Markus Andrews

Boris Johnson sent for his ministerial jet to fly back from Cornwall to London after a family trip to the beach.The prime minister and wife Carrie took their children Wilf and Romy to the seaside in Porthminster, St Ives, during the weekend visit to the Southwest.Downing Street insisted the “sole reason” for the flight was to transport Mr Johnson and staff back from government business. The government plane was sent from London to Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose, near Helston, on the morning of Monday 13 June, the Sunday Mirror first reported.On the Friday before, Mr Johnson went to the Royal Cornwall Show, where he visited cattle and sheep tents and spoke to local traders. He also met farmers with Conservative candidate Helen Hurford ahead of the 23 June Tiverton and Honiton by-election, which the Lib Dems won in a major blow to the PM.Over the weekend, Mr Johnson was seen enjoying the sunshine on at beach at St Ives. On Monday of the flight, he went to Southern England Farms in Hayle, where he was photographed driving a tractor, trimming a courgette and weighing broccoli, before flying back to London.Emily Thornberry, Labour’s shadow Attorney General, accused of the PM of “treating the government’s official plane as his personal taxi service, regardless of what it costs the environment or the taxpayer”.“It’s the act of a man drunk on power, who needs to be told he’s had enough,” she added.A No 10 spokesperson said: “All travel decisions are made with consideration for security and time restraints.”The PM is accompanied on government business by a delegation of staff, which is taken into consideration as part of ensuring taxpayer value for money.”This was the sole reason for the plane being used to transport the PM and his staff back from this particular visit.”Boris Johnson was last year accused of “staggering hypocrisy” after he took a private jet back from the Cop26 climate summit to attend a private members’ club dinner in London.His Cornwall trip also raises questions about whether the flight was justified under the ministerial code.”Ministers must ensure that they always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements,” the rulebook states.”Official transport should not normally be used for travel arrangements arising from party or private business, except where this is justified on security grounds.”Family members are permitted to join ministers on the trips “provided that it is clearly in the public interest”.The same plane was used for Mr Johnson’s diplomatic visit to Rwanda, Germany and Spain.During the G7 summit in Schloss Elmau, the Prime Minister and Canada’s Justin Trudeau compared the relative sizes of their jets.Mr Johnson said he had seen “Canada Force One” on the tarmac and Mr Trudeau joked that the Prime Minister’s plane was bigger.”Very modest” was how Mr Johnson described his own jet. More

A group of families who lost loved ones in the Birmingham pub bombings has called on Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis to drop an “obscene” bill aimed at ending Troubles prosecutions.The cabinet minister has been trying to win support for legislation offering the promise of conditional immunity for perpetrators – including former British soldiers and ex-paramilitaries – who agree to give information to a new truth and reconciliation body.But the Justice for the 21 group – campaigning to get to the truth about the 1974 bombings which claimed the lives of 21 people – has written to Mr Lewis to say: “Please drop this obscene bill.”In a letter shared with The Independent, Julie Hambleton, said: “I cannot sit back and do nothing or stay quiet … I beseech you to please in conscience drop this bill in its entirety.”The campaigner, who lost her sister Maxine in the atrocity, added: “Our families and 1,000s of others do not have any wish to be ‘reconciled’ with the murderers who killed our loved ones in cold blood. To support this bill is tantamount to condoning murder.”Calling it “perhaps the most shameful bill to be put before parliament”, the Justice for the 21 group said providing immunity from prosecution was “simply a way of denying victims access to justice”.Ms Hambleton – who met the Northern Ireland secretary last month to hear him out on the legislation – also told the minister she had written to all Conservative MPs urging them to vote against the bill.In a letter to Tory MPs, the campaigner wrote: “Enabling this bill will give any terrorist in the future to come to any of our cities or towns and kill with impunity … Is this the legacy you wish to be party too?”The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill would set up a new information retrieval body aimed at offering conditional amnesties to those who come forward with their testimony.The draft legislation set out by Boris Johnson’s government in May states that immunity from prosecution should be granted if an individual gives an account deemed “true to the best of (their) knowledge and belief”.Responding to the Justice for the 21 group’s letter, Labour said the government “just isn’t listening” to concerns of families and victims’ groups.Peter Kyle MP, shadow Northern Ireland secretary, said: “Victims and their families have raised their profound concerns with Tories’ legacy proposals time and again, but the government just isn’t listening.”The Labour frontbencher added: “As a result, the bill fails to pass one simple but essential test: to provide greater benefit to victims of the Troubles than terrorists.”All the main parties – including the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Sinn Fein, the SDLP and Alliance – have arguing against the bill, calling it a “corruption of justice” and “slap in the face” of victims’ families.Innocent Victims United and other groups are also opposed. Family members of two Troubles victims, Patricia Burns and Daniel McCready, launched a petition with the Supreme Court last month seeking a decision on the legality of the government’s legislation.However, a former police chief tasked with investigating Troubles crimes recently expressed hope that controversial legislation can still be amended to gain support from families.Under the government’s plans, unsolved cases would be subject to reviews undertaken by a new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).Jon Boutcher told MPs on the Northern Ireland affairs committee last month that victims were concerned that a review of unsolved crimes in the planned legislation would be “superficial” and not proactively seek fresh information.The ex-police chief families had to be assured that “every possible line of inquiry has been explored for them to understand what happened to their loved ones”. More

Civil servants are blocking the government’s efforts to cut EU legislation after Brexit because they hold a “Remain bias”, attorney general Suella Braverman has claimed.The cabinet minister said she had battled with officials who are unable “to conceive of the possibility of life outside of the EU”.“Some of the biggest battles you face as a minister are, in the nicest possible way, with Whitehall and internally with civil servants, as opposed to your political battles in the chamber,” Ms Braverman told the Sunday Telegraph.The government’s chief law officer – who campaigned for the Leave vote during the Brexit referendum – said the resistance to post-Brexit reforms was “something I didn’t expect”.The attorney general said: “Don’t take this as an opportunity to bash the civil service. But what I have seen, time and time again, [is] that there is a Remain bias.”Ms Braverman added: “I’ll say it. I have seen resistance to some of the measures that ministers have wanted to bring forward. Because there’s an inability to conceive of the possibility of life outside of the EU.”The minister said the government’s Brexit Opportunities Bill would be “absolutely critical” to making it easier for ministers to rip up retained EU rules as part of deregulation push.While the government has struggled to explain the benefits of getting rid of obscure rules and regulations, Ms Braverman hailed “our new freedom after Brexit to ensure that British rules work for British companies”.The attorney general is believed to have approved the scrapping of swathes of the Northern Ireland protocol – giving Boris Johnson the legal cover to make his radical move to unilaterally replace a key part of his Brexit deal.Her latest comments on Brexit come as German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock and her Irish counterpart Simon Coveney made a rare joint statement condemning Mr Johnson’s protocol bill.“There is no legal or political justification for unilaterally breaking an international agreement entered into only two years ago,” they said.Labour’s House of Lords leader Baroness Smith has said he expected the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is expected to reach the Lords before October, as she said the move had “really set people off”“I’ve already had a number of phone calls last week and people queuing at my door to talk about what can we do about this Bill,” she told BBC Northern Ireland’s Sunday Politics programme Sunday Politics programme.Meanwhile, Ms Braverman also said that a “rights culture” in Britain has “spun out of control” – blaming the European Court of Human Rights, after the highly-contentious deportation flight to Rwanda was stopped following an appeal to the Strasbourg court.“The culture, the litigiousness around the rights-related culture, has turned on its head a lot of common-sense decisions, which are consistent with British values,” she stated. “The rights-based claims have stymied a lot of our immigration and asylum policy.”The minister also lashed out at “stretched and strained interpretations” of the UK Human Rights Act by lawyers and judges – particularly Article Eight, the right to a private family life, and Article Three, the prohibition against torture.The government’s plan for a replacement “bill of rights” exempts the government itself from having to comply with free speech protections, legal experts told The Independent.Clauses included in the bill specifically exempt laws created by ministers from its new free speech test – meaning it will not protect people from the “various threats to free speech posed by the government”. More

Conservative party councillors in Chris Pincher’s Midlands constituency have called on the MP to resign his seat following sexual misconduct allegations.Mr Pincher stood down as deputy chief whip and was later suspended by his party over allegations he groped two men in Westminster earlier this week.The senior figure is also facing further claims of inappropriate behaviour, with one Tory MP telling The Independent he was groped on two occasions by Mr Pincher since the end of 2021. Mr Pincher firmly denies the claims.Tory councillors in his Tamworth seat said he should step down as MP for area following the allegations. “This is a resigning matter for him. If it was any other industry, you’d immediately have to consider your position,” one told the Sunday Telegraph.Another Tory councillor in Tamworth – where Mr Pincher enjoys a majority of just under 20,000 – described allegations against Mr Pincher as “deeply disappointing”.The unnamed councillor added: “He’s already had a second chance and there shouldn’t be any way back for him this time, especially as he’s admitted behaving badly.”Mr Pincher resigned as deputy chief whip on Friday following claims that he groped two men at the Tories’ Carlton Club on Wednesday.He admitted that he had “embarrassed myself and other people” while being drunk, but denies sexual harassment allegations.One Tory MP told The Independent he was groped on two occasions by Mr Pincher. The man claims he was targeted twice by Mr Pincher, first in December 2021 and again last month. The Mail on Sunday alleged he threatened to report a parliamentary researcher to her boss after she tried to stop his “lecherous” advances to a young man at a Tory party conference. The Sunday Times alleged he made unwanted passes at two Tory MPs in 2017 and 2018. Mr Pincher denies all the allegations.The allegations follow his first resignation in 2017 as a whip over claims he made unwanted advances to Olympic rower Alex Story. After a Tory party investigation into the incident, he was cleared of any breach of its code of conduct.Boris Johnson is also under growing pressure over his decision to give Mr Pincher a senior role in February, amid claims the PM referred to him as “Pincher by name, pincher by nature”.Work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey denied that male Tory MPs had a particular problem with sexual misconduct, and said she had been told that Mr Johnson did not know “specific allegations” against Mr Pincher.Asked if the PM knew about concerns over the senior MP, Ms Coffey said: “I’m not aware that [Mr Johnson] was made aware of specific claims. I don’t believe that he was aware – that’s what I’ve been told today.”Grilled on the BBC Sunday Morning programme about who told her Mr Johnson did not know any specifics, Ms Coffey replied: “Somebody from the No 10 press office. One gets briefed on a wide variety of topics.” More

Boris Johnson’s plan to impose steel tariffs in a bid to protect British industry is “one of the worst decisions taken by this government”, according to the former trade secretary Liam Fox.The government announced a two-year extension of tariffs on steel imports this week – despite admitting that the move “departs from our international legal obligations” under the World Trade Organisation (WTO).Mr Fox believes that slapping “protectionist” tariffs on steel imports will put Britain on a collision course with allies and damage the country’s international reputation.The ex-minister said it was time for Mr Johnson’s government to “show leadership on free trade” rather than “damaging our global reputation and putting other sections of our economy at risk”.The prime minister should ditch the tariffs “if this is not to be a Conservative government in name only”, the former trade secretary wrote in a piece for the Sunday Telegraph.International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan told the Commons earlier this week that the UK would be extending protections for five types of steel products.Following Brexit, the UK rolled over EU quotas and tariffs on 10 categories of steel until mid-2024. The government has now decided to extend temporary safeguards on five other categories until the same date.Ms Trevelyan said the national interest “requires action to be taken which may be in tension with normal rules and procedures”.Labour backed the “extension of safeguards”, saying it would come as a welcome relief to the British steel sector.But several leading Tory MPs have raised concerns about protectionism and tit-for-tat tariffs being imposed on the UK by countries likely to lose out.“Retaliatory measures by those countries whose exports are hit are likely to impact on other areas of the UK economy,” warned Mr Fox.He added: “Choosing protectionism is one of the worst decisions taken by this government … We need to find another answer to the problem if this is not to be a Conservative government in name only.”Mr Johnson had last year backed Dr Fox as a candidate to become director-general of the WTO, but the Brexiteer’s bid to lead the international trade body was unsuccessful. More

Boris Johnson and then-girlfriend Carrie Symonds were not caught ‘in flagrante’ when a government minister walked in on them in Mr Johnson’s Commons office as foreign secretary, Downing Street has told The Independent.A senior Number 10 source attacked “sordid and untrue” reports of the alleged incident that have surfaced in recent days.The source said Northern Ireland minister Conor Burns, who raised concerns with colleagues after walking in on the couple in 2018, before their relationship was public, is “adamant that nothing remotely physical was going on”.They were not found “in physical contact” by Mr Burns, stated the No 10 source, who said they had discussed the matter at length with him.Asked if Mr Johnson had been questioned about the matter, the source said: “No, it’s not why he was elected prime minister. It’s neither here nor there.”Put to the individual that Mr Johnson’s private conduct as foreign secretary in his official Parliamentary office was a legitimate matter of public interest, the Downing Street source said: “Conor has said it’s not true. They are mad old questions about a non-event many years ago before Boris got to Downing Street.”The Independent revealed on Friday that Mr Burns was the mystery MP who walked in on Mr Johnson and Miss Symonds.Mr Burns “flagged up” the couple’s relationship to Foreign Office officials after finding them “having a glass of wine together” alone because he had a “sixth sense” that their relationship was “one to watch,” Downing Street said on Friday.A second source said that Mr Burns, one of Mr Johnson’s most loyal supporters, was “seriously shaken” after stumbling on Mr Johnson and Miss Symonds unannounced.At the time, he was Mr Johnson’s parliamentary private secretary – “Boris’s bag carrier” as he light-heartedly referred to himself – with free access to him.“He [Burns] wanted to know what to do about it,” said the source. “His only concern was to protect Boris. He is devoted to him.”It has been previously reported that Mr Burns raised the issue with fellow Foreign Office aide Ben Gascoigne, who is now No 10 deputy chief of staff.Alerted to concerns that Mr Johnson was having an extramarital relationship with Miss Symonds, Mr Gascoigne and other aides blocked a bid by Mr Johnson to appoint Miss Symonds as his £100,000 a year Foreign Office chief of staff.They also discussed fears that it could expose foreign secretary Mr Johnson to the risk of blackmail if the information fell into the hands of Britain’s enemies.A source said: “After Conor saw them together in his office, Boris’s staff knew it could be dangerous if the wrong people found out. They decided his private life was his own business but stopped him making her [Carrie] his chief of staff because it would have increased his exposure.”Mr Johnson and Miss Symonds’ relationship was made public several months later in 2018 after his separation from second wife Marina was announced.At the time of the incident witnessed by Mr Burns, Miss Symonds was the Tory party’s head of communications.She left that post in the summer of 2018 after allegations that she had abused her expenses.The claim that Mr Johnson and Miss Symonds were found in a ‘compromising situation’ by an unnamed Tory MP was first made in a biography of Carrie Johnson by Tory Lord Ashcroft earlier this year.When the story resurfaced in The Times two weeks ago it led to a row when the paper dropped the story from later editions after No 10 intervened.On Friday, Downing Street confirmed to The Independent that an incident occurred and that the mystery MP was Mr Burns, 49.The source said: “Conor did walk in on them. He saw two people sitting having a glass of wine whereby [one] may have concluded where the relationship was heading. He did not interrupt anything. It was a case of “why are they having a drink?” and “let’s have a word with Ben [Gascoigne].”“That is why he [Conor] thought it was something he needed to flag up. It was about a sixth sense that this was one to watch. The door was not locked. He didn’t barge in. He walked in to where they had had a meeting earlier and they were still chatting.”At the height of the Partygate scandal, Mr Burns led the defence of Mr Johnson for attending a No 10 birthday party in his honour, which led to him being fined for breaking Covid lockdown laws. The MP played down the matter saying the prime minister had been “ambushed with cake”.Mr Burns was appointed a trade minister when Mr Johnson succeeded Theresa May as Tory leader in July 2019. He resigned from the post in 2020 and was suspended as an MP for a week after a parliamentary inquiry found he had made “veiled threats” to use privilege to “further his family’s interests” in a financial dispute involving his father. Mr Johnson appointed him Northern Ireland Minister last September.Mr Burns, Mr Johnson, Mrs Johnson and Mr Gascoigne all declined to comment. More

Male Conservatives do not have a particular problem with sexual harassment, cabinet minister Therese Coffey has said in the wake of the latest misconduct scandal engulfing the party.Tory MP Chris Pincher – who quit as deputy chief whip and was suspended by his party over allegations he groped two men in Westminster this week – faces a series a further claims of inappropriate behaviour.Boris Johnson is also under growing pressure over his decision to give Mr Pincher a ministerial role amid claims the prime minister referred to him as “Pincher by name, pincher by nature”.Ms Coffey defended the PM and denied the Tories had a particular problem, despite being reminded that five Tory male MPs have been suspended or had to resign in the past year over sexual misconduct allegations.Asked on Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday if there was problem with Conservative men, the work and pensions secretary sighed, before saying: “I don’t think that’s the case at all.”She added: “I don’t know the situation and scenarios elsewhere. One MP, no longer an MP, Imran Khan has been convicted of something before he became a member of parliament. And other investigations are under way.”Former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings has claimed Mr Johnson had referred to the MP “laughingly in No 10 as ‘Pincher by name, pincher by nature’ long before appointing him”.Downing Street did not deny that there had been concerns about Mr Pincher before his appointment as deputy chief whip in February, but insisted Mr Johnson “was not aware of any specific allegations”.Asked if the PM knew about concerns over Mr Pincher, Ms Coffey said: “I’m not aware that [Mr Johnson] was made aware of specific claims. I don’t believe that he was aware – that’s what I’ve been told today.”Grilled on the BBC Sunday Morning programme about who told her Mr Johnson did not know any specifics, Ms Coffey replied: “Somebody from the No 10 press office. One gets briefed on a wide variety of topics.”Ms Coffey also said she “wished” people who work in parliament went to the police more often with sexual misconduct claims – but did not think it was necessary to close parliament’s bars or make any other “specific changes” to protect staff.Mr Pincher resigned as deputy chief whip on Friday following claims that he groped two men at the Tories’ Carlton Club on Wednesday. He admitted that he had “embarrassed myself and other people” while being drunk, but denies sexual harassment allegations. It come as one Conservative MP told The Independent he was groped on two occasions by Mr Pincher, who was suspended from the party on Friday after sexual misconduct allegations.Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the man claims he was targeted twice by Mr Pincher, first in December 2021 and again last month. Mr Pincher firmly denies the allegations.The Mail on Sunday alleged he threatened to report a parliamentary researcher to her boss after she tried to stop his “lecherous” advances to a young man at a Tory party conference. Mr Pincher denies the allegations.The Sunday Times alleged he made unwanted passes at two Tory MPs in 2017 and 2018. Mr Pincher denies the allegations.The alleged incidents followed his first resignation as a whip in 2017 over claims he made unwanted advances to Olympic rower Alex Story. After a Tory party investigation into the incident, he was cleared of any breach of its code of conduct. More

Boris Johnson’s new “bill of rights” exempts the government itself from having to comply with its new free speech protections, legal experts have warned.Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said last week that the new charter would stop free speech from being “whittled away” by “wokery and political correctness”.But clauses included in the bill specifically exempt laws created by ministers from its new free speech test – meaning it will not protect people from the “various threats to free speech posed by the government”.Campaigners said the bill of rights would “end up hampering efforts to hold the government to account”.One senior law professor told The Independent that the carve-out was “very, very odd” because bills of rights around the world, such as in the United States, tend to also apply to the government. “I think Americans, for example would just be incredulous – you have a special extra right of free speech, but not against the government,” Gavin Phillipson, professor of law at the University of Bristol, said.Prof Phillipson, who is also a visiting fellow at the University of Oxford and an authority in comparative free speech law, added: “They’re saying, you have these really strong protections for free speech – except against the government.”Generally if you look at most threats to free speech, and what most bills of rights around the world are concerned with, it’s the various threats to free speech posed by the government. That’s very, very odd.”The fact that the government feels it necessary to exempt a whole range of things it does – particularly the thing people most worry about, being prosecuted for what you say – is a very odd look in what’s meant to be a bill of rights.”Clause 4 of the new bill states that “when determining a question which has arisen in connection with the right to freedom of speech, a court must give great weight to the importance of protecting the right” – a measure meant to generally beef-up free speech in judicial decisions.But Clause 4 (3) says this section “does not apply” in criminal proceedings or “of any question whether a provision of primary or subordinate legislation that creates a criminal offence is incompatible with a Convention right”.This means that offences created by the government cannot be held to be incompatible with the right to free speech under the bill, even if they restrict someone’s right to freedom of expression.The Ministry of Justice denied the approach was a “carve out” for ministers and said it was necessary to stop free speech from being “abused”.Other parts of the bill also narrow the definition of free speech in a way that appears to exclude some types of protest, by defining it as imparting “ideas, opinions or information by means of speech, writing or image”. “They actually restrict the definition of expression to which this applies to only that involving words or images,” Prof Phillipson said.”There were cases involving hunt saboteurs – direct action protest – that the ECHR [European Court on Human Rights] has held do count as expression.He said that the “restrictive definition of expression must be there to make sure that the various forms of direct action protest that involve more than just chanting slogans and waving banners don’t even fall within this clause at all”.”Where people committed the new public order offences those would be exempt from this clause anyway but I think that definition is to make sure that the new police powers in the Public Order Bill can be used against them.”While claiming to be protecting free speech with the new bill of rights, the government has simultaneously pushed through new authoritarian legislation that cracks down on protest in its Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. New police powers came into effect this week and were used to confiscate speakers and amplifiers from long-running anti-Brexit protesters outside parliament – causing an outcry.The exemption clauses in the bill mean that the new free speech powers would not protect people from being prosecuted for offences such as glorifying terrorism, or publishing an image that arouses reasonable suspicion of being a supporter of a proscribed organisation.”These are the kind of things that under under the US first amendment, for example, would be just categorically unconstitutional, and that wouldn’t even be a hard case,” Prof Phillipson told The Independent.There are also specific carve-outs in other clauses so the governemnt can ban someone for entering the UK on the basis of what they have said, and to protect the Home Secretary’s powers to strip people of their citizenship. Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officer at the human rights group Liberty, said: “As well as the Rights Removal Bill weakening all of our other rights, it will weaken our right to free speech too. “The Government is falsely claiming they will improve protection for freedom of expression, but this is not true. Clause 4, which directs courts to give ‘great weight’ to the importance of free speech restricts itself from applying to criminal proceedings, determinations of whether legislation is compatible with human rights, or questions of confidentiality, immigration, citizenship, or national security. The Government is making it so that free speech is only valued when it is not used against the Government.“This clause will not protect protesters or whistleblowers, nor will it allow courts to keep a check on the Government infringing our free speech rights. Alongside the Policing Act, the Public Order Bill, the Online Safety Bill and more, this is characteristic of a Government that claims to protect free speech but wants only to avoid accountability wherever it can.”A spokesperson for the organisation Index on Censorship also blasted the bill, stating: “We categorically disagree with the government’s claim that the bill will strengthen freedom of expression. “We believe the bill will only serve to expand state power and will end up hampering efforts to hold the government to account, not least of all around issues relating to national security and citizenship, as mentioned specifically in section 4 of the bill.”These are issues that are of huge public interest. We must ensure that the necessary checks and balances in place in order to protect our democracy and our fundamental civil liberties.”Ministers have generally characterised culture war issues, such as speakers not being invited to universities, as “free speech” questions, but these have little to do with the legal right to free speech as generally enforced around the world.”Actually if you think about the major instances of cancel culture they’re not usually legal instances, they’re people being shamed on Twitter or no-platformed,” said Prof Phillipson.”In the instances of people being sacked from their jobs, or formally disciplined, they’ve mainly won their cases. This is a cultural phenomenon really, not a legal one. Universities disinviting speakers because students think they’re offensive and so on – these are not infringements of their legal right to free speech because you don’t have a right to a particular platform.”He added: “The notion that this clause is aimed at combatting ‘wokery’ doesn’t make sense to me and suggests that it’s more rhetoric aimed at pleasing their supporters and elements, perhaps, of the right-wing press. Because a lot of what the Government would think of as cancel culture or ‘wokery’ is not actually do with the law at all, it’s cultural stuff.”A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The Bill of Rights strengthens freedom of speech but rightly provides for a limited number of exceptions, such as maintaining patient’s rights to confidentiality or where a criminal act takes place, for example a hate crime. These exceptions apply to all – they are not a carve out for Government.” More