Jeremy Clarkson blasts 'chinless losers with an aerosol can' at Brize Norton

Yahoo

17 hours ago

Jeremy Clarkson has hit out at 'chinless losers with an aerosol can'.
The journalist and Chipping Norton farmer has blasted Palestine Action following their alleged vandalism at RAF Brize Norton last month.
Writing in his column for The Sun, the former Top Gear and Grand Tour Host criticised the decision to label the group a terrorist organisation.
He wrote: 'One of the (many) ­mistakes George Bush made after the 9/11 attacks was describing the hijackers as ­'terrorists'.
'This is something the British learned during the Troubles in Northern ­Ireland. Never refer to the bombers as terrorists. It makes them sound important.
READ MORE:
'It's better to refer to them as 'criminals'. Which makes them sound like shoplifters.
'We seem to have ­forgotten this simple thing now, though, because the group that strolled into Brize Norton air base last week and spray-painted those jets are about to be listed as a terrorist organisation.
'No it isn't. It's just a bunch of chinless losers with an aerosol can. And that's a long way from the Red Brigade.'
The ban Palestine Action has come into force from today, designating it as a terror group after a late-night legal bid to delay it failed.
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group 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 worth of damage.
In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries.
Help support trusted local news
Sign up for a digital subscription now: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/subscribe/
As a digital subscriber you will get:
Unlimited access to the Oxford Mail website
Advert-light access
Reader rewards
Full access to our app
They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.'
The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight.
Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000.
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.
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.
Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block.
Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight.
The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid.
In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law.
'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.'
They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.'
In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.'
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block.
She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.'
She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'.
Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.'
She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'.
Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.