Nathan Emmerich, comms expert and integral member of the Martyn’s Law campaign team, discusses the recent support and subsequent arrests for proscribed group Palestine Action.

The right to protest is at the heart of our democracy. It is rightly protected under Human Rights legislation and gives people from all backgrounds the opportunity to have their voices heard.

In recent weeks, there have been nearly 600 people arrested for showing support for the proscribed group, Palestine Action. Notably, of the 532 people arrested on Saturday 9 August, almost half were aged 60 and above, including more than 100 in their 70s. The optics of their arrest and the ensuing reaction is concerning. While they turned up knowing that they would be arrested, they responded as if this was something being done to them.

I don’t think anyone in Parliament Square on that Saturday was a terrorist, but it does bring into question the seriousness of the actions from people who wilfully ignore the law to promote a terrorist organisation, all under the banner of the right to protest.

Since the brutal terror attack carried out by Hamas in Israel on 7 October 2023, and the ensuing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, hundreds of thousands of people have peacefully taken to the streets of London and cities across the UK, almost weekly, to protest their concerns about the brutality of the war.

While the ripple effects of the conflict have been acutely felt by Jews and Muslims here in the UK, including increasing rates of hate crimes, the majority of those protesting do not seek to cause harm or to isolate communities based on their cultural backgrounds or religious beliefs.

Currently there are 84 terrorist organisations proscribed under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000, with 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation. Following the 7 October 2023, the Government has proscribed four groups – Hamas, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Terrogram, and most recently Palestine Action.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the UK Home Secretary has the powers to proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. Under the Act, “terrorism” is defined as the use or threat of action which involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life; creates a serious risk to the health and safety of the public or section of the public.

The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the Government or an international governmental organisation, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

If we consider the actions taken by Palestine Action who damaged two military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in an attempt to protest against the UK’s weapons sales to Israel, then this clearly fits under the definition of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Home Secretary has also set out factors that contributed to the group’s proscription, including intimidation, serious violence and information that cannot be disclosed due to national security reasons.

Whatever your opinion of the reasons for, and the proposed outcome regarding the conflict in Gaza, the scenes and testimonies coming from the people living it daily are harrowing to witness. But the scenes in recent weeks raise a question around the willingness of individuals to ignore the seriousness of supporting a proscribed terrorist group.

It appears that those showing support for Palestine Action are deliberately or unknowingly conflating the proscription of Palestine Action with the conflict itself and view their actions as a legitimate means to protest.

We also know that terrorists seek to disrupt and divide by sharing extremist narratives, as well as misinformation and disinformation. Social media has become a central tool for terrorist groups who deliberately share graphic content to stoke emotive responses. And the influence on those vulnerable to extremism is clear across the spectrum, from far-right to Islamist extremism.

It is difficult not to perceive these protests as a publicity stunt that would be celebrated by those groups who wish to undermine our democratic values and who wish to disrupt societal cohesion in the UK – there’s a risk that these protests embolden extremists and groups on the far right. The operational resource used to arrest 532 people cannot be understated – this ‘protest’ was designed to disrupt and stretch our police forces.

The focus in recent days has been on the possible consequences for those arrested, but we need to go further than dealing with this as an isolated incident. We need a national conversation about how we deal with these issues and how we reduce the influence of extremist groups, whilst allowing people to respectfully discuss matters of concern. We also need UK authorities to firmly grip these matters and to strengthen their response – violence, intimidation and support for a proscribed terrorist group can never be accepted.

Nathan Emmerich

SW-One Communications

The post Why violence, intimidation and support for a proscribed terrorist group can never be accepted appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Nathan Emmerich, comms expert and integral member of the Martyn’s Law campaign team, reflects on the impact of 7/7 and how we must never forget the strength in our diversity, culture and beliefs to ensure that extremists do not weaken the ties that make our society vibrant and strong. 

20 years on from the horrific terror attacks in London, which took the lives of 52 innocent people and resulted in life changing injuries for more than 700 people, the tragedy of 7/7 is a constant reminder of the need for vigilance and the importance for working collaboratively across society to build a safer future for everyone.

The four bombings which were carried out across London’s transport network were an attempt by home-grown terrorists to fracture the fabric of our society. They did not and they cannot succeed.

Instead, the British public and our emergency services showed resilience and unity, underscoring the enduring truth that despite attempts to divide us, our shared humanity will always prevail.

The ideologies that led to the 7/7 attacks should serve as a constant reminder of the dangers lurking beneath the surface of extremism. Terrorism is indiscriminate, brutal and those who carry out terror attacks do not care who they kill.

It is important to contextualise the terrorism threat picture in the UK – the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) has set the current national threat level as ‘substantial’, meaning a terror attack is likely.

We know that extremists and terrorists look to exploit and recruit individuals who are vulnerable to their ideologies. We’ve seen this repeatedly by groups such as ISIS and groups on the extreme far right who have utilised social media to spread hateful ideologies and misinformation.

The ripple effects of geopolitical conflicts have also been felt acutely in communities across the UK, with a 25% increase in hate crimes recorded by police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2024. The vast majority of the 140,561 hate crime offences recorded were linked to race, with incidents against Jews doubling and incidents against Muslims increasing by 13%.

In the last year alone we’ve seen the consequence of intolerance in the aftermath of the horrific murders of young girls in Southport, when extreme far right groups targeted asylum seekers in temporary accommodation. More recently at Glastonbury, the rapper Bob Vylan was joined by thousands of people as he led chants of “death to the IDF”. These are reminders that hatred and intolerance, once unleashed, can rapidly permeate our society with significant consequences for communities.

This anniversary reaffirms the UK’s commitment to countering terrorism and in the years following 7/7, multiple governments have strengthened our approach to preventing further attacks through the Prevent programme and through counter terrorism legislation known as Martyn’s Law.

7/7 irrevocably shook the United Kingdom at its core but it was also a defining moment which affirmed that in the face of terrorism, we are resilient and will respond united. This anniversary reminds us that our shared humanity is our greatest shield against hatred and extremism.

Nathan Emmerich

SW-One Communications

The post Twentieth anniversary of 7/7 terror attacks appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Organisations in the security sector must understand and use a range of communications channels, from building their social media presence to implementing internal processes that facilitate the sharing of rapid and accurate information.

Like many other soft skills, the role of communications is often undervalued or overlooked by small and medium-sized businesses. This, in part, is down to a lack of resource, but also because it can be difficult to measure what successful communication looks like.

The role of communication extends beyond traditional approaches, such as marketing and public relations strategies.

With the right approach and clear objectives, communication serves a multitude of functions for businesses, ensuring they can strategically prepare and respond to specific circumstances, internally and externally. From enhancing a company’s profile to mitigating risk by implementing structures and processes, the role of communications should be given serious consideration for businesses operating in the UK’s security sector.

At the same time, any communication strategy should consider the current and future threat landscape facing the UK, with rapid advances in technology posing challenges.

For example, the role of social media platforms was brought into sharp focus in the summer of 2024 when misinformation was shared following the Southport murders, resulting in far-right riots that caused physical damage to local businesses and property.

The impact of this activity spread far beyond Southport, with rioters targeting 32 locations across the UK, including a hotel in Rotherham hosting asylum seekers and a Citizens Advice premises in Sunderland which was set alight.

We’re living in an increasingly hyperconnected world where the profile and role of those sharing information has changed. Where we once looked to broadcast media for news, the erosion of trust in traditional media outlets means adults are now more likely to view the news on their mobile phones via media platforms such as TikTok and X (Twitter).

This is problematic because those sharing news and information on social media do not always care about accuracy.

This means it is vital that businesses in the security sector utilise a range of communication functions, from building their social media presence to implementing internal processes that facilitate the sharing of rapid and accurate information. This approach will ensure they are prepared to respond to a range of scenarios to take control of the narrative. This could be a statement for the media or a briefing document for a stakeholder.

The approach adopted by the Metropolitan Police following the Hamas terror attack in Israel on 7 October 2023, which resulted in large protest rallies in London, demonstrates how simple communication can have an impact. The Met used social media to share updates about specific instances they were investigating, which helped to mitigate the impact of mis-and disinformation that was spread on Twitter.

Behind this public-facing communications approach was a rigorous internal communications function. Internal communications play a crucial role in terms of informing colleagues who can then engage with the relevant stakeholders, such as local businesses, authorities or wider police forces. This in turn results in aligned and consistent narratives that help to build trust and confidence.

Trust and confidence are key points to consider in this context because most operators providing security services are united in their ambition to make the UK a safer place.

Most operators in this sector are passionate about what they do and why they do it. But whilst they spend a considerable amount of time building trust in their product or service, failure to prepare for an appropriate response can have severe consequences. When staff at all levels are well-informed and equipped with clear protocols, the company’s overall operational efficiency improves, reducing the likelihood of missteps that could undermine credibility.

Although an example from the USA, the silence from Los Angeles’ Mayor, Karen Bass, when probed by a Sky News reporter about her decision to leave the country during the devastating wildfires, shows how valuable leadership in communication is. In that scenario, Mayor Bass simply needed to explain succinctly that she was in constant communication with the emergency services and outline some of the next steps. Instead, her silence undermined her credibility, at local and national levels.

The examples provided illustrate that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to communications, but they highlight how basic functions can help to improve the impact of a response. Whether that’s communicating with the media or sharing information internally with your stakeholders, establishing robust structures and processes will ensure you can achieve credibility and impact through communications.

By prioritising communication, security businesses not only protect their interests but enhance their ability to serve and protect their clients in an increasingly complex world. As the industry continues to evolve, so too must its approach to communication.

Nathan Emmerich

Founder and Managing Director

SW-One Communications

www.sw-onecommunications.com

The post Security-minded communications: from crisis response to brand protection appeared first on City Security Magazine.