Connect with us

Published

on

The Metropolitan Police says it no longer needs soldiers who were on standby as armed officers stepped back from duties.

Firearms specialists from other forces will still be drafted in to support the Met during the revolt, which stems from a decision to charge an armed officer with murder.

However, the force said enough firearms officers have now returned for it to be able to meet its counterterrorism responsibilities without military help.

Earlier, the Met said “a number of officers have taken the decision to step back from armed duties while they consider their position” and “that number has increased over the past 48 hours”.

“To ensure that we can continue to keep the public safe and respond to any eventualities, from Saturday evening Met firearms officers will be supported by a limited number of armed officers from other UK forces,” the force added.

The crisis has emerged after a police officer was charged with murder over the shooting of 24-year-old Chris Kaba, who was killed in September last year in Streatham Hill, south London.

Chris Kaba was killed in September 2022 in Streatham Hill, south London
Image:
A police officer has been charged with the murder of Chris Kaba (pictured)


The officer accused of his murder is named only as NX121 after a district judge granted an anonymity order.

The force’s commissioner Sir Mark Rowley welcomed a review into the situation by Home Secretary Suella Braverman to ensure armed officers “have the confidence to do their job”.

It was also backed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who said armed officers need “clarity” about their legal powers.

Speaking to broadcasters during a visit to a community centre in Hertfordshire, Mr Sunak said armed officers are “making life or death decisions in a split-second to keep us safe” and “they deserve our gratitude for their bravery”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Will police get better legal protection?

He added: “Now it is important when they are using these legal powers that they do so with clarity, and they have certainty about what they are doing, especially given the lethality they are using.

“That is why the home secretary has asked her department to review the guidance that the officers are operating under to make sure it is robust and that it commands the confidence, not just of the officers, but of the public as well.

“Obviously it wouldn’t be right for me to speculate on ongoing cases, but that is what we are doing.”

What legal protections do armed police officers have?

Most police officers in the UK do not routinely carry firearms. Where firearms support is needed, it is carried out by specially accredited firearms officers (AFOs) who are trained, including to assess intelligence and threats.

Duties include responding to high-risk incidents; taking part in operations where intelligence suggests firearms support may be required; providing public reassurance at events; providing enhanced and ballistic medical aid to help save lives and working closely with partners, including the military.

Despite making important and often time-critical decisions, they are still accountable under the law for their actions.

Under the law, armed police officers have the right to discharge a firearm to make a lawful arrest, defend themselves from unlawful violence and to protect others from harm – if they have reasonable grounds for believing there is an imminent danger to life.

The Home Office code of practice on police use of firearms in England and Wales stipulates “all force used must be reasonable in the circumstances”.

In Scottish law, a police officer is not entitled to discharge a firearm against a person unless the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is committing – or about to commit – an action likely to endanger the life or cause serious injury to the officer or any other person, and there is no other way to prevent the danger.

As with all use of force by police officers, if the force used results in death, then the European Convention of Human Rights only allows “the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary”.

The question of whether a use of force was absolutely necessary in the circumstances is one that depends to a large degree on the facts of the individual case.

The onus is on the individual officer to justify their actions in court.

‘London isn’t as safe as it was’

Earlier, former firearms officer with the Met Police, Tony Long, told Sky News that the action has made London less safe, saying: “The only reason [Sir Mark Rowley is paying attention now] is because… they’ve withdrawn their services because of their concerns, and he’s left with a situation where he’s having to call in the military.

“He’s having to get much-lesser-trained officers to step up to do jobs that they’re literally not trained to do, and at the same time, try and convince you all… it’s business as usual.

“It isn’t business as usual – the public in London are not as safe as they would be if armed response vehicles, officers and counter-terror specialist firearms officers were being allowed to do their job.”

Read more:
Met chief’s letter to home secretary in full
Will this force change in how police shootings are reported?

‘Public expects us to be held to highest standards’

In his letter, Sir Mark suggested legal changes over the way self-defence is interpreted in police misconduct cases, the introduction of a criminal standard of proof for unlawful killing in inquests and inquiries, and changes to the threshold at which the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) can launch an investigation.

“It is essential that we have a system which commands the confidence of officers and the communities they serve,” he wrote.

“Of course, where wrongdoing takes place, the public expect us to be held to the highest standards.

“I have been clear on this in all areas of policing, and the use of force must be no exception.

“The system that judges officers’ actions should be rooted in integrity and decisions should be reached swiftly, competently and without fear or favour.

“A review is needed to address accountability mechanisms, including the policies and practices of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), ideally with a focus on the threshold for investigating police use of force and involvement in pursuits.”

Continue Reading

UK

171 arrests in gig economy crackdown – with 60 delivery drivers to be deported

Published

on

By

171 arrests in gig economy crackdown - with 60 delivery drivers to be deported

The UK is deporting 60 delivery riders found to be working illegally after an immigration crackdown.

Targeted action against workers in the so-called gig economy led to 171 arrests nationwide last month, the Home Office said.

Those arrested included Chinese nationals working in a restaurant in Solihull, Bangladeshi and Indian riders in east London, and Indian delivery riders in Norwich.

The drive comes as ministers try to crack down on illegal working in the UK, as part of efforts to deter those coming to the country illegally.

Home Office figures show there were 8,232 arrests of illegal workers in the year to September, up 63% compared with the previous 12 months.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Net migration figures down

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood set out reforms to the asylum system last month, aimed at making the UK less attractive for illegal migration and making it easier to deport people.

Border security minister Alex Norris said the government was rooting out the criminality of illegal working in the delivery sector from communities.

More on Home Office

He went on to say: “These results should send a clear message, if you are working illegally in this country, you will be arrested and removed.

“This action is part of the most sweeping changes to illegal migration in modern times to reduce the incentives that draw illegal migrations here and scale up removals.”

Read more:
France will soon be able to intercept suspected migrant taxi boats
How is Britain’s immigration system actually changing?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Home secretary sets out migration rules

Ministers have also been working with firms Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats to address concerns of abuse in the sector and ramping up identity checks to tackle account-sharing.

The Home Office also agreed in July to share asylum hotel locations with food delivery companies, to tackle suspected hot spots of illegal working.

The action also comes as the government’s new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act became law on Tuesday, which includes measures to close a “loophole” for casual, temporary or subcontracted workers to also have to prove their status.

Employers who fail to carry out checks could face up to five years in prison, fines of £60,000 for each illegal worker they have employed, and having their business closed.

Continue Reading

UK

Officials accused of ‘failing’ to tell Lords about three large-scale illegal waste sites

Published

on

By

Officials accused of 'failing' to tell Lords about three large-scale illegal waste sites

Environment Agency bosses have been accused of “failing” to tell a cross-party committee of peers about three large-scale illegal waste sites – including one that was recently exposed by Sky News. 

Our investigation into waste crime in Wigan heard from residents who repeatedly complained to the Environment Agency that 20 to 30 lorries a day drove down their street last winter and dumped industrial amounts of waste.

The rubbish now sits at a staggering 25,000 tonnes. It burnt for nine days in July, and has seen local homes infested with rats and flies.

Since then, a similarly sized site in Kidlington near the River Cherwell in Oxfordshire sparked national outrage. One man has been arrested in connection with the dumping.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Epidemic’ of waste crime in Britain

Despite the scale of these two locations – which were well known to the Environment Agency – it neglected to name them when asked by the Lord’s Environment Committee’s inquiry into waste crime how many “significant” sites there were around the country.

Phil Davies and Steve Molyneux of the Environment Agency gave evidence on 17 September.

Just six sites were cited, but three more have been exposed in the past few weeks alone. These are Wigan, Kidlington and a mound of dumped waste in Wadborough.

Now, the Lords are worried there are more environmentally destructive locations the public aren’t aware of.

Read more:
A community plagued by 25,000 tonnes of illegal waste

Urgent action needed to stop fly-tipping by gangs, peers say

In a letter to the EA’s chair Alan Lovell and chief executive Philip Duffy, Baroness Sheehan, chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, said: “We are increasingly concerned that there may be other sites of a similarly large and environmentally damaging scale.”

She asked how much progress has been made to remove waste from the various sites, why restriction notices in places like Wigan weren’t served sooner – and for a full list of other sites of a similar size.

Baroness Sheehan also expressed her “disappointment” that these three new locations “were not deemed necessary to bring to the committee’s attention”, though she thanked journalists for “bringing these sites to the public attention”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

UK’s ‘biggest ecological disaster’

Her original report saw the Lords call for an independent “root and branch” inquiry into how waste crime is tackled. She said the crime, which costs the UK £1bn every year, has been “critically under-prioritised”.

Sky News has been investigating the scourge of waste crime all year, exposing how criminal gangs involved in drugs, weapons and people trafficking can make “millions” from illegally dumping waste.

In the summer, we tracked down a group of suspected organised fly-tippers who waved wads of cash on TikTok after dumping waste in the countryside.

It’s so lucrative, it was dubbed the “new narcotics” by a former head of the Environment Agency.

Continue Reading

UK

Starmer wants to lift half a million children out of poverty – but does his plan go far enough?

Published

on

By

Starmer wants to lift half a million children out of poverty - but does his plan go far enough?

A new long-awaited child poverty strategy is promising to lift half a million children out of poverty by the end of this parliament – but critics have branded it unambitious. 

The headline announcement in the government’s plan is the pledge to lift the two-child benefit cap, announced in Rachel Reeves’s budget last week.

It also includes:

• Providing upfront childcare support for parents on universal credit returning to work
• An £8m fund to end the placement of families in bed and breakfasts beyond a six-week limit
• Reforms to cut the cost of baby formula
• A new legal duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors, and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation

Many of the measures have previously been announced.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Two-child cap ‘a real victory for the left’

The government also pointed to its plan in the budget to cut energy bills by £150 a year, and its previously promised £950m boost to a local authority housing fund, which it says will deliver 5,000 high-quality homes for better temporary accommodation.

Downing Street said the strategy would lift 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030, saying that would be the biggest reduction in a single parliament since records began.

More on Poverty

But charities had been hoping for a 10-year strategy and argue the plan lacks ambition.

A record 4.5 million children (about 31%) are living in poverty in the UK – 900,000 more since 2010/11, according to government figures.

Phillip Anderson, the Strategic Director for External Affairs at the National Children’s Bureau (NCB), told Sky News: “Abolishing the two-child limit is a hell of a centre piece, but beyond that it’s mainly a summary of previously announced policies and commitments.

“The really big thing for me is it misses the opportunity to talk about the longer term. It was supposed to be a 10-year strategy, we wanted to see real ambition and ideally legally binding targets for reducing poverty.

“The government itself says there will still be around four million children living in poverty after these measures and the strategy has very little to say to them.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘A budget for benefits street’

‘Budget for benefits street’ row

The biggest measure in the strategy is the plan to lift the two-child benefit cap from April. This is estimated to lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030, at a cost of £3bn.

The government has long been under pressure from backbench Labour MPs to scrap the cap, with most experts arguing that it is the quickest, most cost-effective way to drive-down poverty this parliament.

The cap, introduced by Conservative chancellor George Osborne in 2017, means parents can only claim universal credit or tax credits for their first two children. It meant the average affected household losing £4,300 per year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated in 2024.

The government argues that a failure to tackle child poverty holds back the economy, and young people at school, cutting their employment and earning prospects in later life.

However, the Conservatives argue parents on benefits should have to make the same financial choices about children as everyone else.

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: “Work is the best way out poverty but since this government took office, unemployment has risen every single month and this budget for Benefits Street will only make the situation worse. “

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

OBR leak: This has happened before

‘Bring back Sure Start’

Lord Bird, a crossbench peer who founded the Big Issue and grew up in poverty, said while he supported the lifting of the cap there needed to be “more joined up thinking” across government for a longer-term strategy.

He has been pushing for the creation of a government ministry of “poverty prevention and cure”, and for legally binding targets on child poverty.

“You have to be able to measure yourself, you can’t have the government marking its own homework,” he told Sky News.

Lord Bird also said he was a “great believer” in resurrecting Sure Start centres and expanding them beyond early years.

The New Labour programme offered support services for pre-school children and their parents and is widely seen to have improved health and educational outcomes. By its peak in 2009-2010 there were 3,600 centres – the majority of which closed following cuts by the subsequent Conservative government.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Lord Bird on the ‘great distraction’ from child poverty

PM to meet families

Sir Keir Starmer’s government have since announced 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs – but many Labour MPs feel this announcement went under the radar and ministers missed a trick in not calling them “Sure Starts” as it is a name people are familiar with.

The prime minister is expected to meet families and children in Wales on Friday, alongside the Welsh First Minister, to make the case for his strategy and meet those he hopes will benefit from it.

Several other charities have urged ministers to go further. Both Crisis and Shelter called for the government to unfreeze housing benefit and build more social rent homes, while the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, said that “if we are to end child poverty – not just reduce it” measures like free bus travel for school-age children would be needed.

The strategy comes after the government set up a child poverty taskforce in July 2024, which was initially due to report back in May. The taskforce’s findings have not yet been published – only the government’s response.

Sir Keir said: “Too many children are growing up in poverty, held back from getting on in life, and too many families are struggling without the basics: a secure home, warm meals and the support they need to make ends meet.

“I will not stand by and watch that happen, because the cost of doing nothing is too high for children, for families and for Britain.”

Continue Reading

Trending