Connect with us

Published

on

Rishi Sunak has essentially told Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley that if there’s violence at the pro-Palestine march in London on Saturday, it’s his fault.

But it’s a petulant response to Sir Mark’s defiance in the face of the enormous pressure from the PM and other ministers for the Armistice Day march to be banned.

Picking a fight with the UK’s top cop is probably not the most sensible move for a prime minister or home secretary – especially for a Conservative.

Remember the Tories’ claim to be the party of law and order?

Politics live: Johnson’s team ‘brutal and useless’, inquiry hears

The only targets for attack that might have been more unwise would be the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, Harry Kane, David Beckham or a national treasure like Joanna Lumley.

Having said that, former England football manager Glenn Hoddle still claims Tony Blair hounded him out in 1999 after he said the disabled were being punished for sins committed in a previous life.

More on Mark Rowley

But once Suella Braverman had made her incendiary “hate marches” attack on pro-ceasefire protesters last week, the battlelines were drawn and the Tories declared war on Sir Mark.

And now the war has gone nuclear. Writing in The Times, Ms Braverman accuses police of being biased in favour of left-wing protesters.

She claims: “Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response, yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored even when clearly breaking the law.”

That’s quite an allegation and no wonder it has already provoked a furious reaction from politicians of all parties, including some Conservatives.

How much longer can Mr Sunak put up with this?

Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Sunak summoned the commissioner to Downing Street in the hope – no doubt – of persuading him to back down and veto the march.

But he failed. Sir Mark stood his ground, and the PM – along with his fiercely combative home secretary – were forced into an embarrassing retreat.

The march goes ahead, and Mr Sunak has been outmanoeuvred.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Braverman criticises protests

Stepping back from the current dispute for a moment, what Met commissioner is going to admit to a prime minister that he or she can’t police a big demo – however large – and protect the public?

Supporters of the demands for a ceasefire have argued that – despite some of the offensive slogans and allegations of intimidation – there are more arrests at Premier League football matches than these marches.

That’s highly debatable. But the organisers of the Armistice Day march did help Sir Mark’s defiant stand by pledging to stay away from the Cenotaph in Whitehall and wait nearly two hours until after the two-minute silence before they begin.

Even before the Downing Street showdown, Mr Sunak appeared to concede that he was losing the battle with Sir Mark.

“This is a decision that the Metropolitan Police commissioner has made,” said the PM.

“He has said that he can ensure that we safeguard remembrance for the country this weekend as well as keep the public safe.”

Then the prime minister declared: “Now, my job is to hold him accountable for that.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Met Police chief ‘accountable’ over protest

That sounded very much like a threat. And no doubt if there is serious violence on Saturday, Mr Sunak – and his controversial home secretary – will gloat: “Told you so!”

In a tetchy statement admitting defeat after the Downing Street meeting, Mr Sunak talked rather sheepishly about the freedom of the right to protest peacefully.

Yet at the same time, he repeated his claim that the protest was disrespectful and offensive to the memory of Britain’s war heroes.

And then, in a bizarre comment, he said the commissioner had committed to keep the Met’s “posture” under constant review based on the latest intelligence about the nature of the protests.

Posture? That’s a loaded word. Was Mr Sunak suggesting Sir Mark had been posturing in his stand-off with the government?

Despite all his talk about policing of the march being an operational matter for the Met, if the PM is indeed guilty of misjudgement in his strategy, who is to blame?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We can’t enforce taste or decency’

Many MPs will point the figure at his inflammatory home secretary, accused by Sir Keir Starmer in the King’s Speech debate this week of pursuing a “divisive brand of politics … as a platform for her own ambitions”.

That was after Ms Braverman’s “lifestyle choice” slur on the homeless sleeping in tents in town centres, which came just days after her “hate marches” attack.

Plenty of Tory MPs want Mr Sunak to sack his home secretary. Some even believe she’s goading him into sack her so she can launch a Tory leadership bid.

Whatever her motives, if she’s responsible for Mr Sunak’s ill-judged attacks on Sir Mark and his force, she’s done the PM no favours.

The Met chief will obviously be desperately hoping there isn’t serious trouble at Saturday’s march. Because he knows Mr Sunak – and Ms Braverman – will blame him and say it’s his fault.

Continue Reading

UK

Senior King aide was head of royal protection when Prince Andrew ‘asked officer to dig up dirt on accuser’

Published

on

By

Senior King aide was head of royal protection when Prince Andrew 'asked officer to dig up dirt on accuser'

A current senior member of the King’s household was the head of royal protection at the time Prince Andrew allegedly asked one of his police officers to dig up dirt on Virginia Guiffre, Sky News has discovered.

Lord Peter Rosslyn, who is now Lord Steward and Personal Secretary to the King and Queen, was head of Royalty and Diplomatic Protection between 2003-2014.

It is not clear if Lord Rosslyn – known at the time as Commander Peter Loughborough – was made aware of Prince Andrew’s request. However, it reportedly happened in 2011 when it’s claimed Andrew wrote in an email that he passed the date of birth and confidential social security number of his accuser, Virginia Guiffre, to one of his close protection team to find out information about her.

Lord Peter Rosslyn arriving at the Duchess of Kent's funeral. Pic: PA
Image:
Lord Peter Rosslyn arriving at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral. Pic: PA

At the weekend, the Metropolitan Police said it was “actively looking into the claims made”.

Sky News approached Lord Rosslyn for comment, which was passed to Buckingham Palace.

A palace spokesperson said: “As you may or may not be aware, Lord Rosslyn works for The Royal Household and thus this issue has been referred to me. However, since this matter relates to his time in service with the Metropolitan Police, they would be the appropriate body to approach with media enquiries of this nature.”

The Met Police had nothing further to add.

Police sources have told Sky News the officer (CPO) involved would have been expected to escalate this request from Andrew to his superiors.

While there may have been other members of senior staff between the CPO and Lord Rosslyn, the request should have been considered serious enough to be referred to the top of the Royalty and Diplomatic Service.

Those with knowledge of the royal household tell us Lord Rosslyn is one of the King’s closest and most trusted members of staff.

His role as Lord Steward involves managing all aspects of the King’s personal affairs, and the non-state business of the monarch.

Who is Lord Peter Rosslyn?

As well as being much respected by Queen Elizabeth II, and affectionately known as her “favourite policeman”, in 2014 Lord Rosslyn was appointed as Master of the Household of the then Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall at Clarence House.

In February 2003, he was made Lord Steward by the King, thereby becoming the “first dignitary of the King’s court” – a sign that the monarch wanted to keep him around.

While Andrew’s alleged attempts to smear Virginia Guiffre would have been morally wrong, he also would have been asking his police officer to put his career on the line.

Any attempt to use police databases to find information on an innocent individual not connected to a crime would have been a sackable offence, and unlawful.

In his statement on Friday, Prince Andrew again stressed that he vehemently denies the allegations against him.

A Buckingham Palace source told Sky News that the recent claims that have emerged are being viewed by the Royal Family with “very serious and grave concern” and “should be examined in the proper and fullest ways”.

Prince Andrew's signature
Image:
Prince Andrew’s signature

Andrew should give evidence to US authorities – minister

The revelation comes as a government minister said Andrew should give evidence to US authorities – and anger grows after it emerged he had been paying “peppercorn rent” for two decades.

On Friday, Andrew announced he was giving up his royal titles, including the Duke of York, after new, damaging reports about his relationship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Passages from the memoir released on Tuesday of the late Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her, provide further details of their alleged encounters.

Prince Andrew has always strenuously denied the allegations.

Business Secretary Peter Kyle said on Tuesday he would “support” Prince Andrew giving evidence to US prosecutors.

He added he would also support any decision by the Met Police to investigate allegations that Prince Andrew used a Met bodyguard to gain information on Giuffre.

It comes as anger continues to grow over Prince Andrew’s housing arrangements.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Victims should be in driver’s seat’

‘Peppercorn rent’

The royal has only paid “peppercorn rent” for more than two decades at his Windsor mansion, according to a National Audit Office report published in 2005.

“Peppercorn rent” is a legal term used in leases to show that rent technically exists, so the lease is valid, but it’s nominal, often literally £1 a year or just a symbolic amount.

In practice, it means the tenant pays no rent.

It also shows he was required to pay a further £7.5m for refurbishments.

A document from the Crown Estate also shows he signed a 75-year lease on the property in 2003.

It reveals he paid £1m for the lease and that since then he has paid “one peppercorn” of rent “if demanded” per year.

Read More:
Pressure grows on Andrew to be stripped of dukedom
Key claims from Andrew accuser’s posthumous memoir

The agreement also contains a clause which states the Crown Estate would have to pay Andrew around £558,000 if he gave up the lease.

Pressure is mounting on him to give up the 30-bedroom mansion.

Senior Tory Robert Jenrick called for Prince Andrew to live privately.

‘He has disgraced himself’

He said: “It’s about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private and make his own way in life.

“He has disgraced himself, he has embarrassed the royal family time and again. I don’t see why the taxpayer, frankly, should continue to foot the bill at all. The public are sick of him.”

Virginia Giuffre's posthumous memoir was released today. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir was released today. Pic: Reuters

Mr Kyle, however, said that would be a question for King Charles.

But he did say MPs could bring forward a motion to strip Prince Andrew of his remaining titles, adding it would be up to Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to choose one of these motions for debate.

Continue Reading

UK

Bank tax could hurt households and business lending, UK’s biggest mortgage provider says

Published

on

By

Bank tax could hurt households and business lending, UK's biggest mortgage provider says

The chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group has warned that a tax raid on the banks could harm lending to households and businesses.

In an exclusive interview with Sky News at the government’s regional investment summit, Charlie Nunn urged the chancellor to ignore calls for a windfall tax on commercial banks even though the sector is enjoying record profits.

“If we are going to have the ability and the confidence to continue to lend into the real economy, to help households and businesses invest, we need to make sure that the financial services system and Lloyds Banking Group really remains healthy in that context,” he said.

Money latest: Which country pays the most for a pint?

Charlie Nunn was appointed Lloyds boss in November 2020. Pic: PA
Image:
Charlie Nunn was appointed Lloyds boss in November 2020. Pic: PA

Britain’s four largest banks – HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group and NatWest – posted record profits of £45.9bn last year and are on course for another bumper performance this year, thanks to higher interest rates.

Their financial success has raised speculation that the sector could be in the chancellor’s firing line at next month’s budget.

More on Banking

Rachel Reeves could raise the bank surcharge – a levy on bank profits in addition to corporation tax.

The Conservative government cut the levy from 8% to 3% in 2023. Returning it to 8% could raise £2bn for a chancellor who needs to find anywhere up to £50bn to meet her fiscal rules.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Chancellor faces tough budget choices

Some have suggested a separate windfall tax, which could raise closer to £8bn.

Mr Nunn said such a move risked undermining the health of a sector which underpins the country’s economic prosperity.

“Obviously, taxes are a matter for the government to look at. But it’s definitely one of the factors that impact our ability to support the real economy in the UK,” he said.

A raid on the banks would cause pain to a sector that is already facing substantial costs because of the car finance scandal.

Lloyds, one of the most exposed lenders, has set aside nearly £2bn to cover potential compensation arising from the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) redress scheme.

The FCA established the scheme to draw a line under the long-running mis-selling scandal, in which lenders failed to disclose commission paid to brokers, meaning many customers ended up paying more than they should have for their car finance.

Under the FCA’s scheme, eligible customers – as many as 14.2 million – could receive an average of £700 each.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Payouts due after motor finance scandal

There is mounting anger within the industry at the way the scheme, which is going out to consultation, has been set up. Mr Nunn said the proposal was too generous to customers and not proportionate to the harms actually caused to customers.

He did not rule out the possibility of a judicial review but, in the first instance, called for a rethink, warning that the current scheme risks scaring away investors, causing an exodus from the market and driving up the cost and availability of credit.

“When you look at the implication of what’s being proposed by the FCA, it’s going to potentially take 20 years of profitability of the car finance industry. And, what does that mean for invest ability in that industry and for other investors and businesses looking to invest in the UK? There’s real concern that this is going to create an invest ability issue,” he said.

“Our concern is will the industry continue to function? Will it support all customers across the whole of the UK that need finance? Will other investors be looking at this and wondering whether the UK is a place they should invest, if retrospectively we can take away 20 years of profits?”

Continue Reading

UK

Anger grows over Prince Andrew’s ‘peppercorn rent’ arrangement as accuser’s memoirs released

Published

on

By

Senior King aide was head of royal protection when Prince Andrew 'asked officer to dig up dirt on accuser'

Prince Andrew should give evidence to US authorities, a government minister has said, as anger grows after it emerged he had been paying “peppercorn rent” for two decades.

On Friday, Prince Andrew announced he was giving up his royal titles, including the Duke of York, after new, damaging reports about his relationship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Passages from the memoir released on Tuesday of the late Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her, provide further details of their alleged encounters.

Prince Andrew has always strenuously denied the allegations.

Business Secretary Peter Kyle said on Tuesday he would “support” Prince Andrew giving evidence to US prosecutors.

He added he would also support any decision by the Met Police to investigate allegations that Prince Andrew used a Met bodyguard to gain information on Giuffre.

It comes as anger continues to grow over Prince Andrew’s housing arrangements.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Victims should be in driver’s seat’

‘Peppercorn rent’

The royal has only paid “peppercorn rent” for more than two decades at his Windsor mansion, according to a National Audit Office report published in 2005.

“Peppercorn rent” is a legal term used in leases to show that rent technically exists, so the lease is valid, but it’s nominal, often literally £1 a year or just a symbolic amount.

In practice, it means the tenant pays no rent.

It also shows he was required to pay a further £7.5m for refurbishments.

A document from the Crown Estate also shows he signed a 75-year lease on the property in 2003.

It reveals he paid £1m for the lease and that since then he has paid “one peppercorn” of rent “if demanded” per year.

Read More:
Pressure grows on Andrew to be stripped of dukedom
Key claims from Andrew accuser’s posthumous memoir

The agreement also contains a clause which states the Crown Estate would have to pay Andrew around £558,000 if he gave up the lease.

Pressure is mounting on him to give up the 30-bedroom mansion.

Senior Tory Robert Jenrick called for Prince Andrew to live privately.

‘He has disgraced himself’

He said: “It’s about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private and make his own way in life.

“He has disgraced himself, he has embarrassed the royal family time and again. I don’t see why the taxpayer, frankly, should continue to foot the bill at all. The public are sick of him.”

Virginia Giuffre's posthumous memoir was released today. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir was released today. Pic: Reuters

Mr Kyle, however, said that would be a question for King Charles.

But he did say MPs could bring forward a motion to strip Prince Andrew of his remaining titles, adding it would be up to Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to choose one of these motions for debate.

Continue Reading

Trending