Connect with us

Published

on

Joe Lycett has put his money where his mouth is, shredding £10,000 of his own cash after David Beckham failed to end his controversial multimillion-pound World Cup promotion deal with Qatar.

Wearing a rainbow-coloured ruffled top, and noise cancelling headphones to protect his ears, Lycett tossed in the cash in two goes, with the resulting shreds spewing out of the end of a wood-chipper.

Remaining expressionless throughout, the 34-year-old star then curtseyed to the camera, and exited left.

David Beckham attended the Doha Forum in March
Image:
David Beckham attended the Doha Forum in March

The Brummie comedian, who is known for his high-profile stunts, had posted an ultimatum on social media last week, warning the former England star that along with the cash, Beckham‘s “status as a gay icon will be shredded”.

Lycett had directed the message to Beckham personally and had said he would donate the money to LGBTQ+ charities if the sports star ended the sponsorship deal ahead of the tournament.

However, Beckham did not publicly acknowledge or respond to the ultimatum.

While it is illegal in the UK to deface a banknote in any way (through the Currency and Banknotes Act of 1928), it is not illegal to destroy a banknote altogether, for example through burning.

More on Qatar

However, if Lycett had burned the equivalent number of dollars in the US, or destroyed £10,000 of coins, he could have faced prosecution for his actions, as burning or destroying money in America is illegal, as is destroying coins minted after 1969 in the UK (according to the Coinage Act of 1971).

Lycett, set up a dedicated website to livestream the shredding, which took place in a dingy, brick-walled building at midday on Sunday, just before the World Cup opening ceremony.

He later shared a video of the act on Twitter and wrote “A platform for progress”.

His original video issuing the ultimatum showed him sat at a desk with wads of cash, praising Beckham as a gay icon and joking that marrying a Spice Girl was “the gayest thing a human being can do”.

Going on to explain that Qatar was “voted as one of the worst places in the world to be gay”, he then appealed to Beckham to rethink his deal with the Middle East country.

It has been reported that Beckham signed a multi-million-pound deal with the FIFA World Cup hosts, which Lycett said was worth £10m – but other reports have put as high as £150m.

The comedian dressed flamboyantly as he picked up the cash. Pic: Joe Lycett
Image:
Lycett dressed flamboyantly for the occasion. Pic: Joe Lycett

Qatar has faced an onslaught of criticism since being chosen as the host nation, with the country’s poor human rights record and ban on same-sex relationships proving particularly problematic.

In Qatar, participating in same-sex sexual activity can be punished with up to seven years in prison, or even the death penalty.

Read more: Being gay is ‘damage in the mind’ – Qatar World Cup ambassador

The safety of migrant workers and the logistics of holding a football tournament in desert heat has also attracted negative attention.

Three days before the shredding, Lycett shared a message he had sent to Beckham’s PR team asking: “Could you let me know if there’s any chance he might budge on his position, or am I to expect radio silence on this?”

Adding: “There’s still time for David and his team to do the right thing”. He also shared a picture of the £10k and the red woodchipper he would go on to use to shred it.

Click to subscribe to Backstage wherever you get your podcasts

There had been a mixed response to the comedian’s pledge to destroy the money, with some praising him for raising awareness of Qatar’s poor human rights record and criminalisation of LGBTQ+ people, while others urged him to donate the money to a food bank rather than shredding it at a time when the cost of living is soaring.

Ahead of the shredding, fellow comedian Harry Hill wished Lycett luck, saying he would be “voting with my feet” and not watching any of the World Cup, or buying any products endorsed by Beckham.

Beckham had recently impressed the public with his distinctly un-starry approach to viewing the Queen laying in state, queuing for 13 hours to pay his respects. The negative press around his association with Qatar may now be sullying some of the good-will he has built up.

Bill Drummond performing with KLF and Extreme Noise Terror in 1992. Pic: Richard Young/Shutterstock
Image:
Bill Drummond performing with The KLF in 1992. Pic: Richard Young/Shutterstock

It’s not the first-time stars have hit the headlines for burning money.

In 1994, electronic band The KLF burned £1m as a work of performance art. Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty torched the cash – which represented the bulk of the money they had previously earned from their music – in the back of a disused boathouse on the Ardfin Estate on the Scottish island of Jura.

And just last month, art’s enfant terrible Damien Hirst set fire to millions of pounds of his famous spot paintings after offering buyers the choice to keep NFTs of his work or the real thing.

Sky News has contacted Beckham and Lycett’s representatives for comment.

World Cup kicks off – Qatar take on Ecuador as fans celebrate start of event

The World Cup kicks off today, with the opening ceremony at 2.40pm UK time, and the first match at 4pm UK time, with Qatar playing Ecuador.

Continue Reading

UK

Bhim Kohli: Girl 13, and boy, 15, found guilty of manslaughter of 80-year-old dog walker

Published

on

By

Bhim Kohli: Girl 13, and boy, 15, found guilty of manslaughter of 80-year-old dog walker

A 13-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy have been found guilty of the manslaughter of an 80-year-old dog walker who was attacked in a Leicestershire park.

Bhim Kohli was found lying on the ground in Franklin Park in Braunstone Town, near Leicester, on 1 September last year and died the next evening of a spinal cord injury.

The grandfather, who was attacked just yards from his home, suffered a broken neck and rib fractures consistent with “something heavy striking the rib cage”, the trial heard.

Bhim Sen Kohli
Image:
Bhim Kohli

The boy, who was 14 at the time of the attack, and the girl, who was 12, cannot be named because of their ages.

During a six-week trial at Leicester Crown Court, jurors heard that Mr Kohli was racially abused before the incident.

The girl had also taken a photograph of Mr Kohli in Franklin Park a week before, the court heard.

The jury deliberated for almost seven hours before reaching unanimous verdicts on the pair, who will be sentenced next month.

Mr Kohli was shoved to the ground and slapped in the face with a shoe by a boy wearing a balaclava, the trial heard.

Police community support officers at the scene in Franklin Park last September. Pic: PA
Image:
Police at the scene in Franklin Park last September. Pic: PA

A police report into the incident included a statement from a witness who described “seeing the boy forcefully pushing the old man on to his back”.

The jury heard the witness described the old man as “ending up on the floor screaming”.

A statement from PC Rachelle Pereira said: “Mr Kohli was repeatedly screaming out in pain, shouting out ‘My neck’.”

Her statement said the witness told the police officer she saw a young white boy wearing a black balaclava “shove the old man to the floor and sprint”.

The boy, who denied inflicting the fatal injuries, told a friend he would go “on the run” to Hinckley, in Leicestershire, the day after the attack but was arrested by police minutes later while hiding in a bush, the court heard.

In a letter written two months after the attack, the court heard the boy said “I did it and I accept I’m doing time” and “I kinda just needed anger etc releasing”.

Read more:
Bhim Kohli’s family pay tribute

Mr Justice Turner remanded the boy in custody and granted the girl bail, but told her his decision “should not be taken as any indication as to the sentence when the time comes”.

The boy had also been charged with murder, but was found not guilty by the jury on that count.

The defendants, who sat in the dock for the first time since their trial began, appeared upset as the verdicts were given.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

UK

Trump tariffs could disrupt medicine supplies to UK, warns health secretary

Published

on

By

Trump tariffs could disrupt medicine supplies to UK, warns health secretary

Donald Trump’s tariffs could disrupt the supply of medicines into the UK, the health secretary has warned.

Wes Streeting said the government was “constantly watching and acting on this situation” after the US president refused to back down from the punitive policy, despite turmoil in the markets.

So far Mr Trump has imposed a series of tariffs of varying severity on countries across the world, including a 10% baseline tax on imports from all nations and a 25% levy on all cars imported to the US.

Politics latest: PM prepares to face questions from senior MPs

His actions have sparked fears of a global trade war, with the UK’s benchmark stock market index, the FTSE 100, only just witnessing a slight rise this morning after three days of steep losses.

While the reciprocal tariffs have not yet included pharmaceutical products, there are concerns this could change in the near future.

Speaking to Wilfred Frost on Sky News Breakfast, the health secretary said that even before the US president’s tariff agenda – which has seen him impose a 10% baseline tax on imports from all nations – there had been “issues with medicines production and supply internationally”.

“We are constantly watching and acting on this situation to try and get medicines into the country, to make sure we’ve got availability, to show some flexibility in terms of how medicines are dispensed, to deal with shortages,” he said.

“But whether it’s medicines, whether it’s parts for manufacturing, whether it’s… the ability of businesses in this country to turn a profit, this is an extremely turbulent situation.”

Mr Streeting, who was speaking following the announcement that the government has recruited more than 1,500 new GPs since 1 October, said the steps taken by Mr Trump were “unprecedented in terms of global trade”.

“As ever in terms of medicines, there’s a number of factors at play,” he said.

“There have been challenges in terms of manufacturing, challenges in terms of distribution, and if we start to see tariffs kicking in, that’s another layer of challenge, but we watch this situation extremely closely.

“We work on a daily basis to make sure that we have the medicine supply this country needs.”

Read more:
Trump’s tariffs could herald painful episode
China vows to ‘fight to the end’ over Trump’s new tariff threat

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump’s tariffs: What you need to know

Sir Keir Starmer had been seeking to secure an exemption for the UK from Mr Trump’s punitive tariffs.

But last week, the UK was hit with both the 10% baseline tariff on all imports and the 25% tariff on all cars imported to the US.

The latter tariff could prove particularly damaging for the UK, owing to the fact that the US is the car sector’s largest single market by country – accounting for £6.4bn worth of car exports in 2023.

On Monday, the prime minister announced he would relax rules around electric vehicles in order to mitigate the worst effects of the US tariffs.

While the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars remains in place, regulations around manufacturing targets on electric cars and vans will be altered to help firms during the transition.

Luxury supercar firms such as Aston Martin and McLaren will still be allowed to keep producing petrol cars beyond the 2030 date, while petrol and diesel vans will also be allowed to be sold until 2035, along with hybrids and plug-in hybrid cars.

Continue Reading

UK

Prince Harry’s security case back in court – all you need to know

Published

on

By

Prince Harry's security case back in court - all you need to know

Prince Harry has arrived at court for the start of a two-day hearing about his security arrangements.

The Duke of Sussex is appealing a ruling dismissing his challenge to the level of police protection he receives in the UK, and his case will be heard in front of three judges across Tuesday and Wednesday.

The prince’s dispute goes all the way back to 2020, and is one of several high-profile legal battles he has brought to the High Court in recent years.

So what is the case about, what has happened in the courts so far and what’s happening now?

What is the dispute over?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Harry’s legal battle over security

Harry received full, publicly funded security protection until he stepped back from royal duties and moved to America with wife Meghan in March 2020.

Once he moved away, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which has delegated responsibility from the Home Office for royal security – decided he would not receive the same level of protection.

But Harry has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep his wife and children safe.

He therefore wants access to his previous level of security when in the country, but wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill after he stepped down as a senior member of the Royal Family.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex at the Hillcrest Recreation Centre during the 2025 Invictus Games in Vancouver, Canada. Picture date: Monday February 10, 2025. PA Photo. See PA story ROYAL Invictus. Photo credit should read: Aaron Chown/PA Wire
Image:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in Canada in February. Pic: Aaron Chown/PA Wire

The duke’s legal representative said in a previous statement: “The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in.

“With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk.

“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

The legal representative added: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.

“While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”

What’s happened in court so far?

He filed a claim for a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision shortly after it was made, with the first hearing in the High Court coming in February 2022.

At the start of that hearing, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, told the court the duke’s offer of private funding was “irrelevant”, despite his safety concerns.

In written submissions, he said: “Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis, and Ravec does not make decisions on the provision of such security on the basis that any financial contribution could be sought or obtained to pay for it.”

He added Ravec had attributed to the duke “a form of exceptional status” where he is considered for personal protective security by the police, “with the precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain and by reference to the functions he carries out when present”.

The barrister added: “A case-by-case approach rationally and appropriately allows Ravec to implement a responsive approach to reflect the applicable circumstances.”

The case didn’t conclude until 28 February 2024, when retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled against Prince Harry.

The Duke leaving a service at St Paul's Cathedral in London in May 2024. Pic: AP
Image:
The Duke leaving a service at St Paul’s Cathedral in London in May 2024. Pic: AP

He ruled the decision to change his security status was not unlawful or “irrational”, and that there had been no “procedural unfairness”.

The judge added: “Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry] relief.

“This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different.”

Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case and we are carefully considering our next steps.

“It would be inappropriate to comment further.”

Read more on Prince Harry:
Prince Harry’s charity row explained
Watchdog opens case into charity concerns

Analysis: Row risks Harry’s tribute to Diana

After the ruling, a legal spokesperson for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.

“In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis.

“The duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.

“The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”

Prince eventually gets green light to appeal against High Court ruling

In April 2024, Harry was refused permission to challenge the ruling by the High Court, but was told he could apply to challenge it again directly to the Court of Appeal.

He did so, and in June 2024 the Court of Appeal said it would hear the duke’s challenge following a direct application from his lawyers.

Granting the appeal, Judge David Bean said he was persuaded “not without hesitation” that Harry’s challenge has a real prospect of success.

The two-day Court of Appeal hearing is set to begin at around 10.30am on Tuesday.

Continue Reading

Trending