The news that Shahid Butt, a man convicted of terrorism who served five years for conspiring to bomb the British consulate in Yemen, is standing as a pro-Gaza candidate for Birmingham City Council has shocked many. Butt was jailed in 1999 as part of a terror plot linked to Abu Hamza, yet now seeks public office representing constituents in the Sparkhill ward. The spectacle of a man with a terror conviction campaigning on a platform of Palestinian solidarity while dismissing his past as youthful ‘mistakes’ has understandably provoked outrage.

From Birmingham to Gaza, the pattern is consistent: British institutions have developed a tolerance for terrorism and extremism

But if Butt wins his council seat, he will not be the first convicted terrorist to receive British taxpayer funding. The UK has been quietly bankrolling such individuals for years through its financial support to the Palestinian Authority – a system so perverse that it rewards terrorism with salary scales and career advancement based on the barbarity of the crimes committed.

The UK government’s approach to Palestinian Authority funding reveals the kind of bureaucratic sleight of hand that allows ministers to claim moral high ground while enabling the very practices they condemn. Direct UK budgetary support to the Palestinian Authority was stopped in 2021, but in case you thought this decision was a principled stand against the PA’s systematic glorification of violence or payments to convicted terrorists, the Foreign Office made sure explicitly to describe it as the result of a ‘general aid budget prioritisation exercise.’ Good to know.

Stranger still was the UK’s reaction after October 7, 2023, in the wake of the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, to actually resume explicit financial support with a £10 million contribution channelled through a World Bank mechanism to support Palestinian Authority public sector salaries, alongside £5 million in ‘technical assistance.’ Ministers emphasise that UK funds do not directly pay for prisoners or militants, but this distinction rests on wilful economic obfuscation. Money is fungible. When external donors assume part of the PA’s wage bill for teachers or civil servants, they inevitably free up resources elsewhere in the budget: resources that can then be redirected toward the PA’s infamous ‘Pay-for-Slay’ policies.

The mechanics of these rewards are........

© The Spectator