Home Blog Page 176

Brexit: EU launches legal action against UK claiming ‘breaching’ Northern Ireland Protocol trade agreement

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Brexit: EU launches legal action against UK claiming ‘breaching’ Northern Ireland Protocol trade agreement

The UK says extending a grace period for relaxed rules on goods arriving in Northern Ireland from Great Britain is not a breach.

The EU has formally launched legal action against the UK, alleging that the government has broken international law over Brexit implementation in Northern Ireland.

The European Commission has accused the UK of breaching EU law concerning the movement of goods and pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland after the UK moved to unilaterally change parts of the Brexit deal to better suit British businesses earlier this month.

On 3 March, the UK announced it was going to extend grace periods relaxing procedures and checks on British supermarket suppliers and businesses trading in Northern Ireland until October.

The reality is goods shipped from one part of the UK to another now have to go through border checks.

Under the agreement, to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, Northern Ireland has remained a part of the EU’s single market for goods meaning products arriving from the UK mainland have to undergo EU import procedures.

This has created a new trade border with Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, raising concerns the terms negotiated last year, signed by Boris Johnson, would cause further food shortages if implemented, as agreed, in full at the end of March.

Some supermarkets and other shops have struggled to maintain stocks since 1 January when the arrangement began and the UK says changing the grace period is not a breach and is necessary because the EU has refused to extend it.

The European Commission said this is the second time in six months the UK government “is set to breach international law” after the Internal Market Bill set out clauses that would undercut the Northern Ireland Protocol. These were removed in December.

International Trade Secretary Liz Truss told Sky News earlier this month the easements were “temporary” and it is “perfectly common practice while deals are being implemented to have temporary easements in place”.

“That is not a breach of the protocol and we’re very clear about that,” she added.

Ultimately the action could see a case held at the European court of justice and lead to financial penalties and trade sanctions.

The EU has accused the UK of breaching the good faith provisions in the withdrawal agreement after its unilateral decision two weeks ago to delay implementation of part of the Northern Ireland protocol relating to checks on goods shipped from Great Britain to the region.

UK damaging itself to appease EU, says DUP Leader

Arlene Foster wants the post-Brexit Northern Ireland Protocol to be replaced

DUP leader Arlene Foster is asking for changes to the Northern Ireland protocol as goods from major retailers in the UK are struggling to get through to Northern Ireland.

“There is damage happening to the Belfast Agreement and its successor agreement,” said Foster, adding that “it has also damaged the UK internal market by putting in place a system to protect the EU single market. What we are doing is damaging our own country.”

Meanwhile, DUP Agriculture Minister Edwin Poots has stopped border checks on food coming from the UK into Northern Ireland. “The agriculture minister is looking at all of these issues. He is taking legal advice and speaking to officials as to what needs to be done,” Foster told an Irish radio station over the weekend.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Northern Ireland over the weekend to meet with ministers to hear their concerns on trade. Johnson admitted the border is operating in an “imbalanced way” and that he did not envisage certain food items and parcels would be restricted. 

Mrs Foster told Times Radio: “The Agriculture Minister (Edwin Poots) is looking at all of these issues.

“He is taking legal advice and speaking to officials as to what needs to be done.”

She said food from Great Britain heading for Northern Ireland, like lasagne, would be marked for sale in sterling so posed no risk of entering the Republic of Ireland where they use euros.

She said the EU was imposing third-party checks, similar to if somewhere like China wanted to send goods into its single market.

The DUP leader added: “It is completely disproportionate to what is necessary.”

The Northern Ireland Assembly will be able to vote on whether to scrap the protocol in 2024.

It’s always one sided when it’s the EU

In February the British government accepted an EU request for extra time to ratify the Brexit trade deal, after Brussels said it needed two more months to scrutinize it in 24 languages.

The UK agreed to the request by the EU to extend the date of its parliament’s ratification of the Brexit trade deal until 30 April.

The trade deal was provisionally approved by the 27 EU ambassadors in December to ensure it came into place on 1 January when the UK left the single market and customs union, removing the prospect of extra friction at the border.

In January the EU Commission invoked an emergency provision — Article 16 of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland — as part of an export control mechanism that is designed to restrict international shipments of coronavirus vaccines if the EU’s own orders are not being met.

The EU has little compunction about using aggressive tactics and threats to try to get its way – either when dealing with the UK or other states. Over the last year the EU attempted to bully Switzerland into signing up to a new relationship which would increase EU control over the Swiss by abruptly curtailing financial services ‘equivalence’. Creditably, the Swiss retaliated and showed that their financial sector had considerable muscle.

The EU has also exploited African countries, demanding and then abusing rights to fish in their waters in return for economic assistance. The EU’s abortive threat to stop food supplies from Britain to Northern Ireland was another example and the current threat to stop vaccine shipments that could save lives hardly suggests a mature attitude to negotiation.

Ireland says it was not informed by EU about triggering Brexit protocol.

Ireland was not consulted by the European Commission before it briefly sought to restrict some exports of COVID-19 vaccines by invoking an emergency Brexit clause related to Northern Ireland, Ireland’s European Affairs Minister said.

The EU abruptly reversed the plan to use the Article 16 clause to restrict exports of COVID-19 vaccines from crossing the Irish border into the United Kingdom within a matter of hours after it sent shockwaves through Northern Ireland, London and Dublin.

However, the fact the EU had implemented Article 16 was met with outrage across both borders. The EU’s initial decision to trigger a Brexit deal clause to place controls on the export of vaccines sparked criticism on both sides of the Irish border and led to frantic talks including a call between the UK and Ireland to avert a full-scale crisis.

The swift about-face came after Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson separately phoned Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to express deep concerns. Johnsonand Martin also held a conversation on the issue.

In a tweet late Friday night, von der Leyen said she spoke to Martin “to agree on a satisfactory way to introduce an export mechanism for COVID vaccines.” But that only raised a question of why she hadn’t consulted the Irish leader before the Commission published its export regulations earlier in the day.

Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney welcomed the Commission’s statement but added pointedly that “lessons should be learned; the Protocol is not something to be tampered with lightly, it’s an essential, hard won compromise, protecting peace & trade for many.”

An official in contact with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said the EU’s top Brexit experts were not consulted on the decision to trigger the override provision and were stunned to learn about it.

The official suggested von der Leyen and her cabinet were directly responsible.

It took last nights poor policing for Labour to do a U-turn on abstaining on Priti Patel’s anti-protest crackdown plan

Paul Knaggs
-
0
It took last nights poor policing for Labour to do a U-turn on abstaining on Priti Patel’s anti-protest crackdown plan

Labour are now planning to vote against Priti Patel’s anti-protest crackdown plan but it took a public outcry at the actions of the Met police during a murdered women’s vigil to make Starmer do a U-turn

The party had previously said they would abstain on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill on Tuesday, but now plan to oppose it following widespread criticism of the Metropolitan Police’s handling of a Sarah Everard vigil.

It’s a freighting prospect that it has taken public outcry following last nights events for the opposition to move from abstaining to opposing on this bill.

A Bill that further reduces our liberties and restricts the right to protest. The Labour movement and its Party were brought about by public protest, it was the gathering of people in common cause to speak against the inequalities in an unjust system, to fight for our liberties, yet a Labour Party of the 21st century were prepared to meekly abstain to more draconian measures being imposed on the people.

Founder of the Labour Party Keir Hardie stands at Trafalgar Square

What is ‘The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill’ and why worry?

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, due to be debated in the Commons tomorrow, would give powers to the police to impose conditions on protests which are “noisy” enough to cause “intimidation or serious unease” – or which have an “impact” on the local community, covering all instances of protesting they are a staggering assault on our right to protest as well as an attack on other fundamental rights.

Critics say the law gives police the power to stop solo protests.

It would also expand the “controlled area” around Parliament where some protest activities are banned.

And it would make it an offence to “intentionally or recklessly” commit an act which could cause “serious annoyance” – punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The coronavirus pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on our ability to take to the streets. Just a week ago police shut down nurses’ protest over NHS pay rise in Manchester city centre Health workers organised the demonstration in response to the government’s proposed 1 per cent pay rise for NHS workers. Yet the small, peaceful rally was halted by over a dozen officers from Greater Manchester Police.

An NHS nurse Karen Reissmann, 61, insists the protest was “safe” images and video of the protest would seem to back up her statement, yet she was slapped with a £10,000 fine for organising a protest over a 1% pay rise says she was “flabbergasted” and will appeal the penalty.

Karen Reissmann, 61, told the Mirror that Sunday’s protest in Manchester city centre’s St Peter’s Square was “safe” and those who took part in the gathering were socially distanced and wearing masks.

“This isn’t about safety, this is about the government trying to stamp down on protest which I think is a dying shame.” 

But Greater Manchester Police (GMP) deemed it to be an illegal gathering under England’s current coronavirus lockdown rules and issued a penalty introduced by Home Secretary Priti Patel.

History provides an especially sharp rejoinder to those who doubt the sustained power of protest

For centuries, on the right and the left alike, it has been an article of faith that, in moments of sharp civic discontent, you and I and everyone we know can take to the streets, demanding change. Our society has been formed on the right to protest from the Magna Carter to the Chartist the working classes have come together in common cause to protest and bring about change.

Photograph of the Great Chartist Meeting on Kennington Common, London in 1848

Without protest the Labour movement would never have existed nether the right to vote for men or women.

Before 1918 no women were allowed to vote in parliamentary elections

In Parliament Square today demonstrators have gathered before falling silent to remember Sarah before chants of “kill the bill” broke out. This refers to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, due to be debated in the Commons tomorrow, which would give powers to the police to impose conditions on protests which are “noisy” enough to cause “intimidation or serious unease” – or which have an “impact” on the local community.

Parliament Square today

Civil liberties groups call police plans for demos an ‘assault’ on right to protest

Now the Home Office is busy preparing, in readiness for when public health restrictions start to ease, to make sweeping changes to public order legislation that will give the police extra powers to restrict future protests.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill includes plans to “strengthen police powers to tackle non-violent protests that have a significant disruptive effect on the public or on access to Parliament”.

Civil liberties campaigners have warned of a “staggering assault” on the right to protest, as police detailed how they would enforce controversial government proposals to restrict demonstrations.

Thursday, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) published its plans for the future of policing protests, two days after the government announced proposed new laws granting more powers to officers and the home secretary.

Among other things, the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill will give Priti Patel powers to create laws to define “serious disruption” to communities and organisations, which police can then rely on to impose conditions on protests.

The HMICFRS report, ordered by Patel following Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests, outlines a “need to develop” covert intelligence gathering methods and an expectation of increased use of facial recognition technology, despite a court of appeal ruling last year that its use in south Wales breached privacy rights and broke equalities law.

The report also supports expanding stop and search “to prevent serious disruption caused by protests”, amid concerns over discriminatory use of the power.

Emmanuelle Andrews, policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, said: “These plans are a staggering assault on our right to protest as well as an attack on other fundamental rights.

“Police already have extensive powers to restrict protests, and frequently go beyond them even though it is their duty to facilitate the exercise of this right.

“We are still in the grip of a pandemic that has changed all our lives, handed enormous powers to the government and dramatically restricted our protest rights. The proposals in the policing bill are an opportunistic bid from the government to permanently erode our rights.

“We must reject the politics of division that the government is exploiting through this bill, and protect each other and our ability to stand up to power.”

The bill also allows for police to impose conditions such as start and finish times and maximum noise levels on static protests – powers officers already have in relation to marches.

But the HMICFRS wants the rules to be even more closely aligned with those for marches, by forcing organisers of static protests to provide advance notice of their plans and enabling police to ban assemblies, with the consent of the home secretary, if the imposition of conditions would not be sufficient to prevent serious public disorder.

Kevin Blowe, campaigns coordinator of the police monitoring group Netpol, criticised the report as “alarming and illiberal” and “essentially a series of recommendations on how you can massively expand surveillance on protest movements at a time when the government has decided that it’s going to crack down on those protests”.

The report is the first to feature the term “aggravated activists” instead of “domestic extremists”, the use of which Netpol campaigned against for almost a decade. It defines aggravated activists as “those who commit protest-related crime or unlawful behaviour. The most frequent level of aggravated activism associated with protests is low.”

Alanna Byrne, of XR, said similar labels were applied in the past to other groups “on the right side of history”, adding: “Priti Patel can try and make the UK a protest-free zone but it’s clear that the government is not going to do the right thing without protesters holding them to account so we don’t plan on stopping anytime soon.”

Announcing the bill, the Home Office said the new laws would “enable police to better tackle unauthorised encampments, and safely manage protests where they threaten public order or stop people from getting on with their daily lives”.

Matt Parr, from HMICFRS, said: “The right to gather and express our views is fundamental to our democracy. But this is not an absolute right. The police need to strike the correct balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of others, such as local residents and businesses.

“We found that the police too often do not find the balance between protecting the rights of the protesters and preventing excessive disruption to daily life, which even peaceful protest can sometimes cause.”

Human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar told Swarbrick on Sunday the proposed bill is “the most draconian piece of legislation in British legal history, that will effectively outlaw peaceful protest”.

Highlighting the clause in the bill that targets protests that cause “serious annoyance” Mr Anwar added: “What do they think protest is about? How did women get the right to protest without the right to cause serious annoyance?

“The very fact that it could be noise levels, somebody being interrupted – well we have had protests for a number of years, many of the rights that this country prides itself on, as a result of direct protest.

“This is a fundamental attack on our human rights… This effectively gives the power – lock, stock and barrel – to the police, to the likes of the Metropolitan Police, to do what they did yesterday.”

Badly tone deaf decision to refuse the vigil resulted in indefensible police actions

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Badly tone deaf decision to refuse the vigil resulted in indefensible police actions

It was a Badly tone deaf decision to refuse the vigil there must be consequences

Who could have predicted that police refusing a vigil for a woman kidnapped & murdered by a high level police officer in that same force – who was only in London because he had been on duty, and was only on duty because the police had failed to suspend/arrest him for an indecent exposure reported 3 days prior by two women, in the context of decades and decades of police not taking VAWG seriously, would lead to something that was not actually a vigil but actually a protest against the police which attracted all the other people who hate the police including the usual A.C.A.B. lot…

Well, apparently not the met police…. which is a bit worrying…

This was a peaceful gathering hijacked by the police

The actions of the police have united politicians from across the spectrum in condemning the “outrageous” behaviour of police for their poorly thought out tactics after they moved to break up the vigil held to commemorate Sarah Everard.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has said she has asked Scotland Yard for a “full report” on what happened amid criticism of its handling of a London vigil in memory of Sarah Everard.

As calls for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick’s resignation began to surface, London Mayor Sadiq Khan acknowledged that officers’ handling of the Clapham Common meeting was at times clearly “not appropriate nor proportionate”.

Mourners became angry after police tried to forcibly remove speakers from the bandstand at the south London park. 

The contrast in policing this event alongside other mass gatherings was telling. The police’s heavy-handed treatment of the women present at the vigil prompted comparisons to the events of the previous weekend when police were seen standing by while Rangers fans trashed the city’s George Square. No one can deny the best tactic would have been discretion.

The essence of “police discretion” is that when using the law police officers are authorised based on the presumption that they make choices. The best choice on occasion would have been to allow the gathering to fizzle out naturally taking photos and video of any incidents that broke the law other than the gathering itself, later if necessary a cautioning or an arresting could have taken place safely. Not that this was needed in this gathering of women showing solidarity and morning the senseless murder of another woman.

Dawn Foster

Staff Writer at @JacobinMag. Twitted: The Met have been a shitshow tonight, but any journalists tweeting as though this is the first time they’ve behaved appallingly do an incredible disservice to Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson and many, many others.

There are many questions to answer about the murder of Sarah Everard not least why PC Wayne Couzens was not arrested and suspended after reports that three days earlier on February 28, before Ms Everard disappeared, the Met Police received an allegation that Couzens had exposed himself in front of a woman at a fast food restaurant in south London.

Despite the complaint, it is understood he continued to work.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said that it will investigate whether the Metropolitan Police responded ‘appropriately’ after receiving a report of indecent exposure in front of a woman working in a south London takeaway restaurant on February 28. Sources told The Daily Mail the allegation may not have reached ‘command level,’ so Met colleagues were unlikely to be aware of it – meaning Couzens was able to continue working as an officer right up until his arrest.

Sarah Everard disappeared while walking home from a friend’s flat in south London on Wednesday March 3.

A policeman, 48-year-old Wayne Couzens, has been arrested and charged in connection with the crime.

Couzens will stand trial for kidnapping and murder.

Labour is now to vote against Priti Patel’s anti-protest crackdown plan

The Party had previously planned to abstain on the bill, but Shadow Home Secretary David Lammy said Labour MPs would be told to oppose the “poorly thought-out measures”

The legislation that was going to fly through is now meeting objections and the none opposition are no longer abstaining, Labour will oppose Priti Patel’s plan to hand more powers to police to crack down on protests.

#ReclaimTheseStreets, #SarahEverard, #PatelMustGo, #DickOut

#Disgraceful Policing: Clashes between police and mourners at Sarah Everard vigil

Paul Knaggs
-
0
#Disgraceful Policing: Clashes between police and mourners at Sarah Everard vigil

Clashes have broken out between police and mourners at a vigil for Sarah Everard.

Footage posted on social media shows police and mourners jostling near the Clapham Common bandstand, where the Reclaim these Streets vigil was due to be held before it was cancelled due to Covid-19 safety concerns.

Metropolitan Police officers walked on to the bandstand and were met with boos, jeers and chants of “shame on you” as they tried to disperse people from the event.

Members of the crowd could be heard shouting “shame on you” and “you are scum” after the brief clash, while one woman screamed, “you’re supposed to protect us”.

The whole incident could have been handled better by discretion rather than the authoritarian tactics employed by the Met.

Despite police orders, hundreds of people attended the vigil at Clapham Common, close to where the 33-year-old Sarah Everard disappeared.

Earlier Kate Middleton The Duchess of Cambridge had discreetly attended the vigil, it was oblivious to all but the police, people felt the need to gather and pay their respects and mourn this tragic taking of a life.

Unfortunately both bad policing from on the ground and high command led to a #Disgraceful piece of police work.

A video posted on Twitter appears to show officers grabbing a woman and leading her away, while onlookers screamed and shouted.

Officers surrounded the bandstand, where people have laid flowers, and members of the crowd could be heard shouting “shame on you”.

Howard Beckett Tweeted: Disgraceful policing Women want the world to know they feel unsafe on our streets. You don’t meet that with violence. You meet that with compassion.

The event began peacefully but tensions escalated as speakers made statements about police and officers began to ask people to go home.

Today, Wayne Couzens appeared in court, charged with the kidnap and murder of Ms Everard.

A vigil was originally arranged by Reclaim the streets but was ‘cancelled’ due to coronavirus restrictions.

On Friday, a High Court judge refused to intervene on behalf of the group in a legal challenge over the right to gather for a protest.

The mourners defied an earlier police warning and gathered to call for an end to violence against women a day after a Met Police officer was charged with kidnapping and murdering Ms Everard.

However, there can be no excuse for the poor quality and bad choice in tactics. This has led to anger being directed at Dame Cressida Dick with the hashtag #DickOut trending.

Scotland Yard has been slammed for its handling of the gathering and for its earlier refusal to allow a vigil to take place despite promises it would be Covid-secure.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has called for Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick to “consider” her leadership of the force, while Mayor Sadiq Khan said he was “in contact” with her and was “urgently seeking an explanation”.

Home Secretary Priti Patel said she has asked for a “full report on what happened”.

Campaign group Sisters Uncut, which had representatives present at the demonstration, tweeted claiming that “male police officers waited for the sun to set before they started grabbing and manhandling women in the crowd”.

Cool heads like Chelley Ryan stated: I don’t blame the police for the actions of one psychopath who happened to be a police officer any more than I blame all Dr’s for the actions of Shipman. I do blame them for their utterly disgraceful and heavy handed treatment of peacefully protesting women!

Kate Middleton paid her respects to Sarah Everard at Clapham Common today
Kate Middleton paid her respects to Sarah Everard at Clapham Common today (Image: Sky News)

The Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton laid a bunch of daffodils she picked from the gardens of Kensington Palace as she made a personal pilgrimage to the memorial for tragic Sarah Everard.

The duchess, who attended without William or her three children paused for around five minutes reading the cards and looking at the sea of flowers laid in memory of the murder victim.

Kate, 39, who was without obvious minders, laid the flowers she had personally picked from the gardens of her home at Kensington Palaceand walked alone across the common back to her car.

A royal source told the Mirror: “The Duchess decided to make a private visit after being horrified by Sarah’s tragic murder.

“She remembers what it is like to walk alone as a young woman in London and elsewhere and like so many other women, has been thinking deeply about her experiences walking alone at night.

It was important for her to make the visit and pay her personal respects to Sarah and to Sarah’s family.

“The Duchess remembers what it was like living in London and being a woman walking around the streets of the capital before she married William.

“She wanted to do it privately and felt it was the right thing to do.

#ReclaimTheseStreets, #SarahEverard, #PatelMustGo, #DickOut

Dunblane Remembers, 25 Years Since UK’s Worst Mass Shooting

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Dunblane Remembers, 25 Years Since UK’s Worst Mass Shooting

Sixteen children killed in Dunblane massacre

People in the Scottish town of Dunblane will mark the 25th anniversary of Britain’s worst mass shooting, which led to the introduction of some of the world’s toughest gun laws.

Sixteen schoolchildren, all of them aged just five and six, were killed along with their teacher who tried to protect them when a local man opened fire on a gym class before taking his own life.

Coronavirus restrictions have shut churches across Scotland, forcing a day of private reflection.

But Colin Renwick, minister at Dunblane Cathedral, said the victims would be remembered at an online service.

“For those who lost someone in the tragedy, every day will be one of remembering in some way, and the anniversaries that will be just as poignant for them will be the birthdays of those they have lost, as they ponder what might have been,” he said.

Memories of the morning of 13 March 1996 are seared in the memory of people in Dunblane, and the rest of Britain, which stopped in horror as news of the tragedy broke.

The fact that Thomas Hamilton, 43, committed the atrocity with legally held handguns prompted a campaign for an overhaul in Britain’s gun ownership laws.

Peter Squires, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton and a member of the Gun Control Network founded after the shooting, said it was a turning point.

“It triggered a whole load of new thinking about what you need to do to make society safe from guns,” he added.

Within months, more than 700,000 people had signed the Snowdrop Petition set up by the families of the victims, calling for stricter gun controls.

By 1997, their high-profile campaign of speeches, media appearances and political lobbying had paid off, despite fierce resistance from gun clubs and recreational shooters.

New laws were passed prohibiting the ownership of handguns, which Mr Squires said have since been held up as a model around the world.

The government compensated handgun owners who handed in their weapons to police stations during an amnesty period.

The Gun Control Network was founded in the aftermath of Dunblane, with the Snowdrop Petition launched to rally support for a crackdown on handguns in the UK.

Within a year of the tragedy, John Major’s Conservative government introduced legislation to ban handguns over .22 calibre. In 1997 the Labour government extended this ban to cover all handguns.

The Herald newspaper reported yesterday that in 1997, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, then a newspaper columnist, called the confiscations “pointless”.

Official statistics showed guns were used in just 0.2% of all police recorded offences in England and Wales, with 33 deaths due to firearm offences. The figures for Scotland are even lower.

The only comparable mass shooting was in 2010, when 12 people were shot dead by a licensed firearm holder in Cumbria, northwest England.
 

‘Always remember’

Andy Murray, the world’s former number one tennis player, was an eight-year-old pupil at Dunblane Primary School when Hamilton burst in.

Apart from a memorial to the victims of the shooting, there are few visible reminders in Dunblane of what happened.

But the pain is still palpable.

Andy Murray, the world’s former number one tennis player, was an eight-year-old pupil at Dunblane Primary School when Hamilton burst in.

He told filmmaker Olivia Cappuccini: “You asked me a while ago why tennis was important to me. Obviously I had the thing that happened at Dunblane. When I was around nine.

“I am sure for all the kids there it would be difficult for different reasons. The fact we knew the guy, we went to his kid’s club, he had been in our car, we had driven and dropped him off at train stations and things.’

“Within 12 months of that happening, our parents got divorced. It was a difficult time for kids.

“And then six to 12 months after that, my brother also moved away from home. He went away to train to play tennis in Cambridge.

“We obviously used to do everything together. When he moved away that was also quite hard for me.”

He opened up about his anxiety following the events.

He added: “When I was competing I would get really bad breathing problems.

“My feeling towards tennis is that it’s an escape for me in some ways. Because all of these things are stuff that I have bottled up.”

“At the time, you have no idea how tough something like that is,” he told the BBC in a June 2013 interview about his recollection of the day.

“As you start to get older you realise. The thing that is nice now, the whole town, they recovered from it so well.”

Dunblane 25th anniversary: US campaigner ‘given hope’ by UK gun laws

Jack Crozier and his sister Ellie Crozier lost their five-year-old sister Emma in the shooting

Jack Crozier and his sister Ellie Crozier lost their five-year-old sister Emma in the shooting and have made it their mission to honour her memory by supporting anti-gun campaigners.

Their focus is on the US, where more than 19,000 people were killed due to firearms last year, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

Dunblane campaigners supported calls for a change to US gun laws after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, which killed 20 children and six staff.

“Eyes are going to be on Dunblane, and we don’t need the eyes on Dunblane anymore,” Jack Crozier told STV.

“We remember what happened there and we will always remember the people that we lost.

“But we need to be looking at what is going on in other countries, and America in particular.”

Jack Crozier told the BBC: “The anniversary is going to be difficult for my parents.

“We never forget the loved ones we lost. We take this as an opportunity to remember them.

“For me the most important part is to make sure that this never happens again.”

Mr Crozier said it was not “a straight change” in the UK to pass stricter firearms legislation.

He said: “It took over a year of work from my parents and other campaigners from Dunblane to make the changes we needed.

“All we can hope to offer is that onus to keep going.

“Anything they (US relatives) can bring from what we’ve done and learned, then please take that”.

Paul Knaggs

MPs from Germany’s governing conservative party alliance face deadline to prove ‘They Didn’t’ pocket profits from face mask sales.

Paul Knaggs
-
0
MPs from Germany’s governing conservative party alliance face deadline to prove ‘They Didn’t’ pocket profits from face mask sales.

That’s right, MPs have to prove they didn’t profit from face mask sales as Merkel tries to tidy mask scandal mess

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative bloc must declare on Friday if they have not profited from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ultimatum was issued after further revelations emerged in Germany’s face mask procurement scandal, causing more embarrassment ahead of regional votes on Sunday.

The ruling CDU/CSU alliance, which is also facing criticism over the slow rollout of the vaccine program, sought to clean house ahead of Sunday votes in the states of Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate.

The bloc has demanded that all lawmakers declare they have not profited from consulting or procurement activities linked to the coronavirus pandemic by 6 p.m. (1700 UTC/GMT) on Friday. Details of the audit have not yet been realised.

Senior CDU lawmaker Gitta Connemann said the alliance was facing its “biggest crisis” since a 1990s slush-fund controversy that badly dented the reputation of former Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

What is the face mask scandal?

 Georg Nüsslein Nikolas Löbel under investigation for corruption

The scandal made headlines this week when Christian Democrat (CDU) lawmaker Nikolas Löbel quit his seat.  His colleague Georg Nüsslein from the Bavarian sister party CSU had earlier stepped down.

Both faced accusations that they had received payments for brokering face mask procurement deals.

Nüsslein was last month placed under investigation for corruption after it was alleged that he accepted some €600,000 ($715,000) to lobby for a mask supplier.

Löbel’s company made €250,000 in commissions for acting as an intermediary in mask contracts.

A third lawmaker, Mark Hauptmann, gave up his seat on Thursday — partly in connection with the mask scandal.

‘A Poison for democracy,’ says German president

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Friday said the idea of German lawmakers enriching themselves on deals to procure coronavirus protective masks was “shameful.”

Steinmeier said the case went far further than individual misconduct, referring to it as “poison for democracy.”

“It’s not just about trusting the integrity of individuals – it’s about trusting the integrity of the state and its institutions,” said Steinmeier, who is Germany’s head of state.

The president — a member of the conservatives’ junior coalition partner, the center-left Social Democrats — urged all parties represented in the Bundestag to “clarify not only quickly, but above all reliably, whether further cases are to be feared.”

“Anyone who deliberately misuses their mandate in order to enrich themselves personally not only damages others who are honestly doing their democratic work – that harms democracy,” said Steinmeier.

“Anyone who acts like this simply has no business in the Bundestag,” he said.

UK lawmakers should be made to do the same.

In light of the revelations of billions of ponds in public money being given out in contracts that the Hight court have said was unlawful and without due diligence it would only be fitting that a complete audit and declaration be made of where and to whom our money has gone.

International Women’s Week: ‘knocked back to the 70s’ as Labour NEC chair Margaret Beckett calls Laura Pidcock a “Silly Cow”

Paul Knaggs
-
0
International Women’s Week: ‘knocked back to the 70s’ as Labour NEC chair Margaret Beckett calls Laura Pidcock a “Silly Cow”

When a female Labour MP and chair of the NEC calls another female and former Labour MP a “Silly Cow” on international women’s week it makes you wonder how far we have really come.

It was reported that Labour MP Margaret Beckett accidentally left her mic on in a Labour NEC meeting and was heard calling former Labour MP Laura Pidcock a “silly cow.” Laura Pidcock then left the call.

There was an outcry from many of the participant’s Zoom meeting, it was reported that some members had demanded Becket stand down and resign her position as chair.

On hearing the comment Howard Beckett (no relation), and others immediately demanded Margaret Beckett’s resignation. He also took the veteran Labour MP to task for the use of such a gender-based insult in the week of International Women’s Day and pointed out that members have been suspended for saying far less.

Howard Beckett tweeted: Of all of the Labour NECs I have attended today’s was the most depressing. The motion to recall conference was refused, no vote taken. When @LauraPidcock questioned how this could be explained to members Margaret Beckett called her a “silly cow”. Truly shocking.

Senior Vice President National Education Union, Daniel Kebede also Tweeted: “I can’t help thinking, had the chair of the NEC called a colleague a “Silly Cow” openly under
@jeremycorbyn… it would have been on the front cover of every tabloid and an item on 10 O’clock news.

Funnily enough, two years ago the press were baying for blood as Parliament descended into chaos as angry Tory MPs accused Jeremy Corbyn of calling Theresa May a “stupid woman”, which the Labour leader vehemently denied.

It remained a press headline for nearly a week, Corbyn actually said Stupid people which would have been an accurate assessment.

The video of the remark, made after May’s final exchange with the Labour leader, spread like wildfire among Tory MPs even as May continued to answer questions in the House of Commons.

As the Tories grew more incensed, several MPs, including the Commons leader, Andrea Leadsom, accused Bercow himself of using the same term, prompting an angry backlash from the Speaker.

However, we can be very sure today’s events will go no further and as suggested probably not even get a mention in the mainstream media.

Has one commentator on Twitter pointed out: “One thing’s for sure if someone had called Margaret Beckett a “silly cow” at the NEC meeting today they would already be suspended!”

The SKWAWKBOX reported: Others weighed in, despite attempts by Unison’s Wendy Nichols to shut the matter down. Acting general secretary David Evans has apparently conceded that at least two complaints against Ms Beckett were already in play and would be investigated.

Labour councillor resigns in protest over Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Labour councillor resigns in protest over Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership

A Doncaster Labour councillor has resigned from the party in protest at Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership declaring the Party a bullying dictatorship

Councillor McDonald, who was elected in 2017, stated a number of issues including the suspension of Labour members across the country along with the mass suspensions of branch chairs and secretaries for passing motions in support of former leader Jeremy Corbyn.

She also hit out at the body who runs council elections – the Local Campaign Forum – for its ‘acceptance of an appallingly poor councillor application system’.

But she added the ‘final straw’ was the announcement by shadow defence secretary and Wentworth & Dearne MP, John Healy, that Labour’s support for keeping nuclear weapons in the UK is “non-negotiable,”

Coun. McDonald said: “I have struggled with my social conscience since the new leadership of Starmer and Rayner lied their way into office by stating they would unite the Labour Party – nothing could be further from the truth.

“Decent democratic socialists, which this party is supposed to be, have been victimised, bullied and suspended.

“Dictats on an almost daily basis are enforced including preventing democratically reached motions being sent in from branches on a range of issues including ‘support of Jeremy Corbyn’ or ‘no confidence’ motions in Starmer or Rayner.

“If they were sent in it resulted in branch chairs and secretaries being suspended, the latest dictat is preventing selected candidates in Liverpool from standing as mayor and the process runs again without them.

“This is part of the bullying dictatorship that now exists in the ‘new leadership’, which should have no place in the Labour party I came to know under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.”

A spokesman for Starmer’s office said they didn’t want to comment.

Councillor McDonald will not be standing in the coming elections this May, she will see out her tenure as an independent. She also stated she will not stand for re-election.

Elections for both the mayor, council and parish councils will take place on Thursday, May 6.

Labour is sinking fast under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer.

Labour is trailing Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party by 13 points in the latest YouGov poll, despite the party being responsible for the deaths of over 120k covid victims along with the blatant cronyism and open theft of public money in this ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

A vote for Labour is a vote to support the NHS: But not if it means a 12.5% pay rise or strike action.

Paul Knaggs
-
0
A vote for Labour is a vote to support the NHS: But not if it means a 12.5% pay rise or strike action.

It’s a race to the bottom for a Nurses pay rise with the Tories at 1% and Labour at 2.1%

Speaking at his local election campaign launch, Sir Keir Starmer said: “A vote for Labour is a vote to support our nurses, our doctors, our NHS staff, and to reward our key workers.

However, Labour will not commit to a 5% pay rise for nurses although that was their manifesto election promise.

Both Sir Keir Starmer and his Deputy Leader Angela Rayner have refused to back the 12.5% demanded by nurses or even their own manifesto pledges of 5% pay rise they promised.

Sir Keir Starmer has said NHS workers should get a “fair” pay rise but declined to back a 12.5% pay rise proposed by the Royal College of Nurses.

The Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer also said nurses shouldn’t go on strike amid continued anger at the government’s recommendation of a 1% pay rise for NHS staff.

Launching his campaign for May’s elections, the Labour leader targeted the Government’s widely criticised recommendation of a 1% raise for England’s health workers.

However, he is fully prepared to back nurses and use their just cause for a well-deserved pay rise as long as it’s what he calls a fair 2.1% or thereabouts and not the 12.5% that Nurses are demanding.

He said on Friday that “a vote for Labour is a vote to support our nurses”, but did not go as far as some supporters wanted in specifying the raise they deserve during the pandemic.

Starmer has demand at least 2.1% pay rise for nurses – but won’t say how much!

The Labour leader said frontline staff deserve ‘a fair pay rise’ rather than a real-terms cut in wages offered by Boris Johnson. On that, we can all agree but if Starmer wants to use the NHS as a bandwagon he should listen to the Unions and their demands.

It seems Labour have not learnt any lessons of the past when the choice given by the two main parties was how much ‘Austerity’ and how long over!

Jeremy Corbyn, earlier criticised the party leadership and said they must “stand up for working people” after Deputy Leader Angela Rayner declined to support the nursing union’s call for a 12.5% raise.

Mr Starmer urged the Prime Minister to abandon his plans and allow NHS workers to get on with their jobs.

Asked if he would support strike action, he said: “The NHS don’t want to go on strike. I support them in their entitlement to a fair wage rise after what they’ve been through.

“They don’t want to go on strike. It’s the Prime Minister who is causing this dispute and it’s the Prime Minister that can sort it out.”

The facts are no matter what Starmer has to say on nurses striking the nurses Union has set up a £35 million Industrial Action fund in readiness for that event, with the majority of the UK behind the nurses Labour should either get on board or stop the hypocrisy of using the NHS as their election flag ship

The deputy Angela Rayner followed Starmer in curbing the nurses pay rise and would not even honour Labours manifesto pledge to give nurses a 5% pay rise

Labour had promised a 5% pay rise for public sector workers including nurses in its 2019 election manifesto.

This pay rise would reportedly see a nurses’ annual pay rise by £1,211 while a junior doctor’s salary will increase by £1,384.

The average pay rise of £1,643 across the public sector would restore public sector pay to at least pre-financial crisis levels in real terms by delivering year-on-year above-inflation pay rises, the manifesto document said.

Labour also doubled down on promises to invest £1 billion a year in nurse education including reinstating the nurse bursary following its removal in 2017.

Then and Now.

Angela Rayner says nurses should get at least the 2.1% pay rise the government has budgeted for but that Labour would not honour its 2019 Manifesto commitment to pay NHS workers a 5% pay rise because, “What we’ve got to remind ourselves in that manifesto in 2019, the general public completely rejected it, you know, it was one of our worst election defeats so what me and Keir have done when we took over the leadership of the Labour Party is listen to voters.”

Labour’s leaders believe that, with their overwhelming support for the heroic efforts of frontline workers and particularly NHS staff, voters would not look kindly on Labour delivering that particular manifesto pledge.

Nor would Labour support the 12.5% claim made by the Royal College of Nurses, which the RNC see as going some way to rectifying the real terms cuts made to NHS wages by the Tories.

Our country desperately needs a Labour Government… but that’s not what Starmer and Rayner will deliver based on the evidence of their words and actions to date

Perhaps an audit of the 37billion ‘Track and trace’ handout will produce the funds needed to pay our nurses their worth?

Starmer just Admitted He Suspended Jeremy Corbyn, Contradicting Himself While Breaking EHRC’s by doing so?

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Starmer just Admitted He Suspended Jeremy Corbyn, Contradicting Himself While Breaking EHRC’s by doing so?

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was suspended in October after 37 years as an MP and 54 years as a member after he defended the party from allegations of anti-Semitism in a report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but was promptly reinstated by the ruling executive committee.

In May 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced it would be investigating the party over its handling of the claims.

Its findings in October 2020 concluded.

The watchdog said its analysis “points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it”.

The EHRC found Labour responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment, including the use of anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears.

The first breach was of political interference by the leader’s office.

This included staff influencing decisions on suspensions or whether to investigate a claim.

Some decisions, said the watchdog, were also made because of “likely press interest rather than any formal criteria”, and the party “adopted a practice of political interference”, making the EHRC believe it occurred more regularly in anti-Semitism cases.

This, it said, was “indirectly discriminatory and unlawful” and put the person making the complaint at a disadvantage.

The watchdog concluded its report with a list of recommendations for the party.

They including setting up an independent complaints process, and ensuring it was audited.

It also said Labour needed to acknowledge the political interference that had already taken place and set out clear guidance to stop it from happening again.

After the report was published Jeremy Corbyn made a short statement: In a Facebook post responding to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report, which found Labour responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination over antisemitism, the former Labour leader said he had been obstructed by party officials in trying to tackle the issue. However, he expressed regret that “it took longer to deliver that change than it should”.

He also said: anti-Semitism was “absolutely abhorrent” and “one anti-Semite is one too many” in the party.

But he then said: “The scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.”

Corbyn was questioned on Sir Keir’s statement and whether he stood by his own response that the issue had been “dramatically overstated”.

Corbyn repeated that “one anti-Semite is too many”, but then said the number of complaints had been “exaggerated”.

Six minutes after the clip aired, Labour released a statement saying they had suspended Mr Corbyn from the party.

It read: “In light of his comments made today and his failure to retract them subsequently, the Labour Party has suspended Jeremy Corbyn pending investigation.”

Sir Keir Starmer has always maintained that the former leader of the Labour Party was suspended by the General Secretary, David Evans. If Sir Keir Starmer was to have made the decision to suspend Jeremy Corbyn then Starmer himself would be in breach of the EHRC own rules.

However, speaking on BBC Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine show on Tuesday morning, Starmer contradicted his public statements last October that Labour General Secretary David Evans had taken the decision after “consulting” the parliamentary leader.

“I’ve said that I am going to tackle anti-Semitism and root it out in my party, and that’s what I’ve been doing, taking necessary action”, Starmer said. “And it was Jeremy’s response to a report that we had into the Labour Party on anti-Semitism that caused me to take that action”.

“I’ve said that I am going to tackle anti-Semitism and root it out in my party, and that’s what I’ve been doing, taking necessary action”, Starmer said. “And it was Jeremy’s response to a report that we had into the Labour Party on anti-Semitism that caused me to take that action”.

Sir Keir Starmer

This was not a mistake, Starmer emphasized and elaborated on it twice.

The Keywords are ‘that caused me to take that action’ owning the fact he made the decision, a decision that ultimately breaks the rules Jeremy Corbyn was accused of ‘The first breach was of political interference by the leader’s office.’

It was quite clear to listeners that Starmer made claim to being the person responsible for his former leader’s suspension, taking that decision onto himself.

Play the video listen to Starmer in his own words.

Following Corbyn’s suspension, Starmer claimed he was not trying to provoke a “civil war” in Labour even as super-union Unite General Secretary Len McClusky warned it would “split” the party. But Evans took disciplinary action against branch officials who criticised the move.

Left-wing website Novara Media founder Aaron Bastani seized on Starmer’s comments, accusing him of a “profound inability to be honest”.

Alex Nunns Tweeted: Keir Starmer took the decision to suspend Jeremy Corbyn. Labour claimed the General Secretary did in a flawed attempt to evade the charge of political interference—the very thing the EHRC condemned. But Keir couldn’t resist boasting about his “difficult decision” on the radio.

He also tweeted:

The other EHRC’s recommendations where to be implanted by December 10th yet hundreds of Labour members some innocent some guilty have not had due process carried out and their suspension cases heard.

Again it is quite telling that the ex-staffers suspended after the publication of the #Labourleaks have been reinstated into the party members like Former senior Labour staffer and wife to MP Jonathan Ashworth, Emilie Oldknow.

Second breach: Failure to provide adequate training

The EHRC found was around the party’s complaints process and training in handling complaints.

The investigation found the system to be “inconsistent and lacking in transparency”.

The final breach of the law concerned harassment.

The report said Labour was responsible for two cases of unlawful harassment, where anti-Semitic tropes were used and complaints about them were branded as fake or smears.

Labour is sinking fast under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer.

Labour’s National Executive Committee voted to reinstate Corbyn, a veteran MP and 55-year party member, 19 days after his suspension.

Unfortunatly and unprecedentedly Starmer insisted on keeping the whip withdrawn from his predecessor, meaning he currently sits as an independent MP and may potentially be unable to stand as a Labour candidate in his Islington North seat at the next general election.

Labour is trailing the Tories and Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party by 13 points in the latest YouGov poll, despite the party being responsible for the deaths of over 120k covid victims and the blatant cronyism and open theft of public money in this ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

1...175176177...298Page 176 of 298