A Met Police officer has been convicted of being a member of a banned neo-Nazi terrorist organisation.
Benjamin Hannam, of Enfield, north London, was found to have lied on his police application form and remained in the National Action group after it was outlawed.
He was also convicted of two counts of fraud following a trial at the Old Bailey.
Hamman is the first British officer to be convicted of a terrorism offence.
After the police constable’s arrest in March last year, detectives found an image on his iPhone showing him in police uniform, with a Hitler-style moustache superimposed on his face seen on (Sky News) along with a Nazi badge on his lapel.
They also found he had downloaded a knife-fighting manual and a copy of the “manifesto” of the right-wing extremist Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people, mostly children, in bomb and gun attacks in Norway in 2011.Advertisement
Prosecutors said the Breivik document included bomb-making instructions and “exhaustive justifications for his mass-casualty attacks”.
The young officer’s activity was discovered when an anonymous hacker using the name “antifa-data” (anti-fascist data) hacked into a neo-Nazi forum called Iron March and published details of its 1,185 users online.
A judge had previously ruled Hannam’s trial could not be reported because he was also facing charges of possessing prohibited images of underage girls.
But after he pleaded guilty to the charges towards the end of this trial, his links to far-right terrorism can now be reported.
After his arrest, PC Hannam’s stop and search records, crime reports and case files were all the subject of a detailed review by the Metropolitan Police.
The force said that the review found that there was “no evidence that Constable Hannam targeted individuals as a result of any right-wing views”.
Benjamin Hannam, 21, of north London, was originally charged with five offences following the investigation by the Met’s counter-terrorism command and has been suspended from duty, Scotland Yard said.
Hannam was found guilty of belonging to National Action, a far-right organisation that was banned in 2016 [Handout via Metropolitan Police]
As well as charges of belonging to or professing to belong to National Action between 17 December 2016 and 1 January 2018, contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000, he has also been charged with fraud offences along with possessing an indecent photograph of a child.
The Met said that he falsely represented in his application to join the force that he had not been a “member of an organisation similar to the BNP, namely National Action”.Hannam has been bailed to appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on 6 August.
The fact that the officer had been a supporter of a neo-Nazi terror group and got past vetting will be especially embarrassing for Met chiefs.
Met Police officer investigated over multiple rape allegations Link
It comes at a time when the Met is facing questions and criticism over its record on policing during protest. More importantly, the questions surrounding the murder of Sarah Everard were a serving officer accused of indecent exposure three days earlier had been allowed to continue in his duties going on to murder an innocent young woman, or the case of a met officer accused of multiple rapes who has to continue in his duties for the last three years. At this point, community confidence is under strain.
Who are National Action?
National Action, founded in 2013, is assessed to be a terror group, according to security officials who advised the British government.
It became the first far-right group to be proscribed in 2016, when Amber Rudd was home secretary, because it was assessed to be advocating violence to further its ideology.
Announcing the move in 2016, Rudd said: “National Action is a racist, antisemitic and homophobic organisation which stirs up hatred, glorifies violence and promotes a vile ideology. It has absolutely no place in a Britain that works for everyone. Proscribing it will prevent its membership from growing, stop the spread of poisonous propaganda and protect vulnerable young people at risk of radicalisation from its toxic views.”
Hannam, who was arrested in March, worked in frontline policing with the north area basic command unit (BCU). Its acting commander, Det SuptElla Marriott, said:“These are extremely serious charges for anyone to face, and I fully understand and appreciate how deeply concerning it might be for the public, and particularly local communities here in north London, that the charges are against a serving police officer.
“The Met, and indeed the public, does not accept this behaviour … we recognise the need to have the trust and confidence of all our communities.”
Anyone found to be a member of, or offering support to the proscribed groups can face up to 10 years in jail.
Counter-terror chiefs have described the far right as the fastest-growing terror threat.
The British military has put in extra measures amid concerns about attempts at far-right infiltration and concern about some forces’ apparent support for extremism.
The officer was reportedly not charged and has not been suspended more than three years on.
A Metropolitan police officer has been allowed to continue working for the force unsuspended for three years after two colleagues accused him of sexual and physical abuse including rape, allegations which were later not taken forward by the Crown Prosecution Service. Even as the Met restricted his interactions with the public, it has never seen fit to prevent him working alongside other female officers.
Last year the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which compensates the victims of violent crimes, awarded both women substantial sums after it concluded that police evidence indicated each had been the victim of serious sexual and physical abuse.
The government-run compensation body evaluates claims based on the balance of probabilities. The CPS – which examines the likelihood of a jury convicting on the higher criminal burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt – decided there was not enough evidence to take the officer to court.
This followed an investigation by Essex police into allegations of rape and abuse made by both women which, by that force’s own subsequent admission, had featured numerous shortcomings and decisions made using “very poor rationale”. However, Essex police concluded that despite these shortcomings, the matter would still not have resulted in successful criminal proceedings.
The women’s names have been changed to protect their anonymity along with the male suspect.
The two women, Kate* and Holly*, lived with the man in question, David*, during their respective relationships with him, which they describe as a carbon copy of one another and left them each traumatised. Both feel badly let down after coming forward to report their allegations.
Kate has been left to believe the police are inadequate at dealing with allegations of rape and domestic abuse. “I have no trust in the service I work for,” she told the Bureau.
“I just feel really sad,” Holly said. “You feel like you’re being gaslit by the police.” She described her frustration at having to take part in a recent sexual offences awareness week at work. “They’re putting out all the propaganda encouraging women and men to come forward and deal with sexual assault. I was left feeling a bitter taste in my mouth, thinking, ‘But you can’t even look after your own adequately.’”
In 2020, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) awarded her £17,100, saying “police evidence indicates that you were a victim of sexual abuse”.
CICA paid £11,600 to Kate, saying she had been raped and subjected to “serious physical abuse”.
CICA is part of the Ministry of Justice and awards compensation to victims of violent crime, sexual assault and abuse – but it does not need the same standard of proof as a criminal court.
The Met decided last month, a year after CICA’s findings, that the officer accused of rape would face a misconduct hearing. They have not set a date.
In a statement, the force said: “We take all allegations of domestic abuse extremely seriously and it is right and proper that the full circumstances of this case should be considered at a hearing. We continue to offer welfare support and assistance to the victims in this case.”
The Met confirmed the male officer had been taken off public-facing duties. Asked why he had never been suspended, it said a criminal investigation did not guarantee an officer would be suspended.
But the way the Met handled her experience at a local level was horrendous, Holly said.
“There was very little support, (it was) very poorly managed,” she said. “He massively controlled everything. He had his friends. He was looked after, whereas we were just cast aside and not cared for.”
At an early stage, the male officer was leaked the details of the investigation. Internal police documents examined by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism showed this allowed him to prepare his defence.
Solicitor Siobhan Crawford, who works on abuse cases, said: “The investigation and the steps taken thereafter by the Met have been completely inadequate, woeful, and let these women down.”
“It has taken just so long for the Met to take any action whatsoever against this person,” she added. “And I think what that says to other victims of domestic violence is, ‘we say we’ll protect you but actually it will take years and it may all come to nothing’.”
Holly still loves being a police officer but said she was “quite bitter about it”.
“But I want to try and change it because I don’t want anyone else to go through what I’ve been through… It makes you feel like you’re going crazy because you think, ‘why are you treating me this badly?'”
Kate said: “I have no trust in the service I work for.”
Home Office guidance says internal police misconduct investigations should generally be carried out in parallel with any possible criminal proceedings. The Met was kept informed about the criminal investigation into David, yet only formally decided this year – a year after the CPS declined to proceed with any criminal charges – that he should face gross misconduct proceedings. This could potentially result in his dismissal if there is a finding against him, but it may still be several months more before his hearing takes place.
The Met told the Bureau it was not appropriate to progress misconduct proceedings until criminal matters had been finalised, so all available information could be considered. It said the hearing would be “expedited as quickly as possible”.
The Bureau has previously reported on allegations of domestic abuse by police officers who were accused of using their positions within the force to intimidate their victims. In some instances, forces have failed to properly investigate or discipline the officers where appropriate and in various cases, the women – like Holly and Kate – worked for the same police forces as their alleged abusers. Some women believed forces had not adequately investigated their allegations in order to avoid bad publicity; at least one said she was bullied at work after reporting her partner.
The Met told the Bureau that it takes all allegations of domestic abuse extremely seriously. It said: “We continue to offer welfare support and assistance to the victims in this case.”
Holly has been left completely disillusioned by the force. “This is just not how the Met should be treating victims of domestic abuse,” she said. “I now feel like I will forever carry this with me while I stay within the police.”
Kate feels equally let down by the institution she serves. “I’m at a point where I can’t physically go to a domestic abuse call,” she said. “I’ve lost all faith in it.”
* All names have been changed for legal reasons
Reporter: Alexandra HealInvestigations editor: Meirion Jones Production editor: Alex Hess Fact checker: Chrissie Giles Legal team: Stephen Shotnes (Simons Muirhead Burton)
All schools and daycare centres to close for three weeks
President Emmanuel Macron extended light lockdown measures from 19 areas including Paris to all of mainland France from April 3 for 4 weeks at a televised address on the resurgent Covid-19 pandemic on Wednesday.
Macron widened the light lockdown measures currently imposed on a third of the French population – including the Paris region – to all of mainland France. “We don’t have to lock ourselves in but we need to limit our contacts,” he said.
“We tried to push back this day for as long as possible – but unfortunately it has now arrived,” the president continued. “We will lose control if we do not act now.”
Macron also announced a closure of all schools and daycare centres for three weeks until April 26. Yet he also justified his policy of keeping them open since the end of the first lockdown in spring 2020, which has received intensifying criticism over recent weeks: “School is non-negotiable,” he said.
Travel between different French regions will be banned for the duration of the nationwide light lockdown, while the 7 pm curfew currently imposed on the 19 regions will be extended to all of mainland France.
Confirmed Covid-19 cases per day in France have doubled since February to nearly 40,000, with the number of patients in intensive care units surpassing 5,000 on Tuesday – exceeding the peak during the second lockdown last autumn.
On Wednesday, France’s complete death toll reached 95,337 since the start of the epidemic – prompting Macron to warn that the country may reach 100,000 coronavirus deaths in the coming days.
On a more positive note, the president said that café terraces and some cultural venues could re-open “under strict rules” from mid-May.
Macron emphasised that jabs are the route out of the nightmare: “Thanks to vaccines, the end of the crisis is on the horizon.”
He said the government’s objective was to “accelerate the programme as much as possible” – promising that anyone over 60 will be able to get a vaccine from April 16 and anyone over 50 from May 15.
As the EU’s troubled jab procurement programme has led to slow inoculation rates, France had given out a vaccine dose to just 11.75 percent of its population by March 29 – compared to 45.19 percent in the UK, where the vaccine programme has raced ahead.
Thescandal-hit financier Lex Greensillclaimed he was a “senior adviser” to then prime minister David Cameron, according to a business card handed to the Labour Party.
Labour says it has obtained an old business card that described financier Lex Greensill as a “senior adviser” in David Cameron’s office.
The card includes a Downing Street email address, and what appears to be a direct line landline telephone number.
The party said it raised “further serious questions” about Mr Greensill’s influence under the ex-PM.
The government has said Mr Greensill’s role was unpaid and “approved in the normal manner”.
Mr Greensill’s role as an adviser has been under increasing scrutiny, after the Sunday Times reported it saw him given “privileged access” to Whitehall.
A source close to Greensill confirmed the card was genuine, saying it dated from a period when the Australian banker held the title senior adviser, a position to which they said he was appointed by the civil service.
This was before 2014 when he was made a “crown representative”, a post meant to help the government identify ways to save money, and which also includes management consultants and other corporate experts.
Cameron has come under mounting pressure to explain why Greensill was allowed to become an unpaid adviser to government – a role in which he was reportedly allowed to pitch his financial projects across Whitehall.
LABOUR shows Lex Greensill’s business card
The Sunday Times reported that during his time in the role, he had promoted a government-backed loans scheme to speed up payments to pharmacists.
The company he founded, Greensill Capital, later went on to provide funds for the scheme.
In 2018 – two years after he had stood down as prime minister – Mr Cameron became an adviser to the firm.
Downing streets Revolving doors.
Former politicians beat a well-trodden path in the other direction. Tony Blair took a job with JP Morgan when he left Downing Street. He joins a group of politicians-turned-financiers too numerous to name here.
Ian King quite rightly points out for Sky Camron was not the first through the preverbal revolving door. Cameron was hired as an adviser to Greensill in 2018 and could have received shares worth $70m in the company if it had, as planned, floated on the stock market.
He can argue, reasonably, that, before it went into administration earlier this month, Greensill was one of the world’s most talked-about finance businesses and had attracted a glittering line-up of investors.
Mr Cameron can also console himself that he is far from being the first prime minister to have had questions raised about his relationship with businesses.
It is commonplace for former PMs to hit the lecture circuit, where they can easily command six-figure fees for delivering speeches, albeit not of the same magnitude of those charged by former US presidents. Many, though, have sought to carve out careers in business once they have left Downing Street.
The trend has become more established as former PMs have become younger. Once, they tended to be elevated to the House Of Lords, although some – notably Edward Heath – remained sitting MPs for many years.
Mr Cameron, however, was only 49 when he left office and had many years of working life ahead of him or to sit in a shed and write his memories.
His former colleagues such as George Osborne enrich themselves in the private sector to become full-time banker not to mention his coalition partner Sir Nick Clegg, or the long-forgotten Lib Dem Sir Dany Alexander, now vice president and corporate secretary at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, of course, Camron was going to go through the revolving door.
Many politicians have walked out of ‘public office’ into the private sector, ex-PM Gordon Brown is now an advisory board member of the investment firm PIMCO and three ex-Chancellors have also made the jump.
Philip Hammond is currently a partner of the energy investment outfit Buckthorn Partners and Alistair Darling sits on Morgan Stanley’s board of directors.
Sajid Javid has taken up a job with US bank JP Morgan on an undisclosed salary and will sit on their advisory council for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. He is still a serving parliamentarian. MPs are currently allowed second jobs. However, we cannot hope to radically reform our money and banking system while the big banks continue to entice politicians into their employ.
Sajid Javid’s move from banking to politics and both at the same time also mirrors the journey of our current Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who worked for the investment bank Goldman Sachs before taking up his parliamentary seat in 2015. Sadly this handful of past residents from Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street only scratch the surface, countless other examples can be found across the civil service, the Cabinet and the House of Lords.
Chuka Umunna promoted directly into the establishments Banking sector, an easy step through the Revolving door now working for JP Morgan
Then, of course, our favourite little Blairite Lord Peter Mandelson the peoples’ vote campaigner and Jeremy Corbyn wannabe nemesis works for the other EU big bank. In 2013, he joined the Board of Trustees of Deutsche Bank
Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy.
At least European politicians aren’t “bought and paid for” by corporations, as in the US, he says. “Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions.”
This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government.
The Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.
The template for modern PMs in this regard was Tony Blair who, on leaving office at the age of just 54, set up a consultancy business that has reportedly netted him tens of millions of pounds.
His clients have included the Wall Street banking giant JP Morgan, the insurer and fund manager Zurich Financial Services and Mubadala, the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi, as well as governments including Kazakhstan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. It is fair to say that some of these consultancies have attracted controversy.
Mr Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, was a less obviously commercial beast but has nonetheless become an adviser to Pimco, one of the world’s biggest asset managers and Partners Group, the Swiss private equity firm. The other former PM so far this century, Theresa May, has remained in the House of Commons.
Slightly further back, Sir John Major carved out a lucrative post-prime ministerial career, becoming a senior adviser to the investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston and chairman in Europe of the US private equity giant Carlyle Group. Sir John, who worked in the City for Standard Chartered before becoming an MP, also became chairman of the European advisory board at the US utility giant Emerson Electric.
Yet Sir John also had another business relationship that he could be forgiven for seeking to exorcise from his CV. In January 2000, he joined the board of Mayflower Corporation, at the time a highly-respected engineering company that at one point also made six in 10 of the buses on Britain’s roads.
Camron will probably walk away from this with a shrug unhindered
Lex Greensill accepts his CBE award from Prince Charles for services to the economy.
Labour has called for an urgent inquiry in to the matter and it wants the the Committee on Standards In Public Life to look into the extent of the access to government offered to Mr Greensill under the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition.
Shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds said: “The public have a right to know what happened here – we need a full, transparent and thorough investigation”.
The committee has said it does not investigate individual cases, but it is looking more widely at issues of lobbying and transparency.
Labour has also asked the committee to examine Mr Cameron’s reported role in lobbying the government on behalf of Greensill Capital after the firm employed him as an adviser.
The Financial Times has previously reported that Mr Cameron unsuccessfully tried to increase the firm’s involvement in a scheme offering government-backed loans to Covid-hit companies.
Greensill was accredited to supply lending under the government’s Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme, before it filed for insolvency earlier this month.
Earlier this week, Mr Cameron was cleared by a lobbying watchdog, after it concluded his work for the company did not require declaration on the register of consultant lobbyists.
A Downing Street spokesman said: “Lex Greensill acted as a Supply Chain Finance Advisor from 2012 to 2015 and as a Crown Representative for three years from 2013.
Neither Mr Greensill nor Mr Cameron has commented on the matter.
Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng insists Cameron “did absolutely nothing wrong” in his dealings, adding that “everything was above board” with the former prime minister’s connection to the financial services company which collapsed earlier this month.
The Tories have been forced to make a U-turn after losing a lawsuit over a £23 million NHS data contract awarded to controversial US firm Palantir.
Palantir, which has become notorious for its close ties to security services and immigration agencies in the United States, secured its first ever deal to handle NHS data in March last year for the nominal sum of £1.
The contract, which was extended in December 2020 and is now worth £23.5m.
Open Democracy announced back in February they were taking the UK government to court after exposing the Tories had just before Christmas, quietly given a CIA-backed firm a major, long-term role in handling our personal health information, held by England’s cherished National Health Service.
The Government claimed it was a short-term, ‘emergency’ response to the COVID crisis. In March, the UK government announced a massive NHS data deal with private tech firms. Experts warned it could involve an ‘unprecedented’ transfer of citizens’ private health information to controversial private firms like Palantir: a secretive artificial intelligence outfit founded by a Trump-backing billionaire.
During months of ensuing legal correspondence, the government assured us that this ‘COVID datastore’ would be unwound at the end of the pandemic and the data destroyed. They also assured us that any extension would go out to public tender, in which taxpayers could see and debate the issues at stake.
All of that turned out to be false.
What’s Matt Hancock doing with your health data? | Yui Mok/PA Archive/PA Images. All rights reserved.
Open Democracy revealed that the government has now committed to not extending Palantir’s contract beyond COVID without consulting the public. It has also agreed to engage the public, via patient juries, about whether firms like Palantir are appropriate for a long-term role in the NHS at all.
Facing Open Democracy’s lawsuit, the government caved. They’ve pressed pause, committing not to extend Palantir’s contract beyond COVID without consulting the public. There will be no more mission creep without assessing our rights. They have also agreed to engage the public, via patient juries, about whether firms like Palantir are appropriate for a long-term role in the NHS at all.
It’s a major U-turn at a critical moment. The NHS, with its unique trove of structured health data, is powerfully attractive to tech corporations. Palantir and other US tech firms clearly stand to profit from managing or accessing this asset, estimated to be worth £10bn a year.
The NHS datastore is the largest pool of private health data in NHS history, and that raises questions too important to be settled in secret deals. Should it survive the pandemic? On what terms? Should Palantir manage it, or are there more trustworthy alternatives?
The NHS has said that all health data handled under the deal is “pseudonymised, anonymised or aggregated and therefore does not identify any individual”.
But campaigners have complained about a lack of transparency over how the deals were struck, as well as over health secretary Matt Hancock’s longer-term plan for the NHS.
In a statement today Open Democracy said there were “many more battles to fight”.
“We still need full transparency on the Palantir deal: the government continues to refuse to lift key redactions on what data is being fed into Palantir’s datastore,” it said.
“We need to know that the public consultation they’ve promised is far-reaching, not just a box-ticking exercise.”
Colorado-based Palantir, which was founded by outspoken billionaire Peter Thiel in 2003 with support from the CIA, has frequently come under scrutiny from privacy groups.
Who will this brave new world benefit? We have successfully defended the public’s right to be heard before major NHS data deals are signed with large tech firms. It’s now on all of us to speak up if we want our future NHS to serve patients, not profit.
Open Democracy’s stated “Our fight has been about trust. Palantir was founded by a Trump-backing billionaire called Peter Thiel. The firm has a deep and controversialhistory with US police, and has recently landed a new contract supporting UK border enforcement.”
Read more at Open Democracy Well done, Mary Fitzgerald, Cori Crider
Andy Burnham has demanded a ‘full explanation’ from Greater Manchester Police over the arrest of a protester that left her exposed in her underwear.
Eighteen people were arrested in total during a ‘Kill the Bill’ demonstration in the city centre on Saturday evening.
Police had allowed protesters to march in a large group and give speeches denouncing the government’s new legislation that critics say would restrict the right to protest.
But riot cops moved in when a small group sat down and blocked tram lines in St Peter’s Square.
Campaigners complained that officers used heavy-handed tactics, pushing and dragging people out of the area.
And images of the arrest of a young woman have provoked particular outrage on social media.
The woman was dragged away, her jeans were pulled down leaving her exposed in just her underwear.
Greater Manchester Police drag woman to police van half naked.
https://youtu.be/yUjBATxgtAU
One officer showed his human side and made attempts to pull her jeans back up, but not before the scene was captured by a number of photographers.
The Mayor Andy Burnham was tagged in the photo by another Twitter user called Mike who asked: “I do hope you’ll be doing something about this Andy.”
Tonight the Mayor replied: “I am Mike. I have started by asking Greater Manchester Police to provide a full explanation of what happened.”
I am Mike. I have started by asking @gmpolice to provide a full explanation of what happened.
Police have since defended their decision to break up the protesters, after claims that the group refused to comply with instructions asking them to move away from the area.
Their response was backed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham and his deputy Bev Hughes.
“GMP had to manage a challenging situation carefully and we did not see a repeat of scenes seen in other parts of the country recently,” they said in a statement.
This morning (Tuesday), police have issued a statement vowing to launch an ‘urgent review’ into the arrest.
The force added that the pictures of the woman ‘make for uncomfortable viewing’.
A GMP spokesperson said: “We are aware of the videos and images of a woman partially exposed when being arrested following Saturday’s protest in the city centre, which make for uncomfortable viewing.
“An urgent review is underway to establish circumstances and an update will follow in due course.”
In a statement issued on Monday, GMP said six of those arrested were released under investigation, six were handed fixed penalty notices and five others accepted cautions.
A boy of 17 ‘is being dealt with by the youth offending service’.
Saturday’s protest began in St Peter’s Square and had remained ‘largely peaceful’ and ‘contained’ according to GMP.
Around 150 demonstrators marched through to Piccadilly Gardens, before arriving at Stevenson Square. As they walked chants of ‘kill the bill’ and ‘our streets’ could be heard. Read more
It comes after protesters in Bristol on Friday became involved in violent clashes with police after a similar ‘Kill the Bill’ protest.
Bristol Kill the Bill
Daily Mirror journalist Matthew Dresch shared video footage that appeared to show police pushing him and hitting him with a baton as he shouted that he was a member of the press.
“Police assaulted me at the Bristol protest even though I told them I was from the press. I was respectfully observing what was happening and posed no threat to any of the officers,” he said.
Twitter users described the incident as outrageous and appalling.
Avon and Somerset police tweeted: “We’re aware of a video showing a journalist being confronted by officers during last night’s protest in Bristol. We’re making efforts to contact him. A free press is a cornerstone of our democracy and we fully respect the media’s vital role in reporting events fairly & accurately.”
Labour MP Nadia Whittome called for an investigation into the policing of the demonstrations.
“Reports of protesters and journalists injured last night in Bristol. The case for an independent investigation into the policing of the Bristol protests is clear,” she tweeted.
In an open letter, Labour candidates in the city joined calls for a full and independent investigation, saying they were “deeply concerned about the videos circulating on social media which appear to show police using excessive force against protesters”.
“Of particular concern are the reports of multiple journalists being intimidated and in some cases assaulted by the police. We condemn all violence. These scenes are chilling and should be of great concern to anyone who cares about civil liberties, regardless of views on the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill or the demands of the protests.”
A former police chief has warned that new protest laws move Britain dangerously towards “paramilitary policing” and that UK ministers are “flexing their muscles via their police forces” like repressive regimes around the world.
The warning from Michael Barton, the former chief constable of Durham comes as policing braces itself for a report expected within the next 48 hours after Metropolitan police officers were accused of heavy-handed tactics at a vigil on Clapham Common for Sarah Everard.
Scenes of officers grappling with women led to outrage triggering a U-turn from the Labour Party who were planning to abstain on the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill. the scenes also prompted calls for the resignation of the commissioner, Cressida Dick.
Under pressure, the home secretary has ordered a report expected to arrive early this week from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. The key question it will answer will be whether the Met’s actions were proportionate or not.
As the new protest laws pass through parliament, Barton and another former senior policing leader, Sir Peter Fahy, told the Guardian they held deep concerns about the dangers the new laws posed for civil liberties already reeling from a year of emergency Covid laws.
The police, crime, sentencing and courts bill, currently passing through parliament, will afford new powers to officers to tackle protests, including measures aimed at static protests and a new offence of “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”, which is in part defined as causing “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience”.
MickBarton, was head of crime operations for policing nationally, and led the Durham constabulary until 2019, which inspectors rated as one of the best performing forces in Britain.
He says: “I’m not in favour of even more restrictive measures. Surely after an historically unprecedented year-long curfew, in peacetime, the government could show some common sense and gratitude for such incredible forbearance to allow civil liberties to once again flourish. Or are they happy to be linked to the repressive regimes currently flexing their muscles via their police forces?
“Fortunately, in the UK we are not a paramilitary-style police force. But these powers dangerously edge in that direction. Police chiefs will be seen as the arbiters of what is and is not allowed when it comes to protest. Democracies thrive on protest. This government has condemned what has happened in the Ukraine but those same protesters would fall foul of our new laws.”
Barton said the move represented a change in the British style of policing by consent, with officers being “citizens in uniform” who are part of their communities and not above them “because police officers are telling people what to do, not negotiating with them”. He added: “I don’t see anything wrong with the current laws. Protests sometimes means people are inconvenienced.”
Police will be able to impose a start and finish time and set noise limits at static protests and apply these rules to a demonstration by just one person.
Fahy, the former chief constable of Greater Manchester police and former vice-chair of the police chiefs’ body, said the proposed protest laws were a mistake and posed a danger for policing.
He said lessons from the past suggested danger, citing the quashing this week of 1970s convictions of trade union activists including the actor Ricky Tomlinson as a warning from history.
“It is short-term and politically driven,” he said. “It is a reaction to what happened with Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter [protests], in the same way Ricky Tomlinson was a reaction to the industrial strife of the 1970s. Policing was drawn into a particular stance and pose.
“It reminds me of the miners’ strike when policing was mobilised for a political reason. It took policing a long time to recover. Policing should be very careful not to be drawn into the situation of being arbiters of which protests can go ahead, and become stuck in the middle. The policing of protest can cause long-term damage.”
Fahy added: “Policing is not always about the majority, sometimes it is about protecting rights of the minority. I’m not sure a mature democracy should have the police deciding which protests should go ahead.”
Their comments came as at least 10 people were arrested on Friday at a “kill the bill” demonstration and a Daily Mirror journalist shared video footage that appeared to show police pushing him and hitting him with a baton as he shouted that he was a member of the press.
Police assaulted me at the Bristol protest even though I told them I was from the press. I was respectfully observing what was happening and posed no threat to any of the officers. I have muted the latter part of the video to spare you all the pain of hearing my shrill voice. pic.twitter.com/a7a0Nnw0bG
A Home Office spokesperson said: “As the home secretary has made clear, the right to protest is a cornerstone of our democracy and the government is absolutely committed to maintaining freedom of expression.
“It is wrong to claim these measures will stop people from carrying out their civic right to protest. People will still be able to protest, but they cannot be permitted to trample on the rights of local businesses and communities.
“These measures will prevent misery to the public and the loss of millions of pounds to the taxpayers and businesses, have been requested by chief constables, including the Met, and are backed by the Independent Policing Inspectorate.”
This is not a Left or Right issue, this is an issue that affects all people of all persuasions. Thomas Paine once said: “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” in that light it’s understood ensuring our liberties are not taken from us or restricted in any way is ‘common cause’.
The British people are many things and have many layers of complexities but the one thing that binds us all is our freedoms, those hard fought battles from the Magna Carta of 1215 to the Human Rights Act 1998, were not given they were won.
Freedom of speech and the right to protest peacefully are protected by the law both the common law and the Human Rights Act 1998 cover these fundamental rights.
Common law stipulates our rights: personal security, personal liberty and private property, and auxiliary rights necessary to secure them, such as access to justice. Rights to a fair trial, right to open justice and to freedom of speech are recognised both in the common law and in the Convention of Human rights.
Sir Keir Starmer is preparing to replace his shadow chancellor, Anneliese Dodds, in a shake-up of his frontbench team.
Starmer, who will mark his first anniversary as Labour leader next Sunday, is due to demote several underperforming shadow ministers after the local elections in an attempt to get on the front foot and challenge Boris Johnson reports The Times.
The Times report that Dodds is respected, but will be moved on after failing to effectively communicate the party’s “vision”, an impossible task when most commentators and political pundits could only ascertain that ‘Labours vision’ under Starmer was to sell ‘Covid Bonds’ to kick start the economy once the pandemic was over, apparently from all the money people had saved during lockdown!
It’s hardly fair to blame others when the polls show it’s Starmer that is so unpopular but we all know ‘a bad general blames his army’ or like his Dad should have told him “a bad workman always blames his tools.”
Starmer is a relatively new politician and has only been an MP for 6 years, promoted very quickly by Jeremy Corbyn to the front bench where the minimum he should have learnt was what ‘collective responsibility’ means, instead he has taken the ‘It’s Not Me, It’s Them’ approach to Leadership.
Labour’s economic vison
Its hard to sell a bad idea but its even harder to sell no idea.
It’s hardly fair to blame Dodds for not being able to sell Labour’s vision or more accurately Starmer’s vision.
Even if Sir Keir Starmer had anything vaguely interesting to say it was lost in the sleep-inducing tempo of the speech. If the long pauses were designed for effect, it failed, it looked more like the autocue had been set up wrong. It was simply excruciating to watch.
People hoped Sir Keir Starmer would pull something out of the bag, after all the build-up to the announcement, ‘Starmer’s Britain’ his vision. The liberal media press selling headlines suggesting a spirit of 1945 speech, unfortunately, in this alternative Labour party, it seems we must have lost the war.
The main policy the Labour leader put forward was a British Recovery Bond.
War bonds are debt securities issued by a government to finance military operations and other expenditure in times of war. War bonds are either retail bonds marketed directly to the public or wholesale bonds traded on a stock market. Exhortations to buy war bonds are often accompanied by appeals to patriotism and conscience. Retail war bonds, like other retail bonds, tend to have a yield which is below that offered by the market and are often made available in a wide range of denominations to make them affordable for all citizens.
A Labour government would offer people a savings account with the government at a competitive interest rate – similar to the previous National Savings and Investments bonds.
The cash raised would then be spent on rebuilding the country post-Covid.
It comes off the back of figures from the Bank of England, which showed households had accumulated over £125bn in excess savings by November 2020 – estimated to hit £250bn by June 2021 – but with only around 5% of the savings expected to be spent, with much of the rest sitting in savings accounts.
Sir Keir Starmer said this money could be used to “invest in local communities, jobs and businesses”, as well as providing security for savers and giving “millions of people a proper stake in Britain’s future”.
The Conservatives said the policy was the same as one proposed by the Northern Research Group of Tory MPs, although that group’s “Northern Recovery Bond” plan is not government policy.
Sir Keir Starmer pledged to provide the British public with a “stake” in the nation’s future by offering savers the chance to invest in a new Covid recovery bond should he become Prime Minister.
His life changing ‘Buy War Bonds’ scheme missed the mark with millions of Labour supporters who not only struggle from day to day, in normal circumstances but who have seen no help, no reprieve and definitely no savings during this covid crisis. But of course, Starmer was not aiming for Labour’s core voters, he was aiming for the centre ground and even then his ‘Bond scheme’ landed like a dud.
Dodds is far more qualified but you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
“There is no alternative” (TINA) was a slogan often used by the Conservative British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. The phrase was used to signify Thatcher’s claim that the market economy is the only system that works, and that debate about this is over.
Starmer’s economic vision is lacking and after putting so much effort into denouncing Labour’s vision for change and the economic policy’s put forward in the 2019 manifesto, Starmer has really painted himself into a corner. Now the only policies will be versions of watered down Tory policies, it seems we are back to the politics of TINA.
Allies of Starmer say Dodds, an Oxford-educated economist, is highly intelligent but has failed to communicate effectively the party’s vision. Rachel Reeves, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, is the favourite to replace her and has become one of Starmer’s closest confidantes. Reeves, who also went to Oxford and is an economist, has won plaudits for exposing Tory cronyism in the awarding of government personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts during the pandemic.
According to the Sunday Times, Rachel Reeves and Lisa Nandy are both in the frame to replace Ms Dodds, who was initially handed the job due to her strong economic credentials, but is seen as having struggled to get the party’s arguments across.
A source told the paper: ‘Nandy is one of the party’s best communicators and has not been in a role that has enabled her to utilise her talents to the full and needs a more public-facing role.’
A Britain elects for put the Conservatives on 44 per cent, with Labour lagging on 36 per cent.
The local elections will be the first real electoral test of how much – if any – progress Starmer has made in his first year as leader much of which as been spent in fighting a civial war with the Left while supporting the Tories during the covid crisis.
The official Labour election campaign launch uses a photoshopped image from Jeremy Corbyn rally
The doctored image shows Sir Keir Starmer’s ‘New Labour’ attempting to airbrush the past and popularity of its former Leader Jeremy Corbyn out of the party’s history.
The image posted on Twitter captures a huge crowd enthusiastically waving placards showing the popularity of the Labour Party with a graphics overlaid saying ‘Welcome to Labour’ Sir Keir Starmer Tweets: “On Thursday 6th May we have one of the biggest set of elections in our history. Government guidance in England lets parties talk to voters on the doorstep again. So you can head out in pairs, with your masks and help Labour win.”
On Thursday 6th May we have one of the biggest set of elections in our history.
Government guidance in England lets parties talk to voters on the doorstep again.
Unfortunately, the image has been doctored and is from a time when Labour was actually popular and offered an alternative to the status quo.
You can forgive the Party for using an old image after all the covid restrictions and lockdown have prevented such gatherings but to try and airbrush Corbyn’s popularity out of the picture is just a little ‘Goebbels and the Ministry of Propaganda like!’ this takes cancel culture into the mainstream parties.
The Labour clearly didn’t want anyone remembering just who had created all that enthusiasm the photoshopped image was spotted by Twitter user Troovus.
Here are the images used in Labour's regional organiser ads Tweeted by Angela Raynor before and after de-Corbynisation. 'Thank you [Jeremy Corbyn] for being our leader' changed to 'Labour' pic.twitter.com/U5bPB86yEX
Troovus spotted that the original version of the image didn’t match the version the edit was very specific. A hand-made placard in the original thanked Jeremy Corbyn for leading the party.
Here are the images used in Labour’s local election Launch by Sir Keir Starmer Tweeted by Angela Raynor before and after de-Corbynisation. ‘Thank you [Jeremy Corbyn] for being our leader’ changed to ‘Labour’
Just for clarity here is the doctored part of the image in the attempt to air brush Jeremy Corbyn out.
Labour Airbrushing Jeremy Corbyn out of history
It’s not hard to understand why Labour wouldn’t want to remind people of the passion and vision that ignited in the party under its previous leader when the whole ‘marketing message’ of the party – ‘New Leadership’ – hopes people will forget, while Starmer’s few acolytes and allies of convenience desperately try to rewrite history.
Corbyn offered not only a sharp swing to the left but the rhetoric of a new style of politics that would encourage members to work for the selection of left-wing candidates for party offices and Parliament, and actively to participate in policy-making. In other words, Corbyn aimed at turning Labour’s grassroots into a new social movement with democracy at its root.
Under Corbyn the membership and the party was revitalised, he created the largest party in Europe with over 500 thousand members.
Corbyn offered an alternative!
Sir Keir Starmer doesn’t!
Its not the first time this image has been used and for a different campaign
The SKWAWKBOX reported the same photoshopped image last Angela Rayner Labours deputy Leader was also busted using the doctored pic.
When working from home, there may be a new concern for workers other than going without pants.
To ensure employees do what they’re supposed to, some employers have begun using surveillance apps and programs to monitor worker productivity.
Teleperformance, which employs 380,000 people, plans to use specialist webcams to watch staff
This has raised some worker privacy concerns and the questions of whether this is legal or proper.
Thousands of staff at one of the world’s biggest call centre companies face being monitored by webcams to check whether they are eating, looking at their phones or leaving their desks while working from home, the Guardian has learned.
In a sign of potential battles ahead over the surveillance of remote staff after the pandemic, Teleperformance – which employs about 380,000 people in 34 countries and counts dozens of major UK companies and government departments among its clients – has told some staff that specialist webcams will be fitted to check for home-working “infractions”.
While these will in part be used for team meetings and training, the cameras are also connected to an artificial intelligence system that will randomly scan for breaches of work rules during a shift. If one is detected, a still photo will be sent to a manager and stored for up to 20 days, according to documents sent to staff.
According to the Guardian, if workers need to leave their desks, for example to have a drink, they will have to click “break mode” in an app to explain why – for example, “getting water” – to avoid being reported for a breach.
Eating while on shift is not permitted, staff are told. “If the system detects no keyboard stroke and mouse click, it will show you as idle for that particular duration, and it will be reported to your supervisor. So please avoid hampering your productivity.”
A training video about the webcam system, seen by the Guardian, says it “monitors and tracks real-time employee behaviour and detects any violations to pre-set business rules, and sends real-time alerts to managers to take corrective actions immediately”.
The move triggered warnings from unions and MPs about the normalisation of home surveillance by employers as growing numbers of workers move away from being office-based.
The revelations came to light after some of Teleperformance’s 10,000UK employees were told that cameras, including the AI-based scanning system, would be installed next month for staff continuing to work from home.
While not a household name, the France-based company is one of the world’s biggest suppliers of outsourced phone services, including customer assistance, telemarketing and technical support.
In Britain, its clients include the health and education departments of the UK government, NHS Digital, the Student Loans Company, the RAF and the Royal Navy. The companies it works for include Vodafone, eBay, Aviva, Volkswagen and the Guardian. There is no suggestion any of these were aware of or involved in planning the new surveillance system
Howard Beckett, assistant general secretary of Unite, said the union would “fight legally and industrially to prevent any push to normalise home surveillance”.
Andy McDonald, the shadow employment rights minister, said that particularly when companies were relying on home-working staff to keep them going, it was wrong to impose “invasive surveillance that will erode their rights to privacy and create a climate of fear and mistrust”.
An example of other countries: The Dutch government has determined that workers should be compensated for expenses by their bosses – about two euros ($2.40) per working day, on average. That’s meant to cover not only coffee, tea and toilet paper used in work hours, but also the extra gas, electricity and water, plus the depreciation costs of a desk and a chair – all essentials that workers would never pay for in the office. “We have literally calculated down to how many teaspoons there are in an average household, so from there it’s not that difficult to establish the costs,” said Gabrielle Bettonville of family finances institution NIBUD, which is mainly funded by the government and researched the extra costs of remote working. REUTERS/Eva Plevier
Who’s house is it anyway?
Chris Dobbs, solicitor and specialist employment & HR, offers a comprehensive guide to remote monitoring of employees working from home.
WFH monitoring: Advice for employees
If your employer proposes monitoring software, make sure you know exactly what is being monitored and the purpose. Monitoring is invasive and should not take place just for the sake of it; there should be a good business reason.
Make sure that there is a written policy and that it covers the circumstances in which data collected from monitoring can be used.
In particular, make sure you know what is and is not acceptable for you to be doing at work. Your employer should set out whether accessing private emails is acceptable and when such as during lunch breaks or whether you are allowed to use your work account to send/receive personal correspondence.
Working from home: Is there a right to privacy?
The right to ‘respect for […] private and family life’ comes from the European Convention on Human Rights and was adopted into UK law by the Human Rights Act.
The HRA holds a special place in UK law because it is treated as a yardstick against which interpretation of other laws should be measured. Where a convention right is raised, courts and tribunals are obliged to consider the right in relation to their decision.
All of the points below should therefore be read with this in mind and the basic position is that there is an enforceable right to a reasonable degree of privacy.
Is it legal for an employer to monitor employees working from home?
Legal tracking productivity WFH – what is the relevant law?
There are various pieces of legislation dealing with the ability to monitor employees and employee rights in relation to being monitored:
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is contained in the Human Rights Act and so remains British law for now even after Brexit.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 and Investigatory Powers Act 2016
The implied duty of trust and confidence inferred into employment contracts
The application of ‘fairness’ as applied when considering rights under the Employment Rights Act 1996
The Equality Act 2010
What is working from home monitoring?
What can my employer monitor when I’m working from home?
The most common forms of monitoring, especially as employees are increasingly working from home, is the use of surveillance software to monitor online productivity and internet use.
Can your employer monitor your Internet use at home?
Emails maybe checked by number, content or destination and employers may log website access.
Can an employer record calls when I’m working from home?
Phone calls have been monitored for many years, commonly in sales work where managers may be able to listen in on the conversation or monitor duration.
As more people work from home, one of the challenges employers face is how to ensure productivity remains at in-work levels. Short of regular supervision checks, one solution is to install monitoring software on computers.
Can businesses monitor employees who work remotely without consent?
The Telecommunications Regulations 2000 do allow employers to monitor employees without the employee having given consent but only in very specific circumstances:
Employer believes the employee is doing something they should not be
Employer believes the employee may be involved in criminal activity
If the employer is acting in the interest of national security
To maintain standards across telecommunications equipment, such as virus scanning
For quality control, business continuity or regulatory compliance
If the business is required to monitor business transactions
This may seem very broad, but the Telecommunications Regulations are actually intended to restrict monitoring and surveillance activity. They are also subject to the DPA and GDPR.
Working from home and GDPR
Under both the DPA and GDPR, many monitoring activities will amount to data processing and monitoring may give access to personal data or even ‘special category data’ such as medical information. Even a permissible act under the Telecommunications Regulations may amount to a regulated activity.
Even where monitoring is permissible under data protection law, employees may still be able to claim that it amounts to a breach of contract or that it was imposed in a discriminatory way.
What employment claims might arise from remote monitoring?
Remote monitoring and consent
Our advice is that, in most cases, any surveillance of employees should be done with their knowledge and consent. The DPA’s Code of Practice states that employers should have an electronic communications policy which is communicated to employees.
Where that is not done, claims against the employer are much more likely to be successful even where the monitoring was reasonable and otherwise lawful.
Dismissals and remote working
Any dismissal which is carried out following surveillance of which the employee was not aware and has not consented to may be deemed unfair. This includes conduct and capability dismissals.
If an employee discovers that they are being monitored without having given their consent, the employer could be facing a constructive dismissal claim. The use of surveillance, particularly if it is personal or invasive, could well amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
Alongside the tribunal claim which may include compensation, the employee can also make a referral to the Information Commissioner who has the power to fine for breach of data protection law.
Working from home discrimination
Employers should be particularly careful with any targeted monitoring. An employee who is singled out may well argue that it is due to a protected characteristic and it is unlikely that an employer will have any evidence to the contrary if they are only monitoring that one employee.
When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. Control your personal Cookie Services here.
