Rishi Sunak defends new powers for police after coronation protest backlash

Published

2 years ago

May 9, 2023

admin

Rishi Sunak has defended the government’s introduction of new police powers to tackle protests, despite a backlash over the treatment of demonstrators during the coronation.

The Metropolitan Police faced criticism after detaining a number of members of the campaign group Republic on Saturday, and has now expressed “regret” over the arrests, saying its investigation was unable to prove intent to disrupt the event.

The force’s commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said the detentions were “unfortunate”, but insisted his officers were seeking to thwart what he described as a “criminal network”

Politics live: PM unveils ‘NHS recovery plan’ – as Starmer says ‘more work to be done’

Critics placed the blame at the government’s door after the new Public Order Act came into force days before the celebrations, allowing officers to stop and search anyone they suspect is planning to cause disruption.

But the prime minister said it was “right for the government to give police the powers they need to tackle serious disruption”.

Mr Sunak had previously backed the Met over the arrests ahead of the latest statement from the force, despite concerns they were cracking down.

And while answering questions on Tuesday, he defended the government’s move to bring in the new police powers.

‘Right thing to do’

Speaking to broadcasters while visiting a pharmacy, the PM would not answer questions about whether he felt comfortable about what happened to protesters at the coronation.

Instead, he said: “Of course people have the right to protest freely but peacefully, but it is also right that people have the ability to go about their day-to-day lives without facing serious disruption.

“And what the government has done is give police the powers that they need to tackle instances of serious disruption to their lives. I think that’s the right thing to do and police will make decisions on when they use those powers.”

The prime minister added: “We also live in a society where the police are rightly operationally independent of government. They make the decisions on the ground and the way that they see fit. That is the way we have always done it. That’s the right way to do it. It wouldn’t be right for me to interfere with their operational decisions.

“But it is right for the government to give police the powers they need to tackle serious disruption because as we have seen over the last weeks and months there are lots of incidences of people’s day-to-day lives being seriously disrupted by protesters and people are rightly asked why isn’t that being stopped.

“So it is right that the government gives the police the powers to deal with those things, but again those are operational decisions for the police on the ground at the time.”

MPs from the SNP, Liberal Democrats and the Green Party have all called for the law to be scrapped.

The SNP’s Alison Thewliss called the legislation “draconian” and “undemocratic”, adding: “By clamping down on the right to protest… the Tories are eroding the basic tenets of a free and democratic society.”

And Green Party peer Baroness Jenny Jones said: “The Met were wrong to arrest people on Saturday, but the government was wrong to give them the powers to do so.

“The Public Order Law essentially criminalises peaceful protest by using an approach similar to that used to disrupt terrorism, drug dealing and gang violence.

“For the sake of democracy in the UK and freedom of speech, these new laws all need to go.”

But Labour would not commit to reversing the bill.

Speaking to Sky News, Lisa Nandy said: “We’re not in the business of just repealing all legislation.

“But we will certainly amend legislation when we’re in government in order to strike the right balance between the democratic right to protest and the right of people in Britain to go about their everyday lives without serious disruption.”

Earlier, a government minister accused some anti-monarchy protesters of planning to cause “really serious and dangerous and stupid disruption”.

Neil O’Brien told Sky News that he didn’t have “any objection to peaceful protests” and “in some cases [the force] might have been wrong”.

But he also argued “in some cases, they did the right thing”, as it was “also a question of what [protesters] were going to do“.

Graham Smith, the chief executive of Republic who was one of eight people in his group arrested and detained for several hours, accused the minister of “wild speculation”, saying there had been “no intelligence supporting the arrests”.

“There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by the eight people from Republic who were arrested at all,” he told Sky News. “There was no intent. There was no evidence of any intent. There was no evidence of any equipment being carried that would have caused the crime.

“And we were very clear with the police for four months [about] the details of our plans, and they were very clear to us that they were okay with those plans.”

Click to subscribe to the Sophy Ridge on Sunday podcast

Mr Smith said the group was now consulting with lawyers about their next steps and would continue to protest against the monarchy while calling for an elected head of state.

Officers arrested 64 people in total on coronation day following new laws to tackle protests being introduced by the government, with 46 of those later bailed after being detained on suspicion of causing a public nuisance or breaching the peace.

UK

Trump hails ‘highest honour of my life’ at state banquet – as King references trade, Ukraine and environment

Published

5 hours ago

September 18, 2025

admin

Trump hails 'highest honour of my life' at state banquet - as King references trade, Ukraine and environment

Donald Trump said being the first US president to enjoy a second British state visit was “one of the highest honours of my life”, as he wined and dined with royalty at Windsor Castle.

Wednesday evening’s state banquet came after a day full of pomp and pageantry for Mr Trump, who was treated to a carriage procession, military parade, and plenty more lavish treatment.

Trump’s state banquet as it happened

Suited and booted for the banquet to bring the day to a close, sat between the King and Princess of Wales, the president thanked the monarch and Queen for their “extraordinary graciousness”.

Mr Trump said it was a “singular privilege” to be the first American president to be granted a second state banquet, adding: “This is truly one of the highest honours of my life, such respect for you and such respect for your country.”

He suggested it might be the last time it happens, adding “I hope it is actually” to laughter.

Mr Trump’s speech at the banquet followed one from the King, who referenced trade, Ukraine, and environmentalism.

The monarch said the UK and US “fought together to defeat the forces of tyranny” during the First and Second World War, and added: “Today, as tyranny once again threatens Europe, we and our allies stand together in support of Ukraine to deter aggression and secure peace.”

He mentioned trade between the two countries early in the speech, saying: “Today, our alliance spans every field of endeavour and shows vast potential for growth.

“The United Kingdom was your partner in the first trade deal of your administration, Mr President, bringing jobs and growth to both our countries.

“And no doubt we can go even further as we build this new era of our partnership.”

The King also referenced the environment and said that “in striving for a better world, we also have a precious opportunity to safeguard and to restore the wonders and beauty of nature for the generations who follow us”.

And in more lighthearted comments, the monarch said that “I cannot help but wonder what our forefathers from 1776 would make of our friendship” to audible laughter from the president.

Red Arrows, tech giants and French menu

The dinner capped off Mr Trump’s first day of his state visit to the UK, with the US president joining King Charles to watch a military parade – replete with a Red Arrows flyover – held at Windsor Castle.

He and first lady Melania Trump also paid tribute to the late Queen Elizabeth II at St George’s Chapel, where they laid a wreath at her tomb.

The banquet had 160 attendees, including the Prince and Princess of Wales, Sir Keir Starmer, and a long list of American technology CEOs – including Apple’s Tim Cook, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella.

The Silicon Valley executives are in the country as the UK and US announce a landmark technology deal worth billions of pounds.

Sir Keir, meanwhile, has his focus set on talks with Mr Trump at his Chequers country retreat on Thursday.

Photos from Windsor Castle ahead of the banquet showed a lavish arrangement – with a menu in French as has been tradition since the Norman conquests of the 11th century.

Has the royal Truman Show for Trump been worth the enormous effort?

Dominic Waghorn

International affairs editor

@DominicWaghorn

Trump state visit II has so far been like The Truman Show.

A lavish production and spectacle revolving around just one man, while outside the set of Windsor Castle, beyond the big walls put up to fence it in, the world goes on.

The question is – has it been worth all the enormous effort and expense?

Click here to read more

UK-US bond ‘unbreakable’, says Trump

On the relationship between the UK and US, Mr Trump said that “seen from American eyes, the word special does not begin to do it justice,” before adding: “We’re like two notes in one chord or two verses of the same prose.

“Each beautiful on its own, but really meant to be played together. The bond of kinship and identity between America and the United Kingdom is priceless and eternal.

“It’s irreplaceable and unbreakable.”

He then made a reference to former US president Joe Biden, saying: “We had a very sick country one year ago, and today I believe we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world.”

Mr Trump also told the King he had raised “a remarkable son” in Prince William before saying: “Melania and I are delighted to visit again with Prince William and to see Her Royal Highness Princess Catherine so radiant and so healthy, so beautiful.”

UK

Has the royal Truman Show for Trump been worth the enormous effort and expense?

Published

5 hours ago

September 18, 2025

admin

Has the royal Truman Show for Trump been worth the enormous effort and expense?

Trump state visit II has so far been like The Truman Show.

A lavish production and spectacle revolving around just one man, while outside the set of Windsor Castle, beyond the big walls put up to fence it in, the world goes on.

The question is – has it been worth all the enormous effort and expense?

Britain’s constitutional monarchy has mustered all its ceremonial might to pull off an extraordinary show.

Latest updates on Trump’s state visit

Donald Trump has seemed genuinely moved by the performance put on by a cast of hundreds entirely for his benefit.

But there has seemed something missing – people.

Previous state visits have always involved the monarch’s subjects, lining the route as the honoured guest is transported by state coach.

On Wednesday, plenty of deer roamed Windsor Great Park, but not the public.

There was good reason for this royal Truman Show.

Like Truman Burbank, Donald Trump could not be exposed to the reality of life outside the castle fencing and walls.

Such a thin-skinned president might react adversely, it was decided by those organising this visit.

We will get a first sense of what Britain gets in return for all this on Thursday, the business end of this state visit.

What deals have been struck by the tech and business titans the US president has brought with him?

Will there be any sign that he has moderated his positions on Ukraine and Gaza? Will he make concessions to the UK on trade?

The real world starts crowding back in on Trump on Thursday afternoon when he faces journalists at a closing news conference.

Two words threaten to upset the president’s mood. Jeffrey and Epstein.

The gathering storm surrounding the infamous paedophile soured the mood ahead of this visit and claimed the scalp of Britain’s ambassador in Washington, Lord Mandelson.

Could the scandal also upset its outcome?

UK

MSPs vote to abolish Scottish legal system’s controversial not proven verdict

Published

10 hours ago

September 17, 2025

admin

MSPs vote to abolish Scottish legal system's controversial not proven verdict

MSPs have voted to abolish Scotland’s controversial not proven verdict.

The Scottish government’s flagship Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed on Wednesday following a lengthy debate of more than 160 amendments that began the day before.

The new legislation makes a series of changes to the justice system, including scrapping the not proven verdict; establishing a specialist sexual offences court; creating a victims and witnesses commissioner; reforming the jury process to require a two-thirds majority for conviction; and implementing Suzanne’s Law which will require the parole board to take into account if a killer continues to refuse to reveal where they hid their victim’s body.

Following Royal Assent, the legislation will be implemented in phases.

Justice Secretary Angela Constance said: “This historic legislation will put victims and witnesses at the heart of a modern and fair justice system.

“By changing culture, process and practice across the system, it will help to ensure victims are heard, supported, protected and treated with compassion, while the rights of the accused will continue to be safeguarded.

“This legislation, which builds on progress in recent years, has been shaped by the voices of victims, survivors, their families and support organisations, and it is testimony to their tireless efforts to campaign for further improvement.

“I am grateful to those who bravely shared their experiences to inform the development of this legislation and pave a better, more compassionate path for others.”

Not proven verdict

Currently, juries in Scotland have three verdicts open to them when considering the evidence after a trial, and can find an accused person either guilty or not guilty, or that the case against them is not proven.

Like not guilty, the centuries-old not proven verdict results in an accused person being acquitted.

Critics have argued it can stigmatise a defendant by appearing not to clear them, while failing to provide closure for the alleged victim.

Notable cases which resulted in a not proven verdict include Sir Hugh Campbell and Sir George Campbell, who were tried for high treason in 1684 for being present at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge.

The murder of Amanda Duffy, 19, in South Lanarkshire in 1992 sparked a national conversation around the existence of the not proven verdict and double jeopardy rules.

Suspect Francis Auld stood trial but the case was found not proven by a jury and an attempt to secure a retrial failed in 2016. Auld died the following year.

In 2018, a sexual assault case against former television presenter John Leslie was found not proven.

And in 2020, former first minister Alex Salmond was found not guilty on 12 sexual assault charges, while one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape was found not proven.

Victim Support Scotland (VSS) had earlier urged MSPs to put aside party politics and vote “for the intention of the bill”.

Kate Wallace, chief executive of VSS, believes the act is a “solid foundation” on which to build further improvements.

She added: “The passing of this act represents a momentous occasion for Scotland’s criminal justice system.

“It marks a significant step towards creating a system that considers and prioritises the needs of people impacted by crime.”

VSS worked with the families of Arlene Fraser and Suzanne Pilley to spearhead Suzanne’s Law.

Ms Fraser was murdered by estranged husband Nat Fraser in 1998, while Ms Pilley was killed by David Gilroy in 2010. To date, the women’s bodies have never been recovered.

Before the bill, parole board rules dictated that a killer’s refusal to disclose the information “may” be taken into account.

The new legislation means parole boards “must” take the refusal to cooperate into account.

Carol Gillies, sister of Ms Fraser, and Gail Fairgrieve, sister of Ms Pilley said: “We have done everything possible to make this change to parole in memory of Arlene and Suzanne, and for other people who have lost their lives in such a horrific way.

“For our families, the passing of this act and the change to parole are momentous.”

Read more from Sky News:
Why next year’s Scottish elections could get messy

The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour voted against the bill.

Although in support of the abolition of the not proven verdict, the Scottish Tories said they had been left with no alternative but to oppose the bill after the SNP rejected a series of amendments.

The party had called for a Scotland-only grooming gangs inquiry; wanted victims to be told if a decision was taken not to prosecute an accused; and for all victims to be informed if a plea deal was struck between defence and prosecution lawyers.

They also wanted Suzanne’s Law to be strengthened, which would have compelled killers to reveal the location of their victim’s body or risk having their parole rejected – ensuring “no body, no release”.

MSP Liam Kerr, shadow justice secretary, said: “This half-baked bill sells the victims of crime desperately short.

“By ignoring many of the key demands of victims’ groups, the SNP have squandered the chance for a long overdue rebalancing of Scotland’s justice system.

“The Scottish Conservatives’ common sense amendments would have given this legislation real teeth but, by rejecting them, the nationalists have delivered a victims’ bill in name only.

“While we back the abolition of the not proven verdict, the SNP’s intransigence on a number of key issues meant we could not support this bill in its final form.”