Your example falls down as there are mainstream, entirely legitimate outlets for pro Palestinian expression that far better correlate to the RSPB. If a splinter radical Bird Action group had a history of illegal protest, sporadic violence and destruction of property then followed up by breaking into Brize Norton yeah I think you’d be hard pressed to complain about the government coming down like a ton of bricks on them.sockwithaticket wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 8:13 pmArrest and charge individuals for whichever laws they broke, but putting the entirety of PA into the same legal category as actual terrorist groups is beyond absurd. If a handful of RSPB members decide to do something exceptionally daft in its name I wouldn't expect the entire organisation to suffer legal ramifications.Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 7:25 pmThe security set up is tin pot, breaking onto a military base is exceptionally fucking stupid to put it mildly and it’s hard to see what else the government could do in response.sockwithaticket wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:21 pm Proscribing a group because they've embarassed your shoddy security standards is a bit tin pot.
It's a particularly authoritarian lash out and it's an ugly look for a party that ought to be repealing draconian protest restrictions introduced by the Tories, not looking to see if they can go one worse.
Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us
- Paddington Bear
- Posts: 6733
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
-
- Posts: 2440
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm
I can see why Cooper did it, not so much for PA, but for anyone else thinking of acting in such fashion in future. It's hardly ideal mind, still less so if we end up playing whac-a-mole with claims X is not related to Y when it's the same people
Doesn't negate someone still needs to explain how on earth they were able to break onto a military base to begin with
Doesn't negate someone still needs to explain how on earth they were able to break onto a military base to begin with
-
- Posts: 3820
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 am
You could if you wanted try to charge those who broke into Brize under terror legislation, I doubt the CPS or jury would play ball on that because they're just a bunch of idiots not terrorists.Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:00 pmProbably don’t break into a military base and damage the aircraft then. Exceptionally fortunate they didn’t wind up getting shot and should count themselves lucky for thatI like neeps wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 5:42 pm Very Conservative of Labour to be prescribing Palestine Action. Continued decaying of democratic values.
No, like with the Southport riots and tweets we're seeing what an authoritarian Starmer really is.
-
- Posts: 3820
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 am
They didn't destroy them, they spray painted them. The Ministry of Defence themselves merely called it vandalism.Calculon wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 7:41 am Destroying UK military assets for political reasons. Sound a bit terroristty to me.
If they'd blown up a RAF jet then sure. You'd never ever get a terror charge on spray painting in a court.
I like neeps wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 8:22 amThey didn't destroy them, they spray painted them. The Ministry of Defence themselves merely called it vandalism.Calculon wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 7:41 am Destroying UK military assets for political reasons. Sound a bit terroristty to me.
If they'd blown up a RAF jet then sure. You'd never ever get a terror charge on spray painting in a court.
Yeah, that would be a very dangerous road to go down - it leads eventually to all protest being considered terrorism.
- mat the expat
- Posts: 1571
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:12 pm
This is interesting - it's "Undemocratic" to have mandatory voting but it's Democratic to label protestors as TerroristsTichtheid wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 8:32 amI like neeps wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 8:22 amThey didn't destroy them, they spray painted them. The Ministry of Defence themselves merely called it vandalism.Calculon wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 7:41 am Destroying UK military assets for political reasons. Sound a bit terroristty to me.
If they'd blown up a RAF jet then sure. You'd never ever get a terror charge on spray painting in a court.
Yeah, that would be a very dangerous road to go down - it leads eventually to all protest being considered terrorism.
Fark me!
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2024 11:10 am
I wouldn't recommend anyone fly I'm an aircraft that's had paint sprayed into it's engine. You can't just ignore it and take off. What they did was sabotage, it will have grounded the aircraft.
Yup, in two minds about this. Not comfortable at all with a protest group being proscribed as terrorists, if nothing else seems an easy way out for the government
On the other hand, breaking into a military base and doing whatever, is indescribably stupid and deserves a harsh punishment imo.
On balance, would have preferred the individuals involved to be prosecuted and given a hefty sentence
On the other hand, breaking into a military base and doing whatever, is indescribably stupid and deserves a harsh punishment imo.
On balance, would have preferred the individuals involved to be prosecuted and given a hefty sentence
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
Yeah, the RAF can’t brush that aside or gloss over the danger that would cause.BagfordViper wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 10:31 am I wouldn't recommend anyone fly I'm an aircraft that's had paint sprayed into it's engine. You can't just ignore it and take off. What they did was sabotage, it will have grounded the aircraft.
I will get my coat..
Google tells me thisSlick wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 11:29 am Yup, in two minds about this. Not comfortable at all with a protest group being proscribed as terrorists, if nothing else seems an easy way out for the government
On the other hand, breaking into a military base and doing whatever, is indescribably stupid and deserves a harsh punishment imo.
On balance, would have preferred the individuals involved to be prosecuted and given a hefty sentence
In the UK, the sentence for criminal damage varies depending on the value of the damage and whether the case is tried in Magistrates' Court or Crown Court. For damage valued under £5,000, the maximum sentence in Magistrates' Court is a fine of £2,500 and/or up to 3 months' imprisonment. If the damage exceeds £5,000, the case can be tried in Crown Court, where the maximum sentence can be up to 10 years' imprisonment
Spraying paint into a plane's turbine will have cause far more than five grand's worth of damage, I would imagine.
Yeeb wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 11:35 amYeah, the RAF can’t brush that aside or gloss over the danger that would cause.BagfordViper wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 10:31 am I wouldn't recommend anyone fly I'm an aircraft that's had paint sprayed into it's engine. You can't just ignore it and take off. What they did was sabotage, it will have grounded the aircraft.
I will get my coat..
undercoat or second coat?
Would have preferred a prosecution as well. This stinks of a desperate attempt to distract from base security being shite.Slick wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 11:29 am Yup, in two minds about this. Not comfortable at all with a protest group being proscribed as terrorists, if nothing else seems an easy way out for the government
On the other hand, breaking into a military base and doing whatever, is indescribably stupid and deserves a harsh punishment imo.
On balance, would have preferred the individuals involved to be prosecuted and given a hefty sentence
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Thirded.Biffer wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 11:42 amWould have preferred a prosecution as well. This stinks of a desperate attempt to distract from base security being shite.Slick wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 11:29 am Yup, in two minds about this. Not comfortable at all with a protest group being proscribed as terrorists, if nothing else seems an easy way out for the government
On the other hand, breaking into a military base and doing whatever, is indescribably stupid and deserves a harsh punishment imo.
On balance, would have preferred the individuals involved to be prosecuted and given a hefty sentence
"The group said it had used e-scooters to get across the airbase, before using repurposed fire extinguishers to spray paint and crowbars to cause further damage."I like neeps wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 8:22 amThey didn't destroy them, they spray painted them. The Ministry of Defence themselves merely called it vandalism.Calculon wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 7:41 am Destroying UK military assets for political reasons. Sound a bit terroristty to me.
If they'd blown up a RAF jet then sure. You'd never ever get a terror charge on spray painting in a court.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-mili ... za-us-war/
RAF might need to replace the engines at least. Caused something like up to 55 million pounds worth of damage and grounded the planes for who knows long,
they should have been shot as soon as they broke into the airbase
Security was so shite they didn't know they were there, so couldn't have shot them even if they wanted to.Calculon wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:11 pm they should have been shot as soon as they broke into the airbase
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
- Hal Jordan
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
- Location: Sector 2814
Judge Dredd wouldn't stand for this sort of nonsense.
Sorry Matt I don’t knowTichtheid wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 11:41 amYeeb wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 11:35 amYeah, the RAF can’t brush that aside or gloss over the danger that would cause.BagfordViper wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 10:31 am I wouldn't recommend anyone fly I'm an aircraft that's had paint sprayed into it's engine. You can't just ignore it and take off. What they did was sabotage, it will have grounded the aircraft.
I will get my coat..
undercoat or second coat?
- Hal Jordan
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
- Location: Sector 2814
I think we'd better gloss over this discussion and move on.
Already done the gloss pun, you nobheadHal Jordan wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:23 pmI think we'd better gloss over this discussion and move on.
I know, but hopefully next time they try a similar stunt...
So you think the actions here reflect a govt looking at the security issue seriously rather than lashing out with a performative action that'll play well in the right wing press?Calculon wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:36 pmI know, but hopefully next time they try a similar stunt...
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
From what I’ve read I think they should be banned, not only for this but also for some of their other actions. Separate to that, it was obviously a major, and embarrassing, security breach.Biffer wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:48 pmSo you think the actions here reflect a govt looking at the security issue seriously rather than lashing out with a performative action that'll play well in the right wing press?
It was but tbh it looks like a face saving exercise. The govt were humiliated that their security was so easily bypassed so they are now over compensating. The concerning thing is that it sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech and protests.Calculon wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:59 pmFrom what I’ve read I think they should be banned, not only for this but also for some of their other actions. Separate to that, it was obviously a major, and embarrassing, security breach.Biffer wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:48 pmSo you think the actions here reflect a govt looking at the security issue seriously rather than lashing out with a performative action that'll play well in the right wing press?Calculon wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:36 pm
I know, but hopefully next time they try a similar stunt...
They should have just taken the offenders to court and doled out the appropriate penalty to them, instead the state is overreaching in an effort to show strength.
- Paddington Bear
- Posts: 6733
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire
Less face saving and more a realisation that nowhere is safe from disruption IMO
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
Trust me i sympathise with the decision on the basis that you can't allow people to just run amok or give the impression that breaking into bases will be tolerated. It's not a clear cut thing by any means.Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 1:30 pm Less face saving and more a realisation that nowhere is safe from disruption IMO
However, for me it also falls under the category of the classic scenario of the state not doing its job then exacerbating that with a cack handed response. There's a certain laziness to the whole thing with is symptomatic of the state, what I mean is it does the easy things because they are easy rather than doing the actually meaningful stuff - providing good security.
Maybe I'm prejudiced in my outlook but it seems to parallel the policing of Facebook posts whilst actual street crimes are not policed with the same zeal.
- Hal Jordan
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
- Location: Sector 2814
It needed two coats.Yeeb wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:24 pmAlready done the gloss pun, you nobheadHal Jordan wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:23 pmI think we'd better gloss over this discussion and move on.
Almost an outstanding comeback, would have been better if you’d have repeated the coats pun though as i glazed over thisHal Jordan wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 8:36 pmIt needed two coats.Yeeb wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:24 pmAlready done the gloss pun, you nobheadHal Jordan wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:23 pm
I think we'd better gloss over this discussion and move on.
Just listened to Badenough making response to Starmers update to the house ... christ she is just plain awful! Starmer wiped the floor with her. It was like an angry and uninformed student who hadn't done their homework trying to have an argument with their Professor and losing badly. She threw personal insults about, used infantile names for Gov policies and accused him of 'dodging' PMQs for two weeks when he was attending G7 and NATO Conferences FFS! If she is trying to impersonate Trump then she failed very, very badly. Completely misjudged the mood of the HoC and one tits up. She isn't long for this world methinks, even the Tory MPs appear to realize she is toast!
- Hal Jordan
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
- Location: Sector 2814
She is the perfect blend of arrogance, ambition and stupidity.dpedin wrote: Thu Jun 26, 2025 11:01 am Just listened to Badenough making response to Starmers update to the house ... christ she is just plain awful! Starmer wiped the floor with her. It was like an angry and uninformed student who hadn't done their homework trying to have an argument with their Professor and losing badly. She threw personal insults about, used infantile names for Gov policies and accused him of 'dodging' PMQs for two weeks when he was attending G7 and NATO Conferences FFS! If she is trying to impersonate Trump then she failed very, very badly. Completely misjudged the mood of the HoC and one tits up. She isn't long for this world methinks, even the Tory MPs appear to realize she is toast!
She was pathetic!dpedin wrote: Thu Jun 26, 2025 11:01 am Just listened to Badenough making response to Starmers update to the house ... christ she is just plain awful! Starmer wiped the floor with her. It was like an angry and uninformed student who hadn't done their homework trying to have an argument with their Professor and losing badly. She threw personal insults about, used infantile names for Gov policies and accused him of 'dodging' PMQs for two weeks when he was attending G7 and NATO Conferences FFS! If she is trying to impersonate Trump then she failed very, very badly. Completely misjudged the mood of the HoC and one tits up. She isn't long for this world methinks, even the Tory MPs appear to realize she is toast!
Mark Prichard must one of a lot of Tory MP's feeling the same about her when he asked Starmer his question.
As far as possible in this place, it would be better to keep partisan politics out of national security issues. And who knows, I may get the whip withdrawn for saying that. But so be it. There are things that go beyond party politics. So can I thank the prime minister for all his hard work in the national security interests of this country.
-
- Posts: 3820
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 am
Tax rises inevitable wirh Starmer backing down on the winter fuel announcement, benefits bill, and increased defence spending. Its a shame reform is so impossible even with that majority.
- Hal Jordan
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
- Location: Sector 2814
Maybe they could go after the tech bros instead of bending over backwards to accommodate them.I like neeps wrote: Thu Jun 26, 2025 5:17 pm Tax rises inevitable wirh Starmer backing down on the winter fuel announcement, benefits bill, and increased defence spending. Its a shame reform is so impossible even with that majority.
You know, be a Labour Party.
-
- Posts: 2440
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm
Very odd they've not even looked at going after the gambling firms. Easy to see why the Tories didn't when they were taking so much money from the gambling companies, but Labour don't take anything like the same funding, in theory would care about the damage gambling companies wreak, and the gambling firms all but printing money and the government is desperate to increase the tax take.
At this point there isn't even vague speculation the Gambling Commission become an actual regulator (presently it remains more a data collection exercise), never mind actually going after some of the ill gotten gains
At this point there isn't even vague speculation the Gambling Commission become an actual regulator (presently it remains more a data collection exercise), never mind actually going after some of the ill gotten gains