By Gordon Dimmack
I have lived my entire life, pretty much, in or within a couple of miles of a little village called Bilbrook, Wolverhampton, right in the heart of the Black Country.
It’s called the “Black Country” due to heavy industrial pollution from 19th-century coal mining, iron production, and steel mills.
It was “black by day and red by night”—black from soot and smoke during the day, and glowing red at night from the fires of furnaces, coal pits, and cinder.
It’s a part of the country with a deep industrial heritage, with every town and village within its borders having its own proud story and unique piece of history.
Bilbrook’s story is an especially interesting one, and one the locals are very proud of indeed. I know I am.
It’s a village that helped defeat fascism during World War II.
Just a few hundred yards from where I sit, there used to be a company called Boulton Paul. It was a factory that built parts for the aeroplanes that flew in the war, and even built an entire plane, the Boulton Paul Defiant, which flew in the Battle of Britain.
Which, I might remind you, Britain won. With little help from America.
My grandfather, a skilled machinist, actually worked there for a while after the war. But during the war, he worked for Lucas Aerospace just a mile further down the road, in a factory manufacturing the parts that held those amazing Spitfires and Hurricanes together. He helped build the planes that won the Battle of Britain—planes our nation still adores and remembers to this day.
He met my grandmother while working at Lucas during that time. She worked there as a receptionist. They probably would not have met but for the war. There’s a possibility I wouldn’t even be here had none of this happened.
As I said, the people who live around here are immensely proud of this heritage. So proud that there are mosaics, signs, plaques, and brickwork commemorating those times, and how the area and the country came together and stood alone against fascism in World War II.
How sad it is, then, that an area which prides itself on its history of fighting fascism is now home to a company that profits from it.
Moog Aircraft Group in Wolverhampton occupies around ten acres of land almost exactly between the locations Lucas Aerospace and Boulton Paul once occupied.
Its location, the i54 business park, is relatively new, with Moog being the first tenants when it opened in 2009.
However, unlike the famous companies which once fought the forces of evil from this very soil, Moog Aircraft sells advanced weapons systems to them instead.
The Moog facility in Wolverhampton has become a notable node in the global defence supply chain for the F-35 programme. The site provides critical components—including actuators, control electronics, and software—for the fifth-generation fighter which is critical to the Israeli Air Force as it bombs the hell out of Gaza and multiple other countries in the Middle East.
While the UK government suspended some arms export licences to Israel, a special exemption was kept for the global F-35 programme, allowing the continued supply of components to the IDF while it clearly commits heinous crimes.
While Moog still provides these parts under licence, it has also exported parts for the M-346 “Lavi” trainer aircraft, directly supporting the training of Israeli pilots who go on to fly F-16 and F-35 fighter jets.
Unsurprisingly, the site has been the target of activism on behalf of Palestinians in Gaza who are suffering on the receiving end of the F-35s that Moog helps maintain and profits from.
In August 2025, four activists reportedly broke in and allegedly caused £1.2 million worth of damage.
The four activists were originally held in custody in harsh conditions, treated as terrorists, but were released on bail following a High Court ruling that found the government’s proscription of Palestine Action unlawful.
At their plea hearing on 27 February, they were granted conditional bail with a £10,000 surety each. Their trial is scheduled for 8 June.
The Moog case is far from isolated. Across Britain, dozens of activists targeting Israeli-linked arms firms have faced the full force of the state. In the wake of the High Court’s ruling that the Palestine Action proscription was unlawful, 23 of the so-called “Filton 24” were finally released on bail—some after months of solitary confinement and hunger strikes. More than 2,700 people have been arrested in connection with Palestine solidarity actions. The picture that emerges is one of a state apparatus deployed not to protect public safety, but to punish and criminalise those who are conscious enough to know the facts.
Shipments to Israel from the UK are aiding and abetting crimes against humanity: ethnic cleansing, starvation, the mass displacement of millions of people, and genocide.
That is not a controversial statement. These are the known facts of the matter. The United Nations will tell you the same. Nearly all human rights organisations and genocide scholars have agreed that this is the level of cruelty being inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians. And shipments from companies such as Moog Aircraft Group are profiting from it.
These shipments, often routed through third countries and addressed to entities like Israel’s defence ministry, have undermined end-use restrictions designed to prevent military application in Gaza.
This complex web of transshipment and licensing exemptions came to a head recently when two shipments originating from Moog’s UK operations were seized in Belgium. Declassified UK reports confirmed that Belgian authorities intercepted F-35 fire control systems and military aircraft spare parts at Liège airport in March 2026 after they were found to be misdeclared as ordinary aircraft components and lacking the necessary transit licences. The Belgian government, which unlike the UK enforces a strict arms embargo on Israel, stated the request would have been refused had it been made properly, triggering a criminal investigation.
And while the incident has gone largely unnoticed by the mass media and the general population, the lengths the British state will go to in its prime directive to protect all things Israel is not confined to the relentless pursuit, prosecution, and criminalisation of those with a conscience in this country—those who feel it may be time to start smashing a few windows since they’re not being heard.
The Criminalisation of Conscience. And Triangles.
Since the October 7th attacks on the border of Gaza, the inverted red triangle has become a widely used symbol online to express support for the resistance against the occupying forces in Palestine.
Those occupying forces are credibly accused, remember, by bodies including the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, of horrific crimes. These include rape, sometimes with inanimate objects, sometimes with dogs; torture; the sniping of children in the head and genitals; and many more documented incidents that can only be described as absolutely demonic. One such incident, reported by Reuters, saw medical staff forced to evacuate Al-Nasr Children’s Hospital, leaving babies to die and decompose in incubators.
These are forces that are currently before the International Court of Justice, the highest court on the planet, answering charges of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The court has already issued provisional measures, finding it plausible that Israel’s actions could breach the Convention.
These are also forces whose own soldiers will happily post videos of themselves online smashing and blowing up civilian houses, ransacking residences and dancing around in women’s lingerie found in the bedrooms. There are very few Israeli videos showing ground contact with resistance forces or many dead Hamas soldiers at all. Lots of soldiers dancing around in lingerie or riding little kiddies’ bikes, though.
On the other side of these occupying forces are what supporters call, “the resistance.” The videos the resistance forces post online are of an entirely different nature. No bouncing around in negligees or bombing civilian infrastructure at all. Just engagements with enemy combatants.
The inverted red triangle is used by the Qassam Brigades, among other resistance forces in the occupied territories, in videos showing successful combat operations. As such, and in no small part due to the level of crushing censorship social media companies have been forced to implement by our governments, it has become a symbol of public support online for those resisting this brutal occupation.
It is true to say the inverted red triangle has been used by some in a negative or threatening way. But it is also true to say the same of the Christian cross. And I do not see any rush to ban the cross, regardless of how big the KKK get in this country.
The distinction, one the state now actively enforces, is that the inverted red triangle is associated with a proscribed organisation under UK counter-terrorism law, while the cross is not. This legal distinction is at the heart of a case which a jury is deliberating as I type.
The precedent the case sets is a big one. There are probably millions of posts made online using the inverted red triangle since the October 7th attacks. I can tell you for a fact that more than a few of them have been made by yours truly, such is my support for humanity and my absolute hatred of fascism.
And the case I’m about to talk about should not be viewed in isolation. A pattern has emerged in the UK of authorities using counter-terrorism legislation to silence those speaking out for Palestine. In August 2024, British journalist Richard Medhurst was pulled off a plane at Heathrow and arrested under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act—for, as he put it, “expressing an opinion or belief that is supported by a proscribed organisation.” The same month, activist and journalist Sarah Wilkinson had her home raided by twelve counter-terrorism officers at dawn, her devices seized, arrested for online posts supporting Palestinian resistance. She now faces trial in 2027 on charges including encouraging terrorism and disseminating a terrorist video. In March 2026, Dr Rahmeh Aladwan—an NHS orthopaedic surgeon of Palestinian origin—was arrested at her home and charged with four counts of supporting Hamas and two of inciting racial hatred, all relating to social media posts. She has been suspended from practising medicine, even though no patient of hers had made any complaint. Journalists such as Asa Winstanley and others have faced similar persecution by the police, only for the charges to eventually be dropped.
These are not marginal figures shouting from the fringes; they are journalists, doctors, surgeons, charity workers.
Which brings me to Majid Freeman. Majid Freeman is one of those people in the UK who has made similar posts, and he is right now facing up to 14 years in prison for them.
And inverted red triangles sit at the heart of the case.
As I type, Freeman is awaiting the jury’s verdict after a two-week trial at Birmingham Crown Court.
He is facing two charges for social media posts he made in 2024 and 2025. Central to the prosecution’s case is their allegation that Freeman used “coded language” and “red triangles” in his online posts to encourage terrorism and spread support for Hamas.
Majid’s defence is that he only encouraged support for “Palestinian Resistance” to an occupation, and his posts need to be viewed in the broader context of the genocide in Gaza.
Right now, the jury has been told a 10-1 verdict either way will be acceptable as they cannot come to a unanimous decision, which suggests the state will not get a successful prosecution.
However, I doubt this will be the end of the matter, considering the lengths the state is going to in order to prosecute Palestinian solidarity.
Thousands have been arrested in the last couple of years for similar posts in the UK and are currently on bail, some with ridiculous conditions. Canary contributor and journalist Ani_says, for instance, has bail conditions which include, “I can’t say the word coconut online.” If Freeman’s prosecution fails, there’s a much higher chance they all might.
If it succeeds, expect many more cases to go to court. The number of people arrested in the last 3 years for posts made online hasn’t even been released, yet, and I’m guessing it will be in the tens of thousands.
Maybe even some of us might see prison for posting watermelon emojis? 🍉
And if you think you will have a good chance in court, I have some information that might be of interest to you.
Palestine Action used to win cases by making a simple argument to juries: we damaged an arms factory to stop it producing weapons that destroy homes and kill children. If you break into a car to save a baby overheating in the back, you have a defence. A jury in an earlier case accepted that, so the government changed the rules surrounding “lawful excuse.”
By the time cases reached a trial I visited in Wolverhampton months later, judges were directing juries that this defence simply didn’t apply anymore.
The state has systematically removed almost every legal route activists once had to argue that their actions were driven by conscience rather than criminal intent.
When I say the state is criminalising conscience, I’m not being hyperbolic.
Palestine Action started winning court cases by urging juries to acquit using their conscience. So that law became a target to the British State, too.
A Barrister in the Crosshairs.
Let me try and explain to you, in the simplest terms, just how these changes to the laws have affected trials involving Palestine activists involved in direct action cases.
Imagine a trial against six activists accused of criminal damage where the judge made two strict rules for the lawyers: first, don’t tell the jury they can ignore the law based on their conscience (a historical right called “jury equity”); second, don’t suggest the Israel-Gaza war gives the defendants a “lawful excuse.”
During his final speech, the lawyer, Rajiv Menon, breaks these rules. He quotes a 350-year-old case—Bushel’s Case—and a plaque that celebrates a jury’s absolute right to follow their conscience, and he repeatedly says the judge can’t force them to convict.
The six activists then aren’t convicted.
The judge then says this was effectively telling the jury to ignore his legal directions, and there is a retrial.
In the retrial, there is no mention of the jury’s rights to acquit based on conscience, and four of the six are then convicted for criminal damage.
Now imagine: Menon, a barrister of impeccable record who worked on the Stephen Lawrence, Hillsborough and Grenfell Tower inquiries, faces “contempt of court” proceedings, which could mean fines or even prison. This is extremely rare—legal observers believe it may be the first time a barrister has faced contempt for a closing speech to a jury.
Well, this is not a hypothetical scenario. This is exactly what is happening to that very leading barrister right now.
It’s like a football manager telling his team to stick to the rules of the game and drawing the first match, only for the referee to intervene before the return leg and telling his goalkeeper he can’t handle the ball.
It’s not surprising the second leg was lost 4-2.
Whenever there’s been a win for the side defending the Palestinians in the last few years, it’s been swiftly followed by the state moving the goalposts.
The Case of Trudi Warner
On Thursday 23rd April 2026, outside Woolwich Crown Court during the retrial of the Filton Six, Trudi Warner sat holding a sign which read: “Jurors have the absolute right to acquit according to their conscience.”
It wasn’t a protest sign in the conventional sense. It was a statement of law—the same principle displayed on a plaque at the Old Bailey commemorating Bushel’s Case of 1670.
She, and another person with her doing the same, were arrested for a public order offence.
Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?
Trust me, we haven’t even gotten to the most absurd part yet.
In March 2023, Trudi Warner held the same sign outside a trial of Insulate Britain activists. The judge referred her for contempt. The government pursued it all the way to the High Court.
But she won.
The High Court judge threw out the charges and rebuked the Crown Prosecution Service for bringing them at all. The case established a binding precedent: reminding jurors of their conscience right is not a crime.
Yet she did the very same thing a few years later outside Woolwich Crown Court—and the police arrest her anyway. Not for contempt this time. They use Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, claiming the quiet vigil might cause “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.”
Two people sitting silently, with handwritten signs.
The day after her arrest, eleven more people went to the same spot with the same signs. They were all arrested too. Then more arrests on subsequent days. By April 29, the total had reached 17 arrests in a single week—some now being charged with aggravated trespass apparently to bypass the High Court ruling.
Defend Our Juries put it bluntly: these are “a cynical and unlawful attempt to bypass the High Court ruling.” The state found one door locked by the law, so it kicked in a different one.
Bushel’s Case established that a jury cannot be punished for acquitting on conscience. That principle survived the Stuarts, the Industrial Revolution, two World Wars. But now, in 2026 broken Britain, a pensioner is handcuffed for reminding jurors it exists.
In the words of one defendant who dismissed her own barrister because the court had made it impossible for her lawyers to properly defend her: “I was unsurprised to learn that, in 1898, when the first person was allowed to answer the charges they faced from the witness box… many people, including prosecutors and judges, were worried about what would happen. Not because they feared that the defendants would lie, but because they feared the jury sympathising more with normal people than the elites of the legal profession.”
That’s what Trudi Warner was doing outside the court. Reminding twelve normal people that their conscience still matters—and being arrested for it. Even though a high court had said it was legal.
All this sure makes the timing of the government’s intent to limit jury trials a little suspicious, does it not?
Meanwhile, No Investigations into British IDF Soldiers
According to a report published by Declassified UK, 2,069 British nationals served in the IDF in the last two and a bit years.
And just recently the Metropolitan Police announced they will not open an investigation into any of them—even the ten British nationals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity while fighting with the IDF in Gaza.
None of them will face any investigation, let alone charges, for anything they may have done while fighting for a nuclear-armed apartheid state committing genocide against an indigenous population who have lived on that land for centuries.
The way those who have assisted genocide have been treated by the legal system is quite different from those who have opposed it.
For instance, I mentioned Dr Al-Adwan earlier in this article, who has been relentlessly pursued for posts and speeches she made. However, another British doctor who served in the IDF, a man by the name of Dr Staveley, has been ignored—even though he reportedly replied “Not enough” when asked how many Palestinian babies he had sniped.
He said the comment was a joke. I wonder if Dr Aladwan and Majid Freeman would get away with making the same defence?
The GMC has not confirmed any formal action or suspension, as far as I can tell, which is light years from the way they treated Dr Aladwan.
The Ground Beneath My Feet
I often wonder what my grandfather would think of all this. I wonder what he would say about it.
Companies occupying the same soil he once toiled on to fight those who would commit despicable crimes against humanity, now making shipments in secret to those who commit them.
I asked my now 83-year-old mom what she thought he would say. She said, “He’d be beside himself. He’d be up in arms about it! To think these companies will do all this just to make money!”
Up in arms about it? Sounds like incitement to me. Maybe if he was still around today and wrote that on Twitter, the West Midlands Police would be paying him a visit?
It’s ridiculous, I know. But so is making a triangle central to a trial on terrorism.
As is prosecuting grannies and calling them terrorists, while giving those who may have committed crimes against humanity a free pass.
This country has lost its way. It is doing everything it can to protect Israel as it commits genocide. Its army has been documented murdering babies in vast numbers, and its crimes are so huge that if you read the charge sheet out loud, you could only conclude they were committed by pure evil.
And in the words of one of Israel’s greatest supporters in the UK, Melanie Phillips:
“If you have, as is being said by so many people, Israelis who are committing genocide, Israelis who are wantonly killing babies in Gaza, then it follows that those Israelis in this narrative are positively evil, they are really Nazis, and what do you do with people like that? You have to destroy them.”
She was talking of a hypothetical scenario she didnt believe was true, of course, though it is.
And the absurdity of all this is such that, if I had said those exact words, I would have almost certainly been arrested.
Support the message? Share it.
One link. One friend. One moment.
