Only Labour can be led by a former Human Right's Lawyer, Keir Starmer, and be ok with people not convicted of terrorism offences, being sentenced as though their actions were terrorism-related Criminal damage and attacking the police are serious wrongs that deserve firm punishment. But deliberately conflating them with terrorism sets a dangerous precedent When the state blurs the line between thuggish disorder and terrorism, it undermines public trust, invites accusations of two-tier justice, and weakens the very safeguards the former human rights barrister once championed This is the legacy of Keir Starmer, who leads the party, of Yvette Cooper, whose proscription of a protest group was ruled unlawful by the High Court, and Shabana Mahmood, who continues this divisive narrative I'm very much aligned to the views expressed by Baron Hain in the House of Lords, rightly calling out criminal behaviour while criticising this conflation. His words are true now, as they were back then. And like him, I too am deeply ashamed, "Treating young people as terrorists because they feel frustrated about the failure to stop mass killings and bombings of civilians in Gaza" "I've never supported their activity, but there's a great difference between what they did and terrorism" "And if you start labelling people willy nilly terrorists right across the board, you're going down a very dangerous route" "Al Qaeda's attack on New Yorks twin towers killing 2,753 people - real terrorism" "ISIS - real terrorism" "This Labour government is treating Palestine Action as equivalent to ISIS or Al Qaeda, which is intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled, and morally wrong" "Frankly I'm deeply ashamed"