Man arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after Liverpool parade crash
A 53-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, dangerous driving and driving while unfit through drugs after a car ploughed into a crowd of Liverpool fans during a Premier League title parade, injuring more than 50, British police said.
Eleven people remained in the hospital in stable condition on Tuesday, police said, adding that they all appeared to be recovering well.
British police believe the incident, in a packed Liverpool city center on Monday, was isolated and not an act of terrorism.
They said the driver of the gray Ford Galaxy minivan involved in the incident was believed to have followed an ambulance into a closed street when a road block was lifted to allow paramedics to attend to a suspected heart attack victim.
Videos posted online showed the vehicle driving through the street crowded with fans, sending several flying into the air and dragging at least four under its wheels.
When the vehicle stopped, angry people converged on it and began smashing the windows as police officers battled to prevent them from reaching the driver.
Police said 50 people, including children, had been treated for their injuries, with 11 still in the hospital.
"They are all in a stable condition, and I am pleased to say that they appear to be recovering well," Deputy Chief Constable Jenny Sims said.
King Charles III, who is visiting Canada, said he was "deeply shocked and saddened to hear of the terrible events."
His sister, Princess Anne, met medics who had treated some of the injured at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital.
With most people off work for the Spring Bank Holiday, officials estimated that around 1 million people descended on the 16-kilometer parade route to watch the Liverpool team travel through the city on an open-top bus with the Premier League trophy.
Liverpool last won the league in 2020, ending a 30-year-wait, but fans were unable to celebrate due to lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Police said the car hit the spectators as the event was winding down. In the aftermath, a Reuters photographer saw emergency services carrying victims on stretchers and in their arms to nearby ambulances.
One source told MailOnline that it looked like the driver panicked when he realized he was in the crowd and people started banging on his car.
The driver, who was sounding his horn, reversed and then accelerated forward, according to reports from other witnesses.
Police were unusually quick to provide a description of the man they arrested, saying around two hours after the incident he was a "53-year-old white British man from the Liverpool area."
Former police officers and local politicians said that statement was needed to cool social media speculation that the episode was an Islamist attack.
"That was one of my first concerns, that we needed to get the story out quickly," Mayor of Liverpool City Region Steve Rotheram told the BBC.
"If there's a vacuum, we know there are some elements that will try to inflame the situation and to create that speculation and to put misinformation out there."
The same police force oversaw the response to the murder of three young girls in the nearby town of Southport last year, an incident which sparked days of rioting, fueled initially by speculation online over the identity of the attacker.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
15 hours ago
- Japan Times
Welfare demands put pressure on Starmer's commitment to defense overhaul
A revamp of defense policy by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer intended to show both U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that the U.K. is serious about maintaining its role as a key power in Europe and NATO. But Starmer's failure to explain how and when he'll find billions of pounds of extra spending to pay for the new weapons and personnel has left him facing doubts about the U.K.'s commitment to follow through. The plans must also survive rising pressure from Labour lawmakers, who want to prioritize domestic issues blowing back on the left-leaning party at the ballot box, such as controversial benefit cuts. The U.K. government on Monday released a long-awaited blueprint to move the country's depleted military to a position of "war-fighting readiness.' Among other things, the Strategic Defense Review called for building as many as a dozen new attack submarines as part of the AUKUS partnership with Australia and the U.S., investing £15 billion ($20 billion) in nuclear warhead development and expanding domestic production of drones, munitions and long-range missiles. Still, Starmer has repeatedly sidestepped questions about when he'll firm up his "ambition' to expand defense spending to 3% of economic output in the next parliament, compared with 2.3% now and a planned 2.5% in two years' time. That risks undermining U.K. leadership on European security issues, with NATO leaders expecting to commit later this month at the Hague to an expenditure target of 3.5% to appease Trump's demands on the alliance. "The key question remains: what's the planned pathway from 2.5% in 2027 to 3% in 2034, itself short of a likely new NATO target?' said John Foreman, former U.K. defense attache to Moscow and Kyiv. "Without that, any plans are worthless.' Starmer is vying to reverse decades of decline in the British military as Whitehall policymakers directed resources toward health and social programs while enjoying the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The U.K.'s inability to credibly defend its interests at home and abroad led then-Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, a Conservative, to declare that the military had been "hollowed out' since the end of the Cold War. The last defense review — drafted under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021 — was more focused on force projection and naval power, with a shift toward the Indo-Pacific. Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Trump's return to power upended those plans, forcing the U.K. to turn its attention to security concerns closer to home. Since taking power last year, Starmer has sought to put the U.K. at the heart of European security, helping forge a "coalition of the willing' of nations supporting Ukraine and striking a defense pact with Brussels. For the Labour leader, who opposed leaving the EU, it was a chance to reassert British leadership on the continent without relitigating Brexit. "The threat we now face is more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War,' Starmer told workers Monday at BAE Systems's Govan shipyard in Glasgow. "A new era in the threats we face demands a new era for defense and security, not just to survive in this new world, but to lead.' Yet military experts warned that the prime minister's lofty aims contrast with what he has been willing to commit to spending on defense, and look in danger of appearing out of pace when compared to commitments being made by other NATO members. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is pushing for members to pledge to spend 3.5% of gross domestic product on core defense activities by 2032, with another 1.5% going toward adjacent projects such as cybersecurity and border control. That's an effort to assuage Trump, who has called on NATO countries to spend 5% of GDP — a goal the U.S. itself doesn't meet. Asked for a clearer statement about when his 3% spending goal would be met, the prime minister declined to give what he called an "arbitrary date,' insisting he would only set out plans for further spending once the economic and fiscal situation allowed. The lack of clarity prompted criticism from left and right, including the now-opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Starmer will be expected to provide answers to NATO leaders when he attends the organization's summit in the Netherlands. While the prime minister has so far avoided the sort of criticism that Trump has directed at other allies about their security commitments, it remains to be seen how the U.S. leader will respond to the U.K.'s spending plans. There was at least one potential boost for U.K.-U.S. relations in Monday's announcement: Britain indicated it would consider buying F-35A fighter jets capable of firing tactical nuclear weapons, made by Lockheed Martin Corp. The international context was laid out at a meeting of eastern European and Nordic leaders in Vilnius on Monday, where Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen suggested that NATO's target for 3.5% of core defense spending should be brought forward to sooner than 2032. Former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps similarly said Starmer should commit to spending 3% of GDP on defense by 2030 to ensure the U.K. maintains its position at the fore of NATO. "That figure isn't decorative — it's the entry ticket for modern kit, a resilient industrial base and credibility with our allies. Anything less is theater,' said Shapps, a Conservative who left office last year. "Moscow can spot the difference between a slogan and steel.' Starmer's backers argue that he has already proved his intent by lifting projected defense spending earlier this year, and accuse his Tory predecessors of handing him a poisoned inheritance including a threadbare military and overstretched public finances. Ultimately, Starmer has decided where government expenditure should be focused — choices that are in the spotlight again at next week's spending review. With the Labour government struggling for popularity less than a year into power, and Nigel Farage's right-wing Reform U.K. party surging in the polls, the party's lawmakers have already forced a reversal on a plan to cut cold weather payments for pensioners and are pushing for him to increase benefits for parents. Simultaneous calls from international allies to raise defense spending and from Labour lawmakers to raise welfare spending pose an obvious challenge for Starmer's under-pressure Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves. She may soon be forced to decided whether to bow to demands from within her party to loosen her fiscal rules or compromise on Labour's campaign pledges not to raise broad-based taxes. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies think tank, told Times Radio that he expected "some really quite chunky tax increases.' That, Johnson said, is "the only choice that is available.'
NHK
a day ago
- NHK
Britain unveils defense overhaul to counter 'pressing' threat
The British government has unveiled its defense strategy for the next decade. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government has been reviewing the country's defense strategy since he took office in July 2024. The government on Monday set out a series of measures to counter what it calls an "immediate and pressing threat" from Russia. These include investing 15 billion pounds, or about 20 billion dollars, in the sovereign warhead program and building up to 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines. The government also plans to create a hybrid Navy that employs warships, submarines and autonomous vessels, as well as to increase the number of full-time troops. Starmer said, "We face war in Europe, new nuclear risks, daily cyber-attacks, growing Russian aggression in our waters, menacing our skies." He said the most effective way to deter the threats is to show that Britain is "ready to deliver peace through strength." According to the latest announcement, the government's goal of spending three percent of the GDP on defense in the 2030s will be met, if "economic and fiscal conditions allow." Opposition parties criticized the government, saying it's unclear how the programs would be financed.
Japan Times
2 days ago
- Japan Times
European kindness is threatening the foundations of free speech
Britain and Europe have become "a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom,' according to Samuel Samson, a senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. His punchy boss further threatens to bar European visitors to the U.S. for "censoring' Americans online. Vice President JD Vance also condemned European "backsliding' on basic democratic values in a speech that outraged his audience at the Munich Security Conference last autumn. It used to be liberal progressives and radicals who denounced the state for infringing freedom of speech. Now it's the turn of the populist right to rage against "woke' censorship. U.S. President Donald Trump's own respect for the democratic process is questionable and administration officials, contemptuous of academic and artistic freedoms at home, make unlikely ambassadors for human rights abroad. But what if these populists have a point? Alas, the U.K. and Europe should look hard at their protections of the rights of individuals to say whatever they please. Some governments who would regard themselves as liberal minded are in danger of stifling, if not killing, free speech, albeit out of kindness. That's where the muddle begins. In theory, all states, even totalitarian ones like North Korea and dictatorships like Russia, which murder truth-telling journalists, subscribe to Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference.' In practice, all states also have restrictions on freedom of speech, and rightly so. Shout "fire' in a crowded cinema out of mischief and you'll be held responsible for those trampled in the rush for the exit; incite a crowd to lynch a victim and you'll spend many years behind bars. Individuals also have the right to protection against libel, slander and harassment. This is the stuff of a thousand philosophy seminars. But balancing individual rights with social responsibility is harder than it looks. The U.S. Supreme Court has made a better fist of it than most by extending First Amendment protections for free speech in recent decades, ruling that the authorities may only prosecute inflammatory speech that's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.' Several European governments, however, have now tilted in the wrong direction — toward censorship and overreach. Germany goes to absurd lengths to protect its political class from personal abuse, for instance. France and Italy have similar laws. In the U.K., however, the desire to promote social harmony and protect minorities has taken precedence over free speech. So, a retired police officer was arrested in his Kent home by a posse of former colleagues for a wry tweet about pro-Palestinian demonstrators. As his home was ransacked, the police commented on his suspiciously Brexit-y reading material. In another notorious incident that made the front pages, a couple were held for eight hours at a police station for writing WhatApp messages and posting salty criticism of their daughter's primary school. Unfortunately, these aren't isolated incidents of overzealous authorities. Another cause celebre of the populist right on both sides of the Atlantic is the case of Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councilor who was jailed for 31 months for a public order offense. Yet she's no free speech martyr. After three children were murdered in a knife attack in Southport last year, Connolly wrongly assumed the assailant was an immigrant — he was the son of refugees from Rwanda — and tweeted on X calling for mass deportations and inciting people to set fire to hotels housing immigrants. The post was viewed more than 300,000 times on a day when racist thugs attacked mosques and migrant hostels. Judges are the ultimate guardians of the rule of law, the fertile ground out of which both British and American democracy grew. The courts therefore come down hard on those who threaten public order. Connolly's sentence was intended to be exemplary, but it was at the extreme range of censure — and should have been reduced on appeal. Confused thinking and badly drafted legislation lies behind the U.K.'s recent illiberal tilt. Hate crime is now defined by law as "any criminal offense perceived by the victim or any person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.' Such vague, subjective criteria should have no place on the statute book. As Jonathan Sumption, a former supreme court justice puts it: "Words may now be criminal if they are abusive or even insulting, even if they are not threatening and put no one in danger.' At the root of much of this is poorly written legislation. The concept of "noncrime hate,' introduced after the racist murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence 30 years ago, also obliges the police to record incidents of so-called offensive speech that have no criminal penalty. The evidence, such as it is, can stay on file and be used in criminal record checks seen by potential employers. The College of Policing's Kafkaesque guidance states "the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception' — a charter for aggrieved individuals to pursue private vendettas. Ten of thousands of police hours are devoted to noncrime hate; 13,200 incidents were recorded by police in the year to June 2024. It's easy to collect the evidence because most of it is posted online — far easier than tracking down violent criminals, burglars and fraudsters. So while police chiefs went public in the media this week with demands for more money from the Treasury, the government should be asking whether officers are making best use of their existing budgets. Unfortunately, things look likely to get worse before they get better. The Labour government's new employment bill includes provisions to require employers to take "all reasonable' steps to prevent harassment of staff at work by clients and customers, including "overheard conversations' — a boggy territory which strips out context and relies heavily on subjective impressions about what was heard. How will free speech in bars and pubs be monitored in practice? Prime Minister Keir Starmer made his reputation as a lawyer by taking on corporations trying to stifle free speech. He needs to be alert to the wider context in which this legislation is being proposed, ideally calling for a review that would halt the pernicious drift toward limiting freedom of speech for fear of causing minor offense. Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator.
