MP LETTER ABOUT DEFINING TERRORISM AND ENDING THE BUYING OF POLITICIANS

 

Name of constituent

10 July 2025

xxxxxxxx MP

House of Commons

London SW1A 0AA

As you probably know, a group of 29 protesters were arrested for silently holding up placards saying “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action” in front of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi on Saturday 5th July 2005. 

Among them was an 83-year old retired priest, Rev Sue Parfitt, a former Government lawyer, an emeritus professor and health care workers.

These peaceful protesters each face up to 14 years in prison under the Terrorism Act 2005 for supporting an organisation that had been characterised as “terrorist” according to the extremely broad and unusual definition of terrorism given in the Terrorism Act 2000. The organisation was proscribed under that Act on that day by a vote in Parliament (a net 356 MPs voted For the proscription, a little over 50% of MPs), alongside two genuinely terrorist groups who definitely deserve proscription.

Terrorism is usually defined as violence directed against civilians for political ends. International Law adds a phrase (“by non-state actors”), but this is just a device added by politicians to excuse politicians. 

Netanyahu is clearly prosecuting a terrorist campaign, attacking civilians by the tens of thousands, and the British Government is aiding and abetting his war crimes by selling arms to him and supplying surveillance data to assist his targeting. There is a strong case to be made that our own Government is an accomplice in war crimes by providing arms to Netanyahu.

It is clearly perverse that peaceful protesters against terrorism should be arrested by agents of a Government that is arguably an accomplice to that state terrorism, and charged with terrorism. This is an unreasonable situation that has been brought about by a definition of terrorism in the Terror Act 2000 that shows a lack of due diligence, and the application of the Act to Palestine Action is almost certainly the result of undue influence exerted on Ministers by lobbyists for a foreign power. The evidence for this claim is set out in the Appendix to this letter.

It is clearly wrong for MPs and Ministers, to receive significant amounts of money from corporations and lobby groups, especially from such groups who act on behalf of foreign states, particularly if those states are committing criminal acts.

Although they may not be your constituents, I ask you please to be aware of the  situation of the July 5th arrestees, and to take an interest in their case.

I ask too that you confer within your party and with MPs from other political parties who are mindful of the grotesque injustice that is evolving under the Terror Act 2000, to see how the wording of that Act can be amended to be brought in line with the consensus definition of terrorism as violence directed at civilians for political ends.

Third, I ask you please to confer within your party and with other MPs of good will and clear thinking how we can block donations and from corporations and lobby groups, and especially those from outside the UK, and particularly those associated with States who are committing criminal acts.

With many thanks and good wishes

Your constituent

(Sign and add name and address)

APPENDIX TO LETTER ON GANDHI STATUE ARRESTS

Donations to the present Home Secretary from pro-Israel sources

2015  £5,000 donation to Yvette Cooper (now Foreign Secretary) for her leadership bid campaign from Red Capital Private (associated with Jonathan Mendelsohn, chair of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI)

2020-23  Yvette Cooper received and unspecified part of a £210,000 fund donated by pro-Israel individuals to Labour MPs

2020-23 Yvette Cooper benefitted from part of £64,000+ worth of hospitality on fact finding trips from LFI

2020-23 Yvette Cooper (YC) may have been one of the 41 Labour MPs who received £280,000+ from Israel Lobby sources

2023-24 £300,000-600,000 donated by pro-Israel lobby to 13 members of Starmer’s Cabinet, including YC

Reeves (£194K), Starmer (£50K), Nandy (£12K) and Kendall (£2.5K) have received larger direct grants than YC.

The duty of MPs is to represent their constituents and to work for their welfare.

Many ordinary people are distressed by the violence of Netanyahu’s bombing campaign that has killed 50,000+ people, mainly women and children, injured many more, and his starvation policy. 

You GovPolls at the end of June show that the sympathies of 30% of UK citizens lie more with the Palestinians, nearly twice the 17% of sympathies that lie more with the Israelis. 30% have sympathies for “neither” (though that might include ‘both”).

The fact that Government sympathies are so at odds with the sympathies of ordinary people almost certainly reflects the influence of the money that they have received.

Democracy is damaged if there is a widespread perception that MPs and Minister can be bought. MPs should not accept donations from any person or business who does not hold a registered and functional address in their constituency. Donations from  sources that can be traced back to foreign powers are not acceptable. 

The matter of political donations, and their cap levels, must be reformed as a matter of urgency.

Letter to MP about donations to politicians from (foreign) corporations

Letter to MP about abusing protest groups with the Terror Act 2000. Feel free to copy, modify, and send to your own MP. Use https://www.theyworkforyou.com if they tend not to answer

This is my letter. There is a generic letter here https://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2025/07/mp-letter-about-defining-terrorism-and.html

xxx xxx MP

House of Commons,

London SW1A OAA

 On July 1st I chose to join the group Palestine Action in order to protest primarily against Netanyahu’s inhumane bombing campaign aimed at the people of Gaza, and the criminal campaign of starvation that he is prosecuting. Terrorism is violence directed against civilians for political ends, so Netanyahu is heading a terrorist organisation, and the British Government is aiding and abetting him in his war crimes by selling arms to him and supplying surveillance data to assist his targeting. There is a strong case to be made that our own Government is an accomplice in an act of genocide.

My secondary reason for joining was to protest against Yvette Coopers’ plans (now, sadly, accomplished) to characterise a protest movement as “terrorist” according to the extremely broad and unusual definition of terrorism given in the Terror Act 2000. 

The position is now that I, a 78 year old Quaker grandfather, a retired GP and psychiatrist, a lifelong campaigner against nuclear weapons, currently working intensively to stimulate thinking about the prevention of future “conventional” wars, a pragmatic pacifist (not a perfect pacifist, as I do not oppose the defensive war fought by Ukraine against Putin’s invasion, and indeed do not oppose the right of Israel to defend itself, though I do oppose the insane and counter-productive assault that Netanyahu is conducting). I have always advocated non-violence, and have always condemned terrorism, now find myself labelled a “terrorist” by a Home Secretary who has received £5000 directly from Red Capital Private, and more through her share in a wider fund, all money from funds associated with lobbying on behalf of Israel.

Together with many other peace-loving people, I am at risk of being arrested as a member of Palestine Action and sent to jail for 14 years, which in my own case is a whole life sentence. I will die in jail if the Home Secretary is left to have her way, while she and her Government supports a State that is daily carrying out acts of lethal violence against civilians, in other words, a terrorist state.

This is clearly a perverse situation that has been brought about first by a definition of terrorism in the Terror Act 2000 that shows a lack of due diligence, and second, by undue influence exerted on Ministers by lobbyists for a foreign power.

It is clearly wrong for MPs and Ministers, to receive large amounts of money from corporations and lobby groups, especially from such groups who act on behalf of foreign states, particularly if those states are committing criminal acts.

I realise that you are incredibly busy, but I have to ask you please to be aware of my situation, and to take an interest in my case (and that of others in similar position) if I am arrested  under the Terror Act.

I ask too that you confer with your party and MPs from other political parties who are mindful of the grotesque injustice that is evolving under the Terror Act 2000, to see how the wording can be amended to be brought in line with the consensus definition of terrorism as violence directed at civilians for political ends.

Third, I ask you please to confer within your party and with other MPs of good will and clear thinking how we can block donations and from corporations and lobby groups, and especially those from outside the UK, and particularly those associated with States who are committing criminal acts.

With many thanks and good wishes

Terrorism is killing civilians for political ends. Protest is not terrorism.

 As from tomorrow, I will be liable under the Terrorism Act to up to 14 years in prison for my membership of Palestine Action. 

I am 78, married, a father and a grandfather, a Quaker, a retired GP & psychiatrist. My main aim in life is to look after my land and to play the flute, to prevent water pollution (search LocalAction4Water) and to work to prevent war, both conventional and  nuclear. 

Parliament has voted overwhelmingly for me to die in prison, classifying Palestine Action (PA),  a non-violent protest group, as a terrorist organisation. 

I joined PA a couple of days ago in protest against its proscribing and in protest against Netanyahu’s terrorist and arguable genocidal campaign against the people of Gaza. 

Terrorism is the act of using lethal violence against civilians (as opposed to military forces), for political ends. I absolutely condemn terrorist violence of all kinds, whether by states or by non-state actors. 

The legal definition of terrorism is violence against civilians for political purposes by non state actors. This is to device agreed by state politicians to excuse state politicians from being accused of terrorism. Clearly an absurd legal manoeuvre, designed to allow politicians like Putin and Netanyahu to kill civilians without being accused of terrorism. Nevertheless, they are terrorists. They kill civilians for political ends.

It is hard is hard to believe that this is happening in Britain, and that Parliament has voted this through. 

I really do not wish to go to prison. I am not mentally prepared for it, but if this is what it takes under this Government to make a stand for truth, humanity, sustainability and peace, then so be it.

Costing the F-35As

 Media are coy about the cost of the 12 F35A tactical nuclear bombers Starmer is buying off Trump, but from a current Swiss deal I make it to be £1.82 Billion at very least.

Now if this £1.82 Billion were for hospitals or welfare, Starmer would face aggressive questions from hacks about where the money is going to come from.

There is an established convention that military costs are not to be questioned by hacks, neither the financial costs nor the external costs, so there will be no such questions.

The biggest external cost of the 13 F-35As is that if they actually dropped their tactical nuclear weapons, they could initiate, or contribute to, a global nuclear holocaust.

The cost of global nuclear war is infinite. Endless. Incalculable. 

Nuclear war means millions of human (and animal) immediate deaths from vaporisation, crush, blast, and burns. Millions more delayed deaths from radiation sickness, infection (untreated), dehydration and criminality. Then billions more deaths from starvation, cold and suicide from hopelessness through the subsequent years of nuclear winter.  Some humans might survive in New Zealand, or they might not. 

Nobody likes thinking about this, so the mind go into denial, and comes up with counter arguments. The commonest counter argument being a supremely confident “You don’t understand. The whole point of nuclear weapons is that they are so terrible that a rational man would never, ever use them. NEVER, EVER. not at all. No chance.  

The weakness in their argument lies in the “rational man” words.

Yes, human have a capability of rational thought, but it is perfectly clear that we do not apply our rationality to all our actions, especially to big, global matters. Nuclear deterrence is not infallible. Nuclear war is possible.

I recommend anyone who has read this far down to send this letter to their MP. Please. https://www.medact.org/2024/actions/nuclear-war-questions-write-to-your-mp/