Palestine Action verdict: a reason to celebrate - or a trick? w/ (Crispin Flintoff)
Posted by sashimi on February 16, 2026, 2:29 pm
16 Feb 2026
Huda Ammori (Palestine Action), Tim Crosland (Defend our Juries) and Craig Murray (former UK ambassador) discuss Friday's decision from the Judicial Review that Palestine Action's proscription was unlawful.
Phil Bevin: The truth behind yesterday's High Court decision over Palestine Action
The truth behind yesterday's High Court decision over Palestine Action and a response to Tony Greenstein's smears. Creator profile picture A different Narrative: Investigating the modern British Empire
I'm aware that my position on Defend our Juries is probably unpopular. But I don't write to be popular. I write to educate, inform and publish analysis that I consider to be accurate and true. Although my work on this subject is likely to lose me followers, I write in the hope that it will prevent people, or even one person, from having their lives needlessly ruined.
Yesterday's high court decision over Palestine Action is being widely misreported and misrepresented to the point that peoples' freedoms are being put at risk. I'll deal with the most obviously and dangerously false claim first:
That Palestine Action is no longer proscribed.
Palestine Action is still proscribed and to support it, including financially, remains a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act (2000).
The Metropolitan Police has stated:
"The group remains proscribed pending the outcome of any Government appeal, which means expressing support is still a criminal offence.
We recognise these are unusual circumstances and there will likely be some confusion among the public as to what happens next.
From a Metropolitan police perspective, officers will continue to identify offences where support for Palestine Action is being expressed, but they will focus on gathering evidence of those offences and the people involved to provide opportunities for enforcement at a later date, rather than making arrests at the time.
This is the most proportionate approach we can take, acknowledging the decision reached by the court while recognising that proceedings are not yet fully concluded.
This approach relates solely to the expression of support for Palestine Action. We will continue to intervene and make arrests where we see people crossing the line from lawful protest to intimidate, to damage property, to use violence, to stir up racial hatred or to commit other offences.
We are mindful that this decision comes at a time when the impact of a prolonged period of significant protest continues to be felt by communities across London, in particular Jewish communities. We will continue to take an assertive and determined approach to dealing with antisemitism and other hate crime, acting decisively against anyone who tries to use the cover of protest to cause fear and distress to Londoners.
The ruling presents other immediate challenges for police and prosecutors who had to execute the legal ban, with hundreds arrested for showing support for Palestine Action, and thus deemed to be breaking terrorism laws."
Despite headlines suggesting that the police will no longer enforce the proscription, this is clearly false: they have openly stated that they will continue to gather evidence that will be used in enforcement actions at a later date, presumably after the Government's appeal of the decision is heard and if it is successful.
The Government has already signalled its intention to appeal the High Court Decision to overturn the proscription, and it is likely to remain in place for some time yet in practice. This means that those who are presenting the decision as a great victory are acting prematurely, as the appeals process is not complete and outcome of the appeals process is yet to be decided. T
More insidiously, Defend Our Juries and its outrider Tony Greenstein are implying that the "Lift the Ban" campaign, through which nearly 3000 people were encouraged to get themselves arrested, had an impact on either the High Court decision itself or the Met's decision to postpone (but not abandon) further arrests. For example, Defend our Juries made the following claim:
“Thousands of people of conscience saw that branding protest as terrorism was a move straight out of the dictator’s playbook. Together we took action at great personal risk – inspired by each other’s courage. We helped make this proscription unenforceable by saying “we do not comply”.”
That this is nonsense is evident from the simple fact that the High Court's ruling was based on the legality of the Home Secretary's original decision to proscribe Palestine Action, which could not have taken into account the "Lift the Ban" campaign as it did not yet exist at the time of proscription. But readers don't have to take my word for it. The text of the ruling itself confirms that the protests had no bearing whatsoever on the ruling:
"There are two further points that also go to the general extent of the interference with Convention rights consequent on the proscription decision. One concerns the actions taken since proscription referring to Palestine Action that have led to many arrests. The various forms this action has taken are well known. Immediately following the proscription decision there were large protests. More than 2,000 people at these protests were arrested, primarily on suspicion of committing the offence under section 13 of the 2000 Act. The vast majority of those arrested had chosen to hold signs which read, “I oppose Genocide, I support Palestine Action”. We attach little weight to this when it comes to assessing the extent of the interference with Convention rights in this case. All those holding such signs either did or ought to have realised that what they were doing was showing support for Palestine Action [my emphasis]. It was or ought to have been obvious to all concerned that such “carefully worded” placards were carefully worded only to the extent of sending the message that the person holding the placard was expressing support for Palestine Action. What happened on these occasions was not evidence of difficulty or uncertainty in respect of what actions could be taken following the proscription of Palestine Action. Rather, it was evidence of calculated action."
In other words, the very nature of the protests as a calculated campaign in response to the original ban makes them irrelevant to considerations of free speech in relation to the ban in the view of the High Court. It's also worth emphasising the following sentence: "All those holding such signs either did or ought to have realised that what they were doing was showing support for Palestine Action [my emphasis]"
This is the High Court emphasising that if the decision to overturn the Home Secretary's proscription of Palestine Action is itself overturned on appeal, they cannot claim that they were not knowingly breaching the terms of the Terrorism Act 2000. Even when suggesting the initial decision to proscribe Palestine Action as unlawful, yesterday's judgement affirms the legitimacy of future prosecutions of protestors should the ruling be successfully appealed.
And this brings me to my final point on the hearing for today (there's a huge amount to unpack from this ruling and unfortunately more than I have time to write about today): the ruling affirms that Palestine Action is an organisation "concerned in terrorism", with only the proportionality of the proscription deemed "unlawful".
In other words, in an appeal, the Home Secretary does not need to prove that Palestine Action is "concerned in Terrorism" as this definition of the group has been upheld. They only need successfully argue that proscription is an appropriate and proportionate means of dealing with a group that has been accepted as "concerned in terrorism". This is not a high bar to cross.
A note on smears and agents of the security state
Every time there's a development with this issue, Tony Greenstein chooses to smear me as a either a "conspiracy theorist", "state asset" or both. Personally, I don't think the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" carries the same sting as it used to since it was revealed that the West really is governed by an elite conspiracy.
On being an "asset" or "agent" or any kind of covert state operative, I can simply and honestly say that I'm not. I did once ask Tony Greenstein the same question after he started attacking me over WhatsApp posts I made about CIA cutout Plan C and its front campaign Don't Pay UK, in which he was for a time involved. The conversation went as follows:
Tony Greenstein: "Assuming this is true so what? Or am I secretly an agent?"
Me: "I don't know. Are you?"
Tony Greenstein: "According to u I must be. Everyone on the left bar u is not what they seem [note: I don't claim to be "on the left" these days]"
Me: "I must take that as a yes"
Tony Greenstein: "You can take whatever you want. You are an irrelevant crank"
If Tony were not an intelligence asset, I think it is reasonable for me to conclude that he would have denied it, rather than asserting that he is one according to my logic. Readers should bear in mind that "my logic" is based on the terminology the security services themselves use. If Tony is an "agent" according to me, that means he fits the term as used by the security services, which is as follows:
"a person unofficially employed by an intelligence service, often as a source of information."
On the basis of this conversation and his general behaviour - which in my honest opinion, resembles that of an agent provocateur who is encouraging members of the public to incriminate themselves by participating in illegal acts - it is my honest, sincere opinion that Tony Greenstein is an informal asset of a western or Israeli security service. My view is that his in my opinion bad faith attacks against my work and the integrity of my character should be read in this context.
My aim here is to prevent as many needless arrests as possible and prevent lives from being ruined through actions provoked by misinformation and disinformation. I can no longer turn the other cheek and allow his smear campaign to go unchallenged. Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
on February 16, 2026, 2:29 pm