Wednesday, 10 June 2026

UK Court to Rule on Government Appeal Over Palestine Action Proscription

Royal Courts of Justice to Deliver Verdict on Government’s Appeal Against Palestine Action Deproscription

On Monday, the Royal Courts of Justice will issue a crucial ruling on the government’s appeal against the proscription of Palestine Action — a decision with major implications for protest rights, direct action, and the UK’s expanding definition of “extremism.”

What Is the Government Appealing?

The Home Office originally proscribed Palestine Action, branding it an extremist organisation.
A tribunal later overturned the proscription, ruling it unlawful.
The government immediately appealed.

Monday’s verdict will determine whether ministers can reinstate the ban — or whether the courts will uphold the earlier ruling.

This is not a technical dispute. It is a test of how far the state can go in criminalising political movements that challenge UK complicity in Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

Civilian Deaths in Gaza: The Context Behind the Crackdown

The most up‑to‑date figures show that tens of thousands of Palestinians — including huge numbers of men, women, and children — have been killed in Gaza, with the majority being civilians.

Breakdown (as of 9 June 2026)

20,179 children killed
12,500 women killed
Men: not separately listed, but inferred as the remainder

These numbers form the backdrop to Palestine Action’s campaign — and to the government’s attempt to silence it.

Why the Verdict Matters for Protest Rights

The government’s attempt to re‑proscribe Palestine Action fits into a wider pattern:

Expanding the definition of extremism
Targeting direct action groups
Using counter‑terror frameworks to police dissent
Restricting protest through new public order powers

If the appeal succeeds, it could set a precedent allowing ministers to outlaw any movement that is effective, disruptive, or politically inconvenient.

If it fails, it will be a rare check on a government increasingly hostile to protest.

Historical Parallels: When the UK Tried to Criminalise Dissent

The attempt to re‑proscribe Palestine Action is not unprecedented. Throughout modern British history, governments have used policing, surveillance, and emergency powers to suppress movements that later proved morally justified.

Anti‑Apartheid Movement

The UK government surveilled and harassed anti‑apartheid activists, branding them subversive and disruptive. Today, those same activists are celebrated for standing against racial oppression.

Trade Union Struggles

From the 1926 General Strike to the miners’ strike of 1984–85, the UK state has repeatedly used emergency powers, mass arrests, and anti‑union legislation to crush movements that threatened political and economic interests.

The 1984–85 miners’ strike saw some of the most aggressive policing in modern British history. Thousands of miners were arrested, many were blacklisted, and entire communities were subjected to surveillance and intimidation.

The same era saw the Wapping dispute (1986–87), when Rupert Murdoch’s News International moved production to Wapping and sacked over 5,000 print workers. The government deployed military policing, mass arrests, and new legal restrictions to break the strike. Dozens of print workers were imprisoned.

These struggles reveal a consistent pattern:
When working‑class movements become powerful, the state responds with criminalisation, surveillance, and force.

The same logic is now being applied to Palestine Action — and potentially to any movement that uses disruption to challenge entrenched power.

Suffragettes

The suffragettes were imprisoned, force‑fed, and labelled extremists. Their direct action — now widely praised — was treated as a threat to national security.

Irish Civil Rights Movement

Peaceful civil rights activists in Northern Ireland faced police brutality, surveillance, and emergency powers, all justified under the language of security.

Environmental and Anti‑War Movements

From CND to anti‑roads campaigns to Stop the War, governments have repeatedly tried to delegitimise activists as extremists when their demands challenged state policy.

The pattern is unmistakable: when movements become effective, the state reaches for counter‑terror tools.

Recent Cases Show the Pattern: The Filton Four and the Erosion of Civil Liberties

The government’s attempt to re‑proscribe Palestine Action does not exist in isolation. As I’ve documented this week in two separate reports, the UK is entering a dangerous phase where dissent is increasingly treated as a criminal threat rather than a democratic right.

In The Filton Four: Sentenced for Dissent, I highlighted how four activists were handed severe sentences for actions aimed at exposing the UK’s role in arming Israel. Their prosecution shows how the state is now using the criminal courts not just to punish protests, but to deter political resistance altogether.

In Our Civil Liberties Under Attack, I examined the broader pattern:

expanding police powers
erosion of jury independence
counter‑terror frameworks used against activists
normalisation of pre‑emptive arrests

These cases are not anomalies. They are symptoms of a political strategy: redefine dissent as extremism, redefine activism as criminality, and redefine solidarity as a threat to national security.

Together, they show that the Palestine Action appeal is not just about one organisation — it is part of a systematic tightening of state power against protest across the UK.

A Line That Must Not Be Crossed

If ministers can outlaw a protest movement simply because it is effective, then no civil liberty in Britain is safe — not the right to dissent, not the right to organise, and not the right to challenge state power.

The Royal Courts of Justice as a Political Battleground

The Royal Courts of Justice have become a central arena in the struggle over protest rights. Recent rulings have:

Upheld sweeping police powers
Limited the ability of juries to hear moral arguments
Enabled pre‑emptive arrests of activists

But courts have also pushed back when ministers overreach.

Monday’s decision will reveal whether the judiciary is willing to draw a line — or whether it will endorse the government’s strategy of treating political activism as a security threat.

What’s Really at Stake

Although Palestine Action is the organisation named in the appeal, the broader question is:

Can the UK government outlaw a political movement because it is effective?

This verdict will shape the landscape for:

Climate activists
Anti‑racist organisers
Housing campaigners
Trade unionists
Anyone using disruption to force political change

The outcome will influence how future governments treat dissent — and how safe it is to challenge state policy.

What Happens Next

Whatever the verdict, the political consequences will be immediate.

If the government wins, expect renewed pressure on other movements.
If it loses, expect ministers to push for new legislation.

Either way, Monday marks a turning point in the fight over the right to protest, the limits of state power, and the future of civil liberties in the UK.

Tuesday, 9 June 2026

Municipal Homes or Permanent Crisis

Britain’s Housing Crisis: Why We Need Municipal Homes Again

How Britain’s Housing Crisis Was Created

Britain’s housing crisis didn’t appear out of nowhere.
It wasn’t caused by “market forces” misbehaving.
It was built — deliberately — through political decisions that turned homes into assets and tenants into revenue streams.

At the centre of the crisis is a simple truth:

Britain doesn’t just need more “social housing”.
It needs real municipal housing — publicly owned, publicly run, and accountable to the people who live in it.

How Municipal Housing Was Lost

For decades, council housing was the backbone of working‑class stability. It provided:

Secure tenancies
Genuinely affordable rents
Local democratic accountability
Homes built to last

Then came the political shift:

Right to Buy stripped councils of millions of homes
No requirement to replace what was sold
Housing associations expanded to fill the gap
Private rents exploded
Wages stagnated
House‑building targets were quietly abandoned

This wasn’t drift.
It was policy — and it hollowed out the country’s housing system.

The Problem With Housing Associations

Politicians often claim they’re “investing in social housing”.
But most of the time, that means housing associations, not councils.

Housing associations come with serious problems:

Higher rents than traditional council homes
Boards run like private companies
Tenants with little democratic control
Slow repairs and poor maintenance
A patchwork of organisations with no consistency

They were meant to replace municipal housing.
Instead, they’ve become a halfway house between public and private — with the worst of both worlds.

Why Municipal Housing Worked

Council housing wasn’t perfect, but it worked because it was built on clear principles:

Public ownership
Local accountability
Rents people can actually afford
Homes designed for communities, not investors

It wasn’t charity.
It wasn’t a “sector”.
It was infrastructure — like schools, libraries, and the NHS.

And it created stability for millions.

The Human Cost of Today’s Housing System

The consequences of dismantling municipal housing are everywhere:

Families raising children in temporary accommodation
Young people locked out of secure housing entirely
Workers spending half their income on rent
Rough sleeping rising in every major city
Communities priced out of the places they grew up

This isn’t just a housing shortage.
It’s a housing injustice.

A Crisis Worse Than the 1980s

After decades of involvement in housing campaigns, I can say with certainty:

The crisis today is deeper, broader, and more politically entrenched than anything we faced in the 1980s.

Back then, the scandal was visible.
Today, it’s hidden inside:

B&Bs
Converted office blocks
Shipping‑container “micro‑homes”
Private temporary accommodation miles from home

The misery is spread out — and easier for politicians to ignore.

Britain Needs to Rediscover Municipal Housing

If we want to fix the crisis, we must stop pretending that “affordable housing” and “social housing” are enough.

Britain needs:

Mass council house building
Public ownership
Democratic accountability
Rents tied to income, not markets
Homes built for communities, not investors

This isn’t radical.
It’s what Britain used to do — and it worked.

The Real Question

Britain can build high‑speed rail, aircraft carriers, and Olympic stadiums.
It can certainly build homes.

So the question isn’t whether we can fix the housing crisis.

It’s this:

Do we want a country built for people — or for landlords, developers, and investors?

The Filton Four Sentenced for Dissent

The Filton Sentencing: When Protest Becomes a Crime

The Filton Four: Why Friday’s Sentencing Is About Criminalising Protest in Britain

What Is Happening on Friday

On Friday, four young activists will be sentenced in Bristol for taking action against Elbit Systems — the UK’s biggest supplier of weapons to Israel.
And let’s be honest: this isn’t about “criminal damage”.
It’s about criminalising dissent.

A jury already acquitted six activists in February. The state didn’t like that outcome.
So the CPS pushed for a retrial, and four were convicted in April — then sent straight back to prison as if they were dangerous extremists.

No terrorism charges.
No threat to the public.
Just a government determined to make protest feel frightening.

Why Friday’s Sentencing Matters

Friday’s sentencing is political.
The judge has signalled he may treat the activists as if their actions were ideologically violent — even though the charges do not support that. Defence lawyers have already challenged his impartiality.

If harsh sentences are handed down, the message is unmistakable:

Protest is no longer a right. It’s a warning.

This Is Bigger Than Filton

The Filton case is part of a wider pattern in the UK:

Peaceful protesters jailed under new public order laws
Palestine solidarity activists facing unprecedented restrictions
Juries instructed not to consider conscience or context

This is deterrence, not justice.
A democracy that fears protest is a democracy in decline.

The Stakes for the Filton Four

The Filton Four stood against a weapons manufacturer.
Now they stand before a court that appears determined to make an example of them.

Whatever happens on Friday, one truth remains:

If the state can do this to them, it can do it to anyone.

Hunger in the UK Isn’t a Crisis — It’s a Policy

Britain’s Children Are Going Hungry — And It’s a Political Choice

“Mum, can I have more?” — “No, love. There isn’t any more.”

That’s what a mother in Manchester told a researcher last winter.

Her son is seven.

He wasn’t asking for sweets. He was asking for dinner.

She’d already skipped two meals that day so he could eat.

She told the interviewer she felt “ashamed”.

But the shame is not hers. It belongs to the country that put her in that position.

This is Britain in 2026 — a nation where parents apologise to their children for empty plates.

And it is not an accident.

It is the result of political decisions.

A wealthy country should not have hungry children. Yet here we are.

Child hunger in the UK is not an unfortunate by‑product of “difficult times”.

It is the predictable outcome of a decade of policies that have stripped families of the income they need to survive.

The evidence is overwhelming:

“21% of parents say their children are directly affected by food insecurity.”

“Child hunger is not caused by a lack of food — it is caused by policy choices.”

These figures come from the Social Market Foundation, UNICEF UK, the Food Foundation, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Trussell Trust, and the government’s own DWP.

The conclusion is unavoidable: Britain is failing its children — knowingly.

The numbers are brutal

Across the UK, child hunger is rising.

21% of parents say their children are affected by food insecurity
15% say their household didn’t have enough food in the past year
4% regularly go without food
44% say feeding their families is harder than five years ago
London and the North West are worst hit, at 27% and 22%

This is not a temporary spike.

It is a direction of travel.

A political trajectory.

And it is happening in one of the richest countries on earth.

The cause is not mysterious. It is poverty — engineered poverty.

Every major organization says the same thing: child hunger is driven by low income.

UNICEF UK is explicit: cuts to social security — especially the two‑child limit and the benefit cap — have pushed record numbers of children into poverty.

Since 2010, child poverty has risen by 900,000, reaching 4.5 million.

When rent, energy and transport swallow a family’s income, food is the first thing to go.

Not because parents don’t care.

But because the maths impossible.

The cost‑of‑living crisis didn’t end — it just stopped being news

Inflation may have slowed, but prices have not fallen. Families are still paying historically high costs for food, energy and housing.

Parents report:

Food prices rising faster than wages or benefits
Heating vs eating decisions
Reliance on toast, cereal, and cheap carbs to get through the day

This is not “resilience”.

It is survival.

Support systems are failing — by design

Even when support exists, it often doesn’t reach the people who need it.

21% of food‑insecure families used no support at all
Free school meals exclude thousands of low‑income children
Local welfare assistance is inconsistent and underfunded

A safety net full of holes is not a safety net.

It is a political gesture.

Food deserts and inequality make hunger even worse

In many communities, healthy food is simply not available or affordable.

No supermarkets
Reliance on expensive corner shops
Poor transport links

The Social Market Foundation calls this a structural barrier to nutrition.

It is another way inequality becomes destiny.

The UK had the largest rise in child poverty of any rich nation

Between 2013 and 2023, UNICEF found that the UK experienced a 34% increase in relative child poverty — the worst among high‑income countries.

This is not a global trend.

It is a British trend.

A political trend.

Let’s stop pretending this is inevitable

Child hunger is not a natural disaster.

It is not a storm we must weather.

It is the result of:

Cuts to social security
Wage stagnation
Rising living costs
Regional inequality
Underinvestment in children

These are choices.

And choices can be changed.

**The question is not “How did this happen?”

The question is “Why was this allowed?”**

A country that can afford billion‑pound tax cuts can afford to feed its children.

A country that can subsidise corporations can subsidise school meals.

A country that can build wealth for the few can build dignity for the many.

Child hunger is not a tragedy.

It is a policy.

And policies can be rewritten.

If we wanted to end child hunger, we could — tomorrow

We know what works:

Scrap the two‑child limit
Scrap the benefit cap
Expand free school meals
Raise family incomes
Invest in children, not cuts

None of this is radical.

None of it is complicated.

It is simply a matter of political will.

Other countries have done it.

We choose not to.

History will judge us — and it should

When future generations look back at this era, they will not ask how Britain became so poor.

They will ask how Britain became so indifferent.

They will ask why a wealthy nation let children go hungry while pretending it had no choice.

They will ask why we tolerated policies that punished families for having children.

They will ask why we looked away.

And they will be right to ask.

**Child hunger is a political decision.

Ending it will be one too.

The only question left is: whose side are we on?**