Northamptonshire council says it backs Pride despite flag stance
A council that will no longer fly an LGBTQ+ rainbow flag from any of its buildings has insisted it remained "committed to supporting community-led events and activities" including Pride.The newly-elected Reform UK administration on West Northamptonshire Council made changes to its flag protocol after coming to power last month.The protocol dictates that only the union jack, St George's flag and council flag will be flown outside its buildings.Mark Arnull, council leader, said the new protocol "prioritises the flying of flags on council buildings that foremostly reflect our local and national identity as a place that represents everyone living in West Northamptonshire".
It comes after Mike Reader, the Labour MP for Northampton South, had shared an open letter to Arnull and the Reform UK administration at the council calling for "clarity and reassurance" for LGBTQ+ people following the policy change.Under the new flag protocol, the council said additional flags would be flown on specified dates for royal or national occasions.These include plans for an Armed Forces Day flag for a week from 23 June, but no flag would be flown to reflect this month's international Pride month, as has been the case in previous years.
The Reform-controlled local authority said it "continued to give its backing to a busy and varied local community events calendar for the year ahead".It said it would provide resource and support to community organisers for events including Pride, Windrush, Diwali and others.Arnull said: "We acknowledge the role that local community forums play in promoting an inclusive environment for everyone who lives and works in West Northants and continue to support this work."
Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK's sale of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel is lawful, high court rules
Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was lawful, London's high court has ruled. The ruling after more than 20 months of litigation will be a relief to ministers who feared that if the court declared the UK sale of F-35 parts illegal, British involvement in the highly lucrative Lockheed Martin F-35 consortium would be put at risk. In a 72-page comprehensive ruling Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said they had rejected all the grounds of challenge to a Labour government decision in September to suspend 30 arms export licences to Israel but to continue to sell F-35 parts to Israel via a global supply pool. The government argued that disruption to the F-35 supply chain would weaken the west and Nato at an acutely sensitive moment. The UK provides about 16% of the parts for the F-35s, and the court was told in closed session that the Lockheed Martin global pool was not structured to permit the UK to insist its parts were withheld from Israel F-35s. The judges ruled that the 'acutely sensitive and political issue' was 'a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts'. The case had been brought by the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and Global Legal Action Network (Glan), supported by Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and Amnesty International. The judges said: 'The issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK-manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL [international humanitarian law] in the conflict in Gaza.' The court rejected all 13 grounds for complaint mounted by Al-Haq's lawyers, and in so doing moved to protect ministers from judicial review based on their international law obligations. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) called the judgment cowardly, after the court determined that it had no clear jurisdiction to rule on UK compliance with international law obligations if the law was not incorporated into UK law. Despite the ruling, the case has revealed serious weaknesses of the UK arms export regime and the case ministers have mounted in parliament to justify F-35 sales. In parliament ministers have held that it is only for a competent international court, and not politicians, to assess the existence of a genocide. But in pleadings in court, lawyers revealed that in July 2024 the government had assessed there was no serious risk of a genocide occurring in Gaza, and claimed not to have seen evidence that women and children were deliberately targeted in Gaza. The case also revealed that in assessing whether the Israeli Defense Forces had acted disproportionately, one of the key tests of a breach of IHL, the government evidential requirements were set impossibly high. 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 By September 2024, when Israel, according to the Hamas-controlled health ministry, had killed 40,000 Palestinians and launched over tens of thousands of airstrikes on Gaza, the government had examined just 413 of these individual incidents – and of those it found only one possible violation of international law. That possible breach was the World Central Kitchen attack on 1 April 2024 that killed seven foreign aid workers. This means the government had not found any possible breach of IHL in respect of any incident that killed exclusively Palestinians. Al-Haq argued in court that ministers should not have focused solely on the potential Israeli justifications for a specific bombings, but also looked at the overall pattern to gather a sense of proportionality. Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at Glan, said: 'The judges declined to review the defendant's genocide assessment on grounds that it is not an area suited to the court. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.' Sara Husseini, of the British Palestinian Committee, said: 'Now the courts have kicked the issue back to the ministers, it is a matter for MPs and the electorate to hold the government to account.' Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch, said: 'Judicial deference to the executive in this case has left the Palestinians in Gaza without access to the protections of international law, despite the government and the court acknowledging that there is a serious risk that UK equipment might be used to facilitate or carry out atrocities against them. The atrocities we are witnessing in Gaza are precisely because governments don't think the rules should apply to them.'
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Budapest's pride parade: a humiliation for Orbán and a triumph for European values
In late 1980s Hungary, courageous environmental protests against an unpopular dam project played a part in the eventual collapse of the country's communist regime. Originally focused on protecting the quality of drinking water for about 3 million Hungarians, some of the largest demonstrations seen since the 1956 revolution came also to symbolise a wider rejection of one-party political rule. An era was coming to an end, as authority began to drain away. It would be premature to predict a similar fate for Viktor Orbán's self-styled 'illiberal' government, which presides over what the European parliament has described as a 'hybrid regime of electoral autocracy'. Mr Orbán has ruthlessly consolidated his power since becoming prime minister in 2010, not least through gradually exercising a suffocating hold across the media and civil society. But the extraordinary events of the weekend, after his government's attempts to ban Budapest's annual Pride parade, suggest a new vulnerability. Organisers had hoped that maybe 40,000 people would brave intimidation, possible fines and the controversial use of facial-recognition technology, after an amendment to Hungary's constitution allowed LGBTQ+ events to be designated a threat to children. In the event, on a scorching summer's day in Budapest, they estimated that between 185,000 and 200,000 may have turned up in solidarity. It was, by far, the biggest Pride event ever to be held in the city. Out on the streets were large numbers of first-timers, parents with sons and daughters, and demonstrators from across the mainstream political spectrum. The scale of this backlash points to a significant prime ministerial own-goal. Trailing his former ally turned bitter critic, Péter Magyar, by a substantial margin in polls, Mr Orbán chose to target the LGBTQ+ community, just as he has targeted migrants in the past. In attempting to become the first European Union leader to ban Pride, his principal aim was to rally support across the right, goad Brussels and set a polarising trap for Mr Magyar. But the outcome was the largest anti‑government demonstration since 2010, and a mass mobilisation in defence of the broader principles of freedom of assembly and minority rights. Mr Magyar, who did not attend the march, limited himself on Saturday to criticising Mr Orbán's perennial efforts to 'turn Hungarian against Hungarian, in order to create fear and divide us'. Eschewing the prime minister's culture wars, his Tisza party has focused campaigning relentlessly on living standards, healthcare and corruption. In a country that, on Mr Orbán's watch, has become one of the poorest in the EU, that is a sensible approach. But the size of the Pride turnout should stiffen sinews in Brussels if, as seems inevitable, Mr Orbán resorts to ever more desperate tactics to retain power. More than 70 MEPs took part in the march, and the equalities commissioner, Hadja Lahbib, was also in Budapest to meet civil society organisations. Overall, though, Brussels's response to Mr Orbán's provocation was constrained by a fear of being seen to interfere in the lead-up to next spring's election. That now looks like a misreading of the national mood. Freedom of assembly and non-discrimination are core, non-negotiable values that must be respected by any EU member state. As they passed in such numbers over Erzsébet Bridge, with the Danube below, Saturday's marchers made that point in unforgettable fashion.
BBC News
36 minutes ago
- BBC News
Public invited to decide how MPs' pay should be set
Parliament's expenses watchdog wants around 20 members of the public to take part in a review of how it sets MPs' Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) says the "citizens' forum" will help shape pay and expenses policy from next year group will meet four times in September, and make recommendations alongside a wider online consultation expected to run until the review will also look at how the pay of British MPs compares to politicians in other basic salary is currently £93,904, following a 2.8% annual rise in April. The watchdog is legally mandated to review how it determines MPs' salaries and expenses following each general reviews have used online consultations to gather views, but this is the first time members of the public have been asked to participate directly in the is expected around 20 to 25 people will be recruited via a postal lottery of 10,000 addresses, with the aim of selecting a group that is broadly representative of the wider UK taking part will be asked to make recommendations to Ipsa's board as part of the review, which must conclude before April next says those taking part must be aged 18 or over, and do not need any prior knowledge, or an interest in politics. The move is the latest example of a British body using a co-called citizens' assembly model when making a decision, following its widespread use in has previously been employed by the Scottish government to discuss constitutional questions after Brexit. Westminster committees have used it to decide recommendations on climate change and social say the model can help make decisions more democratic, although critics have questioned the extent to which panels of volunteers are ever able to reflect wider views in the broader model had been tipped for wider government use after Sue Gray, Sir Keir Starmer's then chief of staff, said Labour would use it to decide contentious issues such as where houses should be built and how to reform the House of Gray entered Downing Street after the election but was replaced after three months, and those plans appear to have been shelved. Annual pay awards Ipsa was created in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal to take on the task of setting MPs' pay, which was previously decided by MPs watchdog does not currently have a set formula for deciding MPs' annual salaries. Instead, it says it balances data on public sector pay against the economic context, and pay in the "wider working population".In recent years it has experimented with linking annual awards, which take effect each April, to average public sector pay figures published the previous it has not always stuck rigidly to using this 2023, it recommended a higher pay rise for MPs, arguing the official data had failed to capture cost of living bonuses awarded elsewhere in the public year, it recommended a lower rise, by linking its 2.8% rise to initial Treasury plans for the public sector, which have since been increased after the government accepted a series of recommendations from pay review bodies last a report published last year, Ipsa found that in 2023 British MPs were paid more than counterparts in countries including France and New they were paid less than equivalents in Ireland, Germany, Canada, Australia and the United States, the survey found. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
