Tributes to ‘much-loved' ex-RAF pilot killed in road crash
The collision happened on the A96 Aberdeen to Elgin road, near Huntly, Aberdeenshire at around 11am on Wednesday April 23.
Police said Keith Looseley, 78, who was driving the car, was pronounced dead at the scene.
His family paid tribute to him in a statement issued through police, and also thanked emergency services and members of the pubic who helped at the scene.
They said: 'Keith was a former RAF pilot who had lived in Gartly for over 25 years.
'He was an active and valued member of the local community who volunteered with Gordon Rural Action and Morayvia aviation museum.
'Keith was a devoted and much-loved father, grandfather, brother and son and his loss is felt deeply by all who knew him.
'We would like to thank the members of the public who provided assistance in the immediate aftermath of the collision and the police officers and paramedics for all of their efforts at the scene.'
Mr Looseley was from the Aberdeenshire area.
The road was closed for around seven and a half hours for investigations following the crash, which involved a black Skoda Kamiq and a white Iveco lorry.
There were no other reported injuries.
Police are appealing for information.
Sergeant Pete Henderson said: 'Our thoughts are very much with Keith's family and friends at this difficult time.
'Inquiries to establish the full circumstances of the crash are ongoing and we would ask anyone who witnessed the incident, or who has dash-cam footage from the area, to please get in touch.'
Anyone with information is asked to contact Police Scotland on 101, quoting incident number 1138 of April 23 2025.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
Decision due on whether Palestine Action legal challenge can go ahead
Huda Ammori has made a bid to challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed responsibility for action in which two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Earlier this month, lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring a High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. Mr Justice Chamberlain will give his decision on whether the legal action can proceed on Wednesday. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the Government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.' Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. The bid for a full High Court challenge comes after Ms Ammori failed in a previous bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, and the Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge over that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5.
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Decision due on whether Palestine Action legal challenge can go ahead
Huda Ammori has made a bid to challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed responsibility for action in which two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Earlier this month, lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring a High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. Mr Justice Chamberlain will give his decision on whether the legal action can proceed on Wednesday. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the Government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.' Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. The bid for a full High Court challenge comes after Ms Ammori failed in a previous bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, and the Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge over that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Decision due on whether Palestine Action legal challenge can go ahead
The co-founder of Palestine Action will find out whether she can bring a legal challenge over the decision to ban the group as a terror organisation. Huda Ammori has made a bid to challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed responsibility for action in which two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Earlier this month, lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring a High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. Mr Justice Chamberlain will give his decision on whether the legal action can proceed on Wednesday. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the Government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.' Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. The bid for a full High Court challenge comes after Ms Ammori failed in a previous bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, and the Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge over that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5.
