Connect with us

Published

on

Rishi Sunak has described a planned pro-Palestinian march in London on Armistice Day as “disrespectful” – but has accepted the protest will go ahead.

The prime minister met with the chief of the Metropolitan Police Sir Mark Rowley for a crisis meeting this afternoon – and had vowed to hold him “accountable” for the commissioner’s decision to greenlight the demonstration on 11 November.

Sir Mark had resisted calls to try and block a march taking place – and said, after looking at intelligence, the legal threshold for a ban had not been met.

Israel-Gaza latest: ‘Hamas head of weapons killed’

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM: Met Police chief ‘accountable’ over protest

In a statement, the prime minister said: “Freedom is the right to peacefully protest. And the test of that freedom is whether our commitment to it can survive the discomfort and frustration of those who seek to use it, even if we disagree with them. We will meet that test and remain true to our principles.”

He added: “It’s welcome that the police have confirmed that the march will be away from the Cenotaph and they will ensure that the timings do not conflict with any remembrance events.

“There remains the risk of those who seek to divide society using this weekend as a platform to do so. That is what I discussed with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in our meeting.

“The commissioner has committed to keep the Met Police’s posture under constant review based on the latest intelligence about the nature of the protests.”

Read more:
Labour shadow minister resigns over Starmer’s Gaza position
Explained: Can you ban a protest?

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.

PM ‘picking a fight with police’

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer had accused Mr Sunak of “cowardice” for “picking a fight” with the police.

He tweeted: “Remembrance events must be respected. Full stop.

“But the person the PM needs to hold accountable is his home secretary. Picking a fight with the police instead of working with them is cowardice.”

Home Secretary Suella Braverman had called the pro-Palestinian demonstrations “hate marches” and said anyone who vandalised the Cenotaph on Armistice Day “must be put into a jail cell faster than their feet can touch the ground”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM ‘politicking’ over pro-Palestine march

No 10 denies putting pressure on Met

Downing Street denied seeking to put pressure on the Met, which is operationally independent, and insisted the meeting was about “seeking assurances” that their approach is “robust”.

The Met has said its officers were already preparing for remembrance events over the weekend and “we will do everything in our power to ensure that people who want to mark the occasion can do so safely and without disruption.”

In a statement on Tuesday, Sir Mark said: “The laws created by Parliament are clear. There is no absolute power to ban protest, therefore there will be a protest this weekend.”

He added that the use of the power to block moving protests is “incredibly rare” and must be reserved for cases where there is intelligence to suggest a “real threat” of serious disorder.

He said organisers of Saturday’s rally have shown “complete willingness to stay away from the Cenotaph and Whitehall and have no intention of disrupting the nation’s remembrance events”.

“Should this change, we’ve been clear we will use powers and conditions available to us to protect locations and events of national importance at all costs.”

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

Organisers say protest will be ‘well away’ from Cenotaph

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 the protest next Saturday 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.

The Met chief will likely come under further pressure to change his mind in the coming days, with Cabinet ministers stressing discussions are ongoing.

Health Secretary Steve Barclay told Sky News that 11 November was the “wrong day” for protest action in London and “there’ll be ongoing discussions on this”.

He said: “There is a legal threshold and the Commissioner is of the view that that legal threshold has not been met.

“Obviously, the Home Office and colleagues will discuss that over the course of the day.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Labour MPs already angry over claim Mandelson’s appointment was ‘worth the risk’

Published

on

By

Labour MPs already angry over claim Mandelson's appointment was 'worth the risk'

If you want to know why so many Labour MPs are seething over the government’s response to the Mandelson saga, look no further than my mobile phone at 9.12am this Sunday.

At the top of the screen is a news notification about an interview with the family of a victim of the notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, saying his close friend Peter Mandelson should “never have been made” US ambassador.

Directly below that, a Sky News notification on the business secretary’s interview, explaining that the appointment of Lord Mandelson to the job was judged to be “worth the risk” at the time.

Politics latest – follow live

Peter Kyle went on to praise Lord Mandelson’s “outstanding” and “singular” talents and the benefits that he could bring to the US-UK relationship.

While perhaps surprisingly candid in nature about the decision-making process that goes on in government, this interview is unlikely to calm concerns within Labour.

Quite the opposite.

More on Peter Kyle

For many in the party, this is a wholly different debate to a simple cost-benefit calculation of potential political harm.

As one long-time party figure put it to my colleague Sam Coates: “I don’t care about Number Ten or what this means for Keir or any of that as much as I care that this culture of turning a blind eye to horrendous behaviour is endemic at the top of society and Peter Kyle has literally just come out and said it out loud.

“He was too talented and the special relationship too fraught for his misdeeds to matter enough. It’s just disgusting.”

There are two problems for Downing Street here.

The first is that you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Government deeming Mandelson to be ‘worth the risk’ is unlikely to calm Labour MPs

Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.

The second is that it once again demonstrates an apparent lack of ability in government to see around corners and deal with political and policy crises, before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sir Keir Starmer is facing questions over the appointment and subsequent sacking of Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US.

Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir Starmer walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full-throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.

The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.

But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.

Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.

Continue Reading

Politics

Man admits arson after major fire at MP Sharon Hodgson’s constituency office

Published

on

By

Man admits arson after major fire at MP Sharon Hodgson's constituency office

A man has admitted arson after a major fire at an MP’s constituency office.

Joshua Oliver, 28, pleaded guilty to starting the fire which destroyed the office of Labour MP Sharon Hodgson, at Vermont House in Washington, Tyne and Wear.

The fire also wrecked a small charity for people with very rare genetic diseases and an NHS mental health service for veterans.

The guilty plea was entered at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court on the basis that it was reckless rather than intentional.

Hodgson, who has been an MP since 2005, winning her seat again in 2019. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Hodgson, who has been an MP since 2005, winning her seat again in 2019. Pic: Reuters

The Crown did not accept that basis of plea.

Oliver, of no fixed address, had been living in a tent nearby, the court heard.

Northumbria Police previously said it was “alerted to a fire at a premises on Woodland Terrace in the Washington area” shortly after 12.20am on Thursday.

“Emergency services attended and no one is reported to have been injured in the incident,” it added.

Drone footage from the scene showed extensive damage to the building.

Read more:
Weather warning in place for Sunday

Migrant hotel critics meet asylum seekers

A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings.

“We have worked closely with Northumbria Police as they carried out their investigation.”

Oliver was remanded in custody and will appear at Newcastle Crown Court on Tuesday, 14 October.

Continue Reading

Politics

Why sacking Lucy Powell might come back to haunt Starmer

Published

on

By

Why sacking Lucy Powell might come back to haunt Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer may end up regretting sacking Lucy Powell.

The former Commons leader, who has been described as “scrappy” and a “formidable” organiser with connections right across the Labour Party, will take on Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson in the race to replace Angela Rayner as deputy leader following her dramatic resignation from government.

Ms Powell’s presence on the ballot paper, confirmed on Thursday night after she won the backing of 117 MPs, turns the internal battle into an effective referendum on the prime minister’s leadership, at a time when the mood in the party likely reflects the wider mood in the country.

The Manchester Central MP, who previously served as an aide to Ed Miliband, was part of a contingent of North West MPs who were sacked in last week’s reshuffle.

Sky News understands that Ms Powell asked the prime minister three times why she was being removed from her post – but did not receive an answer.

She has emerged as the backbenchers’ candidate, in contrast to Ms Phillipson, the loyalist education secretary, who is seen as Number 10’s choice. It is a label that may prove to harm rather than help the cabinet minister’s chances.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What Labour needs in a deputy PM

After her place on the ballot was confirmed, Ms Powell called for a “change of culture” in Downing Street.

“We’ve got a bit of a groupthink happening at the top, that culture of not being receptive to interrogation, not being receptive to differing views,” she told The Guardian newspaper.

Allies of Ms Powell say it is her ability to engage with MPs and network that has landed her on the ballot paper, and she is also a beneficiary of the prime minister’s poor handling of his own party, evidenced by the way he handled the reshuffle – not to mention other mishaps over the past year regarding winter fuel payments and welfare.

‘Inept people management’

Many of the ministers who were sacked expected to receive a phone call from Sir Keir himself, but Sky News understands they instead received the news through either Darren Jones, his chief secretary, or Jonathan Reynolds, the former business secretary who was himself demoted to chief whip.

One minister who spoke to Sky News said it was not Sir Keir who told them they were being sacked.

“It’s inept people management that is going to come back to bite him,” they said.

“There’s a lot of people who see this deputy leadership contest as an opportunity to reinforce that point.

“People need a way to air their concerns, and if the debate is shut down because there isn’t a contest, it will just explode later on at a much higher volume.”

Labour insiders say Sir Keir’s lack of personal touch has fuelled “resentment and revenge” in the PLP that will directly benefit Ms Powell – with one saying Sir Keir had turned her into a “martyr”.

They draw parallels with the government’s mishandling of internal splits over Gaza which resulted in a large rebellion while in opposition, and more recently the uproar over welfare cuts that was only minimised when Ms Rayner was brought in to bridge the gap with MPs.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why the Labour deputy leader race is important

Powell a ‘shop steward’ of the PLP

Karl Turner, the Labour MP for Hull East, told Sky News he believed that sacking Ms Powell actually strengthened her chances in the race.

“Lucy Powell will, I am sure, prove to be the most popular candidate amongst ordinary members once the contest is opened up because members will see her as not being the choice of Downing Street,” he said.

“I have no doubt that Keir Starmer saved the Labour Party from itself not too many years ago, but I am worried that we are in danger of losing the entire Labour movement unless we change stance, fast.”

He added: “I’m supporting Lucy Powell because I know she will be the shop steward for the PLP. Lucy is fearless and will speak truth to power without fear or favour. We must act fast as a political party and absolutely must not allow this deputy leadership contest to become a referendum on the prime minister’s premiership.”

Another backbencher summed up the contest as a chance to give Sir Keir “a bloody nose”, while a separate source said removing Ms Powell was “utterly egregious”.

“It’s given Andy Burnham the biggest energy boost.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Andy Burnham on deputy leader race

As well as mobilising the PLP, Ms Powell’s sacking has fuelled speculation of a comeback for Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester who is her close friend and has long been known to harbour leadership ambitions.

There is speculation that should a Manchester MP stand down, Mr Burnham may be inclined to run in the ensuing by-election.

Read more:
Why didn’t Starmer fire Mandelson sooner?
Thornberry withdraws from deputy leadership race

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What do unions want from Labour’s new deputy?

Mr Burnham has not given any indication that he is planning to run again for parliament but has also not ruled out a return to Westminster in the future.

Such a scenario would present the ultimate crisis for Number 10 – long suspecting the openly critical mayor has designs on the prime minister’s job.

Number 10 would be forced to choose between allowing Mr Burnham to run in the by-election and thus make it easier for him to launch a potential leadership challenge, and blocking him from the ballot paper and risk gifting the seat to Reform, while causing an outcry among MPs.

Some have been at pains to point out that this deputy leadership contest is not about the heart and the soul of the Labour Party – and Ms Powell has stressed her time serving in government – it is about Sir Keir’s leadership.

As one union source put it: “If Lucy can run this as a referendum on the direction of the government, she’d win.”

Continue Reading

Trending