Rishi Sunak has been urged to sack Suella Braverman after she accused the Metropolitan Police of “playing favourites” with how it handles controversial protests.
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”.
More on Israel-hamas War
Related Topics:
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.
“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.
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
Minister: ‘I would not describe them as hate marches’
“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 Rigbythat 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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:35
Harper refuses to comment on Braverman
“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.
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.
Anthony Joshua missed out on the chance to become a three-time heavyweight world champion after he was stopped by British rival Daniel Dubois in the fifth round.
Dubois, 27, knocked down Joshua towards the end of the opening round with an overhand right to the 34-year-old’s chin.
The IBF heavyweight champion then dropped Joshua at the end of round three and twice in the fourth.
A right hook ended the fight with a knockout for Dubois’ first defence of the title.
The fighters went toe to toe at London’s Wembley Stadium in front of a record 96,000 fans.
‘We came up short’
Minutes after retaining the IBF championship, Dubois shouted to the crowd “are you not entertained?” before saying: “I’m a gladiator, you know?
More on Anthony Joshua
Related Topics:
“I’m just a warrior to the bitter end. I’m just ready to go. I want to go to the top level of this game and reach my potential. God bless you all.”
Joshua said the loss would not stop him from rebuilding despite admitting “we came up short”.
Advertisement
“You know I’m ready to kick off in the ring, but I’m going to keep my cool, keep very professional, and give respect to my opponent,” he said.
“I’m always saying to myself I’m a fighter for life… We keep rolling the dice. I had a sharp opponent, a fast opponent and a lot of mistakes from my end, but that’s the game.”
Dubois’ victory has sent a message to the whole heavyweight division
Daniel Dubois will feel like he has fulfilled his destiny here at Wembley. His father has trained him to be a champion boxer since he was tiny.
He held the IBF belt, but he has gone in there tonight and defended it in spectacular fashion – he is now in every conversation going forward.
What now for AJ? Can he face rebuilding? And will he even want to?
The Wembley ring walk is notoriously long, and Dubois looked nervous – but so did Joshua, who has done this many times before in front of a full house.
Perhaps he was thinking of what was at stake – the chance to be a three-time heavyweight champion of the world.
But 27-year-old Dubois holds the belt and was keen to prove he was a worthy champion quickly.
Many wondered if Dubois would freeze on the biggest stage: Question asked and answered emphatically.
It was a crushing defeat for Joshua – most were not expecting such a one-sided victory.
Dubois will now most likely take on the winner of Fury v Usyk 2 for all the belts. But the manner of his victory has sent a message to the whole heavyweight division.
Hearn: AJ will want rematch
Promoter Eddie Hearn then said “it was the first round” where Joshua lost, “after that he was fighting on heart and desire”.
Hearn added: “When you are in there with a massive puncher this is what can happen. He never stopped trying to get up, even when he couldn’t get up.
“Daniel deserves credit, he’s a real world champion. Congratulations to him… I’m sure [Joshua will] exercise that rematch clause, it’s a given, it’s a dangerous fight because he’s growing in confidence all the time but he’ll believe he can beat him.”
British champion Dubois, who before tonight had never fought at Wembley, was elevated to the IBF title holder after Oleksandr Usyk relinquished the belt.
Joshua outweighed Dubois by four pounds, despite a career-heaviest weight for his rival, ahead of the fight.
Among those watching was Tyson Fury, the former WBC heavyweight champion, who took a ringside seat.
Fury is set to fight Usyk for the other three titles in a rematch on 21 December.
Ahead of the fight, Liam Gallagher played some of Oasis’ biggest hits to the sold-out crowd.
The 52-year-old frontman walked on to a massive cheer and said “yes Wembley vibes in the air,” before launching into Rock ‘N’ Roll Star, Supersonic and Cigarettes & Alcohol.
He and Noel Gallagher will play Wembley for their first of seven reunion shows at the stadium on 25 July – 307 days away.
Other famous faces ringside were Irish MMA fighter Conor McGregor, former boxer Ricky Hatton, Spice Girl Emma Bunton and Love Island presenter Maya Jama.
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 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 saidit 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 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”.
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.
Advertisement
“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.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
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.