We know from other cases that this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and they are being held as leverage. Is there any realistic chance of them being released while Trump is threatening Iran? Is there a chance of a prisoner swap?

It is rare, but not unknown. Chris Huhne springs to mind.

I’m uncomfortable with the sense of glee surrounding this. It’s a sad situation for everyone involved and reflects poorly on Britain. That said, if he is found guilty, he should go to prison like anyone else.

On his Birthday too!

I have had difficulty reading for long periods because of various disabilities since childhood. I wish the range of publications had been available in audio format when I was younger. It would have made my life and opportunities infinitely better.

Of the thousands of Australians who travelled to fight in the IDF, independent monitors, Action on Armed Violence, have identified 52 incidents of possible war crimes. By contrast, anyone who travels to join ISIS is committing a criminal offence under Australian and international terrorism laws.

If you do not wish your thoughts to be challenged I’d advise you not to share them on a public forum.

The defendants showed no remorse and would not rule out repeating their actions. That shows the current legislation isn’t a sufficient deterrent. If we have to wait until Palestine Action establishes a pattern of terrorism before the law applies, it may be time to update the legislation again.

The judge acknowledged that some of the group’s acts were terrorist in nature, but concluded that the organisation’s overall pattern of activity did not meet the legal threshold to proscribe the entire group as terrorist.

The Terrorism Act was updated in 2019 to explicitly cover sabotage of critical infrastructure when it is intended to intimidate the public or influence the government, which was clearly the case here.

The government has to operate on the assumption that there’s always a risk of attack. Military aircraft aren’t just parked, they need to be ready at all times. Any damage reduces immediate readiness and exposes potential vulnerabilities. That’s why even temporary disruptions matter.

Paint was sprayed into the turbines of 2 out of 9 aircraft in the Voyager fleet. This is a small, specialised fleet used to refuel fast jets in mid-air, transport troops long-range, and evacuate casualties. Both engines had to be replaced, costing millions and the aircraft were inoperable for weeks.

Common sense tells you breaking into a military base and undermining national defence isn’t the same as breaking into a private home. We need clear offences covering sabotage of critical infrastructure, as other democracies already have.

Ministers didn’t force people to break the law. I don’t like the traffic light at the end of the street, but nothing compels me to drive through it.

And always remember that in Britain Trump is a colloquial term for the release of foul smelling air from the shit hole.

Surely it’s obvious that the government cannot allow individuals to interfere with our military simply because they disagree with how it is being used. Allowing that would undermine the rule of law, compromise national security, and risk anarchy.

The people who attacked clinics and hotels often claimed they did not intend to hurt anyone, yet many who were not directly involved in violence went to prison. Similarly, the Brize Norton breach did more than halt offensive operations, it also temporarily weakened our defensive capabilities.

Of course, in more repressive regimes, similar actions would likely be met with lethal force. A new law covering attacks on critical infrastructure and modern threats, such as cyber attacks and election interference, which did not exist when current terrorism legislation was drafted is needed.

Many other democracies have a clearer, stronger legislative framework to prevent sabotage of critical infrastructure, airports, military installations, which often include conspiracy provisions. The government’s response was flawed because the UK currently lacks such targeted legislation.

3 Legislation exists to protect everyone. Many anti-abortion activists believe abortion is genocide, yet bombing clinics is criminal. Attacking migrant hotels is too. We all think our cause is just, but the law applies equally to protect society.

2 Where do we draw the line? Those who participated carried offensive weapons, and they were used. Would anyone describe this as “just for publicity” if someone had been killed? We should be cautious about romanticising such actions.

1 If breaking into an RAF base were a legitimate way to gain publicity, every multinational company would be doing it. Were they solely motivated by Gaza? There are multiple avenues for gaining publicity that don’t undermine institutions.

It is actually a finally balanced argument, and the government may win, but I think the time and effort would be better directed in passing new legislation to cover attacks on our defence capabilities, cybersecurity, and election interference.

Breaking into an RAF base, carrying offensive weapons, and compromising our defense capabilities is not peaceful protest, and remains criminal activity, prosecutable under domestic law. There are numerous legal and legitimate ways to protest without supporting or participating in such actions.

3 Modern threats also include cyber attacks and attempts to subvert democratic processes, which can have strategic effects even without direct violence. New legislation is needed to address attacks on defense capabilities, strategic sabotage, and these broader forms of interference.

2 Anti-terror legislation is intentionally narrow, focusing on active groups and direct violence, but an attack on our military capabilities is a line that should not be crossed. The fact that there is a movement actively supporting such actions makes it even more threatening to societal resilience.

1 The Government currently lacks the tools to manage this kind of threat. People physically attacking military bases can be prosecuted under existing law, but those publicly encouraging or condoning such actions are not.

Stalin was surprised by the timing and scale of the war. He expected war with the Germany eventually but was convinced Hitler would not risk war on two fronts. They were invaded by 3 million Axis troops. The speed and magnitude were devastating.

Listing every Soviet border conflict misses the point. None of those wars were comparable to facing Nazi Germany in 1941 - a mechanised industrial power launching an annihilation campaign across the largest front in history.

Roosevelt knew America would have to fight Hitler eventually but Isolationist sentiment was still strong and it was far from guaranteed Congress would agree to war with Germany.