Anger grows over police 'cover-up': We MUST be told the ethnicity of dangerous suspects, Tories warn after alleged rape of 12-year-old girl
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp responded to concerns that Warwickshire police 'covered up' the backgrounds of two Afghan asylum seekers involved in the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton.
The Mail on Sunday yesterday reported the force advised councillors and officials not to reveal the background of the suspects for fear of 'inflaming community tensions'.
It is believed they thought unrest would break out like that seen in Epping, Essex, where an Ethiopian asylum seeker staying in a hotel was charged with trying to kiss a 14-year-old schoolgirl.
Warwickshire Police has defended its position, saying it was following national policy in not sharing ethnicity or immigration status.
Mr Philp, a former policing minister, said: 'The police must be open about who is committing these alleged offences, and not try to hide it.
'Otherwise, we risk a repeat of the rape gang scandal where horrendous crimes were covered up because of the identity of the perpetrators. I also call on the Government to ensure that the immigration status and nationality of all offenders is published for each crime, and as quarterly totals. The public rightly expect complete honesty.'
Councillor Stephen Shaw, deputy leader of Reform-controlled Warwickshire County Council, told the Daily Mail: 'We don't have any personal information on these men and we don't know what's happening with them until something bad happens.
'We need to get rid of these migrant hotels and houses of multiple occupancy [HMO] housing asylum seekers which are making our streets unsafe.
'You would think after Southport where police were more conscious about releasing personal information to prevent protests and rioting they would do the same here, but instead there appears to be a cover-up. It's two-tier policing. It's disgusting.'
Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, both 23, are accused of involvement in the attack on July 22.
Mulakhil has been charged with rape while Kabir has been charged with kidnap, strangulation and aiding and abetting an assault.
Mulakhil is said to have arrived in the UK on a small boat and both are believed to have been living in HMOs.
A Warwickshire Police spokesman said: 'Once someone is charged with an offence, we follow national guidance. This guidance does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status.'
However critics pointed out that in May, Merseyside Police quickly released information that a man arrested after allegedly ploughing into crowds celebrating Liverpool FC's victory parade was a 'white British man from the Liverpool area'.
Mr Anderson said on X there was an attempt to 'cover up again' for fear of 'inflaming' community tensions
Reform MP Lee Anderson yesterday claimed the police were 'trying to cover up again'.
Writing on X, he said that in Liverpool ethnicity information was released almost immediately and 'they [Warwickshire Police] really aren't doing themselves any favours'.
Last night, George Finch, the 19-year-old Reform leader of Warwickshire council, said initial reports of Mulakhil's charge had 'caused unease locally as residents have very easily been able to join the dots' and they 'can see that they have not been told the full story'.
Mr Finch warned: 'The continued cover-up of the true nature of Ahmad Mulakhil's immigration status risks public disorder breaking out on the streets of Warwickshire.
'I am disgusted that one year on from the social unrest that we saw in parts of the UK in 2024, the Home Office and police have clearly not learnt any lessons from the handling of similar incidents last year.'
Labour' tinkering around the edges' with latest crackdown
Harriet Line, Deputy Political Editor
Labour has been accused of 'tinkering around the edges' with its plans to crackdown on small boat crossings.
The Home Office has announced measures to get tough on smuggling gangs, despite more than 25,000 illegal arrivals so far this year – but the Tories branded them 'a series of gimmicks'.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper this weekend unveiled plans to introduce sentences of up to five years in prison for anyone who advertises small boat crossings or fake passports on social media.
She said she would introduce a fast-track scheme to tackle the asylum backlog, with a new law to overhaul the appeals system, in a bid to get decisions on cases within weeks.
And today, the Home Office will announce £100 million of extra funding to support the pilot of the new 'one in, one out' returns agreement between the UK and France. It will also pay for up to 300 more National Crime Agency officers and new technology and equipment to step up intelligence gathering on smuggling gangs.
And there will be more overtime for immigration compliance and enforcement teams as well as funding for interventions in transit countries.
The deal, agreed last month, means the UK will be able to send migrants back to France in exchange for asylum seekers with links to Britain.
But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp criticised the announcements. He told the Daily Mail last night: 'This weak Labour Government has come up with a series of gimmicks to grab headlines instead of fixing the issue. Tinkering around the edges which will make no real difference.
'There have been more than 25,000 illegal crossings so far this year, making it the worst year in history. Labour has failed and their laughable claim to smash the gangs lies in tatters. They have no serious plan, just excuses, while ruthless criminal gangs flood our borders with illegal immigrants.'
A No 10 source hit back: 'The Tories focused on headlines and gimmickry, we're focused on what works.
'Through our returns deal with France, investment in a border security and speeding up returns, we're making steady progress.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Taxman's guilt at being British: Fury as HMRC, which can't even answer your phone calls, allows staff event, held during office hours, discussing the 'Guilt of Being British'
Civil servants working for the taxman has come under fire after holding a seminar on the 'Guilt of Being British'. Staff at HM Revenue and Customs were able to log-in remotely and attend the session during office hours yesterday, prompting a furious backlash. It comes amid repeated criticism of HMRC 's performance, with hundreds of thousands of calls from taxpayers going unanswered every month, customers getting surreptitiously cut off, and general concern from MPs over the 'failing' phone service. Kemi Badenoch on Wednesday night described the session as 'nonsense', and challenged Whitehall aides to leave the service if they were not proud of Britain. The Tory leader told the Mail: 'Is it any wonder the public hate dealing with HMRC, now we learn the staff are being taught to feel guilty about being British? 'In government I fought to remove all this nonsense from the Civil Service. Under my leadership, a Conservative government will ensure public bodies are proud of Britain, not ashamed of it. 'We'll defend our history, not apologise for it. And if that offends the Civil Service's seminar circuit, they're welcome to go somewhere else.' The hour-long 'Guilt of Being British: Listening circle' was run by the HMRC Race Network and held from 11am until midday. It was billed as 'a powerful, interactive, and reflective listening circle exploring the emotional complexity of being South Asian and British', covering topics including 'the emotional weight of colonial history' as part of the taxman's commitment to diversity, equality and inclusion. According to a post published on the HMRC's intranet, the session promised to 'delve into themes of guilt, pride, and identity, offering space for personal stories and cultural insights'. Workers were told participants would explore 'the duality of identity - balancing heritage and belonging', and the 'emotional weight of colonial history and inherited trauma'. The internal advert said those attending would discover more about 'career challenges faced by South Asian women - barriers, bias and expectations', and learn how 'storytelling and representation help reclaim our narratives.' A dumbfounded Civil Service source told the Mail: 'This example of a work-time staff event pushing a highly divisive anti-British narrative perfectly encapsulates the nightmare that is Civil Service staff networks. 'Those focused on race and trans in particular seem to operate entirely without scrutiny, and attract large numbers of activist staff, intent on pushing their personal beliefs on their colleagues rather than identifying and tackling actual workplace issues. 'This is a total abandonment of the vital principle of Civil Service political neutrality and makes a lot of us very uncomfortable, but if you challenge these groups on their approaches you risk putting a target on your back. 'As is seen in this event, these networks also enable many people to treat the workplace like their personal therapy centres. 'So many of us are getting on with our jobs and we see colleagues holding listening circles to talk about personal traumas - it fosters resentment and damages public trust.' Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Tory Cabinet Minister, added: 'It is peculiar that people who hate their country want to run it. 'Perhaps I should offer a course on why being British is to win first prize in the lottery of life.' Joanna Marchong, investigations campaign manager at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Taxpayers are fed up of bankrolling woke staff networks. 'While HMRC quangocrats sit around in circles whining about colonialism, hard-working Brits are being left on hold for hours on end. 'Staff networks should not be funded by taxpayers and they certainly shouldn't be happening during working hours.' It is not known how many of HMRC's more than 60,000 staff attended the remote event. A spokesman for the taxman said it would have been less than 0.1% and had no impact on its call handling ability. Earlier this year a report by Parliament's Public Accounts Committee found HMRC answered just 66.4 per cent of customers' attempts to speak to an adviser, well below the target of 85 per cent. It said performance reached 'an all-time low'. Around 40,000 customers were cut off in the year 2023-24 if they were waiting for more than 70 minutes, without an explanation, and no callback option was available. The average call wait time exceeded 23 minutes, with HMRC saying it did not have adequate resources to meet telephone demand from customers. The report said: 'HMRC's already poor service to taxpayers has become even worse. 'The PAC is concerned that HMRC has degraded its own phone services - willing to let them fail, in the hope that people will be forced to go online.' HMRC's most recent monthly performance report, however, shows signs of improvement - 80 per cent of calls were handled in March, while average call time waits were down to 14 minutes and 44 seconds. An HMRC spokesman said: 'Events by staff networks should not be taken as reflecting the views of HMRC. 'An event like this would only be attended by around 0.1% of staff, which would have no impact on our ability to staff our helplines. We have robust processes in place to ensure our phonelines are well-resourced throughout the day.' It comes after the Mail last week revealed the NHS budgeted nearly £2 million for similar staff networks in the health service, many of whom hold 'woke' events for staff. They included an event on 'Embracing Asexuality', a talk on 'Embracing your Afro/Curly hair' and another on 'International Pronouns Day'.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Middle-income workers shoulder biggest tax burden increase
Middle-class workers are shouldering the biggest increase in the tax burden thanks to a stealth raid on thresholds, analysis suggests. The share of income tax paid by those who earn between £43,000 and £61,900 rose from 15.1pc to 17pc between 2021-22 and 2025-26, according to the TaxPayers' Alliance. During the same five-year period, the share of income tax paid by the top 1pc, those earning more than £201,000 a year, fell from 30.7pc to 26.6pc, the pressure group found. It comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces a £50bn black hole in the public finances and declining tax revenue as high-net-worth individuals look to move abroad. Analysis by the Financial Times this month revealed there had been a 40pc rise in directors moving abroad since Labour's autumn Budget. The Taxpayers' Alliance report found the proportion of total income tax receipts increased for every group except for the top 1pc of earners, thanks to a series of stealth taxes first introduced by the Conservatives. Income tax thresholds, including the £12,570 tax-free 'personal allowance', were frozen at the 2021 budget by then chancellor Rishi Sunak until 2025-26. A year later, his successor, Jeremy Hunt, extended the freeze until 2027-28. Despite promising not to raise taxes on working people, Sir Keir Starmer has not ruled out extending the freeze further to 2029-30. Keeping thresholds frozen means earners lose a larger share of their incomes to tax, as inflation pushes up wages in a process known as fiscal drag. The stealth raid means almost 2.9 million more people will pay the basic rate of income tax in 2025-26 than in 2021-22, while over 2.6 million more will pay the higher rate. Including other rates, almost 6 million more people are forecast to be paying income tax than in 2021-22. John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'This is the sad but inevitable result of successive governments' assortment of anti-affluence tax policies, which penalise aspiration and success. 'The UK is now trapped in a doom loop with the Chancellor desperately scrabbling around for more cash to fill the fiscal black hole and increasingly finding her only option is to come after the middle classes. 'Rachel Reeves needs to now show some humility and reverse the policies that have done so much to drive away high earners.' The respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research on Tuesday warned slowing economic growth, a weak jobs market and Labour's failure to commit to welfare reform meant Ms Reeves was on course to miss her borrowing targets by £41.2bn. When combined with the £9.9bn of headroom the Chancellor has committed to keeping, it means she is facing a £51.1bn deficit in the autumn that will either have to be solved by raising taxes or cutting spending. The study also underlined the importance for the Treasury's balance sheet to keep the highest earners in Britain. Despite the proportion of tax paid by the top 1pc of earners falling, the group still accounts for more than a quarter of all income tax receipts. Analysis of Companies House by the Financial Times found that 3,790 company directors had left Britain between October and July compared with 2,712 in the same period a year earlier. Significant names have included Richard Gnodde, Goldman Sachs ' most senior banker outside the US, Nassef Sawiris, the Aston Villa co-owner, and British property tycoon brothers Ian and Richard Livingstone. It comes after Labour launched a wide-ranging tax raid after coming to power last year. This included abolishing the non-dom status and tightening inheritance tax rules. Laura Suter, of AJ Bell, said: 'Government tax policy in the past few years has had the dual outcome of pushing some of the wealthiest to leave the UK and also landing more taxpayers with higher tax bills at the same time. 'Together, this means that an increasing proportion of the total tax bill of the country is paid by middle earners, rather than the super-rich. 'Looking ahead, any potential tax-raising measures that Rachel Reeves makes in her next Budget could exacerbate this dynamic further.' Trevor Williams, a former chief economist at Lloyds Bank, previously warned Britain was facing a millionaires' exodus. Mr Williams said: 'Since 2014, the number of resident millionaires in the UK dropped by 9pc compared with the world's 10 wealthiest countries' global average growth of more than 40pc. 'Over the same period, the US saw a 78pc increase in millionaires – the fastest wealth growth [among these countries].' The Treasury insisted that under its Plan for Change it would keep more money in people's pockets. A spokesman said: 'This government inherited the previous government's policy of frozen tax thresholds. At the Budget and the Spring Statement, the Chancellor announced that we would not extend that freeze. 'We are also protecting payslips for working people by keeping our promise to not raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance or VAT. That's the Plan for Change – protecting people's incomes and putting money into people's pockets.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
JOHN MACLEOD: King must put throne first and reject the return of Harry and Meghan
The first rule of monarchy is not glitter, ceremonial nor influence. It is survival. At the height of the Great War, with thrones tottering on all sides, King George V, our first great constitutional monarch, moved decisively to secure his own. At his command, all his British relatives repudiated German honours, titles and surnames. His own ruling house, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, became Windsor. He recast the honours system creating the Order of the British Empire for all, regardless of class, who had rendered noted public service. And on 18 September 1917, at Ibrox Stadium – no less - George personally presented the very first British Empire Medal. To Lizzie Robinson, 21, swamped in khaki overalls. A Cardonald munitions worker, toiling seven days a week, she had not missed a shift in two years. On another front, George V was truly ruthless. After the fall of Tsar Nicholas II – his first cousin – the Lloyd George government was poised to offer him and his family asylum in Britain. Setting any private sentiment aside, George lobbied fiercely to block it, knowing that the presence of this toppled despot would infuriate millions in Britain. In fairness, the logistics of rescuing the Romanovs would have been extremely difficult: they were duly murdered by the Bolsheviks in July 1918. George's two elder sons were long close. The Duchess of York, as she then was, simply adored the charismatic Prince of Wales. But, as the country reeled from the shock of the Abdication, in December 1936, Elizabeth and the diffident, anxious Bertie genuinely feared for their tenuous throne. George VI, too, dug deep. Within weeks he had ordered no calls from his exiled brother were to be put through. Forbade any of the family from attending the Duke of Windsor's wedding. Flatly – and, probably, unlawfully – he denied the sometime Wallis Simpson the rank and dignity of Her Royal Highness. Come the fall of France, the Windsors were extricated from the Continent only with the greatest difficulty – and packed off to Government House in the Bahamas: they could do little mischief there. Eight decades later, and none of her offspring was dearer to the late Queen than Andrew. They often rode together, sipped tea together; her face lit up when he entered the room. But when the Duke of York enmired himself in disgrace, Elizabeth II did not hesitate. Andrew was stripped of his duties, of his patronages, of his honours. Plans for a sparkling 60th-birthday celebration were canned. The Duke was even cut from the published photographs of his daughter's wedding. And, months later, stripped of royal rank itself. She adored him still – but Elizabeth let the Queen rule her in this, not the woman. In recent weeks there has been a curious groundswell of opinion, in many quarters, that the King must now make peace with his own second son and that the Prince and Princess of Wales should be big enough to lump it. By curious coincidence, snaps of initial peace-talks appeared on the same day that William, Kate and their delightful elder children appeared so enchantingly at Wimbledon. Soon after, and by no less curious coincidence, the Duke of Sussex reprised – and not for the first time – his late mother's landmine walk in Angola, on the same day as the Queen Consort's birthday. Let me be honest. I often wish, rather desperately, that Harry and Meghan would finally catch a break. Hit some winning streak that would keep them in style and comfort and, above all, keep them quiet. But I can think of no more crazed or appalling idea than that they should be welcomed home to this country, to the bosom of the Royal Family, to the renewed expense of the privy and indeed the public purse and – the very idea is fantastic and absurd – to renewed royal duties. Our King is a singularly gracious, cultured, thoughtful man. In public life long before the most senior Members of Parliament. As we saw in Rome, Germany and elsewhere, he is a far more confident and accomplished speaker than his mother. His heartache amidst ongoing estrangement from his younger son – though it is not of Charles's doing – is incalculable. Yet such a restoration of Sussex fortune – which, one suspects, in their current extremity really boils down to money – is unthinkable. The damage they have wrought since Megxit is vast and irretrievable. Before all the world, they besmirched their kin, the Crown and indeed this country with baseless charges of the rankest racism – this from a man who once mocked an Army comrade and was even snapped, smugly, in Nazi uniform. This falsehood grievously damaged the Commonwealth, especially in the Caribbean. They slammed this land, the Palace and their family, courtesy of Oprah Winfrey, as Prince Philip lay dying. They have time and again been caught out in falsehood. They made the Queen's final years a misery. They have smeared the Prince and Princess of Wales in the cruellest and most personal terms, wallow in ceaseless self-pity and seem incapable of keeping a trust or telling the truth. And for none of this has there been a word of regret, contrition, or apology. That the Spotify deal has gone, that the Netflix package founders by the bows, that their docuseries (save for the first, the cruellest and most dishonest) have had but derisory ratings and that the sideline in jams, pink plonk and edible flowers is a Stateside joke scarcely surprises. They have no talent; no appetite for the hard yards of dedicated work. She can afford the finest clothes but, inexplicably, does not wear them well. And none of this, on cool reflection, surprises: in eighteen months, Meghan proved incapable of even the less than exacting duties of a royal Duchess. That is before we start on all the broken confidences, the ruthlessly discarded friends – from Piers Morgan to Jessica Mulroney – the traumatised former staff and, surely, the nadir: that twerking video. This apparently went down a storm in trailer-trash America but, this side of the pond, and as was once said of another, we saw only a woman unfit to be a royal Princess in this or any age. She is what she always was – a cool, beaming adventuress, her hand always in creepy Mission Control grip of his, as if they were welded by SuperGlue. The greater shame, and certainly the duller brain, are his. They are now figures of conspicuous failure – the thing most feared in Hollywood circles, as if it were contagious – and, worse, figures of ridicule. To tap in 'harry meghan' on YouTube is to unleash a tsunami of mockery, derision and scorn and steepled-fingers analyses. And for this ignominy the Duke and Duchess of Sussex threw away the greatest platform for public service that there is. There can be no return to that role, or to this land. And, as his forebears grasped before, Charles III must let the King rule him in this – and not the man.
