Letters - 06 March 2026
From Palestine Action to purpose built
Palestine Action
I read David Fish’s letter about Palestine Action (PA) and the Filton trial (13 February) with astonishment. I hoped there would be a balancing response published in the following issue but, seeing none, feel moved to write myself.
All the statements, and a detailed summary of the evidence given in this trial, were made available on www.realmedia.com. When Palestine Action was proscribed I took action to protest, so of course I followed the trial with close attention. What became apparent was that the mainstream media’s summary coverage did not reflect the full details, particularly how surveillance camera evidence had been destroyed by Elbit Systems and how the trial brought out that their security guards had lied to the police.
The jury took thirty-six hours to return verdicts on all six defendants. They rejected the judge’s direction and the prosecution argument. No guilty verdicts were given. All six were cleared of aggravated burglary because it could not be proved that they had intended any harm to people, but only to smash equipment and weapons.
My reading of this is that the jury believed the defendants’ accounts and intentions. Even the defendant who admitted causing injury to the police officer was not found guilty of any offence of violence. There is a great difference between violence to people and violence to things. The fact that there will be a retrial does not mean that he will ultimately be found guilty either.
David Fish has decided that this was ‘angry protest’. Perhaps the PA activists are angry that there is a genocide going on in Gaza, with which we are being made complicit. Perhaps when I sat with my placard to defend our right to peaceful protest against crimes against humanity, I was also angry. There can be such a thing as righteous anger. As the High Court determined last week, in respect of Palestine Action, this does not translate into terrorism, which rightly might result in a long prison sentence. I assume that the jury in this trial also worked that out for themselves.
Isaac Penington reminds us not to lay accusations one against another. Before passing such a condemnatory judgement on the Filton activists, we should await the outcome of the retrial. I certainly will. The foundation of our legal system is the presumption of innocence. That is surely the Quakerly thing to do.
Heather Bacon
I am currently archiving my charge sheets from a collection of convictions for criminal damage at Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp in the late 1980s. I remember our nonviolent direct action training vividly. The bolt cutters provoked much hilarity –they were unusable but provoked a useful discussion about the hazard such equipment could become, and the need to lay them down to prevent injury, including to police or security officers.
A professional engineer, I did once work at Filton. I also possess and know how to use a sledgehammer (as carried by PA activists) safely. The weight in them makes it hard to do anything without intention, and a swing in a situation of confrontation can be nothing but incredibly dangerous.
I was convicted of cutting a fence to go plant a tree, and for daubing a USAF vehicle with red paint. I was younger than any of the Filton Six but seemingly rather better prepared.
The idea that the activists hadn’t expected the arrival of some form of security is as laughable as it is unrealistic. Our Friend David Fish speaks my mind. How any of this was supposed to help anyone defeats me entirely. God help Gaza. I’d say the Crown Prosecution Service needs an expert witness in nonviolent direct action for the retrial.
Clare B Dimyon
