Monday, 15 June 2026

Court Upholds Palestine Action Ban

The Court Has Spoken — And It Chose Repression

SHORT SUMMARY FOR SKIM‑READERS

The Court of Appeal has upheld the government’s ban on Palestine Action, keeping the proscription fully in force and deepening the criminalisation of solidarity. The ruling comes days after the Filton 4 were sentenced as terrorists for direct action against Elbit, exposing a coordinated state crackdown on anti‑genocide activism. Emma Kamio and Huda Ammori’s testimonies reveal the human and political cost behind the legal façade. With four more cases approaching sentencing, today’s decision will shape everything that follows. The machinery is exposed — and once exposed, it cannot be unseen.

The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court and ruled that the government can lawfully proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
The decision keeps the ban fully in force — meaning the criminalisation of support, membership, and association continues without interruption.
It lands just days after the Filton 4 were sentenced as terrorists for direct action against Elbit, tightening the political logic that now binds their case to the proscription.
And it comes as four more Palestine Action cases move toward sentencing, each now shaped by the legal and political weight of today’s ruling.

In our view, today’s ruling is proof of state repression, not proof of wrongdoing.
The Court of Appeal has chosen to uphold a ban that criminalises solidarity rather than confront the UK’s role in arming and enabling Israel’s violence. Nothing in this judgment resolves the underlying political reality: that the state is escalating against those who expose its complicity, from the Filton 4 to the thousands arrested for nothing more than showing support. And with four more Palestine Action cases still moving through the courts, the consequences of this ruling will only deepen.


The Court of Appeal Delivered A Ruling That Will Define The Political Landscape

This morning, the Court of Appeal delivered a ruling that will define the political landscape for months: whether the government can ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
In February, the High Court said the proscription was unlawful — a rare moment of judicial restraint — but the government appealed instantly, determined to keep the ban alive.
Since then, more than 3,000 people have been arrested, many for nothing more than holding signs saying they support Palestine Action.
Everyone knows how absurd that is. Everyone can see what it represents.
Today, five judges decided whether the state’s attempt to criminalise solidarity stands or collapses — and with a panel this large, the stakes could not have been higher.
A livestream outside the Royal Courts of Justice began at 10:45am, capturing the moment the country learned which way the scales would tip.


Emma Kamio: The Human Cost No Court Can Hide

On Sunday’s Crispin Flintoff Show, Emma Kamio spoke with a grief that didn’t need volume.
The show is an independent, left‑leaning, socialist weekly Zoom broadcast that’s grown into a vital space for voices shut out of mainstream media — and we should thank Crispin for building it.

The grief of a mother who watched her daughter be sentenced as a terrorist for trying to save lives.
She’d seen the outpouring of public shock — and she understood it.
People are more visibly shaken now than ever before.
And she asked the question everyone is asking:
“How did we get here?”

Her answer was blunt:
because they complied with a gagging order.
Because for two years, the truth was kept from the public.
Because the family was forced into silence.
“I was forced to stay silent for Ellie — that’s the bottom line.”

Emma said she warned people two years ago:
“We were being frog‑marched into a dictatorship.
We had fallen asleep at the wheel.”

She said the outcry we’re seeing now is exactly what would have happened then — if people had known what the family was up against.

And she said we must learn from this:
stop being compliant
stop accepting gagging orders
stop letting the state control the narrative


The Sentencing Was Engineered — And Everyone Felt It

Emma said it made perfect sense that the court pushed the sentencing through on Friday — unprecedented, running until 7pm.
Because Monday was coming.
Because the ruling was coming.
Because the state wanted the deterrent effect in place before the Court of Appeal spoke.

She said:
“The statistic judge prepared his statements and sentences well in advance.”
This wasn’t justice.
It was choreography.


A Moment That Will Stay With Her Forever

Then Emma said something that will stay with anyone who heard it.
“I’m going to get emotional now — it will remain with me for the end of my days.”

As Ellie was being taken down, she turned back and looked up at the public gallery.
Emma remembered the line she quoted — from Palestinian poet Marwan Makhoul:
“In order for the birds to sing, the drones must be silenced.”

A mother watching her daughter disappear into a cell, quoting a poet whose people live under drones.
One of the most human moments of the entire show.


She Knows What’s Coming Next

Emma didn’t sugar‑coat anything.
She said the other trials in the pipeline will be worse.
She said the state is escalating.
She said the families know what they’re walking into.

But she also said something else — something that matters:
People are awake now.
People are paying attention.
People are no longer silent.
And that changes everything.


Huda Ammori: The Political Clarity of the Moment

On Sunday’s Crispin Flintoff Show, Huda Ammori didn’t speak like someone speculating.
She spoke like someone who has seen the inside of the state machine — and is now naming it out loud.

She said Judge Johnson didn’t need aggravated burglary convictions.
He only needed criminal damage — enough to attach the terrorism connection.
That was the aim from the beginning.

And crucially, she said:
“They’ve been accused of being terrorists, but not allowed to defend themselves against the accusation.”

The jury never heard:
about Elbit’s weapons
about the genocide
about the lives at stake
The terrorism element was kept away from them.

Huda said the consequences were draconian — and the defendants were denied the right to explain why they acted.
But now, she said, the real fight begins:
“I am sure one way or the other we are going to defeat this.”


The State–Elbit–Government Coordination Is Now Exposed

Huda said the proscription case revealed what many suspected:
meetings between Elbit Systems, the Israeli government, UK ministers, the CPS, and police
discussions about “what to do about the Palestine Action problem”
a meeting two months before the action where prosecutors and police discussed proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation

At that point, no one had been arrested under terrorism laws for direct action.
So they used property damage as the hook.

And Huda was clear:
“From the very beginning this had been orchestrated in order to ban Palestine Action.”
She said openly that the judge was doing the state’s bidding — and Israel’s.


What Today’s Ruling Makes Unmistakable

What today’s ruling makes undeniable is this: the state is no longer pretending.
It is criminalising solidarity in broad daylight, sentencing young people as terrorists for trying to save lives, and bending the law to protect a weapons manufacturer whose products are used to kill civilians.
The machinery is exposed now — the coordination, the timing, the choreography, the political intent.
And once exposed, it cannot be unseen.

Because when the powerful choose repression over accountability, resistance stops being a crime and becomes a responsibility.

Saturday, 13 June 2026

“How the Filton 4 Were Sentenced as Terrorists for a Political Protest in the UK”

 




Britain’s most significant protest‑related sentencing in decades

On Friday 12 June 2026, Britain crossed a line.

Four young activists — none charged with terrorism, none convicted of violence — were sentenced as terrorists at Woolwich Crown Court for taking action against a weapons manufacturer linked to Israel’s war in Gaza. Their real offence, in the eyes of the state, was political.

This was not justice.
This was the state demonstrating power.


What Happened at Woolwich Crown Court — And Why It Matters

The sentencing of the Filton 4 has become a defining moment in the debate over protest rights, counter‑terrorism powers, and political repression in the UK.

Search‑optimised keywords included: Filton 4 sentencing, Woolwich Crown Court, terrorism sentencing UK, Palestine Action case, protest rights Britain.


A Verdict Built on Secrecy

The retrial of the Filton 6 produced a split verdict that baffled observers. All six defendants admitted the same actions. Two were acquitted, four convicted.

What the jury did not know:

  • the judge intended to apply terrorism powers

  • a guilty verdict could trigger years of surveillance and restrictions

  • jurors had the right to acquit on conscience

They were asked to judge without the full truth.


The Filton 4 Sentences: What Was Handed Down

  • Samuel Corner: 8 years 8 months

  • Charlotte Head: 6 years

  • Leona Kamio: 6 years

  • Fatema Rajwani: 5 years 8 months

Because of the terrorism designation:

  • no automatic early release

  • release controlled by the Parole Board

  • lifetime terrorism‑notification requirements

  • possible obligations to register phones, report relationships, and seek permission to travel

This is the first time in UK history that criminal damage alone has been sentenced as terrorism.


Judge Jeremy Johnson’s Summing Up — A Turning Point

Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson’s summing up and sentencing remarks confirmed what had been hidden throughout the trial.

He:

  • banned any mention of genocide

  • blocked explanations of the defendants’ motivations

  • forbade reference to the terrorism uplift

  • prevented the defence from explaining jurors’ right to acquit on conscience

His background in MI5, MI6, and national‑security litigation shaped the entire process.

This was not a neutral courtroom.
It was a political one.


The “Terrorist Connexion” — The Hidden Mechanism

The public and jury were kept in the dark about the judge’s plan to apply a “terrorist connexion” under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act.

His justification:

  • the protest aimed to influence government policy

  • it could intimidate a “section of the public” (Elbit employees)

  • it was politically motivated

In other words:
The Filton 4 were sentenced as terrorists because their protest had a political purpose.

This is not counter‑terrorism.
This is the criminalization of dissent.


107 Arrests Outside the Court — A Historic Escalation

While the sentences were being delivered, 500 protesters gathered outside Woolwich Crown Court. Police responded with 107 arrests, one of the largest mass arrests outside a British court in modern history.

Several were held for "supporting a proscribed group", for Palestine Action remains technically banned until Monday's Court of Appeal decision.

This is political policing.
This is the state tightening its grip.


Human Rights Organisations Condemn the Sentences

Reactions were immediate:

  • Amnesty International: “completely disproportionate… a punishment which stays with you for life.”

  • Good Law Project: “a grotesque distortion of the law.”

  • Defend Our Juries: “heartbreaking.”

When mainstream human rights groups speak with one voice, something is deeply wrong.


The Human Cost Behind the Filton Sentences

Families wept outside the court.
Supporters chanted through tears.
Young people watched their friends taken away in prison vans.

Inside, Sgt Kate Evans delivered a painful victim impact statement.
Outside, the mother of one defendant pleaded for justice.

This is not abstract.
This is happening to real people — and it will happen to more if we stay silent.


Why Monday’s Court of Appeal Ruling Matters

On Monday, judges will decide whether the government’s proscription of Palestine Action is lawful.

Friday’s sentencing and Monday’s ruling are part of the same political moment:

  • Activists sentenced as terrorists

  • The supporters were taken into custody for "providing support to a sanctioned entity"

  • The legality of that prescription is now under review

This is a single escalation in Britain’s approach to dissent.


The Precedent Britain Has Now Set

If the state can:

  • admit you are not a terrorist

  • charge you with no terrorism offences

  • hide the terrorism designation from the jury

  • and still sentence you as a terrorist

… Then no activist in Britain can assume they are safe.

The Filton sentences mark a dangerous new stage in Britain’s slide toward authoritarian repression.


What Movements Know

“Moments like this hurt, but they also reveal who we are.”
“Movements don’t collapse — they regroup, they learn, and they come back sharper.”
“The Filton 4 will not be forgotten.”


Thursday, 11 June 2026

Why Housing Associations Must Be Brought Back Into Public Ownership

 

Housing Associations: Why They Need to Be Taken Back Into Public Ownership for the Sake of Accountability



If you’ve ever dealt with a housing association, you’ll know the truth: when accountability disappears, people get hurt.

Housing associations were created to protect people. They were meant to be the safety net when councils couldn’t build enough homes. They were supposed to be rooted in communities, run by local people, and focused on tenants — not balance sheets. Their origins go back to 19th‑century Victorian philanthropy, when charitable trusts were set up to tackle poverty, overcrowding, and slum conditions. What began as small, community‑minded organisations built to serve the public good has since grown into a national system — one that has drifted far from its original purpose.

But somewhere along the way, the mission changed.

Today, too many housing associations behave less like social landlords and more like private corporations with charity status. And when you remove accountability from housing, people suffer. I’ve seen it as a worker. I’ve lived it as a tenant. I’ve watched the system fail people who had nowhere else to turn.

This is why I believe housing associations need to be brought back into public ownership — not as a slogan, but as a matter of basic accountability and human dignity.


From Philanthropy to Thatcher’s Experiment

For most of the last century, housing associations were a small part of the picture, sitting alongside large council housebuilding programmes. Their purpose was simple: provide safe, affordable homes and remain accountable to tenants and communities.

Thatcherism changed that.

Right to Buy stripped councils of millions of homes. Councils were blocked from building replacements. Then the 1988 Housing Act pushed councils to transfer their stock to housing associations and opened the door to private finance. Housing associations went from local social landlords to key players in a market‑driven system — with far less democratic control.


This Wasn’t Just Policy — It Was Ideology

Thatcher’s government believed the state should step back and the market should step in. Council housing was sold off, councils were prevented from replacing what was lost, and housing associations were pushed forward as the new landlords.

But they weren’t funded like public services — they were pushed into private finance, mergers, and corporate structures. Accountability moved from elected councils to un-elected boards.

And who benefited from that shift?

Not tenants.
Not communities.
Not frontline workers.

It benefited the banks and lenders who now hold billions in housing association debt. It benefited the executives of large associations who built empires, not homes. The people who needed the system most were the ones pushed furthest away from power.

That shift still shapes the system today.


What Housing Associations Have Become

Over the years, many housing associations have drifted far from their original purpose:

  • Corporate drift — huge mergers, CEO culture, PR teams

  • Weak oversight — regulators with no teeth

  • Tenants ignored — repairs delayed, complaints dismissed

  • Frontline reality — people treated like problems, not human beings

I’ve sat with people who were scared to complain because they knew nothing would change. I’ve seen families left in damp, mouldy homes while the association sent out glossy newsletters about “community investment.”

When landlords become unaccountable, tenants become invisible.


The Human Cost

This isn’t theory. It’s not a policy debate. It’s real lives.

  • Unsafe homes — mould, leaks, fire risks

  • Families stuck in limbo — temporary accommodation for years

  • No accountability — complaints going nowhere

  • People reduced to numbers — the dehumanisation I’ve seen again and again

When a housing association fails, there is nowhere else to go. That’s the difference between a public service and a private landlord with a charity badge.


Why Public Ownership Matters

Bringing housing associations back into public ownership isn’t about ideology. It’s about accountability.

Public ownership means:

  • Democratic control — decisions made by elected bodies, not CEOs

  • Transparency — open budgets, public scrutiny

  • Real tenant power — rights that can be enforced

  • Reinvestment — money going back into homes, not executive pay

Housing is a public good. It should be run for people, not profit.

“Accountability isn’t optional — it’s the foundation of a decent society.”


A Better Way Is Possible

I’ve spent decades on the frontline. I’ve seen the worst of the system — and the best of people. I know change is possible because I’ve seen what happens when communities stand together and refuse to be ignored.

We can build a system where:

  • Tenants are heard

  • Homes are safe

  • Complaints lead to action

  • Housing is treated as a right, not a business model

One voice in the darkness can join another — and shine a light.

Peace, love and happiness — Norbert Lawrie