Markus Andrews

An MP has accused the Metropolitan Police of racial profiling after officers stopped her and her family as they headed to a restaurant in central London last month.Kim Johnson, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, said that she, her son and his friend – both black men in their 30s – and their two wives were all surrounded as they enjoyed an evening out in Covent Garden.Officers told the group that one of the men matched a description of someone they were looking for but “turned on their heels” after Ms Johnson informed them she was an MP.She said: “We were getting out of a taxi to go to a restaurant… which was just a few feet away. All of a sudden there were all these police officers around us.“They wanted to know what we were doing. My son’s friend is a black man and he was wearing a bright yellow jacket. They said they had received reports of a man wearing a yellow jacket.“I said to them, ‘Why are you stopping us? We have just got out of a taxi. I am an MP and I want to know why you’re stopping us?’ They turned on their heels then.”The incident happened on 18 June, the day England played Scotland in the Euro 2020 football tournament and Ms Johnson raised the question of why “rowdy fans” were left unbothered by officers, while her family was targeted.Speaking to the Liverpool Echo, Ms Johnson – who became the first black MP to represent Liverpool when she was elected in 2019 – added: “You are still three times more likely to be stopped and searched as a black male.”She said that “racial profiling and stop and search” remained prevalent issues that needed to be addressed.The Metropolitan Police force said it was “unable to comment on this specific incident” but added that if a person matched the description of someone involved in a suspected crime, “we would expect officers to pursue all lines of enquiry, including speaking to individuals who match the description”. It added: “The Met remains committed to ensuring that every encounter is conducted professionally with respect and courtesy.” More

The chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has apologised for any offence caused by his tweet about loyalist bonfires.Senior Conservative MP Simon Hoare has since deleted the post that read: “Who knew William of Orange arrived in Ireland with hundreds of wooden pallets hence the traditional pallet burning fiesta began.”Loyalists criticised the tweet, leading Mr Hoare to delete it before issuing the following apology: “Earlier I posted a Tweet which was never intended to cause the offence it has to some in NI.”I want to say fully & unequivocally that I am sorry. I intended only to be humorous/tongue in cheek & I got it wrong.”I hope my apology will be accepted. It is sincere & heartfelt.”Kate Hoey, the former Labour MP who recently appeared at a loyalist rally in Newtownards, rejected the apology.She tweeted: “Sincere and heartfelt ?? Well we will see if he can refrain from his regular snide remarks and obvious anti Unionist and loyalist views and his pandering to nationalists and the Irish Government.”Loyalist activist Jamie Bryson, who led the condemnation of Mr Hoare’s original tweet, said resigning from the committee would be “the appropriate course of action”.Doug Beattie, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, welcomed Mr Hoare’s apology, tweeting “That’s fair Simon” followed by three hand-clapping emojis. But others criticised the Conservative MP for issuing the apology.The traditional bonfires are lit on 11 July precede the day of parades to mark the anniversary of King William of Orange’s victory at the Battle of the Boyne.As the day of lighting the bonfires approaches, a number of political posters, including Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance material, have been seen on some pyres. Irish tricolours and EU flags have also been seen on some bonfires.Mr Hoare said in another tweet that this was the target of his criticism.”My point is the dangerously high pallet structures and risks they create to public health. There’s also no need to cover them with posters/images of political opponents. That’s plain divisive,” he said.Alliance Party leader Naomi Long is among the politicians whose posters have been seen on bonfires.She tweeted: “I get trolled a lot, falsely accused of hating loyalists and unionists. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’d love to know what those people make of loyalists burning my image in an act of intimidation and blatant hatred.”Burning people’s images isn’t culture, folks.”Mr Beattie also tweeted his opposition to the burning of election posters and flags on bonfires, describing it as “not an expression of unionist culture”, adding: “It’s an expression of hate.” More

Former prime minister Tony Blair has urged the government to make “Covid passports” a mandatory requirement for entry into nightclubs, music festivals, sports matches and other big events.The government has gone cold on the use of Covid status certification for mass events this summer – planning to lift all remaining curbs from 19 July.On Monday Boris Johnson said he intends to allow all businesses, including nightclubs, to reopen as well as scrapping limits on cultural and sporting events in two weeks’ time.However, a new report by the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) said mandating for the use of Covid passes at nightclubs and large-scale events could cut the number of infections in England by a third.The think tank also claimed the move could reduce hospitalisations and cut the number of Covid deaths in England by around 10,000.Citizens across the UK can currently request an NHS Covid Pass two weeks after receiving their second dose – and ministers are still considering how certification of immunity might be used to help open up international travel again.Mr Johnson announced there will no mandatory Covid passports to control entry into venues such as pubs and restaurants – though businesses will be allowed to impose schemes of their own.Ian Mulheirn, UK policy director at TBI, said: “With the NHS Covid Pass now up and running we have the technology to individualise restrictions at moments when the virus is spreading fast.”He added: “This could save thousands of lives, and even boost the economy by allowing customers to return to mass events with confidence. But with infections surging and just two weeks until restrictions are lifted, the clock is ticking.”The mandatory use of the NHS Covid Pass for domestic events would significantly slow the spread of the virus, according to the report’s authors – whose modelling is based on the work of Imperial College London scientists.The report proposes that the mandatory use of Covid passports at nightclubs and large-scale events would be temporary – required only at times when case numbers are high.Using a Covid passport for domestic events would also “buy time” for the vaccination of adolescents, which would further reduce the scale of the exit wave and save more lives, the think tank argued.Earlier this year ministers had been considering requiring proof of vaccination or negative testing before allowing spectators to attend events like music festivals. But the idea was dropped as unworkable – deemed too difficult for venues to enforce.Mr Blair’s latest intervention comes as the former top No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings said he would have done a much better job of leading the UK through the pandemic than Mr Johnson.“Obviously [Mr Blair] would have done a much better job – he would at least read papers, chair meetings, understand how government machine works, not trolley around all day,” he told readers of his blog. More

Boris Johnson has been warned that he could “accidentally disenfranchise” many of the Tory voters he needs in the north of England if he chooses to push ahead with plans to bring in mandatory photo ID at elections.The impact of the proposed new rules will be felt greatest in north of England – where one in 14 people are without any suitable form photographic identification, according to a new poll by YouGov.The pollster also found that one in 25 people who voted for the Conservatives in the 2019 election have no form of photo ID which would be required to vote under the government’s proposals.The government said voters would require a passport, driving license, blue badge, travel pass with photo or a proof of age card in order to vote under its Elections Bill, brought before parliament on Monday.Adults in the north of England will be hardest hit by the plans, with 7 per cent of voters in the region without a form of acceptable ID under the plans, compared to just 1 in 100 Londoners (1 per cent).It means that if the plans go ahead the impact could be significant in marginal seats in the so-called “blue wall” in the north of England.In Bury North, Bury South and Bolton North, Tory MPs won with a margin of less than 1 per cent of the vote. Of the 650 parliamentary constituencies, 67 seats were won by a margin of 5 percent or less of votes cast.Marcus Roberts, head of international Politics at YouGov, said: “Boris Johnson’s 2019 and 2021 victories owe much to Northern voters who haven’t traditionally voted Conservative.“But with data showing 1 in 14 Northern voters lacking ID, No 10 should be careful they don’t accidentally disenfranchise the very voters their recent wins owe so much to.”In May the Cabinet Office slipped out a study that found more than two million people currently lack the necessary ID to vote.ID plan is ‘ineffective’ and could disenfranchise voters, report findsAlong with Labour, senior Tories and civil society groups have raised concerns about the proposals – accusing the government of using “Trumpian tactics” in an attempt to “rig democracy”.Tory former Brexit secretary David Davis told The Independent there was “no evidence that … there is a problem with voter fraud at polling stations”.But ministers have insisted the Elections Bill will strengthen the “integrity” of the process.“The bill will strengthen the integrity of our elections, by increasing transparency, fairness and accountability; providing more protection for candidates and voters,” said constitution minister Chloe Smith on Monday.Cat Smith, Labour’s shadow minister for democracy, said: “It doesn’t matter how the government tries to dress it up, voter ID is a discriminatory policy which will disenfranchise millions of voters.Ms Smith added: “The Conservatives must ditch this undemocratic policy which threatens to reverse decades of democratic progress.” More

The government has been accused of using “secretive” payments to channel public funds to institutions that have “whitewashed human rights abuses” in the Gulf region.A cross-party group of MPs, including Tory MP and father of the house Peter Bottomley, said government funds had been used to send £53.4m to the six Gulf Cooperation Council states between 2016 and 2020According to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Democracy and Human Rights in the Gulf, which drew up the report, the money is going to institutions that are complicit in human rights abuses.And the MPs accuse the government of making “misleading and deceptive” claims about the way UK funds are being spent in the region.They say the government has “repeatedly ignored evidence” that beneficiaries of UK funding in the Gulf have been implicated in human rights abuses.And it is alleged that the government’s mandatory human rights impact assessments are “flawed, improperly applied and entirely absent in some cases”.The warning comes as the UK seeks closer relationships with the Gulf states following Brexit – and amid concerns the pressure to find alternatives to trading with the EU could bush Britain into the hands of states with poor human rights records.“Millions of pounds are being taken from the British taxpayer and spent secretively in Gulf states, some of the richest nations on earth,” said Andy Slaughter, Labour MP for Hammersmith and APPG Vice-Chair.”Despite a severe deterioration in human rights in states like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, the government continues to ignore warnings from parliament, human rights groups and their own evaluations and throw millions of pounds of public funds at institutions consistently implicated in human rights violations. This funding should be halted pending an immediate investigation.”Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman, which make up the Gulf Cooperation Council, all have poor human rights records, according to NGOs.The investigation by the MPs focuses on payments made to these states through the government’s Integrated Activity Fund (IAF), which operated between 2016 and 2020, and its successor, the Gulf Strategy Fund (GSF). Beneficiaries of the funding include the Saudi Arabian National Guard, and the country’s Joint Incident Assessment Team, which has been repeatedly criticised by NGO Human Rights Watch for “failing to provide credible, impartial, and transparent investigations into alleged coalition laws-of-war violations”.”UK funding to Saudi Arabia thus supports bodies accused of breaching international law and whitewashing war crimes in Yemen,” the MPs say.In Bahrain, the UK has been providing Bahrain with “technical assistance”, aimed at supporting “progress on building effective and accountable institutions, strengthening the rule of law, and justice reform”. Beneficiaries include organisations that the MPs say are “internationally discredited” with regards to human rights such as the country’s the Ministry of Interior Ombudsman and the National Institute for Human Rights (NIHR). Josie Thum, secretariat of the APPG and Research and Policy Associate at the Bahrain Institute for Rights & Democracy (BIRD), commented: “Despite pouring millions of pounds into Gulf states over the last five years, this report shows that UK-backed institutions continue to be implicated in appalling human rights violations, including alleged war crimes, executions and the torture of children. “As they seek to deepen trade ties with the Gulf, the government must start putting people above profits and come clean with the public about how their money is being spent in the region.”An FCDO spokesperson said: “The UK works with partners around the world to improve their human rights records, including in the Gulf. All cooperation through the Gulf Strategy Fund is subject to rigorous risk assessments to ensure all work meets our human rights obligations and our values.“We do not shy away from raising legitimate human rights concerns, and encourage other states to respect international law.” More

MPs have voted for “draconian” protest laws in spite of mounting warnings over human rights and questions over whether police want or need the powers.A bill backed by the House of Commons would allow police to impose restrictions on protests based on noise and ban demonstrations by a single person.It would also create a criminal offence of “public nuisance”, lower the bar for prosecuting people who violate conditions and increase maximum prison sentences to a year.The Liberal Democrats failed in a bid to cut the controversial clauses out of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill on Monday after their amendments were voted down – the main one by 354 votes to 273.The party’s home affairs spokesperson, Alistair Carmichael, called the protest laws “dangerous and draconian”.“They undermine the proud British tradition of standing up for what we believe in and respecting others’ rights to do the same,” he added.“This new law would allow the police to clampdown on protests for being too noisy, and create 10-year prison sentences just for causing someone ‘serious annoyance’.”And Labour’s Sarah Jones told the Commons the bill’s restrictions on protest went too far, threatening “the fundamental balance between the police and the people”.“The point of protest is to capture attention,” said Ms Jones. “Protests are noisy, sometimes they are annoying, but they are as fundamental to our democracy as our parliament.”Conservative former cabinet minister David Davis agreed, pointing to a letter voicing concerns from a number of police chiefs as he told MPs: “It hasn’t just been the sort of lefty liberal legal fraternity that have been worried about this.”The government has defended its widely-opposed proposals, telling journalists that the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the Metropolitan Police had “been consulted and support” them.But The Independent has learned that neither police chiefs, elected commissioners, nor Britain’s largest force requested the power to crack down on noisy protests.Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights questioned the need for the changes, finding “no evidence of a gap in the law” that needed to be filled and that there were already a “range of powers to deal with noise that impacts on the rights and freedoms of others”.The bill, which will now be considered by the House of Lords, runs to almost 300 pages and contains laws covering a wide range of issues such as violence prevention, police driving standards and criminal damage to statues.Theresa May raises concerns about controversial new policing billAhead of the vote, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights wrote to the speakers of the House of Commons and Lords warning that the protest laws may violate human rights.Dunja Mijatović said the powers could be “arbitrarily applied” and appeared to be an extension of a “worrying trend” of growing international restrictions on peaceful protest to “minimise dissent”.United Nations human rights experts, parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and numerous civil society organisations and academic experts have raised similar concerns.Several charities signed a petition with almost 600,000 signatures that called for the government to drop the protest laws, as well as controversial proposals to increase stop and search powers and criminalise Gypsy and Traveller communities with a new trespass offence.The bill would also introduce longer prison sentences for serial burglars, knife carriers, killer drivers and children who commit murder, as well as changing release provisions to keep some prisoners inside for longer.The proposals sparked nationwide “kill the bill” protests, including some that saw violence against police, and retired officers have said its provisions may create future conflict.Owen West, a former chief superintendent who led protest policing in West Yorkshire until 2019, said police would be put in a “no-win” position.“Once a lower threshold for police intervention is provided in law there will be an expectation, not least at the political level, for the police to exercise that power which may lead to conflict,” he added.“This may lead to increased instances of violence and disorder than is currently the case.” More

The government must set out its plans for next year’s exams by September to avoid a repeat of this year’s and last year’s fiascos, Labour says.Shadow education secretary Kate Green said “poor planning and preparation” over the past two years must not be repeated.The party has released an analysis suggesting that the average Year 10 pupil has missed nearly one in four days of face-to-face GCSE or Btec teaching this school year amid the pandemic. Last month education secretary Gavin Williamson said pupils would sit exams but stated that there would have to be “adjustments” in place to ensure fairness to pupils. But he did not go into detail about what this might involve. In a speech on Tuesday afternoon, Ms Green will say 1 September this year – around two months away – should be the deadline for the government to outline what the exams will look like in the coming terms.“The Conservatives’ poor planning and preparation has created a second year of exam chaos,” she is expected to say.“Uncertainty just piles pressure on pupils and teachers, so the longer ministers dither and delay, the harder it will be to set a level playing field and ensure every pupil gets fair grades.“Ministers need to learn from their mistakes and set out a plan by the time pupils return to school in September.”Last week exams regulator Ofqual adjusted some fieldwork requirements for GCSE students in the light of the pandemic, removing compulsory aspects of geography, geology and environmental studies because of social distancing.Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “These young people have suffered huge educational disruption to widely differing extents and adjustments will be needed to GCSEs, A-levels and other qualifications in 2022.“The most obvious adjustment is to provide advance notice of topic areas in exams so that learning can be focused accordingly and students don’t end up having to answer questions on something that they haven’t covered in sufficient depth.“But schools and colleges obviously need to know when and what advance notice might be given so that they can plan accordingly, and after 15 months of disruption students deserve to know what to expect.”A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We intend exams to go ahead in 2022, as well as vocational and technical qualifications.“We are currently considering what more we can do to ensure fairness and the right level of support for pupils, and we will provide further details shortly.“We are committed to an ambitious, long-term education recovery plan, which is backed by an investment to date of over £3bn and a significant expansion of our tutoring programme, to support children and young people to make up for disruption to their education.” More

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has apologised for the historical ban on employing gay diplomats, with its senior civil servant admitting that it had deprived the UK of some of its “best talent”.The ban on LGBT+ employees was imposed because of fears they could be more vulnerable to blackmail, potentially posing a security risk, but it was finally lifted in July 1991.Sir Philip Barton, the head of the diplomatic service, issued an apology for the impact of the ban on LGBT+ staff who had been forced to hide their sexuality for decades, and admitted that some had had their careers “cut short” or “stopped before they could even begin”.Security fears were fuelled by spy scandals such as the case of John Vassall, a clerk at the British embassy in Moscow who was gay and was blackmailed into passing secrets to the KGB. He was jailed for 18 years in 1962.In his message to staff, Sir Philip said it was a “misguided view” to believe that LGBT+ diplomats were more susceptible to blackmail.“The ban was in place because there was a perception that LGBT people were more susceptible than their straight counterparts to blackmail and, therefore, that they posed a security risk,” Sir Philip said.“Because of this misguided view, people’s careers were ended, cut short, or stopped before they could even begin. And the diplomatic service undoubtedly deprived itself of some of the UK’s brightest and best talent.”He said: “I want to apologise publicly for the ban and the impact it had on our LGBT staff and their loved ones, both here in the UK and abroad.”The foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, said he was “grateful” to the UK’s LGBT+ diplomats “who so brilliantly represent our country and promote our values around the world”.“The UK champions LGBT rights because we believe freedom and tolerance are a source of strength in communities at home and abroad,” said Mr Raab.The cabinet minister said that as co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition, the UK was working with 41 partner countries to tackle discriminatory laws and prejudice globally.In 2018, the FCDO commemorated Graeme Watkins, the founder of its LGBT+ staff association Flagg (Foreign Office Lesbian and Gay Group), who died in 2000, by naming a room after him in the department.Mr Watkins joined the Foreign Office in 1979, when openly gay people were still barred from working as diplomats – forcing him to hide his sexuality at work until the ban was lifted in 1991. More