• ewo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago
        • The people’s front of Palestine AKA the Palestinians people’s front AKA… The name changes will cease when the facists stop being facist
        • skisnow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          60 minutes ago

          I mean ok but the drafters of the Terrorism Act did think of that already, changing your name doesn’t get you out of anything. Both the IRA and National Front were forever peeling off into splinter groups with new names back in the 20th century.

  • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 hours ago

    from what ive been hearing from the shit going on in the uk, youve been a police state for a while now.

  • Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Fuck you, government. I do not respect your existence, and day by day, am losing respect for the laws you demand we follow. Fuck your rules.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I mean, I get it. Anarchy looks so great sometimes. But I like roads and schools and hospitals and firemen; and we need to.elect someone who ensure those persist.

      And then it’s down to choosing the least-worst bunch to do that. And that’s how it’s been for decades.

      So, ask yourself: is changing out this regime and losing a bit of healthcare and a bit of infrastructure and a bit of other things that make life livable here, is that a reasonable exchange?

      If you say yes, I respect you. If you say no, I respect you. But we can’t vote single-issue: we have a choice between leadership packages, and we need to evaluate them as a whole. The yanks lost their election by voting single-issue, and ended up allowing the worst choice ever to win.

      So vote carefully.

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I don’t know maybe it is better. Yes many will die horribly but already is, just in another part of the world because of governments that are being used as tongs by billionaires

      • MJKee9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Your take is so weak. The “yanks” lost the election because of disinformation campaigns and low information voters. By placating fascist political action, all you are is delaying the inevitable decline of civilization. You’re a frog sitting in a warming pot complimenting the relaxing pond.

        • blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The Democrats lost because they fucked up and lost sight of the average person as they disappeared up their own arses.

          If the Dems don’t take accountability for their own failings it will continue to happen

  • kaitco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    17 hours ago

    As American, I’m always so glad to see our cousins across the water follow our inane footsteps. Cheers Brits!

  • inlandempire@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Always have been a police state, anti terrorism laws are ALWAYS used to silence ‘dissident’ voices

    From 5 July 2025, it is an offence under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 to be a member of Palestine Action,[7] fundraise for it,[8][9] wear or display items arousing reasonable suspicion of membership,[10] or if someone invites support or even “expresses an opinion or belief supportive of” Palestine Action “reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support” it.[11] These offences carry a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison for membership or inviting support, and up to 6 months in prison or a fine for displaying supporting items.[7][10][11][9]

    • cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Is Palestine Action a specific movement/group or is palestine Action literally just supporting Palestine? Asking from a non UK perspective.

      • scholar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        It’s a specific group that recently broke into an RAF base and started mucking about with the aircraft, hence why the government aren’t their biggest fans.

        Shortly after they did this they were designated as a terrorist group by the home office which is why public support is an offence.

        • foggianism@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Ah, so it’s the old “pay our people to do something ‘terrible/highly controversial’ in the name of our ‘enemy/opposing group’ so that we can discredit them and their cause and apprehend any of them”-rule

          • scholar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            46 minutes ago

            I don’t think there’s any need for false flag conspiracy theories. Palestine Action took credit for breaking into Brize Norton. I can only assume they thought it would generate enough attention to be worth the risk.

        • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Are the protestors with signs saying they support palestinian action intending to state that they support the group or that they support action generally?

          Either way they’ve manufactured this issue to protest anti-terrorism laws right?

          Not sure if would die on this hill.

          • scholar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            42 minutes ago

            ‘Palestine Action’ definitely refers to the group, otherwise you’d just put ‘Palestine’. I don’t think they did this to protest ant-terrorism laws, they’ve been very focused on targeting the genocide in Palestine so starting a new off-topic fight wouldn’t make sense for them.

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Their latest action was against the planes, but they have actually been extraordinarily successful at damaging the economic machine behind the genocide through targeted and sustained sabotage campaigns against Elbit Systems weapons manufacturer and their supporters, like Barclays Bank. They have already forced the closure of two weapons factories and forced Barclays to divest. It is most likely this sustained campaign that is the real reason for the terrorist designation, though the action at Brize Norton was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back.

          • scholar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            13 hours ago

            It certainly made proscribing them an easy sell; you won’t find many people who think it’s unreasonable of the government to take a dim view of sabotage.

            Hopefully it won’t distract too much from the bigger story of almost everyone apart from the government taking a dim view of genocide.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        16 hours ago

        It’s a group but of course considering the name they will be easier able to charge anyone supporting Palestine

      • inlandempire@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        16 hours ago

        It uses Direct Action which are methods that governments tend to associate with terrorism

  • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Even if they were trying to use this sort of rule with wholesome intentions, I’m not sure how targeting groups by name instead of deed makes sense. It’s like doing a healthy diet by giving up Coca-Cola by name even though Pepsi and RC have the same nutritional profile and availability. Enjoy the Whack-a-mole game!

    Taken to its logical conclusion, someone should start a pro-Palestinian squad and call it the Reform Party.

    • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The group in question broke onto an airbase and put a couple of RAF planes out of action. They crossed a red line for the government.

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Oh boy wait till you hear what the suffragettes were willing to do for another righteous cause, a bit over a century ago. I don’t know man, maybe the government should start reexamining its policies if ordinary people among its citizens are willing to start breaking into airbase and damaging their own planes.

        • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          They were willing to commit mass murder in London and Dublin, and to assassinate the Prime Minister. Also deeply keen on removing all Jews from the House of Commons. Things that today would indeed mark them as a terrorist organisation.

          Later, Emmeline Pankhurst would found a political party with the aim of requiring all civil servants to prove their racial purity back at least 3 generations, and many of the more prominent members of the WSPU became prominent members of the British fascist movement, several being detained as a precaution during the second European fuss.

          As a campaign, the WSPU was an abject failure. It put women’s votes back a decade, and Pankhurst failed to ensure that working class women were excluded from the franchise (she also wanted working class men excluded).

          It was only a cataclysm the scale of WWI, and the groundwork of the suffragists working in opposition to the suffragettes, which brought votes for all.

          • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Sounds like a classic case of both the moderates and the radicals being essential for any real change. The moderates are the hammer and the extremists are the anvil.

            Society is like a bar of iron. It’s stuck in its shape and resists change. Non-violent moderate protest alone is like a hammer without an anvil. You strike the iron, but the iron ignores the blow. With moderate protest alone, the established powers simply ignore the protests. They bend and duck out of the way and nothing changes. But violent groups serve as the anvil. They hold the powers that be in place and prevent them from ducking away from the hammer blow of the moderates.

            Both hammer and anvil are needed. Without the violent extremists, the moderates are simply painted as extremists and ignored. With them, the moderates can actually gain traction. Moderate protest movements don’t succeed unless there is also a violent wing. Moderates are only moderate if there is something to moderate against. Without the violent extremists, the moderates will be the ones labeled criminals and arrested, regardless of how extreme their tactics actually are.

            • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 hours ago

              So the beheading of Lee Rigby wasn’t terrorism? Your definition doesn’t match the law or the dictionary.

              • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                9 hours ago

                What this has to do with palestine action?

                In 2003, anti-war activists broke into RAF Fairford to stop US bombers heading to Iraq and didn’t get any terrorism charge. It’s pretty clear that it’s all about crushing real actions against genocide

          • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Uk has the obligation to stop all military cooperation with israel that’s the big crimes that people involved in should be in jail for up to 15 years

    • comrade_twisty@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      87
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      You have a lot of trust in people who voted to isolate themselves from their biggest allies and trading partners just a couple years ago.

    • Milk_Sheikh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      14 hours ago

      X to doubt. The UK threw out due process a long time ago, wave the ‘terrorism’ tag and egregiously Orwellian policies become law:

      • Legalized warrantless arrest and imprisonment of suspects without trial or warrant for 28 days
      • Permits freezing of a suspects assets without trial
      • Allows unlimited imprisonment of foreigners suspected of terrorism without trial
      • Military police permitted to operate on UK soil openly, even for non terrorism reasons
      • TPIM orders without trial that permits electronic tagging, travel bans, limited house arrest, curfews and constant monitoring.

      And all that’s before we even talk about the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act nonsense.

      • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The PAC are heroes. We should be building statues of them. No one a hundred years from now will think Labor is on the right side of history here. We should be nominating these people for sainthood, not criminalizing them.

      • Denjin@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Drawing attention to the abuse of these powers is now terrorism. Please hand yourself in to your nearest police station for reeducation.

      • john_lemmy@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Arguably not in the recent past, but let us not forget that the suffragettes were very committed protesters. They did more than just organize symbolic protests though. They also carried out bombings and arson campaigns and one of them ended up cutting Winston Churchill’s face with a dogwhip.

        • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          The Suffragettes are certainly a good counter-example. I didn’t mean that people haven’t been protesting, just that I can’t remember any recent protests (apart from strikes which are something different) where the government gave in and made concessions.

          • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            The government didn’t make concessions to the Suffragettes either. The WSPU was a total failure.

              • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                The Suffragists were a group of men and women including MPs who worked within the political system of peaceful negotiation and consensus-building over many years, and had made some gains.

                The Suffragettes were a paramilitary organisation tightly controlled by Emmeline Pankhurst, and rejected the involvement of men (and working-class women).

                The cause of women’s suffrage was advanced by the Suffragists, but once the Suffragettes started burning, bombing and racially harassing Jewish MPs, those gains were fatally undermined, and public opinion turned against women’s suffrage. In more than one occasion, entire towns turned out to burn down the local WSPU HQ as reprisal for a burned school, town hall or cricket pavilion. Red lines were crossed with the murder of two naval sailors and two attempts to assassinate the PM. If they’d had proscription then, they’d probably have used it.

                Eventually Pankhurst lost interest, as her main passion was British imperialism and racial superiority, and her efforts pivoted towards press-ganging young men into the army and later entering very right-wing politics (not for nothing that many of the more famous suffragettes became fascists).

                The cause was only revisited after WWI, based on the actions of women on the home front and the new demographic realities. It had little to do with the suffragettes who were still poorly received on either side.

                It was a rewriting of history by a couple of propaganda books in the 1930s (largely ex-suffragettes trying to whitewash their crimes) that eventually led to the modern confusion between suffragettes and suffragists.

        • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Amongst other things, the Suffragettes attempted to bury 200 postal workers under the rubble of the biggest sorting office in London, attempted to flood a town by blowing up a canal embankment, left many bombs on commuter trains (now they have a TfL line named after them lol), attempted to kill the Prime Minister by burning down the packed theatre he was in, tried again by burning down his house, attacked MPs for being Jewish, and succeeded in murdering sailors in an attack on a naval dockyard.

          And then much of the top echelons of the Suffragettes went on to be key members in British fascism, including one who became Mussolini’s pen-pal, another who became the registered owner of the bank account for the BUF, and another who was actually too anti-Semitic for Oswald Moseley, and denied the Holocaust happened because “there’s so many of them still around”.

          The Suffragettes are always a bad example because they utterly failed in their stated aims (the height of their campaign of destruction ended up one of the years with the lowest insurance payouts in British history), went on to say and do horrific things, and there is a question as to how much of it was true commitment to a cause and how much it was people who got off on the violence.

            • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              Which is the point, the last time the UK protested in a big way people were brutally masacred by the government.

              • Bloomcole@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                56 minutes ago

                It was their last resort.
                Eventually the regime won, but at the cost of really showing their true colors and who they stand with.
                So the strikers were at least effective in that.
                A lesson from history and for eternity.
                They deserve respect and admiration.
                Not every battle can be won, not every revolution succeeds.
                But they can.
                The only sure way to lose is to resign in your fate.

  • WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Some Aussie comedian on KGB News has just said that the disabled should be shot or starved into work …but a few people holding signs is the problem. How baffling.

  • Cypher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 hours ago

    The Brits need to make like the French and lop heads off until they have something resembling a functional democracy.

  • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    It’s so much easier for the frog to not realize it’s being boiled in the UK because there’s no consolidated constitution to point to

      • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        That’s just because the R’s expressly don’t care about constitutionality. If the UK had a written constitution, both parties are still at a level of integrity where they’d want to (at least appear to) be keeping it, so a judicial challenge to these terrorist acts might have actually struck them down.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          The Democrats don’t care about the Constitution either. Their platform certainly isn’t filled with promises to say, repeal the post 9/11 mass surveillance laws. They have zero interest in curtailing the powers of an out-of-control presidency; they just want those powers for themselves.

          • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            That’s because they lose their bargaining chips for elections, also being wealthy , that why they don’t reverse the tax cuts with the next preisdent

          • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            12 hours ago

            Hmm true, there is the ECHR. But it is implemented into british law in such a way that there’s nothing stopping laws being passed which are incompatible with it. Whereas with the US and other constitutions you have judicial review.

            • That’s not specific to having a constitution. Judges in the Netherlands for example also cannot do a judicial review to determine the constitutionality of any passed laws. And that’s with a written constitution. There’s also no supreme court. The closest thing is the Raad van State (the “state council”), which evaluates all laws on proportionality, constitutionality, and executability, and then advises the government what to do with a law. It’s convention that that advice is followed, but it’s not required.