More than 100 arrested across UK at protests related to Palestine Action
Demonstrations were held in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol and Truro on Saturday as part of a campaign coordinated by Defend Our Juries.
In London's Parliament Square, beside the Mahatma Gandhi statue, police officers surrounded people at an event at which signs were held that read 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action'.
Officers confiscated the placards and searched the bags of those arrested. Some people were carried away while others were led away in handcuffs.
The Metropolitan police said 55 people had been arrested in Parliament Square under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for displaying placards in support of Palestine Action.
The force added a further nine people were arrested for supporting Palestine Action within a separate large-scale march to Whitehall by the Palestine Coalition.
Defend Our Juries said on X: 'The UK government is complicit in Israel's genocide against Palestinians. They are attempting to silence those who expose this complicity.'
A woman who was detained in Parliament Square said: 'We demand that Palestine Action is de-proscribed.
'Our government is not only arming a genocide, they are using terrorism laws to silence people who speak out.
'Palestine Action are campaigning for peace. They are dismantling weapons factories.'
Greater Manchester police said they arrested 16 people, who remained in custody for questioning. Avon and Somerset police said 17 people were arrested during a protest in Bristol.
At Truro Cathedral in Cornwall, eight people were arrested after protesters gathered to show support for Palestine Action. .
Devon and Cornwall police said in a statement that about 30 protesters were involved in a 'peaceful' Defend Our Juries demonstration.
'A number of placards which were contrary to the law remained on display despite police advice,' the force said. 'Eight people, two men and six women, were arrested on suspicion of offences under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They remain in police custody.'
At a high court hearing on Monday, the co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, will ask for permission to challenge the home secretary's decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws.
UN experts, civil liberties groups, cultural figures and hundreds of lawyers have condemned the ban as draconian and said it sets a dangerous precedent by conflating protest with terrorism.
More than 70 people were arrested last week at demonstrations across the UK where references to Palestine Action were allegedly made.
Police Scotland arrested a man in Glasgow on Friday 'for displaying a sign expressing support for a proscribed organisation'.
The sign read 'Genocide in Palestine, time to take action' with the words 'Palestine' and 'action' larger than the others. Another man wearing a T-shirt with the same slogan was charged with a similar offence last weekend at the TRNSMT music festival in Glasgow.
The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced plans to ban Palestine Action last month, days after activists from the group broke into RAF Brize Norton and defaced two military aircraft with spray paint.
The ban means Palestine Action has become the first direct action protest group to be banned under the Terrorism Act, placing it in the same category as Islamic State, al-Qaida and the far-right group National Action.
The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know.
If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods.
Secure Messaging in the Guardian app
The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said.
If you don't already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select 'Secure Messaging'.
SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post
See our guide at theguardian.com/tips for alternative methods and the pros and cons of each.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
Woman hit by car in Northampton left seriously hurt
A pedestrian was seriously injured when she was hit by a car, which then struck two parked vehicles. The woman, who is in her 40s, was hit by a black Nissan Juke in Semilong Road, Northampton, at 21:20 BST on Saturday. The car then hit a Vauxhall Astra and a Saab. The woman was taken to University Hospital Coventry, Northamptonshire Police said. It has asked for anyone with CCTV, doorbell or dashcam footage of the incident to get in touch. Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Storm brews over Nationwide chief executive's pay package worth up to £7m
It has been a career-defining summer for Debbie Crosbie. Three years after taking over as the chief executive of Nationwide Building Society, the straight-talking Glaswegian has become a darling of the Labour government: awarded a damehood, namechecked in the chancellor's Mansion House speech and hailed for furthering a Labour party manifesto pledge to double the size of the mutuals sector. But outside Westminster's warm embrace, a storm has been brewing. A 43% increase to Crosbie's maximum pay package, worth up to £7m per year, is due to be rubber-stamped without a binding vote by members, effectively sidelining any opposition at Nationwide's annual shareholder meeting on Friday. It has prompted outrage among campaigners who say it is the latest sign that the 140-year-old building society is losing its way. Those critics believe Nationwide, which was founded in 1884 in south London as the Southern Co-operative Permanent Building Society, has deviated from its roots. Although owned by its members, it bought Virgin Money for £2.9bn last year without asking for their approval and critics claim it is centralising power at the top while diluting the voice of its members. But the industry is backing Crosbie, recognising the 55-year-old former TSB boss's role in pulling the sector into the political limelight. 'The truth is that mutuals have often been seen as niche: a 'nice to have but not essential',' says Peter Hunt, the founder of UK-based mutuals consultancy Mutuo. Now industry bosses are hosted at No 10 summer garden parties and asked to join a government-run Mutual and Cooperative Sector Business Council. This autumn, ministers will launch a consultation on how to double the size of the sector, in line with Labour's manifesto pledge. This kind of state-level attention, Hunt says, 'has moved the dial'. It is a sign that the sector has finally recovered from a wave of demutualisations in the 1990s that turned the likes of Abbey National, Bradford & Bingley, Halifax and Northern Rock into shareholder-owned banks. It was a blow to the UK's building societies movement, which traces its history back to Birmingham in 1775 when a group of friends, desperate to get on the housing ladder, pooled their resources to buy land and building materials. But by the time the 2008 financial crisis erupted, most demutualised firms were either acquired or nationalised through state bailouts. It left survivors such as Nationwide proud of how their simpler, more risk-averse business models, focused on savings and home loans, survived the financial implosion. Seventeen years later, Nationwide is the jewel in the sector's crown, with 17 million members and £368bn in assets. It is the second largest mortgage provider behind Lloyds, with a 12.5% share of the market. 'Nationwide is a domestically systemic banking institution,' the Building Societies Association (BSA) chief executive, Robin Fieth, says. 'It gives scale and importance to the whole of our sector.' But some believe Nationwide's growth has come at the expense of its democratic roots. While building societies centre on the idea of 'one member, one vote', there has been 'a boiling frog problem', according to James Sherwin-Smith, a longtime Nationwide customer who has campaigned to join the board as a voice for members. He says Nationwide has been 'debasing … member rights … despite all the lovely positive PR that Nationwide puts out about having your say, and that they're a beacon for mutual good. When I scratch the surface of that, I do not find substance.' Fury erupted last year over Nationwide's decision to not hold a member vote over its takeover of Virgin Money, while the takeover target's own shareholders had a say. But there are other longstanding issues, including Nationwide's use of 'quick vote' options, which make it easier to back the board's recommendations rather than cast individual or dissenting votes at its annual general meeting. There are also concerns that Nationwide has retained online-only AGMs, even after Covid lockdowns were lifted, in a move that risks disenfranchising members without internet access. Meanwhile, some members say it can be difficult to get a resolution or election on the ballot, requiring 250 to 500 endorsements from members, whose contact details can be a challenge to access due to data rules. Their signatures only qualify under strict conditions and can be disqualified if their balances or loans fall below a certain level – £100 or £200 in most cases – over the preceding two years. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Edwin Fisher of the Building Societies Members Association says that while Nationwide is the biggest of the mutuals sector, it is also the 'most controversial, and has, in our opinion, the lowest standards of corporate governance'. 'They regularly churn out the line that members are the owners, but we all know that members have no say in anything,' Fisher adds, noting that if the UK faced another wave of demutualisation, Nationwide 'would be ripe' to exit. Nationwide has not expressed any intention of demutualising. But its board says banker-level pay is necessary if it hopes to compete with the likes of Lloyds and NatWest. Fisher says members only want Nationwide to compete with banks on size, but not on pay or purpose. Furthermore, Nationwide's operations are far less complex than most banks: Crosbie does not have to manage an investment bank or international operations, nor relationships with shareholders. Even after the Virgin Money takeover, it remains a much simpler operation focused on mortgages. But Hunt says it would be inappropriate to measure Crosbie and her pay against bosses at much smaller building societies. 'She's the Lionel Messi of British building societies,' he said. 'And she could play for any of the banks, so this is how they keep her in the Nationwide shirt.' The problem for democratically minded members is that the Building Societies Act may not be fit for Nationwide's size. It means that, unlike its listed bank rivals, Nationwide is not required to hold binding votes on new pay proposals, like the one that could hand Crosbie up to £7m. While it could volunteer to hold a binding vote, Nationwide has refused. When asked whether the Building Societies Association would support reforming the act, Fieth said 'it's not a measure we'd oppose' but admitted it was not 'No 1 on our shopping list'. Hunt also questioned whether members were 'equipped' to have a binding say on pay. 'If I was a member of Nationwide, how would I be equipped to know what any executive should get paid? How would I know? Just because I didn't like the number? If you had a vote on MPs' pay, I guarantee you the vast majority of the public will want them to [be paid] less,' he said. (The basic salary for an MP is £93,904.) Fieth echoed that argument, saying some members 'found it difficult' to relate to the sums involved. 'When you've got a balance sheet that's £300bn, most people can't compute that at all.' He said members should still be asking questions, but needed to keep long-term performance and innovation in mind. 'Henry Ford said that if you'd asked people what they wanted at the beginning of the 20th century, they'd have said faster horses.' Sherwin-Smith said it was the board's burden to keep members informed. 'They should educate people and let them [hold a binding] vote, but to say you're too stupid to have a say is the wrong attitude.' Nationwide declined the Guardian's interview requests, but said it regularly engages with a panel of 6,500 members and surveys 500,000 members each year. It also said members have a chance to vote to re-elect board directors every year. 'From the extensive engagement that we have with our members, we cannot see any evidence that our leading customer service, support for first-time buyers, growing market shares and record member financial value is in any way controversial,' Nationwide said. It previously said pay proposals although advisory, 'always received overwhelming member support' and that Nationwide's strong performance was driven in part by its ability to 'attract, retain and motivate talented leaders.'
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump has every right to berate the technocrats
Knucklehead or numbskull? Donald Trump uses both terms to describe Jerome Powell, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve. It depends on which day of the week it is. His attacks on Powell are now so frequent they have lost the power to shock, but imagine the horror if Sir Keir Starmer started regularly describing Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, as a nitwit or a simpleton. Or if France's president, Emmanuel Macron, were to refer to Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank, as a 'nigaud' or 'crétin'. Imagine also if they let it be known that they were examining ways of ridding themselves of their troublesome monetary priests, as Trump has done in the US. The entire political and economic establishment would be up in arms and there would be mayhem in the bond markets. Yet Trump is Trump and iconoclasm comes with the territory. Trump's bark may in practice turn out to be worse than his bite. It often does. It is none the less worth considering whether in this instance he might not have a point. Looked at objectively, the unwritten understanding that presiding governments should never criticise their central banks is one of the modern world's more absurd conventions. Of course, we all know how it came about. It was part of a much wider shift in which key parts of government were removed from direct political control and vested instead with independent technocrats. Free from the need to win elections, it was argued, these arms-length bodies would do a much better job than the politicians in keeping things on the straight and narrow. In Britain, granting the Bank of England independent control of monetary policy, was very much part of the then-Labour government's attempt to sanitise itself with markets and present the UK as a trusted and stable monetary regime that had finally put its post-war inflationary past behind it. As with most other central banks, independence has been buttressed by provisions that make it virtually impossible to sack the incumbent governor except in the case of madness or misfeasance. Much as he would like to dismiss Powell, even Trump has struggled to find a way around these guardrails. The ballooning costs of renovating the Federal Reserve's grandiose Washington headquarters may be evidence of public sector waste and incompetence but it is not, on the face of it, a case of outright fraud. All the same, the lavish nature of the Fed's refurbishment touches a chord that characterises central banks as out of control, unaccountable and often just plain wrong. And now they build themselves palaces and cathedrals as symbols of the once-ruling idolatry. Admittedly, Trump's own vulgar redecoration of the Oval Office in his trademark gold chintz is in some respects just as bad, even if far less expensive. But at least Trump is elected, while Powell is a mere appointee. This in itself is causing much amusement, for in this week describing Powell as a 'terrible' chairman, Trump added that he was 'surprised he was appointed', seeming to forget that it was he who originally chose him. He soon regretted it and, by the end of Trump's first presidency, the two were barely on speaking terms.
