I agree with Kier Starmer. The government’s response to the attack on Brize Norton by proscribing Palestine Action as a terror group was the right thing to do. It was a proportionate response to an incident that fitted the definition of terrorism. I would also expect some high-profile officers to be facing a court martial over the security failure, but that’s another matter. The CO is a diversity hire, I understand.
So, Starmer is being accused of hypocrisy.
Sir Keir Starmer was last night accused of being a ‘hypocrite’ by Kemi Badenoch for condemning an attack on RAF Brize Norton – having previously defended airbase protesters and used them to build support for his Labour leadership campaign.
The Prime Minister described the raid on the base by Palestine Action as ‘disgraceful’ and an ‘act of vandalism’ after the group posted footage showing protesters spraying red paint into the engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft.
But Sir Keir has not only argued, during his legal career, that breaking into an airbase and sabotaging its aircraft should be legal – he actually featured an activist in the video used to launch his successful leadership bid in 2020.
Well, yeah, but he was the barrister for the defence. It’s what they do. They will make any daft argument if it might get their client off. It doesn’t mean they have to agree with it. They are doing what their job entails – argue for their client. Starmer’s response to protest since taking power probably reveals his true, authoritarian nature. So I don’t feel that hypocrisy applies here. He is a nasty authoritarian. However, in this instance, any government would have reacted similarly. What is also notable is that in the wake of this, the left has suddenly discovered civil liberties. While they were happy to see Lucy Conolly crucified for hurty words, a treasonous attack on our military infrastructure is free speech apparently, (which it is emphatically not). Now that is hypocrisy that makes Starmer pale into insignificance.
While I agree that in principle, Badenoch’s claim that Starmer is a hypocrite is valid – they all are – this incident isn’t the smoking gun. Just this once, I agree with the government. Palestine Action are terrorists and they should be proscribed as such, just as it is fortunate that Starmer’s erstwhile defence in similar cases did not result in a legal precedent.
I’d like to see an end to the Jew hate marches as well. They have now gone way beyond free speech. One final point here. This image is from recent protests in support of Iran. Yes, the mad mullahs of all people. The evil old scrotes who hang dissidents and force women to wear head coverings. Yes, those bastions of liberty. The sign appears to be held by someone who is old enough to know better. Unfortunately, their visceral hatred of Jews and Israel is so lopsided, that they work back from there, siding with anyone that opposes the object of their hatred, no matter how irrational that makes them appear. It strikes me that the people who claim to be on the right side of history, invariably are not.
What happened at Brize Norton was not vandalism; it was terrorism.
The terrorists should have been given one loud warning, if possible, and then shot dead if they did not immediately stop.
If there was no time to give a warning they should just have been shot dead.
Jake Wallis Simons in the Telegraph (£) warns us not to trust Starmer:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/21/dont-trust-two-tier-keir-palestine-action-he-hasnt-turned/
“He’s a slippery fish, that prime minister. This is the most unprincipled government in living memory and its playbook is always the same. Wrongfoot and gaslight the public while advancing an agenda that nobody has voted for. Mark my words. After this, Starmer’s betrayal of Israel will continue apace.”
I don’t trust him. However, on this occasion, I agree with his actions.
It’s way past time to ban (or severely restrict) political activity in support of foreign causes which are nothing to do with the UK. And if it is foreigners doing it, withdraaw their visas and get rid of them. Yes, but their poor put-upon asylum-seekers who can’t return to their place of origin? Well, shut up then.
I disagree that it was terrorism. It was damage to stationary property, not intended or likely to wound or threaten any civilians.
It was an act of sabotage to military capability, and the perpetrators should have been shot before or after warnings. It shows the depths of incompetence in the UK establishment that they were neither stopped from the sabotage,nor apprehended afterwards.
Although the UK is not strictly at war, it has clearly taken sides and belligerent status in several ongoing wars. This then makes the sabotage treason, and Palestaine Actine an agent of a hostile power.
I thought we could still hang em for that?
So right action, wrong description. It also devalues the concept of terrorism. Don’t encourage them: call that terroroism? Hah! Now THAT is terrorism, etc.
See my response to Lord T Terrorism isn’t confined to death or injury. Damage to property also applies.
Their action against other property also falls within the act – Barclays Bank was one of theirs, I believe. They do this in active support of the terrorist regime. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… I agree, they should have been shot as belligerents.
How can it be terrorism when nobody was terrorised?
It was destruction of property and vandalism and they should face punishment for that but seeing as our government doesn’t punish murders who actually do terrorise their victims why should they face a anything significant when no harm was done to anyone.
All it does is prove that anyone that opposes the State gets the full force of the State coming down on them. Be it memes, verbal comments or actual action that causes no harm.
The terrorism act covers it: Sabotage designed to alter public opinion or government policy. And how do you feel, picking up the estimated £30 million repair costs?
So rioting and spraying paint on a building is terrorism then. Just because the government has wording a law to make anything that they do protected doesn’t make it terrorism imo. Legally, I agree with you morally, when they start prosecuting all those vandalising anything then I’ll agree. Morally, those the are just an immoral bunch.
I’m not happy about the £30M but it is a drop in the ocean compared to all the other things I am funding which I don’t like.
If the forces of government can’t be arsed to secure the perimeter of a single air-base, maybe it’s too much to expect them to secure the borders of the nation?
Time to give the job to those who recognise threats and will do.
They got access to aircraft – what’s the sentence for sleeping on duty these days? Were Border Farce in charge of airfield security?
I am expecting court martials all round on this one.
“They got access to aircraft – what’s the sentence for sleeping on duty these days? ”
You think there are armed guards for each aircraft? How sweet! There will be roving patrols. But not as many as you might think, they ain’t got the staff. Got to cut costs.
It’s all about money.
Many military posts have been civilianised in recent years to save money. Civilians do not guard. So do you find funding for literally hundreds of dedicated armed guards, or do you take people away from their primary duties to guard or more likely do you have them do guard duties when they are off shift? Hmm. Do you want people fixing aircraft after being on duty guarding stuff all night?
Meanwhile Starmer has promised twelve new submarines but as I understand it not actually committed to increase the defence budget.
Recent events in Ukraine/Russia have shown that aircraft on the ground are vulnerable to cheap drones. That’s the next challenge. As for the hole in the fence challenge it would require a lot more resource than the RAF has. Constant patrols, CCTV, armed rapid response units. They probably had either six erks in the guardroom or, more likely, some Serco-like civilian contractor cut-price outfit.
Any demonstration that can, or does, use preprinted Socialist Worker placards is definitely on the wrong side of history. That their only premise is ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’, or any variant thereof is again typical of the 60 and 70 somethings of the 60s generation who have never quite got over the utter failure of Communism.
Someone just HAS to pay for that, and so these stinky protestors clog up the arteries of London, Manchester etc. every week.
Regarding “shoot the trespassers and vandals on MOD property”.
I would point out the prosecution of soldiers that were deployed to Northern Ireland more than 50 years ago still being prosecuted and hounded for shooting actual armed terrorists that were trying their best to kill them.
If I was in the RAF Regiment, there is not a hope in Hell that I’d pull the trigger on anyone unless I was in imminent danger of dying myself.
Look at the responses above saying “well, it is just damage and vandalism”. No doubt a Barrister, just like Der Sturmer, would argue, and very likely succeed, in persuading everyone that the shot trespasser merely had become lost on the way back home from the pub and did not deserve to be shot. But the squaddie deserves life imprisonment for “murdering” the little innocent.
Also note that the IRA, despite killing far more people than the British Army, were given blanket pardons after the Good Friday Agreement.
do the bases not have roving dog patrols?
would be a nice middle ground. no need to go to the extreme of shooting someone for throwing paint with the bad optics that would have.
just let the dogs go to town and injuries were just a result of their apprehension