BREAKING NEWS 'Russian links to Starmer arson attacks' are probed by Government after three charged over alleged plot to set fire to two homes and car linked to PM
Government officials are investigating possible Russian links to the arson attacks at properties linked to Sir Keir Starmer, it has been claimed.
Two properties and a car were all set alight earlier this month, with police charging three men over the attacks.
Petro Pochynok, 34, is accused of conspiring to damage by fire the PM's former Toyota Rav4, a property where he once lived and his family's former house with intent to endanger life.
Models Roman Lavrynovych, 21, and Stanislav Carpiuc, 26, are also charged with plotting arsons between April 17 and May 13.
And now officials are probing whether the men, who were all born in Ukraine, were recruited by the Kremlin, a Whitehall source has said.
But they added it is one of many lines of investigation, with police keeping an 'open mind'.
The charges relate to a vehicle fire in Kentish Town on May 8, a fire at a house in Islington on May 11 and a fire at a property in Kentish Town in the early hours of May 12.
While Pochynok and Lavrynovych are Ukrainian citizens, Carpiuc is Romanian.
Lavrynovych, of Sydenham, south-east London has been charged with three counts of arson with intent to endanger life. All three men have been charged with the conspiracy charge.
Two of the fires occurred in Kentish Town, north London - one in the early hours of May 12 at the home where Sir Keir lived before he became Prime Minister and moved into Downing Street, while the second occurred when a car was set alight in the same street on May 8.
The other, third fire, took place on May 11 at the front door of a house converted into flats in Islington.
All three accused men, who deny the charges against them, were remanded in custody by Judge Daniel Sternberg to appear at the Old Bailey on June 6.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
12 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Chagossians want sovereignty deal to go ahead, says Mauritius legal adviser
Philippe Sands KC, who has represented Mauritius in its legal battle with the UK since 2010, told a House of Lords committee he wanted to 'knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved' in negotiations over the deal. His comments came a day after a panel of UN experts urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to abandon the agreement reached with Mauritius last month and negotiate a new one. The panel, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, said it was 'gravely concerned about the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in the processes that have led to the agreement'. The experts also criticised the continuing bar on Chagossians returning to Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands, because of the ongoing presence of a joint UK-US military base. On Wednesday, Mr Sands told the Lords International Relations and Defence Committee: 'To be clear, it is not the case that Chagossians had no role in the negotiations. 'I can tell you that Chagossians in Mauritius and Seychelles were deeply involved in consulting with successive prime ministers of Mauritius and they attended the hearings at the International Court of Justice.' He added: 'I want to really knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved in the various processes. That is simply not true. 'It is true, however, that the Chagossian community is divided and I respect that division.' Earlier, he had told the committee that, while some UK-based Chagossians wanted the islands to remain British territory, 'most in Mauritius and Seychelles have made very clear…that they wish this deal to go ahead'. The Chagossians were expelled from the islands between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the Diego Garcia base and have not been allowed to Mr Sands told peers the 'quid pro quo' for the military base remaining on Diego Garcia was Chagossians would be allowed to settle on the outer islands of the archipelago. The deal follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice saying the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has said will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States, the UN secretary general and the African Union, but heavily criticised by the Conservative Party as a 'surrender'. Mr Sands disagreed with that on Wednesday, saying the deal 'will enhance Britain's position in the world'. He said: 'I can tell you from personal experience, direct comments from countries, ambassadors, prime ministers, presidents around the world, this is seen as Britain back on the world (stage), acting honourably and decently, protecting its interests and safeguarding…the rule of law.'
BBC News
12 minutes ago
- BBC News
WhatsApp backs Apple in its legal row with the UK over user data
WhatsApp is planning to support Apple in its legal action against the UK Home Office over user data privacy, BBC News has messaging app's boss, Will Cathcart, said the case "could set a dangerous precedent" by "emboldening other nations" to seek to break encryption, which is how tech firms keep their users' data private."WhatsApp would challenge any law or government request that seeks to weaken the encryption of our services and will continue to stand up for people's right to a private conversation online," he BBC has approached the Home Office for comment. It has previously declined to comment directly on the Apple it has previously told the BBC the government's "first priority" was "to keep people safe" and the UK had a "longstanding position of protecting our citizens from the very worst crimes, such as child sex abuse and terrorism, at the same time as protecting people's privacy. WhatsApp's intervention represents a major escalation in what was an already extremely high-profile - and awkward - dispute between the UK and the row with the UK government erupted in February, when it emerged ministers were seeking the right to be able to access information secured by its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) argument intensified in the weeks that followed, with Apple first pulling ADP in the UK, and then taking legal action against the Home also sparked outrage among US politicians, with some saying it was a "dangerous attack on US cybersecurity" and urging the US government to rethink its intelligence-sharing arrangements with the UK if the notice was not Gabbard, the director of US National Intelligence, described it as an "egregious violation" of US citizens' liberties groups also attacked the UK government, saying what it was demanding had privacy and security implications for people around the world. Privacy versus national security Apple's ADP applies end-to-encryption (E2EE) to files such as photos and notes stored on the iCloud, meaning only the user has the "key" required to view same technology protects a number of messaging services - including makes them very secure - but poses a problem for law enforcement can ask to see data with lower levels of protection - if they have a court warrant - but tech firms currently have no way to provide access to E2EE files, because no such mechanism currently companies have traditionally resisted creating such a mechanism not just because they say it would compromise users' privacy but because there would be no way of preventing it eventually being exploited by 2023, WhatsApp said it would rather be blocked as a service than weaken Apple pulled ADP in the UK it said it did not want to create a "backdoor" that "bad actors" could take advantage complicating the argument around the Home Office's request is that it is made under the Investigatory Powers Act, the provisions of which are often the matter came to court, government lawyers argued that the case should not be made in public in any way for national security in April, a judge agreed with a number of news organisations, including the BBC, and said certain details should be made public."It would have been a truly extraordinary step to conduct a hearing entirely in secret without any public revelation of the fact that a hearing was taking place," his ruling the time, the government declined to comment on the proceedings but said: "The UK has robust safeguards and independent oversight to protect privacy and privacy is only impacted on an exceptional basis, in relation to the most serious crimes and only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so." Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
South Wales Guardian
14 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Chagossians want sovereignty deal to go ahead, says Mauritius legal adviser
Philippe Sands KC, who has represented Mauritius in its legal battle with the UK since 2010, told a House of Lords committee he wanted to 'knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved' in negotiations over the deal. His comments came a day after a panel of UN experts urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to abandon the agreement reached with Mauritius last month and negotiate a new one. The panel, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, said it was 'gravely concerned about the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in the processes that have led to the agreement'. The experts also criticised the continuing bar on Chagossians returning to Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands, because of the ongoing presence of a joint UK-US military base. On Wednesday, Mr Sands told the Lords International Relations and Defence Committee: 'To be clear, it is not the case that Chagossians had no role in the negotiations. 'I can tell you that Chagossians in Mauritius and Seychelles were deeply involved in consulting with successive prime ministers of Mauritius and they attended the hearings at the International Court of Justice.' He added: 'I want to really knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved in the various processes. That is simply not true. 'It is true, however, that the Chagossian community is divided and I respect that division.' Earlier, he had told the committee that, while some UK-based Chagossians wanted the islands to remain British territory, 'most in Mauritius and Seychelles have made very clear…that they wish this deal to go ahead'. The Chagossians were expelled from the islands between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the Diego Garcia base and have not been allowed to Mr Sands told peers the 'quid pro quo' for the military base remaining on Diego Garcia was Chagossians would be allowed to settle on the outer islands of the archipelago. The deal follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice saying the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has said will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States, the UN secretary general and the African Union, but heavily criticised by the Conservative Party as a 'surrender'. Mr Sands disagreed with that on Wednesday, saying the deal 'will enhance Britain's position in the world'. He said: 'I can tell you from personal experience, direct comments from countries, ambassadors, prime ministers, presidents around the world, this is seen as Britain back on the world (stage), acting honourably and decently, protecting its interests and safeguarding…the rule of law.'
