
So this is what it's come to: arresting pensioners and priests
Their crime was to hold placards reading: 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.'
Among the 29 arrested was 83-year-old Reverend Sue Parfitt, taken away by police while wearing her dog collar.
Palestine Action is now proscribed as a terror organisation. Members broke into RAF Brize Norton and sprayed two military planes red. For that, it is now on an equal footing with the IRA.
The terror label means that even showing support for Palestine Action can lead to 14 years in prison.
Our Government has gone through the looking glass when it comes to Gaza.
Read more from Neil Mackay
To stand in the street and protest what you believe to be genocide, to offer support to an organisation which has been labelled a terror gang itself for protesting what it believes to be genocide, is now enough to get you carted away by the police in Britain in 2025.
There's a craziness about this. Rather than discuss what is happening in Gaza, rather than debate how our Government is behaving regarding Gaza, rather than focus on the death, the bombing, the hunger, we're fixated on sideshows about singers causing outrage at Glastonbury, and arresting old ladies.
The wilful blindness is absurd. The silencing runs deep. The BBC refused to air one of the most important documentaries of recent years, the film Gaza: Doctors Under Attack.
Channel 4 stepped in after the BBC claimed the documentary could create 'a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect'.
Channel 4 said the film was 'meticulously reported' and 'deserves to be widely seen'. It was, according to the channel's head of news and current affairs, subject to 'rigorous fact-checking' and presented an 'impartial view'.
The channel had a 'duty to tell important journalistic stories – especially those that aren't being told elsewhere'.
The film was among the most harrowing and horrifying ever aired on British television. Yet our national broadcaster chose to keep it from public sight. Instead, Channel 4 assumed the mantle of national broadcaster.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy wants BBC staff fired over the decision to air a separate Gaza documentary narrated by the child of a Hamas official.
The Mail on Sunday ran a front page headline reading "Now arrest punk band who led 'Death to Israelis' chants at Glastonbury". The band in question is Bob Vylan.
It's important to note – in these days of silencing – that the band did not chant "death to Israelis", but "death to the IDF". Accuracy matters, as does the deliberate elision.
Perhaps musicians court controversy simply for controversy's sake, perhaps they speak out as they have deeply-held beliefs they wish to tell the world.
Either way, the thoughts, words and deeds of minor celebrities should not be given greater importance in our news agenda that the reality of what is happening in Gaza.
Reports about Bob Vylan jostled alongside reports of starving Palestinians shot at food distribution centres. There should be no such equivalence.
At times, the average citizen must doubt their sanity. Why are we talking about punk bands when Francesca Albanese – who holds the post of United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories – is talking about the need for global corporations to be held accountable for 'profiting from genocide' in Gaza?
Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, says Gaza is 'hell on Earth', and 'humanity is failing'. She added that 'the fact that we are watching a people entirely stripped of its human dignity, it should really shock our collective conscience.'
In Britain, though, it seems we wish either silence or distraction. Our Government and our media have lost all sense of reality when it comes to Gaza.
The public simply wants honest reporting, political and moral decency, and an open debate. These are not dangerous nor difficult requests.
There is an historic duty on humanity right now. If we cannot find a moral and peaceable solution to what's happening in Gaza then we open the door to a monstrous future for ourselves and our children.
If the rules of war can be rewritten in Gaza, they can be rewritten anywhere. If, in the future, some conflict should break out in Europe with Russia, or in the Pacific involving China, then what is happening now in Gaza becomes a template for the rules of engagement in years to come.
Our behaviour today shapes tomorrow. Indeed, we are reminded of that truth this week, as we mark the 20th anniversary of the 7-7 London terror attacks.
There have been calls for Bob Vylan to be arrested (Image: PA)
At the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, anyone with a brain was predicting that this illegal war would bring terror to British streets. The 2005 attacks proved those fears valid.
As the 20th anniversary rolled round, the former head of counter-terrorism with the Met Police, Neil Basu, said the Iraq war 'made extremists of people who might not have been radicalised'. Foreign policy and Iraq was a 'driver of the 7-7 attacks', he said.
The act of silencing is itself radicalising. Anger and fear are bottled up and become channelled in dangerous ways. By telling people not to speak – on an issue as deeply felt as Gaza – the Government risks creating a pressure cooker of rage.
It's notable that many now keen on silencing portrayed themselves as champions of free speech for years. They were never interested in the free speech of others, only themselves.
Gaza is the greatest test our Government and media face. Trust is on life support in this country. If the Government and media cannot deal honestly with Gaza then trust will die. Once all trust is gone, then we have nothing to hold us together.
Neil Mackay is The Herald's Writer-at-Large. He's a multi-award-winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Princess Kate 'icing on the cake' in King Charles plan as hidden royals step up
The royals were out in full force for this week's French state visit, and royal expert Jennie Bond has revealed how Princess Kate will be instrumental for similar events going forward While King Charles and Emmanuel Macron were the stars of the recent French state visit, the work of three major royals also played an important role in representing the Firm. Princess Kate, Princess Anne, and Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester all stepped up during the three-day affair, with the hard-working royal women all playing a key part of two major events. While Princess Kate made headlines for her stunning red ensemble, Princess Anne and the Duchess of Gloucester also received their own recognition for their glamorous looks at both Tuesday night's state banquet, and Wednesday night's banquet on the second day of the President's visit. Many were quick to comment on Princess Anne's new hairstyle, as royal commentators pointed out that she had been sporting the same up-do for decades, while the Duchess of Gloucester was named the best dressed during a banquet at Guildhall on Wednesday evening, which was hosted by the Lord Mayor and City of London Corporation. With another major state visit just around the corner, with plans for US president Donald Trump to visit the UK in September, royal expert Jennie Bond has outlined how all three women, particularly Kate, will be instrumental for the upcoming visit. The former BBC royal correspondent told the Mirror that the Princess of Wales will have an important role when Trump arrives on UK shores, explaining: "Catherine will be the icing on the cake for a man as vain as Donald Trump. To be seen with her will be gold dust in his eyes. And I'm sure she will be there to massage his ego in the most diplomatic, subtle and regal way." Jennie also said that Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, and Princess Anne will play key roles during the US state visit, saying: "I'm sure that Birgitte will be on hand again when President Trump comes to the UK. After so many years in the Royal Family, she is well versed in the niceties of a State Visit." "And the Princess Royal will also have a key role, as always. She really is the King's right hand woman; his confidante, his wingwoman." When asked how Princess Anne and the Duchess of Gloucester would feel about the numerous headlines about their looks during the French state visit, Jennie Bond shared that both are "hard working, no-glory seeking women of the Royal Family", who would be more dedicated to their royal work than fixating on their appearances. Bond said: "Neither, I think, would care one fig about what anyone said about their looks. They dress appropriately for the business of the occasion. Neither seeks to be the centre of the attention, even though they often are. They want the focus to be on the business or cause or campaign in hand. And both have one aim: to support the institution of monarchy." "Anne and Birgitte are stalwarts on the royal treadmill. They work hard, ask for no recognition, almost shun publicity…and just get on with the job. The Royal Family has slimmed down drastically through a combination of circumstances— and so these two more than pull their weight each week. Quietly and in a business-like way. And that is a huge help for the King."


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why becoming a republic would be financially stupid
Leave aside what you think of the social merits of the Royal Family and look at the economics. £130 million is a lot of money, about half a CalMac ferry in fact. That money would be better spent on the health service etc etc say the detractors. Read More: The reality is that if we didn't have a Royal Family then in purely financial terms we should invent one. Looked as a business the Royal Family is a market leading and highly profitable British product, with large export earnings and no effective competition. The Royal Family doesn't cost us a penny; it is hugely profitable for Britain and contributes to our national income many times more than it costs. Take non-doms as another example. People from elsewhere who live in this country but pay less tax than British people do. Seems unfair so let's nail them for more tax. Exactly what Rachel Reeves has done but now it is dawning on her that driving these people away by taxing more of their earnings and assets means we collect less tax rather than more. Why would an Indian Citizen who bases themselves in Britain and pays full tax on their British income and assets stay here if we want to charge Inheritance Tax on their global assets when India and lots of other places don't have Inheritance Tax? The answer is that they would be crazy to stay and, in many cases reluctantly, they are leaving. So less tax revenue for us here. Well done Rachel. (Image: PA) What Governments have got to focus on is increasing the amount of tax we actually get not pandering to people's prejudices by turning the screw on people they are envious of. Becoming a republic would be tragic in many ways but it would also be financially stupid. The non-dom tax regime needs to be looked at again. We want people from other countries who can contribute very positively to our economy to base themselves here, we want more of them not fewer. Governments need to realise that people who have very significant wealth tend to have interests in many countries. Basing themselves in Britain is a choice they make rather than something they can be compelled to do. Rachel Reeves needs to realise this and act sensibly. So what about Scotland? What can we do here other than continue to demand more money and more powers which we then misuse? Scotland has control over its own income tax rates and so far, other than virtue signalling tweaking at the bottom end to give lower paid workers a few extra pence a month, it has chosen to increase income tax rates so that somebody earning from about £45,000 upwards pays markedly more tax than they would elsewhere in the UK. Nigel Farage has come up with an idea for the UK to charge non-doms a one-off £250,000 fee and then distribute this money directly to lower earners. Gimmicky it is but entirely daft it isn't. Scotland could learn from it. Only about 30,000 taxpayers in Scotland pay the top rate of tax which starts at income of roughly £125,000. The exact number is not available but the number of Scots earning over £500,000 will be vanishingly small, perhaps only 1,000 people, certainly less than 5,000. What if we could attract a net additional 10,000 very high earners by putting a cap of £250,000 on the amount of Scottish income tax anybody resident in Scotland has to pay? To pay that amount of tax you would have to earn just over £500,000. If we could do this we would raise the tax collected in Scotland by £2.5 billion pounds every year. Nobody already here would pay more, nobody loses out, it's pure good news. Read More: This boost is before the positive knock-on effect of those extra taxpayers spending money on goods and services in Scotland which in turn creates more jobs and tax revenue to pay for public services. The rest of the UK cannot follow us down this road because it has too much to lose because there are so many more very high earners already there. You could argue that the £250,000 cap on tax payment is too high. A taxpayer paying £100,000 in tax is contributing more than 20 times as much as an average earner. "But it's not progressive" the socialists will wail. Indeed it is not. It's just smart. Our public services in Scotland are crumbling and our tax rates are stifling enterprise and driving people away. If we could attract very high earners to make their homes in Scotland - 10,000 seems a relatively modest target - we could transform our ability to fund public services as well as attract people who will help our nation's economy grow. Why not give it a try? Guy Stenhouse is a notable figure in the Scottish financial sector. He has held various positions, including being the Managing Director of Noble Grossart, an independent merchant bank based in Edinburgh, until 2017


Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle 'relieved' over French state visit despite King's 'snub'
King Charles delivered a powerful message to his son Prince William at the state banquet on Tuesday, marking the end of the final day of the French state visit to the UK. King Charles delivered a poignant message to his son Prince William during the state banquet on Tuesday, which marked the conclusion of the French state visit to the UK. The lavish banquet, graced by the presence of French President Emmanuel Macron, his wife Brigitte, the Prince and Princess of Wales, along with hundreds of other distinguished guests, took place at Windsor Castle. Here, the King gave an emotive speech reflecting on the Royal family's ties with France. In his heartfelt address, King Charles expressed his affection for his eldest son, Prince William, commending his choice to set up his family residence in Windsor, highlighting the significance of the location due to its Norman roots. "The castle in which we meet this evening was begun by my ancestor - and your sometime countryman - William, Duke of Normandy, in the year 1070," Charles remarked. "It remains the oldest and largest occupied castle in the world. "So it is perhaps rather appropriate that my son, the Prince of Wales, who shares that earlier William's name, has made Windsor his home with his family, like so many of our predecessors," the King continued, reports the Mirror. Observers were quick to note that the King's speech did not reference his younger son, Prince Harry, who stepped back from Royal duties in 2020 alongside his wife Meghan Markle and moved permanently to California. While some interpreted the omission of Prince Harry from King Charles's speech as a pointed 'snub', Royal commentator Jennie Bond has offered a different perspective. The ex-BBC Royal correspondent believes the King's address was nothing out of the ordinary. Speaking to The Mirror, Jennie Bond remarked: "I don't think it is significant at all that there was no mention of Harry. It would have been very odd indeed for the King to have mentioned him during a State occasion which was all about Anglo French relations." Bond further explained: "His reference to William was simply because of his name, the castle and its association with the Duke of Normandy. In no way was this any kind of snub." On whether the Sussexes might feel slighted by their exclusion from the King's speech and the French state visit, Jennie commented: "I don't imagine Harry or Meghan will have paid much attention to the Macron visit." She added: "If they did, they would probably feel relieved that they don't have to get dressed up and perform what is a very delicate and probably quite stressful diplomatic duty." The relationship between Prince Harry and King Charles has been notably tense over recent years, which could explain why the monarch chose not to mention the Duke of Sussex in his formal remarks. Prince Harry has expressed to the BBC his desire for "love a reconciliation" with his father, although he has suggested that King Charles is unwilling to engage in conversation with him. "There's no point continuing to fight anymore, life is precious," Harry remarked, further noting that he has "forgiven" them for their numerous "disagreements."