'I'm Not A Terrorist'- 84-Year-Old Retired Priest On Her Arrest For Protesting
Who said what, and about what
Hover a row to trace its chain · click one to pin its detail
Every claim, checked
No claims match the selected verdicts.
-
Claim 1
“Andy Burnham of course was not in parliament last year when the vast majority of Labour MPs uh in my view uh shamefully voted in favor of this prescription.”
Andy Burnham was not in Parliament when the proscription vote occurred, and most Labour MPs voted in favour of it.
The proscription order was approved by the House of Commons on July 2, 2025, by 385 votes to 26. Burnham was serving as Mayor of Greater Manchester at that time, not as an MP; the division record shows only a small minority of Labour MPs among those voting against.
Sources
- 1Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism — Division 252↗
Supports
The House divided: Ayes 385 Noes 26
- 2The Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP↗
Supports
Andy was elected Mayor of Greater Manchester in May 2017, and re-elected in 2021 and 2024.
- 1Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism — Division 252↗
-
Claim 2
“the British government does plan to fight this case very strongly and defend the prescription at the Supreme Court.”
The British government planned to continue defending the proscription of Palestine Action in litigation ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.
The government appealed against the earlier ruling and remains the respondent in the Supreme Court case concerning the lawfulness of Palestine Action's proscription. The Supreme Court has listed a full hearing for November 4–5, 2026.
Sources
- 1R (on the application of Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department↗
Supports
This appeal concerns the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the “Home Secretary”) in June 2025 to proscribe the direct action protest group Palestine Action pursuant to the Terrorism Act 2000.
- 2R (on the application of Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department↗
Supports
The Court of Appeal disagreed and allowed the Home Secretary’s appeal. Ms Ammori now appeals to the Supreme Court.
- 1R (on the application of Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department↗
-
Claim 3
“October is when I believe the Supreme Court will start hearing this case.”
The Supreme Court would start hearing the Palestine Action case in October.
The Supreme Court's official case page lists the hearing dates as November 4–5, 2026. Therefore, the stated October start date is incorrect.
Sources
- 1R (on the application of Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department↗
Refutes
Start date 4 November 2026
- 1R (on the application of Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department↗
-
Claim 4
“I've been to Palestine many times. I've worked for a human rights organization there and I've worked for other resistance groups there and I've visited many times.”
The speaker had visited Palestine many times and had worked for a human-rights organization and other resistance groups there.
This is a specific biographical claim, but the transcript does not identify the speaker and no reliable independent evidence tying these experiences to the speaker could be established from the available information.
No supporting links were returned for this claim.
-
Claim 5
“I've witnessed the suffering straight full on in Palestine firsthand.”
The speaker personally witnessed suffering in Palestine firsthand.
The statement describes the speaker's personal experience, but the speaker is not identified in the transcript and the claim cannot be independently verified from the available sources.
No supporting links were returned for this claim.