Arrests made after blood-red dye dumped into US embassy pond in Israel arms sales protest
A number of people have been arrested after 300 litres of blood-red dye was dumped into a pond outside the US embassy in London in protest against America's sale of arms to Israel.
Will McCallum, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, was one of those apprehended, according to the international organisation.
Greenpeace said six people were arrested following the stunt on Thursday morning, however Metropolitan Police said only five arrests had been made.
The force said officers on duty at the embassy in Nine Elms were alerted to the incident at about 7.30am.
A Met Police spokesperson added: "The group made off but officers responded quickly and carried out a search of the area.
"Five people have so far been arrested nearby on suspicion of criminal damage and conspiracy to cause criminal damage.
"The pond is accessible via a public footpath. There was no breach or attempted breach of the secure perimeter of the site."
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director at Greenpeace UK, said the dye was non-toxic, biodegradable and designed to wash away naturally.
She added: "We took this action because US weapons continue to fuel an indiscriminate war that's seen bombs dropped on schools and hospitals, entire neighbourhoods blasted to rubble, and tens of thousands of Palestinian lives obliterated.
"As the biggest supplier of weapons to the Israeli military, the US government bears a heavy responsibility for the horrors unfolding in Gaza.
"Rather than passing laws that make it easier for police to arrest people who make their voices heard on the issues they care about, the US and UK governments should listen to the majority of Americans and Brits who support an arms embargo on Israel."
Read more from Sky News:
The war between Israel and Hamas began when Hamas-led militants invaded Israel on 7 October 2023 and killed around 1,200 people and took 251 hostage.
Israel's offensive has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry, which does not differentiate between civilians or combatants, with another 115,338 wounded.
Israel says it has killed around 20,000 militants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DOGE team can access Social Security systems, US Supreme Court rules
The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for the Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The court majority sided with the Trump administration in its first Supreme Court appeal involving DOGE, the team once led by billionaire Elon Musk. The three liberal justices dissented. The high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland restricting the team's access to the Social Security Administration under federal privacy laws. The agency holds sensitive data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, salary details and medical information. The Trump administration says DOGE needs access to carry out its mission of targeting waste and fraud in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The billionaire entrepreneur, who has stepped back from his work with DOGE, has described it as a ' Ponzi scheme ' and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a 'fishing expedition' based on 'little more than suspicion' of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE can't work effectively with those restrictions. Solicitor General John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The plaintiffs say it's a narrow order that's urgently needed to protect personal information. An appeals court previously refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there's no evidence that the team has done any 'targeted snooping' or exposed personal information. The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward. It's one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed over DOGE's work, which has included deep cuts at federal agencies and large-scale layoffs. The nation's court system has been ground zero for pushback to President Donald Trump's sweeping conservative agenda, with about 200 lawsuits filed challenging policies on everything from immigration to education to mass layoffs of federal workers. Mass. weather: Weekend could bring flash floods, thunderstorms in some areas Karen Read trial: Key takeaways from week 7 as the retrial begins to wind down Recall alert: These window air conditioners could cause mold exposure Suspect in wrong-way crash that killed Endicott College sergeant extradited to NH Judge throws out 'unfunded mandate' lawsuits over MBTA Communities Act Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court keeps DOGE records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court extended on Friday its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions "are not appropriately tailored" and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from Friday's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted DOGE broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE has played a central role in Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the U.S. government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called CREW, said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending bill and played out dramatically on social media on Thursday. CREW sued to obtain an array of records from DOGE through the FOIA statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on DOGE's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programs pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. "While we're obviously disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to revise aspects of our discovery requests, we're pleased that the court allowed discovery to proceed," said CREW spokesperson Jordan Libowitz after Friday's decision. Prior to Friday's order, Chief Justice John Roberts had imposed a temporary pause on Cooper's orders to give the court more time to consider the dispute. The Trump administration contends that DOGE is an advisory entity and not subject to FOIA. In response, CREW sought information to determine whether DOGE is subject to FOIA because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Cooper ruled in April that DOGE must turn over some records sought by CREW and that the group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. CREW told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president "free reign" to create new entities that would "functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws." In one of his decisions, Cooper said DOGE's operations have been marked by "unusual secrecy." In another, the judge said that the language of Trump's executive orders concerning DOGE suggests that it is "exercising substantial independent authority."
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EXCLUSIVE: Legal institute celebrates SCOTUS decision, declares 'religious liberty is alive and well'
EXCLUSIVE: A legal organization whose mission it is to defend the religious liberty of Americans has called the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling in favor of the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) "a huge moment for religious liberty in America," and a clear rejection of government overreach into religious life. "This was not a hard call," Tiffany Dunkin, a legal fellow and attorney with the First Liberty Institute, emphasized in an interview with Fox News Digital, citing Thursday's unanimous SCOTUS decision to strike down Wisconsin's attempt to withhold a religious tax exemption because the CCB does not proselytize or serve only Catholics. "What Wisconsin was doing… they were saying that the Catholic Charities was not a religious institution because they did not proselytize or serve people of their own faith," Dunkin explained. Supreme Court Rules Wisconsin Unconstitutionally Discriminated Against Christian Charity "What they were doing was deciding what it means to be religious," she added. "And the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing that." The case, Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, questioned whether faith-based nonprofits that provide public services are "religious enough" to receive the same benefits as churches or houses of worship. Read On The Fox News App Catholic Charities, affiliated with the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, provides critical care services for people with disabilities and mental health needs. Wisconsin argued those acts were not "primarily religious." The Supreme Court disagreed. Scotus Rulings This Term Could Strengthen Religious Rights Protections, Expert Says Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the opinion for the court, stated clearly that the government has no authority to assess or rank the religious nature of charitable work. Dunkin said the consequences of the ruling go far beyond Wisconsin. "This is actually a pretty ongoing problem across the country," she noted. "It's not just Wisconsin. First Liberty Institute represents Dad's Place in Bryan, Ohio… they're saying that because you're running a 24-7 homeless shelter, you're not [religious]." Other clients of Plano, Texas-based First Liberty in Colorado and Arizona have faced similar arguments from local governments, which question whether providing food, clothing or shelter to those in need is inherently religious. "Even though there are churches doing this kind of work, the governments are saying, 'Well, you're not religious enough,'" Dunkin said. The court's language in the ruling, Dunkin pointed out, "affirms what the Supreme Court has said for nearly a century," that the government cannot choose which expressions of faith are valid. "This sends a great message to people of all religions and all charitable organizations," she said. "The government… cannot intrude into telling you exactly what you can and can't do, whether you're religious or not religious, in order to receive a government benefit or participate in society." Had SCOTUS ruled the other way, Dunkin warned, it would have "grave implications" for religious charities and ministries nationwide. "It would allow the government to step into the religious doctrine of all faiths more than our Founding Fathers ever intended," she said. "The government cannot step in and get involved in deciding and picking and choosing between one type of religious activity and another." When asked what this means for churches and ministries on the ground, Dunkin's answer was clear: "They should feel emboldened to continue to do what they feel called to do by their religious faith… especially in a charitable sense." And for those who may see this as a one-off legal win? Not so fast. "I see this really as two different things," she said. "One, an affirmance of what the First Amendment has always stood for… but of course, going forward, we do hope and we're encouraged that religious liberty in America is alive and well. And of course, First Liberty Institute is here to continue to fight for that."Original article source: EXCLUSIVE: Legal institute celebrates SCOTUS decision, declares 'religious liberty is alive and well'
