Police drop inquiry into protester who said ‘Hamas are terrorists'
Police have dropped a 'ludicrous' investigation into a protester who held a 'Hamas are terrorists' banner at pro-Palestine demonstrations.
Niyak Ghorbani, an Iranian dissident, became well known last year for protesting against Hamas while standing along the routes of several protests held in London against Israel's retaliation to the Oct 7 attacks.
In November last year, he was accused of making racially aggravated threats to kill a supporter of Palestine at a demonstration outside Queen Mary University of London in Mile End. A police investigation was launched after the pro-Palestinian protester alleged that Mr Ghorbani said: 'I'll kill you, you Arab b------'.
Mr Ghorbani was campaigning against the university's decision to host Francesca Albanese, a UN special rapporteur, who previously compared Israeli actions with the Holocaust.
Ms Albanese, who was appointed to her position in 2022, had also previously said that American opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict was 'subjugated by the Jewish lobby'. On the day of Hamas's attacks against Israel, she tweeted: 'Today's violence must be put in context.'
A formal protest against her was cancelled due to security concerns but several protestors including Mr Ghorbani continued nonetheless, where they were met by pro-Palestinian counter-protesters.
Mr Ghorbani has since been told that the investigation into his behaviour has been dropped, according to the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.
Stephen Silverman, director of investigations and enforcement for the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, said: 'We welcome the decision to drop the ludicrous investigation against Niyak Ghorbani, who should never have been subjected to this ordeal in the first place.
'It is appalling that those who speak out against terrorism are targeted while actual extremists go unchallenged. We are proud yet again to have provided legal assistance to Mr Ghorbani and we will continue to stand with all those who stand with the Jewish community and face repercussions for doing so.'
In April last year, a judge told the Metropolitan Police it could not stop Mr Ghorbani from attending pro-Palestinian protests with his sign which reads 'Hamas are terrorists'.
The 38-year-old has been manhandled and attacked by some protesters, but insists he is doing nothing wrong in pointing out that Hamas is a proscribed terror group under UK law.
In May last year, Mr Ghorbani was arrested for racism after eating a banana during a pro-Palestine protest. He had been accused of making a racist gesture with it while standing with counter protesters in central London.
Mr Ghorbani's lawyer insisted his actions were not racially motivated and the bail conditions were unnecessary and disproportionate.
After his arrest, police imposed bail conditions on the 38-year-old, banning him from attending any protest relating to Palestine or from entering the London boroughs of Camden or Westminster. But a judge threw out the strict bail conditions, ruling that the conditions were neither proportionate nor necessary.
A Met Police spokesman said: 'No further action will be taken against a man who was arrested following an altercation in Mile End Road on Nov 12 2024.
'Inquiries are still ongoing into an allegation of perverting the course of justice relating to the same incident.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
What to know about inspections of Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA ahead of a key board vote
Iran 's nuclear program remains a top focus for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, particularly as any possible deal between Tehran and the United States over the program would likely rely on the agency long known as the United Nations ' nuclear watchdog. This week, Western nations will push for a measure at the IAEA 's Board of Governors censuring Iran over its noncompliance with inspectors, pushing the matter before the U.N. Security Council. Barring any deal with Washington, Iran then could face what's known as 'snapback' — the reimposition of all U.N. sanctions on it originally lifted by Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, if one of its Western parties declares the Islamic Republic is out of compliance with it. All this sets the stage for a renewed confrontation with Iran as the Mideast remains inflamed by Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And the IAEA's work in any case will make the Vienna-based agency a key player. Here's more to know about the IAEA, its inspections of Iran and the deals — and dangers — at play. Atoms for peace The IAEA was created in 1957. The idea for it grew out of a 1953 speech given by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the U.N., in which he urged the creation of an agency to monitor the world's nuclear stockpiles to ensure that 'the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." Broadly speaking, the agency verifies the reported stockpiles of member nations. Those nations are divided into three categories. The vast majority are nations with so-called 'comprehensive safeguards agreements" with the IAEA, states without nuclear weapons that allow IAE monitoring over all nuclear material and activities. Then there's the 'voluntary offer agreements' with the world's original nuclear weapons states — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — typically for civilian sites. Finally, the IAEA has 'item-specific agreements' with India, Israel and Pakistan — nuclear-armed countries that haven't signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That treaty has countries agree not to build or obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea, which is also nuclear armed, said it has withdrawn from the treaty, though that's disputed by some experts. The collapse of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, negotiated under then-President Barack Obama, allowed Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67% — enough to fuel a nuclear power plant but far below the threshold of 90% needed for weapons-grade uranium. It also drastically reduced Iran's stockpile of uranium, limited its use of centrifuges and relied on the IAEA to oversee Tehran's compliance through additional oversight. But President Donald Trump in his first term in 2018 unilaterally withdrew America from the accord, insisting it wasn't tough enough and didn't address Iran's missile program or its support for militant groups in the wider Mideast. That set in motion years of tensions, including attacks at sea and on land. Iran now enriches up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels. It also has enough of a stockpile to build multiple nuclear bombs, should it choose to do so. Iran has long insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the IAEA, Western intelligence agencies and others say Tehran had an organized weapons program up until 2003. IAEA inspections and Iran Under the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to allow the IAEA even greater access to its nuclear program. That included permanently installing cameras and sensors at nuclear sites. Those cameras, inside of metal housings sprayed with a special blue paint that shows any attempt to tamper with it, took still images of sensitive sites. Other devices, known as online enrichment monitors, measured the uranium enrichment level at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. The IAEA also regularly sent inspectors into Iranian sites to conduct surveys, sometimes collecting environmental samples with cotton clothes and swabs that would be tested at IAEA labs back in Austria. Others monitor Iranian sites via satellite images. In the years since Trump's 2018 decision, Iran has limited IAEA inspections and stopped the agency from accessing camera footage. It's also removed cameras. At one point, Iran accused an IAEA inspector of testing positive for explosive nitrates, something the agency disputed. The IAEA has engaged in years of negotiations with Iran to restore full access for its inspectors. While Tehran hasn't granted that, it also hasn't entirely thrown inspectors out. Analysts view this as part of Iran's wider strategy to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip with the West. What happens next Iran and the U.S. have gone through five rounds of negotiations over a possible deal, with talks mediated by the sultanate of Oman. Iran appears poised to reject an American proposal over a deal this week, potentially as soon as Tuesday. Without a deal with the U.S., Iran's long-ailing economy could enter a freefall that could worsen the simmering unrest at home. Israel or the U.S. might carry out long-threatened airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. Experts fear Tehran in response could decide to fully end its cooperation with the IAEA, abandon the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and rush toward a bomb. If a deal is reached — or at least a tentative understanding between the two sides — that likely will take the pressure off for an immediate military strike by the U.S. Gulf Arab states, which opposed Obama's negotiations with Iran in 2015, now welcome the talks under Trump. Any agreement would require the IAEA's inspectors to verify Iran's compliance. But Israel, which has struck at Iranian-backed militants across the region, remains a wildcard on what it could do. Last year, it carried out its first military airstrikes on Iran — and has warned it is willing to take action alone to target Tehran's program, like it has in the past in Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007. ___ Associated Press writer Stephanie Liechtenstein contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___
Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Spectator
Is Hamas's grip on Gaza weakening?
The emergence of Yasser Abu Shabab and his 'Popular Forces' militia in eastern Rafah has become an unexpected fault line in the shifting landscape of Gaza. In recent days, a flurry of claims, counterclaims, and raw facts has begun to seep through the fog of war. Cracks are appearing in Hamas's once unchallenged grip, and new and uncertain dynamics are taking shape. Where these currents will lead is unclear. Abu Shabab himself has stepped into the spotlight with remarkable audacity. He has granted interviews, issued voice recordings, and cloaked his movement in the language of civic virtue. In a recent audio recording, he insisted: 'We have not and will not work with the occupation. Our goal is to protect Palestinian human rights from Hamas's terrorism.' He described his group's weapons as 'simple weapons that we collected from the local population,' and characterised coordination with the Palestinian Authority (PA) as limited to security screening: We conduct a security check through the Palestinian intelligence service, which is cooperating with us in this matter, so we can guarantee that no terrorist elements enter. Yet behind the public bravado lies a more intricate web.
Scotsman
25 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Scotland's public sector needs its own version of DOGE and we should all support it
Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... For those of us who have taken the trouble to engage with Reform UK's personnel and their activities – so we might understand their concerns, ambitions and the motives behind them – the performance of Britain's disruptor party at last Thursday's Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election did not come as a surprise. Labour's victory was a shock because the SNP – and John Swinney in particular – had itself promoted the narrative of a Labour collapse as part of its campaigning tactics. To make this outcome appear especially credible the Labour Party itself had clearly switched into damage limitation mode by protecting its candidate from himself. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the end the vote delivered a tight three-way contest with only 1471 votes between the Labour, SNP and Reform candidates. With the Conservative candidate coming fourth with 1621 votes, never again should Rusell Findlay suggest voting Reform will result in an SNP victory. That sort of unjustified entitlement will be the death of Conservative or other pro-UK parties when Reform is clearly a serious contender. Let voters decide for themselves on the true merits of a candidate rather than be shepherded to vote against competitors. The prospect now lies ahead that the SNP may not form an administration after next year's Holyrood election and the possibility of genuine change might be possible. Accepting we have a proportional voting system at Holyrood I am not in favour of parties trying to build coalitions before they have been elected because it reduces choice for voters. Let the electorate decide which parties it wishes to reward for good reasons after which the elected representatives can take it from there. I am, however, in favour of parties giving serious consideration to policies that accentuate the common ground they might have with each other so that when attempting to build an administration, be it a full-blooded coalition or a confidence and supply arrangement, it is achieved in a positive and practical manner that makes good government possible. One of the issues that Scotland has to face up to is that it has its spending priorities all wrong. There are very serious faults with the quality and supply of many of our public services and the lack of funds finding their way to where they can make the most difference cannot be solved by taxing or borrowing more. Both of these possibilities are already stretched to the limit – so it requires changing the priorities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ideas about how this might be done are again up for debate thanks to the election of President Javier Milei of Argentina and President Trump gaining a second term after the Biden hiatus. Both have taken a radical approach of asking hard questions about the justification of spending and making sweeping changes that involve not just trimming budgets but closing down some operations that are now considered to be unnecessary or provide duplication. This has been characterised by Trump's creation of a Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE for short. Now in England, where Reform UK has gained control of five County Councils, local doge projects are being established. In Derbyshire decisions are being taken in quick order to start by example by closing down committees and removing generous sinecures that provide allowances and expenses to councillors. The amounts are initially relatively small but they signal an intent to the public that councillors feathering their nests by establishing talking shops and generating paperchases must end. This can only make the acceptance of rationalising departments and making superfluous posts redundant easier to deliver. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But a word of warning. Making changes at the margins is not going to be enough. Simply cutting back on the number of administrators is not the solution to bad resource allocation. What is required is to accept some functions are not the business of the state, be they delivered by unaccountable quangos and agencies, local councils or legislative governments. Abandoning functions that are not seen as vital necessities will be required. Scotland undoubtedly needs its own form of DOGE to go through the lush spending of the Scottish Parliament – all while the homeless are without shelter, drug-dependents are without rehab, classrooms are without teachers, pregnant women are without maternity wards and convicted criminals are released because we are without enough prisons. The place to begin is to take more seriously the insightful reports of the Auditor General who reveals with disturbing regularity the poor decisions that have been taken which cost us millions. When we add millions together we get closer to saving billions – all of which can be used to reduce Scotland's taxes to at least the same level as England's so we can encourage the enterprise that will create genuine sustainable prosperity. By stripping the SNP's unnecessary spending vital services can be protected and improved. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It also needs a huge change in attitude – and it must start at the top. We need a Scottish Government to always think about the public pound when committing to defend its policies through the courts. The fact that defending the Scottish Government case in the Supreme Court regarding what constitutes a woman should have run up a bill of £170,000 should be universally condemned. The legal costs that started with Nicola Sturgeon and passed through the hands of Humza Yousaf and John Swinney should be paid by them. It was, after all, an action designed to save their political reputations and against at least half of Scotland's people. Likewise, any spending on the whole panoply of independence and grievance mongering or political hobbyhorses should be open to challenge. The turnaround of the Argentinian economy has led the once-defaulting basket-case economy to higher GDP growth, falling inflation and improving and a declining poverty rate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scotland has a great deal to do to correct 18 years of SNP misrule all the more reason that being more realistic about what can be afforded must be as starting point.
