Liverpool Mayor attacks Starmer for ‘deeply insensitive' Sun appointment
Steve Rotheram, the Labour Mayor, called the appointment 'a deeply insensitive choice' given David Dinsmore's previous links to the newspaper.
The journalist is set to take up the new position of permanent secretary for communications, having been interviewed personally by the Prime Minister.
Many residents of Liverpool still boycott The Sun over its coverage of the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989.
In a statement on X, Mr Rotheram said: 'For many people in our city, particularly those who fought for justice for the Hillsborough families, this appointment will be seen as a deeply insensitive choice given the hurt caused to our communities unjustly targeted by that 'newspaper', Rupert Murdoch and his acolytes.
'The paper Dinsmore once led printed falsehoods that caused unimaginable pain. That shouldn't be brushed off as a footnote in his CV – it should be a red line.'
In the written statement, shared on social media, Mr Rotheram included in bold: 'Liverpool hasn't forgotten. We haven't forgiven. And we never will.'
The Mayor said he supported the Government's 'ambition to rebuild trust in politics', but added that 'appointments like this could risk undermining that effort'.
His statement raises further questions about how Labour might be received in Liverpool in the autumn, when it holds its annual party conference in the city.
Mr Dinsmore was editor of The Sun from 2013 to 2015. He started journalism as a reporter on The Scottish Sun aged 22 in 1990, one year after the Hillsborough disaster, and rose to become its editor in 2006.
He is still at News UK, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, where he has been chief operating officer for the past decade.
'Betrayal of Liverpool'
Kim Johnson, the Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, described the appointment as 'an insult to Hillsborough families and campaigners' and 'a betrayal of Liverpool'.
Mr Dinsmore's appointment is the latest example of senior tabloid journalists entering government to help a prime minister with communications.
Andy Coulson, the former editor of the News of the World, helped Lord Cameron in opposition and then Downing Street before leaving amid the phone-hacking scandal.
Alastair Campbell was political editor of the Daily Mirror before he became Sir Tony Blair's most senior communications adviser.
Sir Keir was said to have been impressed by Mr Dinsmore's understanding of modern communication challenges.
He will be a Civil Service appointment, based in the Cabinet Office, rather than a political adviser, charged with overseeing the Government's significant communications operation.
Mr Rotheram has been the Mayor of Liverpool since 2017, after serving as the MP for Liverpool Walton. During his time in Westminster, he led campaigns seeking justice for Hillsborough families, also serving as a shadow minister for Jeremy Corbyn when he was Labour leader.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
7 minutes ago
- BBC News
Northampton homeless charity fears closure over funding dispute
A charity which houses homeless people says it faces closure because its position has "become impossible" following a funding Association for Accommodation for Single Homeless (NAASH) provides supported accommodation for about 200 people and works to help them move into longer-term charity is financed by claiming housing benefit to secure accommodation for its clients, but NAASH said it had been told by West Northamptonshire Council that funding had been held up as the authority disputed the "validity" of its Reform UK-controlled council said it was "very mindful" of the impact the dispute. Charlie Hastie, the cabinet member for housing, said: "The council has been working over a long period to try to address anomalies in the housing benefits claims made for NAASH properties and the tenants that live there."Housing benefit is governed by nationally set regulations, and where evidence cannot be provided to support claims that have been put in then we are not able to pay benefit."This is also true of historic payments which if, upon review, are not supported by the required evidence also have to be recovered as overpayments."The council has no choice in this matter as the government both sets the regulations and will not pay the council to meet these costs if they do not comply with the regulations."The charity, which has been supporting homeless people since 2000, does not own its housing and mostly rents rooms in houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). 'Time critical' The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which administers housing benefit, said it could not comment on the said: "We support over a million people through housing benefit every year, which is managed and administered by local authorities."Local authorities decide if a customer is eligible for the benefit, applying DWP rules to ensure the right support is going to the right place."In a statement, the trustees of NAASH said: "All those supported [by the charity] are people who need accommodation assistance and support, and have been recommended by West Northants Council and formerly Northampton Borough Council."Negotiations continue with [the council] but the timing is now critical. Unless resolved immediately, NAASH will have to close." Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
BBC News
7 minutes ago
- BBC News
Row over 'cheeky' Deepings homes plan
A row has broken out over new housing in City Council (PCC) has been accused of being "cheeky" for wanting to put new homes close to its border with The Deepings in Lincolnshire.A council spokesperson said "the area's young people need new housing".However, Councillor Phil Dilks, of neighbouring South Kesteven District Council (SKDC), said it would "put more strain on infrastructure". The Deepings, which includes Deeping St James and Market Deeping, currently has 6,276 homes, according to the 2021 has allocated a further 1,800 homes in the area under its local plan, which is currently out for public has also earmarked some nearby land, just into its border, to take 1,050 houses, in its local plan, which is also being consulted on. If both plans get signed-off by the government, the total number of homes in the area would increase by 45%. Judy Stevens of Deeping St James Parish Council said residents were worried about the prospect of more housing without extra facilities such as shops and schools."People already feel let down because they have been promised increased infrastructure as a result of already existing new developments and that hasn't translated into reality," she said."They're not saying not in my backyard, but they are saying no to this many." Dilks, who represents Deeping St James on SKDC, said: "Market Deeping and Deeping St James are entirely in South Kesteven District Council. What Peterborough are looking at is a piece of land south of Market Deeping."We have made our views known to Peterborough and I think it's a bit of a cheek when clearly those people would be using the infrastructure that is already strained in The Deepings".Councillor Nick Thulbourn, cabinet member for growth and regeneration at PCC, agreed anyone buying the new houses in its area would use the public amenities over the border in he said any strain on infrastructure would be factored into the local plan when it was adopted."Peterborough is a young growing city so we need housing and we need for young people to get on with their lives," he said. Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here. Download the BBC News app from the App Store for iPhone and iPad or Google Play for Android devices
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Social media battles and barbs on both sides of Atlantic over UK Online Safety Act
The UK's Online Safety Act has been greatly anticipated. Amid mounting concerns about the ease of accessing harmful content online, rules were drawn up to force social platforms to protect children from posts and videos that incite hatred or encourage suicide, self-harm or eating disorders. But within days of coming into force, the new approach to keeping children safe online had become a rallying point for the right in both Britain and the US. Last week Nigel Farage, leader of the populist Reform UK party, was embroiled in a furious row with a Labour government minister after pledging to repeal the legislation. Meanwhile Republicans held meetings with UK politicians and the communications regulator, Ofcom. The impact of the new law is also being keenly watched in Australia, which is preparing to ban under-16s from social media. Experts say the inherent tensions in the act – between taking down harmful content swiftly and preserving free speech – are likely to bubble away. Zia Yusuf, a senior Reform figure, said: 'So much of the act is massive overreach and plunges this country into a borderline dystopian state.' In response to Reform UK's criticism of the law, Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, said: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Kyle was referring to provisions in the act that seek to prevent children being groomed via messaging apps. Farage said the technology secretary's words were 'disgusting' and demanded an apology, which was not forthcoming. 'To say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt,' Farage added. It is not only the British right that is protesting against the act. JD Vance, the US vice-president, said free speech in the UK is 'in retreat'. Last week, Jim Jordan, a Republican congressman who has criticised the act, led a delegation of US politicians to discuss the legislation with Kyle and Ofcom. Jordan called the act the 'UK's online censorship law' and accused Ofcom, which is implementing the legislation, of 'targeting' and 'harassing' US companies. The group of Republican and Democrat politicians also visited Brussels to discuss the Online Safety Act's EU equivalent, the Digital Services Act. Another Republican politician in the delegation, Scott Fitzgerald, said he thought the White House would certainly be 'interested in finding out' what the group discovered. The Trump administration's concerns have extended to threatening Ofcom and EU staff with a visa ban. In May the state department announced it will block entry to the US to 'foreign nationals who censor Americans'. Ofcom has said it is seeking 'clarity' on the planned visa restrictions. Concerns over free speech also intersect with economic interest. The major tech platforms that come under the aegis of the act – Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat and X – are all based in the US. Companies can be fined up to £18m or 10% of global turnover for breaches, or whichever is greater. In the case of Meta, the parent of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, such a fine would equate to $16bn (£11bn). On Friday, the social media platform X, owned by self-professed free speech advocate Elon Musk, issued a statement condemning enforcement of the act, saying the legislation was at risk of 'seriously infringing' free speech. There are also signs of a popular backlash in the UK. A petition calling for the repeal of the act has accumulated more than 480,000 signatures – which means it will be considered for a debate in parliament – and has been posted on social media by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, doubts nonetheless whether freedom of speech is a vote-winner. 'Petition or no petition, it's not a big issue for most people. Clearly for the extremely online – whether on the right or left – it's an issue, but it's not going to sway a large number of votes with the majority of the population.' Three in four UK parents are concerned about what their children are seeing, hearing or doing online, according to a recent Ipsos Mori poll. Beeban Kidron, a UK peer and leading campaigner on online child safety, told the Guardian she was 'happy to take Nigel Farage and his colleagues through the act'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'If companies target kids, algorithmically or otherwise, why would Reform put the kids at the mercy of tech bros?' The new under-18 guidelines in the UK, which kicked off the latest row, require age-gating of pornography sites to prevent children from gaining access. But they also require platforms to prevent children from accessing content that encourages suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, as well as suppressing the spread of material that is abusive or incites hatred, or promotes harmful substances and dangerous challenges. Some content has been age-gated to avoid being classified as breaching those regulations. In the Daily Telegraph, Farage claimed that footage of an anti-migrant protest had been 'censored', as well as an attempt at 'exposing the truth' about the Rotherham grooming gangs scandal. These examples were on X and included a speech by a Conservative MP, Katie Lam, on the UK's child grooming scandal. The content was covered by a notice stating that 'due to local laws, we are temporarily restricting access to this content until X estimates your age'. The Guardian found no way to access an age-verification service on X, indicating that for now the platform's policy is to default many users to a child-appropriate service until age checks are fully up and running. X has been approached for comment on the age-checks. On Reddit, forums about alcohol abuse, pet care and the Al Jazeera broadcast network also ask for age checks before accessing them. A Reddit spokesperson confirmed the age-checking was because of the Online Safety Act and its restrictions on content that is illegal or harmful to under-18s. Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties and privacy campaign group, said the Reddit and X examples showed the new law was already over-regulating. An Ofcom spokesperson said the act required tech companies to prevent children from seeing content harmful to them as well as tackling criminal content, while protecting free speech. 'There is no requirement on them to restrict legal content for adult users.' Mark Jones, a partner at the London law firm Payne Hicks Beach, said there was a risk that in exercising their duty to remove illegal content or material that was harmful to children, social media companies may be overly cautious and remove perfectly legal material in the UK. He added that rows over how content was treated by Ofcom were likely to run and run because of the tension between speedily tackling harmful content and letting free speech reign. 'Quick decisions are needed in order to prevent the spread of harmful or illegal content. And with that need for speed comes a risk that a decision made under time pressure may be incorrect. But that is the reality of the situation. Mistakes will be made – albeit from a position of trying to prevent harm,' he said. Last week's row over the Online Safety Act will not be the last.
