logo
Russia's Zakharova says peace settlement in Ukraine has never been on 'real agenda' of the West

Russia's Zakharova says peace settlement in Ukraine has never been on 'real agenda' of the West

Reuters4 days ago
MOSCOW, July 26 (Reuters) - Peace talks and a settlement in Ukraine have never been on the real agenda of the West, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Saturday, in her first comments on negotiations since Russian and Ukrainian officials held talks on Wednesday.
If the West wanted "real peace" in Ukraine, it would stop supplying Kyiv with weapons, Zakharova said in comments reported by TASS news agency. Earlier, in her weekly briefing on Thursday, she had declined to comment on the talks.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tech sec Peter Kyle should apologise for calling Farage a nonce-enabler – then make the move that WILL protect our kids
Tech sec Peter Kyle should apologise for calling Farage a nonce-enabler – then make the move that WILL protect our kids

The Sun

time21 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Tech sec Peter Kyle should apologise for calling Farage a nonce-enabler – then make the move that WILL protect our kids

OUR wildly unpopular Government has decided to get down and dirty. Rather than come up with ideas to make our lives a bit bloody easier, it has resorted to disgusting smears against opponents. 8 8 The Onlife Safety Act — a genuinely awful piece of legislation — seeks to persuade hi-tech companies to be a bit more rigorous about who they show their porn and other nasty images to. It will not work. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has said as much. And he pledged to repeal the act if Reform wins the next election. Which is looking increasingly likely. This provoked Technology Secretary Peter Kyle to suggest that Farage was 'on the side of' Jimmy Savile. An insane ­accusation and one Kyle has refused to withdraw. Kyle's actual words were these: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he would be perpetrating his crimes online — and Nigel Farage is saying that he is on their side, not the side of children.' What an odious comment — but it was repeated a little later by the dim-witted Transport Secretary, Heidi Alexander. So what Labour is saying, in short, is this: if you disagree with their stupid Onlife Safety Act, you're little better than a nonce. You're a nonce enabler. Nigel Farage was rightly furious. Here's the thing. The act is a disgrace. It hands the power to hi-tech companies and penalises the small online sites. And it will do little or nothing to stop kids getting hold of gruesome images. It will also erode freedom of speech. And increase censorship for adults. It is a chilling piece of legislation. And it has already been rubbished by both the Left, in The New Statesman, and the Right, in the Daily Telegraph. Tech Secretary left 'shocked to the core' after visiting crack team hunting down child abuse images There is, however, one failsafe way to make sure kids are safe from revolting images. Stop children having smartphones. Ban them from kids 16 years and younger. Something similar is to be tried in ­Australia, where under-16s will be banned from social media later this year. Labour says it is not going to do that. Peter Kyle has rejected the proposal. And you know why he's done that, don't you? It's because he, like the ludicrous Heidi Alexander, is a nonce enabler. He would actively help Jimmy Savile nonce the kids. There, how do you like that, Mr Kyle? That's what happens when you crawl into the political gutter. You meet horrible people like me. People who are prepared to stick the boot in and not worry. Nonce enablers People who will say stuff like this: if Kyle opposes my bill to ban smartphones from kids he is worse than Rosemary West and Hitler combined. And he probably hangs around infant schools with a bag of sherbet lemons and some puppies. You see, Kyle? It isn't only disgusting to make such accusations. It's also totally and utterly ludicrous. But it's particularly ludicrous and, indeed, hypocritical when it comes from Labour. Because the party is led by Sir Keir Starmer. And when Sir Keir Starmer was doing his previous job as Director of Public Prosecutions, it decided against charging Jimmy Savile. So you might have a point in saying that Starmer was 'on the side of' Jimmy Savile. Think again, Peter Kyle. Apologise to Farage and withdraw the comment. And when you've done that, withdraw the Online Safety Act. FEELING THE PINCH, CERYS? I'M sorry that the comedian Cerys Nelmes is upset. It's not nice to be upset. She's ­worried she may be put behind bars in Turkey for alleged shoplifting. Apparently, she left the Zara store in Istanbul having 'forgotten to pay' for an item. How refreshing it is that the Turks take apparent shoplifting seriously. And that Cerys could get three years in a prison like the one in Midnight Express. PM'S SO WRONG ON GAZA 8 IN promising to 'recognise' Palestine, Sir Keir Starmer has shed his very last vestige of ­principle. It is a wholly cosmetic exercise designed to appease the morons on his back benches. It will do nothing ­whatsoever to help the Palestinians. It offers not the slightest encouragement for the feral ­savages of Hamas to hand back the hostages. All it does is enrage the US and Israel. And what exactly is it that Starmer is pledging to recognise? The Hamas-governed Gaza Strip? But the ­Government has already proscribed Hamas as a terrorist organisation. There is, at present, no Palestinian state. Just chunks of territory ruled over by extremists. It is a truly shocking decision which will cause many, many problems down the line. CARMEN HAVE A GO THEN 8 SO, well done you tenacious Lionesses. They proved that they are incredibly difficult to beat. And also that they are not as useless at penalties as most of the other countries. I enjoyed the tournament, even if the quality of football was sometimes hilariously bad. It all works, though, if you don't keep comparing it with the men's game. It was also hugely pleasing to beat the Spanish. They are very bad losers and their petulant strop at Chloe Kelly cheered me up no end. A bit of grace in defeat wouldn't go amiss, senoritas. Meanwhile, my lot are away to Norwich next Saturday. The season is at last starting. And so Christmas can't be far away. A FOOL ENGLISH THERE were two stories which made me sit up this week. The first was that the average person now pays to the Government 57 per cent of their income in tax. This is all the result of hidden levies such as VAT, stamp duty, National Insurance, ­capital gains tax and a whole load of other stuff. There are 37 levies on top of income tax. We are now being taxed at the highest rate since the Second World War. And the other story? A picture of the breakfast buffet that ­illegal asylum seekers are provided with, at our expense, in one of their hotels. Would you like your eggs scrambled or poached, Asif? Coming right up. Along with bacon, sausage, hash browns, baked beans and black pudding. I couldn't see if they had mushrooms or not. Or waffles. If they're in Richmond upon Thames, ­by the way, they also get free membership of gyms to work off that full English. You wonder where our money goes? Here's an answer for you. MESSER 'N' MRS WE'RE moving house. I come home of an ­evening and see my wife licking the skirting boards clean. I can't find anything because it's all been hidden so that potential buyers think we don't have clutter. The final straw came at the weekend. Me and the dog were banished from the house 'for the foreseeable future'. That's because we make things messy. One of us drops fur all over the carpet and farts continually – and the dog's even worse. Houses always look good when nobody is in them. That's my wife's way of thinking. 'Nobody wants to look around a house when there's a lardy lummox lying on the sofa ­watching re-runs of Impossible.' I'll let you know when I'm allowed back in. I HAVE no idea where Tommy Robinson is. He has supposedly fled the country after allegedly punching a bloke at a Tube station. I have no idea if that's what he did. And still less about whatever it was that may have provoked him. But consider this. What chance do you think Robinson stood of a fair trial, for whatever he did or didn't do? They'd throw away the key, wouldn't they? WHAT proportion of muggings in ­London do you suppose are solved by the Old Bill? The answer is five per cent – or one in 20. Muggings are a serious crime. They make ­people afraid to go out of their homes. And muggers are encouraged because 95 per cent of them are going to get away with it. Don't you think it's time the Met Police started taking its duties seriously? And focused on solving serious crime? Instead of being obsessed with what people say to each other on social media?

Palestine pledge could break the law, top lawyers warn Starmer
Palestine pledge could break the law, top lawyers warn Starmer

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

Palestine pledge could break the law, top lawyers warn Starmer

Some of Britain's most prominent lawyers have warned Sir Keir Starmer that his government's pledge to recognise a Palestinian state risks breaking international law. Their intervention, signed by 40 members of the House of Lords, said a Palestinian state would not meet the criteria for recognition as set out under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. The letter, seen by The Times, was sent to Lord Hermer, the attorney-general and the government's top legal adviser. The signatories point out that Starmer's pledge risked undermining the government's commitment that international law goes 'absolutely to the heart' of its foreign policy. Among those who signed the letter were seven KCs, including Lord Pannick, one of the UK's most respected lawyers. Pannick represented the government in its Supreme Court battle over the Rwanda relocation scheme. The peers, including some of parliament's most prominent Jewish voices, wrote to Hermer: 'We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law. 'You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this government and its approach to foreign policy. 'You have said that a selective 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. 'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.' The 1933 treaty, signed in the Uruguayan capital, laid out the four key criteria for statehood in international law. The treaty says a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The letter added that there is no certainty over the borders of a proposed Palestinian state, while the government would face difficulty continuing to recognise millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as 'refugees', given recognition of statehood would mean they were in their own territory. They also argued that there is no functioning single government, and it has no capacity to enter into diplomatic relations. Hamas is a proscribed terror group in the UK. Among the 40 peers to sign the letter were prominent legal figures including Lord Collins of Mapesbury, a former Supreme Court judge, Lord Verdirame KC, a leading barrister and professor in international law, Lord Faulks KC, a leading human rights lawyer, and Lord Banner KC, whose report on radical planning reforms are being accepted by Starmer to speed up major infrastructure projects. Labour signatories include Lord Mendelsohn, Lord Turnberg, Lord Shamash and Lord Winston, while Lord Harrington of Watford, the former refugee minister, and Lord Walney, the government's former adviser on political violence and disruption, also signed the letter. Former cabinet ministers include Lord Pickles, Lord Lansley, Lord Ellis KC, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Baroness Foster of Oxton. Several former Labour attorney-generals are also said to be supportive of the letter. Starmer insisted on Wednesday that Britain's recognition of Palestinian statehood is 'not a gesture' but will secure a viable two-state solution as he embarked on a diplomatic push to secure support for his Middle East peace plan. In a round of calls with world leaders, Starmer said 'recognition needed to be rooted in a process of change that made a material difference to the situation on the ground'. He told his Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese, that 'recognition was not a gesture, but a driver for real change that ensured a viable two-state solution', Downing Street said. Starmer also stressed the need for a ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the acceleration of aid and ensuring Hamas played no role in a future state. Starmer's announcement has been widely criticised by both Jewish groups and the families of Britons who were held captive, and who have accused the government of reducing hostages to a 'bargaining chip'. On Wednesday evening, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi, accused Starmer of fundamentally undermining the peace and security of both Israelis and Palestinians and said that the announcement at a time when hostages remain captive can 'only disincentivise Hamas from agreeing to a ceasefire'. Writing in The Times, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, warned that Starmer's 'knee-jerk recognition of Palestinian statehood will embolden our enemies at abroad and at home'. The letter was announced after Palestine Action won permission to challenge its ban by the UK government. The High Court ruled that the decision by Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation should be reviewed in the courts. Huda Ammori, Palestine Action's co-founder, lodged a bid to challenge the proscription, which was made under anti-terror legislation. The proscription was announced by Cooper after the group claimed responsibility for breaking into RAF Brize Norton on June 20 and inflicting millions of pounds of damage to two Voyager aircraft. In a major ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain said it was 'reasonably arguable' that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He concluded that a substantive hearing at the High Court should be held in order to decide the legality of the decision to proscribe the group. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said: 'The court has confirmed the continuation of the proscription order against Palestine Action Group in line with its previous judgement, while allowing permission for a further hearing under the normal judicial review procedures. 'The decision to proscribe was based on strong security advice and the unanimous recommendation by the expert cross-government Proscription Review Group. This followed serious attacks the group has committed, involving violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage.' She added: 'Those who seek to support this group may yet not know the true nature of the organisation. But people should be under no illusion — this is not a peaceful or non-violent protest group.'

Palestine Action co-founder wins permission to challenge ban
Palestine Action co-founder wins permission to challenge ban

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Palestine Action co-founder wins permission to challenge ban

The co-founder of Palestine Action can bring an unprecedented legal challenge to the home secretary's decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws, a high court judge has ruled. Mr Justice Chamberlain said the proscription order against the direct action group risked 'considerable harm to the public interest' because of a potential 'chilling effect' on legitimate political speech. The judge cited the case of Laura Murton, who the Guardian revealed had been threatened with arrest by armed officers for holding a sign saying 'Free Gaza' and a Palestinian flag. Chamberlain's decision is the first time that an organisation banned under anti-terrorism law has been granted a court trial to challenge proscription. The judge said: 'If, as the claimant says, the proscription order is likely to have a significant chilling effect on the legitimate political speech of many thousands of people, that would do considerable harm to the public interest. 'Reports of the kind of police conduct referred to … are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views. This effect can properly be regarded as an indirect consequence of the proscription order.' He continued: 'I consider it reasonably arguable that the proscription order amounts to a disproportionate interference with the article 10 and article 11 (European convention of human rights) rights (freedom of expression and assembly, respectively) of the claimant and others.' The group's co-founder, Huda Ammori, called it a 'landmark decision … especially at a time when protesters – mostly elderly citizens – are being dragged off in police vans, held in detention for more than 24 hours, having their homes raided and face criminal prosecution, simply for holding signs that they oppose genocide and expressing their support for Palestine Action'. More than 200 people are believed to have been arrested since the 5 July ban on Palestine Action, the first on a direct action group, placing it alongside the likes of Islamic State and Boko Haram. The three-day hearing in November will increase scrutiny on the decision-making of the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, and casts uncertainty over the fate of those recently arrested under the Terrorism Act in relation to Palestine Action – or who might be arrested in future. The Home Office had argued that the proper forum for Palestine Action to challenge the ban was the POAC (Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission), which parliament had designated precisely for that purpose, rather than judicial review. But Chamberlain said POAC would be unlikely to be able to hear the case before the middle of next year whereas a judicial review could be heard this autumn and there was a strong public interest for it to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. Otherwise, people charged with criminal offences under the Terrorism Act might seek to challenge the legality of the proscription order in courts that might reach different decisions, creating 'a recipe for chaos', he said. The second ground on which Chamberlain granted permission for judicial review, in addition to concerns about freedom of speech and protest, was that Cooper had not consulted Palestine Action before proscribing it, finding it reasonably arguable that there was a duty to consult. The judge refused Ammori permission to challenge the government on six other grounds, including a claim that the home secretary had failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action's activities or the impact of the proscription on people associated with the group. Chamberlain referred in his judgment to the 'deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza'. He quoted from a joint statement last week by the foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the foreign ministers of 27 other countries in which they said 'the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Documents in the case showed that Cooper held private discussions with aides for three months before she took the decision to ban Palestine Action. On one occasion, she decided to ban the group but reversed course two days later. She finally decided to ban the group on 20 June, hours after Palestine Action said its members had broken into the RAF's Brize Norton airbase and defaced two military aircraft with spray paint. On 7 March, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), a government body based within MI5, produced a secret report. It concluded that the majority of Palestine Action's activities would not be classified as terrorism on the grounds that the group 'primarily uses direct action tactics', which typically resulted in minor damage to property. 'Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,' it added. Nonetheless JTAC concluded that Palestine Action should be banned, arguing that its protests had been escalating, citing three protests it said constituted acts of terrorism. Whitehall officials supported a ban too, but conceded that proscribing the group would be 'relatively novel' as 'there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving series damage to property'. From late March officials recommended on a series of occasions that the group be banned, but Cooper made no firm decision, often requesting more information. On 14 May she backed the ban but two days later delayed implementing it as she wanted more details on Palestine Action's recent activities. A Whitehall minute recorded that by 2.15pm on 20 June, Cooper had decided that Palestine Action was to be banned 'at pace'. An application by Ammori's lawyers to suspend the effect of the proscription order until the trial has taken place in November was rejected by Chamberlain. The judge also refused a request by the Home Office to bring an appeal over his decision about POAC. At last week's hearing, lawyers for Ammori also highlighted the arrest of a man in Leeds for carrying a placard reproducing a graphic from Private Eye magazine, which said: 'Unacceptable Palestine Action: spraying military planes. Acceptable Palestine Action: shooting Palestinians queueing for food.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store