Palestine Action block entry to weapons manufacturer ahead of proscription
The group covered the building in red paint to 'symbolise Palestinian bloodshed'.
In Suffolk, activists also occupied the rooftop of UK subcontractor Guardtech Group, posting an Instagram video stating that the firm is 'a subsidiary factory to Elbit Systems, the largest supplier of weapons to Israel'.
READ MORE: Frankie Boyle and Tilda Swinton call for Labour not to ban Palestine Action
It comes as a draft order was laid before Parliament to amend the Terrorism Act 2000 to include Palestine Action as a proscribed organisation.
If approved, it would become a criminal offence to support or be part of the group, carrying a possible jail sentence of up to 14 years.
MPs and peers are expected to debate the legislation on Wednesday and Thursday, and the ban could come into action as soon as Friday if approved.
A Palestine Action spokesperson said: 'While the Government is rushing through Parliament absurd legislation to proscribe Palestine Action, the real terrorism is being committed in Gaza.
'Palestine Action affirms that direct action is necessary in the face of Israel's ongoing crimes against humanity of genocide, apartheid, and occupation, and to end British facilitation of those crimes.'
A spokeswoman for Avon and Somerset Police confirmed to PA News Agency that officers were called to Elbit Systems in Bristol at around 6.30am on Tuesday.
'Officers are responding to a protest involving two people at a premises at the Aztec West Business Park, in Almondsbury,' the spokeswoman said.
'We're committed to facilitating people's right to peaceful protest, but will not tolerate any criminal behaviour.'
READ MORE: LIVE UPDATES: Keir Starmer faces Labour rebellion in crunch welfare cuts vote
Palestine Action is seeking a legal challenge against the Government's plans to proscribe it, with a hearing expected on Friday to decide if the ban can be temporarily blocked, pending further proceedings to determine whether or not a legal challenge can be brought.
A number of celebrities have now signed an open letter urging the Government not to proscribe Palestine Action, which states: 'Palestine Action is intervening to stop a genocide. It is acting to save life.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
9 minutes ago
- Sky News
Trump warns Hamas - and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza
Donald Trump has said Israel has agreed on terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, and is urging Hamas to accept the deal before conditions worsen. The US president announced the development ahead of hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for talks at the White House next week. He has been increasing pressure on the Israeli government and Hamas to work out a ceasefire and hostage agreement to end the war. "My Representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis today on Gaza. Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalise the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War," Mr Trump wrote on social media - adding that Qatari and Egyptian officials would deliver the final proposal. "I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better - IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE." Analysis: Many unanswered questions remain In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment. For the people of Gaza, for the hostages and their families - this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times. The key question - will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire? At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: "Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position - Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock." The source added: "Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate." The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump - which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to - may just amount to Israel's already-established position. We don't know the details and conditions attached to Israel's proposals. Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel's jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don't know the answers to any of these questions, except one. We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It's all about domestic politics. If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government. Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Mr Netanyahu's coalition. If Mr Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days - which domestically he can sell as just a pause - then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer. It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Mr Netanyahu's corruption trial to be scrapped. Without the prospect of jail, Mr Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Starmer wins vote on UK welfare reform but suffers damaging rebellion
LONDON, July 1 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer won a vote on his welfare plans on Tuesday at significant political cost as he suffered the biggest parliamentary rebellion of his premiership and was forced to back down on key parts of the package. After his lawmakers pushed him into a series of embarrassing U-turns to sharply scale back plans to cut benefits, lawmakers in the House of Commons gave their initial approval to a package of measures Starmer says are vital to securing the future of the welfare system. But the scale of the rebellion - with 49 Labour lawmakers voting against the reforms - underlined the prime minister's waning authority. A year after winning one of the largest parliamentary majorities in British history, Starmer has seen his personal approval ratings collapse and been forced into several policy reversals by his increasingly rebellious lawmakers. "It's been a bumpy time tonight," work and pensions minister Liz Kendall told reporters after a session of parliament when lawmakers took turns to mostly criticise the planned changes. "There are definitely lessons to learn from this process." Starmer came into office last year promising his big parliamentary majority would bring an end to the political chaos that defined much of the Conservative Party's 14 years in power. But the revolt over the welfare bill underlines the difficulty he has pushing through unpopular changes. In the run-up to the vote, ministers and party enforcers known as "whips" had been locked in frantic last-ditch lobbying of undecided members of parliament to try to win their backing. In a further concession to rebels about two hours before the vote, the government said it would not finalise changes in eligibility for a key benefit payment until a review into the welfare system had been completed. Paula Barker, a Labour member of parliament, called the attempt to pass the plans "the most unedifying spectacle that I have ever seen". In the end, the government suffered by far the biggest rebellion of Starmer's premiership, eclipsing the 16 members of parliament who opposed an infrastructure bill earlier this month. Mel Stride, the opposition Conservative Party finance policy chief, described Starmer's team as "a government that's lost control", only able to pass the legislation by having "ripped the heart of it out". Labour lawmaker Henry Tufnell said by agreeing to the concessions Starmer had shown "he's willing to take on board these criticisms that people have raised." Almost 90 disability and human rights groups before the vote urged lawmakers to vote down the legislation. The proposed reforms are designed to reduce the cost of Britain's growing welfare bill, which the government has described as economically indefensible and morally wrong. Annual spending on incapacity and disability benefits already exceeds the country's defence budget and is set to top 100 billion pounds ($137 billion) by 2030, according to official forecasts, up from 65 billion pounds now. More than half of the rise in working-age disability claims since the COVID-19 pandemic relates to mental health conditions, opens new tab, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank. The government had initially hoped to save 5 billion pounds ($6.9 billion) a year by 2030 by tightening rules for people to receive disability and sickness benefits. But after the government conceded to pressure from its lawmakers, it said the new rules would now apply only to future applicants, not to the millions of existing claimants as had been proposed. Analysts estimated the savings would likely be closer to 2 billion pounds. It was not clear how the additional last-minute change would impact the hoped-for savings in the welfare reform package. Opposition politicians said the government would now have to raise taxes or cut government spending elsewhere to balance the public finances in the annual budget later this year. The government has said there would be no permanent increase in borrowing, but has declined to comment on possible tax rises. While Starmer is under no immediate threat, and the next election is not expected until 2029, his party now trails behind Nigel Farage's populist Reform UK in opinion polls. John Curtice, Britain's most respected pollster, said this week that Starmer was the most unpopular elected prime minister in modern British history, and that voters still did not know what he stood for a year after he was elected.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Why govt's promise of 'biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation' may be overblown
Angela Rayner is set to announce plans to build 180,000 new social homes in the next decade, as the government seeks to "turn the tide on the housing crisis". It would be six times greater than the number of social homes built in the 10 years up to 2024 - and forms part of a drive to build 300,000 new social and affordable properties by 2035. The plan is backed by a £39bn investment announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in last month's spending review. 2:29 The deputy prime minister called on the social housing sector to "work together to turn the tide of the housing crisis", and said the investment was "the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation". "We are seizing this golden opportunity with both hands to transform this country by building the social and affordable homes we need, so we create a brighter future where families aren't trapped in temporary accommodation and young people are no longer locked out of a secure home," she said. Ms Rayner's target for social and affordable housing is part of a wider long-term plan - also due to be published on Wednesday - setting out how the government will build both more houses and improve housing standards. Here, Sky News looks at what the plan will mean for the country, how it compares to previous programmes, and how it could be affected by the increased cost of construction. 3:17 Crunching the numbers The £39bn 10-year Affordable Homes Programme is an ambitious investment in affordable housing, representing a real terms increase from the previous programme of over £1bn annually. However, claims of the "biggest boost in a generation" may be slightly overblown. When factoring in inflation, the annual investment of £3.9bn falls short of the equivalent £4.5bn annually from 2008 to 2011 under the previous Labour government. This was however a notably short-term uplift, and the sector will welcome the stability of the new settlement which secures funding for 10 years - compared with five years or fewer under previous programmes. The programme sets out to deliver 30,000 affordable homes per year on average, with at least 18,000 of those being for social rent, rather than other tenures such as shared ownership. This would be more than twice the number under the previous programme, which is estimated to have delivered about 8,000 homes annually for social rent by its completion. Similarly, however, it is fewer than were delivered by the previous Labour Affordable Homes Programme, which was over 30,000 a year from 2008 to 2011. A further challenge to the government's goal of a "generational" uplift is the increasing cost of building, meaning they may face diminishing returns on their investment. The previous Affordable Homes Programme initially aimed to deliver 180,000 homes, which was revised down significantly to between 110,000 and 130,000 due to increasing costs and delays. This government can expect to face a similar economic landscape, particularly with an ambition to deliver a greater share of socially rented homes - the most expensive type of affordable housing to build.
