TL;DR: the US defence company Teledyne, whose factory was damaged by Palestine Action (“smashed windows, drilled roof panels, red paint, and smoke grenades”), paid off a corrupt member of the House of Lords to lobby the home secretary to proscribe them as terrorists, subjecting them to the same extreme anti-terror laws previously reserved for murderous groups such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the IRA, etc.
Neither article claims that this Lord specifically lobbied to get Palestine Action proscribed. The Guardian article has the letters attached to the article, and terror is never mentioned, he just talks about ‘considerable’ and ‘criminal’ damage, and unjustified violence, not even the ‘significant’ damage required for the Terrorism Act. Additionally, his most recent letter was sent in September 2024, the proscription was July 2025.
This Lord is a shitty person lobbying on behalf of a US defence company to get protestors stricter criminal prosecution. However your claim that he lobbied to get Palestine Action proscribed as terrorists is not backed by evidence or the article you linked.
Neither article claims that this Lord specifically lobbied to get Palestine Action proscribed.
Literally the headline (and URL) in the Guardian: “Lord Dannatt urged ministers to crack down on Palestine Action at request of US firm”.
At best you’re engaging in petty word games pretending that “crack down” means anything other than the outcome he got, for God knows what reason. (Edit: I see you joined Lemmy two hours ago for the purposes of making that post and only that post, which makes your motives even more dubious)
I don’t think there’s any evidence that ‘crack down’ did refer to terrorism. I believe it most likely meant harsh criminal charges, as there was no reference to terrorism or any of the wording from the terrorism act in the letters he sent or the responses he got. I do not remember there being any public thought/debate of protest action being proscribed as terrorism, so I don’t see how ‘crack down’ have been inferred to mean terrorism given there was no context of terrorism at the time. Unless we know that both both Teledyne and politicians were thinking of terrorism at the time, to say he lobbied to get them proscribed specifically rather than just harsher charges in general is speculation. However if you do have any evidence, I would love to see it. It wouldn’t surprise me too much given that the proscription does not seem to make any sense from reading the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act.
And yes, I did make this account just for this. I’ve never had a lemmy account before, I always browse logged out because I’m a weird tin foil hat privacy nutter. I understand a newly created account with no prior activity is very suspicious.
Being a new account isn’t suspicious in of itself, but being a new account that makes such an incredibly weak pettyfogging argument in defense of a shady corrupt arms company, now that is suspicious.
You’re asking for “evidence” that lobbying a government to “crack down” on something means pushing them to enact legislation about it? You show me evidence that it doesn’t mean that, because the latter reading is by far the least plausible of the two.
Also for those who may have missed it: https://ukfactcheck.com/article/20/house-of-lord-member-lobbied-ministers-on-behalf-of-us-defence-firm-targeted-by-palestine-action
TL;DR: the US defence company Teledyne, whose factory was damaged by Palestine Action (“smashed windows, drilled roof panels, red paint, and smoke grenades”), paid off a corrupt member of the House of Lords to lobby the home secretary to proscribe them as terrorists, subjecting them to the same extreme anti-terror laws previously reserved for murderous groups such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the IRA, etc.
The UK might as well be an American state at this point
That site you linked appears to be AI generated and they can’t guarantee they spot and fix all the hallucinations: https://ukfactcheck.com/editorial-standards
This appears to be the Guardian article mentioned in that post though: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/05/lord-dannatt-urged-ministers-to-crack-down-on-palestine-action-at-request-of-us-firm
Neither article claims that this Lord specifically lobbied to get Palestine Action proscribed. The Guardian article has the letters attached to the article, and terror is never mentioned, he just talks about ‘considerable’ and ‘criminal’ damage, and unjustified violence, not even the ‘significant’ damage required for the Terrorism Act. Additionally, his most recent letter was sent in September 2024, the proscription was July 2025.
This Lord is a shitty person lobbying on behalf of a US defence company to get protestors stricter criminal prosecution. However your claim that he lobbied to get Palestine Action proscribed as terrorists is not backed by evidence or the article you linked.
Literally the headline (and URL) in the Guardian: “Lord Dannatt urged ministers to crack down on Palestine Action at request of US firm”.
At best you’re engaging in petty word games pretending that “crack down” means anything other than the outcome he got, for God knows what reason. (Edit: I see you joined Lemmy two hours ago for the purposes of making that post and only that post, which makes your motives even more dubious)
I don’t think there’s any evidence that ‘crack down’ did refer to terrorism. I believe it most likely meant harsh criminal charges, as there was no reference to terrorism or any of the wording from the terrorism act in the letters he sent or the responses he got. I do not remember there being any public thought/debate of protest action being proscribed as terrorism, so I don’t see how ‘crack down’ have been inferred to mean terrorism given there was no context of terrorism at the time. Unless we know that both both Teledyne and politicians were thinking of terrorism at the time, to say he lobbied to get them proscribed specifically rather than just harsher charges in general is speculation. However if you do have any evidence, I would love to see it. It wouldn’t surprise me too much given that the proscription does not seem to make any sense from reading the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act.
And yes, I did make this account just for this. I’ve never had a lemmy account before, I always browse logged out because I’m a weird tin foil hat privacy nutter. I understand a newly created account with no prior activity is very suspicious.
Being a new account isn’t suspicious in of itself, but being a new account that makes such an incredibly weak pettyfogging argument in defense of a shady corrupt arms company, now that is suspicious.
You’re asking for “evidence” that lobbying a government to “crack down” on something means pushing them to enact legislation about it? You show me evidence that it doesn’t mean that, because the latter reading is by far the least plausible of the two.
That’s pretty bad, I feel at the same time the UK is very open at making fun of politicians. Based on (comedy)TV shows about the news etc.