Warwickshire council boss vetoed Reform's Pride Flag removal request
Finch made the request after the 18-year-old replaced Rob Howard who stepped down after just over five weeks in the role.Ms Fogarty said: "I am afraid I will not be taking the action that you are requesting" adding that she "saw no reason" to diverge from the council's policy of flying the flag annually during Pride Month.She added: "This council does not have a formal policy around decision-making on the flying of flags" and suggested the leader should look for the council to vote on one should he wish to introduce one.
Her view has been backed by the leader of the Green Party in Warwickshire.Group leader Jonathan Chilvers said: "Leaders, let alone interim leaders, can't make a decision on a whim based on what they ate for breakfast that morning - that's what dictatorships are made of."
Mr Yusuf accused Ms Fogarty of acting like the "monarch of Warwickshire" and "subversion of democracy".He added his belief that "unelected bureaucrats" had "seized control of the country."Following the local elections in May, Yusuf said: "Reform-controlled English councils will move at speed to resolve that the only flags permitted to be flown on or in its buildings will be the Union Jack and St George's flag."
Reform does not have overall control of the council in Warwickshire, although it is the largest party.The Progress Flag has since been removed from Shire Hall following the end of Pride Month.Both Councillor Finch and Ms Fogarty have been approached by the BBC for comment.A new Reform group leader is expected to be chosen by the party in the coming days, with the formal appointment as council leader due to take place at a meeting of the full council on July 22.
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
Wimbledon umpire takes action after player complains of ‘dangerous' spectator
Security at Wimbledon is 'absolutely critical', the tournament's operations director has said, after a player raised concerns about a spectator during the championship's first day. During her match on Monday, the world No 33, Yulia Putintseva, raised security concerns to the umpire about a spectator whom she described as 'crazy' and 'dangerous' and asked for them to be ejected. 'Take him out, because maybe he has a knife and he will attack after, I don't know,' Putintseva said to the umpire during her match against Amanda Anisimova. Wimbledon's operations director, Michelle Dite, said on Tuesday that if players had any concerns, they 'absolutely' should be brought to light. 'We would rather know about these things, and that is what happened yesterday, and the chair umpire then had some really good communication as planned,' said Dite, adding that it was not a stalking incident. A person present at the match told the Athletic that the spectator at issue had been speaking in Russian about the war in Ukraine. Putintseva, who was born in Russia, changed to represent Kazakhstan in 2012. A Wimbledon spokesperson declined to say if the spectator was ejected. 'Security was in the area. The issue was dealt with,' he said. The incident is the latest surrounding security measures after a man who was given a restraining order in Dubai in February for stalking Emma Raducanu was blocked from buying tickets for the championships this month in the public ballot. Dite said: 'Protocols were followed. The matter was dealt with.' On Tuesday morning, more than 10,000 spectators queued outside the grounds with fans and umbrellas to watch British players including Jack Draper, a top contender for the men's singles championship. On Monday, more than 13,000 people entered the grounds after queueing in the heat, some overnight, as opening-day attendance jumped to 42,756 from 40,514 last year. Protesters on the ground's outskirts called for a boycott of Wimbledon's banking partner, Barclays, over ties to Israel's war on Gaza. Temperatures on Tuesday reached 34.2C (93.6F) by early afternoon, as spectators frequently sought shade and were encouraged to hydrate after a woman collapsed while watching a match on Monday. Dite, discussing the incident on Monday during which Carlos Alcaraz interrupted play to hand a struggling spectator a bottle of water, thanked the returning Wimbledon champion for his support and acknowledged there had been a delay in the medical response. 'Yes, it did take a while, but this lady had fainted, so it needed to be managed very carefully. I know there was a bit of delay but we all work very hard,' said Dite. 'It takes a while sometimes to just assess the situation,' she added. 'And thanks to Carlos for his support for going to get some water.' Daniel Evans was the first British player to go through to the second round of Wimbledon on Tuesday after defeating Jay Clarke in an all-British clash. Draper eased into the second round after his opponent Sebastian Baez retired injured, while wildcard Jack Pinnington Jones completed a straight-sets victory over Tomás Etcheverry. Six Britons – Clarke, Heather Watson, Johannus Monday, Jodie Burrage, George Loffhagen and Francesca Jones – suffered first-round exits.
Daily Record
30 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Nigel Farage's Reform charging potential MSPs £200 to stand for party in 2026 election
Reform UK is charging Holyrood hopefuls who want to stand in next year's election - partly to fund their own vetting checks. Nigel Farage is charging Holyrood hopefuls £200 to apply to stand for his party - with some of the money funding their own vetting checks. Reform UK is asking members who want to put themselves forward for the next Scottish Parliamentary elections to pay to apply and for training. The party leader previously said Reform was sabotaged by a professional vetting firm in the general election run-up and threatened to sue. He claimed the company had been handed £144,000 to probe potential candidates and had produced nothing. A raft of negative stories later appeared about candidates, including those who made racist online posts. Despite promising to "rigorously" vet future candidates, more extremist social media posts have emerged from some of the party's 677 new councillors elected in the English local elections. Experts have said the party needs to tackle vetting and put forward serious candidates. In a recruitment email to members, Reform's head of campaigns said running for Holyrood was a "once in a lifetime opportunity" and they wanted "the best of Scotland to come forward". Those interested must "complete a short application form and pay a £50 fee to cover vetting and admin costs", and if successful they're charged £150 attendance fee for a "one-day, in-person Parliamentary Assessment Centre". It said it would "consider hardship waivers in some cases". None of Scotland's main political parties charge candidates to apply to stand. For Westminster elections, Lib Dems charge £75 for selection and assessment while the UK Tory party has previously charged £250 for an assessment centre day and £115 for "due diligence". The Scottish Tories charge a fee for attending an assessment centre day to "cover tea and coffee", according to a party source. Tom Brake, of campaign group Unlock Democracy said: "Politicians should be as representative of the population as possible. "Charging prospective candidates a fee to cover the cost of their vetting and assessment will act as a significant barrier for some, and risk reducing the talent pool of potential MSPs." Reform's application process asks candidates for details of all their social media accounts and usernames and if they have ever been members of online forums or newspaper comment sections. It also asks if they have been a "member of a proscribed organisation" such as "the BNP or Britain First" and if they have criminal convictions. After filling out the online form, prospective candidates must pay a £50 non-refundable fee to submit applications. Reform has previously come under criticism due to the way the party is structured. Unlike other major political parties, Nigel Farage registered Reform as a business in 2018 with himself, deputy Richard Tice and Zia Yusuf listed as shareholders. After complaints from members, party chiefs relinquished their shares in February, renaming the company Reform 2025 Ltd. Its overall owner is Reform UK Party Ltd, which has no controlling person, according to Companies House. Its directors are still Farage and Tice. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. A Reform UK spokesman insisted it was normal for political parties to charge candidates and said: "All political parties charge for their parliamentary lists, we are just more honest. "If no party does it in Scotland that is just a sign that they don't treat the Scottish Parliament as seriously as they treat Westminster. The £50 covers vetting - something the other parties don't do. "The £150 is for a full day event assessment centre so we can ensure only the highest quality candidates are put forward, showing how seriously we take the Scottish parliament. "As a party we also offer hardship waivers so that anyone can apply and we are fair to all of our members regardless of their personal financial situations." "Reform are looking for those who can dig into their wallets and hand over a wad of cash."
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
The royal gravy train must be halted
The news that the royal train is to be retired to a museum by 2027 was the public relations equivalent of a tethered goat: an enticing morsel designed to distract attention from less palatable aspects of the royal finances. Faced with the royal family's booming income at a time of hardship for many Britons, officials who guard the royal image clearly decided something had to be offered up. Consigning the train's nine carriages to history was an obvious choice, a painless sacrifice. Costing some £1 million to maintain annually, it was rarely used, enjoying just two outings last year, costing £78,000. It will come as news to most taxpayers that such an extraordinary vehicle still exists, and that they have been shelling out seven figures for it to mainly languish in the sidings. But the royal financials released this week are concerning for the information they do not contain. • King Charles net worth — Sunday Times Rich List 2025 Two sets of figures were released, one relating to the monarchy as a whole, and another to the income of the Prince of Wales from the Duchy of Cornwall. In contrast to the rest of government, where balancing books is a neuralgic issue, the royal finances are in rude health. Since 2011, when David Cameron concocted a ludicrously generous funding formula for the sovereign grant, the annual payment to the monarchy, its value has soared. From £31 million in 2013 it will be £132 million in each of the next two years. Even when money for the £369 million refurbishment of Buckingham Palace is subtracted there will still be tens of millions left to fund royal operations. The sovereign grant formula is bizarre. Some 260 years ago, George III surrendered the earnings from the crown's hereditary lands in return for a stipend. Those assets became the Crown Estate which, despite its name, has nothing to do with the monarchy. Under the Cameron arrangement the grant is calculated at 10 per cent of Crown Estate profits, with a 2 per cent temporary uplift for the palace works. Licence earnings for offshore wind farms on the estate-owned seabed have seen profits rocket to over £1 billion. This is a temporary boost for the estate but not for the royals. The 2011 agreement includes a 'gold ratchet' that means the grant can stay the same or go up, but not fall. Together with his £27 million income from the Duchy of Lancaster the King is well provided for. Even though the palace knows the Crown Estate is a national, not a royal, asset it persists with the fiction that it is. Supposedly, its surrender in the 18th century is still providing a net gain for the public. A spokesman said this week: 'The sum surrendered by the King is far greater than the sum returned as the sovereign grant, and thus there is no additional burden on taxpayers.' To this fantasy is added the secrecy of Prince William over the tax he pays on income from the Duchy of Cornwall. Once public, the amount is now simply described as the 'highest rate'. The duchy is a 'private estate with a commercial imperative'. That means a company, surely? Yet it pays no corporation tax or CGT. It also makes charities, schools and the NHS pay for using premises. William's desire to be a champion for the underprivileged is undermined by this profiteering. Just like the Crown Estate, the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are national assets, not 'private' ones. It is time for the government to consolidate all three into a National Estate and pay working royals simple stipends while maintaining royal infrastructure. The gravy train must end.
