Government ‘has no power’ to remove online terror content as banned Palestine Action manual remains online

Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google

The continued availability of the document, which includes guidance on carrying out criminal damage, identifying targets and avoiding detection, has exposed a fundamental gap in the Government’s ability to enforce its own counter-terrorism laws.

The group was formally proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 on 5 July 2025, making support for Palestine Action — including distributing its materials — a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

When Yvette Cooper moved to ban the organisation last year, she pointed directly to the manual, saying it offered “practical advice” to help members carry out attacks causing serious property damage.

But despite this, the document remains freely accessible online, contradicting assurances from the Home Office that illegal terrorist content would be “swiftly removed”.

Read more: Palestine Action activists behind £1m Elbit damage could be sentenced as 'terrorists'

Read more: Online safety watchdog hits suicide forum with £950,000 fine following LBC investigation

Asked why it is still available, a Home Office spokesperson told LBC: “We are cracking down on terrorist groups that use online content to spread propaganda and incite violence.

“We work closely with technology companies to support the swift removal of unlawful terrorist content.”

The department did not explain why that “swift” removal had not happened in this instance.

Senior figures in policing and terrorism law have since acknowledged that authorities lack the direct powers needed to force such material offline.

Assistant Commissioner Lawrence Taylor, the national head of Counter Terrorism Policing, said major technology firms are “not even close to doing enough” when it comes to tackling extremist content online.

Speaking to LBC’s crime correspondent Andy Hughes, Taylor said he would like to place “huge pressure on the bosses” of tech companies to act more decisively.

He added that tech companies “definitely” have a responsibility when it comes to what is hosted and promoted on their platforms, including the role of algorithms in amplifying harmful material.

However, Jonathan Hall KC, the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the issue goes deeper, pointing to a lack of enforceable legal powers.

"Ofcom don’t have any 'real actionable' power to remove this content. There is no red button under the Online Safety Act for this,” he said.

Hall explained that while regulators such as Ofcom can judge whether platforms are doing enough to curb terrorist material, and can order the removal of content that breaches rules, they cannot take it down themselves.

Instead, enforcement depends on whether companies comply voluntarily or face broader penalties.

“Put simply, there is a gap in legislation — no power exists to remove this content,” he said, noting that existing provisions under Section Three of the Terrorism Act 2006, which allow police to request takedowns, have never been used.

He described the current system as a “request-based relationship,” where the Government asks platforms to remove material believed to breach their terms, rather than issuing binding orders.

Even the most severe enforcement option under the Online Safety Act 2023 — a court-ordered business disruption measure that could block access to non-compliant platforms — is yet to be tested and far from immediate.

Jurisdiction further complicates matters. The site hosting the manual is self-hosted on WordPress infrastructure and, according to Ofcom, "falls outside" of its Online Safety Act remit, which applies only to user-generated services, search engines and commercial pornography sites.

The failure is even more stark when set against the tougher regime in the EU, where Regulation 784, which became applicable in June 2022, mandates platforms to remove terrorist content within one hour of receiving a formal removal order.

In the UK, by contrast, the Home Office has largely shifted responsibility onto tech firms. The Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) assesses material and refers it to platforms for what it describes as “voluntary action”.

Yet, critics say that leaves too much to company discretion, especially when platforms have commercial incentives to keep users engaged.

Hall also warned Ofcom has limited staff and is focused on what it sees as the worst offenders, including 4chan and suicide forums.

The manual itself urges direct action against UK sites linked to Israel, including Ministry of Defence locations, and tells activists to “escalate” any activity.

One passage says campaigners should “think big”, while another describes breaking into targets and using sledgehammers to damage property as “a very effective tactic”.

Palestine Action activists were behind a major incident on 20 June 2025, when they broke into RAF Brize Norton and vandalised two RAF aircraft.

Jewish community groups have said the manual’s continued availability is deeply alarming, with The Antisemitism Policy Trust saying such material “should not be freely available online” and warning it could fuel extremism and antisemitism.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism added it was “extraordinary” that a proscribed organisation could still host, in the UK, a manual explaining how to commit criminal acts and evade detection.

A spokesperson from the charity told LBC: “It really is extraordinary that a proscribed terrorist organisation is able to maintain a website and manual, available in the UK, explaining to would-be radicals how to undertake criminal activity, what to target and how to evade detection.

“These websites may be hosted abroad, but there are powers available to the authorities here to block this material, and they need to do just that.”

The row comes amid deepening concern over antisemitic attacks and extremism in the UK.

Since late March, there has been a rise in antisemitic incidents, including arson attacks on Jewish community ambulances in Golders Green, north-west London, a synagogue and a former Jewish charity, as well as a drone flown near the Israeli embassy.

Last month, two Jewish men – 34-year-old Shilome Rand and 76-year-old Moshe Ben Baila – were stabbed in north London, in what Counter Terror Policing London has formally declared a terror attack.

Somali-born British national Essa Suleiman, 45, was arrested and charged with two counts of attempted murder following the attack.

The Metropolitan Police said 26 people have been arrested over the series of attacks on Jewish sites since late March.

The Antisemitism Policy Trust added that Palestine Action’s use of “sloppy language and inaccurate terms” risks conflating the Israeli state with Judaism, fuelling antisemitism.

On its website, the banned group writes: “We are now on the 3rd year of uninterrupted campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza, led by the Israeli forces.“

"This has been supported by states around the globe, who harbor the weapons factories of the Zionist machine.”

In response, the Trust said: “Zionism, put simply, is the movement for self-determination for Jewish people in Israel.

“If any organisation wishes to criticise the Israeli Government, it should do so in those terms, not with reference to Zionism, which risks confusing matters.”