There was nothing "just" about the Greenham women. On one occasion they painted peace symbols on the 'Blackbird' US spyplane stationed there. Seven were charged with criminal damage for it: the MOD dropped the charges when it reached court.
Replies
It was a very different era, last century, there's no equivalence.
aug 11, 2025, 9:00 am • 2 0 • view
It’s exactly the same. We had actual terrorism back then from the IRA. What do you mean by very different era?
aug 11, 2025, 1:13 pm • 0 0 • view
Is your point that we should no longer have the same freedoms of speech and protest that we had 25 years ago?
aug 11, 2025, 9:09 am • 13 0 • view
Not at all, nobody is banned from supporting Palestine, Greenham Common was more than 25 years ago, it was last century. New laws are made every day which some people object to, times change.
aug 11, 2025, 9:13 am • 2 0 • view
I think a lot of people getting all excited about Palestine Action are stuck in the Eighties. The Greenham Women achieved sweet Fanny Adams, but now we're supposed to think they're heroines. It's lefty nostalgia
aug 11, 2025, 9:17 am • 1 0 • view
The point isn't whether they achieved anything, it's the fact that they had the right to protest without being branded as terrorists.
aug 11, 2025, 9:19 am • 7 0 • view
It was forty years ago. I remember it, maybe you don't. It was 9/11, 7/10 & the suicide bombings in London. You might as well be talking about the repeal of the Corn Laws
aug 11, 2025, 9:22 am • 1 0 • view
They still have the right to protest just not support a proscribed organisation. If I hold s banner saying “I support a united Ireland. I support the IRA” I’d be arrested. The first part of that is protest the second supporting a proscribed organisation.
aug 11, 2025, 9:24 am • 4 0 • view
So to bring that to current day, if you held signs that said "Free Gaza" or "Israel is committing genocide" - then your suggesting you would not be arrested and your rights to freedom of expression wouldn't be subject to state interference? Interesting to note, it's highly unlikely you'd be...
aug 11, 2025, 9:29 am • 2 0 • view
You wouldn't be arrested for saying Free Gaza or Israel is committing genocide. You will be arrested for expressing support for Palestine Action Perhaps not coming out with drivel like this will help you maintain that secrecy who wish to foreground. Not speaking would help too
aug 11, 2025, 9:46 am • 6 0 • view
But people have indeed been arrested and threatened with arrest for holding signs exactly as I've described. My anonymity doesn't change the facts that can be established. I'm curious about the hostility to the discussion and debate about what's appropriate re: restraint on freedom expression?
aug 11, 2025, 10:04 am • 3 0 • view
I don’t think that is true. The people who have been arrested have been holding signing saying they support PA. The only other people arrested were ones that were causing criminal damage or fighting. This is why they are proscribed ngo-monitor.org/ngos/palesti...
aug 11, 2025, 10:17 am • 1 0 • view
...arrested if you held the hypothetical sign you mentioned above.
aug 11, 2025, 9:29 am • 1 0 • view
People have held such pro Palestine signs without being arrested on numerous occasions. The support for Palestine Action is the offence. And your doubts don’t match the law.
aug 11, 2025, 9:43 am • 3 0 • view
Secret but poorly informed
aug 11, 2025, 9:46 am • 3 0 • view
🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭
aug 11, 2025, 9:48 am • 1 0 • view
So let's examine each of those scenarios then. First of all, people have indeed been arrested and threatened with arrest for holding signs as I've described. This would be one recent example but there are many others I could cite: www.theguardian.com/world/2025/a...
aug 11, 2025, 10:06 am • 2 0 • view
Second, declarations of public support for proscribed organisations in Northern Ireland are quite commonplace. Virtually no one is ever arrested. So that raises an interesting divergence in the application of the law. On one hand, 83 year old Sue has been taken off the streets (much to our...
aug 11, 2025, 10:10 am • 1 0 • view
The police were wrong in this case and I don't think she's been charged and the Police should issue an apology.
aug 11, 2025, 10:10 am • 0 0 • view
That’s clearly wrong. The police exceeded their authority and should apologise.
aug 11, 2025, 10:51 am • 0 0 • view
bsky.app/profile/theg...
aug 11, 2025, 1:14 pm • 0 0 • view
The IRA were proscribed because of their campaign of violence: bombings, shootings, killing hundreds of people. Palestine Action were proscribed for vandalising some stuff. The Wing Commander's letter points out that CND's actions at Greenham Common were very similar.
aug 11, 2025, 9:30 am • 1 0 • view
The actions are not similar, cutting fences is not the same as vandalising aircraft and even on the 1980s that would have drawn severe penalties as the letter pointed out. PA have a history of criminal damage but breaking into a defence establishment was different in scale
aug 11, 2025, 9:46 am • 2 0 • view
Brize Norton was the final straw and handed the Government all it needed to proscribe them. I'm amazed at the number of people saying breaking into a military base is not reason enough to proscibe the group. Bet they wouldn't be saying the same if it was a Far Right group.
aug 11, 2025, 9:50 am • 1 0 • view
Again I agree. Far right hold signs saying “stop immigration. Protect our children” and again conflate their racism with a second issue to give it some emotional appeal.
aug 11, 2025, 9:56 am • 1 0 • view
It was pretty much identical, Chris. Remind yourself with this article: www.upi.com/Archives/198...
aug 11, 2025, 9:59 am • 3 0 • view
I think 'UPI Archives' puts this in some context. The 80s seem almost quaint these days. You can't draw comparisons with events from a different age. Henry V killed French POWs at Agincourt. Does that mean it's OK to do it now?
aug 11, 2025, 10:07 am • 0 0 • view
For starters, PA sprayed paint into the engines of 2 planes at Brize Norton putting them completely out of action. They damaged planes set for Ukraine on another occasion putting them out of action. Go and do some research.
aug 11, 2025, 10:02 am • 4 0 • view
It was not ffs, stop blathering on about Greenham Common and go look up PA, there's no bloody comparison.
aug 11, 2025, 10:01 am • 2 0 • view
This was 1983. The current law is the Terrorism Act of 2000. Have a read about supporting proscibed terror groups. www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/t...
aug 11, 2025, 10:07 am • 1 0 • view
You’re very unclear on what you say is different.
aug 11, 2025, 1:14 pm • 0 0 • view
I'm flagging that the Greenham women were: a) organised b) did at least one action identical to that of Palestine Action. So there is some equivalence when you look at the historical record of what the women did. The political climate may differ, but the actions are identical.
aug 11, 2025, 9:04 am • 5 0 • view
There’s plenty of equivalence to anyone who lived through both times.
aug 11, 2025, 1:19 pm • 0 0 • view
Agree and it points to why so many are elderly protesters thinking things are the same.
aug 11, 2025, 9:03 am • 1 0 • view
They also had a mobilsation network (a phone tree in those pre-internet times) and used codewords when wanting to buy equipment like bolt-cutters. You can read more about them here: greenhamwomeneverywhere.co.uk
aug 11, 2025, 8:59 am • 1 0 • view