Met police drops probe into man accused of wearing 'Hamas' parachute at pro-Palestine protest
Furious campaigners have branded Scotland Yard's decision not to charge the suspect in line with terror laws as 'remarkable'.
The Metropolitan Police had warned 'anyone displaying symbols, wording or otherwise indicating their support for a proscribed organisation risks arrest' ahead of a central London protest on October 5 last year commemorating one year since the start of the conflict following the 2023 October 7 massacre.
Yet the Met closed its investigation into the unnamed man accused of wearing the parachute – interpreted as support for terrorists who used paragliders to enter Israel from Gaza in the attack – despite the force even publicising his arrest on social media.
It said on its X account the suspect was 'wearing what appeared to be a parachute' and shared a clip showing him being taken away by officers in Whitehall during the protest.
The force said he was 'arrested on suspicion of wearing or displaying an article indicating support for a proscribed organisation', but the case was quietly dropped earlier this summer due to 'evidential difficulties'.
A Campaign Against Antisemitism spokesman told the Mail: 'This kind of imagery glorifies a proscribed terrorist organisation and its lethal antisemitism.
'The reported decision to drop the investigation is remarkable and the public is entitled to an explanation.'
A Met spokesman said: 'The findings from our investigation did not meet the evidential threshold for any charges to be brought against the individual.'
On Saturday police arrested more than 70 protesters for supporting newly banned terrorist organisation Palestine Action.
A vicar was among at least 42 people detained by Scotland Yard officers as activists gathered for a second week in a row beside a statue of Gandhi in London's Parliament Square, holding placards reading: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.'
Another 16 arrests were made in Manchester and 13 people were also held in Cardiff at other related demonstrations the same day.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Driving examiners facing verbal and physical abuse from learners
Driving test examiners have suffered 70 physical assaults in five years, according to new figures obtained by the BBC.A Freedom of Information request showed there were also 1,668 cases of verbal abuse recorded on staff across Great Britain between April 2020 and March cameras are now routinely worn to protect staff against abusive candidates, while the Driving Instructors Association (DIA), which carries out advanced tests for taxi and fleet drivers, no longer gives out its test results in Driving Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) said it took a zero tolerance approach to physical and verbal assaults. Gary, who is not employed by the DVSA, has been an examiner for 20 years and conducts advanced tests for drivers of taxis, buses and said he heard of examiners being punched and chased across car parks."I've heard of a car chasing after an examiner, verbal abuse and people spat at, which is something I've experienced," he said."I was carrying out a test for someone who wanted to be a taxi driver, when I delivered the result and it was a failure, he became very abusive, got out of the car, faced up against me and followed me down the street."If I'd have reacted it could have escalated, it was a worrying experience." Examiners have previously told the BBC how some of them had even suffered death Brookfield, from the DIA, said she was aware of a number of alarming situations."Cases I've heard about include staff having a brick thrown through the window of a test centre by a disgruntled person who hadn't passed their test," she said."Some of our examiners faced verbal abuse and on one occasion an examiner was actually followed back to the hotel where they were staying and the candidate and their friends hung around that location, trying to intimidate the examiner." 'Protect our examiners' The DIA, which is based in Crawley, West Sussex, conducts advanced tests for many taxi and private hire drivers. However, due to verbal abuse it no longer gives out test results in person."We changed our policy on giving out test results, from giving the result on the day directly to the candidate, to giving the result by email 24 hours later," said Ms Brookfield."It's to protect our examiners and to deliver a uniformity of results and feedback in writing for the candidates." Ms Brookfield believed delays in getting a driving test could be affecting the Verify found in April that three quarters of the 319 driving test centres across Great Britain had hit the maximum average waiting time - of 24 weeks - to book a practical Brookfield said incidents were exacerbated because people were "angry they've had to wait so long to get a driving test and to get their licence"."When they fail they will have to wait even longer to get a re-test, so some of that frustration is bubbling over into physical and verbal assaults on examiners and that's just completely unacceptable," she said. 'Punched to the floor' Teresa Allen, a driving instructor of 17 years from Tonbridge, said she had heard of cases of both physical and verbal abuse against examiners."I have heard of examiners being punched to the floor which is just beyond the pale," she said."Verbal abuse is actually pretty common I believe." Ms Allen told BBC South East about a case where a learner driver had been abusive on a previous test."He then had to have two examiners on this one and when he didn't pass, he stopped the one in the back of the car from getting out, and as he was eventually removed and driven away by his accompanying driver, he was screaming and yelling," she said."Examiners are only doing their job and if they feel that a person has done something that's proven they're not quite ready to make good decisions themselves on the road, then they must fail them."However, she doesn't believe delays in securing driving test slots are fuelling these cases."I don't think abuse is directly linked to delays in accessing tests, although I do think that trying to get examiners and retain examiners must be getting more and more difficult," she added. The DVSA said learners who were abusive faced the possibility of having their record marked and restrictions placed on them for their next test. This could mean it will take longer for them to get a future test, as test centre managers may deem them enough of a risk that they need two examiners in the car as a safety precaution. In December, the DVSA said it was consulting on new proposals to increase the standard waiting time to book another test if candidates physically or verbally assault their driving examiner. A DVSA spokesperson said: "Although the majority of people are courteous, we employ a number of measures which seek to keep our examiners safe and shielded from abuse."Our message is clear – whatever has happened, don't take it out on our staff. If you do, we'll press for the strongest possible penalties."
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next hit to independent schools could be far more insidious
Is Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson about to launch her latest onslaught on independent schools? Over the last year Labour has already imposed 20pc VAT on school fees and scrapped mandatory business rate relief for schools with charitable status, vindictively treating them differently from all other charities. Those two measures were unambiguous, public attacks on private education. What might now follow is rather more subtle, but all the more insidious. Phillipson has announced the Government is considering scrapping Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) for children with special educational needs (SEN), and planning to replace them with a less onerous and cheaper system. This may sound like good news to anyone who rightly thinks that public spending is out of control. Nearly 483,000 children, or 5.3pc of the school population, had an EHCP in the 2024-25 school year, according to government figures – an increase of 11pc on the previous year and a doubling since 2016. The numbers are clearly unsustainable. But might Phillipson's conversion to sound public finances be motivated by another factor? EHCPs are an essential part of why the state pays, either in whole or in part, for some children to go to independent schools. Local authorities are obliged to provide schooling to children living within its boundaries. But what if it is unable to provide adequate education to a given child due to their specific needs? This may be due to the fact that the child would not be able to cope with larger class sizes, or it might be because their dyslexia is at such a level that the local school is not set up to deal with it. More often than not, the local authority will do all in its power to avoid paying up for the independent school which can provide an adequate education suitable for that child. In 2024, less than half of EHCPs were issued by local authorities within the 20-week time limit required by law, according to the Department for Education. Many parents have to appeal the initial decision to the national SEN tribunal to try and achieve a satisfactory outcome. But some parents do eventually succeed in getting their local authority to pay for private provision. This school year there were 7,200 children with an EHCP attending mainstream independent schools, with more than 20,000 at specialist independent schools. When the Government imposed VAT on school fees the only category that remained exempted were local authorities paying fees for children with an EHCP. If these plans no longer exist, how will it be decided whether a local authority is obliged to pay for private provision? And what mechanism of appeal will there be? Will local authorities continue to pay for the education of children with existing EHCPs? These are questions that may be worrying many parents this weekend. It is also of concern to the schools themselves. For the independent mainstream schools, local authority-funded places for children with an EHCP will only be a very modest proportion of their total intake. But for specialist schools it is a different story. At one school in London, which is a world leader for children with dyslexia, around 60pc of pupils have their school fees paid for by their local authority. Paying for independent schooling is undoubtedly a heavy burden, but it is not the fault of parents that a local authority is unable to provide an adequate education for their child within its own schools. A move from Phillipson could turn out to be akin to what Michael Gove did as education secretary, when he increased the required employer contributions for teachers' pensions. Historically, most independent schools have been part of the state's pay-as-you-go, unfunded Teachers' Pension Scheme. In 2012, the employer contribution to the pension scheme was 14.1pc; this year it has reached double that at 28.68pc. Those who support sound public finances and are appalled by unaffordable public sector pensions may have been tempted to applaud that move. But in truth the measure has amounted to a levy on independent schools. Those in the state sector have had their funding increase commensurately – and in any case employer pension contributions for public sector employees in a pay-as-you-go scheme are only a matter of churning government funds. Gove's move is a major part of the reason for that fees at independent schools soared even before Labour imposed VAT, as the increased pension costs have been passed on to parents. As a result, middle-class parents have increasingly found themselves priced out of them. Whether the extra funding for the pension scheme is a saving to the state at all is debatable, if it pushed parents out of choosing an independent education. We do not have the details of what Phillipson may be planning to replace EHCPs with. But whatever Labour introduces, it is unlikely to be favourable to the private sector. As well as being a world leader in private education generally, some of the UK's specialist independent schools are also at the very pinnacle of what can be done for children with special needs. EHCP reform must not imperil these centres of excellence and damage the future prospects of thousands of children.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Reeves needs to take a leaf out of Gordon Brown's book
In 2002, Gordon Brown introduced the small breweries' relief (SBR), slashing taxation for UK 'micro-breweries'. The then-chancellor's instincts were broadly statist. Britain's tax burden grew from 31pc to 34pc of GDP from 1997 to 2010 – the decade he spent running the Treasury followed by three more as prime minister. But Brown also had commercial acumen, understanding the need not just to talk about economic growth but create an enabling environment to make it happen. His SBR tax-break, which saw breweries producing up to 5,000 hectolitres (around 880,000 pints) annually paying half the standard duty rate, was a case in point. SBR was transformative, sparking the formation of thousands of independent breweries – creating not only thousands of jobs, but hundreds of millions of pounds in tax revenue from production, distribution and sales activities that wouldn't otherwise have existed. Britain's declining beer industry was revolutionised, as small, often family-run breweries emerged to compete with large national and global producers. There was a brewing resurgence not just in cities, but in towns and rural areas too, as 'craft breweries' became rooted in countless UK communities. The financial relief offered by SBR encouraged investment, innovation and a dramatic rise in beer styles – more and better products at lower prices. But, above all, Brown's anti-statist, tax-cutting move generated more jobs, higher exports and far more tax revenues too. Rachel Reeves had a picture of Gordon Brown on her wall as a student. Yet today's Chancellor should remember that her political hero and mentor, for all the big-state proclivities she shares, was pragmatic and courageous enough to sometimes shrug off the comfort blanket of Left-wing ideology and do what worked. Brown cut the basic rate of income tax from 23pc in 2000 to 20pc in 2007, stimulating economic activity. He reduced the main rate of corporation tax from 33pc to 28pc and the small business rate from 24pc to 19pc. Most famously, in his first Budget in 1997, he slashed the long-term rate of capital gains tax (CGT) from 40pc to 10pc for those building businesses, super-charging innovation and entrepreneurship. Yes, Brown made some disastrous calls – not least selling-off much of the UK's gold stock for a song and the abolition of pensions funds' dividend tax credits, costing hundreds of billions of pounds in compounded returns foregone, seriously weakening UK retirement funds. But despite his political tribalism and robotic delivery at the Commons dispatch box, he was capable of intellectual agility, demonstrating policymaking nous which, from time to time, really hit the spot. Since becoming Chancellor last July, Reeves has shown no such agility. She has hiked tax rates relentlessly, with her October Budget comprising a huge £40bn annual tax increase plus £30bn of extra yearly state borrowing. Having imbibed the soft-Left nostrums of mediocre academic economics, she is convinced that state spending, financed by taxation and borrowing, is the only route to growth. In the real world, her crude, naive Keynesianism, implemented at a time of already serious fiscal peril, has caused the decidedly lacklustre economy she inherited from the Tories to stagnate even more, while driving us to the edge of a fiscal crisis. Hammered by Reeves, consumers have pulled in their horns and business investment has stalled. No surprise, then, that on Friday the Office for National Statistics confirmed that GDP fell by 0.1pc in May, having already contracted 0.3pc the month before.
