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

Published

2 years 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.

Politics

Australian court ruling could lead to $640M in Bitcoin tax refunds

Published

4 hours ago

May 19, 2025

admin

Australian court ruling could lead to 0M in Bitcoin tax refunds

A court decision in Australia could open the door to as much as $640 million in capital gains tax (CGT) refunds on Bitcoin transactions after a judge ruled that crypto should be treated as money rather than a taxable asset.

On May 19, the Australian Financial Review (AFR) reported that the decision arose within a criminal case involving federal police officer William Wheatley, who allegedly stole 81.6 Bitcoin (BTC) in 2019. At the time, the assets were worth roughly $492,000. At current market prices, the tokens are valued at more than $13 million.

In the case, Judge Michael O’Connell of Victoria ruled that Bitcoin qualifies as a form of money rather than property, likening the digital asset to Australian dollars rather than to shares, gold or foreign currency.

The interpretation could set a legal precedent, potentially placing Bitcoin transactions outside the scope of Australia’s current CGT regime.

New court ruling challenges Australian crypto tax laws

In an AFR interview, tax lawyer Adrian Cartland said the verdict “totally upends” the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) current position.

Since 2014, the ATO has classified crypto assets as CGT assets. This means that users must pay tax when selling or trading them. Under the ATO’s guidance, any disposal of Bitcoin, including selling it for fiat, exchanging it for another crypto or using it to purchase goods or services, constitutes a CGT event.

This framework has been the basis for taxing cryptocurrency transactions in Australia for over a decade. However, the recent ruling challenges the approach by suggesting that Bitcoin functions more like money than property. This potentially exempts it from CGT.

Tax refunds could reach $640 million

Cartland said it was held that Bitcoin is Australian money. “That is, it is not a CGT asset. Therefore, acquisitions and disposals of Bitcoin have no tax consequences,” the tax lawyer added.

If the ruling is upheld on the appeal, Cartland estimates that there could be potential tax refunds totalling 1 billion Australian dollars ($640 million).

However, while Cartland thinks there could be up to a billion in refunds, the ATO said there were no official figures that confirm the amount to be potentially refunded if the case changes how Bitcoin is taxed in Australia.

Magazine: Binance Wallet ‘killing’ MetaMask and airdrops, Chinese RWA tokens: Asia Express

Politics

Revolut eyes French license and $1.1B expansion amid EU growth

Published

5 hours ago

May 19, 2025

admin

Revolut eyes French license and .1B expansion amid EU growth

Revolut, a European neobank with crypto support, plans to invest more than 1 billion euro ($1.1 billion) in France and apply for a local banking license.

According to a May 19 Fortune report, Revolut representatives announced the initiative during the Choose France business summit hosted by President Emmanuel Macron in Paris. The London-based neobank also plans to set up its new European Union-serving headquarters in Paris, promising to invest 1 billion euro and hire at least 200 people within three years.

Revolut spokespeople also said that the firm is in the process of submitting an application to the French banking regulator Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority. According to an anonymous source cited by Fortune, the regulator has been pushing the neobank to get a license to improve supervision due to its popularity in France.

Revolut currently employs about 300 people and serves five million customers in France. This makes the nation the neobank’s top European Union market.

Aiming for the stars

Revolut hopes to onboard 10 million users by the end of next year and then double that number by 2030. The firm already offers loans, trading and cryptocurrency support in its mobile-first banking platform.

The neobank has seen rapid growth ever since its founding in 2015. The company recently received a $45 billion valuation and reportedly served over 55 million customers as of late May.

Revolut’s 2024 annual report release shows that the firm’s 2024 revenue was 3.1 billion British pounds ($4 billion). A recent Financial News article also puts the company’s headcount at 10,133 employees as of Dec. 31, 2024.

An increasingly regulated institution

Revolut obtained its UK banking license in late July 2024, where 11 million of its customers are located. Now, the neobank is aggressively looking to obtain similar permits across other jurisdictions, with 10 applications underway.

Revolut received the Prepaid Payment Instruments license from India’s central bank earlier this month. This license allows the bank to offer multi-currency forex cards and cross-border remittance services in India.

EU-based Revolut customers now leverage its Lithuania operations. The firm received a banking license in Lithuania at the end of 2018, enabling it to serve customers across the European Economic Area better.

Magazine: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight

Politics

Dubai regulator sets compliance deadline for updated crypto rules

Published

6 hours ago

May 19, 2025

admin

Dubai regulator sets compliance deadline for updated crypto rules

Dubai’s crypto regulator has given licensed digital asset companies until June 19 to comply with its updated activity-based Rulebooks to enhance market integrity and risk oversight.

On May 19, Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) announced that it had released Version 2.0 of the Rulebooks.

The regulator said it had strengthened controls around margin trading and token distribution services, harmonised compliance requirements across all licensed activities and given clearer definitions for collateral wallet arrangements.

VARA’s team will engage with licensed entities and expects the companies to comply with the updated rules after a 30-day transition period.

“In line with global regulatory best practices, a 30-day transition period has been granted to all impacted virtual asset service providers [VASPs], with full compliance required by 19 June 2025,” VARA wrote.

VARA enhances supervisory mechanisms

VARA highlighted that it had enhanced supervisory mechanisms across several regulated activities. This includes advisory, broker-dealer, custody, exchange, lending and borrowing, virtual asset (VA) management and investment, and VA transfer and settlement services.

A VARA spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the updates will bring consistency across all activity-based rules defining core operational terms. The spokesperson gave examples of terms like “client assets,” “qualified custodians,” and “collateral requirements” as some of the terms more consistently defined in the update.

The update also aligned risk management and disclosure obligations, where activities overlap, in areas like brokerage, custody and exchange.

“The aim was to reduce ambiguity and help VASPs navigate cross-functional compliance more easily,” VARA told Cointelegraph.

Dubai regulator tightens leverage thresholds for margin trading

As for margin trading, the VARA spokesperson said they tightened leverage thresholds, mandated clearer collateralisation standards, and enhanced the monitoring obligations for VASPs offering this feature.

Margin trading allows traders to control large positions with smaller amounts of capital. It amplifies both gains and losses. Tightening the leverage traders use helps limit the risks of widespread liquidations in a market downturn.

The crypto regulator introduced a new section on token distribution that sets out licensing prerequisites, investor protections and marketing restrictions. The spokesperson emphasized the marketing restrictions, especially for “retail-facing offers.”

“It’s about aligning with global conduct expectations and closing observed regulatory gaps,” the VARA spokesperson said.