Starmer’s War On Pro Palestine Journalists Just Blew Up In His Face!

Right, so Keir Starmer’s war on pro Palestine journalism, activism and protest, has come a cropper in a major way, but you likely won’t have heard a dickie bird about it if you still rely on mainstream media to keep you ‘informed’ because none of them have covered this story and it’s a story that has now been out for four days, so far be it from me to not pass comment and coverage on it as well, just to rub the MSM’s nose in it a bit more, as well as Starmer’s along with it for his continued lawfare attempts to silence anyone it seems prepared to stand up for Palestine and against Israeli atrocity.
There are numerous examples of this now, several of which I’ve covered on this channel: the case of Richard Medhurst, of Sarah Wilkinson, of Natalie Strecker, of Craig Murray, of Kit Klarenberg and more besides, but it is the case of Electronic Intifada’s Asa Winstanley that this applies to, who had his home raided by the police last year, who seized seven of his electronic devices, all on the basis of a single complaint because that is how open to abuse the UK’s Terror laws these days are. Silencing Pro Palestine voices, with threats of terrorism, attempting to scare people into silence. It won’t work. People will keep speaking out and when they win the day, on an issue like this, in light of what has been stacked against them, its not just a victory for them personally, but for honesty and integrity and for Palestine and serious questions must now be asked of Starmer’s abuse of terror legislation and the Met Police too, who have come out of this looking like absolute mugs.
Right, so in what can only be described as a profound miscarriage of justice, or in my preferred vernacular as a total lash-up, an epic balls up please pick your own if you prefer, a recent court ruling has deemed the Metropolitan Police's raid on journalist Asa Winstanley's home as unlawful but has also exposed it as a glaring example of state overreach. Orchestrated under the guise of counter-terrorism, lawfare against pro Palestine voices as it keeps being demonstrated to be, the raid was carried out with a warrant that was later deemed improperly obtained, stripping it of all legal authority. This is a massive political scandal, and its implications stretch directly to the office of Labour leader Keir Starmer, whose tenure has been marked by an increasingly authoritarian crackdown on pro-Palestinian voices.
Asa Winstanley is not a fringe figure. He is an established journalist, he is one of the foremost voices when it comes to the Middle East, he is widely respected for his investigative reporting at The Electronic Intifada, where he has covered issues relating to Israel and Palestine with a commitment to uncovering uncomfortable truths that more establishment media and client journalists won’t touch. That very commitment, it seems, is what made him, amongst a growing list of others, a target. His home was raided by the Met Police in October of last year and several of his electronic devices were seized. The justification? Seemingly a nebulous complaint related to his Twitter activity, which led the Met to raid his home to investigate possible terror offences, the offence of encouraging support for terrorism. Since when does a complaint justify the state barging into a journalist’s home under the Terrorism Act? Well, such is the state of the UK’s Terror laws.
Judge Mark Lucraft KC, who presided over the case, ruled unequivocally that the raid was "patently unlawful" and ordered the return of Winstanley’s devices. A quote from Electronic Intifada’s coverage – not written by Winstanley incidentally, reads:
‘The recorder of London, Mark Lucraft, London’s highest circuit judge, on 13 May ruled that a search warrant used by London’s Metropolitan Police to seize seven items from Winstanley’s home was unlawfully issued.
“I am very troubled by the way in which the search warrant was drafted, approved and granted where items were to be seized from a journalist,” Judge Lucraft wrote in his ruling.’
The Met Police can’t even get a search warrant right, but maybe that’s in part the fault of a law being enforced that is itself so badly drafted that it can be abused with impunity.
Winstanley’s legal representatives at Bindmans LLP were scathing in their assessment as well, again slamming the Met calling the case a “case study in how not to apply for a warrant.” The National Union of Journalists, the NUJ had thrown its weight behind Winstanley, citing the fundamental importance of protecting journalistic sources and press freedom in a democratic society.
But this is not merely about one journalist, this is a much bigger story than that and certainly I’m sure Winstanley would say that himself. This is about a systemic pattern of repression. The UK government and its police forces have increasingly weaponised the Terrorism Act to silence dissent. Winstanley's case is the tip of an iceberg. Other cases—such as the Filton 18, who I covered in a video just yesterday, who protested arms shipments to Israel, and the Instro 10, who occupied a military factory—have seen ordinary people facing draconian charges simply for exercising their rights to protest.
The implications of this raid therefore, now legally invalidated as it has been, are vast. The police, having illegally entered Winstanley’s home, the police broke the law, and were left scrambling to later try and justify their actions. After realising their warrant was unenforceable, they attempted to retroactively obtain a production order just to access the data on the devices they had already unlawfully taken. They got told where to go instead. And the absurdity did not end there, because for all their getting a search warrant, raiding a journalists home, seizing electronic devices, ann of that was done apparently, just to confirm that Winstanley’s Twitter account was indeed his. A task that could have been resolved with a simple question, yet apparently this was beyond the ability of the Met police. All they had to do was ask him. It’s not like they were after his confidential sources, they just wanted to know if the Twitter account in question was his. Instead a show of over the top force in the face of pro Palestinian journalism resulted. Who decided this was the best course of action, because they’re an idiot.
How high up does this go is not an unreasonably question to ask either, because it speaks to a broader culture of lawfare, the political weaponization of the legal system and given how many journalists and activists and protesters have fallen afoul of the law seemingly for no other reason than they report on Israeli atrocity and what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank and beyond at Israel’s hands? Under Starmer's leadership, this weaponisation has grown. His background as former Director of Public Prosecutions as he likes to remind us of, his past as a human rights barrister apparently, ought to have made him a stalwart defender of civil liberties, but there seems to be nothing he won’t sell out on to benefit himself politically now. Instead, he has become the architect of an insidious campaign that blurs the line between journalism and criminality when it challenges the government line on Israel, blurring the lines of journalism and terrorism, and protest and terrorism and activism and terrorism.
Asa Winstanley, Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson, the Filton 18, the Instro 10, Tony Greenstein, Natalie Strecker, Craig Murray, Kit Klarenberg, Dylan Evans and more besides. The common denominator is calling Israel out and showing solidarity with Palestine.
Even as the judge's ruling sent shockwaves through legal and journalistic circles, the mainstream British media outlets of course remained conspicuously silent. No BBC report. No mention in The Guardian. No editorials in The Times. Nothing. This deafening silence is oh so predictable though—it is a function of client journalism, where mainstream outlets act as buffers for political power rather than its watchdogs, shielding the powers that be instead of holding them to account. The only platforms willing to tell the truth have been alternative outlets such as Skwawkbox, Middle East Eye, The Morning Star and The Electronic Intifada itself. Heck, even Press TV in Iran have covered this.
This silence is especially chilling when we consider what is at stake. The violation of journalistic freedoms isn’t just an attack on individual reporters; it’s an assault on democracy itself. Winstanley’s case sets a precedent for challenging these abuses of power now though, even as investigation into his case, despite the police having to return his gear of a bunkum arrest warrant absurdly still continues. If the police can raid a journalist’s home based on an undisclosed complaint and then retroactively seek legal justification - and fail, whilst still apparently pursuing a case here, what protections remain for whistleblowers, sources, or indeed any member of the public who challenges state narratives?
Furthermore, this case underscores the extent to which the Terrorism Act has become a Swiss Army knife for authoritarian overreach. It is supposed to protect the public from genuine threats of mass violence, of terrorism. Instead, it is now routinely misapplied to silence journalists, protesters, and activists. The Starmer regime’s interpretation of the Act appears to be a chilling form of “pre-criminal” policing—suppressing speech and activism before it has even occurred under the suspicion that it might be politically inconvenient and certainly when used in conjunction with the Public Order Act, you can see how easily they can do that.
The case also leaves the Metropolitan Police's already battered reputation in absolute ruins. Long plagued by scandals—from institutional racism to the mishandling of high-profile cases—the Met has now added yet another blemish. It has previously been mooted that the force is so far gone it needs scrapping and starting again. Their silence in the wake of this ruling was particularly telling and when they did eventually speak out it was only to say the case is ongoing still.
Winstanley’s legal victory is undoubtedly a watershed moment for press freedom, one sorely needed as the state cracks down on the truth when it comes to Israel and Palestine. The court has made clear that journalists have a right to protect their sources, and that the state cannot bypass this protection by invoking vague national security concerns through enforcement of an all to vague, poorly worded law.
The state’s ability to criminalise journalism as this and too many other cases are showing must continue to be confronted and dismantled. The misuse of the Terrorism Act has got to end and it needs to be made fit for purpose so it can’t be weaponised by vested interests, and its implications must be examined through independent inquiries. More importantly, Keir Starmer must answer for his role in fostering this climate of repression. As a public figure who has repeatedly distanced himself from pro-Palestinian activism and endorsed measures that align with hardline pro-Israel interests, the Zionist as he is without equivocation and certainly given his past as lawyer, he cannot feign ignorance on this.
The broader media silence around Winstanley’s case speaks volumes about whose interests are being protected. In a time when Israeli airstrikes have decimated entire neighbourhoods in Gaza, the mainstream British press continues to parrot official narratives, Israel’s side of the story as if empirical and impartial fact, ignoring civilian casualties, discrediting Palestinian voices, and vilifying journalists who refuse to stay silent on that.
Journalists like Asa Winstanley represent the last line of defence against this slide into authoritarianism. Their work shines a light into the darkest corners of state power and foreign complicity. The attempt to criminalise them—through police raids, trumped-up charges, and media silence—is a direct threat to every person who believes in the right to speak truth to power.
So this ruling has to mark the beginning of a reckoning. The legal system has shown it can push back against authoritarian excesses, but that is not enough. Public pressure must mount, partly why you aren’t getting told about this in standard media. Citizens must demand that their press remains free, that their police operate within the law, and that their political leaders are held accountable when they fail to do so.
In Asa Winstanley’s case, the state overstepped, and the court rightly slapped it down. But make no mistake—the war on pro-Palestinian journalism is far from over. If anything, it has only just begun. And the next journalist may not be as lucky, or as resilient, but you kind of hope this result will go somewhat in their favour going forwards.
For more on the story of the Filton 18 and the Instro 10, ordinary activists from Palestine Action, held on terrorism charges and how protest and vandalism came to be prosecuted as terrorism instead, get all the details of that story in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks