It was coming anyway, and it could have been any event that triggered it. The right event at the right time?
But as others here mention, the powers that be are unhappy that the population isn't siding with their position. The government is fine with dissent against Russia because they are "the enemy" in the narrative.
Not to say there hasn’t been creeping authoritarianism, growing mass surveillance, etc. for the last few decades, but it has seemed that this one issue has stood out as utterly unique, especially in the UK in that there was basically bipartisan accord from those in power across all the mainstream political views, and the only “allowed” position from them was uncritical support for that country’s Government and their military actions.
At the same time, there seemed to be a much larger group of people in the normal population who disagreed with those in power than most other issues (when at least some representatives in a major party might roughly align with the people)
Attack is a strong word for throwing a can of paint.
After the 2024 riots there were mass arrests and prosecution, but only talk about reviewing groups as to whether they should be proscribed.
Why does a member throwing a can of paint get you classed as a terrorist organisation, while organising riots that involve throwing molotov's and causing serious injury not?
Besides, why not prosecute them for their actions, why proscribe the organisation as a terrorist one, while at the same time ignoring groups who commit much more violent offenses (such as the one given) and concentrate on prosecuting "personal responsibility"?
Given that the Palestine Action is a proscribed terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act, and its co-founder said just one day after the Oct 7 massacre: “When we hear the resistance, the Al-Aqsa flood [Hamas' name for the massacre] we must turn that flood into a tsunami of the whole world.”
