29 people arrested at protest in support of banned Palestine Action
Palestine Action lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday which sought to stop the protest group being banned, less than two hours before the new legislation came into force at midnight.
The designation as a terror group means that membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million of damage.
The force posted on X saying: 'Officers are responding to a protest in support of Palestine Action in Parliament Square.
'The group is now proscribed and expressing support for them is a criminal offence. Arrests are being made.
'Further updates will be shared here.'
The Met later posted: 'UPDATE: Officers have arrested more than 20 people on suspicion of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.
'They have been taken into custody.
'Palestine Action is a proscribed group and officers will act where criminal offences are committed.'
The force posted another update on X on Saturday evening to say 29 arrests had been made and added that they remain in custody.
A group had earlier said it was set to gather in Parliament Square on Saturday holding signs supporting Palestine Action, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries.
In a letter to the Home Secretary, protesters said: 'We do not wish to go to prison or to be branded with a terrorism conviction, but we refuse to be cowed into silence by your order.'
Leslie Tate, 76, a Green councillor from Hertfordshire, said: 'Palestine Action are not a violent organisation, and the proscription is wrong.
'You do know, of course, that they were proscribed by Parliament with two other groups involved – all three at once – so that was a trick to make sure the Bill went through.
'The evidence from their actions that they've taken from the start of Palestine Action is that they all have been non-violent.
'This protest is necessary to defend our democracy, and this is the creeping edge of totalitarianism, frankly.
'We thought they (the police) would probably take pictures of people. It's the obvious thing to do, to photograph them, then they have their identity, rather than make arrests.'
Metropolitan Police circled around dozens of protesters standing quietly beneath the statue of Mahatma Gandhi, with placards that said: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action'.
Occasional chants of 'free Palestine' broke out from the surrounding onlookers, and some criticised the police attending.
The protest started at about 1.10pm and officers were seen taking people away shortly after 1.30pm.
Reverend Sue Parfitt, 83, who was sat in a camp chair with a placards at her feet, appeared to have been taken away by officers.
A woman seen lying on the ground in handcuffs was lifted by officers and put in a police van.
While flanked by a large group of police, she said calmly: 'Free Palestine, stop the genocide, I oppose genocide, I support the rights of the Palestinian people, I support freedom of speech, I support freedom of assembly.'
Several people crowded around to film the arrest as officers placed the woman in the vehicle parked on the road behind the square, before returning to the Mahatma Gandhi statue, where almost no protesters remained.
Chants of 'shame' broke out, directed at the police, most of whom had dispersed by 2.10pm.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'.
MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday.
Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident at RAF Brize Norton.
They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Proscription of organisation won't end the debate around terror laws
This proscription has sweeping consequences – not only for activists formerly associated with the group, but for anyone expressing supportive views about its activities, sceptical feelings about its proscription, or displaying logos associated with the group. All of these activities can potentially expose you to significant criminal liability and risk of punishment under the Terrorism Act. In defence of this decision, Yvette Cooper argued that 'proscription is ideologically neutral', and that the UK Government is only 'demonstrating its zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology'. READ MORE: More than 20 people arrested at protest in support of Palestine Action This is reflected, she said, by the simultaneous bans imposed on two neo-Nazi groups, including a group describing itself as the Russian Imperial Movement and another called the Maniacs Murder Cult. But you might well think that one of these organisations is not quite like the others. Founded in July 2020, Palestine Action describes itself as a 'grassroots, direct action network' committed to disrupting arms sales from Britain to Israel. One of the founders of the organisation, Huda Ammori, made an emergency application to the High Court last week, asking for the proscription order to be suspended. Ammori's application for interim relief failed, and as of yesterday, Palestine Action is now a proscribed terrorist organisation. In her evidence, Ammori characterised the organisation's aims as 'to prevent serious violations of international law by Israel against the Palestinian people, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid and genocide, and the aiding, abetting and facilitation thereof by others, including corporate actors' and 'to expose and target property and premises connected to such crimes and violation'. This disruption has most recently extended to RAF property, with the group claiming responsibility for gaining access to the Royal Air Force Base at Brize Norton last month, taking the opportunity to damage the engines and exteriors of two Voyager jets with red paint and crowbars. The Home Secretary also cites Palestine Action's 2022 at Thales UK in Govan as justification for the proscription. A small group of activists scaled a roof wearing red overalls, unfurled banners, and set off smoke bombs at the military equipment manufacturer. They have since been convicted of public order and property offences in Glasgow Sheriff Court, without any need to mobilise the Terrorism Act at all. Terrorism may be conventionally understood as the use of violence, especially against civilians, to pursue ideological ends, but as the High Court pointed out this week, UK law adopts a much broader definition of who can properly be classified as a terrorist. Blair-era legislation provides that actions taken for the purpose of advancing a political cause can be sanctioned as terrorism, 'if it involves serious damage to property, even if it does not involve violence against any person or endanger life or create a risk to health or safety'. 'In this respect,' as Mr Justice Chamberlain observed on Friday, 'the statutory concept is wider than the colloquial meaning of the term.' This gap has potential consequences. While Chamberlain emphasised that it is not the 'court's function to comment on the wisdom of the use of the power in this case,' it is difficult not to detect a degree of judicial scepticism in the reflection that the Home Secretary's decision to exercise this power 'in respect of a group such as Palestine Action may also have wider consequences for the way the public understands the concept of terrorism and for public confidence in the regime of the 2000 Act'. This point was picked up in the evidence of Professor Ben Saul, reflecting on the international context. Saul is the Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism. In his submission to the High Court, Saul pointed out that 'most responsible States globally have limited terrorism designations to extremist actors engaged in grave large scale atrocities' and 'treating 'direct action' against property interests as 'terrorism' seriously over-classifies the nature of the conduct, and is fundamentally contrary to best practice international standards on the nature and scope of terrorist acts'. Doing so, he suggests, puts the UK 'out of step with comparable liberal democracies,' where 'mere property damage has seldom been a sufficient basis for designating groups as terrorist'. The Home Secretary – and the overwhelming number of MPs who voted on the proscription order – disagreed. READ MORE: David Pratt: The shadowy figures behind US-Israeli aid operation Because it is now an offence for anyone to 'belong or profess to belong' to Palestine Action, exposing anyone who does so to a fine or prison term of up to 14 years. 'Inviting support' for the organisation is now also a criminal offence. So too is expressing any 'opinion or belief that is supportive' of Palestine Action in a way which is 'reckless' and might be interpreted as encouraging an audience to support the proscribed organisation. As civil liberties organisations Amnesty International and Liberty pointed out in their High Court intervention this week, 'there is a real risk that advocacy for the de-proscription of Palestine Action could amount to one or more offences under the 2000 Act.' The consequences don't end there. The Terrorism Act and the police officers charged with enforcing it are also going to have a new interest into what you are wearing. Once an organisation has been proscribed by the British state, wearing a T-shirt, wearing a badge, or carrying a banner 'in such a way' as to 'arouse reasonable suspicion' that you support Palestine Action becomes a crime. This restriction also extends to selfies or social media posts, picturing banners or signs which could be interpreted as sympathetic to the organisation. Under section 13 of the Act, publishing an image which arouses 'reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation' can attract a prison sentence of up to six months or a fine – not to mention the wider stigmatic consequences of carrying a conviction under the Terrorism Act around with you. Anyone who organises an event after this weekend which supports a proscribed organisation, which 'furthers its activities', or which is 'addressed by a person who belongs' to such an organisation will also now commit a terrorism offence. Section 14 of the Terrorism Act defines 'terrorist property' as including any resources of a proscribed organisation. Contributing resources or donations to the organisation could now land you up to 14 years imprisonment, transforming what would have been a crowdfunding donation on Monday into 'fundraising for the purposes of terrorism' today. I came to political consciousness as an adult during the 'War on Terror' of the early Noughties. I can all too clearly remember the circular debates about how the concept of terrorism should be defined in law, concerns about ambiguous definitions, government insistence that public safety and security demanded the state and law enforcement agencies should be given more and more unstructured power above and beyond the ordinary criminal law, undiscouraged by concerns about the dangers of draconian enforcement and executive overreach. Last week's decision is guaranteed to revive these debates – but at least in terms of Palestine Action, under the long shadow of the criminal law.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Child grooming is 'catastrophic' in London, says survivor
Levels of child grooming in London are "more catastrophic" than anywhere else in the country, a care sector activist and abuse survivor has Wild said grooming and criminal exploitation are rife in the capital, and it is being missed due to poor data-sharing and underfunded services.A review by Baroness Louise Casey into child grooming gangs across England found a "mismatch" in the way the way the Metropolitan Police and local authorities record child force said it would improve data collection, while the Home Office said it was implementing the "the largest ever" package of measures to tackle child sexual abuse. According to the report, the Met logged 2.77 contact child sexual abuse cases per 1,000 children, while London boroughs recorded just 1.3 child-in-need assessments for child sexual exploitation and 1.79 for child sexual inconsistency could suggest some cases are slipping through the cracks. Mr Wild said he had worked in this sector for 10 years, predominantly in entered the care system in Halifax, West Yorkshire aged 11, following the death of his father and decline in his mother's mental health. "It wasn't just any children's home, it was a children's home run by paedophiles," he Wild has since campaigned for reforms aimed at protecting children in the care system. He said he had seen "children being groomed, children going missing, forced into county lines [drug gangs]".He believes grooming gangs in London target vulnerable children for an "expansive" range of purposes, ranging from drug dealing to prostitution. A Met Police spokesperson said "too many victims, particularly young girls, were let down" and that "policing must and will do better"."While in London we assess that criminal exploitation, such as county lines, currently poses the most prevalent threat to children, we recognise - as the review finds - that our data must improve to give a fuller picture. We are acting on this," they added. Warda Mohamed, founder of safeguarding charity Lasting Support, said the lack of consistent data fuelled public ignorance. "If people knew exactly how bad it was, with all the intercity details involved, then yes, there would be more interest," she Mohamed added that cuts to services have left vulnerable children without regular contact with adults who can spot abuse. Mr Wild called on politicians and public bodies to act to prevent the loss of another "generation of young people through ignorance".A Home Office spokesperson said they "accepted all of the recommendations" in Baroness Casey's report, including protecting children and supporting victims."They should stop being blamed for the appalling crimes committed against them."
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Paedophile behind fake Disneyland wedding ‘had 50 false identities'
A convicted paedophile who staged a series of stunts to get close to young girls has at least 50 known aliases and is under investigation for fraud, The Telegraph can reveal. Jacky Jhaj, 39, described as a 'dangerous sexual predator', has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on fake film shoots over the past five years. He was arrested in Paris last week after spending around £100,000 to conduct a fake wedding to a nine-year-old girl at Disneyland. Jhaj previously turned a National Trust property into a film set, hired the Odeon Leicester Square for a fake premiere and created a dance school for eight to 14-year-old girls at which he turned up in a Bugatti supercar to greet them. How Jhaj financed these lavish stunts has never been uncovered. Jhaj was jailed for four years in 2016 after being convicted of sexual activity with two 15-year-old girls he had picked up after driving around Hounslow, west London. He gave the girls a lift in his Range Rover, bought them meals, alcohol and gifts and pretended to be a film producer. Jhaj now faces several counts of fraud, abuse of trust, money laundering and identity theft, French prosecutors have said. The Metropolitan Police has also confirmed, for the first time, that it has opened an investigation into ' possible fraud offences' committed by Jhaj. Court documents obtained by The Telegraph, following a recent hearing at Isleworth Crown Court, reveal that the sex offender is known to use 'multiple aliases'. The documents state: '[Jhaj] has registered 50 [aliases] with the police and has been discovered to use unregistered pseudonyms. 'He has used these aliases to book female child actors from casting agencies; to book into hotels; and to organise events attended by female children. In addition, he has attempted to give false names to the police when stopped and questioned.' The court papers go on to say that '[Jhaj] has gone to great lengths and significant financial expense to engineer situations in which he is able to have contact with female children, including those under the age of 16'. The Telegraph tried to speak to Jhaj's family members, former business partners and staff who have worked on his stunts. But no one was willing, or able, to provide an explanation for his wealth. Jhaj's family home, a neat, well-maintained semi-detached with a Range Rover Vogue parked in the drive, sits within earshot of Heathrow's southern runway, on the edge of the suburb of Bedfont. Neighbours said they now rarely see the family, who were described as being 'friendly and always happy to say hello' before their youngest son's bizarre stunts and sexually predatory behaviour became widely known. One elderly neighbour said: 'I used to see the mother and father quite often, coming and going, and they were always polite and friendly. But since all this happened they've pretty much hidden away. It's a great shame.' He added: 'The father is retired and I don't know how their boy, Jaskarn, got the money to do that stuff. It must have cost a lot to hire all those people and the locations. I've no idea where he got it from. Seems crazy.' A teenage girl, who lives close to the Jhaj home, said: 'I've spoken to his sister-in-law a couple of times and she seems really nice, but I've never seen him. It's just so weird and horrible what I've read about the stuff he was doing.' The Telegraph was unable to get an answer from the family home. It also visited a number of business director's addresses registered by Jhaj with Companies House, including an apartment block in Finchley, a recently built residential development in Docklands and a nondescript terraced house in Hounslow. The properties either appeared to be uninhabited or those living there said they did not know Jhaj and had no dealings with him. 'Mourners' for fake funeral In July 2024, Jhaj pleaded guilty to two breaches of a notification order and a breach of a sexual harm prevention order, Isleworth Crown Court confirmed. The charges related to a fake film shoot he staged in Leicester Square, London, in October 2023, where 200 children and young women were recruited to appear alongside Jhaj as fans. In April 2024, he used Backstage, an internationally renowned casting platform, to hire child actors in order to stage an elaborate fake funeral, costing £10,000, at the London Oratory. The funeral was held for Lauris Zaube, a 23-year-old Latvian man who went missing after a New Year's Eve party near an iced-over dam west of Riga, Latvia. Jhaj is said to have posed as the missing man's brother, wearing dark glasses and using the name 'Clyde'. The funeral was cancelled after the 'mourners' revealed that they were actors and began complaining they had not been paid. In October, he organised a film shoot near the O2 Arena featuring a 'controlled explosion' that destroyed a fake BBC lorry.
