Veterans hail temporary reprieve on Northern Ireland 'lawfare' as Labour legislation bid stalls
Aided by this newspaper's Stop The SAS Betrayal campaign, nearly 200,000 members of the public have so far backed a bid to ensure soldiers are not exposed to a witch-hunt in the form of misconduct claims from the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Tory defence spokesman Mark Francois said the Government had been 'rocked' by the backlash and had postponed a Commons bid to scrap the Legacy Act, which provides protections to UK troops.
He had expected Labour to present plans for alternative legislation before summer recess.
But after a surge of public support for the Mail's campaign and a parliamentary debate, they were seemingly put on ice.
The move may also be linked to a reported threat by Labour veterans minister Al Carns to resign over the issue.
Just under 180,000 people have signed the parliamentary petition, boosted by former SAS reservist Sir David Davis, to support veterans.
The battle to preserve their legal protections – deemed unlawful by a court in Northern Ireland – is expected to resume this autumn.
Meanwhile, SAS veterans have stepped up plans to reenact an incident involving Special Forces soldiers and the IRA in 1992 which is the centre of a legal battle (pictured: the scene of the shoot out)
On Monday night, Mr Francois said: 'While we have won this initial battle, with the help of the Mail and its readers, we haven't won the war.
'We still need to keep up the pressure on Labour MPs not to apply "two-tier justice".'
Labour's intention to remove protections for UK troops included in the Legacy Act, which was introduced by the previous government's veterans minister Johnny Mercer, was included in its election manifesto.
It made the vow after a successful legal challenge to the Act in Northern Ireland.
A judge found the legislation was 'unlawful' as it undermined the UK's commitment to ensure a path to justice for those wronged by the state.
Meanwhile, SAS veterans have stepped up plans to reenact an incident involving Special Forces soldiers and the IRA in 1992 which is the centre of a legal battle.
As many as 12 SAS troops face possible murder charges following the deaths of four IRA men in County Tyrone in 1992.
Former UK military commander in Northern Ireland Colonel Richard Kemp said: 'The British people don't want to see their soldiers thrown to the wolves over incidents they can scarcely recall several decades later.
'So no wonder so many people are backing the Mail's campaign.'
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence told the Mail on Monday night: 'The failed Legacy Act has been rejected by our domestic courts, exposing our brave veterans to no settled process or safeguards.
'Any incoming government would have had to fix the mess that was left, not least because it promised giving immunity to terrorists.
'This Government's commitment to our Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable.
'We will fix it by putting in place a fair and transparent system that gives survivors and families – including bereaved Armed Forces families – the ability to find answers and threats.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
This hollowing out of politics could see the death of the centre
Voting in the Green Party leadership election opened on Friday, with the result to be declared on 2 September. The contest between Ellie Chowns and Adrian Ramsay, running on a joint ticket, and Zack Polanski has focused to an unusual extent on electoral tactics and the hopes of winning a large number of Commons seats from Labour. Meanwhile, the Corbyn-Sultana party is still taxiing towards the runway for take-off, its passengers talking excitedly about replacing Labour as the main party of the left, either on its own or in alliance with the Greens. There are plenty of reasons for being sceptical of both parties' ambitions, which I will come to in a moment. But there is also a real possibility that Labour support will collapse. I wrote last week about Keir Starmer's 'Macron strategy', by which he presents himself as the alternative to Nigel Farage as prime minister. Thus he would seek to rally disaffected Labour voters tempted to stay at home or defect to other parties, plus Greens, Corbynites, Liberal Democrats and soft Conservatives, by presenting them with a binary choice. But what if that isn't the choice by the time of the next election? What if, just as Reform has overtaken the Tories in the opinion polls, a Green-Corbynite combination overtakes Labour? Peter Kellner, the polling guru, has commissioned research from YouGov into party loyalty. He says the figures 'should terrify both Labour and the Conservatives'. He found that people who intend to vote Reform and Green are much more likely to give a positive reason for their support, such as 'it has the best policy on the issue I feel most strongly about', whereas Labour and Tory voters are more likely to give a negative reason, such as 'it isn't great but it's better than the alternatives'. He concludes: 'The two pillars of the old Labour-Conservative duopoly, family influence and social class, have crumbled, and nothing has replaced them. Stalled living standards add to their plight.' Every day provides more evidence of the gap between the old duopoly and the new parties in enthusiasm and commitment. The trickle of former Tory MPs defecting to Reform could become a flood if Farage, who caught the Ming vase that Starmer dropped, can carry it over the slippery floor for another couple of years. Defections to the Corbyn-Sultana party are not on quite the same scale yet. Six former Labour councillors in Hastings and one Labour councillor in Coventry said on Friday that they will join the new party. But more will follow if the party can gain credibility. As I said, there are reasons to doubt that this will happen. The party's launch has been chaotic. The temporary name, Your Party, does not work at all. Any discussion of the party begins in confusion. 'Your Party…' 'It's not my party…' The 600,000 sign-ups expressing interest make up a relatively small number compared to, say, the six million who signed the 2019 petition to revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU. There are doubts about the wisdom of re-running Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership campaign outside the Labour Party. James Matthewson, who was a Labour spokesperson under Corbyn, wrote for the i paper on Friday: 'My warning to the left, especially those young lefties who are still unjaded and have the energy we need to change the world, is: don't be lured into another vanity project.' He thought the idea of Zarah Sultana as a fresh face that would mean a fresh approach was 'far from the truth'. As for the Greens, there is an air of unreality that hangs over the leadership election debate, which has become bitter and personal, at least between Ramsay and Polanski. (Ramsay refused to say he 'liked' Polanski in a radio debate between the two.) Ramsay and Chowns claim to be focused on electoral success, having delivered the quadrupling of seats from one to four last year, while Polanski claims to be more ambitious, calling his approach eco-populism and being willing to do pre-election deals with the Corbyn-Sultana outfit. It may be that climate change – 'the issue I feel most strongly about' – and idealistic disillusionment with a Labour Party governing in bleak times will be enough to break through, but the red-green alliance has nothing yet to match the power of the issue of immigration combined with the charisma of Farage. Of course, Reform's success may not last. Farage may drop the Ming vase. He was forced today to deny speculation about his health, telling The Times that his Tory and Labour rivals were 'spreading these rumours' because 'it's the last card they've got'. But the untrue rumours nevertheless draw attention to the extent to which Reform's advance depends on a single individual. It may be, even if Farage is the leader of the real opposition by the time of the next election, that Starmer's Macron strategy will work. Or it could be, if the Labour vote does collapse, that the Lib Dems prove to be the saviours of pragmatic moderation. Ed Davey's inoffensive army, rather than the Green Corbynites, could fill more of the gap left by Labour's retreat. But I think a Labour collapse is an underestimated possibility.
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Prince Andrew should testify to US lawmakers under oath over his ties to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, says top lawyer
A top lawyer representing Jeffrey Epstein 's victims has demanded Prince Andrew testifies about his links to the infamous paedophile socialite. Famed lawyer Gloria Allred, 84, said the Duke of York should volunteer to speak under oath before Congress. The 65-year-old has maintained his denial of ever sleeping with Virginia Giuffre, the Epstein victim Andrew was pictured with when she was 17, with the pair standing next to jailed predator Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew's lawyers have denied that he has refused to cooperate with US Epstein investigators. Allred told The Daily Mirror: 'Now more than ever, he should come forward. He could volunteer to testify publicly. 'Is he willing to testify before Congress? Is he willing to give more information to the Justice Department? And if not, why not? 'His silence is a statement that he's not willing to help for some reason.' It came as a bombshell book called Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, by Andrew Lownie, revealed Jeffrey Epstein said of Prince Andrew: 'We are both serial sex addicts. He's the only person I have met who is more obsessed with p***y than me. 'From the reports I've got back from the women we've shared, he's the most perverted animal in the bedroom. He likes to engage in stuff that's even kinky to me – and I'm the king of kink!' The book, which the Duke and Duchess of York tried to ban, explores how the couple 'fell from grace because of the flaws in their own characters and how they were allowed to leverage their privileged position as royals for personal gain with the connivance of the institution itself.' The book also details claims of Prince Andrew's infidelity and bedroom antics - from sleeping with scores of women while on ambassador trips to making lewd comments to women he met during everyday life as the late Queen's favourite son. It said the nickname 'Randy Andy' was given to Prince Andrew while he was at Gordonstoun public school. He allegedly earned the name because he was already sexually experienced, good looking and girls were attracted to him. While he has never had trouble picking up women, a family friend said: 'He's not a hunter of women. He rather expects them to come to him. But when they do, he shows himself to be bone idle and not very socially adept at chatting them up.' The Duke of York has long faced criticism for his friendship with Epstein (pictured in 2011), which carried on even after the socialite's imprisonment for sex offences in 2008 One woman he propositioned said: 'He's about as subtle as a hand grenade. His favourite trick is to rub your knee under the table. It's pathetic.' At a wedding he was said to have asked a woman he'd not met before for a dance. When she declined, he responded, 'I suppose a b*** j** is out of the question, then?' Another of his lovers said: 'He is not a Casanova. In the bedroom department he is a bit of a let-down. He has been dumped by most of the girls linked to him because he is a bore.' Andrew is also said to have certain juvenile characteristics, such as taking advantage of his position to humiliate others who may not be able to respond. At a society event in 1992 he reportedly unzipped broadcaster Tania Bryer's evening dress the full length of her back. Then at a dinner party he allegedly sniffed the pâté served as a first course and turned to his right, saying, 'This pâté smells. What do you think?' His female companion leaned forward to smell it and he promptly pushed her face into the dish. One of his dates recalled how he always introduced himself to her friends as the Duke of York, 'even when we were dancing on tables at two in the morning at Momo.' After a house party in Dorset, one young woman complained: 'One minute you're having your bum pinched and the next minute he's reminding you he's Your Royal Highness.' The controversial prince even left an impression on former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Andrew asked to have lunch with Johnson when he was Mayor of London, turning up with a list of things he wanted to talk about. He wanted to redesign traffic lights with 'fewer red lights', thought the whole of Battersea Power Station should be demolished, including the listed towers and felt the Queen Elizabeth II Centre was too small and not fit for purpose. Johnson responded: 'Well, if it's too small, it's your mum's fault.' Andrew reportedly stuck his tongue out. Afterwards, Boris said: 'I'm the last person to be a republican but, f***, if I ever have to spend another lunch like that, I soon will be.' Before her death by suicide in April, Virginia Giuffre said she was approached by Maxwell in 2000 and eventually was hired by her as a masseuse for Epstein, who took his own life in prison aged 66 in 2019. But the couple effectively made her a sexual servant, she said, pressuring her into gratifying not only Epstein but his friends and associates. Donald Trump and his then-girlfriend Melania Knauss with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida, on February 12, 2000 Giuffre said she was flown around the world for appointments with men including Prince Andrew while she was 17 and 18 years old. The men, including Andrew, denied that and questioned Giuffre's credibility. The prince settled with Giuffre in 2022 for an undisclosed sum, agreeing to make a 'substantial donation' to her survivors' organisation. While Andrew has long been criticised on both sides of the Atlantic, Allred, the attorney for some of Epstein's victims, also said she believes Andrew's name appears in files on Epstein held by the US government that many are asking to be made public. President Trump, who was close friends with Epstein for decades, suggested while campaigning for the last election that he would release the files. His campaign team wrote on X: 'President Trump says he will DECLASSIFY the 9/11 Files, JFK Files, and Epstein Files.' However, since his election he has backtracked. His former pal Elon Musk has criticised the Trump administration for not releasing the files. This year, Trump claimed the files were a 'hoax' and a 'scam' by Democrats who had peddled 'bulls***' to former MAGA supporters. Musk responded on X by saying: 'Wow, amazing that Epstein '' killed himself'' and Ghislaine is in federal prison for a hoax.' Then on July 15, Trump said: 'It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring, and I don't understand why it keeps going. 'I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going.' He later admitted the US attorney general had not told him the files were a hoax, but said he (Trump) 'knew' it was.
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Terror arrest over Palestine Action RAF attack
Counter-terrorism police have made a further arrest over an attack on two aircraft at an RAF base claimed by Palestine Action. A 22-year-old man, of no fixed abode, was arrested on Friday in Bedford on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, contrary to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The arrested man is currently in police custody, Counter Terrorism Policing South added Two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, on June 20. The action, which was claimed by the group Palestine Action, caused £7m worth of damage to the aircraft. Four people were charged last month in connection with the incident. The Government subsequently moved to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws after the group claimed responsibility for the action. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful'. However, Palestine Action's co-founder has since won a bid to bring a High Court challenge over the group's ban as a terror organisation. Lawyers for Huda Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring the High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. In a decision on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said two parts of the arguments on Ms Ammori's behalf were 'reasonably arguable' and would be heard at a three-day hearing in November. However, he later refused a bid to temporarily pause the ban on the direct action group until the outcome of the challenge. In his first ruling, he said it was arguable that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ms Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He said: 'That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.' The judge continued that a second argument, that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action 'in breach of natural justice', could also go to a full hearing. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose.' He continued: 'Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.' The judge refused to allow Ms Ammori to challenge the Government's decision on several other grounds, including a claim that the Home Secretary failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action's activities or the impact of the proscription on people associated with it. He also refused the request for a temporary block, finding there was a 'powerful public interest' in the ban continuing and there was not a 'material change of circumstance' since a previous hearing. Following the first ruling, Ms Ammori said: 'This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary's unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.' She continued: 'We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.' Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, previously told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. Previously, Ben Watson KC, also for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Sir James said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC. Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Wednesday that a High Court challenge could take place in the autumn of this year, whereas an appeal to the specialist tribunal would take much longer. He said in a summary of his ruling: 'If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.' In his 18-page written judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in magistrates' courts across England and Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court. 'That would be a recipe for chaos. 'To avoid it, there is a strong public interest in allowing the legality of the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. The obvious way to do that is in judicial review proceedings.' The judge also said that people protesting in support of Palestine and Gaza, but not expressing support for Palestine Action, had 'attracted various kinds of police attention, from questioning to arrest'. He continued that it was 'important not to draw too much from the fact that police and others appear to have misunderstood the law on some occasions'. But he added: 'Nonetheless, reports of the kind of police conduct referred to… are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views. 'This effect can properly be regarded as an indirect consequence of the proscription order.' Mr Justice Chamberlain later dismissed a bid by the Home Office to bring an appeal over his decision about the POAC. Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said on Wednesday that he understood Ms Cooper's decision, adding: 'As long as that's the law, we'll enforce the law rigorously, because supporting a terrorist organisation is a serious offence.'
