Lift the Ban: Fourth arrest, 30th July 2026 "Graduation Day"

This is one of a series of posts about my experience of the Defend our Juries (DoJ) 'Lift the Ban' campaign. See my Lift the Ban page for more.

Note: in case you are wondering why this post is date before 30th July, that was when I first put wrote a post saying that I was going to take part. I've edited today, 2 August, with an account of what happened.

DoJ billed this as 'Graduation Day'. This is what they said;

On July 30th, 152 people were arrested at what should have been a “Graduation Day” celebration outside Westminster Magistrates Court.

More than 1,500 people had received letters stating that a hearing relating to their prosecution would take place on July 30th at the court. Their names were listed for court hearings on the day.

Instead of being permitted into the court for their listed hearings, 152 people were arrested, mostly under the Terrorism Act, while peacefully attending an event outside the court. Some were arrested just for speaking to the crowd, others for trying to put up a small platform for performers and speakers to stand on, some were even arrested for clapping!

I was one of those, listed for a court hearing (arising from my arrest on 9th August 2025 and subsequent charge under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act (TA 2000)), and then arrested on the day. They said they were arresting me under Section 12 of TA 2000, because I said something like:

"I am a member and a supporter of Palestine Action and I encourage everyone to do the same because saving lives is not terrorism"

I say 'something like' because that is what I intended to say but the day was a bit chaotic and I was nervous, so I may not have said exactly that. Also, when they didn't seem to be arresting me, I got up and said it again, facing straight at the police to make sure they heard me, and I don't know whether I said exactly the same things both times! If they decide to charge me they will need evidence, so presumably they've got video footing of the event and may have a recording of me speaking. Or else this Blog post might be used as evidence, but since I'm saying that I don't know exactly what I said - really don't! - it would be pretty weak evidence.  I understand that they may also raid my home for evidence, but if they do, I hate to disappoint them but I don't think they will find anything incriminating!

The routine is getting familiar now, and I was taken in a Pixie (police van) to Plumstead police station (which is where I was taken last time too). It took over 90 minutes to get from outside Westminster Magistrates Court to Plumstead police station, and then we sat in the Pixie for a couple of hours in the police station car park, waiting in the queue for processing. When I finally got in, it was all very calm and un-threatening. Once again there was no sense that any of the police that I had dealings with thought for one moment that I was criminal. TBH, I'm finding it quite interesting meeting all these young (very young compared to me) police men and women. I'm not going to say anything in more detail because I don't want to get them into trouble. And, I need to say again, the experience may be very different for someone who is not a white, British man like me. (Although this time I wasn't wearing my Christ the Cornerstone t-shirt because we'd been asked to wear something red. I wore my Jeremy Corbyn t-shirt which I thought might not have been universally popular, but no one said anything about it.)

But the police were not ALL like that. One constable who seemed to be directing proceeding outside Westminster Magistrates Court for part of the time suddenly started to get angry, and his face turned positively venomous. He pointed to one us and shouted that he was was tripping people up. It didn't look like that to me and TBH it looked very personal on the part of the police constable.

Section 12 of TA 2000 is a more serious offence than Section 13, with a maximum penalty of 14 years in jail. I'm working on the assumption that it will not come to that! DoJ and their lawyers are pretty confident that it won't, for someone like me (middle class white man), but I have to be prepared for that as a possible outcome. To put it dramatically, I have to be prepared for the eventual outcome (starting quite some way in the future, since there are still appeals pending on the proscription of Palestine Action and that, combined with the chaos in the courts as noted in the DoJ quote above, means that any conviction is still a long was off), for the eventual outcome of me spending the last years of my life in jail.

So you will appreciate that I am constantly wondering whether I am right to be doing this. Not only, though, in terms of whether I am right to be risking own liberty, but also more importantly whether the cause I am supporting is just. The news from Gaza and the West Bank, and the treatment of the Palestine Action activists*, indicates very clearly that it is.

*Most recently reports that those found guilty of smashing windows and spraying red paint on Barclays Bank are likely to receive a 'terrorism' sentence, as happened to the Filton four. 

 

Lift the Ban: second arrest 11th April 2026

This is one of a series of posts about my experience of the Defend our Juries (DoJ) 'Lift the Ban' campaign. See my Lift the Ban page for more.

Things haven't got any better. There is supposedly a ceasefire in Gaza but the killing of Palestinians continues almost daily. Alongside the assault in Lebanon and the hostilities with Iran, Israel continues its policy of ethnic cleansing in both Gaza and the West Bank. World opinion seems less and less sympathetic to Israel, and more and more commentators and politicians in the UK are condemning what they are doing, but that doesn't lead to real pressure on Israel. They were even allowed to participate in Eurovision (unlike Russia) and their football teams are still welcome in international matches (again, unlike Russia). But more importantly Britain continues to allow arms exports to Israel.

Palestine Action remains proscribed (despite the Judicial Review saying the proscription was unlawful), and brave and idealistic young people have spent months in prison before even coming to trial. Some of them eventually found not guilty: more than 18 months in prison and not guilty of anything! 

So on 11th April 2026 I participated in the DoJ 'Everyone Day' action. After the Judicial Review judgement the Met Police initially said they wouldn't make any more arrests pending the outcome of the Home Secretary's appeal of the Judicial Review, so originally DoJ thought we wouldn't be arrested on Everyone Day - but the Met changed their minds and we were 😒.

I sat in Trafalgar Square and on the stroke of 1pm, wrote on a placard "I oppose Genocide. I support Palestine Action". I was duly arrested, put in a police van (a 'Pixie': no-one seems to know why they are called that!) and taken to the triage point. Then, because I again managed to remain anonymous (so they couldn't give me Street Bail) was taken to a police station for processing. This time it was Peckham.

There isn't a lot more to say about it really. I could do some comparisons between Kentish Town and Peckham (perhaps I should put them up on Trip Advisor)! The cell was cleaner in Kentish Town, in Peckham they didn't take the staples out of my London Review of Books, they phoned the solicitors for me quite quickly in Peckham (they didn't at all in Kentish Town) but were very slow in letting me make my own phone call, so it was a long time before Joy knew where I was. They didn't have the computer problems in Peckham that they'd had in Kentish Town so I was locked-up much sooner and released quite a bit earlier, allowing me to get to Euston before the last train home. 

 

Lift the Ban: Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action. Part 3: proportionality

Important Disclaimer! This is me, David Chapman, with no legal training, trying to make sense of what has gone on. I will come back to edit it as I understand things better. 

This is one of my Lift the Ban posts. See especially Part 1 and Part 2 of my discussion on the Judgement of the Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action.

Paragraph 25 in the introductory section (Section A) of the Judgement:

It is plain then that through the Underground Manual, Palestine Action encourages its members and others who align with it to plan and cause damage to property. There is no suggestion of restraint or proportionality. On the contrary, and entirely consistent with its objectives, Palestine Action encourages the causing of more, rather than less harm.

Note the sentence "There is no suggestion of restraint or proportionality." 

Whenever you refer to 'proportionality' there is a comparison involved. This is (or is not) proportional to this. As I allude to in Part 2 of my discussion, the judges when discussing Ground 2, commendably, spend a lot of time comparing the useful consequences of proscribing Palestine Action (prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes which are terrorism in the meaning of the 2000 Act) with the damaging consequences of the proscription (excessive infringement of the rights of individuals under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights). They conclude that the damage as a consequence of the latter outweighs the merits (in their opinion) of the former and therefore they uphold Ground 2.

When it comes to Paragraph 25, on the other hand, as far as I can see, there is no explanation whatever of what the harm caused by the actions of Palestine Action is being compared to when they say "There is no suggestion of ... proportionality."

I can only think that they don't address this because they don't like the answer. Because the comparison which is staring you in the face is with the genocide. And what is especially stark is the comparison of the destruction of 80% of the buildings in whole of Gaza with the damage to property perpetrated by Palestine Action. The thing is, one of the disputed aspects of the 2000 Terrorism Act is how it allows damage to property to be defined as terrorism. OK, there are indeed good reasons to recognise that damage to property can be terrible and can justifiably be deemed terrorism. Witness Israel's targetting of the hospitals of Gaza. 

In a way, I'm surprised that the judges kept the word 'proportionality' in the paragraph. The paragraph would have worked without 'or proportionality' and having it there cries out for the comparison with the destruction and genocide of Gaza. 

Lift the Ban: Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action. Part 2: the judgment

Disclaimer! This is me, David Chapman, with no legal training, trying to make sense of what has gone on. I will come back to edit it as I understand things better. 

This is one of my Lift the Ban posts 

The 'Open Judgment' of the court which undertook the Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action.

Content 

There are 150 numbered paragraphs in the judgment, divided as follows:

Part A 'Introduction' (paragraphs 2-46) sets the context, subdivided:

(i) The decision, the claim and the proceedings Paragraphs 2 - 8
(ii) The power to proscribe under the 2000 Act and the consequences of proscription Paragraphs 9- 14
(iii) Palestine Action Paragraphs 15 - 30
(iv) The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Paragraphs 31 - 46 

Part B. Decision (paragraphs 47 - 145) addressing each of the four grounds for the review:

(1) Ground 8. Procedural Fairness. Paras 47 - 67 This ground was rejected by the judges
(2) Ground 5. Failure to consider relevant matters. Paras 68 - 71 This ground was rejected by the judges
(3) Ground 6. The decision to proscribe was contrary to the Home Secretary’s own policy. Paras 72 - 96 This ground was accepted by the judges
(4) Ground 2. Conventions rights Paras 97 - 145 This ground was accepted by the judges. Discussion subdivided as follows: 

(i) The claimant’s case Paras 97 - 98
(ii) Is proscription a specific measure or a general one? Paras 99 - 102
(iii) The interference with Convention rights consequent on the offences in the 2000 Act. Paras 103 - 106
(iv) Preliminary matters Paras 107 - 115
(v) The claimant’s evidence in this case Paras 116 - 124
(vi) Is the interference prescribed by law? Paras 125 - 127
(vii) The importance of the objective Para 128
(viii) Rational connection between proscription and the legitimate aims Para 129
(ix) Less intrusive measures Paras 130 - 134
(x) Has a fair balance been struck? Paras 135 - 142
(xi) Article 14 Paras 143 - 145

Part C.  Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (Paragraphs 146 - 149)

If I understand it right, this was an argument made by the Home Secretary that even if the court upheld Ground 6 (or any of the other grounds, except Ground 2), it didn't matter because it wouldn't have affected the decision to proscribe. The judges didn't agree with the Home Secretary on this point.

Part D.  Disposal Just one paragraph, paragraph 150, which says:

"For the reasons given above, Grounds 5 and 8 of the claim fail and are dismissed, but the claimant succeeds on Grounds 6 and 2 of her claim. To this extent the claimant’s claim is allowed. Subject to any further representations on relief, we propose to make an order quashing the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action."

However, the Home Secretary asked to be allowed to appeal, the court has allowed the appeal to proceed, and the judges have said that the proscription should remain in place until the outcome of the appeal (see Case number: AC-2025-LON-002122). So at the time of writing (26 Feb 2026), Palestine Action remains proscribed.

Some observations

1 The objectivity of the judgement.

I was expecting a legal judgment to come across as cold and impartial. I was thinking in terms of academic writing for which you are not supposed to use the first person and write instead in the passive voice. It is often in reality a pretence, but the idea is that you are presenting facts which are objectively true and independent of the author.  But that was not how it came across in the judgment. For one thing the first person is used throughout ('we' appears 52 times). 

For example paragraph 57

On consideration of the detail in this case, we do not accept the claimant’s submission that fairness required the Home Secretary to give Palestine Action notice that she was minded to exercise her power to proscribe, to provide such reasons as she could, and to permit Palestine Action to have the opportunity to make representations.

OK, as I said, even in academic writing the absence of the author is often a pretence and I guess it is the judgment of the judges, so maybe this is just my ignorance of how courts work.

But there was something else in there which I find more worrying. In places the writing comes across to me as 'taking sides'. 

Take, for example, Paragraph 23:

23 The core hallmarks of civil disobedience, namely the objective of seeking a change in the law or government policy, an approach to law breaking that is characterised by restraint and acceptance of the legal consequences of their actions, are emphatically not the hallmarks of Palestine Action’s campaign. Its campaign is intended to close down the operations of a company pursuing a lawful business. The campaign has not been pursued with restraint. The wide range of targets is significant. It lays bare that Palestine Action’s campaign and pursuit of criminal damage is designed to intimidate the persons and businesses targeted so they end their commercial relationships with Elbit. Palestine Action is not engaged in any exercise of persuasion, or at least not the type of persuasion that is consistent with democratic values and the rule of law.

(Emphasis added.)

My point is that 'emphatically' and 'lays bare' are things you say to convince someone, not just to describe something.

2 Why did they uphold the review?

As I explain above, I don't see the judgement as an 'objective' conclusion from the evidence. To be fair, I don't think absolute objectivity is possible, and maybe that is never what judges do. Perhaps they use their judgement... But also, as a number of people have observed, the conclusion almost appears, in footballing terms, to come "against the run of play". In much of the discussion their dislike of us lot, Palestine Action and those of us who joined the 'Lift the ban' campaign, is palpable. So why did they find in favour of two of the grounds? I've seen two explanations. 

Craig Murray has a sinister reading: he argues that they have set things up for the Home Secretary to win the appeal. He argues that they pack the judgement with reasons for not uphold the review, and then find in favour on the thinest of grounds which will easily be rejected on appeal.

One of the members of Huda's legal team, however, in a presentation to us 'Lift the ban' activists, has a different take which I find more convincing from my reading of the judgement. This is that while it is true that they, the judges don't like us and don't approve of the either Palestine Action or the Lift the Ban campaign, nevertheless they believe in international law and at a time when many countries are trampling over human rights embedded in international agreements like the ECHR they felt that is was important to put a marker down. You can see from the paragraph count above that their biggest concern addressed the ground that the proscription of Palestine Action interferred excessively with the human rights enshrined in Articles 10 and 11. They argued that even though three of the actions of Palestine Action had been terrorism in the definition of 2000 Terrorism Act, those crimes could be prosecuted in other ways and that proscribing Palestine Action had a disproportionate consequence on the human rights of other people. There is a lot of space given over to addressing this question of proportionality in the context of ground 2. While I applaud that, to my mind it provides an interesting contrast with another question of proportionality in the judgement, which I address in a separate post.

 

Lift the Ban: reflections from cell number 6 at Kentish Town Police station

This is one of a series of posts about my experience of the Defend our Juries (DoJ) 'Lift the Ban' campaign. See my Lift the Ban page for more.

Note: this is work in progress and I shall be coming back to edit it from time to time.

OK, I'm not writing this in the cell. It is four month later but these are thoughts that at least began in the cell on 9th August 2025.

  © Copyright Jim Osley and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

 

I was locked in the cell in Kentish Town Police station for a total of about 4 hours. (I'm not sure exactly how long I was in there. I was in a state of, not shock, but bewilderment for most of the day, and after my arrest they took my phone and my watch off me which was surprisingly disorientating). After 67 years of complete conformity with the law and coming from a 100% law-abiding family, it felt quite incredible when they locked the cell door.

Now here though is what I wasn't expecting: I felt an extraordinary sense of peace locked in the cell. Trying to understand this, I think that some sources of deep-seated anxiety had been cleared by what I had done and what had happened. This is how I explain it (at the moment, ie, provisionally)

1) I'd done something completely aligned with my religious faith. There's an almost paradoxical twist to this, because my religious beliefs have become increasingly less 'real', and yet more sincere, in the past year (while I've been editor of Sofia, the magazine of the Sea of Faith Network). It was like as if I was, for the first time in my life, sincerely serving God - but it was a God that I didn't believe existed and I was fine with that! There's a lot more that I want to say about this, the 'religious' angle, but that is for another, later, post. 

2) I'd done something brave, or at least 'authentic'. I've never thought of myself as brave person (a bit timid and maybe cowardly, if I'm honest) and was gobsmacked at what I'd done! 

3) I found that I wasn't afraid of what might be to come. In the short term I wasn't in any real danger. The police were treating me OK (they'd even given me what was really quite an acceptable vegan pasta dish to eat) and I knew that I would be released some time in the next few hours and that I could get home safely. But also longer term, I realised that if the worst case scenario came about and I ended-up (I end-up: this is still a possibility, albeit unlikely) spending some time in jail over the next few years, I was, sort of, OK with that because of #1 above. 

I found myself thinking about how much I've time got left. I'm 67 and my parents both remained healthy into their mid to late 80s so I'm reckoning on up to another 20 years, but I've lost a couple of friends of my own age just this year, so who knows? Would I resent having to spend some of my remaining precious years of life in jail? My answer was again a surprise to me because it was 'no', if it is for a good cause. I found myself thinking of my future years as 'capital' and I should chose how to spend it. I am going to die eventually, and I want to use my remaining life for something meaningful. Opposing genocide is meaningful.

Lift the Ban: plea hearing

This is one of a series of posts about my experience of the Defend our Juries (DoJ) 'Lift the Ban' campaign. See my Lift the Ban page for more.

Note: I shall be coming back to edit this from time to time. 

My first hearing, the plea hearing when I entered my Not Guilty plea, was at Westminster Magistrate's Court on 24th November.  There is a degree of 'batch processing' going on because of the huge numbers of defendants that the courts will have to get through. Although they've so far only charged a relatively small proportion of those arrested they are claiming that everyone will eventually be charged, and as I write this there have been more than 2000 arrests so even accounting for the many re-arrests they are going to charging more than 1000. The court therefore had a group of five defendants in the dock at one time, and on 24th November there were five sessions, so 25 people in the day. This was the first time I'd ever been inside a law court of any sort, but my wife, Joy, used to be a children's social worker and had been to family courts in connection with Adoption Orders, so was able to tell be a bit about what to expect (although the cases that Joy was involved in, and her role in it, was very different). But also the support both from the DoJ people and my fellow defendents was excellent. A few defendents were entitled to legal aid and they are represented by lawyers from HJA Solicitors, who are working with DoJ. The rest of us, including me, are for the moment 'self-representing'. 

Once again, I found everyone friendly enough! Before I went into court I was given my 'Evidence Bundle' (that really is what they call it!) by the prosecution, which contained the basic facts of what they held against me. The main thing in it was the statement by my arresting officer. I was keen to see this, because when I'd been telling people how friendly my young arresting officer had been and that I'd had some conversations with him, I was warned that that may have been a mistake: even if he was friendly he might come under pressure from his superiors/colleague to malign me. I had also heard of many cases in which the bundle was full of basic errors - like containing a photograph of the wrong person! None of that was the case for me. My judgement of my arresting officer was right and his account was accurate and fair, and there was a photo of me with my sign (which you can see in the first of these accounts).

When it came to my turn to enter my plea, the judge wanted me simply to say 'guilty' or 'not guilty' but, like many of my fellow defendents, this was when I made a statement:

I am 67 years old and have never been arrested before. But my country has been complicit in war crimes, including the slaughter of more than 20 thousand children, some of them buried alive in the rubble. And not only that, the government is trying to suppress opposition to the genocide. I cannot stay silent. I need to act according to my conscience, and so I plead not guilty.

 My trial date is 1st July.

Lift the Ban: charged

This is one of a series of posts about my experience of the Defend our Juries (DoJ) 'Lift the Ban' campaign. See my Lift the Ban page for more.

Note: I shall be coming back to edit this from time to time. 

After release from Kentish Town police station at 12:30am on Sunday 10th August there was a nice welcoming committee from DoJ outside, but all I wanted to do was get home, so I got the tube to Euston where I (eventually) got a bus-replacement service to Milton Keynes and cycled home from the station at about 3am. I was down to do a reading at the 10am service at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone that morning so after a few hours sleep I cycled up to the church where the minister welcomed me and told the congregation, with broad approval, what I had done the day before. I think it is significant that there is general surprise (amazement) that I would do such a thing, but I've not yet met anyone in the congregation that disapproves (if they do, they've not told me). 

My bail had just one condition: "Not to attend or participate in planned or unplanned demonstration in support of Palestine Action", and I was to return to Kentish Town police station to report back on bail on 21/10/2025. My wife and I had a holiday booked for the whole of October (a five-week Interrailing trip around Europe), so I emailed the Met police to see if my bail return date could be delayed until we got back. They politely refused, so we built into our trip a day return for me from Lille to London (fortunately my bail appoinment was for 2pm so the timing was OK to do it on a day return).

There was nothing in my bail conditions that stopped me from traveling abroad, but I was worried in case I missed any important communication from the police, so I emailed them and told them what I was doing, and that I wouldn't be picking up post but I could be contacted by email. They were fine with that, and once again it was somewhat surreal, as emails came to me signed:

Best regards. 
Alistair (not his real name*) 

Constable |  Investigations | Pod 1 - Team 2
Metropolitan Police | SO15 Counter Terrorism Command 

(*Name changed because it seemed like the right thing to do.) 

How kind to send his best regards! And in one email when I'd asked him to send me a pdf of the charge papers, even:

If there's anything else I can help with, please don't hesitate to get in touch.
Best regards
Alistair

This 'respectful' response all the way along suggests to me that the people I am dealing with in the Met police (including the "Counter Terrorism Command"), the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) and the courts do not consider me a criminal. Maybe I'm being unfair to have expected otherwise: maybe they treat all suspects like this, since everyone is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Anyway, I am grateful for it: thank you not-his-real-name Alistair.

I especially wanted to know if and when I was charged, because I'd heard that when people had been charged they would have a court appearance in November and their bail return was cancelled - so I wouldn't have needed to do the day trip back to London.

In the event I was charged and my bail appointment cancelled. I was one of the 'privileged' first 20 (out of more than 500) arrested on 9th August to be charged, but I first heard about it from a press release by the Met Police on 1st October. It was weird to see myself ("[CXXXIV] David Chapman (27.04.1958), of Milton Keynes") publically threatened by the Met police like this. But the whole saga has been one new and weird experience after another and that is why I'm writing it up here.

It was clear, by the threatening tone of the press release (detailing the awful consequences of being convicted of a terrorist charge) that the intention was to try to discourage people from taking part in the next Lift the Ban action that DoJ had arranged for a few days later. We were being made an example of! 

Since I'm retired, quite a lot of this has little significance to me, and anyway my calculation is that all of these consequences are completely trivial compared to what is happening to the Palestinians. And as an intimidation tactic there is no evidence that it is working. Plenty more people keep volunteering to take part.

The Met had charged me by post but I'd not been home to get the letter. TBH, I wondered whether this way of serving the charge was allowed since they knew I was not at home, but people in the know tell me there is no point arguing about that.

So I cancelled my return trip to London (losing £50 in the process) and started planning (with the help of the brilliant people of DoJ) for my plea hearing on 24th November at Westminster Magistrate's Court.

Lift the Ban: arrest and bail

This is one of a series of posts about my experience of the Defend our Juries (DoJ) 'Lift the Ban' campaign. See my Lift the Ban page for more.

Note: I shall be coming back to edit this from time to time. 

It is difficult to convey quite how law-abiding and obedient I have been in my life. I once got a fine for inadvertently doing 36 mph in a 30 mile zone in Bletchley but that's about it. And yet earlier this year (2025), at the age of 67, I was arrested under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act.

On 9th August I joined the more than 500 protestors in Parliament Square and as Big Ben struck 1pm I wrote on a blank placard the words "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”. We sat in silence (most of us) holding our placards and facing away from the Palace of Westminster to symbolically turn our backs on Parliament. For a while nothing happened and then small groups from the vast hordes of police surrounding the square moved in and took out some individuals. I was bizarrely reminded of a wildlife documentary as predators move in on flocks or herds of prey and select their victim. The arrests then picked-up pace. Some protestors resisted by ‘going floppy’ so they required several police officers to carry them, but many of us, myself included, allowed ourselves to be led away by a single officer. I was taken to one of the many police vans surrounding the square and thence to a nearby temporary 'triage' point set up by the Met Police in order to try to process us as quickly as possible. As recommended by the organisers of the protest (DoJ) I refused to give my details and, because I've never been arrested before they didn't have a record of who I was, they had to take me to a police station. Unfortunately the station I was taken to (Kentish Town) was having problems with their computer system so we queued outside for more than three hours (having already spent a couple of hours queuing for the triage) and I didn't get locked up in a police cell until about 8 pm. I was eventually released on bail at 12:30am the following morning.

The experience was surreal at times. Even while treating me as a criminal the police were respectful (maybe my ‘Church of Christ the Cornerstone’ t-shirt helped). The young constable who arrested me seemed quite nervous and I wondered if I was the first person he had ever arrested. He'd written the words he had to say to me ("you do not need to say anything but anything you do say..." - familiar to me only from watching police dramas on the TV) on the palm of his hand. The advice from DoJ was not to say anything after being arrested so we didn’t talk much, but because of all the delays we were together for about six hours in all and I found it impossible not to try some conversation with him. I maybe said more than was advisable but he was friendly and even kept me up to date with the MK Dons score (I'm a season ticket holder). When we finally parted ways at 8pm we shook hands and he said that he hoped never to see me again – for the best of reasons. In Kentish Town police station the officer taking my fingerprints struggled to get the machine to work and I sympathised as he complained about the poor equipment at that station. He assured me that it wasn’t like that in his own police station. After he’d taken my fingerprints as best he could, a DNA sample and several photos, he thought I could be released. But on learning that they were not ready to do that yet he said he’d take me back to my ‘room’ as though I was in a hotel – but he still locked the door of Police Holding Cell Number 6 behind me. But I was a long, long, way outside of my comfort zone, spent much of the time bewildered and occasionally it was undeniably frightening. When first locked in the cell, more than six hours after being arrested, I’d had no way of knowing the time (they'd taken my watch and phone off me), I’d not yet been allowed my one phone call so neither my wife nor any of my friends knew where I was (but would have realised I must have been arrested), I was hungry, having had nothing to eat for 12 hours (because the cafe at Westminster Hall doesn’t accept cash, but that’s another story) and I didn’t even have anything to read because they wouldn’t let me have my copy of the London Review of Books back until they’d taken the staples out of it. I did a bit of thinking. I've been doing a lot of that while this has been going on and I'll tell you about it in due course!

I was arrested under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act which has a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail. So why did I do it? Specifically, it is because I do not think that what Palestine Action does is terrorism and they should never have been proscribed. I agree with their aims - to stop Britain's complicity in war crimes and genocide - even if I would be unlikely to use their methods. As I see it, they are damaging property (and they should be charged for criminal damage) in order to draw attention to the fact that Britain is complicit in the genocide being committed by Israel against the Palestinian people. 

In his book, One day, everyone will have always been against this [1], El Akkad quotes a Palestinian poet Rash Abdulhadi:  

Wherever you are, whatever sand you can throw on the gears of genocide, do it now. If it's a handful, throw it. If its a fingernail, scrape it out and throw. Get in the way however you can.

I would like to think that the symbolic (and real) act of my getting arrested indirectly throws a few grains of sand into the machinery of genocide. I would like to think that, but even if in reality it won't have any effect I don't regret it one little bit. I'll write about that another time.

And, it is also about a broader issue to do with what has been happening in the UK in recent years because it was known at the time that the terrorism act was defining terrorism far too broadly, and could be misused. A step toward totalitarianism.

1 See my review of the book in Sofia