Look at those protests in London

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. There are laws against criminal damage, and the members who did it are awaiting trial

They may or may not be convicted; it has been known for lawyers to succeed with a defence of "preventing war crimes":

But protesters have caused criminal damage to military facilities in the past and even been acquitted for it, while Cooper herself admitted it might not amount to terrorism.

Before becoming prime minister, Keir Starmer successfully defended protesters who broke into an RAF base in 2003 to stop US bombers heading to Iraq. He argued that it was lawful because their intention was to prevent war crimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/23/ban-on-palestine-action-would-have-chilling-effect-on-other-protest-groups

I guess it's different when you're PM - then, you decide that the laws about criminal damage aren't enough, and your targets must be called "terrorists", and people arrested for just saying "I support them" - when the war crimes are known (Netanyahu would be arrested in the UK for his ICC warrant). I'm not sure if you've understood the effect here; it's not members of Palestine Action that were arrested yesterday, it was anyone who said in public "I support Palestine Action".

So, not, it's not in the least like "saying J6ers were just on tours". Think again. Maybe like arresting someone for saying "I support the Black Lives Matter rioters".