German train passengers overpower Syrian axeman
The suspect, reportedly a Syrian citizen, lashed out at travellers on the German intercity train, which was en route to Austria on Thursday afternoon.
One of the passengers managed to take the weapon and use it to stop the attacker, according to the German tabloid Bild.
After passengers pulled the train's emergency brake, police arrested the suspect, who was said to have been seriously injured.
Three passengers received moderate injuries while a fourth was lightly injured.
Sohrab Taheri-Sohi, a spokesman for the Bavarian Red Cross, said: 'Due to a violent incident on an intercity train, there was a large deployment of emergency responders.
'According to our current information, multiple people were injured – one seriously injured, three moderately injured and one lightly injured.'
Around 500 passengers were on board at the time of the attack.
Mass stabbing or car-ramming attacks have become increasingly common in Germany, with many committed by mentally ill people or asylum seekers facing deportation orders.
In May, a mentally ill German woman injured 17 people in a knife attack outside Hamburg Central railway station.
In February, an Afghan asylum seeker crashed his car into a crowd of people taking part in a trade union march in Munich. It was the day before the Munich Security Conference, which was attended by world leaders.
Last September, a Syrian refugee killed three people and injured eight others in a stabbing attack on a festival celebrating diversity in the western city of Solingen.
The train attack came after Austrian authorities said they had deported a convicted Syrian criminal back to Syria on Thursday, in what they described as the first such case since the fall of the Assad regime in December last year.
According to Krone, an Austrian newspaper, the deported Syrian is a 32-year-old 'fanatic' with links to Islamic State. Before being deported, he was serving a seven-year prison sentence. The newspaper cited Austrian intelligence sources, who said they could not give further details of the nature of his crimes for 'security reasons'.
The interior ministry said the removal of the unnamed man was part of a 'strict and thus fair asylum policy'.
Gerhard Karner, the interior minister from Austria's centre-Right Austrian People's Party (OVP), vowed to 'continue this chosen path with hard work and determination'.
Since the fall of the Assad regime, some EU countries have been eager for refugees to return to Syria.
Britain, among other European countries, paused the processing of new asylum claims from Syrians, based on the view that Syria would become safer under its new president, the rebel leader Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa.
Austria took the same step and also stopped family reunifications. Around 100,000 Syrians live in the country, one of the biggest concentrations in Europe, while nearly a million Syrians live in neighbouring Germany.
Austria's government, sworn in last March, consists of the centre-Right OVP and the centre-Left Social Democratic Party.
Both factions are under intense political pressure to get tougher on migration, having come second and third place behind the far-Right Austrian Freedom Party (FPO) in last September's elections.
Despite coming first place in the polls, FPO failed to form a coalition government after the result, as Austria's other political parties considered it too extreme to govern.
Herbert Kickl, the leader of FPO, is sympathetic towards Russia and controversially once called for asylum seekers to be 'concentrated in one place', in what critics said was a deliberate allusion to Nazi camps. Mr Kickl strongly denies this.
The FPO was founded in 1956 and first led by Anton Reinthaller, a former SS cavalry officer and Nazi minister.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Policing must strike a balance between transparency and justice
Given the sensitivity of the issue, the high level of public interest, and the clear danger of legitimate public protests descending into mob rule, it is entirely right that the police should be given new guidance on releasing details of the ethnicity and nationality of a suspect in some, limited circumstances. The new interim guidance, issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing, is, if anything, somewhat overdue – because it has been distressingly clear that surmise, conjecture, speculation, misinformation, propaganda, 'asking questions', and downright lies about serious crimes, can be weaponised by malign agents. Conspiracy theories have generated enormous public concern, and then disorder. Some calm analysis is required. Crime is crime, and criminals are criminals, and crime cannot be racialised. The release of information concerning a suspect's nationality, race, or immigration status (as has been suggested but, for the moment, resisted) cannot be used as an excuse for a riot. An offence is not more serious because it has been committed by, say, an asylum seeker, and an individual is not in some sense more guilty because of the colour of their skin. Except in cases involving a racial motive or incitement to hatred, such considerations ought to be irrelevant. Generally, they will continue to be. That has to be the default position. However, if a senior police team judges that the safety of the public is best served by the release of certain defaults, then a degree of discretion is justified. 'Guidance' is just that – a set of guidelines, not hard rules. The violent summer riots of 2024 were serious enough, but they could have been much worse had the truth about the Southport murders not emerged when it did, and had the untrue rumours about the suspect being a Muslim asylum-seeker who had come straight off a small boat not been dispelled – not that it should have made a difference in terms of criminal justice. As in all operational matters, the police should have an appropriate degree of discretion in the particular circumstances of any given situation they face, and equally, they should be free of political interference – and the demands of certain populist politicians and 'activists' to use heinous crimes and the suffering of victims for their own cynical purposes. These particular public figures don't care, in any case, whether people they don't like receive a fair trial, and are cheerfully contemptuous of the rule of law, particularly the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. But no democratic society should concede the universal principle of the right to a fair trial, uncontaminated by widespread misreporting of circumstances and motives such that a jury cannot do its job. The Home Office has not written these new guidelines – which is as it should be – but it has welcomed the interim proposals. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is complementing the move by asking the Law Commission to clarify how increased transparency and limited discretion for the police to release certain details could affect a free and fair trial. At the same time, the police have to be able to justify and defend their own actions in a world in which corrosive and baseless allegations of 'two-tier' policing, and 'cover-ups', are thrown around with such recklessness on social media and, sadly, by the so-called mainstream media as well. Like the guidance on what the police can reveal about suspects, the law on contempt of court also needs to be revisited. Since the relevant legislation was put on the statute book, the world has changed beyond recognition. Then, it was a matter of ensuring that a relatively small number of domestic press outlets and broadcasters behaved responsibly. For many years, because journalists are not on the whole bent on causing injustice and triggering retrials, the arrangements worked well. Times change. The last year or so, in particular, has proved how social media operates in an entirely different way. It is practically lawless. A very old adage springs to mind when one considers the speed of modern dissemination – a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on. This is an environment in which none of the tech giants take full responsibility for what appears on their platforms, or for the very real harm it can inflict. Vile racial slurs about non-existent crimes or suspects can originate far from the UK, and be amplified by bots and augmented by AI. There is a balance to be struck, essentially, between transparency and justice. That balance requires constant monitoring and periodic adjustment as technology moves forward and public expectations evolve. There will never be complete consensus, or success, often because the radical populists, both online and off, have a vested interest in fostering – indeed, creating – such unpleasant myths and conspiracies. But there is a sense here of a government and a police service being alert to the urgency of the challenge. In an often bleak social-media landscape, that is encouraging.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
UK traffic to popular porn sites slumps after age checks introduced
British visits to popular pornography sites have slumped following the introduction of strict age checks last month, data shows. Daily visits to Pornhub, the UK's most used porn site, fell from 3.6m on 24 July, the day before age-gating was introduced, to 1.9m on 8 August, a drop of 47%. At the next most popular sites, XVideos and xHamster, visits fell 47% and 39% over the same period, according to the data from Similarweb, a digital market intelligence company. The data, first reported by the Financial Times, appears to show the impact of strict age-checking rules from 25 July under the Online Safety Act. However, social media sites that also introduced age checks for material barred to under-18s, such as X and Reddit, did not experience dips in traffic over the same timeframe. A spokesperson for Pornhub said: 'As we've seen in many jurisdictions around the world, there is often a drop in traffic for compliant sites and an increase in traffic for non-compliant sites.' The Online Safety Act contains rules on protecting children from harmful content that require sites or apps showing pornography to prevent children from seeing it. Ofcom, the UK watchdog overseeing the act, has backed age assurance measures including: facial age estimation, which assesses a person's likely age through a live photo or video; checking a person's age via their credit card provider, bank or mobile phone network operator; photo ID matching, where a passport or similar ID is checked against a selfie; or a 'digital identity wallet' that contains proof of age. However, the act also requires online platforms to prevent children from viewing content including material that encourages suicide or self-harm, and to suppress the spread of content such as dangerous challenges, showing serious violence or inciting hatred against people. This has led to the age-gating of content such as an alcoholic recovery forum on Reddit and footage of an anti-migrant protest, which led to warnings that the new law was already over-regulating. Ofcom maintains that the act does not suppress freedom of expression and has pointed to provisions that protect free speech. Breaches of the act carry a range of punishments, from formal warnings to a fine of up to £18m or 10% of global turnover or, in extreme cases, the site being blocked in the UK. Nigel Farage's Reform UK party pledged to repeal the act after the introduction of age checks, sparking a war of words in which the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, accused Farage of siding with 'people like Jimmy Savile'. Farage described Kyle's comments as 'so below the belt'. The introduction of age-checking has also led to a surge in the downloading of virtual private networks, which allow people to circumvent a country's restrictions on viewing certain websites. The top five of Apple's app store have been regularly dominated by VPN apps.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
VAR might rule on yellow cards in future
The scope of the video assistant referee in the Premier League might be expanded in the future to include decisions on yellow cards and the awarding of corners, says Howard chief Webb says the game's law-makers, the International Football Association Board (Ifab), is reviewing how VAR operates and he is "open to discussions" about other which has operated in the Premier League since the 2019-20 season, can currently only intervene in what are perceived as match-changing decisions - goals, straight red cards, penalties and mistaken identity."There will definitely be discussions around possible extensions," Webb told BBC Sport. "Some believe we should use VAR more extensively for certain situations, but there are others who feel that shouldn't happen."We try to align VAR delivery with the expectations of those involved in the English game, based on consultation with fans, coaches and players. The message we get is 'less is more' with VAR, and we've done pretty well in aligning our delivery with that expectation."VAR has been in place for seven years and has pretty much stayed the same. If the game, or the people involved, tell us that greater use would be better for the game, then of course I'd be open - but we need to think carefully about the consequences, the ripple effects."If you are talking about yellow cards that are delivered incorrectly, which could be impactful on the game, then you also have to think about wrongly not-issued yellow cards." Referee abuse 'worse than ever' Webb believes abuse of referees at all levels of the game is worse than it has ever been and says more support is being provided to support January, police launched an investigation after Michael Oliver received death threats online. In September, Anthony Taylor was temporarily stood down from officiating after being abused on social and his family were confronted by angry Roma fans in Budapest airport after the Italian side lost to Sevilla in the 2023 Europa League final, with video of the incident posted on social media."People have a bigger platform than ever to voice opinions, but some of how that opinion is voiced is unacceptable," said Webb."We saw examples with our officials last season. It happens with players and other participants in the game as well. It's a little bit of a reflection of society today - people express strong opinions, which is normal, and the game naturally creates split opinions in the grey zone."But disagreement with an outcome doesn't give a license to abuse officials on certain platforms, including threats to the safety of officials and their families. That is wholly unacceptable."We provide good support for officials, including psychological support, mental health and well-being. Support extends to their families, too."Webb says the introduction of VAR has increased scrutiny on officials' decision-making and can create perceptions of conspiracy of bias, though he says such perceptions are "wholly unjustifiable".He said: "Previously, referees made judgments in the moment based on what they saw. Now, VAR reviews decisions with more time and different angles. But that doesn't change the fact that some decisions remain grey."If you think a penalty decision is wrong, you expect VAR to get involved. But if it's 50/50, half will think the original decision was right, and if VAR overturns it, those people will be disappointed."The skill for us is recognising when a situation is truly grey and conversely when there is a truly clear one. But don't expect to agree with the final outcome every time." Coote unlikely to return to top-level refereeing Webb says it would be "tough" for David Coote to return to top-level refereeing after he was sacked for misconduct last was dismissed by referees' body Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) in December 2024 after a video emerged online of him making derogatory remarks about Liverpool and then manager Jurgen Tuesday, the Football Association (FA) issued an eight-week suspension and ordered Coote to have mandatory face-to-face education about the incident."Under the circumstances, it's difficult [for him to return]," said Webb. "We stay in contact and care about him, but it would be tough."The 42-year-old has also been banned by Uefa for a separate video showing him sniffing a white powder when he was on duty at Euro 2024, which is organised by European football's governing body."This was one individual who made poor choices outside the game," said Webb. "Our job was to assess the impact his role as an official had on those choices, given the stress officials face."It was an opportunity to reflect on how we support officials and to address any gaps in external expertise, which we've done recently with new appointments. It doesn't reflect on the wider officiating culture or other officials' work."David was a former colleague we cared about and wish well for the future, but his choices were individual to him and don't reflect the wider group."
