Rishi Sunak urged to sack Suella Braverman over ‘deeply offensive’ article on pro-Palestinian marches

Published

11 months ago

November 9, 2023

admin

Rishi Sunak has been urged to sack Suella Braverman after she accused the Metropolitan Police of “playing favourites” with how it handles controversial protests.

Ms Braverman has been criticised for using “inflammatory” language in an article for the Times newspaper.

The home secretary once again described pro-Palestinian protesters as “hate marchers” and added: “I do not believe that these marches are merely a cry for help for Gaza.

“They are an assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists – of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland.

“Also, disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster are the reports that some of Saturday’s march group organisers have links to terrorist groups, including Hamas.”

In a rebuke to the Metropolitan Police, which is allowing a pro-Palestine march to go ahead on Armistice Day, Ms Braverman said the force was guilty of “double standards” by taking a more lenient approach to left-wing demonstrations than right-wing ones.

She also repeated her claim that the pro-Palestine marches that have been taking place across the UK were “hate marches” similar to those seen in Northern Ireland – comments that were branded “wholly offensive and ignorant”.

Labour’s shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds branded Ms Braverman “out of control” and told Sky News Mr Sunak should “of course” sack her if he had not signed off on the article.

Politics latest: ‘She’s on a mission to get sacked’

“Where is the prime minister on this?” he asked. “Do we believe the prime minister signed off that kind of inflammatory rhetoric? He won’t tell us.

“If you have a home secretary that is so out of control, so divisive, so inflammatory, undermining the police and, therefore, the national security and safety of the public, that’s not someone who should be home secretary.”

Sky News has confirmed that Downing Street did not fully sign off the home secretary’s article. It is understood Number 10 were sent it and suggested changes that were not then carried out.

Labour was joined by the Liberal Democrats in calling on Mr Sunak to sack Ms Braverman, with party leader Sir Ed Davey accusing Ms Braverman of “putting police officers in harm’s way”.

“The home secretary’s irresponsible words and foul actions have significantly increased the likelihood of unrest this weekend and the risk of violence towards officers,” he said.

Israel-Gaza latest:
‘Security circumstance’ forces Rafah border crossing to close

In an urgent question in the House of Commons, policing minister Chris Philp defended Ms Braverman and said it was “reasonable for politicians” to raise “concerns and make sure that the police are protecting those communities”.

He insisted the government “resolutely backs the question of operational independence”.

In the article, Ms Braverman wrote: “Unfortunately, there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters.

“During COVID why was it that lockdown objectors were given no quarter by public order police yet Black Lives Matters demonstrators were enabled, allowed to break rules and even greeted with officers taking the knee?

“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?”

In response, the Met Police said they would “not be commenting at this time”.

Earlier this week its commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, confirmed that the demonstration on Saturday would go ahead because the “legal threshold” to stop it on security grounds “had not been met”.

Sir Mark Rowley has interpreted the law correctly

By Graham Wettone, policing analyst

Sir Mark Rowley was very careful with his words about why the pro-Palestinian protest this Saturday has not been banned.

He spoke about the legal issues around banning a gathering and then explained the possible options for a ban.

He has interpreted the law correctly and some in government appear to have misunderstood or misinterpreted it, and forgotten the police have operational independence.

Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows for marches and processions to have conditions placed on them if the senior officer “reasonably believes” it may result in serious disorder, damage or disruption.

The Met can impose conditions relating to the duration and route of a march, as placing a number restriction is totally unworkable. That is what they will be doing with the organisers this Saturday, as the organising groups have refused to cancel the protest.

Section 13 of the Public Order Act relates to banning a march. This is only applicable if the commissioner reasonably believes that the powers under Section 12 – any conditions he imposes on the procession – will not be sufficient to prevent serious disorder.

Sir Mark clearly stated that, at the moment, the intelligence does not support the “reasonable belief” that serious disorder is likely, hence he cannot legally apply for a ban under Section 13. I would agree that is probably the case – but intelligence will be developing over the next few days, and the commissioner did not rule out the situation may change before Saturday.

Sir Mark then explained the law around gatherings or assemblies. Police can impose conditions on these under Section 14 of Public Order Act, which is similar to Section 12 in that there needs to be a “reasonable belief” of “serious disorder”.

However a key difference is that Section 13 only applies to processions or marches under Section 12 – and not gatherings under Section 14. There are no legal powers to ban people gathering.

The Met tried to prevent unlawful assemblies using Section 14 across London a few years ago with Just Stop Oil, but the High Court ruled it was unlawful and that gatherings cannot be legally banned.

The likely scenario as it stands is that if a ban went in for the march, the organising groups would still have people attend a “gathering” – and the fact a ban is in place may well increase numbers. If groups then decide to separate off in different directions, and if there are significant numbers in the thousands, then arresting all is impossible.

Meanwhile, one former Tory cabinet minister told Sky’s political editor Beth Rigby that Ms Braverman’s comments were “wholly offensive and ignorant of where people in Northern Ireland stand on the issues of Israel and Gaza”.

“It would be good to know what she knows about what Northern Ireland people think about the current Israel-Palestine situation before she casts aspersions,” they said.

More on this story:
Does Braverman relish being controversial?
Braverman has displayed breathtaking ignorance on NI

“It’s clear that the home secretary is only looking after her misguided aspirations for leader than responsible leadership as a home secretary.”

A senior Tory MP branded the home secretary an “embarrassment”.

“The Conservatives have always been a party of fundamental decency. This is either ignorantly whipping up division [bad enough] or it’s being done deliberately, which is just shameful. When a hotch-potch of thugs and hooligans choose to kick off on Saturday she can look to herself as an enabler.”

Another former Tory cabinet minister said while he agreed with Ms Braverman about the nature of the marches, “this would be a bad hill to die on”.

“I think Suella wants to lock down the right ahead of next year, but this would be a bad hill to die on,” they said.

“I don’t think Number 10 really disagree with her and she seems to be trying very hard to stir a needless fight with them.”

Pointing to potential difficulties Mr Sunak may face if he did sack Ms Braverman, the former cabinet minister said any action against her could mobilise supportive MPs to trigger a no confidence vote in his leadership.

Mr Sunak confirmed on Wednesday that the pro-Palestinian march on Armistice Day would go ahead, but said Sir Mark would be held “accountable” for his decision to give the event the green light.

Tens of thousands have demonstrated in London in recent weeks over Palestinian deaths in the Israel-Hamas war – with 29 arrested during a fourth week of protests last Saturday, during which fireworks were thrown.

Organisers of this Saturday’s protest say it will be “well away” from the Cenotaph – going from Hyde Park, around a mile from the war memorial in Whitehall, to the US embassy – and won’t start until after the 11am silence.

UK

Mohamed al Fayed: Former royal security head says he warned Royal Family before Diana went on holiday with businessman

Published

6 hours ago

September 21, 2024

admin

Mohamed al Fayed: Former royal security head says he warned Royal Family before Diana went on holiday with businessman

The former head of royal protection says he warned the Royal Family about Mohamed al Fayed’s reputation before Princess Diana took her sons on holiday with him.

The former Harrods owner, who died last year at the age of 94, was described as a “monster” earlier this week by lawyers representing 37 alleged sexual abuse victims.

The women say he raped and sexually assaulted them while they worked at the luxury department store, prowling the shop floor and “cherry-picking” women to be brought to his executive suite.

Now, Mr Davies says people were aware of the Egyptian businessman’s reputation as far back as the 1990s, and that he raised concerns about him to the Royal Family.

“This was a man who I would be concerned [about] if a relative of mine was going on holiday with him, let alone the future king and his brother and their mother, Princess Diana,” Dai Davies told Sky News.

In July 1997, a month before she died, Princess Diana went on holiday with Fayed and his wife to their residence in St Tropez.

She took the two young princes with her – a holiday Prince Harry described as “heaven” in his 2023 memoir Spare.

“I was horrified because I was aware of some of the allegations even then that were going around,” said Mr Davies.

“I was aware that he had tried very hard to ingratiate himself with the Royal Family and obviously knowing, as I did, the reputation he was alleged [to have] then, I was concerned, and I took the opportunity to inform the Royal Family.”

Mr Davies says he was told: “Her Majesty is aware.”

“The rest is history,” he said.

Buckingham Palace told Sky News it had no comment on the allegations.

Fulham ‘deeply disturbed’ by allegations

Fulham FC, a football club that was owned by Fayed between 1997 and 2013, has said it is “deeply troubled” by the dozens of “disturbing” sexual abuse allegations against the businessman.

The Premier League club also said it is “in the process of establishing whether anyone at the club is or has been affected” by this alleged behaviour.

However, Gaute Haugenes, who managed the club’s women’s team between 2001 and 2003, told the BBC extra precautions were taken to protect female players from Fayed.

“We were aware he liked young, blonde girls. So we just made sure that situations couldn’t occur. We protected the players.”

‘The door was locked behind me’

A former Harrods employee told Sky News she was summoned to Fayed’s apartment when she began working for the department store at 19 years old.

She was told the meeting was a “job review” before “the door was locked behind me”.

“I saw his bedroom door partially open – there were sex toys on view,” she said.

“I felt petrified. I perched myself at the very end of the sofa and then… my boss, the person I worked for, pushed himself onto me.”

Harrods said in a statement on Thursday it was “utterly appalled” by the allegations of abuse and apologised to Fayed’s alleged victims.

The department store has also set up a page on its website inviting former employees to come forward if they have allegations.

The legal team involved in a civil claim against Harrods for allegedly failing to provide a safe system of work for its employees said they aimed to seek justice for the victims of a “vast web of abuse”.

UK

Lily Allen says she had her children for ‘all the wrong reasons’

Published

6 hours ago

September 21, 2024

admin

Lily Allen says she had her children “for all the wrong reasons,” at a “high pressure” point in her career when she felt “overwhelmed”.

The singer and actress had her two daughters, Marnie, 12 and Ethel, 11, with her ex-husband Sam Cooper when she was in her mid-20s.

By the time she became a mum, she’d already had hit singles including Smile and The Fear, released two studio albums and received a Brit Award for best British female solo artist.

Speaking about motherhood on the BBC podcast Miss Me?, which Allen hosts with her long-time friend Miquita Oliver, she said: “I think I had children for all the wrong reasons, really.

“Because I was yearning for unconditional love, which I haven’t felt in my life since I was a child.”

The now 39-year-old star added: “And also, my career was at such high speed, high pressure, and I felt like very overwhelmed by what was happening. I just didn’t get much respite you know?

“And I felt like the only way to stop people hassling me was to say, ‘It’s not about me, actually this is about this other person that’s inside me’.

When asked by Oliver if it worked, Allen says: “Yeah, they did leave me alone. I don’t think I really understood what was happening, what I got myself into.”

The daughter of actor Keith Allen and film producer Alison Owen, she went on to discuss her own childhood.

“My mum, bless her, had children really early as well, and she really struggled. But she doesn’t really talk about the struggle. And so… She inadvertently gaslit me into thinking it was, you know, easy.

“You just sort of throw the kid over your shoulder and you get on with it.

“Her job was very static, and in one place and went to an office and mine wasn’t like that at all. It wasn’t easy. It just wasn’t easy.”

The ‘nasty scars’ caused by absent parents

Allen previously told the Radio Times podcast that while she loves her children, having them “ruined her career”.

She said her decision to prioritise them over her pop career was a decision she made so as not to inflict the “nasty scars” of being an “absent” parent onto them.

She also said the myth of having it all “really annoyed” as it simply was not true.

Allen, whose younger brother is Game Of Thrones actor Alfie Allen, married Stranger Things star David Harbour in 2020.

Away from her music career, Allen has branched out into acting over the last few years, starring in two plays in London’s West End, and winning a role in Sky drama Dreamland last year.

UK

Investigation launched into ‘Jail Starmer’ graffiti at MP’s office

Published

6 hours ago

September 21, 2024

admin

Investigation launched into 'Jail Starmer' graffiti at MP's office

An investigation has been launched after “Jail Starmer” graffiti was daubed on the window of an MP’s office.

The Met Police received an allegation of criminal damage on Saturday in relation to the incident at Clive Efford’s office in Eltham & Chislehurst, South London.

This is a new seat which was won by Labour at the general election, though in 2019 it was notionally Conservative.

On Friday night the window was painted with white graffiti which says “Jail Starmer”.

Sources told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby that an image of the vandalism has been circulating among Labour MPs’ WhatsApp groups this morning. However, Mr Efford has downplayed the incident.

There have been growing concerns about the safety of politicians in recent years, following the murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess.

MPs have described working in an increasingly hostile environment, with experiences ranging from death threats and abuse to attacks on their constituency offices and protests at their homes.

Ahead of the general election, Tory MP Mike Freer stepped down over concerns for his personal safety, saying an arson attack on his constituency office was the final straw.

The latest incident comes as the Labour Party Conference is about to kick off in Liverpool.

It is the first time in 15 years the event has been held while the party is in government.

In a statement, the Met Police said: “On Saturday 21, September, police received an allegation of criminal damage to an office building in Westmount Road SE9.

“Graffiti had been daubed on the premises the previous day.

“An investigation has been launched and enquiries are ongoing.

“Anyone with information is asked to call 101 quoting CAD 2672/21Sep.”