Edinburgh man supplied fireworks to Bonfire Night gangs who attacked police
A Bonfire Night yob who supplied fireworks to youths who used them to attack police officers has been warned if he breaches a court order he will be 'going directly to prison'.
Jordan McMillan provided the explosive projectiles that were then thrown at officers and members of the public during a night of chaos in Edinburgh in November last year.
The mass disorder saw gangs of hooligans set fire to roads, play parks, wheelie bins and cars in several areas across the capital including Niddrie, Gracemount and Sighthill.
Thugs wearing balaclavas were also filmed launching rockets at moving vehicles and the violence brought the city's streets to a standstill as riot cops were forced to close off roads from the public.
McMillan, 24, was convicted of culpable and reckless conduct following a trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court last month and was back in the dock for sentencing on Monday, July 14.
McMillan denied any involvement claiming he was within his garden at the time of the incident.
The charge was aggravated by attacking emergency service workers under Section 44 of the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022.
Sheriff Joseph Stewart told McMillan, of Niddrie, Edinburgh, he had carried out 'a very serious offence' but stopped short of imposing a jail term.
Sign up for Edinburgh Live newsletters for more headlines straight to your inbox
Sheriff Stewart said: 'First of all, I think the custody threshold is easily met here.
"This is a very serous offence and with your record Mr McMillan I could very easily send you to prison today for a considerable period.
'If you breach this order you will be going directly to prison, do you understand that?'
McMillan was sentenced to a 10 month restriction of liberty order where he will have to stay within his home address between 7pm and 6am.
Following last month's trial, Chief Superintendent David Robertson, Divisional Commander for Edinburgh, said: 'This conviction should send a very clear message that the reckless and dangerous behaviour we witnessed across Edinburgh last year will not be tolerated.
"Police officers and other emergency service workers do not come to work to be attacked, and the level of violence directed towards them during Halloween and Bonfire Night was wholly unacceptable.
'Jordan McMillan did not act in isolation and is only one of several individuals responsible for the offences we saw on Niddrie Mains Road during the evening of 5 November 2024.
'Further positive court outcomes for those involved in disorder during 2024 are anticipated and we are currently working with key partners ahead of Bonfire Night 2025 to protect our communities from this reckless and dangerous behaviour, which simply has to stop.'
McMillan was found guilty of culpably and recklessly supplying fireworks to individuals who were involved in public disorder and who were throwing fireworks at police officers and members of the public and into the roadway to the danger of severe injury at Niddrie Mains Road, Edinburgh, on November 5 last year.
He was also acquitted of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner and did form part of a large group who were walking and brandishing fireworks in the same date.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Man jailed for nine years after leaving woman brain damaged
A man has been jailed for nine years after attacking a woman in the street, leaving her brain Harvey was earlier convicted of attempting to murder Carol O'Reilly, who he was briefly in a relationship with, on 1 October repeatedly hit her head off the ground during an assault in Glasgow city centre that was captured on O'Reilly is now living with permanent damage to her brain and some memory loss. She has also been diagnosed with epilepsy and takes medication for seizures. She told BBC Scotland News she has had to learn how to walk, talk and swallow again after spending six months in said the way she speaks has changed since the attack."I don't like my speech now," she said. "Sometimes, I listen back to old voice notes [of myself]. I used to speak really fast." Ms O'Reilly had broken bones in her back, neck, cheek bone, eye-socket and has had three surgeries on her brain, including a craniectomy. This is where part of the skull is removed to operate and the bone is kept alive in the said she now struggles to do some everyday things such as putting a bobble in her hair."I can't put a bra on either, I need to wear a sports one," she said. And trying to grab stuff with my hand is hard."I'm just tired all the time, I don't really go out that much, I don't trust people."Ms O'Reilly has questions over how police handled events that turned up at the scene but the court heard it appeared Harvey had managed to "talk his way out of handcuffs", despite Ms O'Reilly's said police then put her in their van with her attacker and dropped them at Glasgow Royal made her leave without receiving medical pair returned to the hotel they were sharing in Glasgow city centre. Harvey had to carry Ms O'Reilly back to their room where the assault was discovered unconscious by hotel staff the following morning when they were late for checkout and police were called."Why, why did they leave me with him and put me in the back of the van with him," she said."They should have separated us - one of them take me to the hospital, the other take him to the cells, until they could watch the CCTV."She said the footage showed her head being hit off bus stops."It could've been a murder, I could've died. And my kids would've been left without a mum." No access to report The BBC put these points to Police Scotland, asking why Ms O'Reilly was not separated from her attacker, why Michael Harvey was not arrested and if Police Scotland would apologise to Scotland said: "On Sunday, 1 October, 2023, officers attended at Waterloo Street, Glasgow following a report of an assault. After carrying out inquiries at the scene and speaking to witnesses, no criminality was established at the time."The injuries presented did not require an ambulance to be called, however the attending officers took two people to hospital for assessment."Police Scotland referred the circumstances of the incident to the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (Pirc) who made one recommendation which has been implemented."We have not received a complaint relating to this case, however we would encourage anyone with concerns to come forward and speak to us."Pirc gave its findings to the chief constable in December last O'Reilly has never been given access to the report. The BBC also requested to see it but was Scotland News asked Police Scotland who Ms O'Reilly should contact directly to ask for the report but they declined to answer. 'Carol has changed as a person' Her sister Donna O'Reilly said it shouldn't be so difficult for the family to get answers."The victim should be priority. Because it's them that need the answers to move forward," she said."It's been very hard because Carol has changed as a person and obviously we're trying to make sure she's OK."And we can't give her the answers she needs because we don't know them…so it's been hard."The family say what they need now is sentencing of Harvey is one step towards Ms O'Reilly is still left with questions and no clear direction as to how she gets asked what she wants for the rest of her life, she said: "To be a mum again, obviously it's hard being a full-time mum."But I was always active with them. And now I can't do stuff like that."BBC Scotland News asked Pirc for its findings in the said: "We investigated the circumstances surrounding the serious injury of a 39-year-old woman on 1 October 2023 in Glasgow following police contact."Our report was provided to the chief constable and is now a matter for Police Scotland. We consider our report to be confidential and therefore have nothing further to add."Our reports are confidential for various reasons such as ongoing legal proceedings, protection of anonymity or matters relating to data protection."
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Police Scotland deletes more than 100,000 recorded public calls
About 115,000 recorded calls to Police Scotland's non-emergency 101 line have been deleted due to a technical Scotland News has learned the problem was discovered in February is understood a month's worth of calls to the line were recorded and retained for four weeks but then not Scotland says the fault was quickly rectified and did not impact the ability to answer 101 calls or affect 999 emergency calls. Police Scotland's website says the 101 line should be used to contact police when reporting non-emergency incidents. Examples of these include reporting stolen cars, suspected drug dealing or minor traffic to the 101 line are meant to be recorded and archived and can be used at a later date when dealing with complaints against the police, legal proceedings, or when a member of the public submits a request to access their the call recordings were deleted, Police Scotland says information like the start and end time of the call, duration, the caller's number and typed details of the discussion are still available. Police say no impact on 999 calls According to Police Scotland figures, the 101 line received more than 100,000 calls every month between January 2024 and November Gordon Fotheringham said: "In February 2025, a technical fault was discovered on the archived 101 non-emergency call recording platform meaning a quantity of 101 call recordings were unable to be retrieved. "The fault was quickly rectified and did not impact the ability to answer 101 calls. It did not affect the emergency 999 call line at any time."Upon further investigation, it was confirmed that while the archiving of the 101 calls did not take place, the call data was still available. "A new recording system has since been implemented that mitigates the risk of any future technical faults and enhance resilience in our telephony structure."
Times
10 hours ago
- Times
16-year-olds to be given vote in next UK general election
Angela Rayner has denied claims of trying to rig the political system by allowing 16-year-olds to vote at the next election, accusing critics of 'running scared' of young people. The deputy prime minister argued that lowering the voting age would get 'democracy back on track' and give frustrated teenagers 'a stake in our country's future'. However, the measure immediately provoked a row as the Conservatives accused Labour of a 'brazen' attempt to shore up support, while Nigel Farage described the move as 'an attempt to rig the political system'. Votes for 16-year-olds was not a priority for Labour's first year, but reforms pledged in the party's manifesto have now been revived. Ministers are not planning to rush changes in before next year's elections in Scotland and Wales, but they could be in place in time for local elections before the end of the parliament. Teenagers will be able to register to vote from the age of 14 — but as part of wide-ranging laws to reshape the electoral system, ministers are hoping to end the need to do so at all by bringing in automatic registration. Tougher punishments for those who harass and abuse MPs will also be introduced as ministers make hostility towards politicians an aggravating factor in sentencing. A clampdown on foreign donations has been promised, by requiring that British companies giving to political parties are carrying out 'genuine commercial activity'. In addition, recipients will have to make more effort to check the source of donations. Fines for breaking electoral rules will be increased 20-fold to £500,000, and online political adverts from campaign groups will be required to carry declarations of party affiliation. The most controversial measure is lowering the voting age to 16, which Labour denies is an attempt to boost its own support by increasing the number of left-wing younger voters. Writing for The Times, Rayner hit back at these charges. 'Unlike our opponents, this Labour government is not running scared of a generation that's hungry for change,' she said. The change is 'about fairness and transparency', 'giving the young a stake in our country's future' and 'bringing them into our communities, not excluding them', she added. Citing her own experience of becoming a single mother at 16, Rayner said 'nobody expected much of me' but recalled: 'I got a job, I paid taxes, I supported my son.' She continued: 'There are many other 16-year-olds across this country who are working hard every day, paying their taxes, caring for relatives and contributing to our society. By law, they can serve our country in the armed forces — but, unlike their peers in Scotland and Wales, 16-year-olds in England and Northern Ireland can't vote. Why not?' Rayner was forced to retract an attempt to justify the policy by claiming teenagers could marry at 16, which has not been true for two years. She argued that giving the vote to 1.6 million teenagers would strengthen the electoral system and 'include younger generations who have been failed for too long by 14 years of chaos, neglect and decline'. In a strategy paper published on Thursday she added: 'The strength of our democracy is determined by how much of the country participates, and the faith they have in the results.' Ministers are also promising more 'democratic education in schools' to encourage young people to turn out. Legislation is expected after the end of the present parliamentary session next spring. Rayner has committed to enshrine the changes into law before the next election. She criticised 'shocking abuse and intimidation' at the last election, where half of candidates reported some kind of harassment. 'Quite apart from the terrible toll on individuals, this victimisation is likely to deter many good people from standing for public office and deprive our country of their contribution,' Rayner wrote, describing it as 'an attack on our freedom'. She promised 'tougher sentences for those responsible for threatening behaviour '. Candidates' addresses will no longer have to be published. Bank cards will also be accepted as identification at polling stations. Rayner said Conservative reforms requiring ID at the ballot box 'went too far' and excluded thousands of voters. Dame Rachel de Souza, the children's commissioner, said: 'Lowering the voting age to 16 sends the message that their voices and ideas do matter.' Chris Sherwood of the NSPCC said: 'When given the opportunity to vote, young people become part of the democratic conversation and can help shape decisions that affect their lives and futures.' Luke Tryl of the polling group More in Common said: 'Given young voters tend to lean to the left, we should expect the Greens and Labour to be the bigger winners of extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, with Reform doing well among young men, and the Tories the big losers. But 16 to 17-year-old voters would only make up a small proportion of the electorate, so are unlikely to shift the dial politically at a national level.' Paul Holmes, the shadow communities minister, said: 'This is a brazen attempt by the Labour Party, whose unpopularity is scaring them into making major constitutional changes without consultation.' He added: '16-year-olds will be able to vote in an election but not stand as candidates, and they will be able to vote but not permitted to buy a lottery ticket, consume alcohol, marry or go to war. This is a hopelessly confusing policy.' Analysis: lowering voting age may not benefit Labour By and large, existing voters do not want to extend the franchise (Chris Smyth writes). Polls show about half are opposed, with only about a third backing the change. Nor is electoral reform top of many people's priority list, making it in some ways an odd choice for legislation in the first session of a government facing so many challenges in areas voters do really care about. The obvious explanation is raw political expediency: young people are more likely to vote Labour, so adding 1.6 million of them to the electoral register will boost Sir Keir Starmer's hopes of re-election. Voters themselves incline to this view, with polling suggesting most think Starmer is doing it to benefit Labour. Undoubtedly Labour is the most popular party among the young. Latest polls give it 28 per cent among those aged 18-24, compared to 22 among the whole electorate, where Reform UK leads on 28 per cent. Yet Sir Keir Starmer cannot assume that adding even younger voters will automatically benefit Labour. Nigel Farage has showed an unrivalled ability to reach out to Gen Z on social media, and has more than a million TikTok followers, more than all other MPs combined. Young men in particular, are leaning towards Reform, with More in Common finding a seven-point lead for Farage over Labour among 18 to 24-year-old men. Even more dangerous may the risk to the left. The Greens score 26 per cent among younger voters, only narrowly behind Labour, and are ahead among young women. Pro-Gaza candidates did best in areas with lots of 16 and 17-year-olds and the emergency of a Jeremy Corbyn-led party to harness left-wing anger could easily draw youth votes away from Labour. With Labour dealing with the messy compromises of government, there is a real risk that idealistic younger voters will go elsewhere, while the right-wing youth vote is energised in opposition. Starmer won the last election by promising to bring back grown-up government after years of chaos. The danger now is he ends up fighting the next one like a frustrated parent trying in vain to make angry teenagers listen.
