Imagine for a second, right, that you're walking
down the street on a typical weekend. You know,
you're just running errands. Maybe grabbing a
coffee or something. Exactly. And you happen
to be wearing this homemade, slightly goofy punny
t -shirt. Okay. Next thing you know, you are
completely surrounded by police, placed under
arrest, and you are facing the very real threat
of up to 14 years in prison. Wow. 14 years. Yeah,
14 years under severe counterterrorism laws.
I mean, it sounds like a heavy handed plot from
a dystopian novel. It really does. But what happens
when that exact scenario plays out in a modern
democracy? Like how does a country actually draw
the line between civil disobedience, severe property
damage and literal terrorism? It's a question
that. Honestly, it completely challenges the
foundation of how society manages protest, especially
in an era of globalized conflict. Welcome to
today's Deep Dive. Our mission today is to unpack
this massive, highly detailed Wikipedia article
regarding a UK -based direct action group called
Palestine Action. Over the last few years, and
culminating right now in early 2026, this group
has been at the absolute center of a historic
ongoing legal earthquake in the UK regarding
free speech and terrorism laws. It's a huge case.
It is. And we've got a thick stack of sources
detailing their specific tactics, the government's
unprecedented response and the massive civil
liberties backlash that followed all of it. And
just a really quick but crucial note for you
listening before we dive in. Because the source
material involves the highly politically charged
ongoing conflict in Gaza and Israel, we are putting
our personal opinions entirely aside today. Absolutely.
Entirely aside. We aren't here to take sides.
We aren't endorsing any viewpoints or making
judgments on the underlying conflict. We are
strictly acting as impartial guides. Our only
job is to unpack the facts, the events and the
legal battles exactly as they are presented in
the text. in front of us. With those boundaries
in place, let's look at how this actually started.
So according to the sources, Palisade Action
was founded in July 2020 by Huda Amori and Richard
Barnard. Right. And to understand their trajectory,
you really have to look closely at their stated
goal. The group's purpose, in their own words,
is ending global participation in what they describe
as Israel's genocidal and apartheid regime. OK.
And to achieve this, they chose a very specific
focus, which was the UK arms industry. They explicitly
accused these companies of being complicit in
conducting a genocide. And their chosen method
to stop this wasn't, you know, organizing traditional
marches. with banners or lobbying politicians.
No, it was direct action. Yeah, direct action.
And the scale and audacity of their tactics were
definitely notable. They specifically targeted
major players like the Israeli weapons manufacturer
Elbit Systems and the aerospace company Leonardo.
Huge companies. Massive. Activists would show
up in bright red boiler suits, scale the roofs
of drone factories, and just occupy them for
days on end to halt production. I mean, in one
instance, they broke into the University of Manchester
and physically removed two bus of Chaim Wiseman,
the first president of Israel. Right. They also
targeted historic buildings, splashing red paint
all over Somerset County Hall and the University
of Cambridge's Senate House using repurposed
fire extinguishers. Yeah, it was a highly visual,
incredibly physical campaign aimed at maximum
disruption. But we have to look at the actual
physical and financial impact of those campaigns,
too, because this wasn't just. minor graffiti
that washes off with a power hose. No, not at
all. We are talking about activists taking sledgehammers
to windows. We are talking about severe physical
danger to people on site. Yeah, the sources mentioned
a break -in at Elbit's Aztec West premises in
August 2024. Right. Two police officers and a
company employee were injured there. One police
officer was actually struck on the spine with
a sledgehammer. Wow. Yeah, and they were unable
to work for three months. That is a life -altering
injury. Definitely. In another case, four activists
used a cherry picker style vehicle to reach and
smash second floor windows. So the financial
damages quickly stretched into the millions of
pounds. And the sources indicate these pressure
campaigns actually achieved their stated goals
in several instances, like the repeated occupations
and property damage at an Elbit subsidiary in
Oldham actually preceded its permanent closure
and sale. And that Aztec West site we just mentioned
eventually closed unexpectedly, too, even though
its lease ran all the way until 2029. Right.
And beyond the physical sites, these direct actions
caused multi -day shutdowns and allegedly contributed
to the loss of a massive 2 .1 billion pound contract
between Elbit UK and the Ministry of Defense.
2 .1 billion. Yeah, billion. So they were causing
real... tangible economic disruption to these
massive defense contractors. And that economic
disruption, combined with the escalating nature
of the targets, eventually pushed the situation
to a breaking point. Because when a group starts
successfully interfering with billions of pounds
of defense contracts, the state's tolerance for
that disruption just drops to zero. Which brings
us to June 2025. This was the flashpoint that
completely changed the trajectory of the group
and the government's response. The RAF Bryce
Norton incident. Yes. Activists riding electric
scooters managed to completely infiltrate the
RAF Bryce Norton military base. Just right onto
a military base. Right onto the base. And once
inside the perimeter. They used their signature
repurposed fire extinguishers, but instead of
spraying a brick wall, they sprayed red paint
directly into the engines of two Royal Air Force
Airbus A330 MRTT refueling planes. Wow. They
also painted the runway red to symbolize the
blood of Palestinians killed in Gaza, and they
left a flag at the base. The dueling narratives
that emerged around this specific event are fascinating
to analyze. Palestine Action justified the break
in by claiming these specific refueling planes
were actively supplying U .S. and Israeli fighter
jets. So they were framing their vandalism of
military hardware as a direct act of genocide
prevention and the prevention of British war
crimes. Right. They called it genocide prevention.
But the UK Ministry of Defense, backed by independent
reporting from the BBC, countered that claim
directly. What did they say? They stated unequivocally
that those two specific aircraft had not refueled
or supported the Israeli Air Force. However,
the BBC did note that those jets had been used
for British air operations in Yemen, Iraq, and
Syria. Okay, so they were active military planes.
Exactly. And regardless of where the planes had
been deployed, the very act of infiltrating a
highly secure military installation and damaging
state military assets, well, that was viewed
by the government as an intolerable threat to
national security. Yet breaking into Briz Norton
was clearly the final straw. The government's
response was incredibly swift, led by Home Secretary
Yvette Cooper. On July 5, 2025, Palestine Action
was officially prescribed as a terrorist group
under the Terrorism Act 2000. Let's pause and
unpack what prescription actually means for you,
the everyday citizen on the street. Yeah, please
do. Because it fundamentally alters your legal
reality. Prescription doesn't just mean the group's
leaders are arrested. Under the Terrorism Act
2000, simply being a member of the group, fundraising
for it, or even wearing items of clothing that
arouse a reasonable suspicion of support becomes
a severe criminal. offense. Just wearing a piece
of clothing. Yes. And expressing an opinion supportive
of the group if the state deems it reckless as
to whether it encourages others to support them,
that's illegal too. The maximum penalty for membership
or inviting support is up to 14 years in prison.
And the political mechanics of how this got passed
into law are wild to me. The government didn't
just hold a straightforward vote on banning Palestine
action. No, they didn't. They bundled the group
into a single voting order with two violent neo
-Nazi groups, including one literally called
the Maniacs Murder Cult. Yes, the Maniacs Murder
Cult and another called the Russian Imperial
Movement. It was a highly calculated legislative
maneuver. Members of parliament couldn't vote
to ban the neo -Nazis but spare the protest group
or vice versa. They had to ban all three simultaneously
or none at all. Which is crazy. And this move
faced heavy criticism in the House of Lords.
Baroness Jones openly called it a sneaky way
to force the vote through because it put immense
political pressure on MPs. I mean, nobody wants
to be the politician who votes against banning
a group called the maniacs murder cult. Exactly.
And the strategy worked perfectly. The House
of Commons voted 385 to 26 in favor of prescription.
The fallout from that vote was immediate. It
triggered a massive wave of arrests that really
demonstrates how broadly counterterrorism laws
can sweep up the general public. Between July
and November 2025, over 2 ,545 individuals were
arrested by British police. Over two and a half
thousand people. Yes. And the vast majority of
these people weren't scaling buildings or holding
sledgehammers. Most of them were arrested simply
for holding cardboard signs at protests that
read, I oppose genocide. I support Palestine
action. Right. We even have that absurd example
from the source text of a man being arrested
and eventually de -arrested simply for wearing
a mocking T -shirt that said plasticine action.
The punny T -shirt you mentioned at the start.
Yeah. Imagine the sheer amount of police paperwork
and taxpayer money generated over a plasticine
pun. But it completely changed the landscape
of public demonstration. You could just be swept
up in a terror raid for a joke. And that sweeping
action came with a staggering financial cost
to the public. Just policing the ban over a single
four day period cost the Metropolitan Police
over eight point seven three million pounds.
Almost nine million pounds in four days. Yeah.
When you factor in the long -term investigation
and casework costs, the total quickly exceeded
10 million pounds. Wow. The strain on the justice
system was immense. Internal reports suggested
they were preparing for over 400 trials, taking
up 200 full days of court time just to process
the supporters who had been holding signs or
wearing T -shirts. I mean, you can't just arrest
2 ,500 people for holding cardboard signs without
triggering a massive civil liberties backlash.
You really can't. The pushback from human rights
organizations... was fierce and immediate. Amnesty
International, Liberty, and United Nations experts
accused the UK government of fundamentally conflating
protest with terrorism. Amnesty called it an
unprecedented legal overreach. They argued that
the UK's definition of terrorism was becoming
dangerously broad compared to other democratic
nations. And a declassified intelligence assessment
published in September 2025 actually bolstered
that argument. It did. It admitted that the vast
majority of Palestine actions activities, the
sit -ins, the graffiti, the petty vandalism,
did not meet the legal standard of terrorism.
It noted that their actions mostly related to
minor property damage. Alan Green, a senior counterterrorism
researcher cited in the sources, pointed out
that relying on property damage to label a group
as terrorists marked a radical departure from
how these severe laws had been used previously.
And this created a profound chilling effect across
the wider culture. It wasn't just activists on
the front lines who were worried anymore. Normal
people, writers and journalists were suddenly
terrified of running afoul of the Terrorism Act.
Like Sally Rooney. Yeah, the acclaimed author
Sally Rooney actually provided a witness statement
saying she genuinely feared her books would be
pulled from UK shelves. Because she had publicly
pledged support for Palestine Action before the
ban. Exactly. She was worried it could theoretically
be illegal for her British publishers or the
BBC to pay her royalties, just on the suspicion
she might use that money to support the newly
prescribed group. That's a huge chilling effect
on free speech. It is. And the prominent journalist
Owen Jones had to write a column in The Guardian
carefully stating right up front that he wasn't
supporting the group just so he could report
on the situation without risking 14 years in
prison. But while high profile writers were worrying
about their publishing contracts and columns,
the human toll inside the UK prison system was
escalating dramatically for the activists who
were actually locked up. Right. We have to talk
about the Filton 18. This was a group of activists
arrested following a raid on an Albit Systems
headquarters in Bristol. Some of these individuals
faced pretrial detention that stretched far beyond
a year. To put that in legal context, the usual
custody time limit in the UK before a trial must
begin is six months. Six months. Yes. These individuals
were being held in maximum security conditions
for double that time without having faced a jury
or been convicted of a crime. And the psychological
and physical toll of that indefinite detention
sparked the prisoners for Palestine hunger strikes.
Activists in multiple high security prisons like
Belmarsh, White Moor and Franklin refused food.
And this wasn't a symbolic weekend fast. No,
some of these prisoners refused food for an agonizing
73 days. 73 days. Going 73 days without food
causes catastrophic, often irreversible damage
to the human body. It does. The sheer desperation
of that situation drew major international attention.
Even Greta Thunberg traveled to London in December
2025 to protest in solidarity. with the hunger
strikers. And she ended up getting arrested by
London police as well. She did, which brings
us to a critical juncture in the timeline. The
formal organization of Palestine Action had dissolved
following the ban, advising its supporters to
stay safe. But the monumental legal fight over
whether that initial ban was actually lawful
was just getting started. Let's jump to the legal
earthquake that brings us right up to the present
day, early 2026. Huda Amori, the co -founder
of the group, took the UK government to the high
court to challenge the prescription. But right
before the trial started, there was a highly
controversial procedural moment. The original
judge, Mr. Justice Chamberlain, who had initially
granted permission for the appeal, was inexplicably
removed from the case without any rationale provided
to the public. Yeah, he was replaced by a three
-judge panel consisting of Dame Victoria Sharp,
Mrs. Justice Stein, and Mr. Justice Swift. Campaigners
and legal observers immediately raised red flags
about this sudden switch. Groups like Defend
Our Juries noted that Justices Stein and Swift
had historically ruled in favor of government
interests in protest cases. And even more concerning
to the activists, Dame Sharpe's brother reportedly
had financial interests in the very defense company's
Palestine action had been targeting. That's a
huge conflict of interest. It set the stage for
a highly tense, suspicious legal battle. And
the hearing itself was incredibly dramatic, highlighting
the strange nature of national security trials.
How so? On the final day, the courtroom was actually
closed to the public so government lawyers could
present confidential secret evidence. So no one
could see what they were arguing. Exactly. Amore's
own legal team had to leave the room. She was
instead represented by a special advocate. Now,
a special advocate is a state appointed lawyer
who is allowed to see the secret government evidence,
but they are legally forbidden from communicating
with the person they are representing about what
that evidence actually is. Wow. It makes mounting
a defense incredibly difficult. Extremely. But
despite all of those hurdles, the secret evidence,
the special advocate, the controversial judge
panel, the high court delivered an absolute bombshell
verdict on February 13th, 2026. In a unanimous
decision, the judges ruled that the prescription
of Palestine action was unlawful. We really need
to break down the nuance of why they ruled that
way because it is vital for understanding the
distinction the law is trying to make. Right.
The judges did not excuse the group's actions.
In fact, they explicitly described Palestine
Action as an organization that promotes its political
cause through criminality. So they weren't saying
infiltrating a military base or smashing a window
is perfectly legal behavior. Not at all. They
acknowledged the sledgehammers, the damage, the
danger. They even noted that a very small number
of their actions did technically amount to terrorist
action under the broad definition of the law.
Okay, so then why overturn the ban? The core
of their ruling was about proportionality. They
determined that banning the entire massive network
and consequently criminalizing all of its casual
supporters, the people just holding cardboard
signs or wearing T -shirts, was a disproportionate
interference with the fundamental human rights
to freedom of expression and freedom of association.
That makes a lot of sense. They pointed out a
very logical alternative. If members of the group
commit vandalism or assault, you prosecute those
specific individuals for vandalism or assault.
Right. deploy the Terrorism Act to ban everyone
who happens to agree with their underlying political
cause. They found that the home secretary had
failed to apply her own policy correctly when
she used a sledgehammer to crack a nut, so to
speak. So as of right now, March 2026, where
do things actually stand? Just to be clear for
everyone listening, the ban provisionally remains
in place for the moment. Yes. The newly appointed
home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, immediately
announced she would contest the ruling. She's
been granted leave to appeal, which basically
means the court has given her official permission
to challenge this ruling at the next level up
in the court of appeal. So the legal fight is
far from over. Far from it. However, the Metropolitan
Police did confirm they would stop making arrests
simply in connection with supporting Palestine
action while this gets sorted out in the courts.
This entire saga raises an incredibly important
question for us to reflect on. This deep dive
isn't just about one specific activist group
or one specific conflict in the Middle East.
It serves as a massive stress test for modern
democracy as a whole. It really does. In an era
defined by intense information flow and complex
global conflicts, how do we define the boundaries
of protest? Where does disruptive and even highly
criminal civil disobedience end? And where does
actual terrorism begin? And the way a state answers
that question dictates the health of its civil
liberties. When severe counterterrorism laws
are used to manage domestic protest and property
damage, the ripple effects touch everyone from
an activist on a roof to an author writing a
book to a person wearing a punny T -shirt on
a Saturday afternoon. Absolutely. It really forces
you to look at the future of protest differently.
I want to leave you with a final. thought to
mullover if the legal definition of terrorism
continues to expand to encompass severe property
damage and economic disruption aimed at forcing
political change What happens tomorrow when different
movements adopt these exact same tactics? It's
a great question. Imagine climate activists systematically
destroying fossil fuel infrastructure or infiltrating
oil refineries to prevent environmental collapse.
Under the precedents debated in this case, will
environmental groups be classified alongside
violent terror cells? Yeah. And taking it back
even further, if today's anti -terror laws existed
a century ago, With the suffragettes, who famously
smashed windows and set fires to secure women
the right to vote, have been locked away for
14 years as a prescribed terrorist organization.
It's a heavy question about the future of dissent,
but one we all definitely need to be asking.
It is. Thank you so much for joining us on this
deep dive. Thank you for listening.