Did Palestine Action cause ‘serious damage to property’? I ask that crucial question because the only or main reason why the Home Secretary proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation is because in her view they caused serious damage to property. But have they? Did they?
The Terrorism Act 2000 (the act) defines terrorism as including committing ‘serious damage to property’.
The only instance that I can think of when Palestine Action might be described as committing serious damage was when they broke into RAF Brize Norton and damaged two transport aircraft by spraying red paint on the engines and apparently into the engines.
They apparently sprayed the paint onto the intake fans. Was the paint water based or oil based? Did it go into the engine? No one has asked or answered that question but it is important as is dictates as to how hard it is to remove. If the fan blades were painted with water-based paint it can be washed off – simple.
And the police said that £7 millions of damage was caused. This would certainly be serious if it were true but where did they get that information from!? We have no idea.
Has there been a careful assessment by engineers and if so, can we see it please in the interests of transparency.
The fact that we have not seen reports by qualified people as to the cost of repairs tells me that the £7 million was a wild estimate made for political purposes in order to support Yvette Coopers desire to squash Palestine Action (PA) by labelling it a terrorist organisation which has dramatically backfired on her.
That is the crux of the matter. Palestine Action’s behaviours have never been sufficiently serious to allow the government to label them as terrorists.
Secondly as Lord Sumption said the good people who ‘support’ PA are not terrorists. The act has been drafted too widely to include people expressing a supportive ‘opinion or belief’ by carrying a placard. That’s Sumption’s opinion and he is correct.
The maximum sentence for these mainly elderly, law-abiding citizens is 6 months in jail. Preposterous.
The Director of Public Prosecutions can step in and to declare that these people have not committed a criminal offence because it is not in the public interest to prosecute.
I suspect that Cooper would see this a defeat. But she will be defeated in another way when 1000 protestors return to Parliament Square on September 6th and do it all over again and more.
They will refuse to provide personal details which will mean that they have to be taken to a police station rather than be bailed on the spot. This will create an unsurmountable logistical nightmare which will defeat them and vicariously the Home Secretary.
