Car collides with pedestrians celebrating in Liverpool
In Liverpool, England, a car veered into people lining the streets celebrating the Liverpool Football Club's English Premier League title win. A 53-year-old British man was detained. Video of the scene shows a vehicle in the parade crowd. NBC News' Molly Hunter has more.May 26, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Has deporting illegals become illegal?
The circus around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia – whose full name the New York Times likes to trot out as if citing an old-school English aristocrat – speaks volumes about the immigration battle roiling the US. Our friend Kilmar is what we fuddy-duddies insist on calling an illegal immigrant. The Salvadoran crossed clandestinely into the US in 2012. As for what he's done since, that depends on whom you ask. According to his GoFundMe page, Kilmar is a 'husband, union worker and father of a disabled five-year-old'. Left-wing media portray 'the Maryland man' – a tag akin to Axel Rudakubana's 'a Welshman' – as an industrious metalworker devoted to his family. His wife has rowed back on the temporary protective order she once requested, claiming she'd been over-cautious. Yet according to the Trump administration, Kilmar is a member of the notoriously violent street gang MS-13 who's derived his primary source of income from smuggling hundreds of illegals over the southern border for several years. Choose A or B. In 2019, Kilmar was arrested for loitering along with three other men, one a suspected MS-13 member. He was carrying marijuana, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. From his clothing, tattoos and, more persuasively, a 'past proven and reliable' confidential source who verified he was an active gang member using the moniker 'Chele', police adjudged that Kilmar was a gangbanger, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. He was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement – whose acronym, ICE, reinforces its rep as cold-hearted – which moved to deport him. Kilmar (of course) contested his removal. The immigration judge hearing Kilmar's case concurred that the defendant was indeed a gang member and deportable; the Salvadoran (of course) appealed the decision, which nevertheless was upheld. Kilmar (of course) then filed for asylum, as well as for a 'withholding of removal'. A subsequent immigration judge stayed his deportation to his home country, where his wellbeing might be endangered by local gangs. Now, you might suppose that putting yourself in the way of other famously rivalrous gangs would come with the territory when you join one yourself. Like, inter-gang violence seems a natural hazard of this line of work. But it's not only British immigration judges who are soft touches. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the millions of gate-crashers Kilmar (of course) remained in the US. In 2022, he was pulled over for speeding while driving eight other Hispanic men of uncertain immigration status in an SUV altered to add a third row of seats for extra passengers. The officers suspected human-trafficking; Kilmar's driving licence had expired; a run of his number plate through the database turned up a federal note on likely membership of MS-13. Yet when the patrolmen contacted the feds, ICE (of course) declined to pick him up. So Kilmar was (of course) released without charge. Even so, his claim that he was merely transporting construction workers between jobs did not, under investigation, hold up. Fast-forward to 2025 and why this otherwise obscure Salvadoran who is or is not a thug merits such a detailed lowdown. Meaning (of course) that this case has to do with Donald Trump – whose evil minions in March flew more than 230 purported criminals to a Salvadoran prison, including none other than Kilmar, whom ICE did finally pick up (no 'of course' there). The flights' timing was judicially dodgy. The planes did or didn't take off after a federal judge ruled that the flights could not proceed until the deportees were given the opportunity to challenge their removal. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed Trump to 'facilitate' Kilmar's return to the US. Because, remember, there was only one country to which he could not be deported because of that credulous 2019 decision: his own. Hence the Justice Department's acceptance that Kilmar's deportation was an 'administrative error'. During this proxy war with Trump, Democrats have pretended to hair-tear over poor Kilmar, mouldering away in a nasty foreign prison and deprived of due process. But the story I just laid out has due process, not to mention leniency or even dereliction on the part of the authorities, up the wazoo. Meanwhile, after slyly getting their jurisprudential ducks in a row, last week Trump and co finally got Kilmar flown back to the US, only to arrest him immediately for human-trafficking – with every intention of convicting the guy and then deporting him right back to El Salvador. What do we make of this farce? The American commentariat has focused on a potential showdown between Trump and the judiciary, claiming to fear a flat-out executive refusal to follow court orders but secretly rather hoping that Trump does defy the courts and thus reveals himself as an unconstitutional tyrant. I view this absurd tale through a different lens. All these trials and flights for a lone illegal alien are expensive. The amount of 'due process' the American justice system affords every single illegal makes deportation at any scale impossible. There isn't enough time and money and there aren't nearly enough judges to make any but a token gesture toward the mass deportation of illegals that Trump has promised. That amounts to a victory not just for Democrats but also for disorder. I'd assess the odds that Kilmar is a thug at about 90 per cent. But proving membership of unofficial allegiances in court is a bastard. If every individual deportation case must be adjudicated according to exacting evidentiary rules and appeal procedures, America's drastic, undemocratic demographic change will proceed inexorably. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the staggering ten million gate-crashers during the Biden administration alone. What are the chances of that? In New York at the weekend, ICE raids were impeded by LA-style crowds of righteously indignant protestors screaming: 'Let them go! Let them go!' The officers just doing their jobs looked beleaguered, tired, numb and pre-defeated. After all the ICE agents' thankless labours, what proportion of their detainees will still get to stay in the country in the end? I'll take another stab at 90 per cent.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
My plan for Prevent
In the autumn of 1940, British cities were being bombed every night by large aeroplanes whose provenance was apparently of some considerable doubt. While the public almost unanimously believed the conflagrations to have been caused by the Luftwaffe, the authorities – right up to the government – refused to speculate. Indeed, when certain members of the public raised their voices and said 'This is all down to Hitler and Goering and the bloody Germans!', they received visits from the police who either prosecuted them for disturbing the peace or put their names on a list of possible extremists. The nights grew darker. The number of towns and cities subjected to these nightly bombardments widened. Very soon everybody in the country knew somebody whose home had been destroyed or who had themselves been killed. The government was forced to take action, and so in November 1940 it came up with what it called its 'Prevent' strategy, which aimed to protect British cities from further destruction. In the introduction to this new policy, civil servants listed possible vectors for these bombing raids and top of the list, by some margin, were the Slovaks. A senior intelligence officer told the public: 'The greatest threat to our nation today is from the Slovaks. We must train our people in how to spot Slovaks and report them to the police whenever they can.' The Germans were also mentioned, further down the list of possible perps, but the wording here was heavily caveated. Yes, some Germans may have been involved, but over all the German population was utterly devoted to peace and regretted the nightly infernos every bit as much as did the people who suffered under them. Our own air force was directed to drop its bombs on Bratislava, Kosice, Poprad and (the consequence of an understandable confusion over the names of the two countries) Maribor. And yet for some mystifying reason, the raids on Britain did not lessen. This seems to me exactly the response of our government(s) and most importantly of Prevent to the threat from Islamic terrorism. Let me be clear: I am not remotely comparing Muslims with Germans or Islam with National Socialism – I am simply saying that, in effect, this is what our government would have done in 1940 if it had been gripped by the same cringing witlessness and outright lying that possesses seemingly all of our authorities today when it comes to terrorist attacks upon the British people. You may be aware of the manifestly stupid quote from the Prevent halfwits that people who believe that 'western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups' are cultural nationalists at risk of becoming the kind of extremists who end up murdering people. People who believe the above probably consist of 70 per cent of the British population and, if his latest speeches are anything to go by, include the Prime Minister. And yet this stuff pervades everything Prevent puts out, while at the same time exonerating Islam and in some cases even those Muslims who do become terrorists (because they have suffered, you see). If people who support Brexit or worry about immigration are extremists, you're going to get pretty high figures So, for example, Bolton council's useful 'Prevent' handbook singles out 'right-wing extremists' as being at the forefront of terror attacks in the UK, and these extremists include people who are cultural nationalists: 'Cultural nationalism is ideology characterised by anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, anti-establishment narratives, often emphasising British/English 'victimhood' and identity under attack from a perceived 'other'.' Islamic terrorism is also mentioned – but, again, heavily caveated. Then there's Prevent's own list of people who were picked up under its guidelines: 45 per cent were related to extreme right-wing radicalisation (230); 23 per cent were linked to Islamist radicalisation (118); the rest were related to other radicalisation concerns, including incels and those at risk of carrying out school shootings. But then I suppose if people who proclaim their support for Brexit or worry a bit about immigration are extremists, you are going to get pretty high arrest figures. If you add into the mix the fact that simply to associate Islam with terrorism you are guilty of Islamophobia, then you can see why we're in the state we're in. Incidentally, when she was Prime Minister, Theresa May, to her credit, drafted a new introduction to the Prevent guidelines which made it clear that the biggest threat to British security was al Qaeda, not Tommy Robinson et al. But that message does not seem to have sunk in with those in Prevent. It seems almost pointless to run through the facts. The truth is that almost every fatal terrorist attack in Britain since 2001 has been perpetrated by Islamists. All bar three. Have these people got a twisted or perverted understanding of Islam, as Prevent insists? I haven't a clue. I am no Quranic expert. I'm just, y'know, taking their word for it. Further, 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Policing network's investigations are related to Islamism (2023). Some 75 per cent of MI5's surveillance cases are Islamists. There are around 40,000 potential jihadis being monitored by our security services. There is not the remotest doubt as to the provenance of the gravest terror threats to our country. It's not the shaven-headed nutters with swastika armbands. It is Islamists. Nigel Farage's answer is to sack everyone working in Prevent. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion. But I may have a better one. Scrap Prevent entirely and initiate a new network of monitoring and reporting which focuses solely on Islamic terrorism. Junk the sixth-form philosophising over what is meant by the term 'extremist' and locate the problem precisely where it is: somewhere within our Muslim communities, even if we accept that our Muslim communities may not want them there. In short, get real and tell the truth. This kind of approach worked pretty well 85 years ago.
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
From a 'day of love' to 'if they spit, we will hit': Trump's about-face on violence against police
President Donald Trump has promised swift retribution for any violence against law enforcement by protesters in Los Angeles. 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before,' he wrote on his social media platform after making a similar statement a day earlier to reporters. 'Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' It is an about-face for the president. On Jan. 6, 2021, Peter Stager assaulted an officer with a flagpole during the riot on the U.S. Capitol. Another, Daniel 'D.J.' Rodriguez, drove a stun gun into the neck of a Capitol police officer and pleaded guilty to the crime. And a third, Julian Khater, pepper-sprayed Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick in the face. Sicknick later died. Trump pardoned them all. Trump's tolerance for violence against law enforcement during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is facing renewed scrutiny in the wake of his remarks and actions in Los Angeles, where his administration is taking a hard line against protesters. He federalized thousands of National Guard members and sent 700 U.S. Marines to the country's second-largest city — against the wishes of state and local officials — after protesters blocked immigration enforcement actions. It's a sea change from how Trump treated the Jan. 6 riot, when his supporters attacked the Capitol in an attempt to block Congress' certification of Joe Biden's 2020 election win. In an address Tuesday evening about events in his state, California Gov. Gavin Newsom addressed the disparity. 'By the way, Trump, he's not opposed to lawlessness and violence, as long as it serves him. What more evidence do we need than Jan. 6?' Newsom said. Harry Dunn, a former U.S. Capitol police officer who was serving in the Capitol during the attack, told NBC News that he sees Trump's actions then and now as hypocritical. 'Donald Trump is OK with violence, as long as it's done in his name. That's the message that he's sending right now,' Dunn said. 'That's why he pardoned the people on Jan. 6: They did it in his name … what about the officers on Jan. 6? Just put an asterisk by those officers and say, 'Not them. They stopped Donald Trump from succeeding.'' The White House says Trump is fulfilling his mandate. 'President Trump was elected to secure the border, equip federal officials with the tools to execute this plan, and restore law and order. This also underscores the need to pass the OBBB, which would provide record funding and resources to those on the front lines in Los Angeles,' White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement, referring to Trump's push for his 'One big beautiful bill,' the legislative vehicle for his agenda currently before Congress. On Wednesday, NBC News also asked Attorney General Pam Bondi about how the Trump administration is handling California versus Jan. 6, 2021. 'Well, this is very different,' she said. 'These are people out there hurting people in California right now. This is ongoing. No longer. We're going to protect them. We're going to do everything we can to prosecute violent criminals in California. California is burning. These people are waving Mexican flags, yet they don't want anyone to go back to Mexico. They're burning American flags. This is the United States of America, and we're going to protect Americans. We're going to protect all citizens out there.' During the riot at the Capitol, no National Guard help arrived for hours, despite pleas from those inside the building. Then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller testified before a House panel that Trump never gave a formal deployment order, and other testimony described then-Vice President Mike Pence taking the lead in attempting to get the National Guard out to help control the mob. Meanwhile, rioters violently broke through barriers, smashed windows, brutalized officers and chanted threats to Pence. In all, at least 140 police officers were injured. Trump later called it ' a day of love ' and has referred to the rioters as ' hostages,' ' warriors ' and 'victims.' 'What they've done to some people that are so innocent, you ought to be ashamed of yourself,' Trump said to former President Joe Biden at last year's first presidential debate, referring to the rioters. 'What you have done, how you've destroyed the lives of so many people. Michael Fanone, a former D.C. police officer who was attacked by Rodriguez on Jan. 6, took issue with Trump's posture in California. Fanone called the president 'a hypocrite,' and 'a liar.' 'Had those people storming the Capitol been illegal f--- immigrants or Black people or any other group that … his base found to be displeasing, then they would have said 'open fire,'' Fanone said in an interview. The Los Angeles clashes began Friday as federal immigration agents attempted to carry out arrests in the city. Some protesters tried to stop vehicles carrying detained immigrants and the confrontations soon turned violent, with officers using pepper spray and batons. By Sunday, National Guard troops, outfitted with heavy military equipment, moved into downtown Los Angeles. Some demonstrators pelted law enforcement vehicles with rocks and debris, and set numerous vehicles on fire. Dozens of people were arrested over the weekend, and the L.A. Police Department reported five officers suffering minor injuries and two others treated and released from the hospital in recent days. By Monday, Trump had deployed the U.S. Marines into the state. At a news conference on Tuesday, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., both brought up comparisons to Jan. 6. 'We begged the President of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it,' Pelosi said. 'That day he didn't do it. He forgave those people.' Gomez spoke of the furor with which the events unfolded that day. 'There was 50,000 people outside,' Gomez said. 'They were scaling the walls, scaling the walls. They were bashing in, breaking in, with members of Congress, members of Congress, trapped in the gallery, including myself, including a lot of the people here.' Earlier this year, Trump issued more than 1,500 pardons or commutations for the Jan. 6 rioters on his first day in office. Among the crimes Trump dissolved was that of Stager, a 44-year-old truck driver from Arkansas who was sentenced to four years in prison for the flagpole assault. According to prosecutors, Stager was caught on a Jan. 6 video saying, 'Every single one of those Capitol law enforcement officers, death is the remedy, that is the only remedy they get.' Dunn, the former U.S. Capitol police officer, noted that the same Republicans who are in lockstep with Trump at this moment in California are the same ones who have refused to display a plaque commemorating those who died and were injured on Jan. 6. 'What about the blue from Jan. 6th? They don't even want to put the plaque up! Back the blue that way then,' Dunn added. 'It's hypocritical and they're aware that it's all about appeasing their base and appeasing the leader of their party, which is Donald Trump.'
