title
stringlengths 28
112
| published_date
stringlengths 10
10
| authors
stringclasses 6
values | description
stringlengths 0
239
| section
stringclasses 95
values | content
stringlengths 178
42.3k
| link
stringlengths 34
77
| top_image
stringlengths 53
143
| news_id
stringlengths 13
55
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COP28 live: Food we eat matters for climate, leaders agree in first-ever pledge - BBC News
|
2023-12-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
More than 130 countries at COP28 say they will consider farming in their plans to limit global warming.
|
Science & Environment
|
Haiti - pictured here after heavy rain in June 2023 - is one of the countries featured in the ODI study Image caption: Haiti - pictured here after heavy rain in June 2023 - is one of the countries featured in the ODI study
The scale of the impacts of climate change on some small islands and developing states can be seen in new research, shared exclusively with the BBC live team.
A study from the ODI global affairs think tank links almost 4,000 lives lost in extreme weather events over the past two decades directly to climate change. It also found that around 39% of economic losses caused by these events are linked to rising temperatures, amounting to some $41bn.
These losses are very much at the forefront of discussions here at COP28, where countries on Thursday backed - and pledged money for - the launch of a "loss and damage" fund that was agreed at COP27 last year in Egypt.
But experts say the type of finance is just as important as the cash itself.
“These losses are nothing to do with poor governance or vulnerability to extreme weather events that were there anyway, these were directly as a result of climate change,” said ODI lead author Emily Wilkinson.
Quote Message: I think there is a strong moral argument for loss and damage finance to be made available as grants and not loans for particularly vulnerable developing countries." from Emily Wilkinson ODI I think there is a strong moral argument for loss and damage finance to be made available as grants and not loans for particularly vulnerable developing countries."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-67440257
|
news_live_science-environment-67440257
|
|
Donald Trump gag order reinstated in New York civil fraud trial - BBC News
|
2023-12-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A judge vows to enforce the order "rigorously and vigorously" - but how he will do so is not clear.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump again attacked a New York judge's law clerk online on Wednesday
A US court has reinstated a gag order that prevents Donald Trump and his team from criticising court personnel in his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York.
Judge Arthur Engoron, who is presiding over the trial and claims his chambers have been "inundated" with threats, had issued the limited order in October.
But it was put on hold two weeks ago by an appellate judge, who said he had concerns over free speech rights.
Mr Trump's attorney said it marks "a tragic day for the rule of law".
"In a country where the First Amendment is sacrosanct, President Trump may not even comment on why he thinks he cannot get a fair trial," Christopher Kise told the BBC's US partner CBS News on Thursday.
"Hard to imagine a more unfair process and hard to believe this is happening in America."
Judge Engoron imposed the gag order after Mr Trump posted disparaging remarks about the judge's principal law clerk, with her name, photo and a link to her social media, as he sat in court on the trial's second day.
Following the order, Mr Trump's lawyers sued the judge and called for a mistrial over "astonishing departures from ordinary standards of impartiality".
An appeals court judge in New York temporarily lifted the gag order over "the constitutional and statutory rights at issue".
"I intend to enforce the gag orders rigorously and vigorously, and I want to make sure counsel informs their client," Judge Engoron said in court.
But how he will do so is less clear. He has already fined Mr Trump $15,000 (£12,000) over violations and even extended the order to include his attorneys.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
In a trial that poses a threat to his real-estate empire, the former president has argued that Judge Engoron is "biased" and will likely rule against him in the end anyway.
Mr Trump is closely following the court proceedings, in person on some days and with critical online commentary on others.
On Thursday, Mr Trump posted critical statements about Judge Engoron's wife and adult son, skirting the ban on criticising court employees, and called the case "the most unfair Trial in the History of New York, and I've had some pretty unfair Trials!"
A day earlier, on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump had slammed what he referred to as the judge's "very disturbed and angry law clerk".
The judge and lead prosecutor, New York Attorney General Letitia James, "should be impeached and removed from office", he argued in another post.
The former president, his two adult sons and the wider Trump Organization are accused of massively inflating the value of their properties by over $2bn, in order to secure favourable loans.
Should they lose, the Trumps face $250m (£201m) in fines and the possible dissolution of their New York real estate empire.
Defence lawyers are currently making arguments, with the former president expected to return to the stand in December before his lawyers rest their case.
This week a witness for Deutsche Bank, which the former president is accused of defrauding, testified that his over-valuations of property did not affect their loan terms and he never missed a payment.
The high-profile trial in Manhattan, which has also seen three of Mr Trump's adult children testify, is not expected to conclude until January.
Mr Trump, the Republican frontrunner for president, is also fighting a gag order in the federal case in Washington DC that charges him with meddling in the 2020 election.
That limited order, which bars him for targeting court staff, prosecutors or potential witnesses, is currently under appeal.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67580883
|
news_world-us-canada-67580883
|
|
Israel-Gaza: The status quo is smashed. The future is messy and dangerous - BBC News
|
2023-12-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Even when the war between Israel and Hamas ends, there is no easy future, the BBC's Jeremy Bowen says.
|
Middle East
|
At the end of the war that started on 7 October lies a big, unknown place called the future. The old status quo was dangerous and painful, especially for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. But it was familiar. Then after 7 October it was smashed by the Hamas attacks, and Israel's response.
The shock of war can speed up change, when it sweeps away old thinking, forcing difficult choices for a better future. Or it drives leaders and their citizens deeper into their bunkers, as they prepare for the next round.
For more than a century, Jews and Arabs have been confronting each other, and sometimes going to war, over control of the small, highly coveted piece of land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. Perhaps the safest, saddest bet is to assume that the conflict, reshaped, will go on. After all, that is what has happened after every other Middle East war since 1948, when Israel won its independence.
But there are other options. Here are some of the arguments made by individuals at the centre of events.
Israel's prime minister has not spelt out his plan for the day after, if he has one. His opponents in Israel, who blame him for security and intelligence failures that made the Hamas attacks on 7 October possible, say Netanyahu's only real plan is to stay in power and avoid conviction on the serious corruption charges he faces.
Netanyahu built his career on the message he was Mr Security, the only man who could keep Israel safe. Hamas shattered his brand, which was already badly damaged by political strife inside Israel.
Netanyahu has not spelt out his plans for Gaza after the war ends
The prime minister's broad statements about what happens after the war, assuming Israel can declare victory, all point to continued occupation of Gaza. Israeli officials have reportedly talked about setting up buffer zones along the border, without offering any details.
Netanyahu has rejected a role for foreign peacekeepers, assuming they can be found. Jordan's foreign minister Ayman Safadi has already said that Arab states would not "clean the mess" left by Israel.
"There will be no Arab troops going to Gaza. None. We are not going to be seen as the enemy."
Netanyahu has also dismissed US President Joe Biden's plan to replace Hamas with the Palestinian Authority, led by President Mahmoud Abbas. Netanyahu claims the PA cannot be trusted and supports terrorism, even though it recognises Israel and cooperates with it on security.
President Biden's vision of the future is very different to Benjamin Netanyahu's. Biden continues to give considerable military, diplomatic and emotional support to Israelis. He visited, embraced the families of hostages and has ordered his diplomats at the United Nations Security Council to use the US veto to block ceasefire resolutions. Biden ordered two aircraft carrier strike groups to the region and has sent Israel vast amounts of weaponry.
In return, the US president wants Israel to return to some kind of revitalised peace process. He wants the Palestinian Authority (PA) eventually to run Gaza while Israel agrees arrangements for an independent Palestine alongside Israel.
The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas agrees. He has largely been a bystander since 7 October. In a rare interview this week, with Reuters, he said there should be a peace conference after the war to work out a political solution that would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Biden wants a revitalised peace process in the region
The "two state solution" has been the official objective of America and its western allies since the early 1990s. Years of negotiations to make it happen failed. For almost a quarter of a century, since the peace process collapsed, the phrase has been an empty slogan. Biden wants to revive it, arguing correctly that only a political solution will end the conflict.
Biden sent his vice president, Kamala Harris, to Dubai last week to make a speech laying out America's red lines for Gaza on the day after.
She laid out five principles.
"No forcible displacement, no re-occupation, no siege or blockade, no reduction in territory, and no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism."
"We want to see a unified Gaza and West Bank under the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian voices and aspirations must be at the centre of this work."
In and out of office, Benjamin Netanyahu has worked consistently hard to thwart Palestinian independence. It is safe to say he is not about to change his mind. If the two-state solution can be revived, it won't happen while he is prime minister.
I went to see Simcha Rotman at the Knesset, Israel's parliament, where he is a prominent MP for the far-right Religious Zionist Party. The government of Benjamin Netanyahu depends on the support of Rotman's party and other hard-line Jewish nationalists. Their power comes from the dynamism of the movement to settle Jews on the land captured in 1967. From that moment of victory, some Israelis were set on extending the Zionist enterprise into the newly occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
Since 1967 they have been highly successful, despite being forced to leave Gaza when Israel pulled out in 2005. Around 700,000 Israeli Jews now live in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Settler leaders are in the cabinet, and their enterprise is at the centre of Israeli politics.
Simcha Rotman is a prominent MP for the far-right Religious Zionist Party
Now that Israel is fighting Hamas, vowing to smash the organisation once and for all, Jewish nationalists see the biggest opportunity they have had since 1967, when Israel beat all its Arab neighbours in a war that lasted for six days.
Since 7 October, armed settlers in the West Bank, backed by soldiers and police, have prevented Palestinian farmers from harvesting their olives or tending their fields. Settlers have paved illegal roads and sought to entrench themselves even deeper by consolidating outposts that are illegal under Israeli as well as international law. Posters are everywhere demanding the return of Jewish settlers to Gaza.
Settlers have also killed Palestinians and invaded their homes. Men with bulldozers came at night to destroy the tiny village of Khirbet Zanuta, near Hebron. Its population of 200 Palestinians had already left, forced out by armed and aggressive settlers.
International law says an occupying power should not settle its citizens in land it has captured. Israel says the law does not apply.
"Occupation is not the word," Simcha Rotman told me at the Knesset.
"You cannot occupy your own land. Israel is not an occupier in Israel because that's the land of Israel."
For Simcha Rotman and other Jewish nationalists, Gaza is also part of the land of Israel.
"We need to make sure that the only people that are in charge of our security in the land of Israel are the IDF [Israel Defence Forces]. We cannot have any terrorist organisation, doesn't matter what its name. Would it be Hamas? Would it be Fatah? Doesn't matter. The terrorist organisation cannot have control of our lives."
If there are Palestinian elections after the 7 October war ends, Mustafa Barghouti is likely to run for president. He is the secretary general of the Palestine National Initiative. It wants to be the third force in Palestinian politics, an alternative to the Islamist extremists in Hamas and to Fatah, the faction led by President Mahmoud Abbas, which it regards as corrupt and incompetent. Barghouthi believes resistance to occupation is legitimate and legal, though he wants it to be non-violent.
In his office in Ramallah on the West Bank, Mustafa Barghouthi told me that Israel is using the war to deliver a crushing blow not just to Hamas but to the idea of Palestinian independence and freedom. Like many Palestinians, Barghouthi sees what's happening as a grim echo of the events of 1948 when Israel won its independence and more than 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forced at gunpoint to leave their homes in what became Israel. Palestinians call it al-Naqba, "the catastrophe" and believe Israel wants it to happen again.
Mustafa Barghouti is the secretary general of the Palestine National Initiative
"I am 100% sure that their main goal right from the beginning was the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza, trying to push people to Egypt, a terrible war crime. And if they managed to do so, I think their next goal will be to try to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and force people to join them."
"If they fail to ethnically cleanse all Gazans, I am sure that Netanyahu's plan B is to annexe Gaza City and the north of Gaza completely to Israel and claim it as a security area."
Barghouthi warns that Israel faces dire prospects if its troops stay in Gaza long term.
"Israel did that before and it didn't work. And there will be resistance to their occupation, which they cannot tolerate. And that's why Netanyahu's goal really is to ethnically cleanse people. He wants to have military control of Gaza without people. He knows very well that Gaza with people is something that is unmanageable."
Barghouthi believes Gaza should be part of a democratic Palestinian state.
"We Palestinians are grown up people. We don't need any patronage of anybody. And no, we don't need any other country to tell us how we should rule ourselves."
This crisis looks as if it will have more chapters. The US veto of the latest ceasefire resolution at the UN Security Council gives Israel more time to wage war. But that extra time is not indefinite, and continued Biden support for Israel carries a political price in America's coming election year. Influential members of his own Democratic party oppose what he's doing, and so do younger voters whose support he needs. The Biden Administration is already deeply uncomfortable that Israel is ignoring its repeated requests to protect civilians and respect the laws of war.
Israel may struggle to achieve the crushing victory Benjamin Netanyahu has promised. He set a high bar for victory; not just annihilating Hamas as a military force, but also destroying its capacity to govern. Israel's vast military power, reinforced by American resupply, has not yet destroyed the capacity of Hamas to fight. The Hamas creed of Islamist nationalism is also embedded in the minds of many Palestinians. Guns often don't kill ideas but reinforce them.
The future is messy and dangerous. The war in Gaza will not end neatly.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67652494
|
news_world-middle-east-67652494
|
|
How double pay rise for senior doctors is backfiring on government - BBC News
|
2023-12-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Offer seen as breakthrough, but it appears to have inflamed tensions with junior doctors and nurses.
|
Health
|
Victoria Atkins was appointed health secretary in last month's Cabinet reshuffle
Two weeks ago, the new Health Secretary, Victoria Atkins, spent the weekend signing off on a new pay offer for consultants, the most senior doctors in the NHS.
She hoped it would mark the beginning of the end of the strikes in England that have plagued the health service for the past year.
After weeks of intense talks with the British Medical Association (BMA), a deal had been reached which the union's negotiators felt able to put forward to members. But could it now end up making things worse?
The deal was more generous than many expected. In fact, those close to the talks said Ms Atkins was only able to get it over the line because of her close relationship with the chancellor - before becoming health secretary in mid-November she was financial secretary at the Treasury.
Consultants - the best-paid frontline staff in the health service - are being offered a second pay rise of the financial year in England. Under the proposal, basic pay will increase by nearly 5% on average in January after a 6% rise in April.
The amount on offer differs depending on what stage a consultant is at. For some it will mean their salary rising by nearly 20% over the course of 2023-24.
But already the shine has been taken off the breakthrough - even before voting papers have been sent out to consultants to see if they will accept the offer.
Soon after the announcement, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) said it was "appalled" by the fact so much money had been found for the "highest earners" and warned it increased the likelihood of strikes by nurses returning.
Nurses - along with other health staff who are not doctors - were given 5% plus a one-off lump sum of at least £1,655 this year.
RCN leader Pat Cullen has since written to the health secretary asking for new pay talks, saying the consultants' pay offer will do nothing to "quell unrest" in the profession.
Her members actually rejected the pay deal when it was put forward in the spring, but because other unions representing ambulance staff, physios and midwives voted in favour it was introduced.
Then on Monday - exactly a week after the consultants' deal was announced - it got even worse for Ms Atkins as pay talks with junior doctor leaders at the BMA collapsed. These had been taking part simultaneously alongside the ones with consultants.
The following day, the co-chairs of the junior doctors committee, Robert Laurenson and Vivek Trivedi, released a statement saying what was on offer from the government was simply not credible, adding it amounted to an average of 3% extra. They have been calling for 35% more to make up for what they say is below-inflation pay rises since 2008.
They called the longest strike in the history of the NHS - a six-day stoppage at the start of the new year on top of a three-day walkout in the lead-up to Christmas.
In an interview with the BBC afterwards, Dr Trivedi defended the decision by making the point the money on offer was "less than what our consultant colleagues have been offered".
Those close to Ms Atkins said she was both disappointed and surprised by the actions of the junior doctor leaders - claiming the money on offer was not even a final position.
They also counter the argument that the government was willing to give consultants more, pointing out junior doctors had been given an average of nearly 9% in April compared to the across-the-board 6% consultants got.
What is more, the pay offer has been coupled with reform of the wider consultant contract, which, if accepted, will mean there are fewer pay bands. And that results in markedly different outcomes for consultants depending on what stage they are at.
Those at the bottom and top of the pay scales will see pay increase by a little over 10% this year (once the April pay rise is added to the proposed January one) while the ones in the middle, typically with eight years' experience, will see pay jump nearly 20% this financial year.
But those with around four years' experience will get nothing extra in January so are left with just the 6% rise they got from April.
Overall an extra 4.95% is being put into basic pay for consultants from January onwards, but about 1.5% is being clawed back by phasing out local excellence awards, which tops up pay. This is more likely to affect those at an earlier stage of their career as consultants who already have an award will get to keep it for the rest of their career.
The deal is so complicated and benefits individual consultants so differently that the BMA, while putting it to a vote of members, has felt unable to recommend they vote yes.
BMA sources meanwhile have defended the stance of junior doctors as well, saying the government had wasted weeks before starting talks with them - and the deadline for a deal by first week of December had been made clear a month before.
However, as the war of words continues, it looks like it will be patients who lose out. More than one million appointments and treatments have been cancelled since industrial action began with ambulance workers and nurses last December.
Strikes by doctors have been the most disruptive by far. And the next walkouts, particular the six-day walkout at the start of January, coincide with the most pressured points of the year.
"Our worst fear has come true," says Matthew Taylor, of the NHS Confederation, which represents hospital managers.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67655000
|
news_health-67655000
|
|
Elderly French couple lose rare African mask case worth millions - BBC News
|
2023-12-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A dealer bought the African mask from the couple for €150, reselling it for €4.2m.
|
Europe
|
The Ngil mask, made by the Fang people of Gabon, is believed to be one of only about 10 in the world
A second-hand dealer has won a case to keep the €4.2m (£3.6m; $4.6m) proceeds from the sale of a rare African mask he found in an elderly French couple's attic.
He had been brought in to help clear the attic of the couple, who sold him the mask for €150 (£129; $165).
The couple sued, arguing that they had been misled about the item's value.
But the judge disagreed, saying they had failed to appreciate the artwork's true worth.
The rare Ngil mask, made by the Fang people of Gabon, is believed to be one of only about 10 in the world.
It would have been worn by members of the Ngil secret society. Historians believe members travelled through villages searching for troublemakers, including suspected sorcerers.
The 19th-Century wooden mask was probably acquired "in unknown circumstances" around 1917 by René-Victor Edward Maurice Fournier, a French colonial governor and the plaintiff's grandfather.
It was held in the family's possession until it was sold to the dealer. It was later resold at auction to an unknown buyer.
The couple had gone to court to claim a share of the proceeds of the sale, alleging the dealer had misled them about the true value of the mask.
The dealer denied knowing that it was so valuable and said he had demonstrated goodwill by offering the couple €300,000, the mask's initial valuation.
His lawyer argued that the couple had failed to research the item's true worth before selling it. "When you've got such an item at home, you should be a bit more curious before giving it up," Patricia Pijot told French media.
The judge ruled in favour of the dealer and said the couple had failed to exercise due diligence in evaluating the "historical and artistic" value of the mask.
The offer was retracted after the couple sued.
Frédéric Mansat Jaffré, lawyer for the couple, said: "The judge has created a precedent... You or I will now need to ask a professional before then going to see another professional."
Gabon had separately requested that the sale of the mask be halted on the grounds that it rightfully belonged to the country. But the court also rejected that argument.
The West African country was a French colony at the time Fournier acquired the mask.
Tens of thousands of works of African art are held outside the continent. Most were removed during the colonial era, sometimes under disputed circumstances.
French President Emmanuel Macron has previously called for the restitution of African art.
"I cannot accept that a large part of the cultural heritage of several African countries is in France," he said in 2017.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67759639
|
news_world-europe-67759639
|
|
Jonathan Majors: Marvel drops actor after domestic assault conviction - BBC News
|
2023-12-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
It is unclear whether Marvel will replace the star or write his character out of the films.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Emmy-nominated actor Jonathan Majors has been dropped by Marvel Studios after he was convicted of assaulting his then-girlfriend.
On Monday, a jury in New York found that Majors, 34, attacked and harassed British choreographer Grace Jabbari during an argument in March.
Following the verdict, a Marvel spokesperson said the studio would no longer work with the actor.
Majors could face up to a year in prison when sentenced in February.
It marks a stunning downfall for a leading Hollywood actor who had been expected to feature in multiple Marvel films.
Majors played villain Kang the Conqueror in the Marvel films. He starred in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania last February and on Disney+ series Loki, now in its second season.
Marvel had already pushed back release dates for Avengers: The Kang Dynasty, in which he was due to play the starring role. He was set to perform again as the character in the follow-up film, Avengers: Secret Wars.
It is unclear whether Marvel Studios plans to replace him with another actor or write his character out of the films.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Marvel has already hired the creator of Loki to re-work a draft of the film that had been expected to be called The Kang Dynasty. The new working title for the movie is Avengers 5, sources told the outlet.
Magazine Dreams, an upcoming film starring Majors that was being touted as a possible Oscar contender, had its release postponed as well following his arrest.
The US Army also dropped the Creed III star from a major advertising campaign once the news broke.
His former girlfriend, Ms Jabbari, was left with a fractured finger, bruising and a cut behind her ear after the couple fought over a phone in a hire car in New York City.
Jurors were shown CCTV footage of the assault
The incident took place when Ms Jabbari saw a text message from another woman on Majors' phone, which said: "Wish I was kissing you right now."
In an effort to get his phone back, the film star grabbed his then-girlfriend, twisted her arm behind her back and hit her in the head, Ms Jabbari testified.
He was found guilty of assault by recklessly causing physical injury, as well as harassment.
The jury acquitted him on charges of aggravated harassment and assault with intent to cause physical harm, however.
The prosecution painted the assault as the latest escalation in Majors' attempts to "exert control" over his girlfriend through physical and emotional violence. The jury was shown voice recordings and text messages between the former couple.
"I'm a monster. A horrible man. Not capable of love," the actor sent in a text in September 2022 while threatening to kill himself.
More text messages also discussed a prior incident between Majors and Jabbari.The actor appears to dissuade Jabbari from going to the hospital after she suffered an injury to her head.
In audio from an argument that same month, Majors told Ms Jabbari she needed to act more like Coretta Scott King and Michelle Obama, the wives of Martin Luther King and former President Barack Obama.
"I am doing great things, not just for me but for my culture and the world," he said, adding that she would need to "make sacrifices" for him.
Ms Jabbari's lawyer Brittany Henderson said her client had shown "irrefutable strength and poise while being forced to relive, both in court and very publicly, the abuse she was subjected to".
"Her unwavering resolve to see this case through to the end is borne out of a desire to show other survivors and victims of domestic violence, that they too, can hold their abuser accountable," she said in a statement given to the PA news agency.
A statement shared by Majors' lawyer after the actor's conviction said that he continues to believe in his innocence, "still has faith in the process and looks forward to fully clearing his name".
Sentencing will be on 6 February. The judge also issued a new protection order, requiring him to have no contact with Ms Jabbari.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67757317
|
news_entertainment-arts-67757317
|
|
End culture of hatred, says mother of man shot dead in US - BBC News
|
2023-12-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Glasgow-born Susan Swimm's 23-year-old son Rory was shot dead by a teenager in Utah in October.
|
Scotland
|
Rory died in Salt Lake City, Utah, a week after his 23rd birthday
A Scottish mother whose son was shot dead in the US has called for an end to the country's "culture of hatred".
Detectives in Utah believe Rory Swimm was killed by a 15-year-old schoolboy who had been given a handgun by his grandfather as a gift.
His Glasgow-born mother Susan and his American father Robb want his death to lead to change.
Susan said there was a culture of hatred among teenagers in the US, and that they needed to be educated to be kind.
Speaking from the family home in Colorado, she said the loss of 23-year-old Rory had devastated friends around the world.
"It's a tsunami of destruction that has spread to Scotland, to Switzerland, to Utah, to Seattle, to Washington, to Montana," she said.
"There's a lack of culpability in America. It's totally fine that you can go out and shoot somebody because it happens all the time here."
She says education needs to begin with young teenagers "to be kind, to have empathy for other people".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Susan and Robb Swimm want something positive to come out of Rory's death
Susan added: "I've had to tell myself hundreds of times a day that Rory's been murdered, that Rory's not going to come home, that my wee boy is dead because somebody shot him.
"I don't believe for a single minute that we can change any of the gun laws in America, but I feel that today within the teenage youth there's a terrible culture of hatred.
"Instead of raising kids to be positive in society, they're being struck down by all the negativity that's out there."
She said parents should be teaching their children empathy and love.
"I feel that it's become acceptable to be full of hate towards your peers in this country," she added.
Rory, a dual UK/US citizen born in Dundee, died in Salt Lake City in Utah in October - a week after his 23rd birthday.
His parents' grief has been compounded by anger after they discovered more about the 15-year-old accused of his murder.
At a memorial service attended by hundreds of people on 21 October, Susan Swimm's American husband Robb asked mourners to cry out a single word: "Why?"
They want something positive to come out of his death, no matter how impossible that might seem in a country so divided over gun control and gun rights.
Robb told BBC Scotland News: "It may not be the biggest story or the worst or the most tragic, but it's only because a gun was involved that there was a murder."
Rory, seen here with his sister Maggie, was a passionate skier and snowboarder
The incident began with an early morning argument between Rory and his friends and three teenagers outside a 7-Eleven convenience store.
According to court papers detailing the investigation by the Salt Lake City Police Department, the two groups hadn't even reached the stage of exchanging blows when a single shot was fired, hitting Rory in the chest.
His friends Jimmy Ledford and Will Griffith later showed Rory's parents where he died.
Jimmy told them: "When the paramedics were trying to figure out what was wrong with him, they lifted up his shirt and that's when we saw the bullet hole in his chest."
Detectives say they found a spent 9mm shell casing 100ft (30m) away.
They used video footage to trace the 15-year-old at his home and discovered a 9mm handgun in a safe in his bedroom.
Jimmy Ledford and Will Griffith were with Rory when he was shot
The police report said the 15-year-old's grandfather told them he had given the teenager the weapon as a present and took him shooting almost weekly.
The suspect is said to have told his friends that he had "shot into the air" instead of aiming.
Under Utah law, he can't be named because of his age.
Rory's parents moved from Scotland to the States when he was six weeks old.
He grew up to be a passionate skier and skateboarder. His family said they would always remember his wild stunts and acrobatics, and ear-to-ear grin.
Every year Rory returned to visit relatives in Scotland. His older brother lives in Glasgow.
Rory Swimm (front centre) with family and friends on their annual Scottish trip to the village of Elie in Fife
At the time of his death, Rory was the 14th killing in Salt Lake City in 2023.
Utah has one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States but it's still twice that of the UK's.
"There's a gun culture in Utah specifically that we're looking to expose," said Robb.
"The biggest tragedy is this was so preventable in so many ways."
He talks of a boycott of America over its gun laws, like the boycott of South Africa over apartheid.
"I don't want my son to just be a statistic, I want him to be remembered in a way that's positive," he said.
"The repercussions of this little act of a finger pulling a trigger ripples in so many directions."
Rory's family placed a memorial wreath at the scene where he was shot
The Swimms said a court hearing in January may determine whether the teenager is tried as a juvenile or an adult, a decision which will have a major impact on potential sentences if he's convicted. Either way, the death penalty would not apply.
The teenager has also been charged with illegal possession of the handgun. He has not yet entered a plea or made public his defence.
Allison Anderman from the Gifford Law Centre, a US gun control campaign group, said: "It is not illegal for someone to buy a gun as a bona fide gift for someone else.
"It seems as though, in Utah, the grandfather could have legally purchased the firearm for his grandson, provided the gun was used only as allowed under state law."
Robb Swimm wants it made illegal to buy a firearm for someone aged under 18 or, failing that, for new restrictions on where weapons given to teenagers can be stored.
"I want to see if we can shake the tree a little bit with this," said Robb.
"I want this whole city of Salt Lake to know who Rory Swimm was. I want everybody in this country to know who Rory Swimm was. And that he got stolen from us, by one bullet."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67694134
|
news_uk-scotland-67694134
|
|
Esther Rantzen says she's joined assisted dying clinic - BBC News
|
2023-12-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The broadcaster tells the BBC she will consider assisted dying if her lung cancer treatment fails.
|
UK
|
The broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen says she has joined the Dignitas assisted dying clinic in Switzerland.
The 83-year-old told the BBC she is currently undergoing a "miracle" treatment for stage four lung cancer.
If it does not work, "I might buzz off to Zurich", where assisted dying is legal, she told Radio 4's The Today Podcast.
But she said she was looking forward to this "precious" Christmas, which she hadn't thought she would live to see.
Assisted suicide is banned in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. While there is no specific offence of assisted suicide in Scotland, euthanasia is illegal and can be prosecuted as murder or manslaughter.
Dignitas is a not-for-profit organisation that provides physician-assisted dying to members who, in its words, have illnesses "that will lead inevitably to death, unendurable pain or an unendurable disability" and who have made a "reasoned request" with medical proof.
Speaking about her decision to join Dignitas, Dame Esther said it was driven in part by her wish that her family's "last memories of me" are not "painful because if you watch someone you love having a bad death, that memory obliterates all the happy times".
The broadcaster said if she did decide to have an assisted death at Dignitas that would put "my family and friends in a difficult position because they would want to go with me, and that means that the police might prosecute them".
Dame Esther, who is best known for presenting the BBC Show That's Life! for 21 years and launching the charity ChildLine, said she believed people should be given the choice about "how you want to go and when you want to go".
"I get all the arguments about... not wanting to be a burden and pressure being applied and all that. But... you can come to the wrong conclusion.
"If you just base everything on the worst case scenario, you've got to have a look at the advantages as well."
Campaigners for assisted dying say a change in the law would give people with terminal illnesses or who are suffering greater control over how and when they die.
But opponents argue a change in the law would threaten vulnerable people.
Dame Esther's daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, told the BBC that there was a "legal murkiness surrounding assisting dying".
"I support mum's decision," she said, but added: "I'm not legally allowed to say I'd go with her, that I would hold her hand - and that is absolutely ridiculous.
"I should be able to sit with my mother in her last moments.
"I can't go to prison, I can't go through a court case at the worst point of my life, when I've lost my person and I'm suddenly being prosecuted with her death.
"It's unfathomable. I can't believe this is the situation we're in."
In response to Dame Esther's interview, Levelling-up Secretary Michael Gove said he thought it would be "appropriate" for the Commons to "revisit" the issue of assisted dying.
"I have great respect and affection for Dame Esther," he said.
"I take a slightly different view - I am not yet persuaded of the case for assisted dying but I do think it's appropriate for the Commons to revisit this."
Baroness Ilora Findlay, a crossbench member of the Lords and former president of the Royal Society of Medicine, told the Today programme the evidence from countries where the law had changed on assisted dying showed "that you just cannot regulate this really properly".
Baroness Findlay said in Canada, where assisted dying became legal for those with terminal illnesses in 2016 and was expanded to those with serious and chronic physical conditions in 2021, the situation was "out of control".
Instead, she said better access to end-of-life care was needed.
"We're still relying on voluntary donations to make sure that people can live well for as long as they have," Baroness Findlay added.
Euthanasia - the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve suffering - is legal in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Helping another person to kill themselves - assisted suicide - is permitted in Switzerland, while some form of assisted dying for terminally ill adults is legal in a number of US states, including Washington, California and Oregon.
Dame Esther with fellow That's Life! presenters Howard Leader, Kevin Devine, and Gavin Campbell in 1993
Almost a year on from her diagnosis, Dame Esther told Today she had not expected to live with cancer for so long.
"I thought I'd fall off my perch within a couple of months, if not weeks. I certainly didn't think I'd make my birthday in June, which I did, and I definitely didn't think I'd make this Christmas, which I am. It appears, although anything can happen," she said.
Asked which moment in her life she would want to relive, Dame Esther said it was one that had not happened yet: "I think I would like to relive this Christmas - the Christmas that I didn't expect to have with my family is going to be so precious."
"And I think that once it's over, I would like to be able to relive it," she said.
In May, Dame Esther announced her lung cancer was in stage four, the most advanced stage, which means the cancer has spread beyond the lungs or from one lung to the other.
She enjoyed a successful TV presenting career which included hosting BBC consumer show That's Life! for 21 years.
She is also known for launching ChildLine in 1986, the first national helpline for children in danger or distress.
In 2013, she launched the Silver Line, a charity to help elderly people suffering from isolation and loneliness.
The Health and Social Care Committee is due to publish its report into assisted dying and assisted suicide in England and Wales, having launched an inquiry in December 2022 to examine different perspectives in the debate. In Scotland, a private member's bill on assisted dying is expected to be debated in the Scottish Parliament next year.
If you are affected by the issues raised in this story and would like to share your experiences, you can email haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67756506
|
news_uk-67756506
|
|
Marvel actor Jonathan Majors guilty of assaulting ex-girlfriend - BBC News
|
2023-12-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Jonathan Majors, known for starring in the Marvel universe, has been dropped by the Marvel studios.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Majors seen arriving at court on Monday
US actor Jonathan Majors has been found guilty of assaulting his then-girlfriend after a trial in New York.
The jury found Majors, known for playing Kang in the Marvel films, attacked British choreographer Grace Jabbari during an altercation in March.
She told the court she was left with a fractured finger, bruising, a cut behind her ear and "excruciating" pain.
Majors, 34, faces up to a year in jail, and has been dropped from starring roles in forthcoming Marvel movies.
The six-person jury's verdict was announced on Monday following three days of deliberations.
As their decision was read in court, Majors pursed his lips and looked downwards but gave no other reaction, according to reporters in court.
Following the verdict, a spokesperson for Marvel said the studio will not be moving forward with Majors on future projects.
The crime took place when the couple were in a car in New York and Ms Jabbari saw a text message from another woman on Majors' phone, which said: "Wish I was kissing you right now."
According to prosecutors, when she took the phone, he then grabbed her, twisted her arm behind her back and hit her in the head to get it back.
"I felt like a hard blow across my head," Ms Jabbari testified.
The jury found him guilty of two of the four domestic violence charges that he was facing.
He was found guilty of assault by recklessly causing physical injury, as well as harassment.
But the jury declined to convict him on charges of aggravated harassment and assault with intent to cause physical harm.
The prosecution painted the assault as the latest escalation in Majors' attempts to "exert control" over his girlfriend through physical and emotional violence. They shared voice recordings and text messages between the former couple with the jury.
"I'm a monster. A horrible man. Not capable of love," the actor sent in a text in September 2022 while threatening to kill himself.
Grace Jabbari, seen during 2021's London Fashion Week, was a movement coach on Ant-Man and the Wasp
In audio from an argument that same month, Majors told her she needed to act more like Coretta Scott King and Michelle Obama, the wives of Martin Luther King and former President Barack Obama.
"I am doing great things, not just for me but for my culture and the world," he said, adding that she would need to "make sacrifices" for him.
Majors did not testify. His lawyer had argued the actor was the victim, and that Ms Jabbari assaulted him in a jealous rage after seeing the text message in the car.
Majors, who also starred in Creed III, countersued her in June, alleging that she was the aggressor, but prosecutors declined to charge her due to a lack of evidence.
Sentencing will be in February. The judge also issued a new protection order, requiring him to have no contact with Ms Jabbari.
She was "gratified to see justice served" by the verdict, her lawyer said, adding that it should serve as an inspiration for other abused women to come forward.
"Ms Jabbari testified publicly and truthfully, even though reliving these traumatic events on the witness stand was obviously painful," lawyer Ross Kramer said in a statement to BBC News.
Majors shown in a court sketch lowering his eyes as the verdict is read
Jurors were shown CCTV footage of the assault
A lawyer for Majors said in a statement that his legal team is "grateful" that the jury notably did not find that he had intended to cause physical injuries to Ms Jabbari.
"Mr Majors is grateful to God, his family, his friends, and his fans for their love and support during these harrowing eight months," said lawyer Priya Chaudhry.
"Mr Majors still has faith in the process and looks forward to fully clearing his name."
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office brought the criminal charges, said after the verdict that the psychological and emotional abuses carried out by the movie star were "far too common across the many intimate partner violence cases we see each and every day".
Ms Jabbari had met Majors two years earlier on the set of Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, where she was a movement coach.
After his arrest, Marvel pushed back until 2026 the release of Avengers: The Kang Dynasty, in which Majors had been due to play the lead villain.
Another film, Magazine Dreams, which had been touted as a possible Oscar contender, also had its release postponed following the allegations.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67727425
|
news_entertainment-arts-67727425
|
|
Healthcare to be improved for trans people - Shona Robison - BBC News
|
2023-12-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Ministers are looking at new ways to improve trans lives instead of pursuing self-ID legislation.
|
Scotland
|
A protest outside Downing Street in January against the UK government's decision to block gender reform in Scotland
The Scottish government is looking at new ways to help transgender people after confirming it will scrap an appeal of the UK government's veto of gender reform.
The Court of Session ruled that the UK government's use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act had been lawful.
Deputy First Minister Shona Robison has told the BBC they will now look at reforming transgender healthcare.
A statement setting out next steps will be made at Holyrood on Wednesday.
Speaking on the Good Morning Scotland programme, Ms Robison defended the Scottish government's handling of the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill, saying they had listened to all of the arguments on the issue.
"It was clearly a polarising debate. Fundamentally at the heart of it was trying to make the lives of trans people just that bit better," she said.
"But we are where we are and what we are determined to do is to look at the other areas of life, the health care system for example. That's the number one ask from the trans community, to make that better for them and those are the areas that we will focus on."
The Scottish Parliament passed legislation making it easier for people to change their legally-recognised sex last year.
It was then blocked by the UK government from becoming law, as they argued that it would have an impact on equality laws across Great Britain.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack previously urged the Scottish government to avoid any further action.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh rejected a Scottish government legal challenge to the veto earlier this month, leading ministers to consider a further appeal to the Supreme Court in London.
Mr Jack claimed such a move would be a waste of taxpayers' money and cost "the thick end of £2m".
The legislation received cross-party support in Holyrood, passing by 86 votes to 39 after a highly-charged debate.
Supporters for the reforms have argued it would make the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) easier and less traumatic for trans people.
Campaigners against the legislation claim the legislation could risk the safety of women and girls in same-sex spaces such as hospital wards and refuges.
Campaigners have held rallies outside the Scottish Parliament about the reforms
Ms Robison, who as social justice secretary led the GRR bill through the Scottish parliament, defended the Scottish government against claims it had not listened to women's concerns.
"I have never said that any of the concerns raised are not truly held and I met with a number of women's organisations and heard their concerns," she said.
"What I set out though is that during the course of the bill I don't think there was any evidence to show that trying to make the lives of trans people that bit better in a way that many other countries across the world have done was going to impact on women and girls.
"I want to try and support the trans community to try to reduce some of the toxicity that we have seen that has made their lives even more difficult and I think by looking and focusing on things like transgender health care and other areas that we can do that," she added.
First Minister Humza Yousaf called the Court of Session ruling a "dark day for devolution" and added the ruling showed that devolution was "fundamentally flawed."
Mr Yousaf decided to proceed with the legal challenge shortly after succeeding Nicola Sturgeon - a passionate supporter of trans rights - as first minister in March.
The issue has proved divisive for the Scottish government, and the other candidates for the party leadership earlier this year - Kate Forbes and Ash Regan - were both opposed to the legislation.
Ms Forbes stated after the Court of Session ruling that the government should not appeal the case any further.
Ross Greer, of the Scottish Greens, said the ruling was "a bitter, bitter disappointment".
He also told BBC Radio Scotland's Drivetime programme that it showed devolution "can be overruled and vetoed by a UK secretary of state from a party that Scotland didn't actually want."
Mr Greer added that he would expect the Scottish government to always act in the best interests of the trans community, a community he said had been "horribly vilified" recently.
It is understood the Scottish government will continue to consider alternative ways forward despite the decision not to appeal.
The Scottish government has been approached for comment.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67761819
|
news_uk-scotland-67761819
|
|
Contrite, shorn of theatrics - Johnson's first day at inquiry - BBC News
|
2023-12-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Boris Johnson mixed contrition with an effort to take on former colleagues who questioned him.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Boris Johnson's evidence was, for the most part, shorn of his usual performative theatrics.
Sitting on the press bench in the hearing room, the contempt in which Mr Johnson was held by many of the families of the bereaved sitting metres away was obvious; sniggers of derision from some of them punctuated his early testimony.
The thrust of Mr Johnson's case - contrition, with hindsight, at his tardiness in clocking the imminent scale of the pandemic in early 2020 - was mixed with his best effort to take on the cavalry of his former colleagues who have questioned his competence and the culture of his Downing Street operation.
Crude WhatsApp exchanges were framed as entirely typical of the style of many on the messaging service; indulging in the "ephemeral, pejorative, hyperbolical" as he put it.
Private, internal anger at his failings was a good thing, he claimed, a "disputatious culture" better than a "quietly acquiescent" one.
Two sentence siblings appeared frequently: "I can't remember" and "I don't know."
Claims to this end may be judged individually plausible.
But their volume stood out.
More on Covid and the Covid Inquiry
The UK's governance structures - the wiring of where power lies and who takes decisions - also featured, and there was a parallel here with what the former health secretary Matt Hancock said last week.
Mr Johnson felt devolution didn't work during the pandemic because mixed messages were sent, depending on where you were in the UK, because devolved governments did different things, at different times, from the government at Westminster.
He suggested the Public Health Act 1984 had a consequence unforeseen at the time of its passing nearly 40 years ago, because the devolution that was to follow meant lots of pandemic powers rested away from Westminster.
What should now happen, he argued, was that this act should be amended to discount pandemics from it.
Some will see this as a self-serving argument for a former prime minister to make, perhaps keen on hoarding power at the centre. Others will insist at a time of emergency clarity is key and it was absent during Covid.
In big picture terms, Mr Johnson sought to remind the inquiry of his central role as a pandemic prime minister; judging trade offs of a colossal nature; confronting a scenario without modern precedent.
The question not asked explicitly but hanging over the inquiry is this: would the UK have coped better had there been a different prime minister?
Mr Johnson will fear evidence is already accumulating to suggest the answer to that is yes.
We have now seen and heard his first stab at trying to take on that hunch.
He is back on Thursday morning to face more questions.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67643903
|
news_uk-politics-67643903
|
|
Boris Johnson to apologise to Covid inquiry but say he got big calls right - BBC News
|
2023-12-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
But the former PM will argue robustly his government got many big pandemic calls right, sources say.
|
UK Politics
|
Boris Johnson has faced weeks of heavy criticism at the inquiry by some of those he worked with most closely
Boris Johnson is expected to apologise to the Covid Inquiry next week and acknowledge the government did not get everything right during the pandemic.
But the former PM will argue robustly that his government got many of the big calls right, people close to him say.
Mr Johnson will talk with pride about the vaccines programme and argue the UK emerged the final lockdown earlier than other comparable economies.
His evidence will follow weeks of heavy criticism of him at the inquiry.
Those around Mr Johnson are letting it be known the broad tenor and scope of the arguments he is expected to make, before what could be up to ten hours of questioning from lawyers.
Mr Johnson's capabilities as a prime minister in a pandemic have been criticised by some of those who worked most closely with him when Covid struck.
More on Covid and the Covid inquiry
His former director of communications, Lee Cain, said the pandemic was the "wrong crisis" for Mr Johnson's "skill set", describing dither and delay.
The former chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, said Mr Johnson was "bamboozled" by scientific data.
And his former chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, has long described the former prime minister as "the trolley" due to his tendency to veer around and constantly change his mind.
So Mr Johnson has some reputation management to do.
Those who have helped prepare him for his appearance before the inquiry - which will happen next Wednesday and Thursday - say he will take on those who have accused him of constantly changing his mind by emphasising the volume of briefings he was receiving, how quickly advice would change and the magnitude of the decisions he had to make.
He will also defend his use of colourful language and phrases, and the adoption of provocative positions in private - saying it helped him get the best out of his advisers and it is not wise for a prime minister to sit in silence when being briefed by experts.
One source said: "Ministers can argue for their briefs, as they should. So a health secretary will argue for public health. A chancellor will argue for the economy.
"But there is only one person in the British system of government that has to arbitrate between the competing arguments and ultimately come to a decision, having made a call on the trade-offs."
The source added: "There is only one guy in this country who can tell you what it is like to be prime minister in a pandemic. And one day there will be another one."
Mr Johnson's written statement, around 200 pages long, has already been submitted to the inquiry.
It is thought the statement barely mentions Mr Cummings.
The former health secretary, Matt Hancock, has revealed in his written statement to the inquiry that "the then prime minister has apologised to me for appointing his chief adviser and for the damage he did to the response to Covid-19".
Mr Hancock regarded Mr Cummings as a "malign actor" who created a toxic culture in Downing Street.
Mr Johnson is expected to say he does not agree with that and that there were always likely to be elements of tension within government, particularly at a time of heightened stress.
He is, though, expected to say that he doesn't condone unreasonable behaviour or language.
Boris Johnson has been advised in his preparations by Brian Altman KC.
At 10:00 GMT on Wednesday, his interrogation by Hugo Keith KC will begin. A country will be watching and waiting: for scrutiny, accountability, and answers.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67597455
|
news_uk-politics-67597455
|
|
I should have twigged Covid threat earlier, admits Boris Johnson - BBC News
|
2023-12-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The former PM tells the pandemic inquiry he initially underestimated the challenge posed by the virus.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Boris Johnson has said he should have "twigged" the seriousness of Covid sooner, conceding earlier action could have been taken against the virus.
Giving evidence to the Covid inquiry, the former prime minister said he had underestimated the "scale and the pace of the challenge" posed.
But he said this was also true of scientists and the "entire Whitehall establishment".
And he insisted ministers did their "level best" in the circumstances.
In the first of two days of testimony, Mr Johnson sought to defend his record in office, which has come in for criticism from other witnesses who have given evidence to the inquiry.
He defended the timing of the first lockdown, saying that modelling had been incorrect and he had been advised not to impose measures too early.
He admitted to a "certain amount of incoherence in our thinking," but added: "Once we decided to act, I think it was pretty fast from flash to bang."
More on Covid and the Covid Inquiry
He began his testimony by saying he was sorry for the "pain and the loss and the suffering" people experienced during the pandemic.
His comments were interrupted by protesters, who were ordered to leave the inquiry room. Some members of bereaved families stood up holding pieces of paper, spelling out the message: "The dead can't hear your apologies."
Mr Johnson has been criticised for being slow to make decisions during the pandemic and being unable to make up his mind about what to do.
Over several hours of questioning by lead inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC he put in a measured performance, which largely lacked the tetchy exchanges seen during his grilling over Partygate by a committee of MPs earlier this year.
But the former prime minister had to take back an accusation that Mr Keith had suggested he "put his feet up" at his official country retreat during the 2020 February half-term, adding he had confused it with comments from someone else.
And he choked up when he described the return of the virus after the first national lockdown, describing 2020 as a "tragic, tragic year".
Mr Johnson defended his overall approach to the pandemic, adding that Covid had required "completely novel" measures and it was his job to "go through the arguments".
He added that people within government had collectively been reluctant to believe worse-case predictions about the impact of the virus, given the experience of previous diseases.
"It would certainly be fair to say of me, the entire Whitehall establishment, scientific community included, that we underestimated the scale and the pace of the challenge," he said.
He added that he was subsequently "rattled" by scenes of chaos in northern Italy in mid-February, when pictures of swamped hospitals hit the world's media.
"We should have collectively twigged much sooner. I should have twigged," he added.
Over more than five hours of testimony, he also:
He added, however, that given what is known now, mass gatherings should have been stopped earlier than they were.
"With hindsight, as a symbol of government earnestness rather than just being guided by the science, we should perhaps have done that," he said.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. "They partied while we all suffered" - bereaved relatives Larry Burn and Amos Waldman
He also defended his decision to keep Matt Hancock as health secretary, despite being urged to sack him by his former adviser Dominic Cummings, telling the inquiry he considered him a "good communicator".
He rejected suggestions that expletive-laden WhatsApp messages between his advisers revealed by the inquiry showed a "toxic" culture in his Downing Street operation.
The language in the messages reflected the "deep anxiety" of people doing their best, he said.
He added it also showed that the people around him were "naturally self-critical, and critical of others," adding that this was "creatively useful" when it came to making decisions.
And he revealed that he had spoken to former civil servant Helen MacNamara, who has previously accused him of failing to tackle "misogynistic language" used about her in a WhatsApp group by Mr Cummings.
"I don't remember seeing it at the time, but I must have seen it because I was on the group," he told the inquiry.
"I have rang Helen MacNamara to apologise to her for not having called it out."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67639813
|
news_uk-politics-67639813
|
|
Big ifs continue to surround UK's Rwanda migrant plan - BBC News
|
2023-12-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Ministers want to make their plan to send asylum seekers to Africa work - but nothing is certain.
|
UK Politics
|
James Cleverly is the third UK home secretary to travel to Rwanda since the scheme's launch
I am writing this in a minibus making its way to Kigali Airport.
Diplomacy comes in many forms. Today it was a day trip to Rwanda.
"The plane is your hotel," said a cheery government official as we stumbled off in a sleepy stupor first thing.
I travelled here on the home secretary's plane as what is known as the broadcast pool reporter - where, in addition to the reports I did for the BBC, I would share my interviews, and our pictures, with ITN and Sky.
James Cleverly had a dozen or so folk in his delegation. Then there were a handful of print journalists.
As I wrote on the way here, Mr Cleverly is the third home secretary to make this journey. Not a single migrant from the UK has yet.
The consistent argument from ministers is that illegal migration poses a colossal, generational challenge.
They add that small boat crossings were increasing hugely, and carrying on as normal wasn't going to be good enough.
So, a novel, eye-catching, controversial idea: sending migrants to Rwanda.
But after multiple courts and an even greater multiple of months, the Supreme Court comprehensively shredded it last month.
Out of that wreck emerges today's treaty, which attempts to address the court's concerns.
But in my questions to the home secretary, both in a news conference and in an interview, he simply could not be certain all of this effort would pay off.
Such has been the political and psychological commitment to this policy from ministers, that abandoning it would have amounted to surrender.
Instead, there has been extra effort to attempt to make it work.
Some might think our scrutiny unfair.
The development of a novel concept is rarely straightforward: Mr Cleverly acknowledged as much today.
And the setbacks of the last 18 months or so, while easy and reasonable to point out, may seem insignificant if the scheme became workable, and if other countries adopted the same model, as some are considering.
But they are big ifs surrounding a policy that has always hauled around a lot of ifs.
And here's another one. What if Labour win the next general election, as many expect they will?
Labour say they will scrap the project: so where does that leave the Rwandans, as they begin the process of ratifying the treaty here, and making profound legal changes to accommodate the views of a court 4,000 miles away?
There will be more moments around this project, that is a given.
What is not is whether migrants will ever make it here.
As I write this last sentence, I can hear the noise of jet engines through an open door - we are about to fly back.
And as we do, the treaty itself has been published.
Scrutiny now turns next to the 43 pages of text.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67630252
|
news_uk-politics-67630252
|
|
Boris Johnson faces two-day grilling at Covid inquiry - BBC News
|
2023-12-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The former prime minister is expected to apologise for mistakes but defend his pandemic record.
|
UK Politics
|
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson will have a chance to defend his handling of the pandemic in two days of questioning at the Covid inquiry.
Mr Johnson is expected to apologise to the inquiry and admit his government made mistakes during the pandemic.
But sources close to Mr Johnson have told the BBC he will argue he got big calls right that saved lives.
The inquiry has seen heavy criticism of Mr Johnson by former colleagues who worked with him when Covid-19 struck.
His ex-director of communications, Lee Cain, said the pandemic was the "wrong crisis" for Mr Johnson's "skill set", describing dither and delay on key decisions.
The former chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, said Mr Johnson was "bamboozled" by scientific data.
And his ex-chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, repeated his past criticisms of his one-time boss, telling the inquiry that everyone called Mr Johnson "the trolley" because of his tendency to veer from one point of view to another.
More on Covid and the Covid Inquiry
But other figures at the centre of the UK's response have defended the former prime minister and his style of government.
Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove disputed claims Mr Johnson was "incapable of making decisions" about lockdowns.
He said Mr Johnson preferred "gladiatorial decision-making" and wanted to see opposing arguments "rehearsed in front of him".
Former health secretary Matt Hancock said Mr Cummings had been attempting to grab power from Mr Johnson and created a "toxic" culture at the heart of government which undermined its pandemic response.
Mr Johnson himself will now have the opportunity to put his version of events on the record at the Covid inquiry.
A spokesman for Mr Johnson said he was looking forward to assisting the inquiry with its important work.
Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK said it hoped to see the ex-prime minister challenged "on clear falsehoods".
Lorelei King, who lost her husband Vince to Covid-19, told the i newspaper she wanted to know "why didn't Mr Johnson move more quickly" to introduce the first lockdown in March 2020.
While Helen Brewer, who lost her mother Dilys, said she wanted to know whether he said "let the bodies pile high". The ex-prime minister has previously denied reports he made the comments when reportedly talking about not wanting a third lockdown.
Mr Johnson's written statement, which is about 200 pages, has already been submitted to the inquiry.
But the former prime minister has not been able to provide the inquiry with any communications from February to June 2020 - a crucial period ahead of and during the first lockdown.
The inquiry has requested the WhatsApp messages as part of its investigations into UK government decision-making on Covid.
On Tuesday, the Times reported that Mr Johnson had not managed to access WhatsApps on an old phone, which he used before May 2021.
Labour shadow cabinet minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said it was "typical and will be deeply disappointing" to bereaved families who "deserve nothing less than full disclosure".
Mr Johnson's spokesman denied the former PM had "deleted any messages" and said the Times report "refers to a technical issue in recovery of material that is for the technical team to address".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67632449
|
news_uk-politics-67632449
|
|
Google loses monopoly case to Fortnite maker Epic Games - BBC News
|
2023-12-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A jury found that the tech giant used illegal strategies to maintain its app store dominance.
|
Business
|
Hundreds of millions of people access gaming apps through Google's Play Store
The maker of popular video game Fortnite has won a US court battle against Google, with a jury deciding that the search giant had operated an illegal monopoly.
Epic Games sued Google in 2020, accusing it of unlawfully making its app store dominant over rivals.
Hundreds of millions of people use the store to install apps for smartphones powered by Google's Android software.
Google said it would challenge the outcome.
"Victory over Google! After four weeks of detailed court testimony, the California jury found against the Google Play monopoly on all counts," Mr Sweeney wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.
He said the court would start considering the issue of compensation in January.
The lawyers for the two companies made their final arguments on Monday in a trial that lasted more than a month.
Jurors unanimously found in favour of Epic on all counts.
Despite the legal defeat, Google is continuing to defend its business model.
"Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform," Wilson White, vice-president of government affairs and public policy at Google, said.
"The trial made clear that we compete fiercely with Apple and its App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices and gaming consoles," he added.
"We will continue to defend the Android business model and remain deeply committed to our users, partners, and the broader Android ecosystem."
The case also challenged transaction fees of up to 30% that Google imposes on Android app developers, and how the tech giant ties together its Play Store and billing service, which means developers must use both to have their apps in the store.
The ruling therefore could give developers more agency over how their apps are distributed and how they make money from them.
Google maintains that its commissions are competitive for the industry, and that it provides added bonuses like reach, transaction security and protections against malware.
But, if the ruling stands, Google may have to allow more app stores onto Android-powered devices and will lose revenue it makes from any in-app purchases.
Epic has its own app store on PC, which offers its own products as well as third-party apps and games.
It is a competitor to Steam, one of the world's largest video game distribution platforms.
Google Play Store is one of the world's largest app stores and competes directly with Apple's App Store.
Android powers roughly 70% of smartphones globally, and according to Epic games, more than 95% of Android apps are distributed through the Play Store.
The store is not as profitable for the tech giant as its search business, but the platform gives Google access to billions of mobile phones and tablets.
Epic said in the lawsuit that Google "suppresses innovation and choice" through a "web of secretive, anti-competitive agreements".
"Over the course of the trial we saw evidence that Google was willing to pay billions of dollars to stifle alternative app stores by paying developers to abandon their own store efforts and direct distribution plans, and offering highly lucrative agreements with device manufacturers in exchange for excluding competing app stores," Epic games said in a statement after the verdict.
Google had countersued for damages against Epic for allegedly violating the company's developer agreement.
The tech giant has faced a number of anti-trust cases, settling similar claims from dating app Match before the Epic trial started.
Epic filed a similar antitrust case against Apple in 2020, but a US judge largely ruled in favour of Apple in 2021.
"The evidence presented in this case demonstrates the urgent need for legislation and regulations that address Apple and Google strangleholds over smartphones," Epic Games said in its statement.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67688720
|
news_business-67688720
|
|
Supreme Court asked to decide if Trump can be prosecuted - BBC News
|
2023-12-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The top court is asked to rule on whether Mr Trump is immune from federal prosecution over the Capitol riot.
|
US & Canada
|
The US Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for crimes he allegedly committed while he was president.
Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing two criminal investigations into Mr Trump, asked the court on Monday for a quick ruling on whether he is immune from federal prosecution.
The top court later agreed to consider his request.
It asked Mr Trump's legal team to file a response by 20 December.
The justices, however, gave no indication of how or when they would ultimately rule.
Mr Trump, 77, is scheduled to stand trial in March on federal charges relating to an alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election results.
But his lawyers have repeatedly argued that former presidents cannot face criminal charges for conduct related to their official responsibilities.
That argument, however, was rejected by a lower court judge earlier this month who ruled the case could go ahead as planned. Mr Trump then said he would appeal that decision.
Mr Smith's rare direct request to America's highest court on Monday was an attempt to leapfrog the lower courts altogether and avoid any delays to the scheduled 4 March trial date.
Mr Smith wrote: "This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution."
He added that Mr Trump's claims of presidential immunity are "profoundly mistaken" and "only this court can definitively resolve them".
The Trump campaign earlier accused Mr Smith of trying "a Hail Mary by racing to the Supreme Court and attempting to bypass the appellate process".
"There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters," a spokesperson said.
Prosecutors rarely seek the top court's intervention before a lower appeals court rules on a matter, and Mr Smith's request reflects the urgency of his case.
If Mr Trump's appeal delays the trial beyond the November 2024 election, it raises the possibility that the former president could return to the White House before his case is fully resolved.
That would lead to a new round of legal complications.
"It is of imperative public importance that respondent's claims of immunity be resolved by this court and that respondent's trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected," Mr Smith wrote.
With only five weeks to go before voting begins in the 2024 Republican primary, Mr Trump is currently polling well ahead of his rivals for the party's nomination.
But he is also facing multiple legal cases, including a second one brought by Mr Smith which accuses him of mishandling classified material after he left office.
If Mr Trump wins back the White House, he would likely be able to pardon himself in the two cases brought by the special counsel and could force two state criminal cases against him to be put on hold.
His indictment in the 2020 election case charges him with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US government.
The special counsel's court filing on Monday follows his previous accusation that Mr Trump is trying to "delay and disrupt" the trial at "every opportunity".
The federal election case has moved fastest of the four criminal cases against Mr Trump and appears likely to be the first one that will go to trial.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67687791
|
news_world-us-canada-67687791
|
|
Covid inquiry: Eat Out To Help Out curbed devastating job losses - PM - BBC News
|
2023-12-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Rishi Sunak defends the scheme and says advisers and ministers had "ample" chances to raise concerns.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Defending Eat Out to Help Out - Rishi Sunak's day at the Covid inquiry
Rishi Sunak has robustly defended his Eat Out To Help Out scheme, implemented in summer 2020, saying it prevented "devastating" job losses.
The scheme encouraged people to attend pubs and restaurants by subsidising meals after lockdown rules were eased.
Mr Sunak said it was introduced after the safe reopening of restaurants.
He dismissed criticism that senior advisers were not consulted, saying they had had "ample opportunity" to raise concerns.
In previous sessions of the inquiry Matt Hancock and Sir Patrick Vallance - the health secretary and the government's chief scientific adviser during the pandemic - have both said they did not know about the Eat Out To Help Out Scheme before it was announced.
The inquiry has also been told that chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty referred to the scheme as "eat out to help out the virus" and Sir Patrick said it was "highly likely" to have fuelled deaths.
However, Mr Sunak - who was chancellor during the pandemic - strongly backed his decision to introduce the scheme.
More on Covid and the Covid Inquiry
He said it was announced on 8 July and came into force at the beginning of August, and that in that period the chief medical officer had identified children returning to school, and winter, as "two significant risk moments".
"He did not mention Eat Out To Help Out," Mr Sunak said.
He also argued it was a "micro policy" introduced along with other safety measures such as table-only service, contactless payments and one-way systems.
"This was a very reasonable, sensible policy intervention to help safeguard those jobs in that safe reopening.
"I didn't believe that it was a risk. I believe it was the right thing to do.
"All the data, all the evidence, all the polling, all the input from those companies suggested that unless we did something, many of those jobs would have been at risk with devastating consequences for those people and their families."
He added that the evidence "conclusively demonstrates that this was in no way, shape or form responsible for a second wave".
Protestors gathered outside the inquiry where Mr Sunak was giving evidence
Rishi Sunak served food at Wagamama as part of a promotional event for Eat Out to Help Out
Mr Sunak was also asked about claims the Treasury had been nicknamed the "pro-death squad" due to its stance on keeping hospitality and retail sectors open.
The prime minister said that wasn't "a fair characterisation", adding that the Treasury had worked "very hard" and "done things to save millions of people's livelihoods".
He argued that the sectors most impacted by the lockdown, such as retail and hospitality, were more likely to employ "the most vulnerable in society" such as those on the lowest incomes.
He said trying to protect jobs in those areas was a "matter of social justice".
The inquiry has also heard criticism about Boris Johnson's leadership style, with advisers saying he had a tendency to change his mind.
However, Mr Sunak defended his former boss, saying his interactions with No 10 "felt fine" and that Mr Johnson was right to "go over the arguments".
He added he was not aware of complaints from advisers about Mr Johnson's approach.
The prime minister began his evidence by saying he was "deeply sorry" to all of those who lost loved ones and family members in the pandemic.
He also offered an apology to "all those who suffered in the various different ways throughout the pandemic as a result of the actions that were taken".
He added it was "important we learn the lessons so we can better prepare in the future".
Speaking after the six-hour hearing, Aamer Anwar, the lead solicitor for the Scottish Covid Bereaved group, said: "Rishi Sunak's one-man mission to torpedo lockdown to gain a competitive advantage resulted in the false economy of sacrificing tens of thousands of lives to save the economy.
"Today the Covid bereaved do not accept his empty words of sorrow."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67681600
|
news_uk-politics-67681600
|
|
Rudy Giuliani must pay more than $148m over false election claims - BBC News
|
2023-12-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Donald Trump's former personal lawyer was sued by ex-poll workers he accused of vote tampering.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Rudy Giuliani says he plans to appeal 'absurd' penalty
Rudy Giuliani, a longtime associate of former President Donald Trump, has been ordered to pay more than $148m (£116m) to two women over false claims they tampered with votes in 2020.
A judge had already found Mr Giuliani liable of making defamatory claims about Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea "Shaye" Moss.
Ms Moss said after the verdict that the past few years had been "devastating".
The verdict came after a four-day trial to determine the penalty.
On Friday, the eight-person jury ordered $20m payments for defamation to be made to each victim.
They were also each awarded over $16m for emotional distress, the jury ruled. Another payment of $75m in punitive damages was ordered to be split between them.
They had originally sought between $15m and $43m in damages from Mr Giuliani, Mr Trump's former personal lawyer.
Addressing reporters outside the court, Mr Giuliani said: "I don't regret a damn thing."
Michael Gottlieb, the lawyer for Ms Freeman and Ms Moss, said during closing arguments on Thursday that Mr Giuliani was "patient zero" of the misinformation.
He said that, during three days of evidence and testimony, the jury had "experienced a sliver of the unspeakable horror that [Ms Freeman and Ms Moss] suffered".
He said a stiff financial penalty was necessary to "send a message" to Mr Giuliani and to "any other powerful figure with a platform".
Mr Giuliani had been expected to testify in his own defence on Thursday, but those plans were abruptly cancelled.
"Honestly, I didn't believe it would do any good," Mr Giuliani said after the verdict on Friday, adding that he planned to appeal the "absurd" penalty.
Mr Giuliani is worth about $50m, according to an estimate by CBS News, the BBC's US partner.
His lawyers earlier urged the jury to be measured as they considered the penalty.
They said that, although the former mayor of New York did spread lies after the 2020 presidential election, he was not as responsible - or as malicious - as lawyers for the two women argued.
In courtroom testimony in Washington DC on Wednesday, Ms Freeman recounted having to flee her home after a group of Trump supporters gathered outside and the FBI told her she was in danger.
The incident happened after Mr Giuliani shared a video of them, which he falsely said showed evidence of ballot tampering.
Ruby Freeman (in front) and her daughter Shaye Moss say they are still rebuilding their lives
"I took it as though they were going to hang me with their ropes on my street," Ms Freeman said. "I was scared. I didn't know if they were coming to kill me."
Ms Freeman said that she was left isolated by Mr Giuliani's actions. Friends and acquaintances grew afraid to be linked to her, she said, and she has felt forced to live a life of seclusion because of lingering fears she will be recognised publicly.
Addressing reporters on Friday, the women said that more lawsuits may be forthcoming for other public figures that had spread lies about them.
"They must be held accountable too," said Ms Freeman.
"Money will not solve all of my problems," she continued. "I can't move home, I will always have to be careful... I miss my home, I miss my neighbours and I miss my name."
The trial in Washington DC was just one of the legal cases Mr Giuliani is facing.
In Georgia, Mr Giuliani faces criminal charges, including making false statements, in an election-subversion case against Mr Trump. Mr Giuliani has pleaded not guilty.
A former business associate is also suing him for $10m over sexual harassment claims.
And according to recent court filings from the Internal Revenue Service, Mr Giuliani owes more than half a million dollars in federal taxes.
In September, Mr Trump reportedly hosted a $100,000-a-plate dinner at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, to raise money for a legal defence fund for Mr Giuliani.
Back in 2018, Mr Giuliani's divorce case heard claims of his lavish spending. His ex-wife, Judith Giuliani, said that in a five-month period he spent nearly a million dollars.
This was said to include $12,012 on cigars, $7,131 on fountain pens, $286,000 on an alleged mistress, $447,938 "for his own enjoyment" and $165,000 on travel.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67723332
|
news_world-us-canada-67723332
|
|
Esther Rantzen: Minister says he is 'not averse' to new assisted dying vote - BBC News
|
2023-12-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Mel Stride says MPs may wish to revisit the topic after Esther Rantzen announces she is joining Dignitas.
|
UK
|
Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride has signalled his support for another parliamentary vote on assisted dying.
He said there was no fresh legislation in the works, but he "would not be averse" to a new Commons debate.
A bill to legalise assisted dying in the UK was defeated in 2015. Another Tory MP, Alicia Kearns, said national discourse had changed since then.
The issue is under discussion after Esther Rantzen announced she had joined the Dignitas assisted dying clinic.
Dame Esther, 83, has stage-four lung cancer and told BBC Radio 4's The Today Podcast on Monday that she planned to "buzz off to Zurich" - where the practice is legal - if her treatment did not work.
Assisted suicide is banned in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. While there is no specific offence of assisted suicide in Scotland, euthanasia is illegal and can be prosecuted as murder or culpable homicide.
Mr Stride, one of 27 Conservative MPs who voted for the 2015 bill, said he thought some MPs could be wondering "whether this should be something we look at again".
"The government has not decided to bring forward legislation," he told the Today programme on Wednesday, "but if Parliament in some form or another decided that it wanted to have a fresh look at this, given it was some years ago that we last did so, that's not something that I would be resistant to."
The minister said he understood both arguments for and against assisted dying.
He said someone should have the "maximum opportunity to have control of the end of their life", but also people must not be allowed to "use any legislation to cajole people into taking these kinds of decisions when it's not really in their best interests".
Dame Esther announced in January that she had been diagnosed with lung cancer
Two other MPs now in Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's cabinet also voted in favour of assisted dying eight years ago - Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer and Andrew Mitchell, the development minister.
MPs voted by 330 to 118 against a change in the law then, but there are now questions around when another vote could take place.
Ms Kearns, who chairs the foreign affairs select committee, said she thought there had been "a fundamental shift in the country, but also in parliament" since 2015.
"The amount of my colleagues who say 'I've reflected, I've changed my views'… I really do think that the national conversation has changed," she told the BBC, adding: "In my opinion, assisted dying is not about ending life, it's about shortening death."
Health Secretary Victoria Atkins would not be drawn on her feelings about the highly sensitive issue. "It has to be a matter for parliament and individual MPs," she said, pointing out that the last vote was on a Private Members' Bill.
Michael Gove, another Tory minister, said he thought it would be "appropriate" for the Commons to "revisit" the issue of assisted dying - but conceded he personally was "not yet persuaded" on the issue.
Meanwhile, shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson agreed that there was an "argument for having a vote".
Speaking on Wednesday, Dame Esther encouraged MPs discussing the topic to think of their own loved ones "maybe who are older, maybe who are unwell, and think how you would wish them to spend their last days and weeks".
"It is agonising to watch someone you love suffer - nobody wants that for their family," she told the PA news agency, following reaction to her BBC interview. "And we live in a day and age when it's perfectly possible to offer people a gentle, peaceful death."
This file photo from 2022 shows protesters from the Dignity in Dying campaign outside Westminster
David Sowry took his wife to Dignitas to help her end her life. Christy had multiple sclerosis (MS), a disease that affects nerves in the brain and spinal cord.
Dignitas is a not-for-profit Swiss organisation that provides physician-assisted dying to members who, in its words, have illnesses "that will lead inevitably to death, unendurable pain or an unendurable disability" and who have made a "reasoned request" with medical proof.
Speaking on the Today programme, Mr Sowry read out a letter that his wife wrote at the time to explain her decision to family and friends.
"My only role in life will soon to be a full-time invalid," she said. "I don't want to be invalid, and therefore I don't want to be."
Mr Sowry said he wanted to see a change in the law to help people with terminal illnesses, and those facing a "long decline", avoid "unbearable suffering".
Others however say the focus should be on improving palliative care options.
Dr John Sorrell, a retired GP, told the BBC that he felt doctors "would find it very hard to end somebody's life, as is the case at Dignitas".
He also raised concerns about new laws being followed properly, saying they could be hard to monitor.
"These are vulnerable people and they can be coerced," Dr Sorrell said, referencing a potential situation where a struggling family puts pressure on a loved one to end their life due to the cost and emotional impact of keeping someone alive.
Dame Esther's own daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, told ITV's Good Morning Britain that she knew it was up to her mother, but she "personally would want to ground her plane if she was going to fly to Zurich".
"I just don't ever want her to go," she said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67770958
|
news_uk-67770958
|
|
Claire Holland: Darren Osment jailed for life for murder of missing ex-partner - BBC News
|
2023-12-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A chef has been jailed for murdering his ex-partner in 2012 and whose body has never been found.
|
Bristol
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
A man has been jailed for murdering his ex-partner whose body has never been found.
Darren Osment was recorded on camera by an undercover police officer confessing to killing the mother-of-four Claire Holland, 32.
The chef, 40, killed her in 2012 during a drunken argument after she left a Bristol city centre pub.
He has been sentenced to life with a minimum term of 20 years in prison.
Osment, 40, admitted killing her in a 999 call in 2019 but later retracted that confession.
Osment was found guilty of murder after a two-month trial
But last week he was found guilty of murder after a two-month trial at Bristol Crown Court.
Sarah Holland, Claire's younger sister, told the sentencing hearing: "It doesn't matter how many years pass, it never gets easier. Not knowing her full whereabouts means we cannot grieve.
"I will never get the chance to tell her I love her. The pain and grief of losing my sister will never leave me."
Claire was last seen alive when leaving Seamus O'Donnell's pub on 6 June, 2012, the weekend of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations.
Despite police appeals and searches, her body was never found.
Michaela Holland, Claire's half sister, addressed Osment during the hearing on behalf of the entire family, saying: "You have made the world feel unsafe for the women in our family.
"Darren, I want you to know you have ruined our family. If you've got it in your heart, tell us where she is."
Darren Osment held up a sign saying "innocent" as he was sent to the cells, after being told he'll serve a minimum of 20 years for murdering Claire Holland.
He fidgeted his way through this hearing, at times mouthing his disagreement with the conclusion of the judge that he killed Claire in a fit of rage during a late night argument about their son, who'd been taken into care.
Around 20 members of Claire Holland's family were in court to see him sentenced, hopefully they may get some answers about Claire's last moments and what Darren Osment did with her body.
Claire's half-sister Michaela Holland told me outside court she was pleased with the sentence but the family is still waiting for those answers.
"It doesn't being her back, we still don't know where she is, we can't lay her to rest, we can't mourn her, she can't rest in peace - that's the worst part," she said.
Judge, The Honourable Mrs Justice Cutts, said statements from Claire's family showed she was "warm and vivacious and deeply loved".
"She was happy and optimistic about the future, a fresh start was ahead. You robbed her of that," she told Osment.
"You left her family in limbo, yet it is clear that you were haunted by what you did.
"I am sure that you killed her yourself. For Claire's family's sake I urge you to stand up to what you've done."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Osment's confession in a call to police in 2019 convinced detectives her disappearance may have a sinister reason behind it, his trial was told.
An investigation found the former chef, of Chessel Drive, Patchway, had confessed to multiple people, including a former girlfriend, her brother, friends, a 999 call handler and a prison inmate.
The trial also heard an undercover police officer was deployed to befriend Osment. This officer recorded his repeated confessions over his former partner's disappearance and death.
In one piece of audio, he said: "She ain't going to be seeing the light of day again, don't worry about that."
The undercover officer also witnessed many examples of Osment's violent temper, particularly when drinking.
Claire Holland was trying to turn her life around at the time of her death, the judge said
After the sentencing, senior investigating officer Det Supt Darren Hannant said: "Osment's continual refusal to be honest about what he did means we're still unable to provide clarity to Claire's family about what happened to her body after he killed her.
"I sincerely hope in time Osment does explain fully what he did because Claire's family and friends need to know.
"Sadly, knowing what we do about Osment, I find it hard to believe he is capable of doing the decent thing.
Follow BBC West on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to: bristol@bbc.co.uk
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-67760586
|
news_uk-england-bristol-67760586
|
|
Laura Kuenssberg: Health Secretary Victoria Atkins could decide Tory party's fate - BBC News
|
2023-12-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Victoria Atkins' performance, when pressure mounts on the NHS, is vital for her party's prospects.
|
UK Politics
|
If you're feeling charitable, you might say things are not going well for the government.
But if you're feeling grumpy - perhaps because every morning you're leaving the warmth of your duvet to shiver in the freezing morning cold - then you might suggest No 10 is bouncing from bungle to bungle.
The bizarre diplomatic row with the Greeks over relatively niche artefacts (which has even piqued the King's interest). The home secretary's hot-mic swearing. Judges kicking out the centrepiece of Sunak's plan to "stop the boats" (more on that later). And as if that wasn't enough, Boris Johnson is getting his arguments in early before his appearance at the Covid inquiry - Rishi Sunak will soon take the stand too.
As the temperature plummets, there is a different risk that might trump all of them: what will happen to the NHS this winter?
Last year, pictures of ambulances queuing for hours outside hospitals became familiar - agonising stories of delays and long, dangerous waits dominated the news.
The Health Secretary, Victoria Atkins, is with us in the studio tomorrow and how she fares in the coming months is absolutely vital for her party's prospects. One of her MP colleagues told me: "I'm not sure she realised it when she took the job, but for a lot of us, whether we win is dependent on her."
Take a look at the broad state of the service and it's not pretty. Nearly 7.8 million people are on the NHS waiting list - a record high. This is partly explained by the pandemic, as government ministers always remind you with some justification.
But check the figures more thoroughly and you can see that many of the numbers - from cancer treatment times to waits for diagnostic tests - were trending the wrong way before Covid-19 hit.
Now, thousands of patients are in hospital not because they are too sick to leave, but because they don't have the help they need to get home. In October 2023, there were between 12,000 and 13,000 patients stuck like this, with the obvious knock-on effects for others needing care. That is roughly the same level as it was at last year, despite promises of action.
There are more than a 100,000 staff vacancies, shortages of NHS dentists and difficulties in getting mental health care. A series of bitter industrial disputes hasn't helped.
Victoria Atkins was appointed Health Secretary in last month's Cabinet reshuffle
It is not, of course, all bad. Every day millions of people receive brilliant life-saving care. The government trumpeted meeting its manifesto promise to hire 50,000 extra nurses this week, and there are amazing advances in some forms of treatment.
But there is acute concern about what is going on in wards, clinics and practices all around the country.
A nurse told me after finishing another long shift this week: "The government are making out they're doing a great job, patting themselves on the back, but nothing could be further than the truth. Patients and their families fill up bays and corridors and every shift is short staffed."
One of our viewers told us they had to wait nine hours to be seen in their local A&E in the North West last week, followed by an even longer wait for a bed on a ward.
Those fears go beyond anecdote and are widely felt, with the NHS often second only to the cost of living among voters' key concerns. One pollster tells me that in every focus group "there is an NHS horror story", alongside frustrations about not being able to see a GP or emergency wards being like "war zones".
The Prime Minister is well aware how important the service is to voters. Labour is well aware how vulnerable the Conservatives might be. In previous elections the party has had to struggle to get it onto the agenda, with their familiar cry of Labour having to "save the NHS". They won't struggle this time.
For whoever has the job after the election, a fundamental, long-term puzzle remains. The NHS has more money and more doctors than ever before. But according to the number crunchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank, it's treating about the same number of patients. In other words, the taxpayer seems to be getting less bang for its many billions of bucks.
NHS England says it's more complicated than that. The figures focus on acute hospital care and only look at the numbers of people treated, it says, not the quality of care. But it does admit there are productivity challenges.
The "productivity problem", as the IFS calls it, is a big deal. The less productive the NHS is, the more the government - and therefore taxpayers - have to spend for the same level of healthcare.
Our population is older and sicker, the health service more and more expensive, taking precedence over other parts of public spending. And just to remind you - as I seem to do every week - none of the big parties have yet come up with a fully worked-out plan for caring for the most elderly and vulnerable. Without that plan, the problems in the health service are much harder to solve.
Most politicians would privately say it's hard to have candid conversations about radical long-term solutions because the public has such affection for the NHS, even when their own experiences might fall far short. But in the next couple of months, with winter coming, and pressure building, longer term discussions are likely to have to wait.
Is Rwanda problem about to return?
P.S. As we talked about last week, the government has a nightmare job on handling migration. Do not underestimate how fractious this is becoming as an issue on the Conservative backbenches. Cabinet ministers deny there is a vicious stand-off over how far the government should be willing to go in new promised laws, in light of a court decision to kick out their plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
One source says there is a perfectly good reason for the delay to what was dramatically described as "emergency legislation" - it can't be sorted out until the revised treaty with Rwanda is concluded.
If that's true, no one seems to have told the backbenchers - and in the vacuum there is furious chatter. Several sources have even suggested to me in the last couple of days there could be real fireworks, potential ministerial resignations, and Rishi Sunak's leadership even questioned. One senior Conservative joked that there is someone who knows how to do the job back in Cabinet and could be a caretaker (yes, they mean the new Lord Cameron).
I stress, all this seems pretty far-fetched, but the fact that even those speculative conversations are happening is a symbol of the deep unease.
What questions would you like to ask Laura's guests on Sunday?
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67600789
|
news_uk-politics-67600789
|
|
Paris Olympics 2024: Locals ask if they're worth the trouble - BBC News
|
2023-12-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Metro tickets will cost more, rentals are soaring and Paris faces months of disruption.
|
Europe
|
It is not hard these days to find Parisians quite happy to curse next year's Games
Are Parisians falling out of love with their own Olympic Games?
That conclusion might seem inescapable after a series of bad news stories over the last couple of weeks.
First the city's own Mayor Anne Hidalgo said out of the blue that transport for next summer's Games would "not be ready in time".
Then it was announced that far from buses and metros being free for competition ticket-holders - as promised in the Paris bid for the Games - fares will actually double for the six weeks of the Olympics and Paralympics.
The police chief revealed that his security plan comprises no less than four separate exclusion zones around each Olympic venue - prompting the head of the hoteliers' union to say it was "so complicated I get a headache just looking at it".
And an Odoxa opinion poll showed that nearly one in two Françiliens - inhabitants of the Paris region - now thought the Games were a "bad thing". The 44% negative rating was double what it was in 2021.
The same poll found that 52% of Françiliens were considering leaving Paris for the duration of the Games. "Perceptions about the Games are reaching alert level," Odoxa reported.
And that's not even counting the row with 230 quayside booksellers or bouquinistes - self-proclaimed guardians of historic Paris - who are resisting attempts to dismantle their boxes for the 26 July opening ceremony.
230 quayside booksellers fear being evicted to make space for the opening ceremony
Certainly it is not hard these days to find Parisians quite happy to curse the Games and all that comes with them.
"On the morning of June 9 I'm voting in the European elections then I'm out of here till September," says Evelyne, 65, encountered by the Place de la Concorde (scene of several events including break-dancing, or as the French felicitously put it, le breaking).
"Paris will be unbearable," she adds. "Impossible to park; impossible to move around; impossible to do anything. Madame Hidalgo has wrecked Paris, and I want no part of the Games."
"How long is it before the police chief simply asks us Parisians to leave the city?" another inhabitant asked on social media.
Of course in any normal year Paris in July and August is already forsaken by a large part of its population, who prefer their second homes in the country or on the coast - that's why the city seems so pleasantly empty to visitors.
But summer 2024 promises more of a clear-out than ever, not least because of the tempting deals being offered on Airbnb and other platforms. Rentals during the Games are up to four times normal rates, and it is hard to find a Parisian who is not at least considering the windfall.
There was always a solid corpus of French people who opposed the Games on the left-wing grounds that they are a colossal waste of money and serve mainly the interests of the multinationals.
To them are now added all those who believe they will also be a monumental inconvenience.
So should the organisers be worried? Probably not. Most of the concerns are either exaggerated or easily resolved. And what Games ever took place without mega-jitters in the months ahead?
Take transport. Mayor Hidalgo certainly set Olympic hearts racing with her dire warnings about lack of preparation.
But context is all. The mayor is in political difficulty. She is also the sworn enemy of both the sports minister and the (conservative) head of the Ile-de-France region, who has responsibility for suburban rail.
As one unnamed Olympic source told Le Parisien newspaper this week: "Anne Hidalgo has always wanted these to be her Games. But it's not her role, nor does she have the budget. So she spends her time sending off these barbs."
So yes, there are worries about whether the extensions to RER E and Metro line 14 (both parts of the 20-year Greater Paris project) will be ready on time. But even if they are not, it will not be the end of the world.
There are worries about whether extensions to Metro line 14 will be ready in time for the Games next summer
"This will be - as promised - the first time in the history of the Games that people will be able to go to all the events on public transport," insists the Ile-de-France transport authority.
The transport ticket price controversy is also unlikely to turn Parisians off the Games - not least because the millions of Parisians who have monthly or yearly passes will be unaffected. The cost of all those extra Olympic buses and trains will be borne mainly by visitors - and who cares about them?
The multiple police perimeters and all the bureaucratic procedures for exemptions are admittedly complicated (and so French!) and people will have to get their heads around them. But they got their heads around the gilets jaunes (yellow-vest) protests and the Covid restrictions, so it's hard to believe they won't manage this time.
And as for the bouquinistes, their argument that the real aim of the authorities is to get rid of them is simply not believable. The bookish antiquarians may be held in public affection, but they are not going to stop the Olympics' first ever fluvial overture.
No, it is hard not to agree with the veteran French athlete and IOC member Guy Drut when he says: "Believe me, the nearer we get to the actual Games, the more of these rows there are going to be."
So expect more moaning from Parisians in the months ahead. And then, a cracking Games.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67564177
|
news_world-europe-67564177
|
|
Boris Johnson to apologise to Covid inquiry but say he got big calls right - BBC News
|
2023-12-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
But the former PM will argue robustly his government got many big pandemic calls right, sources say.
|
UK Politics
|
Boris Johnson has faced weeks of heavy criticism at the inquiry by some of those he worked with most closely
Boris Johnson is expected to apologise to the Covid Inquiry next week and acknowledge the government did not get everything right during the pandemic.
But the former PM will argue robustly that his government got many of the big calls right, people close to him say.
Mr Johnson will talk with pride about the vaccines programme and argue the UK emerged the final lockdown earlier than other comparable economies.
His evidence will follow weeks of heavy criticism of him at the inquiry.
Those around Mr Johnson are letting it be known the broad tenor and scope of the arguments he is expected to make, before what could be up to ten hours of questioning from lawyers.
Mr Johnson's capabilities as a prime minister in a pandemic have been criticised by some of those who worked most closely with him when Covid struck.
More on Covid and the Covid inquiry
His former director of communications, Lee Cain, said the pandemic was the "wrong crisis" for Mr Johnson's "skill set", describing dither and delay.
The former chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, said Mr Johnson was "bamboozled" by scientific data.
And his former chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, has long described the former prime minister as "the trolley" due to his tendency to veer around and constantly change his mind.
So Mr Johnson has some reputation management to do.
Those who have helped prepare him for his appearance before the inquiry - which will happen next Wednesday and Thursday - say he will take on those who have accused him of constantly changing his mind by emphasising the volume of briefings he was receiving, how quickly advice would change and the magnitude of the decisions he had to make.
He will also defend his use of colourful language and phrases, and the adoption of provocative positions in private - saying it helped him get the best out of his advisers and it is not wise for a prime minister to sit in silence when being briefed by experts.
One source said: "Ministers can argue for their briefs, as they should. So a health secretary will argue for public health. A chancellor will argue for the economy.
"But there is only one person in the British system of government that has to arbitrate between the competing arguments and ultimately come to a decision, having made a call on the trade-offs."
The source added: "There is only one guy in this country who can tell you what it is like to be prime minister in a pandemic. And one day there will be another one."
Mr Johnson's written statement, around 200 pages long, has already been submitted to the inquiry.
It is thought the statement barely mentions Mr Cummings.
The former health secretary, Matt Hancock, has revealed in his written statement to the inquiry that "the then prime minister has apologised to me for appointing his chief adviser and for the damage he did to the response to Covid-19".
Mr Hancock regarded Mr Cummings as a "malign actor" who created a toxic culture in Downing Street.
Mr Johnson is expected to say he does not agree with that and that there were always likely to be elements of tension within government, particularly at a time of heightened stress.
He is, though, expected to say that he doesn't condone unreasonable behaviour or language.
Boris Johnson has been advised in his preparations by Brian Altman KC.
At 10:00 GMT on Wednesday, his interrogation by Hugo Keith KC will begin. A country will be watching and waiting: for scrutiny, accountability, and answers.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67597455
|
news_uk-politics-67597455
|
|
Yousaf offers talks with 'next prime minister' Starmer - BBC News
|
2024-01-21
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Scotland's first minister is "very willing" to work with Sir Keir Starmer if Labour win the general election.
|
Scotland politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Humza Yousaf said he is open to working with Labour should they win the general election - subject to certain conditions.
Scotland's First Minister Humza Yousaf has offered to hold talks with Sir Keir Starmer about working together if Labour win the next general election.
The SNP leader said he was "absolutely sure" that his party would win the most seats in Scotland and it was inevitable that Sir Keir would be prime minister.
He said he was "very willing" to work with a Labour government and had invited Sir Keir to Edinburgh.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar described his election plan as bizarre.
Mr Yousaf told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show: "I think there's plenty we can work on.
"There'll be disagreements, the constitution perhaps being the obvious one, but I do think there's plenty of areas we could work on."
When asked about what policy areas they could co-operate on, the SNP leader said Labour should and commit to scrapping the two-child benefit limit.
"In doing so, he would lift 250,000 children out of poverty across the UK, 15,000 children here in Scotland," said Mr Yousaf.
"Let's scrap the bedroom tax, which is keeping too many people in poverty."
The first minister said Sir Keir was "20 to 25% ahead in the polls" and that he "does not need Scotland to win".
He insisted that the only way to "wipe the Tories off the map" in Scotland was for voters to back the SNP.
And he insisted that "support for independence is absolutely rock solid".
Ten years on from the Scottish independence referendum, Laura Kuenssberg asked Mr Yousaf if he accepted another vote was not going to happen any time soon.
The first minister denied that and said: "I want the SNP to win the general election to help to send a really strong message to Westminster that Scotland will not be ignored."
Mr Yousaf, who succeeded Nicola Sturgeon as SNP leader and Scotland's first minister in March 2023, also defended Scotland's "progressive" tax system, despite Conservative claims that many Scots are now paying more than people in the rest of the UK
He said the SNP was asking the top 5% of earners "to pay a little more" so that policies such as free university education and childcare services could be provided.
Mr Yousaf said he believed people "will recognise that we've prioritised public services over tax cuts for the wealthy".
Sir Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar celebrated winning the Rutherglen by-election with new MP Michael Shanks in 2023
The Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, hit back at what he called the SNP's "completely chaotic messaging" on voting in the upcoming election.
Speaking on BBC Scotland's Sunday Show, he said: "They seem to have gone in a matter of weeks from saying you don't need to vote Labour because they can't win in England to now saying you don't need to vote for Labour because they can't lose in England.
"Polls are going to narrow, polls are going to tighten. We could be months away from an election. That's what happens in an election campaign, is that the argument gets more face to face.
"We should always believe we can still lose and we should also always believe that we don't own any voters.
"How bizarre that you have the SNP saying that Scottish votes don't matter. Every Scottish vote matters."
Scottish Conservative party chairman Craig Hoy said: "This was another interview where Humza Yousaf confirmed independence will be page one, line one of the SNP manifesto.
"Instead of pursuing their obsession with breaking up the UK, the SNP should focus on the people's real priorities: growing the economy to help Scotland's ailing public services.
"The first minister once again refused to accept that his high-tax regime is preventing that - despite business groups warning repeatedly that the widening tax gap with the rest of the UK is deeply damaging our competitiveness and risks driving away key workers."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68046866
|
news_uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68046866
|
|
Laura Kuenssberg: Why is Humza Yousaf predicting 'inevitable' Keir Starmer victory? - BBC News
|
2024-01-21
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Polls suggest Humza Yousaf is yet to convince the Scottish public he's an effective leader - could that change?
|
UK Politics
|
Something strange is happening in part of the UK.
Normally, when we ask politicians who they think will win an election they are performatively shy. "Ooh, I couldn't possibly say," or, "You should know far better than to ask before a single vote has been cast, Laura!"
But there is one prominent politician who claims to know the outcome of the upcoming general election. They say it's "inevitable" that Sir Keir Starmer will be the next PM - and they're not even in the Labour Party.
You voters are a volatile bunch and polling suggests swathes of the public are yet to make up their minds. So what is exactly is the First Minister of Scotland, Humza Yousaf, up to when he proclaims so confidently that Starmer will reach Downing Street - and that the Labour leader "doesn't need Scotland" in order to do it?
The great polling guru Sir John Curtice tells me that, as thing stands, Yousaf is technically right. Based on current numbers, Labour does not have to win dozens of seats in Scotland to get back into power. "Frankly the Labour Party at the moment is going to go walkies without needing to do particularly well" with Scottish voters, he says.
Yet at the risk of sounding like a broken record: the election is miles away. Polls are polls, not elections. Nearly all MPs privately believe the polls will narrow when we get to the campaign proper (although this too is not inevitable). Labour needs an epic swing to get a majority even of one, and Scotland's 57 seats might be utterly crucial.
In 2019 the SNP's dominance in Scotland was absolute - the biggest party by miles for the third general election in a row. The SNP took 48 seats while Labour managed only one. Now there is a real fight between them for first place with the possibility, as things stand, they end up with roughly the same number. You read those numbers right: the SNP could lose about half their seats.
What the first minister is really trying to say to voters, according to a senior SNP MP, is: "Don't worry about getting rid of the Tories - that's going to happen anyway."
Yousaf's challenge is to make the SNP relevant in a UK-wide argument about generational change - and to draw voters into thinking about what Sir Keir Starmer, as prime minister, would actually do for Scotland on big issues such as public spending and an independence referendum.
But another SNP MP says there is "anger and dismay" at the argument Yousaf is making to voters, which they describe as "all over the place". You can see and listen to Yousaf try to explain it on the show.
You can also expect the party in the coming days and weeks to try to lure Labour into a fight on their terms, the senior MP says: "I want to see him come north and onto our territory."
Fights about the pitch to the public don't mask the enormous changes that have taken place before our eyes to one of the biggest political forces. The SNP approaches the general election as a completely different outfit to last time around, and that makes the job of convincing voters to stick with them difficult, whatever the message.
Their decline in the polls is partly because voters didn't like seeing the party's divisions and disagreements during its leadership campaign after Nicola Sturgeon quit.
But the position had already changed before those messy few months, because Tory disasters under Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss prompted some softer Scottish unionists to shift to Labour. The Conservative crash under Liz Truss made it look much more likely that Labour could win a majority - and by implication the SNP lost its potential leverage in the event of a hung parliament.
Humza Yousaf, still a relatively new leader, seems to have been unable to catch a break as he grapples with a series of embarrassments that just seem to keep coming.
The police investigation into the party's finances, the arrest of Nicola Sturgeon herself and subsequent release without charge, and a minister in trouble over roaming charges on his work iPad. In the last 24 hours we've seen revelations about government WhatsApps being deleted during the pandemic.
The polls suggest - and his colleagues acknowledge privately - that Yousaf is yet to convince the public he is an effective leader with a compelling argument to make. And without a realistic prospect of another referendum on independence any time soon, the constitutional argument that used to enthuse some voters doesn't galvanise support as it did before.
That said, voters in Scotland are as volatile as in the rest of the UK, and things could change quickly.
One of his backers argues that Yousaf has played "probably the most difficult hand imaginable" about as well as anyone could have. There is no question that he inherited a mess not all of his own making.
But there is little sign of him being able to improve the situation, with a widespread tacit acknowledgement that the party will fall back. One MP even fears the SNP would be better off in opposition at Holyrood to sort itself out, with the chance of independence "put back by a decade by Sturgeon's antics", they fear.
Arguments about the constitution and whether or not to have another independence referendum used to protect the SNP somewhat from judgement on its record. With that fading, voters seem willing to judge the party's achievements - or lack of - more harshly than they did before.
Humza Yousaf wants to make the argument that it is "inevitable" that Keir Starmer will be PM - instead there is widespread belief that it's inevitable the SNP will fall back significantly at the next election, possibly losing its position as the third biggest party at Westminster if the Lib Dems score well. That would be a huge redrawing of the political map.
Yousaf might not like the comparison but as the election draws closer, it's inevitable too that parallels will be drawn between the SNP and the Conservatives. Both have a young, new-ish leader, who inherited a mess, in charge of a party that had been dominant for more than a decade.
With infighting and a patchy record, the hopes of a turnaround fade as the months pass, and the poll that matters at the ballot box approaches. That could describe our PM Rishi Sunak - but right now it could describe Humza Yousaf too.
What questions would you like to ask Humza Yousaf this Sunday?
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68041203
|
news_uk-politics-68041203
|
|
E Jean Carroll trial: Judge threatens to remove Trump from court - BBC News
|
2024-01-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The threat came after the ex-president was overheard criticising his accuser's testimony in court.
|
US & Canada
|
Judge Lewis Kaplan threatened to kick Donald Trump out of court after he was overheard loudly criticising E Jean Carroll's testimony
Donald Trump's lawyers accused E Jean Carroll of courting publicity on Wednesday, as she said her reputation was left "shattered" after accusing him of sexual assault in the 1990s.
The second day of the civil defamation trial featured several fiery exchanges.
At one point, the judge threatened to kick Mr Trump out of court after he was overheard criticising her testimony.
A jury found Mr Trump liable for sexually abusing Ms Carroll last year, but he continues to deny the claim.
He was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, though not for rape, and Ms Carroll was awarded $5m. That trial was based on his 2022 remarks that her story was a "con job" and a "hoax".
The current case focuses on different remarks - which the judge has already ruled were defamatory - that Mr Trump made while he was president in 2019, when he called her allegation "totally false". This second trial will determine additional damages.
But much of Wednesday's proceedings were marked by angry exchanges between Mr Trump and the judge, who threatened to revoke the former president's right to attend trial after a lawyer for Ms Carroll heard him call the case a "witch hunt" and criticise his accuser's memory within earshot of the jury.
"Mr Trump has a right to be present here," Judge Kaplan said, frustration evident in his voice. "That right can be forfeited and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me, and if he disregards court orders."
"Mr Trump," he continued. "I hope I don't have to consider excluding you from the trial. I understand you're probably eager for me to do that."
"I would love it," the former president replied. "I understand you're probably very eager for me to do that because you just can't control yourself in these circumstances," Judge Kaplan barked back.
In all his years of bomb throwing and political attacks, Mr Trump has rarely had to face the subjects of his ire. But on Wednesday, aside from those comments, he was forced to remain silent as Ms Carroll told a jury how he had damaged her reputation.
In 2019, she alleged Mr Trump forced himself on her after a chance encounter decades earlier inside the luxury Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan.
"I am here because Donald Trump assaulted me, and when I wrote about it, he said it never happened," Ms Carroll, 80, said. "He lied, and it shattered my reputation."
After building a 50-year career as a journalist, she told the court: "now I'm known as a liar, a fraud and a whack job".
"I am here to get my reputation back and to stop him from telling lies about me."
E Jean Carroll told the court Trump "lied, and it shattered my reputation"
Lawyers for Ms Carroll displayed a series of death threats, rape threats and insults she says she has received since coming forward.
One message told her to "stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger", while another called her a "Satan worshipping Nazi" - abuse, she said, that left her fearful.
In the light of these safety concerns, Ms Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, asked her client about a photo showing her smiling next to a man in a rubber Trump mask as she walked past Trump Tower in Manhattan.
Ms Carroll said she felt safe there because of the large police presence.
Sitting two rows back with his legal team, Mr Trump listened intently, staring at Ms Carroll and shaking his head at one point.
During cross-examination, his lawyers went on the attack. Alina Habba - Mr Trump's attorney - tried to make the case that Ms Carroll wanted fame, citing her multiple television and podcast appearances to talk about her book and the allegations.
She said Ms Carroll continues to give interviews about the case she won last year. "After all those appearances, you want to gain more publicity don't you?" Ms Habba asked.
Ms Carroll responded that she had her fill of that, adding that she did not like saying Mr Trump's name but interviewers always wanted to ask about him.
Trump attorney Alina Habba clashed repeatedly with the judge on Wednesday
As the court returned for its afternoon session, the tension between Mr Trump, his legal team, and the judge resumed after they asked Mr Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, to recuse himself for "general hostility toward the defence". The motion was denied.
Ms Habba repeatedly clashed with the judge as the day wore on. She asked for the trial to be delayed so Mr Trump could attend his mother-in-law's funeral on Thursday, saying it would be "insanely prejudicial" to have him sit in court.
"The application is denied. I will hear no further argument on it," Judge Kaplan said. "None. Do you understand that word? None."
Though the former president was deposed in the earlier trial, he did not attend in person or testify, both of which he is doing voluntarily in these proceedings. He is expected to take the stand on Monday.
Speaking after court on Wednesday, he fumed at the refusal, calling Judge Kaplan "a nasty man" and a "Trump hating guy".
"It's a disgrace frankly, what's happening. It's a disgrace, [he] happens to be a [President] Clinton appointment, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it."
Mr Trump, who also faces 91 felony charges across four criminal cases this year and is awaiting judgement in a New York civil fraud trial, is currently the Republican frontrunner for president.
On Monday, he scored a landslide victory in the Iowa caucuses, the first of the state-by-state votes in the race to become the Republican party's White House candidate.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68009461
|
news_world-us-canada-68009461
|
|
Chris Mason: Has Rishi Sunak really ruled out a spring election? - BBC News
|
2024-01-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM's curious choice of words suggests he may still be keeping his options open.
|
UK Politics
|
Let's unpack what Rishi Sunak has said about the timing of an election - and what he hasn't.
"My working assumption is we'll have a general election in the second half of this year."
Sixteen words in which the prime minister is, outwardly, saying something.
And yet also saying potentially nothing.
Let's be clear - this is generating news because Mr Sunak has never before been drawn on the timing of the general election, and it is the topic that is obsessing Westminster.
And, for the first time, he has offered an answer.
But he hasn't ruled anything out.
The phrase "working assumption" is a curious one - it tends to be a thing people have about other people's judgements and decisions, not their own.
Remember, up until mid December this year, the timing is in his hands.
He doesn't need to assume anything.
And so what we are seeing here is his power of flirtation.
He has hinted at his current instinct, without committing to a date or ruling anything out.
He will hope - after a blizzard of criticism from opposition parties that he is a scaredy cat - that it will give him at least a bit of space to govern and make arguments, with the "when will the election be?" question perhaps a little less potent.
But the opposition parties will keep up the "squatting in Downing Street" accusation that Sir Keir Starmer made in an interview I did with him earlier.
There will be two thoughts in the prime minister's mind. The Conservatives can govern until January of next year without facing the electorate. Whatever the howls of anger, that is constitutionally legitimate.
If the election is in October or afterwards, Rishi Sunak will have done two years as prime minister - whatever happens on polling day.
Going earlier than that voluntarily surrenders a guarantee of several months in Downing Street, with no guarantee he is re-elected - in fact opinion polls suggesting a high likelihood of defeat.
So the gamble of going early sacrifices something that is otherwise secure - additional months in the job - on the guesswork that going earlier might lead to a better outcome.
The opinion polls would have to shift one heck of a lot, mighty quickly, for the spring to look like a viable option for Rishi Sunak right now.
Going later also taps into a universal bit of human psychology: something might turn up.
Who knows what might happen between now and later in the year, which might change things.
And if something happens sooner?
Well, read those 16 words again. He hasn't ruled anything out.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67883767
|
news_uk-politics-67883767
|
|
Chris Mason: Has Rishi Sunak really ruled out a spring election? - BBC News
|
2024-01-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM's curious choice of words suggests he may still be keeping his options open.
|
UK Politics
|
Let's unpack what Rishi Sunak has said about the timing of an election - and what he hasn't.
"My working assumption is we'll have a general election in the second half of this year."
Sixteen words in which the prime minister is, outwardly, saying something.
And yet also saying potentially nothing.
Let's be clear - this is generating news because Mr Sunak has never before been drawn on the timing of the general election, and it is the topic that is obsessing Westminster.
And, for the first time, he has offered an answer.
But he hasn't ruled anything out.
The phrase "working assumption" is a curious one - it tends to be a thing people have about other people's judgements and decisions, not their own.
Remember, up until mid December this year, the timing is in his hands.
He doesn't need to assume anything.
And so what we are seeing here is his power of flirtation.
He has hinted at his current instinct, without committing to a date or ruling anything out.
He will hope - after a blizzard of criticism from opposition parties that he is a scaredy cat - that it will give him at least a bit of space to govern and make arguments, with the "when will the election be?" question perhaps a little less potent.
But the opposition parties will keep up the "squatting in Downing Street" accusation that Sir Keir Starmer made in an interview I did with him earlier.
There will be two thoughts in the prime minister's mind. The Conservatives can govern until January of next year without facing the electorate. Whatever the howls of anger, that is constitutionally legitimate.
If the election is in October or afterwards, Rishi Sunak will have done two years as prime minister - whatever happens on polling day.
Going earlier than that voluntarily surrenders a guarantee of several months in Downing Street, with no guarantee he is re-elected - in fact opinion polls suggesting a high likelihood of defeat.
So the gamble of going early sacrifices something that is otherwise secure - additional months in the job - on the guesswork that going earlier might lead to a better outcome.
The opinion polls would have to shift one heck of a lot, mighty quickly, for the spring to look like a viable option for Rishi Sunak right now.
Going later also taps into a universal bit of human psychology: something might turn up.
Who knows what might happen between now and later in the year, which might change things.
And if something happens sooner?
Well, read those 16 words again. He hasn't ruled anything out.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67883767
|
news_uk-politics-67883767
|
|
Ghislaine Maxwell appeals against sex trafficking conviction - BBC News
|
2024-01-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Ghislaine Maxwell formally filed her appeal nine days after her conviction for child sex trafficking.
|
US & Canada
|
Ghislaine Maxwell has appealed against her child sex trafficking conviction and the 20-year prison term she was handed by a US judge last month.
Maxwell, 60, was convicted in December of recruiting and trafficking four teenage girls for abuse by her then-boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein.
Epstein took his own life in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting his own trial.
Maxwell's appeal process was expected and will likely last several months.
During her trial, her lawyers argued that she was being scapegoated for Epstein's crimes, calling her friendship with the financier the "biggest mistake of her life".
Judge Alison J Nathan rejected attempts to throw out the case, including after Maxwell's lawyers argued that one juror had failed to inform the court that he had been abused as a child.
She also rejected arguments that Maxwell had not been allowed to prepare adequately for her trial, and that prosecutors had waited too long to bring their case against her.
Pronouncing the sentence in June, Judge Nathan said Maxwell's conduct had been "heinous and predatory" and that she "played a pivotal role" in Epstein's abuse.
As well as jail time, the judge imposed a fine of $750,000 (£610,000).
Her lawyer had asked for a sentence of no more than five years.
It remains unclear on what grounds Maxwell plans to appeal. Her lawyers were not required to give a reason in Thursday's legal filing.
Addressing her victims in the Manhattan courthouse in June, Maxwell said she empathised with them, adding that she hoped her prison sentence would allow the victims "peace and finality".
Maxwell has been in custody since her arrest in July 2020, held mostly at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center.
The case against the British former socialite has been one of the highest-profile since the emergence of the #MeToo movement, which encouraged women to speak out about sexual abuse.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: 'We still want answers from Maxwell'
The crimes of Epstein, who mixed with some of the world's most famous people, were first reported in the media in 2005 and he served prison time in Florida in 2008-09 on a state charge of procuring a minor for prostitution.
Following numerous lawsuits, he was arrested again in 2019 in a federal case in New York.
At least eight women wrote letters to Maxwell's judge during her trial describing how they had suffered.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62088862
|
news_world-us-canada-62088862
|
|
Tory divisions on show as Rwanda crunch votes loom - BBC News
|
2024-01-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
But the government appears relatively confident they can get their plans through the Commons, says BBC's Chris Mason.
|
UK Politics
|
Since the tail end of last week, those agitating for the government to beef up its Rwanda plan, as they see it, have been ratcheting up their public argument.
The former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick has been out and about on the airwaves.
So too was the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
Mrs Braverman also revealed letters she sent to Rishi Sunak last summer as home secretary, urging him to act more radically and more quickly - everything from dreaming up a new plan then, rather than waiting for possible defeat in the Supreme Court, to having migrant processing centres in the Falkland Islands, St Helena and Ascension Island.
In short, the contention of those broadly on the right of the Conservative Party is the government's plan amounts to tepid half measures that are likely doomed.
Enter next two deputy chairmen of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith.
They have both said they will vote for some of the proposed changes, or amendments, being suggested - which have attracted the support of more than 60 Conservative MPs, a sizeable chunk.
If you fancy a wholesome delve into the amendments, you can read them here.
Neither Mr Anderson nor Mr Clarke-Smith are in government - their roles are party ones - but their decision is an intentional act of indiscipline, of public mutiny - and so a challenge to the prime minister's authority.
Will they resign their roles or be sacked?
I wonder if Rishi Sunak might be inclined to draw a distinction between backing a change - which will be defeated in the Commons - and voting against the entire bill, in a vote expected on Wednesday night?
Meanwhile, those broadly on the left of the party privately regard their colleagues on the opposite wing as bonkers.
If you're of a generous disposition, all this points to the Conservative Party as a broad church on this issue.
The less gentle analysis is there is a colossal disagreement.
Not so much on the principle of the idea, but on the instincts and practicalities underpinning making it work.
The government is attempting to find a path through this.
A Number 10 source said: "Before Christmas the prime minister was clear that we would consider any amendments that had a respectable legal argument underpinning it. This is critical to ensure the scheme does not collapse and we can pass the bill through the house."
The source added: "It's incumbent anyone putting down amendments to demonstrate the legal basis for those amendments to ensure the legislation works and we can get flights off as soon as humanly possible."
They point to Rwanda's insistence that any plan is consistent with international law.
They are also pointing to lawyers such as Harry Gillow, who suggests changes might leave the plan entangled with the domestic courts.
But those wanting change counter they have sought legal opinion from John Larkin KC - and that has been set out in a letter from Robert Jenrick, sent privately to Downing Street.
As things stand, the government appears relatively confident they can get their plans through.
But they know how high the stakes are.
Last night, at a meeting of Conservative MPs, the party's elections strategist Issac Levido turned up.
"Let me be clear. Divided parties fail. It's time to get serious."
What could he possibly have been referring to?
We'll find out just how divided the party is in the next few days.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67992258
|
news_uk-politics-67992258
|
|
Lee Anderson: Outspoken MP suspended over Khan comments - BBC News
|
2024-01-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The MP for Ashfield is known for his controversial views but supporters believe he connects with voters.
|
UK Politics
|
Lee Anderson has rarely been out of the headlines since becoming the Conservative Party's deputy chairman just over a year ago.
This week it's his claims that London mayor Sadiq Khan and Labour leaders Sir Keir Starmer are "controlled by Islamists" that resulted in the prime minister slapping down the comments as wrong and kicking him off the Tory benches.
The newly-independent MP for Ashfield was already in the PM's sights last month, when Mr Sunak warned he would fire any frontbenchers who failed to vote with the government on the Rwanda bill.
Instead, Mr Anderson and his former fellow Tory deputy chairman Brendan Clarke-Smith quit their roles ahead of the vote in order to rebel.
The Nottinghamshire politician - who is paid £100,000 a year on top of his MPs' salary for hosting a GB News show - enjoys speaking his mind and upsetting what he sees as the politically correct "woke" establishment.
In an interview conducted a few days before he was given the deputy chair role in February 2023, Mr Anderson expressed his support for bringing back the death penalty - a position not shared by the government.
He was given the nickname "30p Lee" after comments in Parliament when he suggested people needed to learn how to cook and budget "properly".
"We can make a meal for about 30p a day and this is cooking from scratch," he said.
He's also said that poor families were "more resourceful" in the past - and was criticised by the Hope Not Hate campaign for saying he had sympathy with people protesting outside hotels providing refuge for asylum seekers.
But despite his tendency to create media storms, his supporters in the Conservative Party believe the former Labour councillor can connect with so-called "red wall" voters in the Midlands and the north of England in a way that others can't.
Born in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, to a family of coal miners, he followed in the footsteps of his father by working in the area's pits for 10 years after leaving school.
After separating from his partner, he raised his two sons as a single parent on what he described as a "meagre wage".
"I've been that man that has to put five quid in the gas meter on a Sunday night and been watching the meter spin round all week," he told TalkTV in 2022.
He went on to volunteer at a local Citizens Advice centre before working in hostels for homeless care leavers.
His first job in politics was working in the office of local Labour MP Gloria De Piero, serving as a district councillor at the same time.
In February 2018 he was suspended from the council's Labour group after hiring a digger and placing concrete blocks to stop travellers illegally camping in a car park.
A month later he defected to the Tories, saying his former party had been "taken over by the hard-left".
In the 2019 general election the Brexit-supporter stood as the Conservative candidate for Ashfield, winning the seat from Labour.
The constituency was one of many Leave-supporting areas to turn blue in Boris Johnson's landslide victory over Jeremy Corbyn.
However, his successful campaign was not without controversy.
He faced mockery after he appeared to be caught setting up a door knock while out canvassing, accompanied by journalist Michael Crick.
During the visit a microphone picked up Mr Anderson asking a voter not to mention he was his friend during filming.
There was further criticism for comments suggesting "nuisance tenants" living on a council estate should be forced to live in tents and pick vegetables.
Mr Anderson continued to attract attention for his strident views as an MP.
During the Euro 2020 football tournament he criticised the England team for taking the knee in protest at racism and vowed to boycott their matches.
He returned to the theme of budgeting, when he posted a photo on Twitter of one of his staff members to illustrate his argument that nurses on £30,000 a year didn't need to use food banks.
The post, which detailed her monthly spending on rent and travel, provoked a backlash on social media.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Lee Anderson: "There's not this massive use for food banks in this country"
The 57-year-old's appointment as deputy party chairman by Mr Sunak came despite Mr Anderson initially backing his rival Boris Johnson in last year's leadership election.
He's also been critical of the government's approach to tackling illegal immigration.
In December, he wrote that he was "putting my party on notice" over the issue, saying the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats was "making us the laughing stock of the world".
In a joint resignation letter, Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith said they backed rebel amendments to the Rwanda bill "not because we are against the Rwanda legislation but because... we want it to work."
They added "our main wish is to strengthen the legislation. This means that in order to vote for amendments we will therefore need to offer you our resignations from our roles".
The two said they believed when it came to asylum claims "there are far too many who wish to cheat our system" yet provisions in international and domestic law meant deportations could still be blocked under the government's bill.
Many of Mr Anderson's former fellow Tory MPs in the Midlands and north of England love his outspoken style.
They think he reflects the concerns of real voters - the people they want to hold on to at the next general election.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64582994
|
news_uk-politics-64582994
|
|
Caroline Glachan murder: Two men jailed for killing schoolgirl in 1996 - BBC News
|
2024-01-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The body of Caroline Glachan was discovered on a river bank in West Dunbartonshire 27 years ago.
|
Glasgow & West Scotland
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Caroline Glachan's friends have paid tribute to her memory
Two men have been jailed for life for murdering a schoolgirl in West Dunbartonshire more than 27 years ago.
The body of Caroline Glachan, 14, was discovered on the banks of the River Leven in Renton on 25 August 1996.
Robert O'Brien must serve at least 22 years in prison and Andrew Kelly will have to serve at least 18 years before they can apply for parole.
Donna Marie Brand, who was also found guilty of murder, was not in court due to illness and will be sentenced later.
The trio had denied murder but were convicted after a two-week trial at the High Court in Glasgow.
Judge Lord Braid described the killing as "brutal, depraved and above all wicked".
Caroline's mother, Margaret McKeich, said: "This is the day that I've been waiting for for 27 years."
And she added: "It's not going to bring Caroline back but it's justice for her.
"I don't know if closure is the right word but justice has certainly been done."
Robert O'Brien, Andrew Kelly and Donna Marie Brand were found guilty of murder after a two-week trial
The jury was told that Caroline, from Bonhill, had been "infatuated" with O'Brien.
On the night of her murder, she had arranged to meet him at a bridge on the River Leven at around midnight.
She was killed in what prosecutors described as a "horrific and violent attack", suffering at least 10 blows to the head and extensive skull fractures.
The jury heard she may have been alive but was most likely unconscious when she entered the water.
Her body was later discovered by a passer-by, face down in the river.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Lord Braid told Caroline Glachan's killers "you have taken a daughter from a loving mother"
A massive murder investigation was launched, but there was no breakthrough until the case was re-examined by Police Scotland's Major Investigation Team in 2019.
Officers re-interviewed residents of a street in Renton where O'Brien, Kelly and Brand had claimed they spent the night of the murder.
An upstairs neighbour said she had seen four people - including Kelly and his girlfriend, the late Sarah Jane O'Neill - leaving the flat before midnight.
Kelly and O'Neill had been babysitting two boys, and had been joined by O'Brien and his girlfriend Brand.
They took four-year old Archie Wilson and his baby brother Jamie along with them when they went out.
When they returned more than an hour later, the neighbour heard a commotion and an argument.
This discovery enabled officers to corroborate an account given by Archie the day after Caroline was attacked.
Archie had told his mother Betty that he had been at the river and that had seen fighting and Caroline falling into the water.
His evidence proved to be the key to finally convicting O'Brien, 45, and Kelly and Brand, who are both 44.
Passing sentence, Lord Braid said: "You have taken a daughter from a loving mother.
"Mrs McKeich has spoken of the pain that Caroline's death has caused, the void her death has left that will never be filled.
"She has been deprived of seeing the woman that Caroline would have become. No sentence that I pass could possibly make up for what she has lost."
Images of Caroline as a younger child were released by her family after the sentencing
He said O'Brien had been the main perpetrator of the "murderous assault", and that no-one who heard evidence of the injuries he inflicted on Caroline could fail to be sickened.
"Then having assaulted her and left her unconscious, you left her face down in the river," he said.
"While she may have died from the injuries inflicted on her, she died from drowning."
The judge said that while Kelly played a lesser role, he was also involved in inflicting "murderous violence" on the teenager.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Caroline Glachan's best friend says she constantly asks herself 'what if?' following the schoolgirl's murder.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-67959641
|
news_uk-scotland-glasgow-west-67959641
|
|
Kaylin Gillis: Householder guilty of killing woman in driveway wrong turn - BBC News
|
2024-01-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Kaylin Gillis was shot in the neck in New York state when a car she was in pulled up at the wrong address.
|
US & Canada
|
Kaylin Gillis was in the car with three friends when she was killed
A householder has been convicted of murder for shooting a 20-year-old woman as the car she was in took a wrong turn up his driveway in rural New York.
Kaylin Gillis was shot in the neck by Kevin Monahan, 66, on 15 April 2023.
Monahan's lawyers had argued the fatal shot was fired accidentally by a defective shotgun after he tripped on a nail on his porch and dropped it.
He was found guilty of second-degree murder, reckless endangerment and tampering with physical evidence.
Monahan could face life in prison when he is sentenced on 1 March.
The jury in Washington County, New York, took less than two hours to reach its decision on Tuesday.
Friends and family members of Ms Gillis cried and hugged in court as the verdict was delivered.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Ms Gillis was in one of a group of three vehicles that drove down Monahan's long, curving driveway on a Saturday night in the small town of Hebron, about 55 miles (88km) north-east of Albany.
The friends were in an area without mobile phone service and trying to find a party at a different address.
They had realised their mistake and were already turning back when Monahan emerged and fired twice from his 20-gauge shotgun.
He testified last week that he felt his life was threatened and that he fired a warning shot from his weapon.
But he said the second shot, which killed Ms Gillis as she rode in the passenger seat of an SUV driven by her boyfriend, was a misfire that came after he dropped the gun on his porch.
"I didn't mean to shoot the second shot," Monahan testified according to the Greenwich Time newspaper. "The gun went off."
During closing arguments on Tuesday, Assistant District Attorney Christian Morris told jurors that Monahan had "acted out of anger".
"He grabbed his shotgun and intended to make them leave as fast as possible and he didn't care if they were hurt or killed."
Local police had previously said that he had "not shown any remorse" for the killing.
The victim's family said in a previous statement that she had been looking forward to starting college in Florida so she could become a marine biologist.
In a separate case that took place just days after Ms Gillis' death, a householder in the US state of Missouri was charged with shooting 16-year-old Ralph Yarl, who rang the wrong doorbell while picking up his younger brothers.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68077595
|
news_world-us-canada-68077595
|
|
Britain must train citizen army, military chief warns - BBC News
|
2024-01-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
General Sir Patrick Sanders points to threat of Russia as he warns of UK's lack of readiness for war.
|
UK
|
Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on land in the future, the head of the Army has said.
General Sir Patrick Sanders warned that an increase in reserve forces alone "would not be enough".
He highlighted the threat from Russia and pointed to steps being taken by other European nations to put their populations on a "war footing".
He also called for more to be done to equip and modernise the UK's armed forces.
In a speech at an armoured vehicle conference, Gen Sir Patrick was not making an argument for conscription - where people of fighting age are required to enlist in the military - but rather laying the foundations for a voluntary call up if war broke out.
He talked about the need for the UK's "pre-war generation" to prepare for the possibility of war and said that was a "whole-of-nation undertaking".
This is not the first time Gen Sir Patrick has warned of the increasing threat of war and expressed concerns about Britain's lack of readiness.
On Wednesday, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) said Russia's war in Ukraine was about much more than seizing territory, saying it was about defeating our system and way of life.
He has already argued to reverse to recent cuts to the size of the Army. It is now a professional force of around 73,000, compared to around 100,000 in 2010.
In his speech he said Britain needed an army designed to expand rapidly.
"Within the next three years, it must be credible to talk of a British Army of 120,000, folding in our reserve and strategic reserve. But this is not enough," he said, as he also called for more to be done to modernise and equip the armed forces.
"We will not be immune and as the pre-war generation we must similarly prepare - and that is a whole-of-nation undertaking," he said. "Ukraine brutally illustrates that regular armies start wars; citizen armies win them.
"But we've been here before, and workforce alone does not create capability."
He highlighted steps being taken in countries like Sweden and Finland - where the threat of Russia looms closer - to put their nations more on a war footing.
Other senior Nato military commanders have also recently been calling on the alliance to ready itself for a potential conflict.
In response to Gen Sir Patrick speech the UK prime minister's spokesman said hypothetical scenarios of a future potential conflict were not helpful and ruled out any move towards a conscription model for the Army.
One senior Conservative MP told the BBC he did not think Rishi Sunak had fully appreciated the threat posed by Russia.
The MP said that might be because the prime minister when growing up had not experienced the existential threat posed by the old Soviet Union during the Cold War era.
Gen Sir Patrick said the nation could not afford to make the same mistakes of 1914, when it failed to perceive the escalations that led to World War One.
He said over the last 30 years the Army had halved in size, with a 28% reduction in the last 12 years, but added that despite challenges in recruitment applications to join the Army were at the highest level in six years.
Gen Sir Patrick has been a vocal critic of cuts to troop numbers and military spending and will be replaced as CGS in June by General Sir Roly Walker.
He has not been the only one to criticise cuts, with former CGS General Lord Dannatt saying the UK risked a repeat of the 1930s unless it invested more in its armed forces last week.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68086188
|
news_uk-68086188
|
|
I'm acting alone, says Simon Clarke after calling for PM to go - BBC News
|
2024-01-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
But Sir Simon Clarke tells the BBC some other Tory MPs privately agree Rishi Sunak should be removed.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Ex-minister Sir Simon Clarke warns his party is heading for "a shattering defeat"
Ex-minister Sir Simon Clarke has said he was acting on his own when he called for Rishi Sunak to be ousted.
In an interview with the BBC, the Tory MP refused to say who he thought should be PM.
But he warned his party was on course for "a shattering defeat" without a change of leader, adding: "No one likes that guy who's shouting 'iceberg'."
A number of senior Tories have criticised Sir Simon over his calls for Mr Sunak to be removed as PM.
Asked if he was surprised none of his colleagues had publicly backed his argument, Sir Simon said: "I always expected this would be the start of a conversation.
"I've incurred some pretty hostile comments from a number of people... I can take that and I totally respect the strong views that something like this evokes.
"No one likes the guy who's shouting 'iceberg' but I suspect that people will be even less happy if we hit the iceberg. And we are on course to do that."
The MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland told the BBC there were "a range of views" within the party and "some colleagues privately agree with me".
He also hinted that he expected more Tory MPs could join him in calling for a new leader.
"This is a moment of decision and whether that be after the by-elections next month, whether that be after the May local elections, I know there are colleagues who are looking to see whether this tanker is going to turn," he said.
Pressed over who he thought should be prime minister instead of Mr Sunak, Sir Simon said "there are a number of people who could do it", but he said he was not naming any individuals as he did not want to "tarnish anyone".
He added: "I've done this on my own. And I've been really clear that I've done it deliberately on my own so that I don't make anyone else the subject of the sort of criticism that I've incurred."
He denied he was interested in the top job himself, saying he was "aware of my limitations as well as my strengths".
Sir Simon sparked a backlash after warning in an article for the Daily Telegraph that the Tories would be "massacred" at the next general election unless Mr Sunak was replaced as PM.
Former Home Secretary Priti Patel accused him of "engaging in facile and divisive self-indulgence".
Sir David Davis, a former Brexit secretary, said: "The party and the country are sick and tired of MPs putting their own leadership ambitions ahead of the UK's best interests."
No 10 said Sir Simon was entitled to his views but "clearly lots of other Conservative MPs disagree".
The prime minister's press secretary said "on the big issues", such as lowering taxes where it is responsible to do so, "Conservatives support the direction we're going".
With the Conservatives continuing to trail Labour in the polls, many Tory MPs are growing increasingly concerned over their party's prospects.
A general election is expected in the second half of this year, with 28 January 2025 the latest date one could legally be held.
Sir Simon is the second former minister to publicly call for Mr Sunak to resign. Former education minister Dame Andrea Jenkyns submitted a letter of no confidence in the prime minister in November.
To trigger a leadership election, 53 MPs must write to the chairman of the 1922 Committee requesting one.
After serving as chief secretary to the Treasury while Mr Sunak was chancellor, Sir Simon became an enthusiastic supporter of Liz Truss's leadership bid and joined her cabinet as Levelling Up secretary.
A source close to Ms Truss said she "had no idea what Simon Clarke is/was up to and is in no way supportive of what he is saying".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Rishi Sunak is asked by the Labour leader why his own MPs consider him an "obstacle to recovery"
Sir Simon's intervention came after Mr Sunak faced his biggest rebellion since becoming prime minister when 61 Tory MPs voted for changes to his flagship Rwanda bill.
It is not anticipated that two of the most prominent rebels - former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick - are about to join calls for the PM to go.
However, Mr Sunak's critics say discontent with his leadership extends beyond the Rwanda rebels.
During Prime Minister's Questions, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer accused Mr Sunak of "endlessly fighting with his own MPs".
"We have seen this story time and time again with this lot, party first, country second," he said.
"The country forced to endure their division and chaos, the longest episode of EastEnders ever put to film."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68083936
|
news_uk-politics-68083936
|
|
Simon Clarke's call for Rishi Sunak to go sparks backlash - BBC News
|
2024-01-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Several ex-cabinet ministers criticise Sir Simon Clarke, after he says Rishi Sunak should be replaced as PM.
|
UK Politics
|
A senior Tory MP has called for his party to replace Rishi Sunak as prime minister or be "massacred" in the general election.
Writing in the Telegraph, former cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke said the Conservatives had lost "key voters" by failing to be bold on immigration.
But his article was criticised by several other ex-ministers.
Former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel accused Sir Simon of "engaging in facile and divisive self indulgence".
And Sir David Davis, a former Brexit secretary, said: "The party and the country are sick and tired of MPs putting their own leadership ambitions ahead of the UK's best interests."
Lee Anderson, who joined Sir Simon in rebelling over the Rwanda Bill last week, said there was "no chance" of Mr Sunak being removed before the next election.
He urged his colleagues to get behind the PM, telling the Telegraph "our only chance to win the next election is by keeping Rishi in No 10".
Home Secretary James Cleverly said he "could not disagree with [Sir Simon] more on this particular issue".
He argued Mr Sunak was succeeding in his attempts to cut inflation and reduce the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats.
"If we were to do something as foolish as have an internal argument at this stage, all it would do is open the door for Keir Starmer," he said.
Sir Simon denied he was "positioning myself or on behalf of another".
"I am speaking out because the stakes for our country and my party are too high to stay silent," the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland added.
A general election is expected in the second half of this year, with 28 January 2025 the latest date one could legally be held.
Sir Simon is now the second former minister publicly calling for Mr Sunak to resign. Former education minister Dame Andrea Jenkyns submitted a letter of no confidence in the prime minister in November.
After serving as chief secretary to the Treasury while Mr Sunak was chancellor, Sir Simon became an enthusiastic supporter of Liz Truss's leadership bid and joined her cabinet.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Rishi Sunak is asked by the Labour leader why his own MPs consider him an "obstacle to recovery".
A source close to Ms Truss said she "had no idea what Simon Clarke is/was up to and is in no way supportive of what he is saying".
Conservative MPs can only trigger a leadership election if 53 MPs write to the chair of the 1922 Committee requesting one.
In his Telegraph op-ed, Sir Simon said "the Conservative Party under Rishi Sunak once again stands on the opposite, crumbling bank of this widening precipice".
The former levelling up secretary said Tory MPs might be "afraid" of electing a fourth leader in two years but asked: "Which is worse: a week of chaotic headlines in Westminster, or a decade of decline under Keir?"
Sir Simon's comments come after a week of open rebellion against Mr Sunak over his flagship Rwanda Bill, which aims to deter migrants from crossing the Channel in small boats.
Last week 61 Conservative MPs voted to change the bill as it went through Parliament - the biggest rebellion of Mr Sunak's premiership.
In the end their attempts failed and only 11, including Sir Simon, voted against the bill as a whole.
But debate over the legislation exposed ongoing divisions within the party, with two deputy chairmen, Mr Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith, quitting their roles in order to vote for changes.
It is not anticipated that two of the most prominent rebels - former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick - are about to join calls for the PM to go.
However, Mr Sunak's critics say discontent with his leadership extends beyond the Rwanda rebels.
During Prime Minister's Questions, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer accused Mr Sunak of "endlessly fighting with his own MPs".
"We have seen this story time and time again with this lot, party first, country second," he said.
"The country forced to endure their division and chaos, the longest episode of Eastenders ever put to film."
Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper said it was "utterly ludicrous that the Conservative Party is even discussing installing a fourth prime minister without giving voters a say".
Mr Sunak is the third Conservative prime minister since the 2019 election, after MPs deposed both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss in 2022.
There has been a sense of gloom among Conservatives over the past few weeks as Mr Sunak's repeated attempts to gain the upper hand politically have failed to make a dent in their standing, with the party trailing Labour by 18 points in polls.
A general election poll of 14,000 people by YouGov projected Labour was on course for a 120-seat majority as things stand.
If accurate, the poll would mean "more Tory seats being lost than in 1997, the Red Wall being wiped out completely and shocking defeats in historic Tory constituencies like Chichester, Horsham and Banbury," Sir Simon said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68077142
|
news_uk-politics-68077142
|
|
Donald Trump must pay E Jean Carroll $83.3m for defamation - BBC News
|
2024-01-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Ms Carroll calls it a "huge defeat for every bully" but Mr Trump says the verdict is "absolutely ridiculous".
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The BBC's Nada Tawfik explains why Trump must pay $83m to E Jean Carroll
A New York jury has decided Donald Trump should pay $83.3m (£65m) for defaming columnist E Jean Carroll in 2019 while he was US president.
The penalty in the civil trial is made up of $18.3m for compensatory damages and $65m in punitive damages.
Mr Trump was found in a previous civil case to have defamed Ms Carroll and sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.
He vowed to appeal the latest ruling, calling the case a witch hunt and the verdict "absolutely ridiculous".
In the latest trial, the jury was only required to decide how much compensation, if any, should be awarded to Ms Carroll.
The compensatory damages are meant to account for the harm that the jury found his comments had done to her reputation and emotional wellbeing.
The panel also had to come up with a punitive penalty intended to stop Mr Trump from continuing to speak out against her.
It took the jury of seven men and two women less than three hours to reach a verdict on Friday afternoon.
Mr Trump, who looks likely to be the Republican candidate in November's presidential election, also faces four criminal cases for a total of 91 felony counts.
He is the first president in US history to be charged with a crime, but has pleaded not guilty or denied all the charges.
Donald Trump gestures to his supporters as he heads to court on Friday morning
"This is a great victory for every woman who stands up when she's been knocked down, and a huge defeat for every bully who has tried to keep a woman down," Ms Carroll said in a statement after the jury's decision on Friday.
Her attorney, Robbie Kaplan, said in a statement: "Today's verdict proves that the law applies to everyone in our country, even the rich, even the famous, even former presidents."
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, or even that he has ever met Ms Carroll, including on Friday morning.
But following the verdict he refrained from attacking her directly when he slammed the outcome of the case in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.
"I fully disagree with both verdicts," he wrote, "and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party.
"Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!"
E Jean Carroll outside court in Manhattan, New York City, on Friday
A civil trial last year found Mr Trump sexually assaulted Ms Carroll, a magazine columnist, in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the 1990s.
That jury also found him liable for defamation for calling her accusations a lie - and he was ordered to pay her about $5m in damages.
The case that ended on Friday focused on different defamatory comments by Mr Trump in 2019.
Ms Carroll has yet to receive any money from Mr Trump.
The former president has paid a deposit to the court while the appeal process on the first defamation suit plays out, former federal prosecutor Mitch Epner said.
The same rules will apply to these much higher damages, Mr Epner added, where Mr Trump will have to put up an extra $83.3m - in either cash or an appeal bond - as a deposit.
Mr Trump, who abruptly left court earlier in the day with his Secret Service security detail, was not present to hear the verdict.
His departure came moments after Judge Kaplan threatened to jail Mr Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, for continuing to speak after he had told her to be quiet.
"You are on the verge of spending some time in the lockup. Now sit down," he told Ms Habba.
The judge had threatened to eject Mr Trump earlier after he muttered about the case being a "con job" and a "witch hunt" in court. Before the verdict was read, the judge warned: "We will have no outbursts."
During closing arguments earlier on Friday, a lawyer for Ms Carroll told the court her reputation had been severely harmed by the former president's comments denying he sexually assaulted her.
"This case is also about punishing Donald Trump... This trial is about getting him to stop once and for all," she said.
Ms Carroll's attorneys previously told the court that Mr Trump's statements unleashed a torrent of death threats, rape threats, and online vitriol towards her.
Mr Trump's lawyer had argued that he should pay no further damages to Ms Carroll as her claims have "more holes than Swiss cheese".
Ms Habba said that her client was not to blame for the threats that Ms Carroll received.
Earlier in the trial Judge Lewis Kaplan (no relation of the plaintiff's lawyer) advised jurors not to use their real names with each other due to the sensitive nature of the case.
As it concluded, he advised them that they were free to discuss their experience. But he added that in his opinion they should not tell anyone they worked on this case.
Mr Trump has repeatedly claimed the various legal cases he faces are being orchestrated by allies of US President Joe Biden, a Democrat.
As the Republican party's White House frontrunner, Mr Trump looks set for a rematch against Mr Biden in the November 2024 general election.
With reporting by Max Matza and Kayla Epstein
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68109999
|
news_world-us-canada-68109999
|
|
Who is Trump's trial lawyer Alina Habba? - BBC News
|
2024-01-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The 39-year-old former fashion executive is defending Trump's legal - and political - record.
|
US & Canada
|
One of the most striking elements to emerge from Donald Trump's defamation trial has been the frequent clashes between his lawyer, Alina Habba, and the seasoned judge who has at times questioned her understanding of the law.
At 39 years old, Ms Habba has risen from a little-known litigator to representing the former president of the United States in some of his most personally perilous cases.
A New Jersey native, she was born to two Chaldean Catholics who fled persecution in Iraq in the early 1980s.
After graduating from university, she took a job in the fashion industry, working at Marc Jacobs - one of America's premier brands.
She returned to college after several years in the industry, earning her law degree from Widener University, a small school in Pennsylvania, in 2010.
Ms Habba briefly served as a clerk for then-New Jersey Superior Court Judge Eugene Codey Jr, before entering private practice, where she worked for several years before starting her own firm in 2020.
The mother-of-three joined his legal team in 2021 after reportedly meeting him at his country club in Bedminster, New Jersey, where her law firm is also based.
The former president, still seething after his defeat in the 2020 election and facing a mounting pile of lawsuits, plucked her from her relatively small law firm to serve as his most high-profile lawyer.
Since then, Ms Habba has risen to public prominence, emerging as - more than any of the ex-president's other representatives - his most vocal defender.
She quickly earned praise from the billionaire after her work for him led Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos to drop her sexual assault case.
She also represented Mr Trump in his $100m (£79m) lawsuit against the New York Times and his niece Mary Trump, and is currently defending him in the civil fraud case brought by the New York attorney general against him and his children.
At the civil lawsuit brought by E Jean Carroll - who Mr Trump was found to have assaulted in the 1990s - Ms Habba frequently quarrelled with Judge Lewis Kaplan.
The judge went so far as to threaten her with jail time during closing arguments in the case, when she tried to introduce social media tweets that were not already in evidence.
After a fiery back-and-forth, Judge Kaplan warned: "Ms Habba, you are on the verge of spending some time in the lock-up, now sit down".
That was not the first time he reprimanded Ms Habba for failing to correctly introduce evidence, calling a recess at one point and advising her to "refresh your memory about how it is you get a document into evidence".
The judge also repeatedly told her to "sit down" or keep quiet during opposing counsel's arguments, throughout the case, and also admonished her for not getting out of her chair while addressing the court.
He questioned whether she grasped the meaning of "none", as well.
As he denied her request to postpone a court date for Mr Trump to attend the funeral of his mother-in-law, Judge Kaplan informed her he would "hear no further argument on it."
She continued to object until he snapped: "None. Do you understand that word?"
Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer during the Trump administration, told CNN that her "shocking" behaviour in the courtroom was unlikely to help her client's case or earn any points with the judge.
"Embarrassing. That's not the type of lawyering that he's used to seeing and that frustrates him," he said, describing her work as "minor league".
She has clashed with other jurists too, labelling Judge Arthur Engoron - the veteran 74-year-old overseeing Mr Trump's fraud case in New York - "unhinged".
Not that her demeanour has troubled Mr Trump, who lavished her with praise after she managed to get his former fixer, Michael Cohen, to admit he had previously committed perjury on the stand.
Since emerging as his chief legal aide, Ms Habba has been drawn more deeply into Mr Trump's orbit. She has been known to make frequent appearances at his clubs in New Jersey and Florida.
For her birthday in February, she posted a photo of herself seated beside her cake with Mr Trump.
"Starting this year off with amazing patriots at the rally in Texas and the greatest President of all time #45 soon to be #47," Ms Habba wrote on Instagram. "The man golfed, went to Texas, crushed his speech and still made time to make sure I had birthday cake."
She is also a senior advisor for MAGA Inc, the political action committee supporting Mr Trump's re-election. According to ABC News, she has been paid over $3.5m for her work for the group.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68014329
|
news_world-us-canada-68014329
|
|
E Jean Carroll faces off with Trump as $10m defamation trial begins - BBC News
|
2024-01-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Fresh off his victory in Iowa, the former president sits in a New York courtroom with his rape accuser.
|
US & Canada
|
Both former President Donald Trump and E Jean Carroll were in court on Tuesday
The split screen of Donald Trump's re-election campaign and his parade of legal cases was on full display on Tuesday, as the Republican frontrunner, fresh off a victory in the Iowa caucuses, took his seat in yet another New York courtroom to face a multimillion dollar defamation suit.
E Jean Carroll, a columnist who Mr Trump was previously found liable of sexually assaulting in the 1990s, is now seeking damages for defamatory statements he made about her during his presidency.
Seated a few rows behind her, the former president stared intently at the woman he claims he "never met, saw, or touched... and knows absolutely nothing about".
Ms Carroll, for her part, did not appear to look at him. She faced towards the bench for nearly all of the proceedings, allowing Mr Trump only a view of her back.
Unlike his last appearance in a Manhattan court - just last week, in an entirely different case - Mr Trump did not speak in the courtroom. But his restless and attentive posture projected a sense of agitation.
Last May, a different jury trial found Mr Trump had sexually assaulted and defamed Ms Carroll - a decision he hopes to reverse on appeal. The findings of that case are considered relevant here.
This new trial is to determine whether Mr Trump harmed her with specific defamatory statements he made in 2019, and if so, how much money he must pay her in compensation.
Shawn Crowley, one of Ms Carroll's attorneys, said the jury would need to consider "how much money Donald Trump should have to pay for what he's done".
And, she added, "how much money will it take to make him stop".
After Ms Carroll came forward with her allegations of rape, Mr Trump immediately sought to dismiss her claims from the White House.
In June 2019, Mr Trump called her account a "total false accusation" and said "I have no idea who this woman is".
Those statements, her lawyers argue, impugned her reputation and unleashed a torrent of death threats, rape threats, and online vitriol.
Ms Crowley told the court the former president had "unleashed his followers to go after" Carroll "to threaten her life".
She said Mr Trump had used "the world's biggest microphone" to defame and humiliate her client, and "caused her to live every day in fear".
Mr Trump continues to attack her relentlessly on his Truth Social account - even as his earlier statements were ruled defamatory.
As he spent Tuesday morning in court, the official account on Mr Trump's Truth Social platform blasted out more than two dozen posts, calling the case "PURE FICTION".
Alina Habba, Mr Trump's lead attorney, claimed Carroll did not deserve damages, because her accusation of sexual assault had made her famous.
"Evidence will show you her career has prospered and she has been thrust back into the limelight Iike she always has wanted," Ms Habba said.
Mr Trump watched intently as prospective jurors filed one by one into the room, pivoting back and forth in his seat to size up each one as they answered questions from the judge.
His presence in the room during jury selection led to some unusual questions as lawyers and the judge sought to determine whether potential jurors could deliver an impartial verdict.
Questions included whether they had voted in the 2016 and 2020 elections; whether they believed in the QAnon conspiracy theory; whether they belonged to right-wing militia groups; and whether they supported the MeToo movement.
Two people said they believed the 2020 election had been stolen. One woman said she had volunteered for the Biden campaign that year. They were struck from the pool.
Due to intense media and political scrutiny, the jury will remain anonymous. The judge urged jurors to use fake names when talking to each other, and the court will transport them by secure means from undisclosed locations to the courthouse.
By about 15:00 local time (20:00 GMT), nine New York residents officially took their seats in the jury box.
But Mr Trump left the room before his accuser's claims were re-aired by Judge Lewis Kaplan.
In a 2019 New York magazine piece, Ms Carroll, now 80, described a chance encounter with the then-real estate mogul inside a Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in the 1990s.
The pair had bumped into each other while shopping, she said. Mr Trump then allegedly asked her for advice when buying lingerie for another woman and jokingly asked her to model it for him. But once in the changing rooms, Ms Carroll alleged the real estate tycoon lunged at her, pinned her against a wall and assaulted her.
Mr Trump immediately denied the story as "totally false". He has also repeatedly suggested Ms Carroll invented it to sell her memoir.
The May 2023 trial found that Mr Trump did sexually abuse and defame Ms Carroll.
On Tuesday, Judge Kaplan instructed the jury that Mr Trump's June 2019 statements were false, and defamatory, and that he knew they were false or probably false when he made them.
The Republican frontrunner did not attend the first civil trial based on Ms Carroll's claims. For calling her story a "con job" and a "hoax" in 2022, he is already on the hook for $5m (£4m) in damages.
The trial will be brief, but carries the potential for dramatic moments.
Ms Carroll is expected to testify on Wednesday and the case is scheduled to wrap on Thursday. But the judge, Lewis Kaplan, has ruled Mr Trump will be allowed to testify next Monday.
That comes after a bitter dispute between both legal teams over what the former president can say on the stand.
In a stern warning issued last week, the judge wrote: "Mr Trump is precluded from offering any testimony, evidence or argument suggesting or implying that he did not sexually assault Ms Carroll, that she fabricated her account of the assault or that she had any motive to do so."
Ms Carroll's lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan (who is not related to Judge Kaplan), has said that Mr Trump will attempt to "sow chaos" with his testimony.
"There are any number of reasons why Mr Trump might perceive a personal or political benefit from intentionally turning this trial into a circus," she wrote in a memo to Judge Kaplan.
In response, Ms Habba said the former president is "well aware" of the court's ruling and "the strict confines placed on his testimony".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67964678
|
news_world-us-canada-67964678
|
|
Defamation defeat a double-edged sword for Trump - BBC News
|
2024-01-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
An $83m bill is a message to Mr Trump to stop defaming his rape accuser, experts say. But will it work?
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump has framed his legal woes as part of a 'witch hunt' against him by his political opponents
A New York jury has said Donald Trump must pay $83.3m (£65.6m) to E Jean Carroll, a writer he was found to have defamed by denying her allegation of sexual assault. Legal experts say the award is a message to the former president to stop smearing her. But will it work?
Last year Ms Carroll won another civil case in which a separate jury found Mr Trump legally responsible for sexually abusing and defaming her, and awarded her $5m in damages.
The outcome in the first case did nothing to deter the former president in denying Ms Carroll's story, personally attacking the writer and claiming he had never met her.
But after Friday's hefty legal bill, he notably did not denigrate the former Elle columnist in his reaction online, instead calling the case a "Biden Directed Witch Hunt".
Mr Trump - who is currently facing four criminal indictments and could soon have to dish out millions more dollars in a New York civil trial relating to business fraud - has often claimed the cases against him are politically motivated.
In terms of his election campaign, his mounting legal woes have been both a boon and a bane for him, said Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University.
"It's hurt the general population's views of him, but it's fuelled and strengthened his base, and even driven some Republicans on the fence to 'stay loyal' to the cause," Prof Reeher told the BBC.
"Trump has been trying to wear these legal troubles as a badge of honour for his victimisation, and of his commitment to his supporters."
But he added that, while Mr Trump's "witch hunt" framing may benefit him in the ongoing Republican primary contest, how it translates to the general election remains to be seen.
Recent polling has shown Mr Trump locked in a tight race with President Joe Biden, and even edging ahead in some cases, in a prospective rematch of their 2020 race.
That "says as much about Biden and the Democrats as it does about Trump", said Prof Reeher, alluding to the president's weak job approval ratings and concerns about his age.
Even if Mr Trump does genuinely believe he has been wronged by Ms Carroll, and most of his supporters agree, Friday's verdict reflects how nine of his peers, sitting in the jury box, felt about his conduct.
Lawyers for Ms Carroll pointed out throughout the trial that Mr Trump was still defaming her both in and out of court.
In closing arguments, they asked the jurors - seven men and two women - to deliver the kind of penalty that will "make him stop".
E Jean Carroll hugs her team after the verdict was read out
"This is a large sum. This is a very, very large sum," said Dmitriy Shakhnevich, an attorney and professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
"What the jury is saying is this is a wealthy man who's not stopping, and the only way to stop him is to hurt him [financially]."
Of the $83m awarded to Ms Carroll, $65m of it is punitive damages. An award for punitive damages "relies on severity of the conduct", Prof Shakhnevich noted.
Conservative lawyer John Yoo told Fox News: "The whole point of this... is to tell Donald Trump to shut up.
"I can't believe his lawyers haven't succeeded in telling him: campaign for president, make your accusations about a two-tiered justice system, but leave this alone."
And, though the ex-president is signalling his intention to appeal, legal experts told the BBC he is unlikely to win.
The sum of punitive damages "is not so disproportionate to the compensatory damages that it will raise any red flags, and so I would expect that it will stick", RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor at the University of Utah said.
Prof Jones said Mr Trump's online reaction - taking aim at Mr Biden and the legal system, but not reiterating lies about Ms Carroll - may be an early clue that the damages could have some deterrent effect.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said the Republican's "misbehaviour throughout the trial" may have hurt his case.
Prof Tobias argued there was a distinct "lack of respect which Trump exhibited for the judge, the jurors, the opposing counsel, especially Carroll and the civil trial process".
It is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would grant an appeal, he added, because the justices rarely ever review cases involving such civil trials.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Why Trump must pay $83m to E Jean Carroll
Former federal prosecutor Mitch Epner said Mr Trump has avoided having to pay Ms Carroll any money so far by transmitting a deposit to the court while the appeals process plays out.
Mr Epner expects Mr Trump will do the same with these much higher damages - stumping up either cash or an appeal bond as a deposit.
Without that, he added, Ms Carroll could start seizing the former president's personal assets around the country, even putting liens on his real estate.
But after Mr Trump's commanding victories in the first two Republican primary contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is no sign that Friday's verdict will slow his march to the party's presidential nomination.
"The first test will be South Carolina," said Brian Crowley, a long-time political analyst, referring to the Republican primary vote on 24 February.
"With polls showing him well ahead of Nikki Haley, she has an opportunity to use this ruling to push the idea that Trump has too much drama that could cost him the election against Biden."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68114676
|
news_world-us-canada-68114676
|
|
Prince Harry to pay legal costs to Mail on Sunday - BBC News
|
2024-01-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Duke of Sussex faces £48,000 in legal costs after losing part of an ongoing libel battle.
|
UK
|
Prince Harry will have to pay more than £48,000 in legal costs to the publishers of the Mail on Sunday, after losing part of a libel battle.
It follows a failed attempt by his lawyers to strike out part of a defence against a libel claim he is bringing against the newspaper.
The libel claim itself can still go ahead to a trial, to be heard between mid-May and the end of July next year.
The dispute relates to an article about Prince Harry's security arrangements.
The Mail on Sunday article had discussed changes to the prince's publicly funded security that had happened after he had stopped being a working royal and had moved to the United States.
In this long-running libel case, the prince has claimed the story falsely suggested he had "lied" and "cynically" tried to manipulate public opinion.
The headline said the duke had "tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret", but that his "PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute" after the story broke.
The prince's lawyers had sought to throw out Associated Newspapers' defence, arguing it had "no real prospect of success" - but in a ruling last week, the judge rejected this, saying that the case should go forward to a trial.
Mr Justice Nicklin said the newspaper group's argument that this was "honest opinion" had a "real prospect" of successfully defending the case.
He also said there was a real prospect of the newspaper proving its side of a dispute over the timing of when Prince Harry first offered to make a private payment towards the cost of his police protection.
The libel claims will now be decided in a trial, expected to last three to four days.
The costs in this part of the case, £48,447 to be paid this month, will be only a small fraction of the overall legal costs.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67686059
|
news_uk-67686059
|
|
Donald Trump says Colorado ballot ban could unleash 'chaos' - BBC News
|
2024-01-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Donald Trump urges the Supreme Court to put a "swift" end to his ban from some presidential primaries.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump has urged the US Supreme Court to put a "swift and decisive end" to his exclusion from Colorado's presidential primary ballot.
In a court filing on Thursday, Mr Trump said "chaos and bedlam" would be unleashed if other states followed Colorado and banned him from primaries.
Colorado's top court banned Mr Trump in December, accusing him of engaging in insurrection over the Capitol riot.
An identical ruling in Maine was placed on hold by state judges on Wednesday.
The 14th Amendment of the US constitution excludes anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office.
But in his filing on Thursday, Mr Trump's lawyers argued that the provision does not apply to the presidency, writing that the office is not among those listed in the amendment.
"The Court should reverse the Colorado decision because President Trump is not even subject to section 3, as the president is not an 'officer of the United States' under the Constitution," the submission read.
"And even if President Trump were subject to section 3 he did not 'engage in' anything that qualifies as 'insurrection," it added.
The 77-year-old remains the firm frontrunner in the Republican presidential race, and his lawyers argued that his disqualification from the ballot would "disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans".
The filing gives an insight into the arguments Mr Trump's legal team will present when the Supreme Court hears the case on 8 February.
His appeal to the nation's highest court over the Colorado decision means that the nine Supreme Court justices could end up making a hugely consequential judgment on his eligibility to run for the White House.
The Republican primaries in Colorado and Maine are scheduled for 5 March - so-called Super Tuesday - when many states hold their votes to choose party contenders. But postal ballots need to be sent out weeks beforehand, meaning the Supreme Court is under growing pressure to act.
Similar efforts to disqualify Mr Trump in at least 30 other states are underway, his submission claimed. Efforts in Minnesota and Michigan have already failed, while a state court in Washington struck down another bid on Thursday.
The US' top court, which has a conservative majority - with three justices appointed by Donald Trump when he was president - faces a difficult decision in ruling whether to apply the 14th Amendment.
Historically, the provision - approved in 1866 - was intended to prevent the return of Confederate politicians to powerful offices within the US government following the Civil War.
But its application in the modern day has never been tested, and academics have expressed some scepticism whether it can be applied to Mr Trump's case.
"You don't have a clear definition of what insurrection is within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It's not clear. It just uses the word," Prof Robert Tsai of Boston University told the BBC last month.
The other issue with disqualifying Mr Trump on the grounds of engaging in an insurrection is that he has not yet been found guilty of doing so by any court.
But legal experts have previously said the court may take unfavourably to claims that the presidency is not covered by the 14th Amendment, as argued in Mr Trump's submission on Thursday.
"If there's anybody who's an officer of the United States, it's somebody who holds the highest and most powerful office in federal government," Prof Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/68026910
|
news_68026910
|
|
Prince Harry drops libel claim against Mail on Sunday publisher - BBC News
|
2024-01-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Prince Harry withdraws his libel claim over a Mail on Sunday story about his security arrangements.
|
UK
|
Prince Harry has withdrawn his libel claim against the Mail on Sunday publisher, Associated Newspapers says.
The Duke of Sussex, 39, had sued over an article about his publicly-funded security arrangements when visiting the UK after stepping back as a senior royal.
In an article on the Daily Mail website the paper said he had "abandoned his case" hours before a court deadline.
It said the prince would be liable for the publisher's £250,000 legal costs.
The Mail on Sunday article, published in February 2022, had reported on the prince's legal challenge against the Home Office over changes to his publicly-funded security that had happened after he had stopped being a working royal and moved to the United States.
After the claim was dropped, a spokesperson for the Sussexes said the duke was instead focusing on the safety of his family and his legal case against the Home Office.
"His focus remains there, and on the safety of his family, rather than these legal proceedings that give a continued platform to the Mail's false claims all those years ago," they said.
The Daily Mail said the duke could be facing costs of up to £750,000 but the spokesperson for the Sussexes said costs were still to be determined and it was "premature" to speculate.
The now-withdrawn libel case is separate from the prince's claims of unlawful obtaining information against Associated Newspapers, which are due to go to trial.
Prince Harry recently won damages from the Daily Mirror's publisher over phone-hacking claims.
In his long-running libel case against Associated Newspapers, the prince had claimed the story falsely suggested he had "lied" and "cynically" tried to manipulate public opinion.
The headline said the duke had "tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret" and his lawyers argued the article was "an attack on his honesty and integrity".
The publisher contested this claim, arguing the article expressed an "honest opinion" and did not cause "serious harm" to his reputation.
Prior to the case being dropped, a three-day trial had been scheduled to be held between 17 May and 31 July this year.
Last month, Prince Harry lost part of the legal battle after his lawyers failed to persuade a judge to throw out a strand of Associated Newspapers' defence.
Mr Justice Nicklin said the newspaper group's argument that the article was "honest opinion" had a "real prospect" of success.
Prince Harry has been involved in a series of legal cases in recent years, with most still yet to be resolved. They include:
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68034322
|
news_uk-68034322
|
|
Nelson Mandela auction: South Africa seeks to block sale in row over heritage - BBC News
|
2024-01-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The government aims to block the sale of personal items to preserve the anti-apartheid hero's legacy.
|
Africa
|
Items belonging to Nelson Mandela, including some of his trademark shirts, will be on auction in New York if the sale is not blocked
South Africa's government is trying to stop a controversial auction of 70 personal items belonging to anti-apartheid hero Nelson Mandela.
They include a set of hearing aids, an ID card, gifts from world leaders and some of the first democratic president's clothing, such as his statement "Madiba" shirts.
His eldest daughter, Makaziwe Mandela, is auctioning the items in the US.
But the South African government says the items belong to the nation.
Under the country's law, items considered to be of national heritage cannot be taken out of South Africa.
The South African Heritage Resources Agency (Sahra), a government body charged with protecting the country's history and culture, said it had filed an appeal to block the sale.
The appeal has been supported by the sport, arts and culture ministry. Minister Zizi Kodwa said it was was backing the case "for the sake of maintaining the country's rich heritage".
He added that blocking the sale was necessary as Mandela "is integral to South Africa's heritage".
"It is thus important that we preserve the legacy of former President Mandela and ensure that his life's work experiences remain in the country for generations to come."
The government opposed the auction when it was first announced in 2021, arguing that some of the items proposed for sale were national artefacts.
As a result, the initial auction, which had been planned for 2022, was cancelled and a two-year legal battle ensued.
Last month, the High Court in Pretoria finally gave Ms Mandela the go-ahead to sell the items, disputing the government's argument that they were of national heritage.
Mr Kodwa now says the auction should not proceed as Sahra and the culture ministry last month filed a request to appeal against the judgement, citing "the unpermitted export for exhibition or sale" of the items.
The auction is set to begin on 22 January, but it is unclear if the government's appeal will halt it.
The items have already been listed for sale by the New York-based Guernsey's auction house. It says the hearing aids, for example could fetch up to $20,000 (£16,000) and one shirt might sell for up to $70,000.
Ms Mandela has not responded to the government's latest opposition and neither have other members of the Mandela family or the Nelson Mandela Foundation.
She had earlier said that proceeds from the auction will go towards setting up a memorial garden in Mandela's honour, near his burial site.
The planned auction has caused a storm in South Africa with some people saying the government should stop the sale of the "priceless" items.
But others believe that the issue should be left to the discretion of Mandela's family.
Mandela died in 2013 at the age of 95. He led the African National Congress in its struggle against apartheid - a system of legally enforced racism - and spent 27 years in prison.
He became South Africa's first democratically elected president in 1994.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-68031028
|
news_world-africa-68031028
|
|
Chris Mason: Rwanda bill a reminder of Brexit Tory divisions - BBC News
|
2024-01-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
This weekend different groupings of MPs in the party are scrutinising the government's planned new law on Rwanda.
|
UK Politics
|
The prime minister will face the Covid enquiry ahead of the vote on Rwanda legislation
It had been a while since I'd heard mention of a "Star Chamber".
But it is back in the lingo of Westminster.
This weekend different groupings of Conservative MPs are scrutinising the government's planned new law on the Rwanda migrants plan.
It will come to a vote on Tuesday.
It is provoking flashbacks for me of the Brexit years, where deep, wide, passionate and angry arguments within the Conservative Party dominated.
Enter next, a grouping of that era, the Conservative European Research Group.
During the Brexit debates, they sought to ensure ministers remained committed to what they saw as a proper Brexit, leaving all the main structures of the EU and not diluted compromise.
Its chairman, Mark Francois said: "We all agree with the prime minister that we need to stop the boats but the legislation to do this must be assuredly fit for purpose.
"To that end, I spoke with Sir Bill Cash this morning, who confirmed that his Star Chamber Team are already analysing the Rwanda Bill, in detail.
"This may still take a few days to complete but he was confident their findings will be available, at the very latest, prior to the Second Reading debate on Tuesday."
There you have it, the Star Chamber of legal experts chaired by Sir Bill is back.
It will want to test the instincts of the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and the former immigration minister Robert Jenrick who have both concluded the Rwanda Bill is a dud.
The former Home Secretary Suella Braverman thinks the Rwanda legislation is "destined to fail"
Other groupings of different instincts have similar approaches.
A leading member of the so-called One Nation caucus of Conservative MPs told the BBC a decision on whether to vote for, against, or abstain on the Rwanda bill will not be taken until Monday evening's meeting of the group.
However, he described the mood generally as one of "deep concern".
They are taking legal advice from the former Solicitor General Lord Garnier, who told Radio 4's PM programme he'd vote against the bill in the Lords, and that declaring in law that Rwanda was safe was rather like declaring "all dogs are cats".
But here's another twist: These groups are not homogenous and those who appear on their behalf don't represent the views of all of their members.
So where does all this leave Rishi Sunak?
Being at the mercy of clumps of your own backbenchers is never a comfortable place for any prime minister to be in.
Plenty of Tory MPs now think it is entirely possible a sufficient number of their colleagues will register a loss of confidence in Mr Sunak that he faces a vote of confidence.
In all likelihood he would win such a vote, but it even happening would be crippling to his authority.
Let's be clear: It may well not happen.
But a range of folk with a deep knowledge of the parliamentary party think it could.
Oh and one final thought.
Before that moment on Tuesday, Mr Sunak has another big moment on Monday: Appearing at the Covid inquiry.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67656496
|
news_uk-politics-67656496
|
|
Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president - BBC News
|
2024-01-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Lawsuits nationwide are seeking to disqualify Mr Trump, arguing that he engaged in insurrection.
|
US & Canada
|
The US Supreme Court says it will hear a historic case to determine whether Donald Trump can run for president.
The justices agreed to take up Mr Trump's appeal against a decision by Colorado to remove him from the 2024 ballot in that state.
The case will be heard in February and the ruling will apply nationwide.
Lawsuits in a number of states are seeking to disqualify Mr Trump, arguing that he engaged in insurrection during the US Capitol riot three years ago.
The legal challenges hinge on whether a Civil War-era constitutional amendment renders Mr Trump ineligible to stand as a candidate.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear Mr Trump's appeal came after attorneys general from 27 states filed a brief asking the court to reject Colorado's ruling.
In it, they argue that removing Mr Trump from the ballot would "create widespread chaos".
"Most obviously, it casts confusion into an election cycle that is just weeks away," reads the submission.
"Beyond that, it upsets the respective roles of the Congress, the States, and the courts."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Trump says indictments are "badge of honour" at campaign event following his removal from Colorado ballot
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office, but the former president's lawyers argue it does not apply to the president.
His lawyers have argued: "The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide."
Mr Trump has also appealed against a decision by electoral officials in Maine to remove him from the ballot.
Following the Supreme Court's announcement on Friday, Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold said she had certified the state's ballots for the upcoming presidential primary elections and that Mr Trump's name was on them.
The primary ballots, held in each state, will help to determine which presidential candidates run in November's election.
Colorado's is set for the beginning of March - soon after the Supreme Court decision on Mr Trump's case is expected.
"The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case, and Donald Trump will appear on the ballot as a result," Ms Griswold said in a statement.
The split 4-3 decision by Colorado's high court last month marks the first time in US history that the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot.
This is the first time the Supreme Court will consider how to interpret the clause.
Mr Trump is the current Republican front-runner for a likely rematch against President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in this November's election.
Courts in Minnesota and Michigan have dismissed attempts to disqualify Mr Trump. Other cases, including in Oregon, are pending.
The US Supreme Court has a conservative majority - with three justices appointed by Mr Trump when he was president.
But they overwhelmingly ruled against him in his lawsuits challenging his defeat to Mr Biden in 2020.
The court on Friday agreed to take up the case in an expedited manner, with oral arguments scheduled for 8 February.
Mr Trump's legal team is due to file their opening brief by 18 January.
The group arguing for Mr Trump's disqualification must submit its argument by 31 January.
The involvement of the top US court has drawn comparisons to the 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore, which ended in a lawsuit at the Supreme Court.
The conservative-majority court's decision to halt Florida's vote recount essentially handed victory to Mr Bush.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Maine's top election official explains why she removed Trump from ballot
University of Richmond Professor Cart Tobias says the "exceptionally fast track" was "predictable and necessitated by the growing number of cases being filed in various states around the country".
With state primary elections fast approaching, there is a "compelling need for election officials in many states to prepare" and also they "need for time to plan and execute smooth voting processes on short notice".
Cases at the Supreme Court normally take between four and 12 months - in contrast with the few weeks that justices have currently scheduled.
The timeline makes it likely that the court will issue a ruling ahead of the Super Tuesday primary election in March, when Colorado and many other states hold their election to decide on each party's candidate for president.
On the day of the US Capitol riot, supporters of Mr Trump stormed Congress as lawmakers were certifying Mr Biden's election victory.
That day the then-president held a rally outside the White House where he repeated false claims of mass election fraud as he urged protesters to "fight like hell", but also to march "peacefully" to the Capitol.
Mr Trump's critics argue that he should be disqualified not only for his actions during the riot, but for his and his campaign's efforts to overturn the election result in Republican-aligned states that he lost.
While Mr Trump's alleged efforts to subvert the outcome of the 2020 presidential election are the focus of trials in federal court and a state court in Georgia, he has not been criminally charged with inciting insurrection in either case.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67899435
|
news_world-us-canada-67899435
|
|
Rishi Sunak facing major Tory revolt over Rwanda bill - BBC News
|
2024-01-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Over 30 backbenchers insist the PM's law will fail to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda unless it is changed.
|
UK Politics
|
Rishi Sunak is facing a significant rebellion from Tory MPs over legislation to revive his plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Over 30 backbenchers on the right of the party are backing plans to change the bill next week to make it harder for people to appeal deportation.
The amendments underline the scale of Tory division over the policy, which the PM has made a priority.
Ministers insist the bill allows only a "vanishingly small" number of appeals.
Those backing the amendments include former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith and a clutch of former cabinet ministers, including former home secretary Suella Braverman.
Ex-migration minister Robert Jenrick, who resigned over the draft law last month and is a leading rebel, said the current bill would fail to prevent a "merry-go-round" of individual appeals.
The Rwanda policy dominated Prime Minister's Questions, with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer arguing the prime minister had been "taken hostage by his own party".
He added that reports over the weekend that he had doubts about the policy when he was chancellor showed Mr Sunak had been "caught red handed".
"He knows the Rwanda gimmick won't work - but he can't be honest about it because he's too scared of his own MPs," he added.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Starmer says Sunak originally was against Rwanda plan
In reply, the prime minister said the government would deliver on its promise to halt migrants crossing the Channel in small boats.
Mr Sunak said Labour had not put forward a "single practical idea" to reduce illegal migration, and "can never be trusted to stop the boats".
The government introduced the bill last month, after its plan to send asylum seekers to the east African country was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.
The legislation seeks to declare in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country to send refugees to - thereby stopping flights being grounded on legal grounds.
Ministers could ignore emergency orders from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to suspend a flight to Rwanda while an individual legal case was being heard.
But rebels insist it will still allow the policy to be derailed by a wave of individual appeals, and want to tighten the circumstances in which they would be allowed.
They also want to make it the default position that ministers would ignore injunctions from the ECHR blocking flights.
The amendments are destined to fail at the vote next Tuesday as they will struggle to attract the required support from Labour MPs to overturn the government's majority.
However, the rebels could put the government's bill in jeopardy if they vote it down at a later stage if it remains unamended.
A group of 29 MPs would be big enough to overturn Mr Sunak's 56-seat majority, if they were to vote with Labour, which opposes the Rwanda policy.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Jenrick did not rule out voting the whole bill down if their proposed changes were not successful.
However, he added he was "not looking ahead to that" and the rebels were hoping to "win the argument".
He said the current version of the bill was "guaranteed to fail" because it would not provide a "sustainable deterrent" to people crossing the Channel to claim asylum.
He added that appeals to deportations should only be allowed in a limited number of cases, such as for women who are pregnant and those unfit to fly.
Tory rebels had threatened to vote against the bill before Christmas - but in the end they only abstained, meaning passed its initial parliamentary stage fairly comfortably.
Ministers could make concessions to the rebels in order to win them round, but it is thought this is unlikely to happen until the bill reaches its final stages in Parliament.
And the government is also facing pressure from Tory MPs on the more liberal One Nation wing of the party, who insist the bill cannot be tightened further without breaching international law.
The Rwandan government has also threatened to pull out of the scheme if it does not comply with international obligations.
Downing Street said Mr Sunak would consider amendments put forward by Tory MPs, and "engagements" were taking place with backbenchers.
However, his spokesperson told reporters the government would not accept any changes that could "jeopardise" the UK's deal with Rwanda.
"We need a bill with a respectable legal argument and one which does not collapse the scheme," they added.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67930783
|
news_uk-politics-67930783
|
|
Trump hearing: Judges sound sceptical of Trump's immunity defence - BBC News
|
2024-01-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The justice department called the ex-president's claim of total immunity from prosecution "frightening".
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Trump: 'As a president, you have to have immunity'
Appeal court judges have sharply questioned Donald Trump's argument that former presidents should be entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution.
In a landmark case, Mr Trump's lawyers said his time in office protects him from charges connected to his alleged effort to overturn the 2020 election.
But the justice department argued the presidency was not above the law.
Mr Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, left the Iowa campaign trail to attend.
On Tuesday, his motorcade entered and left the Washington DC courthouse through a rear garage. Mr Trump sat silently with his attorneys during the 75-minute hearing.
Speaking afterwards from the Waldorf-Astoria hotel - which was until recently a Trump hotel - he said his side was "doing very well" in the case and maintained he was facing political persecution from the Biden administration.
The Republican is accused by special counsel Jack Smith of trying to overturn Democratic President Joe Biden's election victory in 2020.
Mr Trump, 77, says he should not face criminal charges because he was acting as president at the time. He has for years cited presidential immunity while battling civil and criminal cases.
Whichever way the appeals judges rule, the case is widely expected to end up at the US Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority.
The case could have a profound effect on the future of the American presidency and what is allowable by an individual who holds the office.
It may also delay Mr Trump's criminal trial for weeks, if not months, during a 2024 political campaign in which the former real estate mogul is a leading contender.
Mr Trump said after the hearing that his side was "doing very well"
As soon as the case began, the three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - Karen Henderson, J Michelle Childs and Florence Pan - asked probing questions about the implications of their decision.
Judge Pan, a Biden appointee, sounded particularly sceptical. She asked Mr Trump's attorney, Dean John Sauer, whether he would contend that a president could sell presidential pardons and state secrets, or order Navy SEALs - the elite US special forces - to assassinate a political rival, without being concerned about criminal prosecution.
Mr Sauer's argument boiled down to the idea that a president who is not convicted for impeachment by Congress cannot be subject to criminal proceedings. Mr Trump, he noted, was impeached by the House of Representatives, but never convicted by the Senate.
However, James Pearce, the government's attorney, said such a precedent could easily be short-circuited and undermine Congress and any potential criminal proceedings. All a sitting president would have to do is resign before the legislature is able to begin impeachment proceedings to avoid prosecution, he said.
"What kind of world are we living in if... a president orders his SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment - not a criminal act," he said.
"A president sells a pardon, resigns or is not impeached? Not a crime," Mr Pearce added. "I think that is an extraordinarily frightening future."
Mr Sauer contended that prosecuting a president for his actions in office could paralyse government, particularly the executive branch. He said authorising "the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora's Box from which the nation may never recover".
He posed the hypotheticals that George W Bush could be prosecuted for "giving false information to Congress" to make the case for the invasion of Iraq, and that Barack Obama could face charges "for allegedly authorising drone strikes targeting US citizens located abroad".
While the judges seemed open to the government's arguments, they also expressed concern that a broad ruling against Mr Trump's immunity claim could "open the floodgates" to "tit-for-tat" prosecutions.
The answer may not be immediately clear, however.
The decision on Mr Trump's appeal will determine how one of the most high-profile trials in the US will proceed. It could also have major implications for the office of the presidency.
The immunity defence has already been rejected by US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan. In December, she ruled that having served as president does not entitle one to a "lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass".
In legal filings ahead of this hearing, Mr Smith, the special counsel, warned that a failure to allow Mr Trump to be prosecuted "threatens to license presidents to commit crimes to remain in office".
In a fundraising email on Wednesday, Mr Trump said President Biden and Mr Smith were "attempting to strip" him of his rights.
A poll by CBS News suggests most Americans believe Mr Trump should not be protected from prosecution for actions he took while president.
The criminal trial in this election fraud case is scheduled for 4 March, but is on hold pending a ruling on the immunity claim.
The trio of judges on the DC appeals court comprise two appointed by Democratic presidents and one by a Republican.
Legal observers saw long odds for Mr Trump in this appeal.
"I think it's fairly certain that the three-judge panel is probably going to rule against him on this particular issue," said Hans von Spakovsky, legal analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
He expected Mr Trump to appeal to the highest court in the land in the event of a loss.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67920129
|
news_world-us-canada-67920129
|
|
Donald Trump must pay E Jean Carroll $83.3m for defamation - BBC News
|
2024-01-26
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Ms Carroll calls it a "huge defeat for every bully" but Mr Trump says the verdict is "absolutely ridiculous".
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The BBC's Nada Tawfik explains why Trump must pay $83m to E Jean Carroll
A New York jury has decided Donald Trump should pay $83.3m (£65m) for defaming columnist E Jean Carroll in 2019 while he was US president.
The penalty in the civil trial is made up of $18.3m for compensatory damages and $65m in punitive damages.
Mr Trump was found in a previous civil case to have defamed Ms Carroll and sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.
He vowed to appeal the latest ruling, calling the case a witch hunt and the verdict "absolutely ridiculous".
In the latest trial, the jury was only required to decide how much compensation, if any, should be awarded to Ms Carroll.
The compensatory damages are meant to account for the harm that the jury found his comments had done to her reputation and emotional wellbeing.
The panel also had to come up with a punitive penalty intended to stop Mr Trump from continuing to speak out against her.
It took the jury of seven men and two women less than three hours to reach a verdict on Friday afternoon.
Mr Trump, who looks likely to be the Republican candidate in November's presidential election, also faces four criminal cases for a total of 91 felony counts.
He is the first president in US history to be charged with a crime, but has pleaded not guilty or denied all the charges.
Donald Trump gestures to his supporters as he heads to court on Friday morning
"This is a great victory for every woman who stands up when she's been knocked down, and a huge defeat for every bully who has tried to keep a woman down," Ms Carroll said in a statement after the jury's decision on Friday.
Her attorney, Robbie Kaplan, said in a statement: "Today's verdict proves that the law applies to everyone in our country, even the rich, even the famous, even former presidents."
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, or even that he has ever met Ms Carroll, including on Friday morning.
But following the verdict he refrained from attacking her directly when he slammed the outcome of the case in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.
"I fully disagree with both verdicts," he wrote, "and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party.
"Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!"
E Jean Carroll outside court in Manhattan, New York City, on Friday
A civil trial last year found Mr Trump sexually assaulted Ms Carroll, a magazine columnist, in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the 1990s.
That jury also found him liable for defamation for calling her accusations a lie - and he was ordered to pay her about $5m in damages.
The case that ended on Friday focused on different defamatory comments by Mr Trump in 2019.
Ms Carroll has yet to receive any money from Mr Trump.
The former president has paid a deposit to the court while the appeal process on the first defamation suit plays out, former federal prosecutor Mitch Epner said.
The same rules will apply to these much higher damages, Mr Epner added, where Mr Trump will have to put up an extra $83.3m - in either cash or an appeal bond - as a deposit.
Mr Trump, who abruptly left court earlier in the day with his Secret Service security detail, was not present to hear the verdict.
His departure came moments after Judge Kaplan threatened to jail Mr Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, for continuing to speak after he had told her to be quiet.
"You are on the verge of spending some time in the lockup. Now sit down," he told Ms Habba.
The judge had threatened to eject Mr Trump earlier after he muttered about the case being a "con job" and a "witch hunt" in court. Before the verdict was read, the judge warned: "We will have no outbursts."
During closing arguments earlier on Friday, a lawyer for Ms Carroll told the court her reputation had been severely harmed by the former president's comments denying he sexually assaulted her.
"This case is also about punishing Donald Trump... This trial is about getting him to stop once and for all," she said.
Ms Carroll's attorneys previously told the court that Mr Trump's statements unleashed a torrent of death threats, rape threats, and online vitriol towards her.
Mr Trump's lawyer had argued that he should pay no further damages to Ms Carroll as her claims have "more holes than Swiss cheese".
Ms Habba said that her client was not to blame for the threats that Ms Carroll received.
Earlier in the trial Judge Lewis Kaplan (no relation of the plaintiff's lawyer) advised jurors not to use their real names with each other due to the sensitive nature of the case.
As it concluded, he advised them that they were free to discuss their experience. But he added that in his opinion they should not tell anyone they worked on this case.
Mr Trump has repeatedly claimed the various legal cases he faces are being orchestrated by allies of US President Joe Biden, a Democrat.
As the Republican party's White House frontrunner, Mr Trump looks set for a rematch against Mr Biden in the November 2024 general election.
With reporting by Max Matza and Kayla Epstein
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68109999
|
news_world-us-canada-68109999
|
|
South Africa's genocide case against Israel: Both sides play heavy on emotion in ICJ hearing - BBC News
|
2024-01-26
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
After two days of legal argument, judges must now rule on whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
|
Middle East
|
Pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian protesters gathered near the ICJ in the Hague to watch the proceedings
The UN's top legal body has now heard two days of powerful legal argument on the "crime of all crimes": genocide.
It is now for the judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to decide whether Israel, in its war in Gaza, is guilty of an attempt to "destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part," as defined by the 1948 Convention on Genocide.
There could hardly be a more weighty matter.
Both sides have played heavily on the strong emotions swirling around the conflict that erupted on 7 October last year.
Around 1,200 people - most of them civilians - were killed and about 240 others were taken hostage during the Hamas attack on southern Israel.
More than 23,350 people have been killed - mostly children and women - during Israeli retaliatory attacks on Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
The case, brought to the ICJ by South Africa, included a litany of alleged Israeli offences, from the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians to the wholesale destruction of Gaza's infrastructure.
"This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life," said one of South Africa's lawyers, Adila Hassin.
Israel's war in Gaza could not be allowed to continue, the South African team argued.
"Entire multi-generational families will be obliterated," Irish barrister Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh warned, "and yet more Palestinian children will become WCNSF - Wounded Child No Surviving Family - the terrible new acronym borne out of Israel's genocidal assault."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: "Israel has genocidal intent in Gaza", says lawyer representing South Africa
But on Friday morning Israel hit back, with a mixture of its own emotion and a forensic assault on the South African case.
Images of 132 missing Israelis - most of them still being held hostage in Gaza - were shown to the court.
"Is there a reason these people on your screen are unworthy of protection," Tal Becker, a hugely experienced legal adviser at Israel's Foreign Ministry, asked the court.
Mr Becker and his colleagues were scathing about South Africa's submission, arguing that if anyone was guilty of genocide, it was Hamas.
"Under the guise of the allegation against Israel of genocide," Mr Becker said, "this court is asked to call for an end to operations against the ongoing attacks of an organisation that pursues an actual genocidal agenda".
South Africa, the Israelis said, is guilty of supporting Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organisation by 41 countries, including the US, EU and UK.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
During his speech, Professor Malcolm Shaw briefly seemed to imply that the very country bringing this case against Israel was itself complicit.
"South Africa has given succour and support to Hamas, at least," he said.
It will probably take the ICJ several years to reach its verdict on the charge of genocide.
The South Africans must know there's a legal mountain to climb to prove their case.
Genocide is notoriously difficult to prove. There needs to be compelling evidence of intent by those actually in charge of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, as well as a pattern of behaviour by the Israel Defense Forces that cannot reasonably be explained as anything other than genocidal.
Remember: this is only about genocide, not whether war crimes have been committed in Gaza, or even whether Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing, as some allege.
It's one thing to be horrified, even enraged, by countless images of the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians.
It's quite another to conclude that the killing of 1% of the Gazan population, sobering though that number is, represents an Israeli effort to destroy the Palestinian people, "in whole or in part".
But for Israel, which may feel it's on safe ground when it comes to the "crime of all crimes", there's a more immediate concern.
South Africa has appealed to the ICJ to issue nine "provisional measures", designed, in the words of South Africa's 84-page submission, "to protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people".
The first of these calls on Israel to "immediately suspend its military operation in and against Gaza".
If obeyed, it would have the effect of bringing Israel's military campaign to a halt.
This could happen within weeks, long before Israel feels it has achieved its military objective of utterly destroying Hamas as a political and military force in Gaza.
For this reason, its lawyers attempted to demolish South Africa's case for "provisional measures", arguing that they had no legal basis and would tie Israel's hands but leave Hamas free to act.
Israel doesn't like the ICJ, and feels that the UN as a whole is inherently biased against the Jewish state.
But at a time when international pressure is mounting on Israel to put an end to the huge level of violence in Gaza, it knows that if the court agrees to issue provisional measures, that pressure will only increase.
It's prepared to ignore the court if it feels it has to (and the ICJ has no powers of enforcement), but it would much prefer to win the legal argument.
Correction 13th February: This article wrongly reported that about 1,300 people had been killed following the 7th October attack by Hamas. This was based on counting those who later died from their injuries in addition to the figure of more than 1,200. The article has been amended to now refer to about 1,200 deaths, a figure which includes those deaths and which Israel says is not final.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67962302
|
news_world-middle-east-67962302
|
|
Michigan school shooter's mum weeps as she goes on trial - BBC News
|
2024-01-26
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Jennifer Crumbley is the first US parent to face a manslaughter trial for such an attack by their child.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
A mother who is the first US parent ever to go on trial for failing to stop her son from carrying out a deadly school shooting has sobbed in court as she saw CCTV of the attack.
Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer said the prosecution was intended to "send a message to gun owners".
Her son is serving life in prison for killing four classmates at Oxford High School in Michigan in 2021.
Mrs Crumbley's husband, James, is facing a separate trial on the same charges, which are punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
During the attacker's trial last year, his attorneys argued he was neglected by his parents and suffered from mental illness. But he later said his parents did not know about his plans and that he was solely responsible.
The trial opened on Thursday, and Mrs Crumbley wept as jurors were shown a video captured by a school security camera on the day of the shooting.
Prosecutor Karen McDonald objected that the defendant and her attorney were "sobbing" in violation of the judge's request for those in court to control their emotions during the trial.
"We were not sobbing or making a scene," said Mrs Crumbley's attorney, Shannon Smith, raising her voice. "All my eye makeup is still on."
The defendant's legal team says she is being unfairly blamed because she could not have predicted her son's actions.
At opening arguments, Ms Smith began her defence by quoting Taylor Swift's song Bad Blood, saying: "Band-Aids don't fix bullet holes."
She accused prosecutors of charging her client "in an effort to make the community feel better, in an effort to make people feel like someone is being held responsible, in an effort to send a message to gun owners".
"And none of those problems will be solved with charging Jennifer Crumbley with involuntary manslaughter."
But lawyers for the state argued the case is not about bad parenting or gun rights.
Prosecutor Marc Keast told the jury: "Jennifer Crumbley didn't pull the trigger that day, but she is responsible for those deaths."
"We're not here to talk about good parenting or bad parenting," he added. "It's not illegal to be a bad parent."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Prosecutors say that Mr and Mrs Crumbley gave their son the murder weapon as a Christmas gift, and did not help him get the mental health support he needed.
Her lawyers have blamed her husband, saying he was responsible for ensuring the gun was safely stored at home.
Both parents attempted to flee after being charged with manslaughter and were found hiding in the basement of a Detroit warehouse. Their lawyers say they left home for their safety and planned to turn themselves in later.
There were three witnesses on Thursday: the school principal, a teacher who survived the attack and an employee of the gun shop where the killer and his father shopped for his handgun.
On the day of the shooting, school officials found the boy, who was then 15, with disturbing drawings.
His parents were called to school to review the drawings, but left after concluding the meeting in only 11 minutes, Mr Keast said.
None of the adults checked the boy's backpack, where he stored the gun, and he was sent back to class.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68102109
|
news_world-us-canada-68102109
|
|
Defiant Trump takes legal risk on stand in New York defamation trial - BBC News
|
2024-01-26
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The lawyers and the judge spent more time arguing about the scope of the former president's testimony.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump testified on Thursday in the defamation trial brought by writer E Jean Carroll, but his much-anticipated time on the stand was kept brief.
The former president - who has already been found to have defamed Ms Carroll for comments he made about her in 2019 - was under strict rules on what he could say.
But he told the jury that he stood "100%" by a deposition given in 2022 in which he strongly denied her sexual assault allegations and called her a "whack job".
Other comments he made were struck from the record by the judge for breaching the restrictions, which took significant time to agree before he took the stand.
Mr Trump has been testing the limits of the courts in his various legal cases that have become intertwined with his re-election campaign.
It's a strategy which keeps his political base invested and tuned in, and gives him considerable press coverage as he looks set to become the Republican presidential nominee.
A related civil trial last year found that he had sexually assaulted Ms Carroll, a magazine columnist, in a New York department store in the 1990s and pay her about $5m in damages. The jury also found him liable for defamation for calling her accusations a lie.
Despite that ruling, he continues to regularly deny the attack in public comments.
This civil trial focuses on separate defamatory comments Mr Trump made about Ms Carroll in 2019 while in the White House, with the jury considering how much Trump must pay in damages.
Closing arguments will take place on Friday and a ruling could swiftly follow.
Mr Trump's continuing denials of Ms Carroll's sexual assault allegations - despite what a court already found - are the reason why he was under severe limits on what he could say in his testimony in the New York court on Thursday.
The legal complications meant the judge and lawyers spent much more time arguing about what Mr Trump would be allowed to talk about compared to his four minutes of testimony.
Judge Kaplan said the first trial established the facts and the only issue remaining was how much Mr Trump must pay Ms Carroll, if anything. The Republican frontrunner was told he would not be allowed to deny that he sexually assaulted Ms Carroll.
The strict terms made it impossible for Mr Trump to launch into a monologue or to campaign from the witness stand.
It's perhaps a lesson learned from one of Mr Trump's other legal battles. In a New York civil fraud trial earlier this month, Mr Trump was initially told he could not give his closing argument. The judge in that case asked whether Mr Trump would keep it short and stick to the matters of the case.
Mr Trump responded with a six-minute monologue in which he argued he was a victim of political persecution.
The defamation trial on Thursday gave the 77-year-old much less leeway.
Asked if he stood by his deposition, Mr Trump said: "100% yes."
His lawyer Alina Habba then asked if he denied Ms Carroll's accusation. "That's exactly right, yes I did," he responded.
He went on to say "she said something that I considered a false accusation - totally false".
But Judge Kaplan quickly cut Mr Trump off and told the jury to ignore that last statement.
Finally, Ms Habba asked if her client had ever instructed anyone to hurt Ms Carroll, to which Mr Trump said: "No, I just wanted to defend myself, my family and frankly, the presidency." The judge again ordered the latter part stricken from the record.
And with that, the testimony was over. As he left the courtroom Mr Trump was heard saying: "It's not America. This is not America."
Earlier in the day, Judge Kaplan warned him to stop interrupting proceedings by "talking loudly". That included a moment when he was heard muttering under his breath that he had "never met this woman [Ms Carroll]".
Trump looks on as his lawyer Alina Habba questions former New York TV news anchor Carol Martin
Testifying outside of the limitations outlined by the judge on Thursday could have theoretically caused Mr Trump to face hefty fines or even five years in prison for perjury.
Ronnell Andersen Jones, a professor of law at the University of Utah, told BBC News the case showed the "wide gap" between Mr Trump's strategies in court and on the campaign trail.
While the former president and his lawyers may want to convince the jury that his comments in the White House did not show "ill will that warrants punitive damages", that is easier said than done considering his actions.
"This will be a hard row to hoe, given that this same jury is daily receiving new evidence that the defendant, outside the courtroom, continues to spread the lie undeterred," Ms Jones said.
The defamation trial will resume on Friday at 09:30 ET (14:30 GMT) with closing arguments. It is not yet known if Mr Trump will attend.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68071744
|
news_world-us-canada-68071744
|
|
E Jean Carroll faces off with Trump as $10m defamation trial begins - BBC News
|
2024-01-26
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Fresh off his victory in Iowa, the former president sits in a New York courtroom with his rape accuser.
|
US & Canada
|
Both former President Donald Trump and E Jean Carroll were in court on Tuesday
The split screen of Donald Trump's re-election campaign and his parade of legal cases was on full display on Tuesday, as the Republican frontrunner, fresh off a victory in the Iowa caucuses, took his seat in yet another New York courtroom to face a multimillion dollar defamation suit.
E Jean Carroll, a columnist who Mr Trump was previously found liable of sexually assaulting in the 1990s, is now seeking damages for defamatory statements he made about her during his presidency.
Seated a few rows behind her, the former president stared intently at the woman he claims he "never met, saw, or touched... and knows absolutely nothing about".
Ms Carroll, for her part, did not appear to look at him. She faced towards the bench for nearly all of the proceedings, allowing Mr Trump only a view of her back.
Unlike his last appearance in a Manhattan court - just last week, in an entirely different case - Mr Trump did not speak in the courtroom. But his restless and attentive posture projected a sense of agitation.
Last May, a different jury trial found Mr Trump had sexually assaulted and defamed Ms Carroll - a decision he hopes to reverse on appeal. The findings of that case are considered relevant here.
This new trial is to determine whether Mr Trump harmed her with specific defamatory statements he made in 2019, and if so, how much money he must pay her in compensation.
Shawn Crowley, one of Ms Carroll's attorneys, said the jury would need to consider "how much money Donald Trump should have to pay for what he's done".
And, she added, "how much money will it take to make him stop".
After Ms Carroll came forward with her allegations of rape, Mr Trump immediately sought to dismiss her claims from the White House.
In June 2019, Mr Trump called her account a "total false accusation" and said "I have no idea who this woman is".
Those statements, her lawyers argue, impugned her reputation and unleashed a torrent of death threats, rape threats, and online vitriol.
Ms Crowley told the court the former president had "unleashed his followers to go after" Carroll "to threaten her life".
She said Mr Trump had used "the world's biggest microphone" to defame and humiliate her client, and "caused her to live every day in fear".
Mr Trump continues to attack her relentlessly on his Truth Social account - even as his earlier statements were ruled defamatory.
As he spent Tuesday morning in court, the official account on Mr Trump's Truth Social platform blasted out more than two dozen posts, calling the case "PURE FICTION".
Alina Habba, Mr Trump's lead attorney, claimed Carroll did not deserve damages, because her accusation of sexual assault had made her famous.
"Evidence will show you her career has prospered and she has been thrust back into the limelight Iike she always has wanted," Ms Habba said.
Mr Trump watched intently as prospective jurors filed one by one into the room, pivoting back and forth in his seat to size up each one as they answered questions from the judge.
His presence in the room during jury selection led to some unusual questions as lawyers and the judge sought to determine whether potential jurors could deliver an impartial verdict.
Questions included whether they had voted in the 2016 and 2020 elections; whether they believed in the QAnon conspiracy theory; whether they belonged to right-wing militia groups; and whether they supported the MeToo movement.
Two people said they believed the 2020 election had been stolen. One woman said she had volunteered for the Biden campaign that year. They were struck from the pool.
Due to intense media and political scrutiny, the jury will remain anonymous. The judge urged jurors to use fake names when talking to each other, and the court will transport them by secure means from undisclosed locations to the courthouse.
By about 15:00 local time (20:00 GMT), nine New York residents officially took their seats in the jury box.
But Mr Trump left the room before his accuser's claims were re-aired by Judge Lewis Kaplan.
In a 2019 New York magazine piece, Ms Carroll, now 80, described a chance encounter with the then-real estate mogul inside a Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in the 1990s.
The pair had bumped into each other while shopping, she said. Mr Trump then allegedly asked her for advice when buying lingerie for another woman and jokingly asked her to model it for him. But once in the changing rooms, Ms Carroll alleged the real estate tycoon lunged at her, pinned her against a wall and assaulted her.
Mr Trump immediately denied the story as "totally false". He has also repeatedly suggested Ms Carroll invented it to sell her memoir.
The May 2023 trial found that Mr Trump did sexually abuse and defame Ms Carroll.
On Tuesday, Judge Kaplan instructed the jury that Mr Trump's June 2019 statements were false, and defamatory, and that he knew they were false or probably false when he made them.
The Republican frontrunner did not attend the first civil trial based on Ms Carroll's claims. For calling her story a "con job" and a "hoax" in 2022, he is already on the hook for $5m (£4m) in damages.
The trial will be brief, but carries the potential for dramatic moments.
Ms Carroll is expected to testify on Wednesday and the case is scheduled to wrap on Thursday. But the judge, Lewis Kaplan, has ruled Mr Trump will be allowed to testify next Monday.
That comes after a bitter dispute between both legal teams over what the former president can say on the stand.
In a stern warning issued last week, the judge wrote: "Mr Trump is precluded from offering any testimony, evidence or argument suggesting or implying that he did not sexually assault Ms Carroll, that she fabricated her account of the assault or that she had any motive to do so."
Ms Carroll's lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan (who is not related to Judge Kaplan), has said that Mr Trump will attempt to "sow chaos" with his testimony.
"There are any number of reasons why Mr Trump might perceive a personal or political benefit from intentionally turning this trial into a circus," she wrote in a memo to Judge Kaplan.
In response, Ms Habba said the former president is "well aware" of the court's ruling and "the strict confines placed on his testimony".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67964678
|
news_world-us-canada-67964678
|
|
The many lives of Trump Tower - BBC News
|
2024-01-07
|
[]
|
Trump Tower has stood as a symbol of Donald Trump’s success and fame for 40 years, but he could soon lose control of it.
| null |
The many lives of Trump Tower
Trump Tower has stood as a symbol of Donald Trump’s success and fame for 40 years, clad in enough pink marble and brass to make Liberace (a former resident) blush.
The skyscraper rises over Manhattan’s Central Park in one of the most expensive shopping districts in the world, Fifth Avenue.
The building’s appeal has waxed and waned, but the former US president’s last name in bold letters on the gold facade is a constant reminder of the tower’s central role in defining Trump as a brand.
It was the set of his hit television show The Apprentice, which catapulted his fame to new heights. And it’s where he harnessed that fame to ride down a golden escalator and launch a successful bid to become president of the United States.
Now it is tangled up in his legal troubles. As well as being indicted four times, Trump faces being barred from doing business in New York City and could be forced to hand over control of the building where he based his Trump Organization headquarters for decades.
Trump first set sights on the old granite and limestone Bonwit Teller building at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 56th Street in the mid-1970s. It was a time of street gangs and violent crime, when New York City was known more for the Son of Sam serial killer than for glamour and style.
But Trump, the son of a wealthy Bronx real estate developer, was on the rise. He saw the location, located next to Tiffany’s flagship jewellery store on the street dubbed “Millionaire’s Row”, as an opportunity to send his profile into the stratosphere.
"In the real-estate business we have a generic term for the best location, wherever it is: The Tiffany location. And Trump Tower is literally that - it looks down on Tiffany's,” he would later tell Architectural Digest.
He said he called the Bonwit Teller owners twice a day to try to broker a deal. Trump’s persistence paid off in 1979, swooping in once he discovered the owners needed fast cash.
His plan was to tear it down and redevelop in what was becoming his trademark business style.
He took the city to court – and won – to get millions of dollars in tax breaks. He destroyed two Art Deco sculptures that had been a part of the original building’s facade to save $500,000 (£396,000), instead of donating them to the Metropolitan Museum of Art like he promised (infuriating New York’s history buffs). And he bought air rights over Tiffany’s, a zoning law which essentially means a neighbouring building would never rise up to block his sweeping views.
As the glass skyscraper grew taller, so too did Trump’s tales. When Trump Tower was completed in 1983, he boasted it had 68 floors. It only had 58.
In Trump’s first book, The Art of The Deal, he described his style of business as “people want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole”.
Trump’s exaggerations were used to promote his tower - and the building was vital to promoting Trump.
A year before it opened, Trump appeared in Forbes Magazine’s first-ever rich list by claiming a net worth of $100m. Trump Tower was at the heart of his case to get on that list.
In reality, Trump was worth only $5m. Former Forbes researcher and writer Jonathan Greenberg told BBC News he only discovered this deception of wealth much later.
When Greenberg met Trump to determine if he should be included, the future president tried to fudge the numbers. He emphasised the potential revenue of Trump Tower but failed to mention that much of it was owned by an equity firm, not Trump himself. “He was talking about, ‘when this opens, I own all of it and look at how big it is,’” Greenberg recalls.
We in the media were unprepared for anyone who lied as effectively and shamelessly as Donald Trump.
Other times, Greenberg said Trump called him, pretending to be “John Barron”, a Trump Organization executive, to feed him false information. “He spoke in the third person; I think it’s his first time he began to speak of himself from the third person - which he still does,” Greenberg said.
Trump also spread a rumour that Prince Charles and Princess Diana were buying an apartment, telling the New York Post the inquiry came from a “very aristocratic” guy with an English accent.
He may not have secured a prince and princess for his castle, but it didn’t stop Trump from creating an aura of exclusivity.
When residents walked through the shimmering brass doors they were met by doormen in elaborate outfits which mimicked Buckingham Palace’s guards. Inside the lobby was a tuxedoed piano player.
Trump would boast in Architectural Digest about having "the finest apartments in the top building in the best location in the hottest city in the world”.
In a 1998 interview with BBC HARDtalk, he would say: "I love building great buildings… I get great artistic pride out of a great building like Trump Tower."
He had not only broken into Manhattan’s property market, he had arrived with a splash.
When the tower opened, New York was desperate for something shiny and new after years of economic blight. And shiny was Trump’s speciality.
Architecture critic Paul Goldberger, in his 1983 review of the building for the New York Times, asked what other New York buildings had been “surrounded by so much hoopla?”
His critique was not a rave, but it was hardly a pan. Goldberger noted how the building’s “zigs and zags” were a welcome break from the “simple boxes” that lined the streets, and how its pink Breccia Pernice marble gave off a glow of “happy, if self-satisfied, affluence”.
Looking back, Goldberger thinks he may have gone easy on Trump in part because he seemed like a breath of fresh air when the Big Apple was battling to revitalise itself. “I think we were all inclined to be a little more positive than probably we should have been,” he told BBC News.
The skyscraper’s style, wrapped in mirrored glass, embodied the 1980s era of “greed is good”.
The building initially attracted excitement. Up to 100,000 people reportedly visited the atrium each Saturday during the holidays.
High-end fashion brands such as Buccellati and Charles Jourdan were tenants. Steven Spielberg had a pied-à-terre and Michael Jackson had a duplex with a dance studio.
Trump saved the best unit for himself - the 11,000 sq ft penthouse which takes up three floors. The urban palace originally featured chocolate lacquered walls and a gold-leaf ceiling. After attending a dinner at the nearby penthouse of Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi, Trump reportedly decided to redecorate.
Gone was the luxe modernism, replaced with lashings of gold, marble and crystal - a Versailles in the sky.
When New York City woke up from the cocaine-fuelled party that seemed to last through the 1980s, it became clear that all that glimmered wasn’t gold, simply brass.
Retailers baulked at the sky-high rents of Trump Tower and left. The glitterati that first lived there - Johnny Carson and Sophia Loren - were eclipsed by a different type of character: “Medicaid cheats, coke dealers, mobsters,” according to journalist Wayne Barrett, writing for the Village Voice in 1991.
Part of the problem was the building didn’t age well. Most of the units were built cheaply - simple white walls and galley kitchens. “He really didn't understand quality, as he pretended to do,” Goldberger said.
The units were soon outclassed by bigger, more luxurious units in newer buildings. Eventually, Fifth Avenue’s “Millionaire’s Row” would be superseded by “Billionaire’s Row”, a series of ultra-luxury skyscrapers just a few blocks away.
But Trump and his tower would not be forgotten. They surged back into the public’s consciousness in the 2000s with the reality show The Apprentice.
The shining black skyscraper was filmed from the street like it was the towering king piece on Trump’s own chess board - a character with as much airtime as the candidates.
When Jose Felix Diaz from Season Five first walked into Trump Tower, he felt like “somebody is trying to show you just how important this place is”, he told BBC News.
“During The Apprentice, I don’t think there was a piece of property that was more valuable to Donald Trump than Trump Tower,” he said.
People can knock it all they want… very few people in their lifetimes can build an edifice, you know, of that calibre, of that magnitude, on Fifth Avenue in the most important city in the world.
During the show, he lived in Trump Tower with fellow contestants. Diaz says what made the show successful was “the unpredictability of the main character… people were mesmerised by this person who didn’t hold back”.
It’s a similar story to how Trump won the presidency. It began in the atrium of Trump Tower, where he announced his White House bid in 2015.
Trump marvelled at the crowd: “Wow. Whoa. That is some group of people. Thousands.” In reality, peppered among the media there were only a few dozen spectators, many dressed in his Make America Great Again gear.
But his popularity and the size of his rallies grew, culminating in a divisive election victory. Overnight, Trump Tower became the de facto presidential transition office. He even said he wanted to spend a few nights a week in his penthouse, dismissing the White House as a “dump”. Trump kept using it during his presidency, once hosting Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe there for diplomatic talks.
Since leaving the White House in 2021, and the events of 6 January, Trump’s notoriety has eclipsed much of his legacy from his early years in New York. In a city where President Joe Biden received 76% of the vote, the Trump brand is toxic.
The man who once epitomised the city no longer spends much time there. Where there was once a Cartier store in the lobby, now there is a souvenir shop selling MAGA hats. It has also impacted the tower’s bottom line.
“You can clearly see just from the numbers, the damage that's been done to the Trump brand,” real estate broker Wendy Maitland told BBC News. In 2014, she had a unit for sale in Trump Tower for $10m. Despite an offer of $9m, the owner took it off the market. Since then, they have tried re-listing the property numerous times, as recently as last May for $5.995m, without any serious traction.
She said Trump Tower has had an outsized number of listings taken off the market for extended periods of time because people aren’t buying into the brand.
Few buildings are so closely tied to its owner in the public imagination as Trump Tower.
In the case in New York City, the former president and his two adult sons have been found liable of massively inflating the value of their properties in order to secure better loans. Among the evidence was a claim that Trump’s penthouse triplex was three times its actual size.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing, and is expected to be in court when the trial resumes on 11 January for closing arguments. The judge will then have to decide how much the Trumps must pay and whether their businesses in New York City - including the tower - must be sold off, or be held by a third-party. To lose it would be an epic chapter of Trump’s downfall in the city where he made his name.
Goldberger says it would be a “confirmation in the physical form of what’s already happened reputationally” in New York City.
But a long-time friend and fellow real estate developer who testified in the trial, Steve Witkoff, insists Trump doesn’t let anything get him down and he’ll keep fighting. Losing Trump Tower would be an indignity, but Witkoff told BBC News “hopefully we’re not going to get to that place”.
Diaz, the former The Apprentice contestant who was once inside Trump Tower’s “inner sanctum”, says imagining a world where Trump was not in control was “inconceivable”.
“I would believe that the Trump Organization will fight to their last breath to protect Trump Tower.”
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-3172e24b-aa18-401f-b245-d4cb9ffc0283
|
news_resources_idt-3172e24b-aa18-401f-b245-d4cb9ffc0283
|
|
South Africa's genocide case against Israel: Both sides play heavy on emotion in ICJ hearing - BBC News
|
2024-01-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
After two days of legal argument, judges must now rule on whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
|
Middle East
|
Pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian protesters gathered near the ICJ in the Hague to watch the proceedings
The UN's top legal body has now heard two days of powerful legal argument on the "crime of all crimes": genocide.
It is now for the judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to decide whether Israel, in its war in Gaza, is guilty of an attempt to "destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part," as defined by the 1948 Convention on Genocide.
There could hardly be a more weighty matter.
Both sides have played heavily on the strong emotions swirling around the conflict that erupted on 7 October last year.
Around 1,200 people - most of them civilians - were killed and about 240 others were taken hostage during the Hamas attack on southern Israel.
More than 23,350 people have been killed - mostly children and women - during Israeli retaliatory attacks on Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
The case, brought to the ICJ by South Africa, included a litany of alleged Israeli offences, from the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians to the wholesale destruction of Gaza's infrastructure.
"This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life," said one of South Africa's lawyers, Adila Hassin.
Israel's war in Gaza could not be allowed to continue, the South African team argued.
"Entire multi-generational families will be obliterated," Irish barrister Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh warned, "and yet more Palestinian children will become WCNSF - Wounded Child No Surviving Family - the terrible new acronym borne out of Israel's genocidal assault."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: "Israel has genocidal intent in Gaza", says lawyer representing South Africa
But on Friday morning Israel hit back, with a mixture of its own emotion and a forensic assault on the South African case.
Images of 132 missing Israelis - most of them still being held hostage in Gaza - were shown to the court.
"Is there a reason these people on your screen are unworthy of protection," Tal Becker, a hugely experienced legal adviser at Israel's Foreign Ministry, asked the court.
Mr Becker and his colleagues were scathing about South Africa's submission, arguing that if anyone was guilty of genocide, it was Hamas.
"Under the guise of the allegation against Israel of genocide," Mr Becker said, "this court is asked to call for an end to operations against the ongoing attacks of an organisation that pursues an actual genocidal agenda".
South Africa, the Israelis said, is guilty of supporting Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organisation by 41 countries, including the US, EU and UK.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
During his speech, Professor Malcolm Shaw briefly seemed to imply that the very country bringing this case against Israel was itself complicit.
"South Africa has given succour and support to Hamas, at least," he said.
It will probably take the ICJ several years to reach its verdict on the charge of genocide.
The South Africans must know there's a legal mountain to climb to prove their case.
Genocide is notoriously difficult to prove. There needs to be compelling evidence of intent by those actually in charge of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, as well as a pattern of behaviour by the Israel Defense Forces that cannot reasonably be explained as anything other than genocidal.
Remember: this is only about genocide, not whether war crimes have been committed in Gaza, or even whether Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing, as some allege.
It's one thing to be horrified, even enraged, by countless images of the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians.
It's quite another to conclude that the killing of 1% of the Gazan population, sobering though that number is, represents an Israeli effort to destroy the Palestinian people, "in whole or in part".
But for Israel, which may feel it's on safe ground when it comes to the "crime of all crimes", there's a more immediate concern.
South Africa has appealed to the ICJ to issue nine "provisional measures", designed, in the words of South Africa's 84-page submission, "to protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people".
The first of these calls on Israel to "immediately suspend its military operation in and against Gaza".
If obeyed, it would have the effect of bringing Israel's military campaign to a halt.
This could happen within weeks, long before Israel feels it has achieved its military objective of utterly destroying Hamas as a political and military force in Gaza.
For this reason, its lawyers attempted to demolish South Africa's case for "provisional measures", arguing that they had no legal basis and would tie Israel's hands but leave Hamas free to act.
Israel doesn't like the ICJ, and feels that the UN as a whole is inherently biased against the Jewish state.
But at a time when international pressure is mounting on Israel to put an end to the huge level of violence in Gaza, it knows that if the court agrees to issue provisional measures, that pressure will only increase.
It's prepared to ignore the court if it feels it has to (and the ICJ has no powers of enforcement), but it would much prefer to win the legal argument.
Correction 13th February: This article wrongly reported that about 1,300 people had been killed following the 7th October attack by Hamas. This was based on counting those who later died from their injuries in addition to the figure of more than 1,200. The article has been amended to now refer to about 1,200 deaths, a figure which includes those deaths and which Israel says is not final.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67962302
|
news_world-middle-east-67962302
|
|
Strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen show war in Gaza has already spread - BBC News
|
2024-01-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
War spreading in the Middle East is not just a risk - it has already happened, writes the BBC's international editor.
|
Middle East
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
It is time to stop talking about the risk that the war in Gaza will spread elsewhere in the Middle East. It has already happened.
Hopes for containing what is happening rest on the fact that it is still relatively low-level, compared to the worst-case scenarios of regional war.
The US and British attacks on the Houthis in Yemen are not just, as ministers in London have suggested, about the freedom of navigation and world trade.
They are directly linked to events in Gaza and represent an escalation of the crisis that is gripping the region.
The Houthis immediately vowed to respond. It is also entirely possible that pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria will increase the action they are taking against the American forces in the region.
If that theatre heats up more, and US forces retaliate, it will be harder for the American diplomacy effort to avert all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia and political movement backed by Iran.
The Houthis are also part of the network of allies and proxies, the so-called axis of resistance, that Iran has constructed to give it forward defence against its enemies.
They are getting increasingly sophisticated weapons from Iran, but it is best to think of them as allies rather than Tehran's proxy.
I have spent quite a bit of time with the Houthis in Yemen and they are people who are highly independently minded. They will relish conflict with the Americans. They want to be part of this war. What has been happening suits both the Houthis and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Houthi supporters demonstrate on Friday after the US and UK air strikes
Iran has beefed up their capabilities and the kind of firepower that the Houthis have at their disposal. That includes anti-ship missiles, ballistic missiles they have fired at Israel as well as attack drones - the same sort that Iran supplies to Russia to use against Ukraine. They are well-armed.
It is nothing like the naval capacity that they are facing from the US, UK and other members of the coalition the Americans have assembled in the Red Sea. But the threat the Houthis pose is less about the physical damage they might cause and more about the danger to international navigation.
In December, they hijacked a ship and forced it into one of their ports. They have also fired directly at ships and caused some damage, although they have not sunk any vessels.
Commercial shipping companies who want to get their valuable cargoes through the narrow Bab al-Mandab Strait at the mouth of Red Sea do not want to have hostile forces firing at them. Because of the risks, the insurance costs will rocket, and that's why so many companies are now choosing to detour along the west coast of Africa and around the Cape of Good Hope instead of using the Suez Canal, the shortcut between Asia and Europe that routes ships down the Red Sea and through Bab al-Mandab.
The Houthis have controlled Sanaa, Yemen's capital, and big parts of the country including the Red Sea coast since 2014. In 2015, Saudi Arabia led a coalition, also including the United Arab Emirates, that went to war to try to overthrow them.
The Saudis said the intervention in Yemen's civil war was to re-establish the country's legitimate and internationally recognised government, which the Houthis had overthrown.
But a few days after the intervention started, I spoke to very senior Saudis who told me it was to stop Iran from operating in their back yard. Yemen has a frontier with Saudi Arabia.
The Houthis were then bombed by the Saudis from 2015 until the ceasefire came in over a year ago, so a fresh round of strikes is unlikely to intimidate them - they are used to it.
I don't think one single round of air strikes is going to do more than make them think yes, we are on the right track. They want to be seen as a fearless resistance to America and its Western allies, who also back Israel.
The Houthis have said that they are carrying out these attacks in the Red Sea because of the war in Gaza, the killing of civilians and the severe privations Israel has imposed by blocking all but a fraction of the food and relief supplies that they need to survive.
They have said that if the war in Gaza ended and if supplies were permitted to enter, then they wouldn't be threatening a major international shipping lane.
Some critics of the American and British support for Israel say that an immediate ceasefire in Gaza would be a much better way to stop the Houthi attacks than bombing them. If Houthi attacks continued after a ceasefire, the argument is that air strikes against them would have increased legitimacy.
There is the possibility that this US-UK action could prolong or escalate the situation with the Houthis, rather than shutting it down. Last November, when the Houthis made their first moves in the wider Gaza war with their first attacks on merchant shipping off the Yemen coast, I spoke to Mohammed Ali Al Houthi, one of the leading members of their organisation. He was very defiant then and I am absolutely certain the Houthis will continue to be defiant now.
They will want to carry out more attacks, to show that they are defiant and unbeaten.
The US and UK attacks hit many different locations. While it is not possible to know the Houthis' precise military capacity, it seems unlikely that one round of strikes will have taken it out.
Regular bombardment by the Saudis since 2015 did not appear to have had a significant impact on their capacity. Yemen is a mountainous country. Given their experience of being bombed it is likely they will have tried to hide things away. Iran presumably has sent advisers and trainers to Yemen to help them operate the weapons they have supplied, and they too will have thought about ways of surviving attacks.
We can gauge the way that Iran has upgraded the Houthi arsenal by looking at the kind of weapons they are firing out of Yemen. They are more sophisticated, more lethal and therefore more of a threat.
When the Houthis took over a merchant ship last month, video of their attack showed well-trained commandoes landing from a helicopter. They are more formidable than the images we often see on TV, of groups of raggedly dressed men waving Kalashnikovs.
Compared to the force the US and UK can wield there is no comparison, but that isn't the point in this kind of warfare.
If the Houthis, who have supporters across the region, are able to continue to threaten and fire on ships in some way then they will signal to their followers that they are not bowed by the West.
More retaliation from the US and its allies is certain if the Houthis do not do as they are told.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67955729
|
news_world-middle-east-67955729
|
|
Patsy Palmer to return to EastEnders as Bianca - BBC News
|
2024-01-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The actress will reprise her role on the BBC One soap for a short stint this spring.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
She is perhaps most famous for yelling "Rickaaaaay!" to her on-off partner on EastEnders.
But more than 30 years after Patsy Palmer was cast as feisty Bianca Jackson in the BBC One soap, she is set to reprise her role for a short stint this spring.
The actress, 51, said she was "so excited" to be returning after an absence of more than four years.
She has already started filming her scenes, the BBC said.
"EastEnders holds such a special place in my heart," Palmer said. "So it's always a pleasure to be back."
Palmer was 21 when she first joined the soap in 1993 as 16-year-old Bianca, the sharp-tongued daughter of Carol Jackson, played by Lindsey Coulson.
Bianca, like many of Albert Square's residents, has had her fair share of problems.
Her storylines included her tumultuous romantic relationship with Ricky Butcher, played by Sid Owen.
The couple became known for their sometimes comical arguments, with Bianca regularly shrieking his name across the square.
They divorced in the programme in 1999 but remarried when EastEnders turned 25 in 2010.
She also discovered her teenage stepdaughter, Whitney Dean - played by Shona McGarty - was being abused, and learned that the character David Wicks was her father.
Bianca last appeared in Walford in September 2019, for a brief appearance before the pandemic struck.
In the upcoming episodes, she will be visited in Milton Keynes - where she now lives - by Whitney, following her off-screen break-up with Terry Spraggan, played by Terry Alderton.
"But it's not long before chaos ensues," the BBC trailed.
Chris Clenshaw, EastEnders' executive producer, said: "I'm thrilled to welcome the fabulous Patsy back to the iconic role of Bianca Jackson."
He said that despite being absent from the show for more than four years, "Bianca still remains a fan favourite".
"We know our audiences will be thrilled at her return as she is thrust into the heart of the drama alongside step-daughter Whitney."
Palmer, who is also a DJ, relocated with her family to the United States in 2014 after a previous stint on EastEnders came to an end.
She took part in BBC One's Strictly Come Dancing in 2005. Last year, she was a contestant on ITV1's Dancing On Ice.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67967666
|
news_entertainment-arts-67967666
|
|
Starmer denies backtracking on military action vote - BBC News
|
2024-01-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
While running to be Labour leader, Sir Keir promised a law requiring a Commons vote for military action.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Keir Starmer says he backs strikes to stop Houthi attacks
Sir Keir Starmer has denied changing his position on whether the government has to give MPs a vote on any plans by the UK to take military action.
The Labour leader backed the US-UK air strikes in Yemen, launched without a parliamentary vote.
He told the BBC on Sunday a vote was only needed when "deploying troops".
During his leadership campaign Sir Keir had pledged to create a law requiring "the consent of the Commons" for military action.
Speaking on Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday, Sir Keir said action had to be taken against Houthi targets because "sitting back and doing nothing" would not have been appropriate.
Downing Street briefed Sir Keir shortly before the operation on Thursday. He said he backed the air strikes but wants ministers to make a detailed Commons statement on Monday, as is planned.
The Houthis are a political and military group controlling a large part of Yemen. Backed by Iran, members claim they target any ship travelling to or owned by Israel.
They have carried out at least 27 attacks since 19 November, according to the US, and have launched a series of drones and missiles towards Israel.
The group's attacks on cargo ships - some of which have no clear connection to Israel - have led major shipping companies to divert vessels away from the Red Sea, instead taking a longer route around southern Africa.
Sir Keir told the BBC Labour would need to consider the arguments if the UK plans further attacks in Yemen and he would expect to be briefed by the government.
The US-led air-strikes hit over 60 targets at 16 Iranian-backed Houthi militant locations
While campaigning to take over from Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in 2020, Sir Keir said he wanted a new law "that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made, secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons".
This would enshrine in law the principle that UK military action should be voted on and approved by parliament,
But Sir Keir insisted there was "no inconsistency" between his previous comments and his support for the air strikes in Yemen, telling the programme that there is a difference between this action on Houthi targets and "sustained" military action.
Separately pressed on whether he had changed a commitment to stop the UK selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Sir Keir said he supported a review into all UK arms sales which will "make clear" what his party's position is.
The Labour leader argued his party is different now from the one he ran to lead in 2020.
Separately, reports that five people have died in an attempt to cross the English Channel are a "tragic loss of life", Sir Keir said.
The deaths show "we need to stop these Channel crossings", he said.
Rejecting the "gimmick" of the Rwanda scheme, he talked about the prosecution of gangs as Director of Public Prosecutions.
"Having seen this done for terrorist gangs, with guns and with drugs I refuse to believe we can't do anything about it," he said.
Elsewhere in a wide-ranging interview with the BBC, Sir Keir said he still backed Labour's key pledge to invest £28bn in green projects "by the second half of the Parliament" if elected.
Labour's Green Prosperity Plan has gone through various changes since it was first announced in September 2021.
But Sir Keir said Labour wanted the UK to run on 100% clean power by 2030 as it "gives us cheaper bills, and it gives us energy security so Putin can't put his boot on our throat."
The investment depends on a number of caveats. Labour has committed to reducing government debt within five years, and any investment would be "subject to what the government has already assigned to put in on green prosperity".
Chief secretary to the Treasury Laura Trott accused Sir Keir of not "having a plan to pay" for the investment.
"That means one thing - thousands of pounds in higher taxes for hard-working people," she said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67973868
|
news_uk-politics-67973868
|
|
David Cameron and Keir Starmer speak to BBC after US-UK strikes on Houthi targets - BBC News
|
2024-01-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
After attacks on Houthi targets, UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron and Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer speak to Laura Kuenssberg.
|
UK Politics
|
Starmer is now asked about the UK's attacks against the Houthis in Yemen.
He says Labour backs the military operation so far - but will need to consider the arguments if the UK plans further attacks there.
"If there is to be further action, I would expect [to be briefed], I would expect the prime minister to make a statement, and we will consider it on its merits."
He says the strikes so far are clearly designed to stop Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.
Laura presses him, saying this is not the view in much of the Middle East - and that instead, the view there is that action in Yemen is part of the West's wider strategy in the Middle East.
Starmer says that argument is "hard to sustain". He says the alternative would be to do nothing to protect shipping.
"Action had to be taken, I was pleased to be briefed about it," he says.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67956363
|
news_live_uk-politics-67956363
|
|
Strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen show war in Gaza has already spread - BBC News
|
2024-01-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
War spreading in the Middle East is not just a risk - it has already happened, writes the BBC's international editor.
|
Middle East
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
It is time to stop talking about the risk that the war in Gaza will spread elsewhere in the Middle East. It has already happened.
Hopes for containing what is happening rest on the fact that it is still relatively low-level, compared to the worst-case scenarios of regional war.
The US and British attacks on the Houthis in Yemen are not just, as ministers in London have suggested, about the freedom of navigation and world trade.
They are directly linked to events in Gaza and represent an escalation of the crisis that is gripping the region.
The Houthis immediately vowed to respond. It is also entirely possible that pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria will increase the action they are taking against the American forces in the region.
If that theatre heats up more, and US forces retaliate, it will be harder for the American diplomacy effort to avert all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia and political movement backed by Iran.
The Houthis are also part of the network of allies and proxies, the so-called axis of resistance, that Iran has constructed to give it forward defence against its enemies.
They are getting increasingly sophisticated weapons from Iran, but it is best to think of them as allies rather than Tehran's proxy.
I have spent quite a bit of time with the Houthis in Yemen and they are people who are highly independently minded. They will relish conflict with the Americans. They want to be part of this war. What has been happening suits both the Houthis and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Houthi supporters demonstrate on Friday after the US and UK air strikes
Iran has beefed up their capabilities and the kind of firepower that the Houthis have at their disposal. That includes anti-ship missiles, ballistic missiles they have fired at Israel as well as attack drones - the same sort that Iran supplies to Russia to use against Ukraine. They are well-armed.
It is nothing like the naval capacity that they are facing from the US, UK and other members of the coalition the Americans have assembled in the Red Sea. But the threat the Houthis pose is less about the physical damage they might cause and more about the danger to international navigation.
In December, they hijacked a ship and forced it into one of their ports. They have also fired directly at ships and caused some damage, although they have not sunk any vessels.
Commercial shipping companies who want to get their valuable cargoes through the narrow Bab al-Mandab Strait at the mouth of Red Sea do not want to have hostile forces firing at them. Because of the risks, the insurance costs will rocket, and that's why so many companies are now choosing to detour along the west coast of Africa and around the Cape of Good Hope instead of using the Suez Canal, the shortcut between Asia and Europe that routes ships down the Red Sea and through Bab al-Mandab.
The Houthis have controlled Sanaa, Yemen's capital, and big parts of the country including the Red Sea coast since 2014. In 2015, Saudi Arabia led a coalition, also including the United Arab Emirates, that went to war to try to overthrow them.
The Saudis said the intervention in Yemen's civil war was to re-establish the country's legitimate and internationally recognised government, which the Houthis had overthrown.
But a few days after the intervention started, I spoke to very senior Saudis who told me it was to stop Iran from operating in their back yard. Yemen has a frontier with Saudi Arabia.
The Houthis were then bombed by the Saudis from 2015 until the ceasefire came in over a year ago, so a fresh round of strikes is unlikely to intimidate them - they are used to it.
I don't think one single round of air strikes is going to do more than make them think yes, we are on the right track. They want to be seen as a fearless resistance to America and its Western allies, who also back Israel.
The Houthis have said that they are carrying out these attacks in the Red Sea because of the war in Gaza, the killing of civilians and the severe privations Israel has imposed by blocking all but a fraction of the food and relief supplies that they need to survive.
They have said that if the war in Gaza ended and if supplies were permitted to enter, then they wouldn't be threatening a major international shipping lane.
Some critics of the American and British support for Israel say that an immediate ceasefire in Gaza would be a much better way to stop the Houthi attacks than bombing them. If Houthi attacks continued after a ceasefire, the argument is that air strikes against them would have increased legitimacy.
There is the possibility that this US-UK action could prolong or escalate the situation with the Houthis, rather than shutting it down. Last November, when the Houthis made their first moves in the wider Gaza war with their first attacks on merchant shipping off the Yemen coast, I spoke to Mohammed Ali Al Houthi, one of the leading members of their organisation. He was very defiant then and I am absolutely certain the Houthis will continue to be defiant now.
They will want to carry out more attacks, to show that they are defiant and unbeaten.
The US and UK attacks hit many different locations. While it is not possible to know the Houthis' precise military capacity, it seems unlikely that one round of strikes will have taken it out.
Regular bombardment by the Saudis since 2015 did not appear to have had a significant impact on their capacity. Yemen is a mountainous country. Given their experience of being bombed it is likely they will have tried to hide things away. Iran presumably has sent advisers and trainers to Yemen to help them operate the weapons they have supplied, and they too will have thought about ways of surviving attacks.
We can gauge the way that Iran has upgraded the Houthi arsenal by looking at the kind of weapons they are firing out of Yemen. They are more sophisticated, more lethal and therefore more of a threat.
When the Houthis took over a merchant ship last month, video of their attack showed well-trained commandoes landing from a helicopter. They are more formidable than the images we often see on TV, of groups of raggedly dressed men waving Kalashnikovs.
Compared to the force the US and UK can wield there is no comparison, but that isn't the point in this kind of warfare.
If the Houthis, who have supporters across the region, are able to continue to threaten and fire on ships in some way then they will signal to their followers that they are not bowed by the West.
More retaliation from the US and its allies is certain if the Houthis do not do as they are told.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67955729
|
news_world-middle-east-67955729
|
|
Patsy Palmer to return to EastEnders as Bianca - BBC News
|
2024-01-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The actress will reprise her role on the BBC One soap for a short stint this spring.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
She is perhaps most famous for yelling "Rickaaaaay!" to her on-off partner on EastEnders.
But more than 30 years after Patsy Palmer was cast as feisty Bianca Jackson in the BBC One soap, she is set to reprise her role for a short stint this spring.
The actress, 51, said she was "so excited" to be returning after an absence of more than four years.
She has already started filming her scenes, the BBC said.
"EastEnders holds such a special place in my heart," Palmer said. "So it's always a pleasure to be back."
Palmer was 21 when she first joined the soap in 1993 as 16-year-old Bianca, the sharp-tongued daughter of Carol Jackson, played by Lindsey Coulson.
Bianca, like many of Albert Square's residents, has had her fair share of problems.
Her storylines included her tumultuous romantic relationship with Ricky Butcher, played by Sid Owen.
The couple became known for their sometimes comical arguments, with Bianca regularly shrieking his name across the square.
They divorced in the programme in 1999 but remarried when EastEnders turned 25 in 2010.
She also discovered her teenage stepdaughter, Whitney Dean - played by Shona McGarty - was being abused, and learned that the character David Wicks was her father.
Bianca last appeared in Walford in September 2019, for a brief appearance before the pandemic struck.
In the upcoming episodes, she will be visited in Milton Keynes - where she now lives - by Whitney, following her off-screen break-up with Terry Spraggan, played by Terry Alderton.
"But it's not long before chaos ensues," the BBC trailed.
Chris Clenshaw, EastEnders' executive producer, said: "I'm thrilled to welcome the fabulous Patsy back to the iconic role of Bianca Jackson."
He said that despite being absent from the show for more than four years, "Bianca still remains a fan favourite".
"We know our audiences will be thrilled at her return as she is thrust into the heart of the drama alongside step-daughter Whitney."
Palmer, who is also a DJ, relocated with her family to the United States in 2014 after a previous stint on EastEnders came to an end.
She took part in BBC One's Strictly Come Dancing in 2005. Last year, she was a contestant on ITV1's Dancing On Ice.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67967666
|
news_entertainment-arts-67967666
|
|
UK will back words with actions against Houthis in Yemen - Cameron - BBC News
|
2024-01-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The foreign secretary says the air strikes were necessary after Houthis attacks on ships in the Red Sea.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Lord Cameron says Houthis have escalated tensions in Middle East
Foreign Secretary David Cameron said the UK is "prepared to back our words with actions" against the Houthis, after taking military action in Yemen over their attacks in the Red Sea.
Lord Cameron told the BBC the US-UK air strikes were needed after months of attacks on shipping, despite warnings.
Sir Keir Starmer said he had backed the operation as "action had to be taken".
But the Labour leader said he would consider whether to support further action "on its merit".
Looking at the global security situation on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Lord Cameron cautioned it is "hard to remember a more unstable, dangerous and uncertain world".
He said the "red lights on the global dashboard are very much flashing", given ongoing wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa.
Lord Cameron said the UK had given the Houthis, who are key allies of Hamas, "warning after warning" before joining US-led strikes, which were launched to protect global shipping.
The Houthis are a political and military group which control a large part of Yemen, including the capital. They are backed by Iran, Israel's arch-enemy and claim they target any ship travelling to, or owned by, Israel.
They have carried out at least 27 attacks since 19 November, according to the US, and have launched a series of drones and missiles towards Israel.
The group's attacks on cargo ships - some of which have no clear connection to Israel - have led major shipping companies to divert vessels away from the Red Sea, instead taking a longer route around southern Africa.
Confirming there would be a statement in Parliament about the strikes on Monday, Lord Cameron said a political debate before this kind of military action would not have been right "for reasons of operational security".
Asked if the attacks represented an escalation of the Israel-Gaza conflict, he denied this and told the BBC the Houthis were responsible for escalating their attacks on shipping in the vital sea lane since mid-November and the joint UK-US strikes were a "last resort".
He said: "The strikes themselves were limited, proportionate, targeted, legal, but they were also necessary."
Sir Keir told the programme he backed the UK military operation so far as "action had to be taken" to protect shipping in the Red Sea and that "sitting back and simply doing nothing" over the threat to global trade was not appropriate.
But he also said Labour would need to consider the arguments if the UK plans further attacks in Yemen and he would expect to be briefed by the government.
Asked if he had changed his position on whether the government has to give MPs a say on UK military action, Sir Keir denied this and said a vote was only needed when "deploying troops".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Keir Starmer says he backs strikes to stop Houthi attacks
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been criticised by some opposition parties for not consulting Parliament in advance of the strikes, though the government does not have to do this.
The Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru have said it is wrong that parliament was bypassed and the SNP's Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said the decision to launch air strikes against the Houthis without consulting MPs was "farcical".
The Houthis have said there was "absolutely no justification" for the attacks and that the group would continue to target Israeli ships, noting the air strikes have not affected their ability to do so.
On Sunday, prominent Houthi supporter Hussain Al-Bukhaiti told Laura Kuenssberg the group "only target Israeli-linked ships" or those heading towards ports there, because they have declared war on Israel.
Asked about attacks on unrelated ships, he questioned what international law was doing to protect civilians in Gaza from Israel's "mass-bombing" campaign.
On how the Houthis would respond to the air strikes, he said if attacks continue fighters could target US and UK battleships using "hundreds of drones and cruise missiles".
Houthis control north Yemen, capital Sanaa and the Red Sea coastline. The armed group declares themselves to be part of the Iranian-led "axis of resistance" against Israel, the US and wider West.
Lord Cameron and Sir Keir were asked about the deaths of five people trying to cross the English Channel overnight.
He said said it was "heartbreaking" to hear more people had died, "but it just shows we've got to stop the boats, we've got to stop this illegal trade in human beings."
The former PM said breaking the business model of people smugglers is why the government is pursuing the deal with Rwanda to send some asylum seekers to east Africa on a one-way ticket. Sir Keir called the deaths a "tragic loss of life" adding that "we need to smash those gangs". Rejecting the "gimmick" of the Rwanda scheme, he talked about the prosecution of gangs as Director of Public Prosecutions.
"Having seen this done for terrorist gangs, with guns and with drugs I refuse to believe we can't do anything about it," he said.
Lord Cameron was also asked about his private lobbying of ministers to try to secure an emergency pandemic loan scheme for disgraced financier Lex Greensill.
The former prime minister denied being paid £10 million to work on behalf of Greensill Capital, following his resignation as PM in 2016.
After refusing to tell Laura Kuenssberg how much he was paid, he said: "I was a private citizen, I had a number of different interests, the things I did, including important charitable work and I think as a private citizen you're entitled to do that."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67972796
|
news_uk-67972796
|
|
Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president - BBC News
|
2024-01-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Lawsuits nationwide are seeking to disqualify Mr Trump, arguing that he engaged in insurrection.
|
US & Canada
|
The US Supreme Court says it will hear a historic case to determine whether Donald Trump can run for president.
The justices agreed to take up Mr Trump's appeal against a decision by Colorado to remove him from the 2024 ballot in that state.
The case will be heard in February and the ruling will apply nationwide.
Lawsuits in a number of states are seeking to disqualify Mr Trump, arguing that he engaged in insurrection during the US Capitol riot three years ago.
The legal challenges hinge on whether a Civil War-era constitutional amendment renders Mr Trump ineligible to stand as a candidate.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear Mr Trump's appeal came after attorneys general from 27 states filed a brief asking the court to reject Colorado's ruling.
In it, they argue that removing Mr Trump from the ballot would "create widespread chaos".
"Most obviously, it casts confusion into an election cycle that is just weeks away," reads the submission.
"Beyond that, it upsets the respective roles of the Congress, the States, and the courts."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Trump says indictments are "badge of honour" at campaign event following his removal from Colorado ballot
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office, but the former president's lawyers argue it does not apply to the president.
His lawyers have argued: "The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide."
Mr Trump has also appealed against a decision by electoral officials in Maine to remove him from the ballot.
Following the Supreme Court's announcement on Friday, Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold said she had certified the state's ballots for the upcoming presidential primary elections and that Mr Trump's name was on them.
The primary ballots, held in each state, will help to determine which presidential candidates run in November's election.
Colorado's is set for the beginning of March - soon after the Supreme Court decision on Mr Trump's case is expected.
"The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case, and Donald Trump will appear on the ballot as a result," Ms Griswold said in a statement.
The split 4-3 decision by Colorado's high court last month marks the first time in US history that the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot.
This is the first time the Supreme Court will consider how to interpret the clause.
Mr Trump is the current Republican front-runner for a likely rematch against President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in this November's election.
Courts in Minnesota and Michigan have dismissed attempts to disqualify Mr Trump. Other cases, including in Oregon, are pending.
The US Supreme Court has a conservative majority - with three justices appointed by Mr Trump when he was president.
But they overwhelmingly ruled against him in his lawsuits challenging his defeat to Mr Biden in 2020.
The court on Friday agreed to take up the case in an expedited manner, with oral arguments scheduled for 8 February.
Mr Trump's legal team is due to file their opening brief by 18 January.
The group arguing for Mr Trump's disqualification must submit its argument by 31 January.
The involvement of the top US court has drawn comparisons to the 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore, which ended in a lawsuit at the Supreme Court.
The conservative-majority court's decision to halt Florida's vote recount essentially handed victory to Mr Bush.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Maine's top election official explains why she removed Trump from ballot
University of Richmond Professor Cart Tobias says the "exceptionally fast track" was "predictable and necessitated by the growing number of cases being filed in various states around the country".
With state primary elections fast approaching, there is a "compelling need for election officials in many states to prepare" and also they "need for time to plan and execute smooth voting processes on short notice".
Cases at the Supreme Court normally take between four and 12 months - in contrast with the few weeks that justices have currently scheduled.
The timeline makes it likely that the court will issue a ruling ahead of the Super Tuesday primary election in March, when Colorado and many other states hold their election to decide on each party's candidate for president.
On the day of the US Capitol riot, supporters of Mr Trump stormed Congress as lawmakers were certifying Mr Biden's election victory.
That day the then-president held a rally outside the White House where he repeated false claims of mass election fraud as he urged protesters to "fight like hell", but also to march "peacefully" to the Capitol.
Mr Trump's critics argue that he should be disqualified not only for his actions during the riot, but for his and his campaign's efforts to overturn the election result in Republican-aligned states that he lost.
While Mr Trump's alleged efforts to subvert the outcome of the 2020 presidential election are the focus of trials in federal court and a state court in Georgia, he has not been criminally charged with inciting insurrection in either case.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67899435
|
news_world-us-canada-67899435
|
|
Alice Wood who dragged partner under car guilty of murder - BBC News
|
2024-01-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Alice Wood, 23, killed partner Ryan Watson by running him over with her car.
|
Stoke & Staffordshire
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. CCTV shows Wood driving at Mr Watson after the couple had a row
A woman who used her car "as a weapon" to kill her fiance after a row at a party has been convicted of murder.
Alice Wood, 23, had denied murdering Ryan Watson, aged 24, near their home in Rode Heath, Cheshire.
She drove at Mr Watson three times before he was dragged for up to 160m (525ft) underneath the car, after he "clicked" with another woman.
And after a trial at Chester Crown Court, the jury found her unanimously guilty.
In a statement read to the court, Mr Watson's family said they had finally got justice for their "beloved son".
Wood had denied murder and an alternative count of manslaughter, claiming Mr Watson's death had been a "tragic accident".
Wood repeatedly drove her car at her fiance after she lost her temper, said police
The philosophy student told her trial she did not realise he was trapped underneath her car when she drove up Sandbach Road, before stopping, at about 23:30 BST on 6 May 2022.
However, just before Mr Watson's death, Wood had accused him of flirting with another woman at the party, held in Hanley to celebrate the birthday of a service user of the charity he worked for.
Andrew Ford KC, prosecuting, said Mr Watson was seen on CCTV footage "having a good time, being a gregarious and outgoing party guest," while a woman attending the party had described Wood as "a bit cold".
Tension had also been building between the pair - who had both been drinking alcohol - in an argument over who was driving home, the prosecution had told the court.
Wood then decided she would drive to their home on Oak Street in Rode Heath, Cheshire Police said.
Ryan Watson had been accused by the defendant of flirting with another woman at the party
The defendant then got into her Fiesta as Mr Watson walked around the vehicle, with neighbours reporting hearing shouting, doors slamming, and a car engine revving.
CCTV showed the car reversing towards Mr Watson, just missing him. Seconds later, Wood drove at him again, knocking him onto the car's bonnet, said police.
He walked away from that collision, before she drove at him a third time, when he was dragged underneath it, the jury heard.
After dragging Mr Watson 158 metres along the road, Wood then stopped, and asked a nearby resident "please phone an ambulance, I think I've run over my boyfriend".
CCTV showed Mr Watson and Wood arriving at the party in Hanley
Judge Michael Leeming told the defendant she "may never be released" from prison.
Wood showed no emotion as the jury returned its verdict.
"There is only one sentence that the law allows and that is life imprisonment," the judge said.
Wood is due to be sentenced on 29 January.
Alice Wood had been on trial at Chester Crown Court
In their statement, Mr Watson's family said: "Alice is in prison where she belongs.
"But no sentence is going to be long enough for what she has taken from us and Ryan, he'll never get to live his life and fulfil his dreams."
Wood used her car "as a weapon" while under the influence of alcohol, said Det Insp Nigel Parr.
She knew what she had done, but since then had refused to take accountability for her actions, he added.
Follow BBC West Midlands on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to: newsonline.westmidlands@bbc.co.uk
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67862292
|
news_uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67862292
|
|
Edinburgh tenant records flat rent row on secret video - BBC News
|
2024-01-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Jason Chen is confronted with a stool after withholding his rent as the property had no hot water for 28 days.
|
Scotland
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
A tenant has told of the moment he was confronted by a man he believed to be his landlord during a rent row.
Jason Chen took a secret video recording of the incident where the man is seen waving a stool during the dispute over Mr Chen's Edinburgh flat going without hot water for 28 days.
Mr Chen believes the man in the video is flat owner and controversial businessman Mark Fortune.
Mr Fortune denied this and said he was at the dentist in France at the time.
Police Scotland said its inquiries into the incident were ongoing.
Mr Chen, who withheld some of his rent as a result of the hot water issue, showed BBC Scotland News text messages that he considered threatening which he received during the dispute.
This included one sent in November from an unknown number which included a threat that Mr Chen would be "spending Christmas in hospital".
Mr Fortune said none of these messages came from him.
Mr Chen said the confrontation left him frightened and added "nobody deserves to be treated like this".
The man captured in Mr Chen's secret video on the left and Mr Fortune pictured in 2013
Mr Fortune has been refused entry to Scotland's landlord register and has a previous conviction for threatening tenants.
Mr Chen moved into a shared city centre flat in April last year after signing an agreement with Edinburgh Rent Ltd, whose only director, according to Companies House, is Mr Fortune.
Mr Chen said the flat went 28 days without hot water last October so he messaged the contact number for Edinburgh Rent to say he was withholding some of the rent until the issue was resolved.
Edinburgh Rent said the problem was caused by the electrics being overloaded by tenants and the pair fell into a dispute over WhatsApp.
In these exchanges, seen by BBC Scotland News, Mr Chen - who is from Taiwan - is repeatedly warned his possessions will be cleared from the flat unless he pays up.
The identity of the person sending the messages from Edinburgh Rent is not revealed but one exchange includes a denial that Mr Fortune is the landlord.
Mr Fortune told BBC Scotland News he did not send these messages and does not have access to the number used by Edinburgh Rent.
On the morning of 25 October last year Mr Chen received a text from a random number in the morning saying "hi Jason will see shortly mate".
Mr Chen was home alone and in bed when, later that day, the man he believes was Mr Fortune let himself into the flat and told him he had to pay the full outstanding amount or faced being kicked out.
The man then returned a few hours later and Mr Chen, who was still in bed, reached over to his phone to secretly video the exchange.
In the video, the man tells Jason: "I'll put everyone out, I couldn't care less.
"If it is not paid everything will be turned off in the flat tonight, there will be no electric, there will be no heating, no gas, no internet, no nothing.
"There will come a point where I won't be very amicable to you."
He is then seen picking up a white stool and motioning it towards Mr Chen, he said: "The likes of this, you know what I mean?"
Before leaving he says: "You can Google me."
Mr Chen only agreed to speak to BBC Scotland News if the interview was published after he left the UK for Taiwan.
He said: "I was quite surprised, I never expect someone will just show in my room, in person to threaten me like pay your rent right now or move out.
"I would say it was my first time meeting people so aggressive to me, I was quite nervous."
He added: "I know I have to do something to protect myself so I take my phone, which was sitting on the bed, and secretly recording the landlord. He did not notice, he just keep speaking threateningly to me."
Jason Chen reported the incident to Police Scotland on 25 October last year
Mr Chen paid up his outstanding rent after the confrontation as he felt he had no choice, despite being told by housing sector experts that he had the right not to pay.
He added: "My flat mates all come from different countries, none of us are local people, when this happened to us we definitely feel like is this normal?
"These things happen here and nobody cares. Nobody deserves to be treated like this."
Mr Fortune owns a number of flats in Edinburgh which are rented out by companies owned by or connected to him.
The businessman, who was refused entry to Scotland's landlord register in 2013, has faced years of complaints from tenants living in the flats he owns about poor living conditions and having deposits withheld.
Housing tribunal rulings have previously rejected arguments by these firms that they are operating short-term holiday lets from Mr Fortune's properties.
As a result the people living there should get the same protections as ordinary letting agreements.
According to the latest available list from the City of Edinburgh Council, there has been no application to put the flat that Mr Chen lived in on to the register of short term lets.
New laws in Scotland meant anyone operating a short term let had to apply for a licence to do so by October 2023 or face a £2,500 fine and a one year ban from letting.
BBC Scotland News can also reveal three flats belonging to Mr Fortune have been sold off to settle council tax debts - which are understood to be a sizable six-figure sum - with a further two properties due to be auctioned next month.
The flats were seized from him as part of a sequestration - the term used in Scottish Law for entering bankruptcy - started by the City of Edinburgh Council.
Mr Fortune supplied evidence to BBC Scotland News which he said showed he was at a dental surgery in France on the day Mr Chen's video was recorded.
The businessman said he was not a landlord and the properties he owns being run as holiday lets are operated by limited companies, not him personally.
Mr Fortune said he did not send any messages to Mr Chen and added he has reported Mr Chen to the police for allegedly writing slogans about him on the walls of his room before he left the flat for good.
He added: "Mr Chen advised in November that he would not be paying rent as he was returning home, on inspection of the room after he left it was discovered he had vandalised the room."
A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: "About 8.50pm on Friday, 25 October 2023, police were called to a report of a disturbance at premises in Gillespie Crescent, Edinburgh. Inquiries are ongoing."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67994986
|
news_uk-scotland-67994986
|
|
Britain must train citizen army, military chief warns - BBC News
|
2024-01-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
General Sir Patrick Sanders points to threat of Russia as he warns of UK's lack of readiness for war.
|
UK
|
Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on land in the future, the head of the Army has said.
General Sir Patrick Sanders warned that an increase in reserve forces alone "would not be enough".
He highlighted the threat from Russia and pointed to steps being taken by other European nations to put their populations on a "war footing".
He also called for more to be done to equip and modernise the UK's armed forces.
In a speech at an armoured vehicle conference, Gen Sir Patrick was not making an argument for conscription - where people of fighting age are required to enlist in the military - but rather laying the foundations for a voluntary call up if war broke out.
He talked about the need for the UK's "pre-war generation" to prepare for the possibility of war and said that was a "whole-of-nation undertaking".
This is not the first time Gen Sir Patrick has warned of the increasing threat of war and expressed concerns about Britain's lack of readiness.
On Wednesday, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) said Russia's war in Ukraine was about much more than seizing territory, saying it was about defeating our system and way of life.
He has already argued to reverse to recent cuts to the size of the Army. It is now a professional force of around 73,000, compared to around 100,000 in 2010.
In his speech he said Britain needed an army designed to expand rapidly.
"Within the next three years, it must be credible to talk of a British Army of 120,000, folding in our reserve and strategic reserve. But this is not enough," he said, as he also called for more to be done to modernise and equip the armed forces.
"We will not be immune and as the pre-war generation we must similarly prepare - and that is a whole-of-nation undertaking," he said. "Ukraine brutally illustrates that regular armies start wars; citizen armies win them.
"But we've been here before, and workforce alone does not create capability."
He highlighted steps being taken in countries like Sweden and Finland - where the threat of Russia looms closer - to put their nations more on a war footing.
Other senior Nato military commanders have also recently been calling on the alliance to ready itself for a potential conflict.
In response to Gen Sir Patrick speech the UK prime minister's spokesman said hypothetical scenarios of a future potential conflict were not helpful and ruled out any move towards a conscription model for the Army.
One senior Conservative MP told the BBC he did not think Rishi Sunak had fully appreciated the threat posed by Russia.
The MP said that might be because the prime minister when growing up had not experienced the existential threat posed by the old Soviet Union during the Cold War era.
Gen Sir Patrick said the nation could not afford to make the same mistakes of 1914, when it failed to perceive the escalations that led to World War One.
He said over the last 30 years the Army had halved in size, with a 28% reduction in the last 12 years, but added that despite challenges in recruitment applications to join the Army were at the highest level in six years.
Gen Sir Patrick has been a vocal critic of cuts to troop numbers and military spending and will be replaced as CGS in June by General Sir Roly Walker.
He has not been the only one to criticise cuts, with former CGS General Lord Dannatt saying the UK risked a repeat of the 1930s unless it invested more in its armed forces last week.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68086188
|
news_uk-68086188
|
|
Donald Trump testifies in E Jean Carroll defamation court case in New York - live updates - BBC News
|
2024-01-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The former president very briefly took the stand in the case, after being told off by the judge for interrupting.
|
US & Canada
|
So, that's it - Donald Trump has testified in his second civil defamation trial brought by writer E Jean Carroll. We're now wrapping up our live coverage.
His brief testimony lasted just four minutes, which took us all a bit by surprise here in the newsroom.
The short time on the stand was because Judge Lewis Kaplan had given Trump a very limited scope of what he could talk about. A separate trial last year found Trump sexually assaulted Carroll, so it meant he couldn't repeat his denials and had to stick to what was relevant in the case.
Court returns tomorrow for closing arguments and the jury to be sent off for deliberations. For a write-up of today, that's here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68088221
|
news_live_world-us-canada-68088221
|
|
Defiant Trump takes legal risk on stand in New York defamation trial - BBC News
|
2024-01-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The lawyers and the judge spent more time arguing about the scope of the former president's testimony.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump testified on Thursday in the defamation trial brought by writer E Jean Carroll, but his much-anticipated time on the stand was kept brief.
The former president - who has already been found to have defamed Ms Carroll for comments he made about her in 2019 - was under strict rules on what he could say.
But he told the jury that he stood "100%" by a deposition given in 2022 in which he strongly denied her sexual assault allegations and called her a "whack job".
Other comments he made were struck from the record by the judge for breaching the restrictions, which took significant time to agree before he took the stand.
Mr Trump has been testing the limits of the courts in his various legal cases that have become intertwined with his re-election campaign.
It's a strategy which keeps his political base invested and tuned in, and gives him considerable press coverage as he looks set to become the Republican presidential nominee.
A related civil trial last year found that he had sexually assaulted Ms Carroll, a magazine columnist, in a New York department store in the 1990s and pay her about $5m in damages. The jury also found him liable for defamation for calling her accusations a lie.
Despite that ruling, he continues to regularly deny the attack in public comments.
This civil trial focuses on separate defamatory comments Mr Trump made about Ms Carroll in 2019 while in the White House, with the jury considering how much Trump must pay in damages.
Closing arguments will take place on Friday and a ruling could swiftly follow.
Mr Trump's continuing denials of Ms Carroll's sexual assault allegations - despite what a court already found - are the reason why he was under severe limits on what he could say in his testimony in the New York court on Thursday.
The legal complications meant the judge and lawyers spent much more time arguing about what Mr Trump would be allowed to talk about compared to his four minutes of testimony.
Judge Kaplan said the first trial established the facts and the only issue remaining was how much Mr Trump must pay Ms Carroll, if anything. The Republican frontrunner was told he would not be allowed to deny that he sexually assaulted Ms Carroll.
The strict terms made it impossible for Mr Trump to launch into a monologue or to campaign from the witness stand.
It's perhaps a lesson learned from one of Mr Trump's other legal battles. In a New York civil fraud trial earlier this month, Mr Trump was initially told he could not give his closing argument. The judge in that case asked whether Mr Trump would keep it short and stick to the matters of the case.
Mr Trump responded with a six-minute monologue in which he argued he was a victim of political persecution.
The defamation trial on Thursday gave the 77-year-old much less leeway.
Asked if he stood by his deposition, Mr Trump said: "100% yes."
His lawyer Alina Habba then asked if he denied Ms Carroll's accusation. "That's exactly right, yes I did," he responded.
He went on to say "she said something that I considered a false accusation - totally false".
But Judge Kaplan quickly cut Mr Trump off and told the jury to ignore that last statement.
Finally, Ms Habba asked if her client had ever instructed anyone to hurt Ms Carroll, to which Mr Trump said: "No, I just wanted to defend myself, my family and frankly, the presidency." The judge again ordered the latter part stricken from the record.
And with that, the testimony was over. As he left the courtroom Mr Trump was heard saying: "It's not America. This is not America."
Earlier in the day, Judge Kaplan warned him to stop interrupting proceedings by "talking loudly". That included a moment when he was heard muttering under his breath that he had "never met this woman [Ms Carroll]".
Trump looks on as his lawyer Alina Habba questions former New York TV news anchor Carol Martin
Testifying outside of the limitations outlined by the judge on Thursday could have theoretically caused Mr Trump to face hefty fines or even five years in prison for perjury.
Ronnell Andersen Jones, a professor of law at the University of Utah, told BBC News the case showed the "wide gap" between Mr Trump's strategies in court and on the campaign trail.
While the former president and his lawyers may want to convince the jury that his comments in the White House did not show "ill will that warrants punitive damages", that is easier said than done considering his actions.
"This will be a hard row to hoe, given that this same jury is daily receiving new evidence that the defendant, outside the courtroom, continues to spread the lie undeterred," Ms Jones said.
The defamation trial will resume on Friday at 09:30 ET (14:30 GMT) with closing arguments. It is not yet known if Mr Trump will attend.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68071744
|
news_world-us-canada-68071744
|
|
Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah: High Court action over girl's pollution death - BBC News
|
2024-01-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's daughter Ella died after she was exposed to "excessive" pollution.
|
London
|
A woman whose nine-year-old daughter became the first person in the UK to have air pollution recognised as a factor in her death is bringing a High Court claim against the government.
In 2020, Southwark Coroner's Court found that air pollution "made a material contribution" to Ella's death.
Ms Adoo-Kissi-Debrah has brought her claim to try to establish the "right to clean air", her lawyers say.
Ella, who lived 25 metres from the South Circular Road in Lewisham, south-east London, suffered the asthma attack after being exposed to excessive air pollution, coroner Philip Barlow concluded.
In a narrative verdict, he said the levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) near Ella's home had exceeded World Health Organization and European Union guidelines.
The inquest heard that in the three years before Ella's death, she had multiple seizures and was admitted to hospital 27 times.
Her estate, for which Ms Adoo-Kissi-Debrah acts as administrator, is now suing three government departments for compensation over Ella's illness and premature death.
The personal injury case is "not about money", her lawyers say, but is focused on "seeking vindication for the death of Ella".
Ravi Mehta, representing Ms Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, said in written arguments prepared for a preliminary hearing in London on Thursday that the case was "no ordinary personal injury claim".
He added: "The wider significance of the claim is obvious.
"If successful, it will be the first claim to establish what Rosamund has described as the right to clean air under the Human Rights Act."
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care are disputing the claim.
The government denies its actions "amount to a breach of human rights" and also denies that any such alleged breach, if proven, would be "causative of Ella's injuries and death".
Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68068828
|
news_uk-england-london-68068828
|
|
Simon Clarke's call for Rishi Sunak to go sparks backlash - BBC News
|
2024-01-23
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Several ex-cabinet ministers criticise Sir Simon Clarke, after he says Rishi Sunak should be replaced as PM.
|
UK Politics
|
A senior Tory MP has called for his party to replace Rishi Sunak as prime minister or be "massacred" in the general election.
Writing in the Telegraph, former cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke said the Conservatives had lost "key voters" by failing to be bold on immigration.
But his article was criticised by several other ex-ministers.
Former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel accused Sir Simon of "engaging in facile and divisive self indulgence".
And Sir David Davis, a former Brexit secretary, said: "The party and the country are sick and tired of MPs putting their own leadership ambitions ahead of the UK's best interests."
Lee Anderson, who joined Sir Simon in rebelling over the Rwanda Bill last week, said there was "no chance" of Mr Sunak being removed before the next election.
He urged his colleagues to get behind the PM, telling the Telegraph "our only chance to win the next election is by keeping Rishi in No 10".
Home Secretary James Cleverly said he "could not disagree with [Sir Simon] more on this particular issue".
He argued Mr Sunak was succeeding in his attempts to cut inflation and reduce the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats.
"If we were to do something as foolish as have an internal argument at this stage, all it would do is open the door for Keir Starmer," he said.
Sir Simon denied he was "positioning myself or on behalf of another".
"I am speaking out because the stakes for our country and my party are too high to stay silent," the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland added.
A general election is expected in the second half of this year, with 28 January 2025 the latest date one could legally be held.
Sir Simon is now the second former minister publicly calling for Mr Sunak to resign. Former education minister Dame Andrea Jenkyns submitted a letter of no confidence in the prime minister in November.
After serving as chief secretary to the Treasury while Mr Sunak was chancellor, Sir Simon became an enthusiastic supporter of Liz Truss's leadership bid and joined her cabinet.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Rishi Sunak is asked by the Labour leader why his own MPs consider him an "obstacle to recovery".
A source close to Ms Truss said she "had no idea what Simon Clarke is/was up to and is in no way supportive of what he is saying".
Conservative MPs can only trigger a leadership election if 53 MPs write to the chair of the 1922 Committee requesting one.
In his Telegraph op-ed, Sir Simon said "the Conservative Party under Rishi Sunak once again stands on the opposite, crumbling bank of this widening precipice".
The former levelling up secretary said Tory MPs might be "afraid" of electing a fourth leader in two years but asked: "Which is worse: a week of chaotic headlines in Westminster, or a decade of decline under Keir?"
Sir Simon's comments come after a week of open rebellion against Mr Sunak over his flagship Rwanda Bill, which aims to deter migrants from crossing the Channel in small boats.
Last week 61 Conservative MPs voted to change the bill as it went through Parliament - the biggest rebellion of Mr Sunak's premiership.
In the end their attempts failed and only 11, including Sir Simon, voted against the bill as a whole.
But debate over the legislation exposed ongoing divisions within the party, with two deputy chairmen, Mr Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith, quitting their roles in order to vote for changes.
It is not anticipated that two of the most prominent rebels - former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick - are about to join calls for the PM to go.
However, Mr Sunak's critics say discontent with his leadership extends beyond the Rwanda rebels.
During Prime Minister's Questions, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer accused Mr Sunak of "endlessly fighting with his own MPs".
"We have seen this story time and time again with this lot, party first, country second," he said.
"The country forced to endure their division and chaos, the longest episode of Eastenders ever put to film."
Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper said it was "utterly ludicrous that the Conservative Party is even discussing installing a fourth prime minister without giving voters a say".
Mr Sunak is the third Conservative prime minister since the 2019 election, after MPs deposed both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss in 2022.
There has been a sense of gloom among Conservatives over the past few weeks as Mr Sunak's repeated attempts to gain the upper hand politically have failed to make a dent in their standing, with the party trailing Labour by 18 points in polls.
A general election poll of 14,000 people by YouGov projected Labour was on course for a 120-seat majority as things stand.
If accurate, the poll would mean "more Tory seats being lost than in 1997, the Red Wall being wiped out completely and shocking defeats in historic Tory constituencies like Chichester, Horsham and Banbury," Sir Simon said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68077142
|
news_uk-politics-68077142
|
|
Starmer denies backtracking on military action vote - BBC News
|
2024-01-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
While running to be Labour leader, Sir Keir promised a law requiring a Commons vote for military action.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Keir Starmer says he backs strikes to stop Houthi attacks
Sir Keir Starmer has denied changing his position on whether the government has to give MPs a vote on any plans by the UK to take military action.
The Labour leader backed the US-UK air strikes in Yemen, launched without a parliamentary vote.
He told the BBC on Sunday a vote was only needed when "deploying troops".
During his leadership campaign Sir Keir had pledged to create a law requiring "the consent of the Commons" for military action.
Speaking on Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday, Sir Keir said action had to be taken against Houthi targets because "sitting back and doing nothing" would not have been appropriate.
Downing Street briefed Sir Keir shortly before the operation on Thursday. He said he backed the air strikes but wants ministers to make a detailed Commons statement on Monday, as is planned.
The Houthis are a political and military group controlling a large part of Yemen. Backed by Iran, members claim they target any ship travelling to or owned by Israel.
They have carried out at least 27 attacks since 19 November, according to the US, and have launched a series of drones and missiles towards Israel.
The group's attacks on cargo ships - some of which have no clear connection to Israel - have led major shipping companies to divert vessels away from the Red Sea, instead taking a longer route around southern Africa.
Sir Keir told the BBC Labour would need to consider the arguments if the UK plans further attacks in Yemen and he would expect to be briefed by the government.
The US-led air-strikes hit over 60 targets at 16 Iranian-backed Houthi militant locations
While campaigning to take over from Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in 2020, Sir Keir said he wanted a new law "that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made, secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons".
This would enshrine in law the principle that UK military action should be voted on and approved by parliament,
But Sir Keir insisted there was "no inconsistency" between his previous comments and his support for the air strikes in Yemen, telling the programme that there is a difference between this action on Houthi targets and "sustained" military action.
Separately pressed on whether he had changed a commitment to stop the UK selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Sir Keir said he supported a review into all UK arms sales which will "make clear" what his party's position is.
The Labour leader argued his party is different now from the one he ran to lead in 2020.
Separately, reports that five people have died in an attempt to cross the English Channel are a "tragic loss of life", Sir Keir said.
The deaths show "we need to stop these Channel crossings", he said.
Rejecting the "gimmick" of the Rwanda scheme, he talked about the prosecution of gangs as Director of Public Prosecutions.
"Having seen this done for terrorist gangs, with guns and with drugs I refuse to believe we can't do anything about it," he said.
Elsewhere in a wide-ranging interview with the BBC, Sir Keir said he still backed Labour's key pledge to invest £28bn in green projects "by the second half of the Parliament" if elected.
Labour's Green Prosperity Plan has gone through various changes since it was first announced in September 2021.
But Sir Keir said Labour wanted the UK to run on 100% clean power by 2030 as it "gives us cheaper bills, and it gives us energy security so Putin can't put his boot on our throat."
The investment depends on a number of caveats. Labour has committed to reducing government debt within five years, and any investment would be "subject to what the government has already assigned to put in on green prosperity".
Chief secretary to the Treasury Laura Trott accused Sir Keir of not "having a plan to pay" for the investment.
"That means one thing - thousands of pounds in higher taxes for hard-working people," she said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67973868
|
news_uk-politics-67973868
|
|
Strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen show war in Gaza has already spread - BBC News
|
2024-01-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
War spreading in the Middle East is not just a risk - it has already happened, writes the BBC's international editor.
|
Middle East
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
It is time to stop talking about the risk that the war in Gaza will spread elsewhere in the Middle East. It has already happened.
Hopes for containing what is happening rest on the fact that it is still relatively low-level, compared to the worst-case scenarios of regional war.
The US and British attacks on the Houthis in Yemen are not just, as ministers in London have suggested, about the freedom of navigation and world trade.
They are directly linked to events in Gaza and represent an escalation of the crisis that is gripping the region.
The Houthis immediately vowed to respond. It is also entirely possible that pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria will increase the action they are taking against the American forces in the region.
If that theatre heats up more, and US forces retaliate, it will be harder for the American diplomacy effort to avert all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia and political movement backed by Iran.
The Houthis are also part of the network of allies and proxies, the so-called axis of resistance, that Iran has constructed to give it forward defence against its enemies.
They are getting increasingly sophisticated weapons from Iran, but it is best to think of them as allies rather than Tehran's proxy.
I have spent quite a bit of time with the Houthis in Yemen and they are people who are highly independently minded. They will relish conflict with the Americans. They want to be part of this war. What has been happening suits both the Houthis and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Houthi supporters demonstrate on Friday after the US and UK air strikes
Iran has beefed up their capabilities and the kind of firepower that the Houthis have at their disposal. That includes anti-ship missiles, ballistic missiles they have fired at Israel as well as attack drones - the same sort that Iran supplies to Russia to use against Ukraine. They are well-armed.
It is nothing like the naval capacity that they are facing from the US, UK and other members of the coalition the Americans have assembled in the Red Sea. But the threat the Houthis pose is less about the physical damage they might cause and more about the danger to international navigation.
In December, they hijacked a ship and forced it into one of their ports. They have also fired directly at ships and caused some damage, although they have not sunk any vessels.
Commercial shipping companies who want to get their valuable cargoes through the narrow Bab al-Mandab Strait at the mouth of Red Sea do not want to have hostile forces firing at them. Because of the risks, the insurance costs will rocket, and that's why so many companies are now choosing to detour along the west coast of Africa and around the Cape of Good Hope instead of using the Suez Canal, the shortcut between Asia and Europe that routes ships down the Red Sea and through Bab al-Mandab.
The Houthis have controlled Sanaa, Yemen's capital, and big parts of the country including the Red Sea coast since 2014. In 2015, Saudi Arabia led a coalition, also including the United Arab Emirates, that went to war to try to overthrow them.
The Saudis said the intervention in Yemen's civil war was to re-establish the country's legitimate and internationally recognised government, which the Houthis had overthrown.
But a few days after the intervention started, I spoke to very senior Saudis who told me it was to stop Iran from operating in their back yard. Yemen has a frontier with Saudi Arabia.
The Houthis were then bombed by the Saudis from 2015 until the ceasefire came in over a year ago, so a fresh round of strikes is unlikely to intimidate them - they are used to it.
I don't think one single round of air strikes is going to do more than make them think yes, we are on the right track. They want to be seen as a fearless resistance to America and its Western allies, who also back Israel.
The Houthis have said that they are carrying out these attacks in the Red Sea because of the war in Gaza, the killing of civilians and the severe privations Israel has imposed by blocking all but a fraction of the food and relief supplies that they need to survive.
They have said that if the war in Gaza ended and if supplies were permitted to enter, then they wouldn't be threatening a major international shipping lane.
Some critics of the American and British support for Israel say that an immediate ceasefire in Gaza would be a much better way to stop the Houthi attacks than bombing them. If Houthi attacks continued after a ceasefire, the argument is that air strikes against them would have increased legitimacy.
There is the possibility that this US-UK action could prolong or escalate the situation with the Houthis, rather than shutting it down. Last November, when the Houthis made their first moves in the wider Gaza war with their first attacks on merchant shipping off the Yemen coast, I spoke to Mohammed Ali Al Houthi, one of the leading members of their organisation. He was very defiant then and I am absolutely certain the Houthis will continue to be defiant now.
They will want to carry out more attacks, to show that they are defiant and unbeaten.
The US and UK attacks hit many different locations. While it is not possible to know the Houthis' precise military capacity, it seems unlikely that one round of strikes will have taken it out.
Regular bombardment by the Saudis since 2015 did not appear to have had a significant impact on their capacity. Yemen is a mountainous country. Given their experience of being bombed it is likely they will have tried to hide things away. Iran presumably has sent advisers and trainers to Yemen to help them operate the weapons they have supplied, and they too will have thought about ways of surviving attacks.
We can gauge the way that Iran has upgraded the Houthi arsenal by looking at the kind of weapons they are firing out of Yemen. They are more sophisticated, more lethal and therefore more of a threat.
When the Houthis took over a merchant ship last month, video of their attack showed well-trained commandoes landing from a helicopter. They are more formidable than the images we often see on TV, of groups of raggedly dressed men waving Kalashnikovs.
Compared to the force the US and UK can wield there is no comparison, but that isn't the point in this kind of warfare.
If the Houthis, who have supporters across the region, are able to continue to threaten and fire on ships in some way then they will signal to their followers that they are not bowed by the West.
More retaliation from the US and its allies is certain if the Houthis do not do as they are told.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67955729
|
news_world-middle-east-67955729
|
|
UK will back words with actions against Houthis in Yemen - Cameron - BBC News
|
2024-01-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The foreign secretary says the air strikes were necessary after Houthis attacks on ships in the Red Sea.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Lord Cameron says Houthis have escalated tensions in Middle East
Foreign Secretary David Cameron said the UK is "prepared to back our words with actions" against the Houthis, after taking military action in Yemen over their attacks in the Red Sea.
Lord Cameron told the BBC the US-UK air strikes were needed after months of attacks on shipping, despite warnings.
Sir Keir Starmer said he had backed the operation as "action had to be taken".
But the Labour leader said he would consider whether to support further action "on its merit".
Looking at the global security situation on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Lord Cameron cautioned it is "hard to remember a more unstable, dangerous and uncertain world".
He said the "red lights on the global dashboard are very much flashing", given ongoing wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa.
Lord Cameron said the UK had given the Houthis, who are key allies of Hamas, "warning after warning" before joining US-led strikes, which were launched to protect global shipping.
The Houthis are a political and military group which control a large part of Yemen, including the capital. They are backed by Iran, Israel's arch-enemy and claim they target any ship travelling to, or owned by, Israel.
They have carried out at least 27 attacks since 19 November, according to the US, and have launched a series of drones and missiles towards Israel.
The group's attacks on cargo ships - some of which have no clear connection to Israel - have led major shipping companies to divert vessels away from the Red Sea, instead taking a longer route around southern Africa.
Confirming there would be a statement in Parliament about the strikes on Monday, Lord Cameron said a political debate before this kind of military action would not have been right "for reasons of operational security".
Asked if the attacks represented an escalation of the Israel-Gaza conflict, he denied this and told the BBC the Houthis were responsible for escalating their attacks on shipping in the vital sea lane since mid-November and the joint UK-US strikes were a "last resort".
He said: "The strikes themselves were limited, proportionate, targeted, legal, but they were also necessary."
Sir Keir told the programme he backed the UK military operation so far as "action had to be taken" to protect shipping in the Red Sea and that "sitting back and simply doing nothing" over the threat to global trade was not appropriate.
But he also said Labour would need to consider the arguments if the UK plans further attacks in Yemen and he would expect to be briefed by the government.
Asked if he had changed his position on whether the government has to give MPs a say on UK military action, Sir Keir denied this and said a vote was only needed when "deploying troops".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Keir Starmer says he backs strikes to stop Houthi attacks
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been criticised by some opposition parties for not consulting Parliament in advance of the strikes, though the government does not have to do this.
The Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru have said it is wrong that parliament was bypassed and the SNP's Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said the decision to launch air strikes against the Houthis without consulting MPs was "farcical".
The Houthis have said there was "absolutely no justification" for the attacks and that the group would continue to target Israeli ships, noting the air strikes have not affected their ability to do so.
On Sunday, prominent Houthi supporter Hussain Al-Bukhaiti told Laura Kuenssberg the group "only target Israeli-linked ships" or those heading towards ports there, because they have declared war on Israel.
Asked about attacks on unrelated ships, he questioned what international law was doing to protect civilians in Gaza from Israel's "mass-bombing" campaign.
On how the Houthis would respond to the air strikes, he said if attacks continue fighters could target US and UK battleships using "hundreds of drones and cruise missiles".
Houthis control north Yemen, capital Sanaa and the Red Sea coastline. The armed group declares themselves to be part of the Iranian-led "axis of resistance" against Israel, the US and wider West.
Lord Cameron and Sir Keir were asked about the deaths of five people trying to cross the English Channel overnight.
He said said it was "heartbreaking" to hear more people had died, "but it just shows we've got to stop the boats, we've got to stop this illegal trade in human beings."
The former PM said breaking the business model of people smugglers is why the government is pursuing the deal with Rwanda to send some asylum seekers to east Africa on a one-way ticket. Sir Keir called the deaths a "tragic loss of life" adding that "we need to smash those gangs". Rejecting the "gimmick" of the Rwanda scheme, he talked about the prosecution of gangs as Director of Public Prosecutions.
"Having seen this done for terrorist gangs, with guns and with drugs I refuse to believe we can't do anything about it," he said.
Lord Cameron was also asked about his private lobbying of ministers to try to secure an emergency pandemic loan scheme for disgraced financier Lex Greensill.
The former prime minister denied being paid £10 million to work on behalf of Greensill Capital, following his resignation as PM in 2016.
After refusing to tell Laura Kuenssberg how much he was paid, he said: "I was a private citizen, I had a number of different interests, the things I did, including important charitable work and I think as a private citizen you're entitled to do that."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67972796
|
news_uk-67972796
|
|
Sunak gears up for battle on Rwanda bill - BBC News
|
2024-01-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Rwanda bill, which would declare it a safe country, will face fresh scrutiny from MPs this week.
|
UK Politics
|
The prime minister is facing another long week in the House of Commons.
First up on Monday his statement on British involvement in strikes against Yemen's Houthi rebels, and why the decision was made without consulting MPs.
But attention will quickly turn - once again - to his flagship Rwanda immigration plan.
You might remember before Christmas, after vast amounts of hullaballoo, the government's plan passed its first big stage in the Commons.
From Tuesday, it will be front and centre of a fresh Commons debate.
The plan would see the government send some asylum seekers arriving in the UK to Rwanda for processing.
The UK signed a deportation deal with the African nation in 2022 and insists the policy would deter people arriving to Britain on small boats via the English Channel.
But the UK Supreme Court said the plan was unlawful because of the risk that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda could be returned to their home countries, where they could face harm.
Now, ministers are working up a plan which they hope will be lawful: a bill declaring that Rwanda is a safe country.
But some Conservative MPs reckon the plan isn't strong enough and is likely to fail, and so want to amend it.
Before I dive into the detail, I want to draw a distinction between two crucial things at Westminster generally, and in this row in particular: noise and numbers.
Before Christmas, there was rather a lot of the former, and not a lot of the latter.
In other words, those Conservative MPs who think the government's plans are wishy washy and won't work made a lot of noise to that effect, but didn't, in the end, vote against them.
They know they got teased as "cowardly custards" by some. But they said they would be back in the new year.
Well, here we are - and the volume is notching up again.
Some are encouraged, even excited, that the Conservative Deputy Chairman, Lee Anderson, appears to have indicated he is willing to support some of the amendments.
And Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch isn't denying a report in The Times that she privately warned Downing Street before Christmas that the current plans don't go far enough.
But are there actually the numbers to defeat the government?
On Tuesday and Wednesday, at what is known as the Committee Stage of the law-making process, MPs will debate and vote on the plans.
Loads of amendments have been tabled.
It will be up to the Deputy Speaker, Eleanor Laing, to determine which ones are selected.
The leaders of three Conservative backbench tribes, the European Research Group, the Common Sense Group and the New Conservatives said at the weekend around 60 Tory MPs have backed amendments aimed at toughening up the legislation, as they see it.
Many are particularly keen on two ideas.
Firstly, stopping the very thing that stood in the way when the government tried to make this idea work the first time round.
Back in June 2022 a plane was ready to go - until it wasn't, when the European Court of Human Rights intervened at the last minute.
So, some Conservative MPs want ministers to have the authority, as a default, to ignore these injunctions.
Secondly, they also want to significantly limit the number of personal circumstances a migrant could cite to avoid being sent to Rwanda.
The key thing here is these amendments will not pass: The government doesn't support them, and neither do the opposition parties.
So two things really matter: How many Conservative MPs are actually willing to vote against the government's plans, if they are not changed?
That vote, at what is known as Third Reading, will come on Wednesday night if the bill hasn't been amended.
I am struck at this stage that while those wanting amendments talk confidently about their support, they are considerably more circumspect when it comes to how many of those supporters would actually be willing to vote the entire Rwanda plan down and inflict a credibility crushing defeat on Rishi Sunak.
Again, remember the difference between noise and numbers.
As things stand, the mood music from government appears relatively confident.
They will argue the only chance to get the Rwanda plan up and running before the election is to back them.
If things do start looking shaky from No 10's perspective, could they offer any concessions?
They don't have much room for manoeuvre, as Conservative MPs broadly on the left of the party say the bill should remain as it is.
And the Rwandan government has said publicly the plan must remain within international law, which is why some of those arguing for changes insist their ideas are compliant with this.
And remember, even if after this week's noise the government does win, the plans then head off to the House of Lords.
There is plenty of mileage in this argument yet.
• None What is the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67977590
|
news_uk-politics-67977590
|
|
Caroline Glachan murder: Two men jailed for killing schoolgirl in 1996 - BBC News
|
2024-01-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The body of Caroline Glachan was discovered on a river bank in West Dunbartonshire 27 years ago.
|
Glasgow & West Scotland
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Caroline Glachan's friends have paid tribute to her memory
Two men have been jailed for life for murdering a schoolgirl in West Dunbartonshire more than 27 years ago.
The body of Caroline Glachan, 14, was discovered on the banks of the River Leven in Renton on 25 August 1996.
Robert O'Brien must serve at least 22 years in prison and Andrew Kelly will have to serve at least 18 years before they can apply for parole.
Donna Marie Brand, who was also found guilty of murder, was not in court due to illness and will be sentenced later.
The trio had denied murder but were convicted after a two-week trial at the High Court in Glasgow.
Judge Lord Braid described the killing as "brutal, depraved and above all wicked".
Caroline's mother, Margaret McKeich, said: "This is the day that I've been waiting for for 27 years."
And she added: "It's not going to bring Caroline back but it's justice for her.
"I don't know if closure is the right word but justice has certainly been done."
Robert O'Brien, Andrew Kelly and Donna Marie Brand were found guilty of murder after a two-week trial
The jury was told that Caroline, from Bonhill, had been "infatuated" with O'Brien.
On the night of her murder, she had arranged to meet him at a bridge on the River Leven at around midnight.
She was killed in what prosecutors described as a "horrific and violent attack", suffering at least 10 blows to the head and extensive skull fractures.
The jury heard she may have been alive but was most likely unconscious when she entered the water.
Her body was later discovered by a passer-by, face down in the river.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Lord Braid told Caroline Glachan's killers "you have taken a daughter from a loving mother"
A massive murder investigation was launched, but there was no breakthrough until the case was re-examined by Police Scotland's Major Investigation Team in 2019.
Officers re-interviewed residents of a street in Renton where O'Brien, Kelly and Brand had claimed they spent the night of the murder.
An upstairs neighbour said she had seen four people - including Kelly and his girlfriend, the late Sarah Jane O'Neill - leaving the flat before midnight.
Kelly and O'Neill had been babysitting two boys, and had been joined by O'Brien and his girlfriend Brand.
They took four-year old Archie Wilson and his baby brother Jamie along with them when they went out.
When they returned more than an hour later, the neighbour heard a commotion and an argument.
This discovery enabled officers to corroborate an account given by Archie the day after Caroline was attacked.
Archie had told his mother Betty that he had been at the river and that had seen fighting and Caroline falling into the water.
His evidence proved to be the key to finally convicting O'Brien, 45, and Kelly and Brand, who are both 44.
Passing sentence, Lord Braid said: "You have taken a daughter from a loving mother.
"Mrs McKeich has spoken of the pain that Caroline's death has caused, the void her death has left that will never be filled.
"She has been deprived of seeing the woman that Caroline would have become. No sentence that I pass could possibly make up for what she has lost."
Images of Caroline as a younger child were released by her family after the sentencing
He said O'Brien had been the main perpetrator of the "murderous assault", and that no-one who heard evidence of the injuries he inflicted on Caroline could fail to be sickened.
"Then having assaulted her and left her unconscious, you left her face down in the river," he said.
"While she may have died from the injuries inflicted on her, she died from drowning."
The judge said that while Kelly played a lesser role, he was also involved in inflicting "murderous violence" on the teenager.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Caroline Glachan's best friend says she constantly asks herself 'what if?' following the schoolgirl's murder.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-67959641
|
news_uk-scotland-glasgow-west-67959641
|
|
Rishi Sunak facing major Tory revolt over Rwanda bill - BBC News
|
2024-01-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Over 30 backbenchers insist the PM's law will fail to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda unless it is changed.
|
UK Politics
|
Rishi Sunak is facing a significant rebellion from Tory MPs over legislation to revive his plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Over 30 backbenchers on the right of the party are backing plans to change the bill next week to make it harder for people to appeal deportation.
The amendments underline the scale of Tory division over the policy, which the PM has made a priority.
Ministers insist the bill allows only a "vanishingly small" number of appeals.
Those backing the amendments include former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith and a clutch of former cabinet ministers, including former home secretary Suella Braverman.
Ex-migration minister Robert Jenrick, who resigned over the draft law last month and is a leading rebel, said the current bill would fail to prevent a "merry-go-round" of individual appeals.
The Rwanda policy dominated Prime Minister's Questions, with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer arguing the prime minister had been "taken hostage by his own party".
He added that reports over the weekend that he had doubts about the policy when he was chancellor showed Mr Sunak had been "caught red handed".
"He knows the Rwanda gimmick won't work - but he can't be honest about it because he's too scared of his own MPs," he added.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Starmer says Sunak originally was against Rwanda plan
In reply, the prime minister said the government would deliver on its promise to halt migrants crossing the Channel in small boats.
Mr Sunak said Labour had not put forward a "single practical idea" to reduce illegal migration, and "can never be trusted to stop the boats".
The government introduced the bill last month, after its plan to send asylum seekers to the east African country was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.
The legislation seeks to declare in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country to send refugees to - thereby stopping flights being grounded on legal grounds.
Ministers could ignore emergency orders from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to suspend a flight to Rwanda while an individual legal case was being heard.
But rebels insist it will still allow the policy to be derailed by a wave of individual appeals, and want to tighten the circumstances in which they would be allowed.
They also want to make it the default position that ministers would ignore injunctions from the ECHR blocking flights.
The amendments are destined to fail at the vote next Tuesday as they will struggle to attract the required support from Labour MPs to overturn the government's majority.
However, the rebels could put the government's bill in jeopardy if they vote it down at a later stage if it remains unamended.
A group of 29 MPs would be big enough to overturn Mr Sunak's 56-seat majority, if they were to vote with Labour, which opposes the Rwanda policy.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Jenrick did not rule out voting the whole bill down if their proposed changes were not successful.
However, he added he was "not looking ahead to that" and the rebels were hoping to "win the argument".
He said the current version of the bill was "guaranteed to fail" because it would not provide a "sustainable deterrent" to people crossing the Channel to claim asylum.
He added that appeals to deportations should only be allowed in a limited number of cases, such as for women who are pregnant and those unfit to fly.
Tory rebels had threatened to vote against the bill before Christmas - but in the end they only abstained, meaning passed its initial parliamentary stage fairly comfortably.
Ministers could make concessions to the rebels in order to win them round, but it is thought this is unlikely to happen until the bill reaches its final stages in Parliament.
And the government is also facing pressure from Tory MPs on the more liberal One Nation wing of the party, who insist the bill cannot be tightened further without breaching international law.
The Rwandan government has also threatened to pull out of the scheme if it does not comply with international obligations.
Downing Street said Mr Sunak would consider amendments put forward by Tory MPs, and "engagements" were taking place with backbenchers.
However, his spokesperson told reporters the government would not accept any changes that could "jeopardise" the UK's deal with Rwanda.
"We need a bill with a respectable legal argument and one which does not collapse the scheme," they added.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67930783
|
news_uk-politics-67930783
|
|
Trump hearing: Judges sound sceptical of Trump's immunity defence - BBC News
|
2024-01-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The justice department called the ex-president's claim of total immunity from prosecution "frightening".
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Trump: 'As a president, you have to have immunity'
Appeal court judges have sharply questioned Donald Trump's argument that former presidents should be entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution.
In a landmark case, Mr Trump's lawyers said his time in office protects him from charges connected to his alleged effort to overturn the 2020 election.
But the justice department argued the presidency was not above the law.
Mr Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, left the Iowa campaign trail to attend.
On Tuesday, his motorcade entered and left the Washington DC courthouse through a rear garage. Mr Trump sat silently with his attorneys during the 75-minute hearing.
Speaking afterwards from the Waldorf-Astoria hotel - which was until recently a Trump hotel - he said his side was "doing very well" in the case and maintained he was facing political persecution from the Biden administration.
The Republican is accused by special counsel Jack Smith of trying to overturn Democratic President Joe Biden's election victory in 2020.
Mr Trump, 77, says he should not face criminal charges because he was acting as president at the time. He has for years cited presidential immunity while battling civil and criminal cases.
Whichever way the appeals judges rule, the case is widely expected to end up at the US Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority.
The case could have a profound effect on the future of the American presidency and what is allowable by an individual who holds the office.
It may also delay Mr Trump's criminal trial for weeks, if not months, during a 2024 political campaign in which the former real estate mogul is a leading contender.
Mr Trump said after the hearing that his side was "doing very well"
As soon as the case began, the three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - Karen Henderson, J Michelle Childs and Florence Pan - asked probing questions about the implications of their decision.
Judge Pan, a Biden appointee, sounded particularly sceptical. She asked Mr Trump's attorney, Dean John Sauer, whether he would contend that a president could sell presidential pardons and state secrets, or order Navy SEALs - the elite US special forces - to assassinate a political rival, without being concerned about criminal prosecution.
Mr Sauer's argument boiled down to the idea that a president who is not convicted for impeachment by Congress cannot be subject to criminal proceedings. Mr Trump, he noted, was impeached by the House of Representatives, but never convicted by the Senate.
However, James Pearce, the government's attorney, said such a precedent could easily be short-circuited and undermine Congress and any potential criminal proceedings. All a sitting president would have to do is resign before the legislature is able to begin impeachment proceedings to avoid prosecution, he said.
"What kind of world are we living in if... a president orders his SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment - not a criminal act," he said.
"A president sells a pardon, resigns or is not impeached? Not a crime," Mr Pearce added. "I think that is an extraordinarily frightening future."
Mr Sauer contended that prosecuting a president for his actions in office could paralyse government, particularly the executive branch. He said authorising "the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora's Box from which the nation may never recover".
He posed the hypotheticals that George W Bush could be prosecuted for "giving false information to Congress" to make the case for the invasion of Iraq, and that Barack Obama could face charges "for allegedly authorising drone strikes targeting US citizens located abroad".
While the judges seemed open to the government's arguments, they also expressed concern that a broad ruling against Mr Trump's immunity claim could "open the floodgates" to "tit-for-tat" prosecutions.
The answer may not be immediately clear, however.
The decision on Mr Trump's appeal will determine how one of the most high-profile trials in the US will proceed. It could also have major implications for the office of the presidency.
The immunity defence has already been rejected by US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan. In December, she ruled that having served as president does not entitle one to a "lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass".
In legal filings ahead of this hearing, Mr Smith, the special counsel, warned that a failure to allow Mr Trump to be prosecuted "threatens to license presidents to commit crimes to remain in office".
In a fundraising email on Wednesday, Mr Trump said President Biden and Mr Smith were "attempting to strip" him of his rights.
A poll by CBS News suggests most Americans believe Mr Trump should not be protected from prosecution for actions he took while president.
The criminal trial in this election fraud case is scheduled for 4 March, but is on hold pending a ruling on the immunity claim.
The trio of judges on the DC appeals court comprise two appointed by Democratic presidents and one by a Republican.
Legal observers saw long odds for Mr Trump in this appeal.
"I think it's fairly certain that the three-judge panel is probably going to rule against him on this particular issue," said Hans von Spakovsky, legal analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
He expected Mr Trump to appeal to the highest court in the land in the event of a loss.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67920129
|
news_world-us-canada-67920129
|
|
The many lives of Trump Tower - BBC News
|
2024-01-08
|
[]
|
Trump Tower has stood as a symbol of Donald Trump’s success and fame for 40 years, but he could soon lose control of it.
| null |
The many lives of Trump Tower
Trump Tower has stood as a symbol of Donald Trump’s success and fame for 40 years, clad in enough pink marble and brass to make Liberace (a former resident) blush.
The skyscraper rises over Manhattan’s Central Park in one of the most expensive shopping districts in the world, Fifth Avenue.
The building’s appeal has waxed and waned, but the former US president’s last name in bold letters on the gold facade is a constant reminder of the tower’s central role in defining Trump as a brand.
It was the set of his hit television show The Apprentice, which catapulted his fame to new heights. And it’s where he harnessed that fame to ride down a golden escalator and launch a successful bid to become president of the United States.
Now it is tangled up in his legal troubles. As well as being indicted four times, Trump faces being barred from doing business in New York City and could be forced to hand over control of the building where he based his Trump Organization headquarters for decades.
Trump first set sights on the old granite and limestone Bonwit Teller building at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 56th Street in the mid-1970s. It was a time of street gangs and violent crime, when New York City was known more for the Son of Sam serial killer than for glamour and style.
But Trump, the son of a wealthy Bronx real estate developer, was on the rise. He saw the location, located next to Tiffany’s flagship jewellery store on the street dubbed “Millionaire’s Row”, as an opportunity to send his profile into the stratosphere.
"In the real-estate business we have a generic term for the best location, wherever it is: The Tiffany location. And Trump Tower is literally that - it looks down on Tiffany's,” he would later tell Architectural Digest.
He said he called the Bonwit Teller owners twice a day to try to broker a deal. Trump’s persistence paid off in 1979, swooping in once he discovered the owners needed fast cash.
His plan was to tear it down and redevelop in what was becoming his trademark business style.
He took the city to court – and won – to get millions of dollars in tax breaks. He destroyed two Art Deco sculptures that had been a part of the original building’s facade to save $500,000 (£396,000), instead of donating them to the Metropolitan Museum of Art like he promised (infuriating New York’s history buffs). And he bought air rights over Tiffany’s, a zoning law which essentially means a neighbouring building would never rise up to block his sweeping views.
As the glass skyscraper grew taller, so too did Trump’s tales. When Trump Tower was completed in 1983, he boasted it had 68 floors. It only had 58.
In Trump’s first book, The Art of The Deal, he described his style of business as “people want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole”.
Trump’s exaggerations were used to promote his tower - and the building was vital to promoting Trump.
A year before it opened, Trump appeared in Forbes Magazine’s first-ever rich list by claiming a net worth of $100m. Trump Tower was at the heart of his case to get on that list.
In reality, Trump was worth only $5m. Former Forbes researcher and writer Jonathan Greenberg told BBC News he only discovered this deception of wealth much later.
When Greenberg met Trump to determine if he should be included, the future president tried to fudge the numbers. He emphasised the potential revenue of Trump Tower but failed to mention that much of it was owned by an equity firm, not Trump himself. “He was talking about, ‘when this opens, I own all of it and look at how big it is,’” Greenberg recalls.
We in the media were unprepared for anyone who lied as effectively and shamelessly as Donald Trump.
Other times, Greenberg said Trump called him, pretending to be “John Barron”, a Trump Organization executive, to feed him false information. “He spoke in the third person; I think it’s his first time he began to speak of himself from the third person - which he still does,” Greenberg said.
Trump also spread a rumour that Prince Charles and Princess Diana were buying an apartment, telling the New York Post the inquiry came from a “very aristocratic” guy with an English accent.
He may not have secured a prince and princess for his castle, but it didn’t stop Trump from creating an aura of exclusivity.
When residents walked through the shimmering brass doors they were met by doormen in elaborate outfits which mimicked Buckingham Palace’s guards. Inside the lobby was a tuxedoed piano player.
Trump would boast in Architectural Digest about having "the finest apartments in the top building in the best location in the hottest city in the world”.
In a 1998 interview with BBC HARDtalk, he would say: "I love building great buildings… I get great artistic pride out of a great building like Trump Tower."
He had not only broken into Manhattan’s property market, he had arrived with a splash.
When the tower opened, New York was desperate for something shiny and new after years of economic blight. And shiny was Trump’s speciality.
Architecture critic Paul Goldberger, in his 1983 review of the building for the New York Times, asked what other New York buildings had been “surrounded by so much hoopla?”
His critique was not a rave, but it was hardly a pan. Goldberger noted how the building’s “zigs and zags” were a welcome break from the “simple boxes” that lined the streets, and how its pink Breccia Pernice marble gave off a glow of “happy, if self-satisfied, affluence”.
Looking back, Goldberger thinks he may have gone easy on Trump in part because he seemed like a breath of fresh air when the Big Apple was battling to revitalise itself. “I think we were all inclined to be a little more positive than probably we should have been,” he told BBC News.
The skyscraper’s style, wrapped in mirrored glass, embodied the 1980s era of “greed is good”.
The building initially attracted excitement. Up to 100,000 people reportedly visited the atrium each Saturday during the holidays.
High-end fashion brands such as Buccellati and Charles Jourdan were tenants. Steven Spielberg had a pied-à-terre and Michael Jackson had a duplex with a dance studio.
Trump saved the best unit for himself - the 11,000 sq ft penthouse which takes up three floors. The urban palace originally featured chocolate lacquered walls and a gold-leaf ceiling. After attending a dinner at the nearby penthouse of Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi, Trump reportedly decided to redecorate.
Gone was the luxe modernism, replaced with lashings of gold, marble and crystal - a Versailles in the sky.
When New York City woke up from the cocaine-fuelled party that seemed to last through the 1980s, it became clear that all that glimmered wasn’t gold, simply brass.
Retailers baulked at the sky-high rents of Trump Tower and left. The glitterati that first lived there - Johnny Carson and Sophia Loren - were eclipsed by a different type of character: “Medicaid cheats, coke dealers, mobsters,” according to journalist Wayne Barrett, writing for the Village Voice in 1991.
Part of the problem was the building didn’t age well. Most of the units were built cheaply - simple white walls and galley kitchens. “He really didn't understand quality, as he pretended to do,” Goldberger said.
The units were soon outclassed by bigger, more luxurious units in newer buildings. Eventually, Fifth Avenue’s “Millionaire’s Row” would be superseded by “Billionaire’s Row”, a series of ultra-luxury skyscrapers just a few blocks away.
But Trump and his tower would not be forgotten. They surged back into the public’s consciousness in the 2000s with the reality show The Apprentice.
The shining black skyscraper was filmed from the street like it was the towering king piece on Trump’s own chess board - a character with as much airtime as the candidates.
When Jose Felix Diaz from Season Five first walked into Trump Tower, he felt like “somebody is trying to show you just how important this place is”, he told BBC News.
“During The Apprentice, I don’t think there was a piece of property that was more valuable to Donald Trump than Trump Tower,” he said.
People can knock it all they want… very few people in their lifetimes can build an edifice, you know, of that calibre, of that magnitude, on Fifth Avenue in the most important city in the world.
During the show, he lived in Trump Tower with fellow contestants. Diaz says what made the show successful was “the unpredictability of the main character… people were mesmerised by this person who didn’t hold back”.
It’s a similar story to how Trump won the presidency. It began in the atrium of Trump Tower, where he announced his White House bid in 2015.
Trump marvelled at the crowd: “Wow. Whoa. That is some group of people. Thousands.” In reality, peppered among the media there were only a few dozen spectators, many dressed in his Make America Great Again gear.
But his popularity and the size of his rallies grew, culminating in a divisive election victory. Overnight, Trump Tower became the de facto presidential transition office. He even said he wanted to spend a few nights a week in his penthouse, dismissing the White House as a “dump”. Trump kept using it during his presidency, once hosting Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe there for diplomatic talks.
Since leaving the White House in 2021, and the events of 6 January, Trump’s notoriety has eclipsed much of his legacy from his early years in New York. In a city where President Joe Biden received 76% of the vote, the Trump brand is toxic.
The man who once epitomised the city no longer spends much time there. Where there was once a Cartier store in the lobby, now there is a souvenir shop selling MAGA hats. It has also impacted the tower’s bottom line.
“You can clearly see just from the numbers, the damage that's been done to the Trump brand,” real estate broker Wendy Maitland told BBC News. In 2014, she had a unit for sale in Trump Tower for $10m. Despite an offer of $9m, the owner took it off the market. Since then, they have tried re-listing the property numerous times, as recently as last May for $5.995m, without any serious traction.
She said Trump Tower has had an outsized number of listings taken off the market for extended periods of time because people aren’t buying into the brand.
Few buildings are so closely tied to its owner in the public imagination as Trump Tower.
In the case in New York City, the former president and his two adult sons have been found liable of massively inflating the value of their properties in order to secure better loans. Among the evidence was a claim that Trump’s penthouse triplex was three times its actual size.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing, and is expected to be in court when the trial resumes on 11 January for closing arguments. The judge will then have to decide how much the Trumps must pay and whether their businesses in New York City - including the tower - must be sold off, or be held by a third-party. To lose it would be an epic chapter of Trump’s downfall in the city where he made his name.
Goldberger says it would be a “confirmation in the physical form of what’s already happened reputationally” in New York City.
But a long-time friend and fellow real estate developer who testified in the trial, Steve Witkoff, insists Trump doesn’t let anything get him down and he’ll keep fighting. Losing Trump Tower would be an indignity, but Witkoff told BBC News “hopefully we’re not going to get to that place”.
Diaz, the former The Apprentice contestant who was once inside Trump Tower’s “inner sanctum”, says imagining a world where Trump was not in control was “inconceivable”.
“I would believe that the Trump Organization will fight to their last breath to protect Trump Tower.”
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-3172e24b-aa18-401f-b245-d4cb9ffc0283
|
news_resources_idt-3172e24b-aa18-401f-b245-d4cb9ffc0283
|
|
Idris Elba urges stronger action on knife crime - BBC News
|
2024-01-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The actor teams up with victims' families to demand action and releases a single called Knives Down.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Idris Elba calls on the government to ban 'zombie knives'
Idris Elba is calling on the government to immediately ban the sale of so-called "zombie" knives and machetes, to reduce the number of young people losing their lives.
The actor told the BBC a planned change to the law, which would introduce the ban, needs to be fast-tracked.
He accused politicians of not giving the issue "the focus it deserves".
The Home Office said on Monday in a statement it "will not hesitate to do more to keep our streets safe".
It said bans on zombie and cyclone knives are already in place "and work under way to extend this to include zombie-style machetes".
Zombie knives are defined as weapons having "a cutting edge, a serrated edge and images or words suggesting they are used for violence".
They were first added to the government's list of prohibited offensive weapons in 2016. But Labour has said a loophole allowing the sale of the knives online still exists.
Last August, Rishi Sunak unveiled plans to ban more of the weapons and give police extra powers to seize machetes and zombie knives. The latest move is also designed to help police with situations which fall outside the current laws.
In particular, officers have been unable to deal with zombie knives designed to get around the 2016 definition, by not having "images or words... that suggest it is to be used for the purposes of violence".
But it is not clear when the new law will come into force.
Elba, best known for his roles in Luther and The Wire, attended an event in Parliament Square on Monday morning, where clothes were laid out to represent those killed by knives on UK streets.
Organisers hope the display will demonstrate the huge human cost of knife crime, as MPs return to Parliament from the Christmas recess.
The event is part of Elba's Don't Stop Your Future campaign, which works with local communities and well-known brands to try to tackle serious violence.
The London-born actor, 51, said he "can't stay silent as young lives are lost to brutal and heartless crimes".
Yemi Hughes, whose 19-year-old son Andre Aderemi was murdered in 2016, has given her support to Elba's campaign - and donated the outfit her son was wearing when he was killed.
Andre was stabbed multiple times in broad daylight in Croydon, south London.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Speaking to the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme, Ms Hughes recalled the last time she saw her son.
"When he got out of the car, I said, 'I'm dropping you off with a heavy heart'.
I don't know why I said those words, I suppose it's a mother's gut instinct, but he looked at me with a great big smile and said, 'Don't worry mum, I'll be fine, I love you,' and with that I drove off."
Within 20 minutes, Ms Hughes had received a phone call from a friend's mother who said someone had been stabbed.
"I knew she was talking about Andre even though she hadn't said his name, and then she let out this almighty scream that I'll never forget. She'd obviously seen it was him."
By the time Ms Hughes got to the scene, ambulances and police were already there. She followed the ambulance to the hospital, where she was told her son had died.
Ms Hughes said she was frustrated that knife crime was still a big problem.
"Our individual voices have not been heard, but yet our pain continues to be felt by families whose children are still being murdered.
"Young people need to feel safe in their communities and underlying causes of youth violence eradicated immediately."
Andre Aderemi was 19 when he was killed in 2016
The latest police figures for England and Wales from July 2022 to June 2023 show that around 247 people lost their lives due to knife crime.
Those numbers do not include teenagers like 15-year-old Alfie Lewis who was fatally stabbed in Leeds in November 2023 or 16-year-old Harry Pitman, who was killed in north London on New Year's Eve 2023.
Their deaths will be recorded in the next set of crime figures.
Harry Pitman was killed on Primrose Hill in London
Elba is also releasing a single, Knives Down, in support of his Don't Stop Your Future campaign.
The track is about his frustration with the government for what he perceives as their inaction on knife crime.
Speaking to Radio 4 programme, he said he wants to see more funding for groups working with young people.
Although best known as an actor, Elba has released music and collaborated with artists such as Jay-Z and James Blake. His biggest hit came when he provided guest vocals on Wiley's hit Boasty in 2019.
Serious knife crime in the Metropolitan Police area is three times higher than in the West Midlands or Greater Manchester, according to the latest figures for recorded offences from June 2023.
Children and young adults are most likely to be victims or perpetrators of knife crime.
While the ethnicity of victims is not always recorded, NHS figures for the year ending 2022 show that the number of people treated for stabbing injuries from Black, Asian and "other ethnicities" was far higher than for White patients.
However, the reasons behind this are subject to constant debate by politicians and experts in youth crime.
Knife crime is clearly linked to gang activity. But there is an argument about what a gang is. Police intelligence tends to represent gangs as organised and cohesive criminal groups, while young workers often see them as looser friendship groups.
Police officers stress the role of drugs in driving gang crime. The 'country lines' business-model now adopted by most drugs gangs relies on recruiting young people, and many are active in areas with large non-white populations.
Many experts point to the role of social media in driving rivalries between groups of young people, which spill out from the internet to the streets.
But there is general agreement that "adverse childhood experiences" are a major cause of young people becoming involved in crime.
The Home Office's Serious Violence Strategy highlighted the role of abuse, neglect, parental criminality, substance abuse, and being taken into care.
These factors are why many experts now advocate a "public health" approach to preventing youth crime. This involves identifying young people likely to become "infected" and finding ways of diverting them into healthier lifestyles.
Campaigners say it is still too easy to buy zombie knives
Patrick Green from the Ben Kinsella Trust says immediate action is needed to ban zombie knives and machetes.
"Four months have passed since we were promised the legislation we so desperately need to ban these weapons, yet the bill has only just started its agonisingly slow journey through Parliament," he said.
"The government has demonstrated that, when they deem it necessary, parliamentary time can be found to expedite bills with urgency.
"So, why, when we know that these knives are being used to take the lives of our children, are they not prioritising a ban with the same urgency?"
A Home Office spokesperson said the UK "has some of the toughest laws in the world to tackle knife crime".
They added: "Hospital admissions for young people with serious knife injuries are down over a quarter and overall knife crime is down 7 percent, and we will not hesitate to do more to keep our streets safe.
"That is why through the Criminal Justice Bill, we will give the police more powers to seize dangerous weapons and increase prison sentences for anyone caught with a knife."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67903124
|
news_entertainment-arts-67903124
|
|
South Africa's genocide case against Israel: Both sides play heavy on emotion in ICJ hearing - BBC News
|
2024-01-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
After two days of legal argument, judges must now rule on whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
|
Middle East
|
Pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian protesters gathered near the ICJ in the Hague to watch the proceedings
The UN's top legal body has now heard two days of powerful legal argument on the "crime of all crimes": genocide.
It is now for the judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to decide whether Israel, in its war in Gaza, is guilty of an attempt to "destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part," as defined by the 1948 Convention on Genocide.
There could hardly be a more weighty matter.
Both sides have played heavily on the strong emotions swirling around the conflict that erupted on 7 October last year.
Around 1,200 people - most of them civilians - were killed and about 240 others were taken hostage during the Hamas attack on southern Israel.
More than 23,350 people have been killed - mostly children and women - during Israeli retaliatory attacks on Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
The case, brought to the ICJ by South Africa, included a litany of alleged Israeli offences, from the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians to the wholesale destruction of Gaza's infrastructure.
"This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life," said one of South Africa's lawyers, Adila Hassin.
Israel's war in Gaza could not be allowed to continue, the South African team argued.
"Entire multi-generational families will be obliterated," Irish barrister Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh warned, "and yet more Palestinian children will become WCNSF - Wounded Child No Surviving Family - the terrible new acronym borne out of Israel's genocidal assault."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: "Israel has genocidal intent in Gaza", says lawyer representing South Africa
But on Friday morning Israel hit back, with a mixture of its own emotion and a forensic assault on the South African case.
Images of 132 missing Israelis - most of them still being held hostage in Gaza - were shown to the court.
"Is there a reason these people on your screen are unworthy of protection," Tal Becker, a hugely experienced legal adviser at Israel's Foreign Ministry, asked the court.
Mr Becker and his colleagues were scathing about South Africa's submission, arguing that if anyone was guilty of genocide, it was Hamas.
"Under the guise of the allegation against Israel of genocide," Mr Becker said, "this court is asked to call for an end to operations against the ongoing attacks of an organisation that pursues an actual genocidal agenda".
South Africa, the Israelis said, is guilty of supporting Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organisation by 41 countries, including the US, EU and UK.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
During his speech, Professor Malcolm Shaw briefly seemed to imply that the very country bringing this case against Israel was itself complicit.
"South Africa has given succour and support to Hamas, at least," he said.
It will probably take the ICJ several years to reach its verdict on the charge of genocide.
The South Africans must know there's a legal mountain to climb to prove their case.
Genocide is notoriously difficult to prove. There needs to be compelling evidence of intent by those actually in charge of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, as well as a pattern of behaviour by the Israel Defense Forces that cannot reasonably be explained as anything other than genocidal.
Remember: this is only about genocide, not whether war crimes have been committed in Gaza, or even whether Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing, as some allege.
It's one thing to be horrified, even enraged, by countless images of the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians.
It's quite another to conclude that the killing of 1% of the Gazan population, sobering though that number is, represents an Israeli effort to destroy the Palestinian people, "in whole or in part".
But for Israel, which may feel it's on safe ground when it comes to the "crime of all crimes", there's a more immediate concern.
South Africa has appealed to the ICJ to issue nine "provisional measures", designed, in the words of South Africa's 84-page submission, "to protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people".
The first of these calls on Israel to "immediately suspend its military operation in and against Gaza".
If obeyed, it would have the effect of bringing Israel's military campaign to a halt.
This could happen within weeks, long before Israel feels it has achieved its military objective of utterly destroying Hamas as a political and military force in Gaza.
For this reason, its lawyers attempted to demolish South Africa's case for "provisional measures", arguing that they had no legal basis and would tie Israel's hands but leave Hamas free to act.
Israel doesn't like the ICJ, and feels that the UN as a whole is inherently biased against the Jewish state.
But at a time when international pressure is mounting on Israel to put an end to the huge level of violence in Gaza, it knows that if the court agrees to issue provisional measures, that pressure will only increase.
It's prepared to ignore the court if it feels it has to (and the ICJ has no powers of enforcement), but it would much prefer to win the legal argument.
Correction 13th February: This article wrongly reported that about 1,300 people had been killed following the 7th October attack by Hamas. This was based on counting those who later died from their injuries in addition to the figure of more than 1,200. The article has been amended to now refer to about 1,200 deaths, a figure which includes those deaths and which Israel says is not final.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67962302
|
news_world-middle-east-67962302
|
|
Strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen show war in Gaza has already spread - BBC News
|
2024-01-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
War spreading in the Middle East is not just a risk - it has already happened, writes the BBC's international editor.
|
Middle East
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
It is time to stop talking about the risk that the war in Gaza will spread elsewhere in the Middle East. It has already happened.
Hopes for containing what is happening rest on the fact that it is still relatively low-level, compared to the worst-case scenarios of regional war.
The US and British attacks on the Houthis in Yemen are not just, as ministers in London have suggested, about the freedom of navigation and world trade.
They are directly linked to events in Gaza and represent an escalation of the crisis that is gripping the region.
The Houthis immediately vowed to respond. It is also entirely possible that pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria will increase the action they are taking against the American forces in the region.
If that theatre heats up more, and US forces retaliate, it will be harder for the American diplomacy effort to avert all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia and political movement backed by Iran.
The Houthis are also part of the network of allies and proxies, the so-called axis of resistance, that Iran has constructed to give it forward defence against its enemies.
They are getting increasingly sophisticated weapons from Iran, but it is best to think of them as allies rather than Tehran's proxy.
I have spent quite a bit of time with the Houthis in Yemen and they are people who are highly independently minded. They will relish conflict with the Americans. They want to be part of this war. What has been happening suits both the Houthis and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Houthi supporters demonstrate on Friday after the US and UK air strikes
Iran has beefed up their capabilities and the kind of firepower that the Houthis have at their disposal. That includes anti-ship missiles, ballistic missiles they have fired at Israel as well as attack drones - the same sort that Iran supplies to Russia to use against Ukraine. They are well-armed.
It is nothing like the naval capacity that they are facing from the US, UK and other members of the coalition the Americans have assembled in the Red Sea. But the threat the Houthis pose is less about the physical damage they might cause and more about the danger to international navigation.
In December, they hijacked a ship and forced it into one of their ports. They have also fired directly at ships and caused some damage, although they have not sunk any vessels.
Commercial shipping companies who want to get their valuable cargoes through the narrow Bab al-Mandab Strait at the mouth of Red Sea do not want to have hostile forces firing at them. Because of the risks, the insurance costs will rocket, and that's why so many companies are now choosing to detour along the west coast of Africa and around the Cape of Good Hope instead of using the Suez Canal, the shortcut between Asia and Europe that routes ships down the Red Sea and through Bab al-Mandab.
The Houthis have controlled Sanaa, Yemen's capital, and big parts of the country including the Red Sea coast since 2014. In 2015, Saudi Arabia led a coalition, also including the United Arab Emirates, that went to war to try to overthrow them.
The Saudis said the intervention in Yemen's civil war was to re-establish the country's legitimate and internationally recognised government, which the Houthis had overthrown.
But a few days after the intervention started, I spoke to very senior Saudis who told me it was to stop Iran from operating in their back yard. Yemen has a frontier with Saudi Arabia.
The Houthis were then bombed by the Saudis from 2015 until the ceasefire came in over a year ago, so a fresh round of strikes is unlikely to intimidate them - they are used to it.
I don't think one single round of air strikes is going to do more than make them think yes, we are on the right track. They want to be seen as a fearless resistance to America and its Western allies, who also back Israel.
The Houthis have said that they are carrying out these attacks in the Red Sea because of the war in Gaza, the killing of civilians and the severe privations Israel has imposed by blocking all but a fraction of the food and relief supplies that they need to survive.
They have said that if the war in Gaza ended and if supplies were permitted to enter, then they wouldn't be threatening a major international shipping lane.
Some critics of the American and British support for Israel say that an immediate ceasefire in Gaza would be a much better way to stop the Houthi attacks than bombing them. If Houthi attacks continued after a ceasefire, the argument is that air strikes against them would have increased legitimacy.
There is the possibility that this US-UK action could prolong or escalate the situation with the Houthis, rather than shutting it down. Last November, when the Houthis made their first moves in the wider Gaza war with their first attacks on merchant shipping off the Yemen coast, I spoke to Mohammed Ali Al Houthi, one of the leading members of their organisation. He was very defiant then and I am absolutely certain the Houthis will continue to be defiant now.
They will want to carry out more attacks, to show that they are defiant and unbeaten.
The US and UK attacks hit many different locations. While it is not possible to know the Houthis' precise military capacity, it seems unlikely that one round of strikes will have taken it out.
Regular bombardment by the Saudis since 2015 did not appear to have had a significant impact on their capacity. Yemen is a mountainous country. Given their experience of being bombed it is likely they will have tried to hide things away. Iran presumably has sent advisers and trainers to Yemen to help them operate the weapons they have supplied, and they too will have thought about ways of surviving attacks.
We can gauge the way that Iran has upgraded the Houthi arsenal by looking at the kind of weapons they are firing out of Yemen. They are more sophisticated, more lethal and therefore more of a threat.
When the Houthis took over a merchant ship last month, video of their attack showed well-trained commandoes landing from a helicopter. They are more formidable than the images we often see on TV, of groups of raggedly dressed men waving Kalashnikovs.
Compared to the force the US and UK can wield there is no comparison, but that isn't the point in this kind of warfare.
If the Houthis, who have supporters across the region, are able to continue to threaten and fire on ships in some way then they will signal to their followers that they are not bowed by the West.
More retaliation from the US and its allies is certain if the Houthis do not do as they are told.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67955729
|
news_world-middle-east-67955729
|
|
Donald Trump's New York fraud trial wraps up, with millions of dollars on the line - BBC News
|
2024-01-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The former president faces a $370m penalty and the threat of being barred from doing business in New York.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: The biggest takeaways from Trump’s fraud trial… in 82 seconds
Donald Trump returned to Manhattan Supreme Court on Thursday for the last day of his fraud trial, lashing out at the judge and the attorney general who brought the case.
A judge has already determined that Trump family members and executives fraudulently inflated assets to secure favourable loans.
But the trial will determine damages.
New York Judge Arthur Engoron has said he will issue a final written ruling in the case by the end of the month.
The outcome could be stiff penalties that may challenge the famous family's legacy after it built its fortune in New York real estate.
New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking the judge for a $370m (£290m) penalty. She also aims to bar Donald Trump from ever doing business in New York again, a five-year ban for Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr and an independent monitor to oversee their company for the next five years.
Mr Trump's attorneys attempted to discredit Ms James's case, arguing during two hours of closing argument on Thursday that the family had not committed fraud.
At the end, the former president interjected as well.
After defence lawyer Christopher Kise requested that his client be allowed to speak, Mr Trump told the judge the trial was a "a fraud on me".
Judge Engoron allowed Mr Trump to continue talking despite him refusing to abide by restrictions set by the judge.
Mr Trump went on to insult Judge Engoron as well as Ms James.
"We have a situation where I'm an innocent man, I've been persecuted by someone running for office," Mr Trump said, before Judge Engoron told Mr Kise to "control his client".
Mr Trump has made similar complaints during the three-month trial, both in his testimony before the court and in his speeches to reporters outside. He also brought up similar grievances when speaking to the press on three separate occasions during the hearing on Thursday.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Trump says his poll numbers maybe better because of trial
Repetition appeared to be a defence strategy at points.
Mr Kise reiterated several arguments, including that the case was politically motivated and that Mr Trump's real estate valuations did not cause any harm to banks or anyone else.
"The marketplace functioned as it should," he said of Mr Trump's real estate dealings.
He also claimed Judge Engoron's ruling would have wide-ranging consequences beyond the Trump family.
"This isn't just about President Trump," he said. "What you do, judge, impacts every corporation in New York."
He also echoed previous testimony from Mr Trump and his two children, Donald Jr and Eric, who shifted blame to the accountants who they argued were in charge of preparing financial statements. Mr Trump's daughter Ivanka took the stand earlier in the trial, as well, although she is no longer a defendant in the case.
Ms James' team disagreed and said the Trumps were attempting to shirk their responsibilities.
In their own closing arguments on Thursday, they argued the onus was just as much on the Trump family to ensure financial statements were accurate as it was on their accountants.
State attorney Andrew Amer claimed Mr Trump did not fake numbers himself but got employees and accountants to do his bidding to "keep his net worth as high as possible".
The prosecution also showed a host of emails during the trial that suggested Trump family members were at least aware of Mr Trump's financial statements, despite testimony to the contrary.
Before court, Ms James said these documents and other testimony during the 10-week trial had "revealed the full scale and scope" of Mr Trump's fraud.
"I am proud of the case we presented, and I am confident that the facts and the rule of law are on our side," she said.
Many of the courtroom tensions over the past three months have centred on the New York judge, with Mr Trump's legal team claiming that Judge Engoron and his law clerk are biased against the former president.
Mr Trump has also insulted Judge Engoron's clerk on social media, leading to a gag order from that cost him $15,000.
Before court began on Thursday, court officials told reporters there had been a threat made on Judge Engoron's home on New York's Long Island. Local police later told US media that the threat was a "swatting incident", a hoax call made to send law enforcement to a home.
The end of the fraud trial comes as several separate criminal cases against Mr Trump - including two sets of charges over his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election - are heating up.
Another civil case, a second lawsuit from writer E Jean Carroll, is set to begin this month.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67939251
|
news_world-us-canada-67939251
|
|
E Jean Carroll trial: Judge threatens to remove Trump from court - BBC News
|
2024-01-17
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The threat came after the ex-president was overheard criticising his accuser's testimony in court.
|
US & Canada
|
Judge Lewis Kaplan threatened to kick Donald Trump out of court after he was overheard loudly criticising E Jean Carroll's testimony
Donald Trump's lawyers accused E Jean Carroll of courting publicity on Wednesday, as she said her reputation was left "shattered" after accusing him of sexual assault in the 1990s.
The second day of the civil defamation trial featured several fiery exchanges.
At one point, the judge threatened to kick Mr Trump out of court after he was overheard criticising her testimony.
A jury found Mr Trump liable for sexually abusing Ms Carroll last year, but he continues to deny the claim.
He was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, though not for rape, and Ms Carroll was awarded $5m. That trial was based on his 2022 remarks that her story was a "con job" and a "hoax".
The current case focuses on different remarks - which the judge has already ruled were defamatory - that Mr Trump made while he was president in 2019, when he called her allegation "totally false". This second trial will determine additional damages.
But much of Wednesday's proceedings were marked by angry exchanges between Mr Trump and the judge, who threatened to revoke the former president's right to attend trial after a lawyer for Ms Carroll heard him call the case a "witch hunt" and criticise his accuser's memory within earshot of the jury.
"Mr Trump has a right to be present here," Judge Kaplan said, frustration evident in his voice. "That right can be forfeited and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me, and if he disregards court orders."
"Mr Trump," he continued. "I hope I don't have to consider excluding you from the trial. I understand you're probably eager for me to do that."
"I would love it," the former president replied. "I understand you're probably very eager for me to do that because you just can't control yourself in these circumstances," Judge Kaplan barked back.
In all his years of bomb throwing and political attacks, Mr Trump has rarely had to face the subjects of his ire. But on Wednesday, aside from those comments, he was forced to remain silent as Ms Carroll told a jury how he had damaged her reputation.
In 2019, she alleged Mr Trump forced himself on her after a chance encounter decades earlier inside the luxury Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan.
"I am here because Donald Trump assaulted me, and when I wrote about it, he said it never happened," Ms Carroll, 80, said. "He lied, and it shattered my reputation."
After building a 50-year career as a journalist, she told the court: "now I'm known as a liar, a fraud and a whack job".
"I am here to get my reputation back and to stop him from telling lies about me."
E Jean Carroll told the court Trump "lied, and it shattered my reputation"
Lawyers for Ms Carroll displayed a series of death threats, rape threats and insults she says she has received since coming forward.
One message told her to "stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger", while another called her a "Satan worshipping Nazi" - abuse, she said, that left her fearful.
In the light of these safety concerns, Ms Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, asked her client about a photo showing her smiling next to a man in a rubber Trump mask as she walked past Trump Tower in Manhattan.
Ms Carroll said she felt safe there because of the large police presence.
Sitting two rows back with his legal team, Mr Trump listened intently, staring at Ms Carroll and shaking his head at one point.
During cross-examination, his lawyers went on the attack. Alina Habba - Mr Trump's attorney - tried to make the case that Ms Carroll wanted fame, citing her multiple television and podcast appearances to talk about her book and the allegations.
She said Ms Carroll continues to give interviews about the case she won last year. "After all those appearances, you want to gain more publicity don't you?" Ms Habba asked.
Ms Carroll responded that she had her fill of that, adding that she did not like saying Mr Trump's name but interviewers always wanted to ask about him.
Trump attorney Alina Habba clashed repeatedly with the judge on Wednesday
As the court returned for its afternoon session, the tension between Mr Trump, his legal team, and the judge resumed after they asked Mr Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, to recuse himself for "general hostility toward the defence". The motion was denied.
Ms Habba repeatedly clashed with the judge as the day wore on. She asked for the trial to be delayed so Mr Trump could attend his mother-in-law's funeral on Thursday, saying it would be "insanely prejudicial" to have him sit in court.
"The application is denied. I will hear no further argument on it," Judge Kaplan said. "None. Do you understand that word? None."
Though the former president was deposed in the earlier trial, he did not attend in person or testify, both of which he is doing voluntarily in these proceedings. He is expected to take the stand on Monday.
Speaking after court on Wednesday, he fumed at the refusal, calling Judge Kaplan "a nasty man" and a "Trump hating guy".
"It's a disgrace frankly, what's happening. It's a disgrace, [he] happens to be a [President] Clinton appointment, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it."
Mr Trump, who also faces 91 felony charges across four criminal cases this year and is awaiting judgement in a New York civil fraud trial, is currently the Republican frontrunner for president.
On Monday, he scored a landslide victory in the Iowa caucuses, the first of the state-by-state votes in the race to become the Republican party's White House candidate.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68009461
|
news_world-us-canada-68009461
|
|
Lee Anderson: Outspoken MP suspended over Khan comments - BBC News
|
2024-01-17
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The MP for Ashfield is known for his controversial views but supporters believe he connects with voters.
|
UK Politics
|
Lee Anderson has rarely been out of the headlines since becoming the Conservative Party's deputy chairman just over a year ago.
This week it's his claims that London mayor Sadiq Khan and Labour leaders Sir Keir Starmer are "controlled by Islamists" that resulted in the prime minister slapping down the comments as wrong and kicking him off the Tory benches.
The newly-independent MP for Ashfield was already in the PM's sights last month, when Mr Sunak warned he would fire any frontbenchers who failed to vote with the government on the Rwanda bill.
Instead, Mr Anderson and his former fellow Tory deputy chairman Brendan Clarke-Smith quit their roles ahead of the vote in order to rebel.
The Nottinghamshire politician - who is paid £100,000 a year on top of his MPs' salary for hosting a GB News show - enjoys speaking his mind and upsetting what he sees as the politically correct "woke" establishment.
In an interview conducted a few days before he was given the deputy chair role in February 2023, Mr Anderson expressed his support for bringing back the death penalty - a position not shared by the government.
He was given the nickname "30p Lee" after comments in Parliament when he suggested people needed to learn how to cook and budget "properly".
"We can make a meal for about 30p a day and this is cooking from scratch," he said.
He's also said that poor families were "more resourceful" in the past - and was criticised by the Hope Not Hate campaign for saying he had sympathy with people protesting outside hotels providing refuge for asylum seekers.
But despite his tendency to create media storms, his supporters in the Conservative Party believe the former Labour councillor can connect with so-called "red wall" voters in the Midlands and the north of England in a way that others can't.
Born in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, to a family of coal miners, he followed in the footsteps of his father by working in the area's pits for 10 years after leaving school.
After separating from his partner, he raised his two sons as a single parent on what he described as a "meagre wage".
"I've been that man that has to put five quid in the gas meter on a Sunday night and been watching the meter spin round all week," he told TalkTV in 2022.
He went on to volunteer at a local Citizens Advice centre before working in hostels for homeless care leavers.
His first job in politics was working in the office of local Labour MP Gloria De Piero, serving as a district councillor at the same time.
In February 2018 he was suspended from the council's Labour group after hiring a digger and placing concrete blocks to stop travellers illegally camping in a car park.
A month later he defected to the Tories, saying his former party had been "taken over by the hard-left".
In the 2019 general election the Brexit-supporter stood as the Conservative candidate for Ashfield, winning the seat from Labour.
The constituency was one of many Leave-supporting areas to turn blue in Boris Johnson's landslide victory over Jeremy Corbyn.
However, his successful campaign was not without controversy.
He faced mockery after he appeared to be caught setting up a door knock while out canvassing, accompanied by journalist Michael Crick.
During the visit a microphone picked up Mr Anderson asking a voter not to mention he was his friend during filming.
There was further criticism for comments suggesting "nuisance tenants" living on a council estate should be forced to live in tents and pick vegetables.
Mr Anderson continued to attract attention for his strident views as an MP.
During the Euro 2020 football tournament he criticised the England team for taking the knee in protest at racism and vowed to boycott their matches.
He returned to the theme of budgeting, when he posted a photo on Twitter of one of his staff members to illustrate his argument that nurses on £30,000 a year didn't need to use food banks.
The post, which detailed her monthly spending on rent and travel, provoked a backlash on social media.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Lee Anderson: "There's not this massive use for food banks in this country"
The 57-year-old's appointment as deputy party chairman by Mr Sunak came despite Mr Anderson initially backing his rival Boris Johnson in last year's leadership election.
He's also been critical of the government's approach to tackling illegal immigration.
In December, he wrote that he was "putting my party on notice" over the issue, saying the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats was "making us the laughing stock of the world".
In a joint resignation letter, Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith said they backed rebel amendments to the Rwanda bill "not because we are against the Rwanda legislation but because... we want it to work."
They added "our main wish is to strengthen the legislation. This means that in order to vote for amendments we will therefore need to offer you our resignations from our roles".
The two said they believed when it came to asylum claims "there are far too many who wish to cheat our system" yet provisions in international and domestic law meant deportations could still be blocked under the government's bill.
Many of Mr Anderson's former fellow Tory MPs in the Midlands and north of England love his outspoken style.
They think he reflects the concerns of real voters - the people they want to hold on to at the next general election.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64582994
|
news_uk-politics-64582994
|
|
Prince Harry drops libel claim against Mail on Sunday publisher - BBC News
|
2024-01-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Prince Harry withdraws his libel claim over a Mail on Sunday story about his security arrangements.
|
UK
|
Prince Harry has withdrawn his libel claim against the Mail on Sunday publisher, Associated Newspapers says.
The Duke of Sussex, 39, had sued over an article about his publicly-funded security arrangements when visiting the UK after stepping back as a senior royal.
In an article on the Daily Mail website the paper said he had "abandoned his case" hours before a court deadline.
It said the prince would be liable for the publisher's £250,000 legal costs.
The Mail on Sunday article, published in February 2022, had reported on the prince's legal challenge against the Home Office over changes to his publicly-funded security that had happened after he had stopped being a working royal and moved to the United States.
After the claim was dropped, a spokesperson for the Sussexes said the duke was instead focusing on the safety of his family and his legal case against the Home Office.
"His focus remains there, and on the safety of his family, rather than these legal proceedings that give a continued platform to the Mail's false claims all those years ago," they said.
The Daily Mail said the duke could be facing costs of up to £750,000 but the spokesperson for the Sussexes said costs were still to be determined and it was "premature" to speculate.
The now-withdrawn libel case is separate from the prince's claims of unlawful obtaining information against Associated Newspapers, which are due to go to trial.
Prince Harry recently won damages from the Daily Mirror's publisher over phone-hacking claims.
In his long-running libel case against Associated Newspapers, the prince had claimed the story falsely suggested he had "lied" and "cynically" tried to manipulate public opinion.
The headline said the duke had "tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret" and his lawyers argued the article was "an attack on his honesty and integrity".
The publisher contested this claim, arguing the article expressed an "honest opinion" and did not cause "serious harm" to his reputation.
Prior to the case being dropped, a three-day trial had been scheduled to be held between 17 May and 31 July this year.
Last month, Prince Harry lost part of the legal battle after his lawyers failed to persuade a judge to throw out a strand of Associated Newspapers' defence.
Mr Justice Nicklin said the newspaper group's argument that the article was "honest opinion" had a "real prospect" of success.
Prince Harry has been involved in a series of legal cases in recent years, with most still yet to be resolved. They include:
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68034322
|
news_uk-68034322
|
|
Laura Kuenssberg: Why is Humza Yousaf predicting 'inevitable' Keir Starmer victory? - BBC News
|
2024-01-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Polls suggest Humza Yousaf is yet to convince the Scottish public he's an effective leader - could that change?
|
UK Politics
|
Something strange is happening in part of the UK.
Normally, when we ask politicians who they think will win an election they are performatively shy. "Ooh, I couldn't possibly say," or, "You should know far better than to ask before a single vote has been cast, Laura!"
But there is one prominent politician who claims to know the outcome of the upcoming general election. They say it's "inevitable" that Sir Keir Starmer will be the next PM - and they're not even in the Labour Party.
You voters are a volatile bunch and polling suggests swathes of the public are yet to make up their minds. So what is exactly is the First Minister of Scotland, Humza Yousaf, up to when he proclaims so confidently that Starmer will reach Downing Street - and that the Labour leader "doesn't need Scotland" in order to do it?
The great polling guru Sir John Curtice tells me that, as thing stands, Yousaf is technically right. Based on current numbers, Labour does not have to win dozens of seats in Scotland to get back into power. "Frankly the Labour Party at the moment is going to go walkies without needing to do particularly well" with Scottish voters, he says.
Yet at the risk of sounding like a broken record: the election is miles away. Polls are polls, not elections. Nearly all MPs privately believe the polls will narrow when we get to the campaign proper (although this too is not inevitable). Labour needs an epic swing to get a majority even of one, and Scotland's 57 seats might be utterly crucial.
In 2019 the SNP's dominance in Scotland was absolute - the biggest party by miles for the third general election in a row. The SNP took 48 seats while Labour managed only one. Now there is a real fight between them for first place with the possibility, as things stand, they end up with roughly the same number. You read those numbers right: the SNP could lose about half their seats.
What the first minister is really trying to say to voters, according to a senior SNP MP, is: "Don't worry about getting rid of the Tories - that's going to happen anyway."
Yousaf's challenge is to make the SNP relevant in a UK-wide argument about generational change - and to draw voters into thinking about what Sir Keir Starmer, as prime minister, would actually do for Scotland on big issues such as public spending and an independence referendum.
But another SNP MP says there is "anger and dismay" at the argument Yousaf is making to voters, which they describe as "all over the place". You can see and listen to Yousaf try to explain it on the show.
You can also expect the party in the coming days and weeks to try to lure Labour into a fight on their terms, the senior MP says: "I want to see him come north and onto our territory."
Fights about the pitch to the public don't mask the enormous changes that have taken place before our eyes to one of the biggest political forces. The SNP approaches the general election as a completely different outfit to last time around, and that makes the job of convincing voters to stick with them difficult, whatever the message.
Their decline in the polls is partly because voters didn't like seeing the party's divisions and disagreements during its leadership campaign after Nicola Sturgeon quit.
But the position had already changed before those messy few months, because Tory disasters under Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss prompted some softer Scottish unionists to shift to Labour. The Conservative crash under Liz Truss made it look much more likely that Labour could win a majority - and by implication the SNP lost its potential leverage in the event of a hung parliament.
Humza Yousaf, still a relatively new leader, seems to have been unable to catch a break as he grapples with a series of embarrassments that just seem to keep coming.
The police investigation into the party's finances, the arrest of Nicola Sturgeon herself and subsequent release without charge, and a minister in trouble over roaming charges on his work iPad. In the last 24 hours we've seen revelations about government WhatsApps being deleted during the pandemic.
The polls suggest - and his colleagues acknowledge privately - that Yousaf is yet to convince the public he is an effective leader with a compelling argument to make. And without a realistic prospect of another referendum on independence any time soon, the constitutional argument that used to enthuse some voters doesn't galvanise support as it did before.
That said, voters in Scotland are as volatile as in the rest of the UK, and things could change quickly.
One of his backers argues that Yousaf has played "probably the most difficult hand imaginable" about as well as anyone could have. There is no question that he inherited a mess not all of his own making.
But there is little sign of him being able to improve the situation, with a widespread tacit acknowledgement that the party will fall back. One MP even fears the SNP would be better off in opposition at Holyrood to sort itself out, with the chance of independence "put back by a decade by Sturgeon's antics", they fear.
Arguments about the constitution and whether or not to have another independence referendum used to protect the SNP somewhat from judgement on its record. With that fading, voters seem willing to judge the party's achievements - or lack of - more harshly than they did before.
Humza Yousaf wants to make the argument that it is "inevitable" that Keir Starmer will be PM - instead there is widespread belief that it's inevitable the SNP will fall back significantly at the next election, possibly losing its position as the third biggest party at Westminster if the Lib Dems score well. That would be a huge redrawing of the political map.
Yousaf might not like the comparison but as the election draws closer, it's inevitable too that parallels will be drawn between the SNP and the Conservatives. Both have a young, new-ish leader, who inherited a mess, in charge of a party that had been dominant for more than a decade.
With infighting and a patchy record, the hopes of a turnaround fade as the months pass, and the poll that matters at the ballot box approaches. That could describe our PM Rishi Sunak - but right now it could describe Humza Yousaf too.
What questions would you like to ask Humza Yousaf this Sunday?
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68041203
|
news_uk-politics-68041203
|
|
Donald Trump civil trial: Fraud was central to Trump Organization, lawyers tell New York trial - BBC News
|
2024-01-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The state of New York wants to fine the former president $370m and bar him from doing business there.
|
US & Canada
|
We're closing our live coverage now. It's been a busy day - and a long day for our reporters in New York City who queued up before dawn to get a guaranteed spot inside the courtroom.
We heard from Trump's lawyers first, who repeated their main arguments - that the case was politically motivated and that Mr Trump's real estate valuations did not cause any harm to banks or anyone else.
In a surprise twist, Trump then got a few minutes to speak. We didn't think that was going to happen. The judge previously said he wouldn't give the former president time, as he had not agreed to stick to certain guidelines.
But Trump's lawyers asked for a a few moments at the end of their closing, and Trump was given the opportunity.
"We have a situation where I'm an innocent man," he said. "I've been persecuted by someone running for office."
What the prosecution said:
The state of New York said fraud was "central to the operations of the Trump Organization" - and sought to show how Trump's associates willingly faked numbers and exaggerated the square footage of buildings.
It says the company was strapped for cash, trying to suggest Trump had a motive to inflate his net worth.
The prosecution was methodical in its approach, outlining all the individuals involved and going property by property to paint a broad picture of fraud and conspiracy.
They claim that Donald Trump and the other defendants "acted in concert" to commit fraud.
You can read our full write through of today's events here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-67928972
|
news_live_world-us-canada-67928972
|
|
Donald Trump's New York fraud trial wraps up, with millions of dollars on the line - BBC News
|
2024-01-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The former president faces a $370m penalty and the threat of being barred from doing business in New York.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: The biggest takeaways from Trump’s fraud trial… in 82 seconds
Donald Trump returned to Manhattan Supreme Court on Thursday for the last day of his fraud trial, lashing out at the judge and the attorney general who brought the case.
A judge has already determined that Trump family members and executives fraudulently inflated assets to secure favourable loans.
But the trial will determine damages.
New York Judge Arthur Engoron has said he will issue a final written ruling in the case by the end of the month.
The outcome could be stiff penalties that may challenge the famous family's legacy after it built its fortune in New York real estate.
New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking the judge for a $370m (£290m) penalty. She also aims to bar Donald Trump from ever doing business in New York again, a five-year ban for Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr and an independent monitor to oversee their company for the next five years.
Mr Trump's attorneys attempted to discredit Ms James's case, arguing during two hours of closing argument on Thursday that the family had not committed fraud.
At the end, the former president interjected as well.
After defence lawyer Christopher Kise requested that his client be allowed to speak, Mr Trump told the judge the trial was a "a fraud on me".
Judge Engoron allowed Mr Trump to continue talking despite him refusing to abide by restrictions set by the judge.
Mr Trump went on to insult Judge Engoron as well as Ms James.
"We have a situation where I'm an innocent man, I've been persecuted by someone running for office," Mr Trump said, before Judge Engoron told Mr Kise to "control his client".
Mr Trump has made similar complaints during the three-month trial, both in his testimony before the court and in his speeches to reporters outside. He also brought up similar grievances when speaking to the press on three separate occasions during the hearing on Thursday.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Trump says his poll numbers maybe better because of trial
Repetition appeared to be a defence strategy at points.
Mr Kise reiterated several arguments, including that the case was politically motivated and that Mr Trump's real estate valuations did not cause any harm to banks or anyone else.
"The marketplace functioned as it should," he said of Mr Trump's real estate dealings.
He also claimed Judge Engoron's ruling would have wide-ranging consequences beyond the Trump family.
"This isn't just about President Trump," he said. "What you do, judge, impacts every corporation in New York."
He also echoed previous testimony from Mr Trump and his two children, Donald Jr and Eric, who shifted blame to the accountants who they argued were in charge of preparing financial statements. Mr Trump's daughter Ivanka took the stand earlier in the trial, as well, although she is no longer a defendant in the case.
Ms James' team disagreed and said the Trumps were attempting to shirk their responsibilities.
In their own closing arguments on Thursday, they argued the onus was just as much on the Trump family to ensure financial statements were accurate as it was on their accountants.
State attorney Andrew Amer claimed Mr Trump did not fake numbers himself but got employees and accountants to do his bidding to "keep his net worth as high as possible".
The prosecution also showed a host of emails during the trial that suggested Trump family members were at least aware of Mr Trump's financial statements, despite testimony to the contrary.
Before court, Ms James said these documents and other testimony during the 10-week trial had "revealed the full scale and scope" of Mr Trump's fraud.
"I am proud of the case we presented, and I am confident that the facts and the rule of law are on our side," she said.
Many of the courtroom tensions over the past three months have centred on the New York judge, with Mr Trump's legal team claiming that Judge Engoron and his law clerk are biased against the former president.
Mr Trump has also insulted Judge Engoron's clerk on social media, leading to a gag order from that cost him $15,000.
Before court began on Thursday, court officials told reporters there had been a threat made on Judge Engoron's home on New York's Long Island. Local police later told US media that the threat was a "swatting incident", a hoax call made to send law enforcement to a home.
The end of the fraud trial comes as several separate criminal cases against Mr Trump - including two sets of charges over his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election - are heating up.
Another civil case, a second lawsuit from writer E Jean Carroll, is set to begin this month.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67939251
|
news_world-us-canada-67939251
|
|
Post Office scandal: Kemi Badenoch hits back at ex-chairman - BBC News
|
2024-02-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Business secretary says claims made by Henry Staunton over his dismissal are a "misrepresentation".
|
Business
|
Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch has hit back at claims made by former Post Office chairman Henry Staunton about the reasons for his departure.
Mr Staunton told the Sunday Times that when he was sacked Ms Badenoch had told him: "Someone's got to take the rap."
But Ms Badenoch said the comments were a "disgraceful misrepresentation" of their conversation.
Mr Staunton also said he was told to delay payouts to Post Office scandal victims, which the government denies.
Hundreds of subpostmasters were prosecuted because of glitches in the Horizon IT system between 1999 and 2015 in what has been called the biggest miscarriage of justice in UK history.
Mr Staunton was appointed Post Office chairman in December 2022, but left the post last month after Ms Badenoch said "new leadership" was needed to tackle the scandal.
Speaking to the Sunday Times, Mr Staunton said he first heard about his sacking when he was called by Sky News. He then spoke to Ms Badenoch on the phone.
Mr Staunton also told the paper that shortly after joining the Post Office he was told by a senior civil servant to slow down the rate of compensation payments, apparently to help the government's finances.
"Early on, I was told by a fairly senior person to stall on spend on compensation and on the replacement of Horizon, and to limp, in quotation marks - I did a file note on it - limp into the election," he told the paper.
"It was not an anti-postmaster thing, it was just straight financials. I didn't ask, because I said: 'I'm having no part of it - I'm not here to limp into the election, it's not the right thing to do by postmasters'."
Henry Staunton stood down as Post Office chairman last month
In a lengthy post on X, formerly Twitter, Ms Badenoch said Mr Staunton's comments were a "disgraceful misrepresentation of my conversation with him and the reasons for his dismissal".
"Far from 'taking the rap', I dismissed Staunton due to very serious allegations about his conduct while chair of the Post Office, including blocking an investigation into that conduct.
"Henry Staunton had a lack of grip getting justice for postmasters. The serious concerns over his conduct were the reasons I asked him to step down," she added.
She said that her conversation with him was carried out with officials and they took a "complete record". A statement will be made on Monday "telling the truth", she added.
Earlier a spokesman for the government had said it "utterly" refuted the claims made by Mr Staunton over stalling compensation payments.
"The government has sped up compensation to victims, and consistently encouraged postmasters to come forward with their claims," the spokesman said.
"To suggest any actions or conversations happened to the contrary is incorrect. In fact, upon appointment, Mr Staunton was set concrete objectives, in writing, to focus on reaching settlements with claimants - clear evidence of the government's intent."
A spokesperson for Mr Staunton told the BBC his client would be making no further comment but that he stood by the accusations made in the Sunday Times.
They also said there was no investigation into Mr Staunton.
Shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: "The Horizon scandal is widely accepted to be one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history.
"Under no circumstances should compensation to victims be delayed and to do so for party political purposes would be a further insult to subpostmasters.
"The Labour Party has called for all subpostmasters to be exonerated and compensation paid swiftly so that victims can begin to draw this awful chapter to a close."
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said Mr Staunton's claims were "deeply disturbing" and called for ministers to explain to Parliament "exactly what has happened at the earliest opportunity".
The slow pace of overturning convictions and making compensation payments has led some to call for a mass exoneration of those affected.
Mr Staunton told the Sunday Times that Post Office chief executive Nick Read had written to the Justice Secretary Alex Chalk with legal opinion from the Post Office's solicitors, Peters & Peters, that in more than 300 cases convictions were supported by evidence not related to the Horizon software.
"Basically it was trying to undermine the exoneration argument," Mr Staunton said. "It was 'most people haven't come forward because they are guilty as charged' - i.e. think very carefully about exoneration."
A spokesperson for the Post Office said it was "very aware of the terrible impact from this appalling scandal and miscarriage of justice".
"We refute both the assertions put to us and the words and phrases allegedly used, and are focused on supporting the government's plans for faster justice and redress for victims, as well as helping the Inquiry get to the truth of what happened," they said.
The spokesperson added: "In no sense did the Post Office seek to persuade government against mass exoneration. We remain firmly committed to supporting faster justice and redress for victims".
Are you affected by the issues raised in this story? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68330465
|
news_business-68330465
|
|
Brianna Ghey: I would speak to killer Scarlett Jenkinson's mum, her mother says - BBC News
|
2024-02-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Esther Ghey tells the BBC she wants the mother of Scarlett Jenkinson to know she does not blame her.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey has said she is "open" to speaking to the mother of one of her daughter's killers.
Esther Ghey told Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg she wanted the mother of Scarlett Jenkinson to know she did not blame her for what happened.
"If she ever wants to speak to me, I'm here," she said.
In an emotional interview, Ms Ghey said she would like to understand "how their life was, and what they went through".
"I also want her to know that - I understand how difficult being a parent is, in this current day and age, with technology and phones and the internet, and how hard it is to actually monitor what your child is on," she said.
Jenkinson, who killed Brianna with Eddie Ratcliffe, had watched videos of violence and torture on the dark web.
They plotted the murder using messaging apps.
Speaking for the first time since the killers' sentencing, Ms Ghey said: "You can always look back and wish that you'd done things differently and maybe if I had done things differently, then this wouldn't have happened."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Esther Ghey wants a law introduced so under-16s cannot access social media on their phones
Ms Ghey called for the government to stop children having access to social media apps on smartphones, calling the internet the "Wild West".
She said it was "just not doable" for parents to check what children were seeing online.
Ms Ghey, who is launching a petition to demand the changes, also wants companies to flag searches of inappropriate material, like the videos Jenkinson saw, to parents.
She said: "We'd like a law introduced so that there are mobile phones that are only suitable for under-16s.
"So if you're over 16, you can have an adult phone, but then under the age of 16, you can have a children's phone, which will not have all of the social media apps that are out there now. And also to have software that is automatically downloaded on the parents' phone which links to the children's phone, that can highlight key words.
"So if a child is searching the kind of words that Scarlett and Eddie were searching, it will then flag up on the parent's phone."
During the interview, she said she believed "without a doubt" that Brianna would not have been killed if such safeguards were already in place, adding that "they wouldn't have been searching that in the first place. And if they did search it then the parents would know and to be able to get them some kind of help."
Ms Ghey also said that she had struggled to monitor what Brianna was consuming online - and that she had accessed pro-anorexia and self-harm material.
She said her daughter was "very protective over a phone - it was the cause of a lot of arguments. I can imagine that in most households, this will be the case too. If she couldn't have accessed the sites, she wouldn't have suffered as much."
She told the BBC it was very powerful watching Mark Zuckerberg being confronted by bereaved American parents at a fiery hearing in the US Senate and said "greed needs to be taken out of the picture".
"I think that the focus is always on making such a lot of money, and not really how we protect people or how we can necessarily benefit society," she said.
Responding to Ms Ghey, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan told Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg they understand this issue is "worrying to parents".
She described the government's own plan to ban mobile phones in schools as "radical", saying they will put out guidance on the issue with a consultation to follow.
Asked if the ban would definitely happen, she said: "We want it to happen."
She added the Online Safety Act had a "lot of tools in there to try and make this content not be there in the first place" as well a greater emphasis on age verification.
Shadow technology secretary Peter Kyle told the programme he had been discussing with bereaved families how to protect young people "from what happens on the dark web", saying the government should use legislation to force Ofcom to look at this issue.
The dark web is another layer of the internet where connections are usually encrypted and anonymised, making activity harder for law enforcement to track.
Mr Kyle criticised the government, saying its Online Safety Bill had taken too long.
But he added that responsibility lies with the technology companies, saying social media companies should be looking at the connection between their platforms and the dark web.
He said if Labour was in government, they would force companies, particularly those working in artificial intelligence, to publish data on what they were working on so it could be scrutinised and the safety implications considered.
How Brianna Ghey's teenage killers tried to get away with murder.
File on 4 also tells the story behind the brutal killing of the 16-year-old on BBC Sounds.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68193103
|
news_uk-68193103
|
|
Two teenagers charged over shooting at Kansas City Super Bowl parade - BBC News
|
2024-02-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
One woman died and more than 20 others were injured when gunfire erupted at the Kansas City parade.
|
US & Canada
|
Fans embrace shortly after gunshots rang out after a Super Bowl victory rally in Kansas City, Missouri
Two teenagers have been charged over a shooting at a Super Bowl victory parade in Kansas City that left one person dead and 22 others injured.
The two suspects, both aged under 18, are being held on gun and resisting arrest charges, a court statement said.
Police earlier said the shooting was the result of an argument and was not connected to terrorism.
A third person who was detained after the shooting has been released.
A statement from the Jackson County Family Court on Friday said that additional charges were "expected in the future as the investigation by the Kansas City Police Department continues".
The names of the juvenile suspects have not been released. Juvenile court cases are kept private under Missouri law, and hearings are not open to the public.
Kansas City Police have continued to appeal for information about the shooting, which occurred near the city's Union Station just after a parade and rally for the Super Bowl champions.
On Thursday, Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves said the injured victims ranged in age from eight to 47 years old and that at least half were under 16.
The deceased victim was identified as Lisa Lopez-Galvan, 43, a local DJ.
Her son was shot in the leg but has been discharged from hospital. Two other family members were also injured in the shooting, according to the radio station.
Ms Lopez-Galvan was hailed as a community leader who used her media profile to fundraise for Latino community events and organisations, toy drives for children with cancer and college scholarships.
An online fundraiser in support of the DJ's family raised more than $230,000 (£180,000) - including $100,000 from Taylor Swift.
Further details have also emerged about the reaction of the crowd and the Kansas City Chiefs players, who were celebrating their second straight NFL championship.
The parents of a 13-year-old who got separated from his father during chaos following the shooting praised a player who helped shelter their son.
Zach Cotton got separated from his father inside Union Station and found himself behind the station, near where buses were waiting to pick up players after the victory rally.
Chiefs' running back Clyde Edwards-Helaire and other members of the team sheltered the teenager before he was reunited with his family.
Responding to a thank you note posted by Zach's mother on Facebook, Mr Edwards-Helaire wrote: "Sorry the family and all of Chiefs Kingdom had to experience this. Just wanted to thank Zach for trusting me and knowing I'll protect him."
Another teenager, Gabe Wallace, told the Kansas City Star that he and others were comforted by the Chiefs' head coach in the panic after the shots rang out.
"Andy Reid was trying to comfort me, which was nice," Gabe said. "He was kind of hugging me, just like, 'Are you OK, man? Are you OK? Just please breathe.' He was being real nice and everything."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68320303
|
news_world-us-canada-68320303
|
|
Kansas City shooting: A dispute led to gunfire after Super Bowl parade, police say - BBC News
|
2024-02-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
One person died in Wednesday's shooting. Of the 22 injured, at least half were under the age of 16.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Police in Kansas City say an argument between several people that escalated led to a shooting that killed one and injured 22 others after a Super Bowl victory parade.
The deceased victim was identified as Lisa Lopez-Galvan, 43, a local DJ.
Police said the injured victims ranged in age from eight to 47 years old and that at least half are under 16.
Three suspects were taken into custody shortly after the shootings. Two of them are aged under 18.
"This appeared to be a dispute between several people that ended in gunfire," Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves told reporters on Thursday.
Chief Graves said firearms had been recovered, but did not give further details on the type of guns used in the shooting. She said no arrests had yet been made or charges laid and that the investigation is ongoing.
There was no link to terrorism, police said.
Ms Lopez-Galvan, who was identified as the one victim killed in Wednesday's violence, hosted Taste of Tejano, a Tex-Mex music show, on community radio station KKFI.
In a statement posted on Facebook, the station said: "This senseless act has taken a beautiful person from her family and this KC Community."
Nine injured children aged six to 15 were treated at the city's Children's Mercy Hospital. All are expected to recover from their wounds.
Kansas City Police have appealed to the public for further information about the shooting.
"We need to hear from anyone in the vicinity of the parade shooting today that directly witnessed the shooting incident, has any video of the shooting incident or who was a victim of the shooting who has not yet reported being shot," they said in a statement late on Wednesday.
A phone line and online tip page have been set up to collect information from the public.
More than 800 police officers were on patrol as hundreds of thousands turned out to watch a Super Bowl victory parade, which culminated in a rally outside Union Station in the middle of the Missouri city.
A stage was set up outside the station, which was decked in the red and gold colours of the Kansas City Chiefs, who won their second straight NFL championship on Sunday.
The rally had just ended at around 14:00 local time (20:00 GMT) when shots rang out to the west of the station, which remains closed on Thursday.
Videos posted online show members of the crowd tackling one of the alleged suspects on a street near the station.
One of the bystanders who stepped in, 46-year-old Paul Contreras, told NBC that he was at the parade with his three daughters.
"It was just a reaction. He was running the wrong way. There was another gentleman just screaming at the top of his lungs, 'This guy, tackle him'… I took him down," Mr Contreras said.
The videos showed a long-barrelled gun falling to the ground and a member of the public picking it up and placing on the ground away from the confrontation.
Chief Graves on Thursday praised the bystanders who stepped in and the emergency services who responded to the shooting.
"I'm angered about what occurred in our city yesterday, but I am also thankful for the response," she said.
Kansas City Fire Department Chief Ross Grundyson said medical personnel at the scene responded immediately despite some being just 40 feet (12 metres) from the shooting.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The parade violence is not unprecedented - several shootings at sporting celebrations have occurred across North America in recent years.
In 2021, two shootings left three people injured in Milwaukee after the local basketball team won their first NBA championship in 50 years.
In 2020 two people were killed in Los Angeles after the Dodgers won baseball's World Series.
Four people were shot and injured in Toronto in 2019 during a victory parade for the NBA Raptors championship win.
In a statement after the shooting, the Kansas City Chiefs organisation said it was "truly saddened" by the violence. It added that its players, coaches and staff - as well as their families - were accounted for and safe.
Travis Kelce, the star tight end of the team whose relationship with Taylor Swift became a cultural phenomenon, wrote on social media that he was "heartbroken over the tragedy that took place today".
Are you in the affected area? If it is safe to do so, email haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68308372
|
news_world-us-canada-68308372
|
|
Cannabis clubs plan dilutes German drugs reforms - BBC News
|
2024-02-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Germany's government had intended some of Europe's most liberal cannabis laws, but stepped back.
|
Europe
|
Germany's ruling coalition aims to decriminalise possession of 25g of cannabis, enough for dozens of joints
Marijuana farms popping up all over Germany and joints served with coffee in Amsterdam-style cafes was what some voters imagined.
The government's final bill on legalising cannabis is less dramatic.
Instead, the drug will be grown and sold in state-controlled non-profit "cannabis social clubs".
Registered members will be able to buy a limited amount. Then the government plans to test the drug's sale in licensed stores in some regions.
People will also be able to grow their own marijuana, but only three plants per person will be allowed.
Ministers say they were restricted by EU rules that oblige member states to fight the drug trade. The end result is, like many things in Germany, a complicated compromise.
But it's still a big step. Possession of up to 25g of cannabis for personal use will be legal, a not insignificant amount that would be enough for dozens of joints.
Conservative opposition politicians say any form of drug liberalisation is dangerous. Bavarian Premier Markus Söder tweeted that legalising drugs was "simply the wrong path to go down" and that setting up "drug clubs" did not solve any problems but created new ones.
The aim of the reforms is to put drug dealers out of business, prevent the consumption of cannabis cut with harmful chemicals and to stop the resource-wasting criminalisation of people who smoke small amounts.
But perhaps the most important thing about this move is the political signal it sends - a rare moment of agreement in a rocky left-Green-liberal governing coalition that is often perceived as disunited, argumentative and unable to push through its key policies.
When it came to power in 2021, after 16 years of Angela Merkel's conservative-led government, the new coalition promised a younger, funkier, more liberal Germany.
Some new ministers were a generation younger than the outgoing cabinet. They took selfies after meetings and pledged faster internet, greener energy and more LGBTQ rights.
The headline-grabbing pledge to legalise marijuana was part of this progressive agenda to shake up post-Merkel Germany. In interviews some ministers embarrassingly started using the slang word "Bubatz" that young Germans have for cannabis.
A few months in power and their priorities changed overnight, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. There was an unprecedented boost in military spending and a complete cut in Russian energy and trade links.
Given the challenges, Germany has coped remarkably well. The economy is stable and the feared energy shortages never happened. But at a political cost.
Parties have jettisoned core ideological beliefs on the environment, budget rules or weapons exports, and some voters and party members feel betrayed.
The multiple crises sparked by the war have exacerbated tensions between the three coalition partners, particularly the Greens and the pro-business liberal FDP. Both parties are ideologically opposed on key issues, from nuclear power to transport. Each fresh row between ministers pushes the coalition's poll numbers further down.
Legalising cannabis is one of the few areas of agreement for three parties that like to see themselves as progressive.
But that does not mean provincial German towns will be turning into Amsterdam anytime soon.
Health Minster Karl Lauterbach said the government had focused closely on the neighbouring Dutch model but, with an eye to its large black market and cannabis cafe culture, more as an example of what not to do.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65254141
|
news_world-europe-65254141
|
|
Laura Kuenssberg: Commons chaos was grisly reminder of threats MPs face - BBC News
|
2024-02-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
It appears that the week of mayhem in the Commons was influenced not by information, but intimidation.
|
UK Politics
|
Big events can shake everything. Small moments come to matter too.
I remember day one of the EU referendum campaign - Vote Leave had just unveiled their infamous £350m slogan. At the campaign's first big rally in Manchester I asked Boris Johnson about that misleading headline claim. The audience booed. It wasn't a big deal, it wasn't upsetting, but that small moment was a total surprise.
One of the campaign team even called me afterwards to apologise, vowing it would never happen again. They hoped the referendum campaign wouldn't be ugly. They were wrong.
I remember a huge, dreadful day eight weeks later. We'd been interviewing Jeremy Corbyn in Sheffield in the final frantic moments of that same campaign. It was not long after his supporters had also started to boo and jeer at reporters for asking questions. Any hopes of a civil campaign were long gone.
Eight weeks later there was a huge and massive shock. We were in the middle of the usual rush to edit and send our report for the news that night. My editor called saying that the MP Jo Cox had been attacked, and it looked very bad. I stopped what we'd been doing, rushed to the station, and began making calls to try to find out what was going on. When I got to the platform, my phone rang again. Jo had died.
Her killer, Thomas Mair, had a long history of interest in Nazism and far-right extremism. His violent obsessions certainly didn't begin with the referendum campaign. But Jo's courageous husband, Brendan, told me a few days later he believed she was murdered for her political views.
He said she had been worried about how politics was "coarsening", becoming too "tribal and unthinking". Her death was a hideous shock. Politicians vowed to follow her example of kindness. You don't need me to tell you whether they stuck to that.
It was a private conversation with another Labour MP a few years later that hammered home how common the threats were becoming. It was September 2018, and after a couple of years of Brexit frustrations in Parliament - and hideous infighting in the Labour Party - the MP was in agony over the dangers they faced just for doing their job.
They'd been appealing to their local police force after weeks of threats in their constituency, but felt they were being brushed off.
They told me about the security grilles, cameras, alarms, and other equipment they'd installed to try to keep them and their staff safe. But the MP didn't want to go public, fearing it would make matters worse. It was no secret that lots of them had received abuse by that stage - in real life, not just on social media. It was a familiar topic of conversation around Westminster's ancient corridors.
As reporters, we were by then used to being hassled and heckled around the fringes of the demonstrations that had become part of Westminster's daily backdrop. I'd developed a habit of walking as quickly as I could with my head down past the crowds.
But from that moment, I understood a shocking new norm - some MPs were carrying genuine fears for their lives every day. "These threats are real," they said. Their tears and distress made it plain.
Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you.
A couple of months later, I remember those regular demonstrations taking a different turn. A couple of small groups would walk alongside MPs as they tried to move around the tiny SW1 postcode, hurling abuse and accusations at close quarters and recording them on their phones.
You could see these groups huddling and waiting for a famous face, ready to pounce. If the politician responded in any way, these groups had footage that might go viral. Ignore it, the politician could be accused of being rude and shunning the public's voice. The first few times I saw it, it felt shocking. It seemed to be deliberate provocation for the purposes of creating content for social media.
During that whole period, just as now, there were many people with strong and deeply held views using their legitimate right to protest. Goodness knows, the public's frustration with politicians is often entirely understandable.
Protest is important. Many MPs themselves are veterans of noisy demonstrations. Politicians love a good argument - a vigorous debate. And of course there have been risks to politicians and Parliament before, whether from the IRA for many years, or terror threats in recent times.
But surrounding politicians and screaming abuse, or trying to block their path as they try to walk down the street, are different. Now, almost any MP will tell you, what can look like an ambush can happen at any time.
These moments I remember, big and small, track what has been a journey to a different kind of politics. Many of the people we choose to represent us really believe their personal safety, and that of their families, is routinely at stake.
And this week marks another major moment. The Speaker of the House of Commons says he made a decision to break the unwritten rules of Parliament because of those risks. He says he made a mistake in allowing a vote on Labour's motion, because he was trying to protect his colleagues from public anger and danger.
It's only in time I suspect that we'll be able to unravel all of what went on during those hours of chaos. As we talked about in my newsletter on Thursday, the mayhem was not completely unfamiliar, but a reminder of those months of grisly pantomime during the Brexit years.
But it appears that events in the Commons, not just the screaming and shouting outside, were influenced not by information, but intimidation.
Many politicians, and perhaps many of you, may feel that is a profoundly uneasy precedent if it is allowed to stand. For his part, the Speaker has apologised. It could be a turning point in either direction.
Will the police be given more powers to protect MPs as some recommend? Will politicians start to be more vocal about the nature of protests? Will some of those who have been on the streets, or outside politicians' homes, rethink their tactics - or go even further?
What happened in those hours of chaos on Wednesday night is a moment we will remember. But we can't yet know the effect it will have, how it will be marked in our memories in the months to come.
What questions would you like to ask our guests this Sunday?
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68391742
|
news_uk-politics-68391742
|
|
Six Nations 2024: Sam Warburton says Ireland are wearing 'invincibility cloak' and won't be stopped - BBC Sport
|
2024-02-27
|
[]
|
Former Wales captain Sam Warburton says Ireland are wearing an "invincibility cloak" in the Six Nations and will not be stopped this year.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Irish Rugby
Having shaken off their World Cup disappointment, Ireland have picked up exactly where they left off in the Six Nations arena.
Showing no signs of teething issues in the post-Johnny Sexton era, Andy Farrell's side have opened the 2024 championship with victories over France, Italy and Wales.
Their dominance has naturally fuelled talk of them becoming the first team in the Six Nations era to complete back-to-back Grand Slams, although they still have England and Scotland to come.
Were Ireland to secure a bonus-point win at Twickenham on 9 March, they would win the title with a game to spare.
• None Six Nations talking points from round three
• None Wales win 'sets us up nicely' for Twickenham - Farrell
• None 'Ireland show resilience to keep Slam in sight'
'I'm in awe of how they're playing'
Last year, Ireland beat Scotland and England in the last two rounds to win the Grand Slam, but can either of them stop Farrell's team this time around?
"No," former Wales captain Sam Warburton said on the BBC's Rugby Union Daily podcast.
"I think Scotland will have a real good crack. I watch Ireland and I'm genuinely in awe of how they're playing. I can cast my mind back to when I was playing for the couple of seasons when Wales were pretty good. We weren't near that level.
"Their work-rate off the ball, both sides in attack and defence. The accuracy is almost unseen at international level. How comfortable they are, everyone just gets into shape so quickly.
"I thought it was crushing for them in the World Cup [losing their quarter-final against New Zealand], but they've responded so well.
"South African fans will hate me for seeing this, but I still think they [Ireland] are the best team in the world. I've just never seen a team that's that complete."
Warburton, who captained Wales to the 2012 Grand Slam, added that Ireland are "wearing this invincibility cloak that's just such a powerful thing".
Ireland's form is nothing new, of course. They won a Test series over the All Blacks on Kiwi soil in the summer of 2022 before beating South Africa in the autumn internationals later that year.
The Grand Slam followed in March, and while they lost 28-24 to New Zealand in the World Cup quarter-finals, thanks to an earlier pool-stage victory they were the only team to beat South Africa during the Springboks' triumphant campaign in France.
Former England player Ugo Monye used Ireland's "crazy" statistics to illustrate their form over the past few years, including:
• None Wins in 20 of their past 21 matches
For Monye, Ireland's defence is the area of their game most deserving of praise. They have conceded just 24 points in this year's Six Nations, 17 of which came against France.
They shut Italy out completely - their first championship clean sheet since 1987 - and only conceded a penalty try against Wales.
Monye used more stats to back up his argument and shine a light on Ireland's defensive might.
Since the beginning of 2022, based on games played against the world's top-10 sides, Monye pointed to Ireland having:
• None Conceded the fewest linebreaks of any team
• None Conceded the fewest tries of any team
Monye said: "We can talk about their attack and cohesion and how nicely they score tries and how they have these game-breakers.
"But let's not overlook or underestimate the job, stewarded by Simon Easterby, in defence. While they are a beautifully gifted attacking side, their USP and their love for defence is the hallmark of who Ireland truly are now."
While what Ireland are doing at the moment is clearly impressive, former Scotland captain John Barclay cannot see it stopping anytime soon given how the team have adapted to losing the talismanic Sexton to retirement.
Barclay said: "How do you break what Ireland are creating? The only way it breaks, because you see the conveyor belt coming through, it's not going to be from a lack of talent point of view.
"The only time you see it in the best teams is when something culturally shifts and players don't put the same work in, the mentality's different or coaches move on.
"Once you lose it, it's very hard to get it back again. You see it with all these dynasty teams. Something happens and it's the end of an era.
"We thought 'maybe this might be when Johnny Sexton leaves', but that didn't really turn out."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68393767
|
rt_rugby-union_68393767
|
|
Jesse Baird: Policeman charged with murder of missing Sydney couple - BBC News
|
2024-02-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Australian TV personality Jesse Baird and his boyfriend Luke Davies were last seen on Monday.
|
Australia
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
A 28-year-old police officer has been charged with murdering missing Australian TV personality Jesse Baird and his boyfriend Luke Davies.
Detectives launched a frantic search on Wednesday after the couple's bloodied items were found in a bin near Sydney.
Beaumont Lamarre-Condon, Baird's ex-boyfriend, was being sought by police and handed himself in on Friday.
Detectives say they are yet to locate the men's bodies or confirm their cause of death.
Police allege the couple were killed on Monday inside Jesse Baird's house in Paddington, an inner Sydney suburb, before their bodies were moved in a white van.
Witnesses told investigators they heard "shouting" and a "verbal argument" that morning, and the rented van was captured at the scene on CCTV footage that evening. The van was found in Sydney's south on Friday morning.
New South Wales Police have said a bullet matching Beaumont Lamarre-Condon's work-issued gun was found at the crime scene in Paddington, as was a "significant" amount of blood and upturned furniture.
He did not turn up to work on Tuesday, but the senior constable's gun was later located in a safe at a police station, Det Supt Daniel Doherty told reporters.
Police have also seized blood-stained clothes, a phone and credit cards from an industrial bin in Cronulla, 28km (17 miles) away from the crime scene, and a number of items from a house in Balmain.
Det Supt Doherty said Beaumont Lamarre-Condon was also believed to have travelled to Newcastle - 170km north of the crime scene - at some point after the alleged killings.
Couple Luke Davies and Jesse Baird have not been seen since Monday
He said information gleaned from Beaumont Lamarre-Condon so far had "not assisted" the investigation but tip-offs from the public had been a great help. He again appealed for anyone with information to contact police.
"It's really important that we do locate the bodies, not only for the cause of death but for answers for the family... They are obviously devastated," Det Supt Doherty said.
Mr Baird had been a presenter and red carpet reporter on Network 10's morning show Studio 10 until the programme was axed in December, while Mr Davies was a flight attendant for Qantas.
Happy photos of the pair featured heavily on their social media, which has been flooded with condolences since their disappearance.
Beaumont Lamarre-Condon joined the police force in 2019 and was previously a celebrity blogger who had met stars including Taylor Swift, Harry Styles and Miley Cyrus.
His many encounters with celebrities was reported in Australian media, including a magazine spread asking if he was "Australia's biggest fan?"
Det Supt Doherty declined to identify a motive for the alleged crimes but said the police officer's relationship with Jesse Baird had ended "a couple of months ago", "so that's an obvious line of inquiry".
Beaumont Lamarre-Condon was refused bail and appeared in court on Friday afternoon.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-68377379
|
news_world-australia-68377379
|
|
How the Gaza conflict is contorting UK politics - BBC News
|
2024-02-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Conservatives, Labour, and Parliament itself are finding themselves torn by the furious arguments provoked by the Israel-Gaza war.
|
UK Politics
|
The two biggest political parties at Westminster and Parliament itself are finding themselves buckled, bent and contorted by the furious arguments provoked by the Israel-Gaza war.
For the Conservatives, the Lee Anderson row about Islamophobia.
For Parliament, the Commons Speaker row about a ceasefire and parliamentary procedure.
And for Labour, the Rochdale row about antisemitism and the by-election there in a few days.
The prime minister's week began with a trio of BBC local radio interviews, where alongside questions about spending on transport projects in the north of England he was inevitably asked about his former deputy chairman's remarks.
It's only a few weeks back that Rishi Sunak and Mr Anderson were doing a joint campaign video.
Now Mr Sunak is distancing himself from Mr Anderson.
But the prime minister, like his deputy, is not describing what Lee Anderson said as Islamophobic.
In fact, a row about that very word has broken out within the Conservative Party, with former chairman Baroness Warsi at loggerheads with the Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch over it.
Next, the Speaker of the Commons Sir Lindsay Hoyle starts the week with the third biggest party, the SNP, saying it doesn't have confidence in him.
And Conservative MPs' WhatsApp groups are inflamed too, I hear, the sentiment of many being "how can we ever trust him again?"
As it stands, 72 MPs have signed a Commons motion saying he should go.
This may all mean Sir Lindsay concludes he has no option but to address the issue - either by standing down or saying he will at the election.
But the pressure on him seems to have eased a little - or not got worse - for now at least.
The SNP's focus is on securing a debate where they can shift the dial on the government's approach to the Israel-Hamas war.
They want one under what is known as standing order 24.
It only allows for the Commons to consider something, rather than vote on a substantive question, which is what the SNP want.
Which leaves the Speaker in a bind: fail to give them what they want, or bend parliamentary conventions again - which is what got him into trouble in the first place.
Meanwhile, I hear some of the smaller parties have been comparing notes on how they feel they are treated by the Speaker and will see him later to set out their argument too.
And then there is Labour. The Rochdale by-election is on Thursday and the party that aspires to be in government before the year is out is a mere bystander, a spectator - after their candidate was accused of antisemitism and the party disowned him.
What we are seeing is a noisy, angry mess on three fronts and two big central questions: what is it legitimate to say about different communities or religious groups?
And, in an election year, is it in the interests of our political parties to seek to calm things down, or crank things up?
Right now, the evidence suggests the latter.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68404313
|
news_uk-politics-68404313
|
|
Lee Anderson: Outspoken MP suspended over Khan comments - BBC News
|
2024-02-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The MP for Ashfield is known for his controversial views but supporters believe he connects with voters.
|
UK Politics
|
Lee Anderson has rarely been out of the headlines since becoming the Conservative Party's deputy chairman just over a year ago.
This week it's his claims that London mayor Sadiq Khan and Labour leaders Sir Keir Starmer are "controlled by Islamists" that resulted in the prime minister slapping down the comments as wrong and kicking him off the Tory benches.
The newly-independent MP for Ashfield was already in the PM's sights last month, when Mr Sunak warned he would fire any frontbenchers who failed to vote with the government on the Rwanda bill.
Instead, Mr Anderson and his former fellow Tory deputy chairman Brendan Clarke-Smith quit their roles ahead of the vote in order to rebel.
The Nottinghamshire politician - who is paid £100,000 a year on top of his MPs' salary for hosting a GB News show - enjoys speaking his mind and upsetting what he sees as the politically correct "woke" establishment.
In an interview conducted a few days before he was given the deputy chair role in February 2023, Mr Anderson expressed his support for bringing back the death penalty - a position not shared by the government.
He was given the nickname "30p Lee" after comments in Parliament when he suggested people needed to learn how to cook and budget "properly".
"We can make a meal for about 30p a day and this is cooking from scratch," he said.
He's also said that poor families were "more resourceful" in the past - and was criticised by the Hope Not Hate campaign for saying he had sympathy with people protesting outside hotels providing refuge for asylum seekers.
But despite his tendency to create media storms, his supporters in the Conservative Party believe the former Labour councillor can connect with so-called "red wall" voters in the Midlands and the north of England in a way that others can't.
Born in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, to a family of coal miners, he followed in the footsteps of his father by working in the area's pits for 10 years after leaving school.
After separating from his partner, he raised his two sons as a single parent on what he described as a "meagre wage".
"I've been that man that has to put five quid in the gas meter on a Sunday night and been watching the meter spin round all week," he told TalkTV in 2022.
He went on to volunteer at a local Citizens Advice centre before working in hostels for homeless care leavers.
His first job in politics was working in the office of local Labour MP Gloria De Piero, serving as a district councillor at the same time.
In February 2018 he was suspended from the council's Labour group after hiring a digger and placing concrete blocks to stop travellers illegally camping in a car park.
A month later he defected to the Tories, saying his former party had been "taken over by the hard-left".
In the 2019 general election the Brexit-supporter stood as the Conservative candidate for Ashfield, winning the seat from Labour.
The constituency was one of many Leave-supporting areas to turn blue in Boris Johnson's landslide victory over Jeremy Corbyn.
However, his successful campaign was not without controversy.
He faced mockery after he appeared to be caught setting up a door knock while out canvassing, accompanied by journalist Michael Crick.
During the visit a microphone picked up Mr Anderson asking a voter not to mention he was his friend during filming.
There was further criticism for comments suggesting "nuisance tenants" living on a council estate should be forced to live in tents and pick vegetables.
Mr Anderson continued to attract attention for his strident views as an MP.
During the Euro 2020 football tournament he criticised the England team for taking the knee in protest at racism and vowed to boycott their matches.
He returned to the theme of budgeting, when he posted a photo on Twitter of one of his staff members to illustrate his argument that nurses on £30,000 a year didn't need to use food banks.
The post, which detailed her monthly spending on rent and travel, provoked a backlash on social media.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Lee Anderson: "There's not this massive use for food banks in this country"
The 57-year-old's appointment as deputy party chairman by Mr Sunak came despite Mr Anderson initially backing his rival Boris Johnson in last year's leadership election.
He's also been critical of the government's approach to tackling illegal immigration.
In December, he wrote that he was "putting my party on notice" over the issue, saying the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats was "making us the laughing stock of the world".
In a joint resignation letter, Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith said they backed rebel amendments to the Rwanda bill "not because we are against the Rwanda legislation but because... we want it to work."
They added "our main wish is to strengthen the legislation. This means that in order to vote for amendments we will therefore need to offer you our resignations from our roles".
The two said they believed when it came to asylum claims "there are far too many who wish to cheat our system" yet provisions in international and domestic law meant deportations could still be blocked under the government's bill.
Many of Mr Anderson's former fellow Tory MPs in the Midlands and north of England love his outspoken style.
They think he reflects the concerns of real voters - the people they want to hold on to at the next general election.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64582994
|
news_uk-politics-64582994
|
|
Post Office scandal: Kemi Badenoch hits back at ex-chairman - BBC News
|
2024-02-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Business secretary says claims made by Henry Staunton over his dismissal are a "misrepresentation".
|
Business
|
Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch has hit back at claims made by former Post Office chairman Henry Staunton about the reasons for his departure.
Mr Staunton told the Sunday Times that when he was sacked Ms Badenoch had told him: "Someone's got to take the rap."
But Ms Badenoch said the comments were a "disgraceful misrepresentation" of their conversation.
Mr Staunton also said he was told to delay payouts to Post Office scandal victims, which the government denies.
Hundreds of subpostmasters were prosecuted because of glitches in the Horizon IT system between 1999 and 2015 in what has been called the biggest miscarriage of justice in UK history.
Mr Staunton was appointed Post Office chairman in December 2022, but left the post last month after Ms Badenoch said "new leadership" was needed to tackle the scandal.
Speaking to the Sunday Times, Mr Staunton said he first heard about his sacking when he was called by Sky News. He then spoke to Ms Badenoch on the phone.
Mr Staunton also told the paper that shortly after joining the Post Office he was told by a senior civil servant to slow down the rate of compensation payments, apparently to help the government's finances.
"Early on, I was told by a fairly senior person to stall on spend on compensation and on the replacement of Horizon, and to limp, in quotation marks - I did a file note on it - limp into the election," he told the paper.
"It was not an anti-postmaster thing, it was just straight financials. I didn't ask, because I said: 'I'm having no part of it - I'm not here to limp into the election, it's not the right thing to do by postmasters'."
Henry Staunton stood down as Post Office chairman last month
In a lengthy post on X, formerly Twitter, Ms Badenoch said Mr Staunton's comments were a "disgraceful misrepresentation of my conversation with him and the reasons for his dismissal".
"Far from 'taking the rap', I dismissed Staunton due to very serious allegations about his conduct while chair of the Post Office, including blocking an investigation into that conduct.
"Henry Staunton had a lack of grip getting justice for postmasters. The serious concerns over his conduct were the reasons I asked him to step down," she added.
She said that her conversation with him was carried out with officials and they took a "complete record". A statement will be made on Monday "telling the truth", she added.
Earlier a spokesman for the government had said it "utterly" refuted the claims made by Mr Staunton over stalling compensation payments.
"The government has sped up compensation to victims, and consistently encouraged postmasters to come forward with their claims," the spokesman said.
"To suggest any actions or conversations happened to the contrary is incorrect. In fact, upon appointment, Mr Staunton was set concrete objectives, in writing, to focus on reaching settlements with claimants - clear evidence of the government's intent."
A spokesperson for Mr Staunton told the BBC his client would be making no further comment but that he stood by the accusations made in the Sunday Times.
They also said there was no investigation into Mr Staunton.
Shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: "The Horizon scandal is widely accepted to be one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history.
"Under no circumstances should compensation to victims be delayed and to do so for party political purposes would be a further insult to subpostmasters.
"The Labour Party has called for all subpostmasters to be exonerated and compensation paid swiftly so that victims can begin to draw this awful chapter to a close."
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said Mr Staunton's claims were "deeply disturbing" and called for ministers to explain to Parliament "exactly what has happened at the earliest opportunity".
The slow pace of overturning convictions and making compensation payments has led some to call for a mass exoneration of those affected.
Mr Staunton told the Sunday Times that Post Office chief executive Nick Read had written to the Justice Secretary Alex Chalk with legal opinion from the Post Office's solicitors, Peters & Peters, that in more than 300 cases convictions were supported by evidence not related to the Horizon software.
"Basically it was trying to undermine the exoneration argument," Mr Staunton said. "It was 'most people haven't come forward because they are guilty as charged' - i.e. think very carefully about exoneration."
A spokesperson for the Post Office said it was "very aware of the terrible impact from this appalling scandal and miscarriage of justice".
"We refute both the assertions put to us and the words and phrases allegedly used, and are focused on supporting the government's plans for faster justice and redress for victims, as well as helping the Inquiry get to the truth of what happened," they said.
The spokesperson added: "In no sense did the Post Office seek to persuade government against mass exoneration. We remain firmly committed to supporting faster justice and redress for victims".
Are you affected by the issues raised in this story? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68330465
|
news_business-68330465
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.