Three arrested over ‘TERROR offence' after pro-Palestine demo van ‘rams into defence firm factory fence'
Cops rushed to the Leonardo factory on Crewe Road North in Edinburgh this morning.
3
3
A light blue Ford Transit van was seen jammed up against a damaged metal perimeter fence as a group of protesters climbed onto the vehicle's roof.
A Palestine flag was draped from the rear of the vehicle as the activists sat just feet away from the defence facility's razor wire-topped fence.
Officers nicked three women, aged 31, 34 and 42, under the Terrorism Act 2000.
An eyewitness told The Scottish Sun: 'We arrived and the police were here. It appeared to be a peaceful enough protest.
'There wasn't any aggro between the police and the protesters.'
Specialist officers kitted out in harnesses and hard hats responded to the alleged incident.
Cops were spotted hoisting a stretcher onto the roof of the light blue diesel van.
Officers cordoned off an area around the crash site and forensic officers also attended the scene.
Police Scotland's counter terrorism unit has launched a probe and urged any witnesses to get in touch.
A spokesperson for the force said: 'Three women, aged 31, 34 and 42, have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 after a van was driven into an external fence of a business premises in Edinburgh.
"The incident happened during a disturbance in the Crewe Road North area of the city on Tuesday, 15 July, 2025."
Forensic officers kitted out in white overalls also attended the scene.
Leonardo is one of the biggest suppliers of defence and security equipment to the Ministry of Defence.
It is the UK's largest producer of high-tech sensors, lasers and electronic systems, which are used in some of the world's most advanced aircraft, including fighter jets.
The Italian defence company also supplies military technology to Israel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: This timid, blinky burbler's eyes darted around. She would make a terrible shoplifter
The votes-at-16 announcement was entrusted to Rushanara Ali, a D-lister from Angela Rayner 's department. Ms Ali is 'minister for homelessness and democracy'. There are few parliamentary performers more blinky. She is a timid burbler, a reader-of-precooked-answers whose eyes dart from side to side. Would make a terrible shoplifter. Put her in front of a class of 16-year-olds and they'd reduce her to a gibbering puddle. When politicians go campaigning at the next general election the youngsters will bait them relentlessly. Imagine the mockery when Sir Edward Davey tries asking sixth-formers for their votes. It's going to be a massacre. The Government tried to slip out its policy via a parliamentary written statement but a Tory urgent question meant Ms Ali was despatched to the Commons. No other minister attended. Anxious Ali, quite alone, smiled queasily. It was important, she gulped, 'to strengthen our precious democracy'. Votes at 16 would be introduced along with laxer rules on voter identification at polling stations and new restrictions to stop rich foreigners funding the Tory party. Labour MPs were delighted. When the last government brought in ID checks for voting, the Left complained that it was unfair on upstanding citizens who wished to cast ballots for their numerous wives and dead aunties. Ms Ali, snout buried in her ministerial file, said she wished to 'future-proof our democracy' and 'support young people in their leadership journeys'. When my son was 16 his 'leadership journey' was more about reading Nuts magazine and compiling football statistics. At 18, he was a blazing Corbynista. A year later, he was even more Right-wing than me. Not so much a journey as a game of pinball. On Ms Ali ploughed, woodenly arguing that 'our democracy is central to who we are as a country – we can take pride in its evolution and in how it continues to inspire'. Talking of inspiration, Sarah Coombes (Lab, West Bromwich) informed us that turnout in her constituency last year was 49 per cent. That was because 'the Conservative government did everything it could to destroy trust in politics'. Some 49 per cent is indeed low but imagine how much worse it would have been had Sir Keir Starmer not so galvanised the nation with his charisma and flamboyance. As for the virtuous Coombes, she was previously 'head of policy and communications' for Tom Watson, who smeared the good names of Leon Brittan and Dwin Bramall. Lord Watson, as he now is, has never done anything to 'destroy trust in politics', has he? Up popped Joe Morris (Lab, Hexham), who as usual could have been talking through a games sock. Only the most gifted linguists can understand him. Hand in pocket, shoulders hunched, the Hexham Mumbler possibly said something tremendously statesmanlike but I am afraid I couldn't catch a word of it. The parliamentary correspondent of the Hexham Courant must be a miracle worker to file any copy concerning the town's Hon Member. Nick Timothy (Con, W Suffolk) asked if more foreigners would be given the vote. Ms Ali did not quite deny that possibility. The Lib Dems were terribly excited, not only about votes at 16 but also about the possibility of more proportional representation. Richard Tice (Ref, Boston) was sceptical about postal voting and claimed to have seen people turn up at polling stations with 'bags' of postal votes. Labour MPs were incensed by this claim. Christine Jardine (Lib Dem, Edinburgh W) wanted potential teenage voters to be given information before the next general election. As a sometime journalist, she possibly envisaged 12-year-olds subscribing to The Economist. And why not? They may find it no more baffling than the rest of us. Ms Ali also denounced those who seek to intimidate elected Members. We must hope that a copy of her speech is sent to that tartar Sir Alan Campbell, Government Chief Whip, who just sacked four Labour MPs. He may now have to sack himself for being so out of line with Government policy.
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
TOM UTLEY: The old lie that private schools are stuffed with posh, rich kids may turn into reality when Labour's VAT raid drives away strivers like the Utleys
On the day 19 years ago when I accepted a job offer from the Daily Mail – which meant a hefty increase in my salary – I took the youngest of our four sons aside and told him that I could at last afford to remove him from our local state school and send him to Dulwich College, the illustrious public school where we had sent two of his older brothers. In robust language, he let me know that nothing on earth would induce him to move from the state sector to a single-sex private school stuffed with filthy rich, arrogant, posh twits (in fact the noun he used had an 'a' in it, in place of my more printable 'i'). Actually, he could hardly have been more wrong about Dulwich – alma mater of Nigel Farage – few of whose pupils were at all posh by the standards of other great private schools. Then, as now, they tended to be the sons of aspirational small businessmen, dentists, teachers, bank clerks, civil servants, corner-shop owners and the like. Indeed, when our two oldest were there, I counted several dozen boys on the school roll who bore the surname Patel – hardly a name that reeks of landed wealth – with not a Cholmondeley-Cavendish-Grosvenor in sight. Many or even most of these boys' parents had to make great sacrifices to scrape together the money for the fees, even though these have always been comparatively modest at Dulwich, thanks to subsidies from the estate of the Elizabethan actor and impresario, Edward Alleyn (1566-1626). In our case, we managed it for our oldest two by constantly increasing our mortgage, while Mrs U took a job driving double-decker buses around London for two-and-a-half years when the money ran out. She often had to get up at four in the morning to start work, poor woman, arriving home exhausted in the evening.(She handed in her notice on that happy day when I accepted the Mail's offer – and our youngest declined mine to send him to Dulwich.) But then our youngest's prejudice against private schools and their pupils was and is far from unusual. For the fact is that Britain's class system – fast decaying, but still surviving – has bred a great deal of ill-feeling over the years. The worst sort of dimwit Hooray Henry still looks down on people who went to state schools, while there are a great many state-educated pupils, like our youngest, who look upon the products of the private system with contempt. Indeed, class hatred and resentment are among the few forms of bigotry that have yet to be banned by law (but I mustn't go putting ideas into the minds of the thought police). If my guess is right, Sir Keir Starmer's aim in launching his 20 per cent VAT raid on private school fees was chiefly to make political capital out of those feelings, since the politics of envy have always played well with a certain section of Labour's core voters. But of course he didn't put it like that in his party's election manifesto last year. Oh, no, the point of the raid was not to kick the aspirant middle classes in the teeth. Far from it. The purpose of making Britain one of the very few countries in the developed world to slap a tax on education was purely to benefit … education! The money raised by imposing the new taxes, said this utterly discredited document, would be spent on 6,500 new expert teachers, increased teacher and headteacher training, delivering work experience and careers advice for all young people, early language development in primary schools, Ofsted reform, over 3,000 new nurseries, mental health support for every school and Young Futures Hubs (whatever they may be). True, admits the Government's website, the consequent increase in fees may mean a few pupils will have to move from private schools into the state sector. But, it says, there will be no more than 35,000 of them – or 0.5 per cent of the pupil population – for whom there will be plenty of room at the local state primary or comprehensive. How's it all going, so far? Well, only seven months since the VAT raid came in, and three months since the removal of schools' charitable business rate relief, more than 30 independent institutions have already announced closures or proposed closures, displacing at least 3,350 pupils … and counting. All have cited the pressures of the new taxes as the principal reason for their decision. Of course, some of those 3,350 children so far displaced may move to other private schools. But to give some idea of the impact on the Treasury, the Guido Fawkes website calculates that if all were to move to the state sector, where it costs councils an average of £8,210 a year to educate a child, the total bill to the taxpayer would be £26.5 million. In one case alone, it emerged this week, state schools in Kent received almost 100 inquiries from parents in the 48 hours after Bishop Challoner School was forced to shut its doors, after it lost more than a third of its pupils to the tax raid. Indeed, it's become ever harder to argue with Neil O'Brien, the Shadow Education minister, when he says the likely costs to state education make a nonsense of Labour's claim that the raid would bring in up to £1.7 billion a year. 'The number of children being forced to move schools and away from their friends is much larger than Labour predicted,' he said, 'wiping out the supposed tax revenues. 'The Chancellor said every penny would go on state schools. The Prime Minister said he'd spend the money on housing instead. And given that the number of teachers in state schools is down under Labour, we can see it was all just a pack of lies.' I can say two things with certainty. One is that if this tax raid had been brought in when I was a reporter on a modest income, and Mrs U was a London bus-driver, there would have been absolutely no way we could have kept our two oldest boys at one of the best schools in the land. The other is that, yes, Dulwich College and other great private schools in the premier league for academia, sports and the arts are likely to survive. But their character is sure to change. With fees that will inevitably rise beyond the reach of the aspirant just-about-managing – and less cash available for scholarships for bright, poorer pupils like our boys – they will increasingly become the exclusive preserve of the seriously rich. Indeed, the day may be approaching when our youngest son's prejudice against private schools and their pupils may contain more than an element of truth.
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Heat pump handout? It'll take 25 years to get your money back
Ed Miliband could offer homeowners with heat pumps £200 off their bills - meaning it would take around 25 years to pay off the upfront cost. The Energy Secretary would offer the grants to reduce the running costs of the green technology, under plans to phase out gas boilers. Heat pumps typically cost around £5,000 once a taxpayer-funded subsidy of £7,500 is applied, so it would take decades to recoup the upfront cost through savings to bills. Under the plans, all homes with heat pumps would see an average fall in energy bills of 15 per cent, paid for by taxpayers. And the money would come from the £13.2billion 'warm homes' fund agreed by Chancellor Rachel Reeves at the spending review last month. Industry figures are understood to have put forward the submissions to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to incentivise homeowners to quit gas boilers. The cost of electricity per unit for consumers is about four times higher than gas, which can make heat pumps more expensive to run. An additional £200 off bills could help to plug this gap. This could be funded through a levy on gas bills, covered by a Government fund. The cost to taxpayers would increase each year if more houses install heat pumps. There could also be support for the 300,000 households that have already got the technology, and taxpayers could completely cover the cost of heat pumps for low-income families. A Labour source said the proposals were not under active consideration by the department but were requests from the industry. However, they added that Mr Miliband is looking to help those who do want to install the environmentally-friendly technology. Heat pumps produce three to four times the energy they use, making them much more efficient than a gas boiler, but they also have a far higher upfront cost. The UK's climate change committee said earlier this year that half of homes should have pumps installed by 2040 to meet the country's legal goal of net zero emissions by 2050, up from about only 1 per cent now. There will be a consultation on the plans in October, according to The Times, and a Bill would need to pass through Parliament to enact them. A spokesman for the Department for Energy said: 'We do not recognise this speculation. Our clean energy mission is the best route to bring down bills for good.' Meanwhile, the Conservatives announced they would remove blocks on building new nuclear power plants to lower bills if they win the next election. They said the current 'green tape' adds millions of pounds to project costs.
