the heaters were taken away.
The theory being put about in govt friendly press for the use of these exotic prohibited poisons, over say, much simpler methods, is that Putin is trying to scare his critics. In other words, because sensational stories about Novichok painted on doorknobs, and now, Ecuadorian dart frog poison, make no sense whatsoever over far less sensational methods, an elaborate justification has to be created too. Putin is so secure, in place, why would he need to scare his critics? And any method is surely equally scary too.
The timing of these revelations, i.e. during the Munich Security Conference and the UK rushing to report Russia to the OPCW, plus calls for yet further sanctions, are purely coincidental, for sure.
All the MSM are running with this story, using the same wording, as if following some central decree. Even Sir Mark Lyall Grant is touring TV studios. doubling down on this narrative they want to get across, which is significant.
Whether it be Xi in China, Maduro, Kim Jong Un; the Ayatollahs or Putin, western intel agencies are tasked with painting those decreed(by whom, isn’t clear) our ‘adversaries’ in the most heinous, monstrous light possible. Lies and exaggeration are seen as reasonable tools of the trade in this black propaganda game. The aim being to prime western public opinion to support any course of action; whether it be the unjust ‘collective punishment’ of crippling sanctions, right up to direct military conflict. On which, the guardian has a piece today, that pushes the discredited figure of 30,000 protesters killed in recent protests in Iran, a figure sourced from those connected to that country’s awful diaspora; a figure, that no serious publication will entertain. The only way we’ll ever discern the lies from the truth is by putting responsible for pushing these narratives in the West, under oath. It sghould be illegal for intel agencies to knowingly push lies, or even allow ministers to propagate lies.
No doubt some would be outraged and flabbergasted even, by the idea, as a western citizen, you’d entertain say a Russian, Chinese, or Iranian state narrative, over a given western narrative. But the key important difference is this : these dictatorial countries don’t need to lie in order to assuage domestic public opinion; they’d just do what they want regardless of any public objection. Only democracies need pretexts and casus belli to act. This is why being skeptical/curious is essential.
Let’s be clear, these stories are mere speculation. There is not a shred of evidence and they’re all sourced from MI6.
Not even worth discussing, the UK is giving the Israelis real competition for the ‘biggest liars in existence’ award. Clue, if their lips move they’re lying.
The same media that insists Epstein killed himself, while his own brother and recently revealed assessment files suggest he was in no way suicidal, and in fact, was intent on cooperating with authorities for a lighter sentence. Imagine if Epstein had been a Putin critic, jailed in Russia. Would anyone in the West buy the suicide narrative?
It’s all insinuation. You could easily make a case with similar allegations in the UK : John Smith died suddenly, paving the way for Mandelson protege’ Blair’s leadership. David Kelly died in mysterious circumstances Lord Hutton ordered that key evidence—specifically post-mortem reports, photographs, and medical records—be sealed for 70 years
. Kelly raised serious questions about the, as it turned out later, bogus Iraq WMD ‘evidence’. Robin Cook, who led opposition in the Commons to the Iraq war and was becoming a defacto Labour leadership challenger to Blair, also died suddenly. Craig Murray fell seriously ill, after whistleblowing about torture and nearly died.
Mark Seddon recently posed the question on X, as to whether Mandelson was protected, because he was himself MI6?
Was Blair too (MI5)? Blair’s political journey from private school to Oxbridge, then the Labour party, is odd. His father, Leo Blair, whom he adored , was “a huge supporter” of Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Tony Blair became a Labour MP in 1983, at the height of Thatcherism, when the Labour party was led by possibly its most left-wing leader ever, in the personage of Michael Foot. Tony Blair marched with CND, likely to to ingratiate himself on the left, much as Starmer courted the left. In power however, Blair was the complete antithesis of everything Foot Stood for. Pro-trident, pro-war and he refused to even engage with the European left, preferring the company of George Bush, Italy’s Berlusconi and Spain’s Aznar. All three of whom were firmly on the political right.
Starmer too, may be just a continuation of this ‘establishment’ state meddling directly in our politics.
“The same media that insists Epstein killed himself, while his own brother and recently revealed assessment files suggest he was in no way suicidal,”
The main reason to doubt that Epstein killed himself is that there is no evidence that he is actually dead, apart from the word of those who say he killed himself.
“these dictatorial countries don’t need to lie in order to assuage domestic public opinion; ”
How is it that Russia, which has a directly elected head of state, is less democratic than the UK, which has two heads of state, one of which is hereditary and the other of which is elected by around 0.025% of the electorate and can be changed at any time without a further popular poll? If the Russians decide they have had enough of Putin, they can vote him out at the next election. If the British decide they have enough of Starmer, they can vote him out at the next election, too, but there is absolutely nothing in the laws and regulations that would prevent him being made a peer, brought back into the government (like Cameron), then made PM again. It may be extremely unlikely, but it is possible.
I suspect the crucial issue was that Palestine Action was banned when the authorities needed it to be banned, during the worst of the Israeli action, to stifle widespread and visible support for the Palestinian cause. It was always unsustainable to ban the group long-term. This belated lifting somewhat follows the establishment’s modus operandi – hence why the 48% did not take to the streets during May’s Brexit negotiations, and why there were no protests at all about the draconian covid restrictions. Basically, de facto such protests weren’t allowed or were heavily discouraged, despite the supposed freedom to protest in this country. It’s also why heavily critical and comprehensive media coverage of any issue is always long after the event – no one is allowed to ‘frighten the horses’. Nevertheless, the High Court ruling last week is still welcome and a cause for optimism, I think.
Even if Craig is wrong and this ruling somehow survives all future court challenges, it’ll probably be brief respite. For the real problem is the deeply reactionary, authoritarian composition of this rotten Starmer govt. Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, once proudly supportive of the Palestinian cause, appears to be only interested in pandering to right-wing tabloid opinion and out-Reforming, Reform. Presumably, because she believes ‘looking tough’ against the left and their causes, will put her in good stead for positive press/media coverage in any future leadership contest?
In the UK, it seemingly doesn’t matter who you vote for, because those on the political right are always in power; via the media, permanent officialdom; security services, judiciary and the aristocracy.
Unbelievably, for a party supposedly of the left, this govt is actually worse when it comes to defending civil liberties than the oppressive Tories. The number of people stopped and quizzed for hours at airports, under misappropriated terror legislation has soared. Legislation that ministers swore upon its introduction, could never and would never be misused like that.
They’ve secretly forced US tech company Apple to turn off encryption features available to all other western countries citizens, leaving Brits’ data uniquely exposed. We only found out because someone from Apple revealed it in the US. There are gawd knows how many technical notices being issued – something that said companies should have a right to reveal – for how can the scope(overreach) and justification be debated if no one even knows? In opposition, Labour claimed they’d repeal the Tories’ repressive protest restrictions and instead they are introducing new laws that further restrict protest.
Are you mad?! There were more than 1million people peacefully protesting on the People’s Vote March!
That judgment was unexpected and does strike me as something of a dog’s breakfast in reasoning, having sat through most of the hearings. A number of conclusions about the Claim or Palestine Action therein read as value judgments at odds with the case material as presented or simply tendentiously derived.
My reading of paras 89-95 is that Cooper relied improperly on ‘operational consequences and advantages‘ of proscription in exercising the discretionary aspect of the decision to proscribe, when these factors were not expressly valid policy-forming considerations (since falling outside of the five articulated criteria). At 149: “ The Home Secretary’s error on Ground 6 was significant: she exercised the discretion to proscribe taking account of a consideration inconsistent with her own policy, namely the advantages to be had, were Palestine Action to be proscribed, from the criminal offences consequent on proscription: see above at paragraphs 89 – 95.”
That said, I’m leaning more towards the view that the judiciary is weary (138-140) of having to arbitrate litgation falling out of the practical consequences of badly-devised legislation (the Terrorism Acts). There are multiple examples since Jack Straw’s 2000 jobbie of rulings critical of its conceptual vagueness and calling on Parliament to do something about it. Absent action in that regard, there is limited scope for courts in England to ameliorate whatever crétinerie has been laid down by statute.
It could well be that various establishment interests are not all heaving in the same direction. The courts would be content to be rid of 2,700+ awkward cases clogging the system – but that would leave plod looking more than a little embarrassed, and the Government to face the pique of its Zionist sponsors. This judgment offers an exit route of a kind: the s13 prosecutions evaporate; a publicly unpopular proscription disappears; the security services lose an unwanted distraction; the cops have enjoyed the consolation of all that overtime; and the Home Sec, if she really wants her proscription, can go back and start it all over again but properly this time. This last sentence of the penultimate paragraph (149): “The strength of the case for proscription may need to be considered further by the Home Secretary.” Good luck hunting down a legend.
On what actual basis will the Government achieve permission to appeal (not that that will stop types such as Underhill LJ permitting one) ? Mahmood cannot go back to change how Cooper managed the proscription process (Ground 6) … so what’s to achieve by disputing the proportionality findings (Ground 2) ?
I agree with Craig’s assessment. Palestine Action should be appealing this judgement as well as the government. Its about as devious as it can get. Shades of the Assange legal shenanigans. They put a whole heap of illogical, confusing and plainly wrong conclusions then throw one bone for the claimants to think they have won. The government appeal is successful meaning all the crazy reasoning in the bulk of the judgement is never contested.
The judges clearly are embarrassed that many law abiding retirees have been arrested and are trying to squirm around this anomaly by creating a judgement no one can understand in order to not allow any active PA members an escape route.
Usually an appeal is against the order, and this order was in the claimants’ favour. But there is such a thing as a respondent’s notice which could in principle be used in response to the government’s appeal against the order. If the government’s appeal is successful, the respondents could then apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing against grounds including those that were cited in the original judgment if the appeal judges let them stand. This is what they’ve been saying in my barrack room anyway.
While I have no reason to doubt anything Craig writes in this article, I still think this whole situation isn’t really about terrorism it’s about our sell-out ‘Government’ appeasing the genocidal state, the monsters who run it and suppressing support for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. IMO our Government are complicit in genocide.
It’s not just an opinion, it’s a factual reality, our government is complicit in the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians, and in fact it’s worse than complicity they are active partners providing support, training, arms, intelligence and troops.
as Stevie Boy said but also it is about terrorism because the governments are acting so much like terrorists that it would be entirely logical and consistent to define them by their actions: they are terrorists
As many as 2000 British citizens have served in the Occupation’s military, wearing Occupation uniforms, during the genocide:
https://www.declassifieduk.org/over-2000-britons-served-for-israel-amid-gaza-genocide/
Curiously there is no known “Prevent” policy of working against such terrorists or even watching out for them. This may be related to the fact that organisations such as the Community Security Trust don’t just “work with” the British state but are actually given money by the British state.
Craig, picking up on your mention of a submission to delay proceedings in Edinburgh – on the justification of needing time to prepare sensitive evidence – can this be challenged ? It sounds like we have a fait accompli, but surely (where the application comes from the Government) there is an important issue of admissibility ?
Such material, having been passed by the RCJ should be already collated and ready to be delivered to court. Judgments at POAC have well established that the validity of proscription must be assessed on the factual position at the time of the issuance of the Home Secretary’s Order – not patched up with newly-crafted material foisted upon subsequent analyses. A delay on that basis is unjustifiable in law.
With the commencement of prosecutions of ‘Lift the Ban’ cases, time is of the essence to these proceedings. There is also the issue of the relevance of any so-claimed sensitive information, given that petitions for closure to the London court were partially refused and deemed insignificant during the permission appeals, and then again for Ground 6 at judicial review.
Is the procedural hearing still to go ahead on Monday 23rd and could that be an opportunity to raise such an objection ?
The RCJ is a building not a court.
Several courts actually – ‘Royal Courts of Justice’ – at which variously hearings took place … what’s the point you’re making ?
Having reviewed the three exemplars used by the Home Secretary to justify the Proscription of Palestine Action it leads as follows:
AI: Palestine Action proscription:
In June 2025, then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper cited three primary examples of Palestine Action’s direct action as evidence of “serious damage to property” to justify their proscription as a terrorist group. These included the 2022 attacks on Thales in Glasgow, the 2023 targeting of Instro Precision in Kent, and the 2025 break-in at RAF Brize Norton.
• Attacks on Thales in Glasgow (2022): Cited for damage to a site linked to the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
• Targeting of Instro Precision in Kent (2023): Included as part of a series of attacks on arms manufacturers.
• Infiltration of RAF Brize Norton (June 2025): The group broke into the RAF base and spray-painted two military aircraft, causing approximately £7m in damages, which was highlighted as a, if not the, key, immediate factor for the ban.
Current status of the three cases at the time of wiriting:
The Canary: Report 20/08/2024
**On Tuesday 20 August at Glasgow Sheriff Court, five young people from Palestine Action Scotland were jailed [Thales].
Three who were convicted of ‘Breach of the peace’ were given 12 month custodial sentences. Whereas two of the five who were convicted of ‘breach of the peace’ and ‘malicious mischief’ were given 14 months and 16 months custodial sentences**
AI reports in respect to INSTRO-Precision:
***Based on reports regarding the targeting of Instro Precision in Kent, which was among the incidents cited by the Home Secretary regarding Palestine Action, the outcomes for the accused involved in these actions generally resulted in the dismissal of charges or acquittals.
• April 2024 Incident (Sevenoaks Magistrates’ Court): Five activists who were arrested for blockading Instro Precision in Kent were acquitted of “locking on” or “being equipped for locking on” (under the Public Order Act 2023). On the second day of the trial, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) informed the court it would offer no evidence due to inconsistencies in statements, leading to their acquittal.
• June 2024 Incident (Instro Precision/Discovery Park): Following an incident in which a factory in Kent was targeted, it was reported that cases against activists were dismissed after the prosecution was unable to offer adequate evidence, often cited as a refusal by the company (Instro Precision/Elbit Systems) to provide evidence to avoid scrutiny in court.
While these specific cases related to the 2023–2024 period in Kent resulted in acquittals or dismissed cases, the broader context of the Home Office’s case for proscription argued that Palestine Action was involved in “serious damage to property” ***
• Infiltration of RAF Brize Norton (June 2025): The group [allegedly] broke into the RAF base and spray-painted two military aircraft, causing approximately £7m in damages, which was highlighted as a, if not the, key, immediate factor for the ban.
BBC reports [16/01/2026] that ** Five alleged Palestine Action protesters have pleaded not guilty to offences relating to a break-in at RAF Brize Norton**
It is important to note that all the defendants are on Remand.
Summary:
It total therefore from the three citied examples the Home Secretary provided to justify the proscription of Palestine Action we have one incident at Thales in Scotland that led to 5 people being convicted and receiving disposals of 12-16 months in prison respectively. The Instro-Precision defendants were not convicted. The Brize Norton defendants have pleaded not guilty and have not been convicted. In addition The Filton 6 have also not been convicted. Coincidentally there is a separate Judicial Review at the Scottish High Court fo the Proscription of Palestine Action and it would be richly ironic if the Court decided that the proscription was unlawful given that the only cited case with convictions in support of the proscription came from the Thales episode.
In what way can it be proportionate to label Palestine Action a terrorist orgnaisation on the basis of the facts that one cohort of defendants received custodial sentences for between 12-16 months ? This in itself demonstrates that the current criminal law is capable of dealing proportionately with any offences that were committed. Purely on its own terms, using the Home Office examples, should demonstrate that the evidence is not sufficient to designate Palestine Action a terrorist organisation ?
Why bother, though? Why go through this elaborate, expensive and time consuming yet farcical procedure, when they could have dismissed the appeal in the first place?
The only reason I can think of, is to wear down the opposition and deplete their funds.
It’s noted here
that more arrests have been made because of this particular proscription, than in all the arrests combined for ‘terrorism’ since 2001.
And that’s including ludicrous arrests for such ‘terrorism’ as taking a photograph of an unusual lamp outside a police station, or of a town hall.
https://petapixel.com/2017/05/06/uk-photographer-arrested-anti-terror-law-photos-town-hall/
The Telegraph’s take:
The senior Jewish judge who ruled in favour of Palestine Action
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/13/jewish-judge-in-favour-palestine-action-victoria-sharp-uk/
The unspoken implication is obvious; namely, that her faith should make her instinctively side with Israel and against any group supporting Palestine. When serious newspapers think that’s how justice should operate in the UK : on the basis of faith. Then all hope is lost. Were she a Muslim coming to the same conclusions, you can only imagine what they would have said. And the Telegraph is the first to decry those who criticise British institutions as heavily biased and rooted in social class, as unpatriotic.
Is he a real Jew or a zionist impostor?
Even accepting such logic, in which category would you now place Noam Chomsky?
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-chomsky-epstein-files/290658/
WTF is a real Jew ?
Someone who follows the religion, obviously.
I suspect that Craig may be partially correct in his assessment of the judges’ intention behind their obscure and contradictory judgment, though he fails to explain WHY they took such a course, rather than simply rejecting Huda Ammori’s case outright.
It is obvious that the decision itself was a political one and not one based on any kind of intellectual rigour. This much is conclusively shown by Murray’s analysis. To me the simplest explanation seems to be that while the three rightwing judges who were chosen to replace Judge Chamberlain were initially happy to be part of a stitch-up operation, in the period which elapsed since they were appointed the political situation has changed quite dramatically, and they no longer felt inclined to caste themselves for posterity as the villains of the piece, but chose instead to pass the buck – a result which they have achieved with spectacular success since opponents of proscription are hailing the judgment as a victory while the government must be pleased at least that the proscription has not been quashed and that the judges have not made any ruling which could not relatively easily be quashed on appeal on ostensibly’ technical’ grounds or simply evaded by purely administrative procedures.
So in my view this is a masterclass in buck passing by three cowardly stuffed shirts. In addition, their decision cleverly relieves a higher layer of judicial stuffed shirts from opprobrium should they decide to overturn this judgment on the justifiable grounds that it makes no sense – thus finessing a judicial coup for the government.
Summary: The three judges have set up a defense of all of the rights abuses in their Palestine Action judgement and included one weak argument against the proscription. They have inserted this one weak link in the chain so that it is where the chain fails at review, leaving all of the abuse in place.
I am reminded of Julian Assange’s legal persecution. The British legal system has now repeatedly demonstrated that it cares little for justice. It implements power.
Mr. Murray has exposed the British judges’ betrayal of the principles their profession professes.
On the subject of unhealthy connections between politicians and spooks.
It’s been revealed that Labour Together – the group established to get Starmer elected – commissioned a report codenamed “Operation Cannon”, investigating various journalists, paying £30,000 to quote : “investigate the sourcing, funding and origins” of a story about undeclared donations. The findings were subsequently then passed on to GCSC, a wing of GCHQ. This raises all sorts of questions as to the extent of contacts, and who initiated them? How does one simply pass something on to GCSC? The aim was allegedly to try to link the journalists under investigation to Russia – as beneficiaries of a Russia hack that they(LT) believed, must be the source of the story.
Background : Labour Together was investigated by the Electoral Commission from January 2021 for failing to declare over £800,000 of donations within 30 days, £730,000 of which was not disclosed when McSweeney was director.
The Paul Mason mind virus, that sees the Kremlin’s hidden hand behind everything, runs deep it would seem. What a state of affairs!
Some of Labour’s best-known MPs are clearly panicking over this and where it might go next; they’re apologising online, to the Times’ journalists and feigning outrage over it.
The big mistake they made, was in investigating and attempting to smear journalists at the Sunday Times, Gabriel Pogrund and Harry Yorke. The likes of Kit Klarenberg of the Grayzone, and Matt Taibbi, both also mentioned as being subject to investigation, would never get grovelling apologies from the likes of Stella Creasy et al. But these politicians know that the Sunday Times is too mainstream, too establishment, to fuck around with like this.
They’re eating each other. Lovely to see. The Times/ Sunday Times were fervent supporters of the Labour Right and its Starmer-Mandelson-McSweeney project.
Project ! Menage a trois I’d suggest.
Having read Kit Klarenberg’s piece in the Grayzone on this, I assume Matt Taibbi was in fact referring to the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), there doesn’t appear to be a GCSC.
https://thegrayzone.com/2026/02/15/starmer-think-tank-paid-firm-target-grayzone/
Paul Mason is following in the footsteps of James Burnham almost a century later. And apart from that he is a complete and utter idiot, as five minutes’ perusal of his book “Postcapitalism” is enough to demonstrate. It’s like a big dustbin stuffed full of bits of old sh*t he’s copied from here, there, and everywhere and then given a stir. He is a man with almost zero intellect but who seems to be doing very well in his career – I wonder why.
I just did a search re >when was the claim first made that iran funds palestine action<
Answer: The claim that Iran funds the direct-action group Palestine Action was first made on June 23, 2025, primarily through briefings from British Home Office officials to the media
This allegation emerged during a “media firestorm” surrounding the UK government’s move to proscribe (ban) Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, with the Times reporting on June 23 that “Iran could be funding Palestine Action, Home Office officials claimed
The claims were made in tandem with then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s announcement to Parliament that she would move to ban the group, following a Palestine Action attack on RAF Brize Norton in June 2025.
Ah, just as I thought. What a coicidence. How fortuitous that it should come to light just then.
I think we can safely assume the three judges know it’s complete B/S.
Propaganda B/S that is, concocted and contrived for the obvious reason – ie to dupe and deceive and manipulate the masses. Via The Times, and the rest of the MSM.
It can be safely assumed that any group that fights injustice will be found by the government to be funded by one of the designated enemies of the day, currently: Iran, Russia or China. Whereas, any truly terrorist group that fights the designated enemies of the day will in fact be funded and supported by the government.
PA bad, ISIS good, Hamas bad, Israel good. Doublespeak, bad is good and good is bad.
The trend of accusing political opponents of pushing ‘talking points,’ or being funded by adversary country [X] is increasing, because Labour nor the Tories, have anything to offer policy wise; other than hawkish militarism abroad, and their big economic plan domestically is military Keynesianism.
It’s the same story with Palestine protests; they don’t want to defend Israel or the flattening of Gaza, who would? So Labour and the Tories try to discredit the organisers and marchers of the protests, as foreign sponsored.
“The trend of accusing political opponents of pushing ‘talking points,’ or being funded by adversary country [X] is increasing”. It certainly is, but Labour and Tory activists as well as cops, local council c**ts, moderators of many web forums, journalists, soldiers, social workers, schoolteachers, medics, who have you – they all believe this and with increasing fervour. Reds under the bed, enemy saboteurs, people whose minds have been infected by
Satanradicalism, etc. – these are the terms in which these tinpot thickos are encouraged to “think” and do “think”.It’s pretty much impossible in any “respectable” place to be seen as anything other than an enemy saboteur (“disinformationist”) or stupid fool who has been gulled by enemy saboteurs (“misinformationist”) if one mentions even basic facts about Donetsk, Luhansk, Palestine, or Covid for example.
“– these are the terms in which these tinpot thickos are encouraged to “think” and do “think”.”
It’s amazing how many of them still think Russia is a communist state.
Pre-dating the briefings cited was a tweet “Ban Palestine Action” @WeBelieveIsrael; Jun 21, 2025, which claimed:
We at WBII are ready. Ready to provide evidence, testimony, coordination. Ready to remind Parliament that every delay costs not only time, but trust. That every minute Britain leaves the door open to the IRGC, it invites not only spies, but strategists of chaos.
The source of the B/S is the Israel lobby, who – as they openly boast – had concocted a ‘report’ sent to Home Office/security service contacts earlier in the year (who now are prepared to concede that it carries no merit). The report itself is quite funny to read – an auto-parody …
The ruling by the three judges are nothing but Kafkaesque gobbledegook. It just codswallop and actually very amateurish and not at all comprehensible or convincing. It just makes you confused as to how this obfuscation can be created on what is actually a very clear case of misdirection and politically motivated actions by the government to cover their own complicity in the genocide, by silencing protest which is rarely effective to change government policy, but which is the reason why direct action was necessary. It is quite breathtaking how these squalid ciphers of unreason that constitute Starme’s cabinet ever come to power to wreak havoc on the public good and democracy. It leads to the elevation of narcissistic creeps like Peter Mandleson, with known breaches of propriety and public law into high international office, so they can link up and benefit from the association with amoral perverts like Jeffrey Epstein to the detriment of decent society ab stability of our world. Shabana Mahmood must be made to resign along with Starmer, Yvette Cooper and David Lammy. They are all scourges. A fresh election should be called, while highlighting the dangers of crazy Reform and any other party in that mould, and a return to a party that can offer policies that can really benefit this country. Greens and Your Party, get your acts together!
So that’s the conclusion of your mentation, then, @Abe – that you want a general election very soon, during which we can all rely on some unspecified actors or other highlighting the dangers of Reform?
What’s happening is precisely a ramp-up to a Reform government, although its advent is only imminent in the minds of those who get all excited about the sheer drama when they watch each night’s news on TV. Interestingly Keir Starmer is helping to ramp up not only Reform but also the Greens. Could it be that he and they all work for the same masters?
Advance UK and Restore Britain won’t undermine the rise of Reform in Britain any more than Eric Zemmour and Marion Maréchal undermine the National Rally in France. That said, Reform is on its third name already, so another change of name although perhaps unlikely won’t be a great surprise.
The three learned judges.
https://stock.adobe.com/no/search?k=three+wise+monkeys&asset_id=1882150091
Interesting story from Al Jazeera about BDS:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/16/europes-growing-fight-over-israeli-goods-boycott-movements-mushroom
A worker at Tesco’s in Ireland warned customers about fruit and vegetables that come from the Occupation. Then he refused to scan or sell them. Tesco suspended him but then after a struggle they reinstated him.
“““I would encourage them to do (the same),” he said about other workers. “They have the backing of the unions and there’s a precedent set. They didn’t sack me; they shouldn’t be able to sack anyone else.
“And then, if we get enough people to do it, they can’t sell Israeli goods.”
“A genocide is still going on, they are slowly killing and starving people – we still need to be out, doing what we can.””
He is absolutely right.
I hope no genuine person reading these lines buys Occupation goods. In supermarkets the country of origin is often marked. On market stalls, the stallholder will know where the oranges etc. come from. (Just ask which country do they come from. Don’t ask do they come from “Israel”, as the Occupation calls itself.) And never buy anything whatsoever in Marks and Spencer’s.
Boycotts hurt white supremacy in South Africa. They can hurt the Jewish supremacist Occupation in Palestine too.
” Boycotts hurt white supremacy in South Africa. They can hurt the Jewish supremacist Occupation in Palestine too. “. Indeed, as did, and possibly more effectively in terms of compelling change ,the barring of SA from international events, eg Sport.
Not much chance of that happening to the Zionist Entity as things stand; look at the hysteria and faux-outrage ( faux in the sense that it was just more orchestrated weaponization of the ” Anti-Semitism ” bullet ) when it was suggested that allowing proven, demonstrably virulent racist Maccabi Tel Aviv FC * football fans * to promote and display their nastiness at an English stadium might not be a great idea; similarly with the World Cup, though, in contrast, there is virtually no chance of that happening, ie Israel being banned; the Epsteinocracy would sooner cancel the entire tournament than disbar God’s Chosen Team. Russia, of course, is banned from every such international event, even to the risibly petty extent of prohibiting the performance of Russian classical music in the UK.
Only when a similar stance is taken by the international community re Zion as previously re SA, ie that entity thoroughly anathematized in every field – Sport; Music ( WTF is that obscenity doing in European events anyway; since when was Zion part of the European landmass? ); Commerce/Trade etc will there be any possibility of forcing it to change it’s ways. Even then, it’s not certain* even that would have the desired effect. Such is the degree of greed, twisted fanaticism, entitlement and * religious * irrationality of characters like Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir et al you get the impression they would rather see the entire planet in flames than make any concessions to the ” Amalek “.
It will also almost certainly require a total change – revolution – in the US Political System/Mentality in it’s relations with ZOG for any significant change to occur; and, as we can see, there is zero possibility of that any time soon – if ever. On the contrary, the Perverted Plutocracy is in the process of assuming almost total control of every Soc Med platform, eg Tik Tok, and closing more & more * dissident * sources – how long before the come for, eg Substack, Rumble and others? – aided and abetted by the demented authoritarians in EUK’s ongoing attempts to gain absolute control of the internet itself; I see Starmer is ” pressing ahead ” with more legislation to enforce – you got it – ” protection of children online “. Aye, we’re supposed to believe the same worthless c***z that have not shown one iota of sympathy for the 1000s of innocent children slaughtered in Gaza, in fact have been/are complicit in that slaughter, are deeply concerned about the welfare of children here. Sick fucks the lot of them; none more so than the nauseating scumbags of that thing still calling itself the Labour Party.
Despite all that, I still believe the evil that is Zionism and it’s Goy arse-kissers, beneficiaries & blackmailees will ultimately be defeated.
The question is the degree of destruction, material & spiritual, this aberration will be able to inflict before it’s finally eliminated
“Not much chance of that happening to the Zionist Entity as things stand”
No, they are even allowed to compete in the Eurovision Song Contest, FFS, despite failing the fairly basic qualification of being in Europe. Mind you, I think they are letting almost everyone in, these days.*
*not Russia, of course, or Belarus, they still have some standards, you know.
Yes, B, I’ve long thought the reason Turkey is allowed to participate in European events is in order to allow the Zionist Entity to similarly do so; despite neither of them being part of Europe; though Turkey may have a slightly better claim to be – at least in a small % – part of Europe, ergo a legitimate participant in European events
” Turkey is a transcontinental country located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. The vast majority of its landmass (about 97%), known as Anatolia, lies in West Asia, while a small portion (about 3%) called East Thrace lies in Southeast Europe. It is a bridge between the two continents, with Istanbul, its largest city, straddling both. “
Correction: it’s zionist supremacist, not Jewish supremacist
No correction needed, all Jewish supremacists are zionists.
but not all Zionist supremacists are Jewish, our own Dear Leader being an example.
I wonder if the 3 judges have an opinion on the killing of 700+ Britons between 1945-48 in Palestine. In fact I wonder what the various Friends of Israel groups think. I assume they couldn’t care, as do all their minions in Parliament and elsewhere.
If British citizen-subjects support the killings of British people, by Jewish terrorists, then one can only assume they are traitors.
Also what might their opinion of Einstein’s letter to the NYTimes, 1948 – Is Albert and antisemite?
It’s amazing how many Brits plump for Israel as an ally, without a look at fairly recent history.
I wonder if the 3 judges have an opinion on the killing of 34+ Americans onboard the USS Liberty in 1967 ?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/02/16/the-new-york-times-still-gives-israel-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-on-the-uss-liberty/
“We” moved on long ago from such ancient history.
More recently then.
I wonder if the 3 judges have an opinion on the killing of 7 aid workers, including 3 brits, in Gaza on the 1st of April 2024 ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Central_Kitchen_aid_convoy_attack
Israel, the gift that keeps on giving … death.