Connect with us

Published

on

Suella Braverman and Tory critics of the police are undermining public confidence in law enforcement and eroding trust in Britain’s system of democracy, according to heated WhatsApp exchanges among Conservative MPs leaked to Sky News.

The true scale of the civil war between Tory MPs over the policing of pro-Palestinian marches and behaviour of the home secretary is tonight revealed in dozens of private messages between them which lift the lid on a far greater scale of discontent in the party than is currently playing out in public.

The angry WhatsApp debate has led to angry exchanges between figures who both back and oppose Ms Braverman, with some accusing her Tory critics of helping Labour, while others are accused of inflaming the far right.

Politics latest: Sunak considers whether to sack Braverman

In one exchange, the Tory MP Karl McCartney attacked Bob Neill, the Tory MP who went public with his criticism of Mrs Braverman, saying he and other critics of the home secretary would be getting Christmas cards from the Labour shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper.

“You stretch our patience,” Mr McCartney declared.

On the other side of the debate, Jackie Doyle-Price said that Tory MPs should not ignore the fact there is a legitimate right to protest and added: “Colleagues making noise about them are simply advertising them and make them bigger as a consequence.”

More on Conservatives

She later told Sky News she was more concerned about advertising the marches to the English Defence League and hard right “to kick up trouble”.

She said: “I wish as much attention was paid to my speeches as my WhatsApp messages.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Braverman asked if she will resign

Danny Kruger, the socially conservative MP and strong backer of Ms Braverman, weighed in firmly behind the home secretary.

He said it was entirely legitimate for the government and Tory MPs to comment on how the police operate.

“Ofc [of course] if they did enforce the law – eg against face coverings or racist changes – there would be serious disorder, and so they’d have a reason to request a ban. The only way to avoid disorder is to tolerate the intolerable, to allow the illegal.”

He said that it was no longer enough to have a “quiet word” with the police when there were issues and instead advocated for “proper challenge”.

The veteran Tory MP Bernard Jenkin made a firm intervention in the group against public criticism by Conservatives of the police, receiving support from a number of his colleagues.

Mr Jenkin, who has been a Tory MP since 1992, asked colleagues if he was the only one “who thinks it is it most unfortunate that the chief of Met Police is being placed under pressure from the government, which threatens to compromise public confidence in his operational independence?”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Braverman used words I wouldn’t have used’

Read more:
Braverman meets Met chief amid Tory row over protest article
Met releases details for ‘significant’ operation across Remembrance weekend
Chancellor distances himself from Braverman’s criticism of Met

It comes following Ms Braverman’s explosive article in The Times on Wednesday, in which she accused the Met Police of having “double standards” on how it policed protests.

The testy exchange began when Jackie Doyle-Price, who served in government under David Cameron and Theresa May, argued with Sir John Hayes about whether protesting is a right or allowed.

Sir John is an arch-backer of Ms Braverman.

He said it was “so sad to see protests being allowed on the Remembrance weekend”.

Sir John said it was “wholly inappropriate” – and called on colleagues to “speak for the law-abiding, patriotic majority by saying so”.

Ms Doyle-Price emphasised protesting was a right and not something to be “allowed”.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Some of those siding with Sir John included Danny Kruger, Michael Fabricant, Jill Mortimer and Mr McCartney.

William Wragg agreed with Mr Jenkin, as did Ms Doyle-Price, Tim Loughton and Mr Neill.

“I’ve had enough of this rubbish”, William Wragg said following the debate.

This was preceded by a warning not to conduct this discussion on WhatsApp because “some colleagues are untrustworthy disgraceful leakers”.

The messages leaked to Sky News are from a Tory MP WhatsApp group and were sent yesterday and today.

Ms Doyle-Price advised MPs to “express their views to whips and to the home secretary directly”, while Ms Mortimer warned about colleagues leaking messages sent on WhatsApp.

Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman

Full WhatsApp exchanges

Here are the messages between Tory MPs that have been leaked to Sky News:

Wednesday 8 November

Sir John Hayes (22:55): So sad to see protests being allowed on the remembrance weekend. Wholly inapproriate (sic)… and we should speak for the law abiding, patriotic majority by saying so.

Thursday 9 November

Jackie Doyle-Price (09.07): There is a right to protest. They are not “allowed”. Colleagues making noise about them are simply advertising them and will make them bigger as a consequence.

Sir John Hayes (09:23): They have been “allowed” by the Chief Constable, who could have requested that they be stopped.

The legal right to protest has always been qualified by when, where and how, which is why organisers routinely deal with the police and local authorities.

Surely, most of our constituents will regard the remembrance weekend as a time for quiet, solemn reflection.

Sir Bernard Jenkin (09:28): Am I the only Conservative MP who thinks it is most unfortunate that Chief of Met Police is being placed under public pressure from the government, which threatens to compromise public confidence in his operational independence?

If he does now ban demonstrations, some will say he has given in to political pressure.

These conversations should be conducted in private, without undermining public confidence in policing in London.

William Wragg (09:29): No, you’re not the only one.

Danny Kruger (09:31): I didn’t notice us all staying quiet when the cops dragged off women at the Sarah Everard vigil, or allowed BLM to demonstrate with impunity. Ofc we and govt should comment on how the police operate. And note Home Sec isn’t calling for Met to request a ban (tho they should imo), just to enforce the law.

(09:35): (Ofc, if they did enforce the law – eg against face coverings or racist chants – there would be serious disorder, and so they’d have a reason to request a ban. The only way to avoid disorder is to tolerate the intolerable, to allow the illegal).

Jackie Doyle-Price (09:39): No you are not.

John Stevenson (09:39): Absolutely not.

Jonathan Djanogly (09:48): Police can’t ban protests. They can however place restrictions on them. The Everard case gave rise to the question arising when the placing of restrictions effectively gives the police the right to ban protest.

This has been compounded by recent legislation giving more powers to condition eg in relation to noise levels and protest nèar businesses etc.

The net result is that the police are increasingly being accused of political interference.

I don’t see this reversing unless we depoliticise the police engagement by moving to a N Ireland style Parade Commission whereby restrictions are placed by community reps, rather than the Police.

It seems to be working v well in N Ireland, where it is generally regarded to have depoliticised Police.

Bob Blackman adds Jill Mortimer, Tom Hunt and Brendan Clarke-Smith to the chat

Tim Loughton (10.01): You are not Bernard.

Danny Kruger (10:05): Here come the cavalry.

Bob Neill (10:08): Absolutely you are not Bernard,

Danny Kruger (10:14): Helpful thank you Jonathan. I don’t think we need non-political oversight of the police, the set-up now is right – we just need police to enforce the law equally.

Kit Malthouse (10:38): I defended the police in both those instances, as I did with the toppling of the statue and various other difficult operational situations. Yes they don’t always get it right, as they would freely admit, but as we scrutinise them, they deserve our respect don’t they?

Bob Blackman adds Robin Millar to the chat

Danny Kruger (10:50): I respect your consistency Kit and I remember you were very robust on the rioters in 2011 when I was still hugging hoodies… but times have changed and a quiet word behind closed doors won’t convince the public we are on their side and share their attitude to these disgraceful protests. What happened to ‘the police are the public’? So yes respect but also proper challenge.

Sir Bernard Jenkin (10:56): But this confrontational public discourse strikes me as another example of the fraying of the unwritten understandings on which the stability of our constitutional settlement rests, and which undermines public confidence in our system of government and democracy.

Finger pointing and blaming does not strengthen our institutions. It undermines public confidence in them, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, I see no political advantage in it, if that’s the idea behind it.

Jackie Doyle-Price (10:59): There is no political advantage whatever. Running in front of an angry herd won’t stop Government from being held accountable for any trouble. Particularly when public comments have been so divisive.

Michael Fabricant (11:07): Did the Met ban a right wing rally back around 2011?

James Grundy (11:09): Yes, I think it was the EDL in Tower Hamlets if I recall?

Jill Mortimer (11:11): There was this too [shares link to story in Evening Standard over pro-Israel rally in Golders Green]

Michael Fabricant (11:11): So unlike the claims of the Met Police Commissioner who said we cannot, it seems we CAN ban marches after all. Or has the law changed since?

James Grundy (11:15): I think he claimed the threshold of risk hadn’t been reached rather than any change on the law, which is of course his decision, but given the very different approach to the Golders Green march Jill references above, it does seem inconsistent.

(11:16) *In the law sorry.

Jill Mortimer (11:17): It is consistent with the bigger scarier mob being allowed to have their march – isn’t that what reasonable people would call bullying?

James Grundy (11:17): A fair assessment Jill.

Jill Mortimer (11:18): It would seem that the aggressors win and those who actually just want peaceful reflection must remain silenced

Bob Blackman adds Marco Longhi to the chat

Karl McCartney (21:42): Really pleased with @Bob Neill and @Richard Graham’s helpful public carping in last 24hrs, (I’m sure the Christmas cards from Yvette Cooper will take pride of place amongst all their others)… but not as half-pleased as they obviously both are with themselves.

You stretch our patience. Just like the ‘ever popular’ [Anna] Soubry did.

Jackie Doyle-Price (21:48): I would advise colleagues to express their views to whips and to the Home Secretary directly.

Friday 10 November

Lee Anderson (08:10): You mean instead of to the press?

Virginia Crosbie (08:11): Yes please

Jill Mortimer (08:11): …and on WhatsApp because some colleagues are untrustworthy disgraceful leakers?

William Wragg (08:27): I’ve had enough of this rubbish

Continue Reading

Politics

Solana’s Loopscale pauses lending after $5.8M hack

Published

on

By

<div>Solana's Loopscale pauses lending after .8M hack</div>

<div>Solana's Loopscale pauses lending after .8M hack</div>

Solana decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol Loopscale has temporarily halted its lending markets after suffering an approximately $5.8 million exploit. 

On April 26, a hacker siphoned approximately 5.7 million USDC (USDC) and 1200 Solana (SOL) from the lending protocol after taking out a “series of undercollateralized loans”, Loopscale co-founder Mary Gooneratne said in an X post. 

The exploit only impacted Loopscale’s USDC and SOL vaults and the losses represent around 12% of Loopscale’s total value locked (TVL), Gooneratne added. 

Loopscale is “working to resume repayment functionality as soon as possible to mitigate unforeseen liquidations,” its said in an X post. 

“Our team is fully mobilized to investigate, recover funds, and ensure users are protected,” Gooneratne said.

Solana's Loopscale pauses lending after $5.8M hack
Loopscale’s ‘Genesis’ lending vaults. Source: Loopscale

In the first quarter of 2025, hackers stole more than $1.6 billion worth of crypto from exchanges and on-chain smart contracts, blockchain security firm PeckShield said in an April report. 

More than 90% of those losses are attributable to a $1.5 billion attack on ByBit, a centralized cryptocurrency exchange, by North Korean hacking outfit Lazarus Group.

Related: Crypto hacks top $1.6B in Q1 2025 — PeckShield

Unique DeFi lending model

Launched on April 10 after a six-month closed beta, Loopscale is a DeFi lending protocol designed to enhance capital efficiency by directly matching lenders and borrowers.

It also supports specialized lending markets, such as “structured credit, receivables financing, and undercollateralized lending,” Loopscale said in an April announcement shared with Cointelegraph. 

Loopscale’s order book model distinguishes it from DeFi lending peers such as Aave that aggregate cryptocurrency deposits into liquidity pools.

Solana's Loopscale pauses lending after $5.8M hack
Loopscale’s daily active users. Source: Mary Gooneratne

Loopscale’s main USDC and SOL vaults yield APRs exceeding 5% and 10%, respectively. It also supports lending markets for tokens such as JitoSOL and BONK (BONK) and looping strategies for upwards of 40 different token pairs. 

The DeFi protocol has approximately $40 million in TVL and has attracted upwards of 7,000 lenders, according to researcher OurNetwork.

Magazine: Ripple says SEC lawsuit ‘over,’ Trump at DAS, and more: Hodler’s Digest, March 16 – 22

Continue Reading

Politics

US Senator calls for Trump impeachment, cites memecoin dinner

Published

on

By

US Senator calls for Trump impeachment, cites memecoin dinner

US Senator calls for Trump impeachment, cites memecoin dinner

United States Senator Jon Ossoff expressed support for impeaching President Donald Trump during an April 25 town hall, citing the President’s plan to host a private dinner for top Official Trump memecoin holders. 

“I mean, I saw just 48 hours ago, he is granting audiences to people who buy his meme coin,” said Ossoff, a Democrat, according to a report by NBC News. 

“When the sitting president of the United States is selling access for what are effectively payments directly to him. There is no question that that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.”

Senator Ossoff said he “strongly” supports impeachment proceedings during a town hall in the state of Georgia, where he is running for reelection to the Senate.

The Senator added that an impeachment is unlikely unless the Democratic Party gains control of Congress during the US midterm elections in 2026. Trump’s own Republican Party currently has a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

US Senator calls for Trump impeachment, cites memecoin dinner
TRUMP holders can register to dine with the US President. Source: gettrumpmemes.com

Related: US lawmaker says TRUMP coin could risk national security

Conflicts of interest

On April 23, the Official Trump (TRUMP) memecoin’s website announced plans for Trump to host an exclusive dinner at his Washington, DC golf club with the top 220 TRUMP holders. 

The website subsequently posted a leaderboard tracking top TRUMP wallets and a link to register for the event. The TRUMP token’s price has gained more than 50% since the announcement, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

The specific guest list is unclear, but the memecoin’s website states that applicants must pass a background check, “can not be from a [Know Your Customer] watchlist country,” and cannot bring any additional guests.

On April 25, the team behind TRUMP denied social media rumors that TRUMP holders need at least $300,000 to participate in an upcoming dinner with the president.

“People have been incorrectly quoting #220 on the block explorer as the cutoff. That’s wrong because it includes things like locked tokens, exchanges, market makers, and those who are not participating. Instead, you should only be going off the leaderboard,” they wrote.

Law, Politics, Senate, Donald Trump, trumpcoin, Memecoin
The TRUMP token jumped on news of the private dinner plans. Source: CoinMarketCap

Legal experts told Cointelegraph that Trump’s cryptocurrency ventures, including the TRUMP memecoin and Trump-affiliated decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol World Liberty Financial, raise significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest

“Within just a couple of days of him taking office, he’s signed a number of executive orders that are significantly going to affect the way that our crypto and digital assets industry works,” Charlyn Ho of law firm Rikka told Cointelegraph in February. 

“So if he has a personal pecuniary benefit arising from his own policies, that’s a conflict of interest.”

Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto sentiment recovers, but weekend liquidity risks remain

Published

on

By

Crypto sentiment recovers, but weekend liquidity risks remain

Crypto sentiment recovers, but weekend liquidity risks remain

Crypto investor sentiment has seen a significant recovery from global tariff concerns, but analysts warn that the market’s structural weaknesses may still result in downside momentum during periods of weekend illiquidity.

Risk appetite appeared to return among crypto investors this week after US President Donald Trump adopted a softer tone, saying that import tariffs on Chinese goods may “come down substantially.”

However, the improved investor sentiment “does not guarantee that Bitcoin will avoid volatility over the weekend,” analysts from Bitfinex exchange told Cointelegraph:

“Sentiment improvements reduce fragility, but they do not eliminate structural risks like thin weekend liquidity.” 

“Historically, weekends remain vulnerable to sharp moves — especially when open interest is high and market depth is low,” the analysts said, adding that unexpected macroeconomic news can still increase volatility during low liquidity periods.

Related: Trump fought the bond market, the bond market won: Saifedean Ammous

Bitcoin (BTC) staged a near 11% recovery during the past week, but its rally has previously been limited by Sunday liquidity dynamics.

Crypto sentiment recovers, but weekend liquidity risks remain
BTC/USD, 1-year chart. Source: Cointelegraph

Bitcoin fell below $75,000 on Sunday, April 6, despite initially decoupling from the US stock market’s $3.5 trillion drop on April 4 after US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned that Trump’s tariffs may affect the economy and raise inflation.

The correction was exacerbated by the lack of weekend liquidity and the fact that Bitcoin was the only large liquid asset available for de-risking, industry watchers told Cointelegraph.

Related: US banks are ‘free to begin supporting Bitcoin’ — Michael Saylor

“While improved sentiment creates a more stable foundation, cryptocurrency markets are still susceptible to rapid movements during periods of reduced trading volume,” according to Marcin Kazmierczak, co-founder and chief operating officer of RedStone blockchain oracle firm.

“The sentiment recovery provides some cushioning, but traders should remain cautious as weekend liquidity constraints can still amplify price movements regardless of the current market mood,” he told Cointelegraph.

Crypto investors may have “maxed out on tariff-related fears”

Cryptocurrency markets may have priced in the full extent of tariff-related concerns, according to Aurelie Barthere, principal research analyst at crypto intelligence platform Nansen.

“It feels like we’ve maxed out on tariff-related fear,” she told Cointelegraph, adding:

“While many remain uncertain about where things are headed over the next month or so, it also seems like markets were just waiting for the slightest signal that we’re back in the game.”

“Whether the rally is sustainable depends on whether we can break through previous resistance levels, at least in isolation. It could have legs, as markets now seem to believe there’s a ‘Trump put’ under equities, the US dollar and US Treasurys,” Barthere added, warning of more potential volatility amid the upcoming negotiations.

Nansen previously predicted a 70% chance that crypto markets will bottom and start a recovery by June, but highlighted that the timing will depend on the outcome of tariff negotiations.

The tariff negotiations may only be “posturing” for the US to reach a trade agreement with China, which may be the “big prize” for Trump’s administration, according to Raoul Pal, founder and CEO of Global Macro Investor.

Magazine: Bitcoin’s odds of June highs, SOL’s $485M outflows, and more: Hodler’s Digest, March 2 – 8

Continue Reading

Trending