Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
This article is republished from the Skwawkbox because they say it so well.
As expected, Keir Starmer has announced his resignation as the worst prime minister in modern British history.
One whose only ‘successes’ have been on behalf of billionaires and the genocidal colony. Who waged war on our rights and helped spill the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents. All to serve the interests of Israel and a club of billionaires who want each of us at their mercy.
We come to bury Starmer’s legacy, not to praise it, because it deserves no praise. Meanwhile, the state-corporate media is now busy nauseatingly whitewashing it.
Starmer’s ‘achievement’ of worst-ever comes after a decade in which each prime minister was awful and worse than his or her predecessor. Starmer was worse than the comically dire Liz Truss and more dishonest than toxic, murderous buffoon, Boris Johnson. That takes some doing and Starmer only had to be his awful self to manage it.
Starmer’s ‘success’
Starmer announced his departure still boasting that he had “changed our party” and ripped out the “poison of antisemitism”. That he had rescued Labour’s credibility.
In fact he has destroyed it, undoing two successive general elections under Corbyn where Labour exceeded Starmer’s vote share, one of them achieving Labour’s best result since the second world war. He also boasted of his eagerness for war.
Resisting mass murder is ‘terrorism‘. Not just that, but holding a sign opposing the terror classification is ‘terrorism’ too.
Our judicial system, which is always biased to support the rich and powerful, has been utterly corrupted. If the state doesn’t get the result it wants, it demands another trial. It replaces judges with stooges prepared to destroy their own reputations to support the state’s oppression.
Starmer has made the UK an authoritarian plague island in which doing right is punished and doing wrong is rewarded or ignored.
And even on the ‘bread and butter’ of power — protecting vulnerable people and the nation — Starmer has done nothing but ill.
Now, will his likely replacement be any better or is Andy Burnham also too weak, compromised or corrupted?
This article is republished from the Skwawkbox because they say it so well.
Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership is intensely relaxed about assaulting those least able to defend themselves – the very poorest and most vulnerable.Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/
WARNING – Expressing support for Palestine Action in this way is a breach of Section 12 of the UK Terrorism Act. This comes with significant risk of arrest and prosecution, and could lead to home raids and up to 14 years imprisonment.
CAMPAIGNERS are escalating their defiance of the proscription of Palestine Action by publishing videos professing membership of the group, risking jail sentences of up to 14 years.
Defend Our Juries said today it was stepping up its actions from holding placards reading “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action,” which has already led to more than 3,400 arrests under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act.
A spokesperson for the group said the government and courts had “made rods for their own backs,” adding: “The Lift the Ban campaign is not about trying to fill the prisons or break the courts.
“It’s about Britain being full of decent people who refuse to accept their government supporting the genocide of the Palestinian people, which is the crime of crimes.”
The spokesperson said the campaign had seen “an overwhelming response” since launching its new phase following the High Court’s ruling upholding the ban on Monday.
“It’s true that this may end up filling the prisons and breaking the court,” they said.
“But that’s not the intention. It’s simply the consequence of Britain being full of compassionate and caring people who refuse to be bystanders to genocide.”
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Placards depicting the defendants at Woolwich Crown Court on 12 June 2026. Guy Smallman/Getty Images
Committee representing activists sentenced for ‘terrorism’ tells openDemocracy ruling marks a dangerous escalation
As Justice Jeremy Johnson sentenced her to six years in prison last Friday, Leona Kamio spoke from the dock: “In order to hear the birds, the drones must be silent.”
The line was adapted from a passage by Palestinian poet Marwan Makhoul: “In order for me to write poetry that isn’t political, I must listen to the birds. And in order to hear the birds, the warplanes must be silent.”
Thirty-year-old Kamio is one of four Palestine Action defendants convicted of criminal damage during a protest at Elbit Systems’ Filton site in August 2024. Although the four had not been charged with terrorism offences and were not convicted of terrorism by a jury, Justice Johnson ruled their offences had had a “terrorism connection” and sentenced them as such.
Samuel Corner, 23, who was convicted of criminal damage and grievous bodily harm against a police officer, was sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison. Like Kamio, 29-year-old Charlotte Head was sentenced to six years. Fatema Zainab Rajwani, 21, received five years and eight months.
In the wake of their sentencing, openDemocracy spoke to lisa minerva luxx, of the Filton 25 Defence Committee, which supports the defendants and prisoners, coordinates public campaigns and media, and works with legal teams.
In the following interview, luxx explained how the judge’s finding of a “terrorism connection” will affect the defendants for the rest of their lives, and how it marks a major escalation in the state’s treatment of direct action and Palestine solidarity protest.
The Filton 25 Defence Committee said the four “destroyed over 40 Israeli weapons, including killer drones” and argued that “by taking direct action, they saved lives. That is not terrorism, it is a duty.” The committee says the ruling will be appealed.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. luxx sets out the defence committee’s allegations about the relationship between the Filton case, the proscription of Palestine Action and the use of terrorism powers against direct action protesters.
Can you spell out what the terrorism finding means in practice for the defendants? How does it affect time served, release, licence conditions, prison categorisation, notification requirements and their lives after prison?
Whilst in prison, they will be categorised as Category A high-risk prisoners, which many prisons struggle to process due to the extra regulations around access to work, single-cell occupancy – to reduce contact with other prisoners lest they radicalise them – and involvement from Prevent, the UK government’s counter-extremism programme.
It also includes increased security, which will affect the post they are given and books they are permitted to read.
They have to spend two-thirds of their sentence imprisoned before being eligible for parole. But parole for Terrorism Act sentences is incredibly rare, and the defendant must denounce their political beliefs to be granted parole.
Once released on licence, they will have really strict and repressive conditions until the end of their sentence – potentially limiting who they can see, where they can go, whether they can attend meetings or protests, and how they use phones or the internet. These are often arbitrary and ridiculous, designed to be impossible to adhere to.
After that, they then go on “notification”, where they are obliged to register phone numbers, emails, car registration, travel and bank details – and any new details of all of those – for 15 years. Fatema Zainab will only be allowed to attend a mosque chosen by the police, and she will be prohibited from socialising there.
If the defendants fail to keep up with any of these requirements, they could be sent back to prison for a further five years.
Protest outside Woolwich Crown Court on 12 June 2026. Martin Pope/Getty Images
The defendants were not charged with terrorism offences and the jury did not convict them of terrorism. What are your main due process concerns about a judge applying a terrorist connection at sentencing?
Judge Johnson secured the terrorism connection finding in order to prop up the proscription of Palestine Action. At the preparatory hearing for the “terrorism link”, he allowed “influencing the government of Israel” as a factor that satisfied the test for a terrorism connection. This is contrary to the legislation, which indicates that “influencing the government” means the British government or an intergovernmental body, such as the UN.
Influencing the Israeli government was the crux of the argument for the terrorism connection hanging over the case. The backbone of that argument was: “If you are destroying a weapon, you are influencing that government by preventing them from using that weapon.”
Yet at sentencing, he pivoted to make it about the British government. This ultimately satisfied the Home Office’s appeal for the proscription of Palestine Action, which was announced only three days later.
On top of this, he allowed for Elbit employees and employees of arms companies to constitute a “section of the public” so as to satisfy the test for a terrorism connection. I don’t think I need to explain how dystopian it is to refer to weapons-makers as a legitimate “section of the public” who could be victims of intimidation.
As most people know, Johnson did not allow the defendants to tell the jury that they were facing being sentenced as terrorists, which, of course, would have made it a much different decision for them to make.
In fact, throughout the whole case, he undermined the role of the jury, in effect deciding on matters which were for the jury to decide – principles of immediacy, value judgements, and reasonableness.
What is your response to the court’s framing of the action as intended to intimidate the government or Elbit, rather than as protest or direct action against alleged British complicity in Israeli war crimes? What context do you think was excluded or misunderstood?
Direct action for Palestine Action was a means of bypassing the government and going directly to the source.
One quote that the movement used throughout training was by anthropologist and activist David Graeber: “Protest is begging the powers that be to dig a well, direct action is digging the well and daring them to stop you.”
That quote was circulated in court, as it was included in training documents for the group, which were part of the evidence served by the prosecution.
Every single defendant spoke about having exhausted all democratic means, so turning to direct action to do the job themselves and stop the flow of weapons.
Judge Johnson did not misunderstand this. He manipulated the defendants’ closing speeches and defence statements to fit a narrative that ran counter to the entire case presented in court up to that point.
What precedent does this set for the remaining Filton defendants, Palestine Action cases more broadly, and other direct action or protest movements in Britain? Are you already seeing prosecutors or police lean on this ruling?
We are yet to see the effects of this and, at present, cannot comment on how it affects the rest of the Filton defendants.
However, to illuminate the wider picture, we need to look at the timeline leading up to both the Filton arrests and the proscription of Palestine Action. Two months before the Filton action, a meeting took place that included the Crown Prosecution Service and Counter Terrorism. They discussed proscribing Palestine Action, but identified that they couldn’t proscribe the group without first proving the group was “concerned in terrorism”. In order to do this, they needed to secure some arrests under the Terrorism Act for actionists.
Then the Filton 25 arrests took place. As it transpired, the investigating officer on the case was also part of the review group for proscription. So, we say, the same officer was involved in both the criminal investigation of the Filton defendants and the process of building the case to ban Palestine Action. Judge Johnson should have acknowledged this at the abuse of process hearing in November 2025.
This entire case has been manufactured by the Home Office in order to appease the Zionist lobby and Israel’s weapons manufacturers. The use of the terrorism connection was a means of securing convictions that would satisfy the proscription.
The Filton 25 have been used as political pawns in the British government’s war against Palestine Action. Therefore, the main precedent we need to worry about here is the collusion between parties that should be entirely independent from one another when it comes to the prosecution of those effectively taking action for Palestine.
We are facing an entire establishment that, after years of meetings with the Israeli ambassador to the UK, the CEO of Elbit Systems UK, and members of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament), is now doubling down on its unlawful tactics to disturb the functioning of a movement.
A free pass has been granted to use the terrorism link to satiate political bias. We expect to see more actionists imprisoned under the Terrorism Act, but we will fight this all the way.
What are the immediate legal next steps after Friday’s ruling? Are you planning to appeal the sentence, the ‘terrorist connection’ finding, the conviction, or all three – and what grounds do you think are strongest?
The lawyers will be submitting an appeal on the “terrorist connection” and conviction, but not the sentencing.
We will be sharing full announcements in the next 10 days.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Palestinians inspect the damage following an Israeli airstrike on the El-Remal aera in Gaza City on October 9, 2023. Israel continued to battle Hamas fighters on October 10 and massed tens of thousands of troops and heavy armour around the Gaza Strip after vowing a massive blow over the Palestinian militants’ surprise attack. Photo by Naaman Omar apaimages. licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
A parliamentary question by a Muslim Labour MP has revealed UK military collaboration with the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) continued unbroken through genocide and numerous illegal attacks.
Apsana Begum asked Starmer’s ministry of defence:
whether the agreement signed in December 2020 by the Chief of the Defence Staff and his Israeli counterpart formalising military collaboration between the UK and Israel remains in place; and whether it has been (a) reviewed, (b) modified and (c) amended.
The curt answer was provided by Israel-supporting defence minister Luke Pollard, who confirmed that military agreement with Israel has been in place unamended:
The UK-Israel military cooperation agreement, which was signed in December 2020, remains extant.
The Starmer government is a genocide regime providing direct military support as well as legislative and political cover to the terror colony. All confirmed in a ministerial response – as if more confirmation were needed.
Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.Orcas discuss Genocide-supporting and complicit Zionists. Donald Trump, Keith Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are acknowledged as evil genocide-complicit and supporting cnuts.
dizzy: Josh Simons was the MP for Makerfield who gave it up so that Andy Burnham could contest it. Makerfield was considered a safe [ed: Labour] seat and awarded to Simmons as payback for his work as director, following Morgan McSweeney, of the Labour Together group. Labour Together – since rebranded as ThinkLabour – employed dishonest and evil tactics to have Keir Starmer installed as leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister. Having been handed the seat of Makersfield, Andy Burnham is able to contest the leadership of the Labour Party. The cynical might regard it as a convenient stitch-up [ed: stitched-up, manipulated part of a larger plan]. I expect no meaningful change.
Revealed: APCO legal letter warned Simons to cease making “misleading statements” about PR firm’s “incredibly useful” dossier on journalists investigating Labour Together.
By Peter Geoghegan and Khadija Sharife
Josh Simons has had a good couple of weeks. The former Cabinet Office minister – forced to resign over his role in hiring a PR firm to investigate journalists critical of Labour Together – is now being praised for standing aside as Makerfield MP to clear the path for Andy Burnham.
Simons is reportedly “across everything” in Burnham’s campaign and is hotly tipped for a top role in any future administration led by the Greater Manchester Mayor. There’s even talk of a seat in the House of Lords.
But not everyone is so enamoured with Simons.
Democracy for Sale can report that days after Simons resigned from the Cabinet Office – following revelations in this newsletter – he received a legal letter on behalf of the PR firm he had paid more than £30,000 to investigate journalists reporting on Labour Together’s undeclared political donations.
In the lawyer’s letter, reported here for the first time and reproduced below, APCO Worldwide privately accused Simons of making “misleading statements” about his role in the scandal and of changing his story in ways that were “wrong in numerous important respects” – and even of suggesting APCO could do more work for Labour Together.
…
APCO did not just dispute Simons’ February 11 statement. His version of events, it said, had “evolved” in the two weeks before his resignation – in ways that were “inconsistent with the facts”.
In his resignation letter to Keir Starmer on February 28, Simons said he “did not know” that the Sunday Times’s Harry Yorke and Henry Dyer of the Guardian had been targeted by APCO, and that once he saw the “reprehensible material” about Pogrund “I took immediate action and removed it.”
APCO flatly rejected this. “No such indication was given to APCO. You did not raise a complaint or objection to the work product delivered. On the contrary, you described it as ‘incredibly useful’ and stated a desire to continue to work with APCO. Your statement ‘What happened subsequently was wrong’ in your resignation letter is inconsistent with your statements to APCO and actions at the time.”
