Brit model in hellhole jail after 'being caught smuggling £200,000 of drugs'
An Onlyfans model from Nottinghamshire is now stuck in a Spanish jail. Clara Wilson was charged with a drug running offence after she arrived in Barcelona in January
An Onlyfans model is stuck in a hellish jail after she was caught allegedly smuggling drugs worth up to £200,000 into Spain. Clara Wilson, 36, was charged with a drug running offence after more than 34 kilos of cannabis were found in her suitcase at Barcelona's El Prat airport.
From Huthwaite, Notts, Clara was held as she departed a Qatar Airways flight from Doha on January 20. She is believed to have travelled from Barcelona from Bangkok with stopovers in India and Qatar.
Clara is now remanded to a prison close to Barcelona after her arrest. No trial date has been set yet.
An indictment shows public prosecutors have already demanded a four-year prison sentence and huge fine payment totalling £758,000 if she is convicted. The three-page indictment states: 'The accused woman was intercepted by the Civil Guard around 9pm on January 20 at Barcelona's El Prat airport after getting off a Qatar Airways flight.
'In two suitcases she had previously checked in, police found 60 vacuum-packed packages containing a green-coloured substance that tested positive for marihuana. The substance weighed 34,074 grams. A subsequent analysis by the National Toxicology Institute of a 55 gram sample of the substance confirmed it as cannabis.'
Public prosecutors added in the document: 'The drugs were transported by the accused with the intention of selling it to third parties on the black market where its value would have been [£180,000].'
Clara, one of the latest in a string of young women to end up in prisons around the world after being accused of drug trafficking, has also been warned an extra six months would be slapped on top of the four years in jail she could get if she fails to pay her fines. The time Wilson has already spent in custody would be taken off the prison sentence she receives if convicted.
It is not yet clear how she intends pleading and whether she will try to strike a pre-trial plea bargain deal in the hope of getting more lenient treatment. Under Spanish law the British model can be held for up to two years in prison before she has to be bailed, but well-placed sources said they expected her to be tried later this year.
It comes as Brits Bella May Culley, 18, Charlotte May Lee, 21, and Isabella Daggett, 21, are all facing lengthy prison sentences in harsh overseas prisons if they are convicted of drug smuggling. Bella, 18, was the first hit the headlines following her arrest in Georgia. She flew into the former Soviet state from Thailand on May 11.
She faces a lengthy spell behind bars if found guilty — which could be life if she receives a severe sentence. Little is still known about how she came to be caught at Tblisi Airport after her family reported her missing in Thailand.
Charlotte arrived in Sri Lanka again from Thailand on may 12, allegedly with a stash of cannabis in her luggage valued at £1.2million which she denied knowing anything about. She has been in custody since she was arrested at Bandaranaike Airport.
Isabella Daggett, 21, is another alleged drug mule who is being held in a hellhole Dubai prison where she has not been able to shower or change clothes. Her case has been highlighted by her family after she was arrested in March, just five weeks after moving to the United Arab Emirates for work.
She was working for a businessman doing internet recruiting for construction sites in the UK and he offered to send her to the Middle East for a similar role. But police in Dubai allegedly arrested her along with another man not long after she arrived in Dubai.
Her family insist she was taken by police simply for being 'in the wrong place at the wrong time' and has never used drugs. And she has not taken a shower or even changed her clothes in months after being banged up in a prison in March, her family claims.
Her grandmother Heather Smith told the DailyMail:"She was arrested with a lad, who was not her boyfriend, with whom she was staying because things had fallen through with another house. She didn't really like him that much. He may be guilty of something, but she isn't. We told Bella before she went to Dubai, 'you know the rules in Dubai, play by the rules, don't flaunt this, don't do that'
All three women deny the charges against them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
15 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Bill to create pension ‘megafunds' and tidy up ‘micro' retirement savings pots
The Pension Schemes Bill will create 'bigger and better pension funds' and combine smaller pension pots, the Government said. Many people build up several small pensions that can be hard to keep track of as they switch jobs. The Bill will bring together micro pension pots worth £1,000 or less into one pension scheme. For people approaching retirement, the Bill will require schemes to offer clear default options for turning savings into a retirement income. There will also be new rules creating multi-employer defined contribution (DC) scheme megafunds of at least £25 billion, using economies of scale to invest in a wider range of assets. The Government said defined benefit (DB) pension schemes will also have increased flexibility to 'safely' release a surplus worth collectively £160 billion, to support employers' investment plans and benefit scheme members. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said: 'The Bill is about securing better value for savers' pensions and driving long-term investment in British businesses to boost economic growth in our country.' Chancellor Rachel Reeves described the legislation as 'a game changer'. Pensions minister Torsten Bell said: 'Pension saving is a long game, but getting this right is urgent so that millions can look forward to a higher income in retirement.' Sir Steve Webb, a former Liberal Democrat pensions minister who is now a partner at LCP (Lane Clark & Peacock), said: 'Whilst there are many worthy measures in the Bill, the biggest omission is action to get more money flowing into pensions.' He continued: 'This issue is unfortunately on the back burner. Measures such as consolidating tiny pension pots are helpful tidying up measures, but do nothing to tackle the fundamental problem that millions of us simply do not have enough money set aside for our retirement. 'With every passing year that this issue goes unaddressed, time is running out for people already well through their working life to have the chance for a decent retirement.' Patrick Heath-Lay, chief executive of People's Partnership, provider of the People's Pension, said: 'The Bill contains many measures that will require providers to deliver better outcomes for savers and improve the workplace pension system. 'We are encouraged by the introduction of default consolidator schemes, which will be the most effective way to solve the dormant small pots problem.' Andy Briggs, CEO of Phoenix Group, said: 'The Bill sets a clear direction for the future of pensions with the emphasis on building scale and ensuring savers receive value for money.' Ian Cornelius, CEO of Nest, said: 'We believe that large, well-governed schemes can drive great outcomes for their members by using their scale and expertise to diversify where money is invested, and gain access to attractive investment opportunities not available to smaller investors at low cost.' Nausicaa Delfas, chief executive of the Pensions Regulator, said: 'Making sure all schemes are focused on delivering value for money, helping to stop small, and often forgotten pension pots forming, and guiding savers towards the right retirement products for them, will mean savers benefit from a system fit for the future.' Michelle Ostermann, chief executive of the Pension Protection Fund, said: 'We will support the Government and policymakers as the Bill progresses.' Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said: 'Pensions have become far too complex and fragmented, so it's good to see the Government taking steps to simplify them and ensure schemes provide value for money. 'Which? has campaigned for years for the consolidation of small pots, so we are delighted that this Bill is seeking to do just that – a move that will provide greater value for savers and support them to keep track of their pensions.' Yvonne Braun, director of policy, long-term savings, at the Association of British Insurers, said: 'This wide-ranging Bill is set to usher in the most large-scale pension reforms since auto-enrolment. The details will be crucial and we will scrutinise the Bill to ensure it puts the interests of savers first. 'We also urgently need to tackle the level of pension contributions which are too low to create an adequate retirement income for many. We urge government to set out the details of its adequacy review as soon as possible.'
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Will we ever be free of Brexit?
Photo by P. Floyd / Daily Express / Hulton Archive / Getty Images On 5 June 1975 – 50 years ago today – voters went to the polls in Britain's first national referendum. Just two years after joining the European Community, they were voting on whether to leave, a decision that would shape the UK's economic, political and diplomatic strategy for decades to come. For the first time in British history, a front-rank political question had been taken out of the hands of Parliament and passed directly to the electorate. The Sun thought this 'a constitutional monstrosity'. The new Conservative leader, Margaret Thatcher, called the referendum 'a device of dictators and demagogues', and refused to confirm that she would accept the result. As the first election of the modern era to be fought outside the established party system, the referendum carried the debate into the most unlikely places. In the churches, bishops preached sermons on the religious arguments for membership. In Northern Ireland, terrorist organisations published earnest articles on the implications for the port of Belfast. Tesco issued carrier bags saying 'Yes to Europe', while campaigners mobilised sports-stars and celebrities ranging from Agatha Christie and Barbara Cartland to Captain Mainwaring and Paul McCartney. Looking back on that referendum after the 2016 vote offers both eerie similarities and clanging dissonances. As in 2016, the vote was triggered by a crisis in the governing party; in this case, a Labour government led by Harold Wilson. Like David Cameron, Wilson was a reluctant European, convinced with his head rather than his heart of the case for membership. Like Cameron, he led a party that was bitterly divided on Europe, with a wafer-thin majority, at a time of growing Euroscepticism in the country. And like Cameron, his solution was to renegotiate the terms of membership and put them to the country in a referendum. If the recipe looks familiar, the ingredients could hardly have been more different. In 1975, the most pro-European party was the Conservatives. Ted Heath, its former leader, blazed across the campaign trail like a meteor, arguing for membership with a drive and charisma that had entirely evaded him in office. His successor, Margaret Thatcher, stumped the country demanding a 'massive Yes' to Europe, resplendent in a jumper knitted from the flags of all the member-states. Labour was more divided, with figures like Tony Benn and Michael Foot excoriating the Community as a capitalist project. Papers like the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph all backed staying in, while only the Spectator and the Communist Morning Star endorsed withdrawal. Opinion in the constituencies was also very different. The young were more Eurosceptic than the old, women more hostile than men, and the most pro-European nation of the United Kingdom was unquestionably England. Places like Essex and Lincolnshire – bastions of the Leave vote in 2016 – registered votes for membership of 68% and 75% respectively. The nightmare for Unionists was that England would vote to stay in, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to Leave – a direct reversal of the situation decades later. If voting patterns were very different, so too were the issues on which they were founded. Immigration, which loomed so large in 2016, was barely mentioned. There were only nine member-states in 1975, and no one thought West Germans or Belgians would be hurrying to the United Kingdom in search of work. Food prices, by contrast, were central to the campaign, at a time of serious anxiety about Britain's ability to feed itself. Memories of war hung heavy across the campaign, for 1975 was closer to the end of the First World War than 2016 to the Second. Poppies and doves of peace featured prominently in campaign literature, while posters reminded voters: 'Forty million people died in two European wars this century. Better lose a little national sovereignty than a son or daughter.' Another war – the Cold War – also loomed large. Heath claimed that a vote to withdraw 'could lead to a Soviet invasion of Europe', while Out campaigners warned of Communist influence in France and Italy. In the aftermath of Watergate, Vietnam and the impeachment of Richard Nixon, there were doubts about whether the United States could or would defend Europe. Harold Wilson told the cabinet in 1974 that 'American leadership had gone'; Europe would now have to do more for its own defence. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe If one issue dominated over all others, it was a mood of economic crisis. Inflation was above 20 per cent, unemployment was rising and an oil shock in the Middle East had seen power-cuts and shortages across industry. The Chancellor, Denis Healey, thought the economic situation in 1974 'the worst which had ever been faced in peacetime', while the Industry Secretary, Tony Benn, wrote optimistically that 'the final collapse of capitalism might be a matter of weeks away'. No democracy had ever survived such sustained levels of inflation, fuelling concerns that spiralling prices might destroy democratic institutions in the 1970s as surely as in Germany in the 1930s. Not surprisingly, the 'In' campaign focused heavily on economic risk, warning of total economic collapse if Britain voted to Leave. Yet it paired that message with more positive arguments, centring on peace, prosperity and patriotism. Pamphlets and leaflets were peppered with Saltires, Union Jacks and Welsh dragons, while posters featured the England cricket captain Colin Cowdrey, the racing driver Jackie Stewart, and the heavyweight boxer Henry Cooper. There were pro-European messages from football managers like Sir Matt Busby and Jock Stein, who had won the European Cup with Manchester United and Celtic. Crucially, these were not just celebrities: they were national champions who had competed in Europe and won. By contrast, the 'Out' campaign was underfunded, poorly led and bitterly divided, staffed by people, in the words of one official, 'who would not want to be seen dead in the same coffin'. They included some of the most talented figures in British politics – Tony Benn, Enoch Powell, Ian Paisley and Barbara Castle – but these were all quite polarising figures who found it impossible to work together. Benn had called Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech 'evil, filthy and obscene', accusing him of raising the flag 'that fluttered… over Dachau and Belsen'. Powell labelled Benn 'the enemy within', one of those 'who hate Britain and wish to destroy it'. It was not particularly helpful to the 'Out' campaign that the IRA, the National Front, the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Democratic Unionist Party all backed leaving, in a striking demonstration of the unlikely alliances that emerged across the campaign. With lavish donations from business and finance, the 'In' campaign had more money left over at the end of the referendum than the total spend of 'Get Britain Out'. It used that to build a multi-vocal campaign that targeted different messages to different audiences. There were idealistic messages for the young, commitments to women's rights for feminists, talk of jobs and investment for industrial workers and an emphasis on peace for the wartime generation. Groups like 'Actors for Europe', 'Christians for Europe', 'Lawyers for Europe' – even, for one glorious moment before the leadership intervened, 'Wombles for Europe' – built a kaleidoscopic case for Europe that could speak to different ideologies and interests. The contrast with the mono-vocal campaign of 2016, with its solitary emphasis on risk, is stark. The result was a landslide for the 'In' campaign. At the start of the year, polls had shown strong majorities in favour of withdrawal; yet when the votes were counted, there was a two-to-one majority for staying in. Every part of the UK had voted for membership, with the exception only of Shetland and the Western Isles. On the morning of the result, Harold Wilson told reporters that the European debate was now closed. 'Fourteen years of national argument,' he declared, 'are over.' Like most prophets in the wake of extraordinary political events, Wilson was mistaken. His own party would go to the country in 1983 promising to leave the European Community, without a further referendum. Pro-Europeans like Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams would spin out of the Labour Party and into the SDP, while Margaret Thatcher would take a flame-thrower to the 'Yes to Europe' jumper she had worn in 1975. In 2016, the decision reached four decades earlier would be dramatically reversed, vindicating Powell's prophecy that a judgement to stay in could only be 'provisional'. Yet the 1975 vote mattered. It secured UK membership for more than 40 years, with profound consequences for how Britain's laws were made, who it traded with, what food Britons ate and where they went on holiday. From 1975 to 2016, membership of the European Community/Union was perhaps the most important fact about British history and the central pillar of Britain's economic, diplomatic and geopolitical strategy. As 2016 demonstrates, the results of referendums – like general elections – are not irreversible. Half a century after that first vote, the UK finds itself again in an age when European security is under threat, when the US alliance is in doubt, when the world is fracturing into trade blocs, and amid a pervasive sense of economic decline. In such a context, the arguments of the 1970s seem more relevant today than they did a decade earlier. Where that might lead is impossible to predict. As Harold Wilson knew, and Keir Starmer is surely finding out, the past and the present are full of surprises. [See also: The warning of VE Day] Related
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Two thirds of Brits want Keir Starmer to end arms sales to Israel, poll shows
Polling by campaign group Global Justice Now found 65% if voters support an arm sales ban until attacks on Gaza end, with just 11% opposing the move Almost two thirds of Brits believe the UK should suspend all arms sales to Israel, while 60% think a trade deal between the two nations should be suspended, polling shows. Keir Starmer is under mounting pressure to ramp up measures in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Polling by Global Justice Now found 65% would support a ban on selling weapons until attacks on Gaza end, with just 11% in opposition. And more than six out of ten said they would support sanctions against the Israeli government. The PM yesterday told MPs that Israel's recent actions are "appalling" but refused to accuse Benjamin Netanyahu's regime of genocide. He said the Government and its allies would "keep looking at further action" including sanctions. Tim Bierley, campaigner at Global Justice Now said: 'As Israel erases Gaza before our eyes, today's polling makes clear that across all regions, age and income groups, the British public wants our government to take far stronger action against Israel's genocidal attacks. "Just as the UK has placed comprehensive sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, it must urgently exert meaningful pressure on Israel." Hundreds of protesters surrounded Parliament during PMQs demanding an end to arms sales to Israel. Last month the Government suspended free trade agreement talks in response to Israel's latest operation in Gaza. The PM said at PMQs: "I've said that we are strongly opposed and appalled by Israel's recent actions, and have been absolutely clear in condemning them and calling them out, whether that's the expansion of military operations, settler violence, or the dreadful blocking of aid, is completely unacceptable. "We must see a ceasefire, hostages must be released, and there must be aid into Gaza." Israeli forces have admitted opening fire as people headed to an aid distribution centre in Rafah, with health authorities, the Red Cross and UN officials saying 27 people were killed on Tuesday. ::Yonder Consulting polled over 2,100 people between May 28 and 29::
