crapwittyname

The nuance here is that they've been proscribed as a terrorist group. They are a direct action group but they don't hurt people, just damage property. That's a crime, but it's not terrorism. They can and should be tried for criminal damage, B&E, damage to government property etc, but this is a freedom of protest issue, and now freedom of speech, too, since I can no longer say things like "I think Palestine Action went too far, but they're fighting for a just cause", for example, because I'd be expressing support for a terrorist group and therefore committing a crime.
Compare to e.g. the suffragette movement who bombed buildings and all kinds to get the vote for women: they're now lauded by the same person who proscribed this group. Or more recent examples like just stop oil or the protesters that threw the Edward Colson statue into the River Avon. They were tried for criminal damages. Then recently, some protesters have been starting to get tried under the far, far harsher anti terrorism laws, usually when it involves protesting Israel's war crimes. These are the laws that allow things like extended detention in solitary without charge or phone calls, massively longer sentences and all manner of nasty punishments. It's clearly a power grab to reduce the will to protest.

I didn't mean to say say sabotage could not be terrorism in general, I'm agreeing that this is absolutely sabotage, but in this case it is not terrorism. The govt do not have a valid reason to proscribe them as a terrorist organisation. There are other available methods of opposition.
Terrorism is generally linked with a risk to personal safety at the very least, not mere property damage. These people are criminals, not terrorists.

It's sabotage. It's not terrorism. The gov is wrong to proscribe this group, you must see that? Regardless of your stance on the issue, this is an anti democratic move by Labour.

Well instead of guessing incorrectly, you could do a very small amount of research and find out!

As mentioned, direct action historically has produced results via political pressure.

This is actually a big deal. They've been proscribed as terrorists in the same way as ISIS, Hezbollah, Atomwaffen etc.
They are a direct action protest group, and they are criminals (at least the members that vandalised property) but they aren't terrorists. And now, under UK law, expressing support for them is an offence. This is a huge misuse of terrorism legislation. 27 people were arrested yesterday for recording their support for Palestine Action.

Palestine Action has clear goals though.

Nonsense. "This kind of thing" won women the vote and got us a weekend.

Since the UK signed the UN charter in 1945, it might behoove us to conform to their definitions unless, of course the UK parliament has agreed on a different definition for terrorism?

Millions of pounds? Oh those poor pounds, they must be terrified! Wait, what? Money doesn't have feelings and nor do fighter jets? Therefore no terror was caused, and the proscribing of this group as terrorists is therefore absurd? No, no. tHeSe DeFeNsE cOrPoRaTiOnS hAvE a RiGhT tO dEfEnD hErSeLf.

They crossed a line when they did this to a military base...

They didn't cross the line into terrorism, though. Yes, they are criminals, no, they are not terrorists. It's an incredibly important distinction. By definition, they are not terrorists:

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages...

-definition of terrorism, UN resolution 1566

relevant for ENGLAND at least

It's still relevant for England at least, there is a pretty close and probably casual relationship between population density and Brexit voting. Rural areas tended to vote Brexit, cities didn't.