**83-year-old Welsh Reverend Detained at Westminster Protest as Crackdown on Palestine Action Intensifies**
An 83-year-old reverend from Newport, Sue Parfitt, found herself at the centre of a political storm after her arrest during a protest in Westminster, London, on Saturday 5 July. Reverend Parfitt, known for her repeated participation in demonstrations, was one of 29 individuals detained by the Metropolitan Police amid escalating efforts to enforce the government’s recent proscription of the protest group Palestine Action.
The arrests followed a turnout in Parliament Square around 1pm, where demonstrators, some seated with placards and others raising vocal support, gathered to express solidarity with Palestine Action after the group was officially banned. Police officers began making arrests a short while later, with images showing Reverend Parfitt calmly seated in a camping chair before being taken away by authorities.
Footage from the scene depicted a woman lying handcuffed on the ground, being carefully lifted and escorted to a police van, underscoring the tense but measured response by officers. The Metropolitan Police confirmed all 29 individuals arrested during the event were later released on bail pending ongoing investigations. The law, it seems, is being enforced without exception.
The ban on Palestine Action, announced by the new Home Secretary Yvette Cooper just days earlier, came amid a fresh wave of concern over the group’s tactics. The final decision followed an incident involving significant damage to two military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, on 20 June—a raid claimed by Palestine Action and estimated to have resulted in £7 million of damage. According to police, the group’s activities had gone beyond protest, allegedly crossing into serious criminal offences including property destruction and the use of weapons.
Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme the next day, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley defended the robust police response. Asked if detaining an octogenarian priest was a reasonable use of resources, he replied: “The law doesn’t have an age threshold. Whether you’re 18 or 80, if you support proscribed organisations, the law must be applied. Officers made every effort to handle the situation with care and dignity, but this law is clear and serious.”
The crackdown followed a failed last-minute attempt by Palestine Action to halt the ban through the courts. An emergency Court of Appeal ruling late Friday night rejected their challenge, and the designation as a terror group came into effect just before midnight. Under this ruling, being a member of, or supporting, Palestine Action now carries the risk of a terrorism conviction and up to 14 years’ imprisonment.
Despite these developments, campaigners were not deterred. Groups such as Defend Our Juries encouraged gatherings in Parliament Square, insisting on the right to protest even in the face of potential criminal charges. In an open letter to the Home Secretary, organisers stated, “We do not wish to go to prison or be branded as terrorists, but we refuse to be silenced by your decision.” Such resistance demonstrates the persistent tension between state security measures and the rights of individuals to dissent.
The government’s decision to ban Palestine Action passed swiftly through Parliament, with a 359-vote majority in the Commons and unopposed approval in the Lords. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described the vandalism at RAF Brize Norton as “disgraceful,” arguing that repeated acts of criminal damage went far beyond legitimate protest.
Meanwhile, court proceedings related to the Brize Norton incident are already underway. Four individuals have appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, facing charges of conspiracy under the Criminal Law Act 1977, with allegations that their actions aimed to undermine national security interests.
As the legal processes run their course, the case of Reverend Parfitt has raised complex questions about policing protests, freedom of expression, and equal application of the law—especially when those detained include those like her, whose activism spans many years and whose age would usually command respect and leniency. Whether this signals a new era for protest policing in the UK remains to be seen. For now, the debate surrounding the rights to expression and assembly versus national security only grows more pronounced.