Watch: Pro-Palestinian activists damage planes at UK military base
Pro-Palestinian activists broke into a Royal Air Force base in central England, damaging and spraying red paint over two planes used for refuelling and transport.
Palestine Action said two members had entered the Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire on Friday (local time), putting paint into the engines of the Voyager aircraft and further damaging them with crowbars.
"Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel US/Israeli fighter jets," the group said in a statement, posting a video of the incident on X.
"Britain isn't just complicit, it's an active participant in the Gaza genocide and war crimes across the Middle East."
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the "vandalism" as "disgraceful" in a post on X.
The act of vandalism committed at RAF Brize Norton is disgraceful.
Our Armed Forces represent the very best of Britain and put their lives on the line for us every day.
It is our responsibility to support those who defend us.
Anti-terrorism police officers took over the investigation and British media reported that Britain's interior minister, Yvette Cooper, planned to use anti-terrorism laws to ban Palestine Action as an organisation. A Home Office spokesperson declined to comment on the reports.
A spokesperson for Starmer said the government was reviewing security across all British defence sites.
Palestine Action is among groups that have regularly targeted defence firms and other companies in Britain linked to Israel since the start of the conflict in Gaza.
The group said it had also sprayed paint on the runway and left a Palestine flag there.
The
Gaza war
was triggered when Hamas-led Palestinian militants attacked Israel in October 2023, killing 1,200 and taking about 250 hostages, according to Israeli allies.
US ally Israel's subsequent military assault on Gaza has killed more than 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry, displaced almost all the territory's residents and caused a severe hunger crisis.
The assault has led to accusations of genocide and war crimes, which Israel denies.
- Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil walks free after US judge orders release
By Jonathan Allen, Luc Cohen and Kathleen Flynn , Reuters A protester holds a sign that reads, ''Free Mahmoud Khalil.'' Photo: Reginald Mathalone / NurPhoto / AFP Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil walked out of a Louisiana immigrant detention centre hours after a judge ordered his release , a major victory for rights groups that challenged what they called the Trump administration's unlawful targeting of a pro-Palestinian activist. "Although justice prevailed," he said on Friday (local time) upon his release in the rural town of Jena, "it's long, very long overdue. And this shouldn't have taken three months." On 8 March, Khalil, a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian protests against Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan. US President Donald Trump, a Republican, has called the protests antisemitic and vowed to deport foreign students who took part. Khalil became the first target of this policy. After hearing oral arguments from lawyers for Khalil and for the Department of Homeland Security, US District Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ordered DHS to release him from custody at a jail for immigrants in rural Louisiana by 6.30pm (11.30pm GMT) on Friday. Farbiarz said the government had made no attempt to rebut evidence provided by Khalil's lawyers that he was not a flight risk nor a danger to the public. "There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner," Farbiarz said, referring to Khalil as he ruled from the bench, adding that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter was unconstitutional. Khalil is the latest in a string of foreign pro-Palestinian students arrested in the US starting in March who have subsequently been released by judges. They include Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysya Ozturk. Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the US, said he is being punished for his political speech in violation of the US Constitution's First Amendment. Khalil condemned antisemitism and racism in interviews with CNN and other news outlets last year. The Syrian-born activist plans to return to New York to be with his wife, Noor Abdalla, and their infant son, who was born during Khalil's 104 days in detention. A person holds a sign calling for the release of Mahmoud Khalil as pro-Palestine demonstrators rally for Gaza in Times Square on 18 March 2025 in New York City. Photo: Adam Gray / Getty Images / AFP "This ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family and so many others," Abdalla said in a statement. "Today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family and the community that has supported us since the day he was unjustly taken for speaking out for Palestinian freedom." The White House condemned the decision to release Khalil, saying he should be deported for "conduct detrimental to American foreign policy interests" and fraudulently obtaining a student visa. "There is no basis for a local federal judge in New Jersey -who lacks jurisdiction - to order Khalil-s release from a detention facility in Louisiana," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal." The immigration proceedings against Khalil continue. Khalil, wearing a keffiyeh and raising his right fist as he approached journalists outside the detention centre, condemned what he called the Trump administration's racist immigration policies. He said he was leaving behind hundreds of men housed at the detention centre who should not be there. "The Trump administration are doing their best to dehumanize everyone here," he said outside the gates of the facility. "No one is illegal, no human is illegal." Khalil said that his time in detention had changed him. "Once you enter there, you see a different reality," he said. "A different reality about this country that supposedly champions human rights and liberty and justice." The Louisiana immigration judge in his case had denied his asylum request on Friday, ruling he could be deported based on the government's allegations of immigration fraud, and denied a bail hearing. Farbiarz's decision rendered the bail request moot. Like others facing deportation, Khalil has avenues to appeal within the immigration system. Farbiarz is also considering Khalil's challenge of his deportation on constitutional grounds and has blocked officials from deporting Khalil while that challenge plays out. Earlier this month, Farbiarz ruled the government was violating Khalil's free speech rights by detaining him under a little-used law granting the US secretary of state power to seek deportation of non-citizens whose presence in the country was deemed adverse to US foreign policy interests. On 13 June, the judge declined to order Khalil's release from a detention centre in Jena, Louisiana, after Trump's administration said Khalil was being held on a separate charge that he withheld information from his application for lawful permanent residency. Khalil's lawyers deny that allegation and say people are rarely detained on such charges. On 16 June, they urged Farbiarz to grant a separate request from their client to be released on bail or be transferred to immigration detention in New Jersey to be closer to his family in New York. At Friday's hearing, Farbiarz said it was "highly unusual" for the government to jail an immigrant accused of omissions in his application for US permanent residency. Khalil, 30, became a US permanent resident last year, and his wife and newborn son are US citizens. Trump administration lawyers wrote in a 17 June filing that Khalil's request for release should be addressed to the judge overseeing his immigration case, an administrative process over whether he can be deported, rather than to Farbiarz, who is considering whether Khalil's 8 March arrest and subsequent detention were constitutional. - Reuters
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
UK man jailed after robbing post office armed with just a banana
Ashley Asquith. Photo: West Yorkshire Police A man who robbed a post office in Britain armed only with a banana has been jailed for more than three years. Staff handed over more than £6000 (NZ$13,500) during the February heist in Bradford, BBC News reported . The assailant, 42-year-old Ashley Asquith, wrapped the banana in a black plastic bag to look like a gun. He was initially accused of using an imitation firearm, but told the court it was just a banana inside the bag. With CCTV not proving otherwise, this explanation was accepted. The judge handing down the sentence said the banana had been held in a way that "made it look realistic". Asquith pleaded guilty to robbery and possessing an imitation firearm. The money was yet to be recovered, according to the report.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
British MPs back assisted dying bill
Britain's parliament has voted in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying, paving the way for the country's biggest social change in a generation. The legislation passed by a vote of 314-291, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle. The "Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)" law would give mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales with six months or less left to live the right to choose to end their lives with medical help. The bill now proceeds to Britain's upper chamber, the House of Lords, where it will undergo months of scrutiny. While there could be further amendments, the unelected Lords will be reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of the House of Commons. The vote puts Britain on course to follow Australia, Canada and other countries, as well as some US states, in permitting assisted dying. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government was neutral on the legislation, meaning politicians voted according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Starmer voted in favour. Supporters of the bill say it will provide dignity and compassion to people suffering, but opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives. Hundreds of people gathered outside parliament to hear news of the vote. When the result was read out, those in favour of the legislation hugged, clapped and cheered. They shouted 'victory', 'we won' and waved placards. Those opposed to it stood in silence. Emma Bray, who has motor neurone disease, said she hoped the result would help people in her condition. Bray, who is 42 and has two children, said she plans to starve herself to death next month to help relieve the pain after being told she only has six months to live. 'This result will mean that people will not have to go through the same suffering I have faced,' she told Reuters. Opinion polls show that a majority of Britons back assisted dying. Friday's vote followed hours of emotional debate and references to personal stories in the chamber and followed a vote in November that approved the legislation in principle. NARROW VOTE Opponents of the bill had argued that ill people may feel they should end their lives for fear of being a burden to their families and society. Some lawmakers withdrew their support after the initial vote last year, saying safeguards had been weakened. John Howard, a Catholic priest who led about a dozen people in prayer outside parliament while voting took place, said he worried that some people would be forced to end their lives early under pressure from family members. "I feel great sorrow and concern, particularly for the most vulnerable and disabled," he told Reuters. "This is a dark day for our country." Friday's vote took place 10 years after parliament last voted against allowing assisted dying. The 314-291 vote showed narrowing support from the 330-275 vote in favour in November. In the original plan, an assisted death would have required court approval. That has been replaced by a requirement for a judgement by a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist, which is seen by some as a watering down. The Labour lawmaker who proposed the bill, Kim Leadbeater, said the legislation still offered some of the strongest protections in the world. "I am fully confident in the bill," she told the BBC after the vote. "The safeguards are extremely thorough, extremely robust, and I'm confident that this will help the people it needs to help." Opponents had doubts not just about the potential for coercion, but also about the impact of assisted dying on the finances and resources of the state-run National Health Service, how the law might change the relationship between doctors and their patients and whether it could mean that improvements to palliative care might now not be made. Care Not Killing, a group that opposes the law change, issued a statement calling the bill "deeply flawed and dangerous", saying that its safeguards had been weakened since November. "Members of Parliament had under 10 hours to consider over 130 amendments to the Bill, or less than 5 minutes per change. Does anyone think this is enough time to consider changes to a draft law that quite literally is a matter of life and death?" said the group's CEO, Gordon Macdonald. The law was proposed under a process led by an individual member of parliament rather than being government policy, which has limited the amount of parliamentary time allocated to it. Some lawmakers have said that such a major social change should have been allocated more parliamentary time for debate and involve a greater degree of ministerial involvement and accountability.
