St Peter's Square red tent camp of homeless people WILL be removed following court ruling
The St Peter's Square homeless camp tents must be removed after the council won a crucial court ruling. Manchester council has secured a 'possession order' against scores of people living in tents next to the town hall, effectively evicting them.
The 'red tent camp' sprang up last spring, initially as a protest, but soon morphed into a long-term spot homeless people stayed in. Now the camp's days appear to be numbered, as a legal challenge from the Greater Manchester Law Centre to stop the council's bid to take possession of the land failed on Tuesday (February 11).
The Law Centre formally represented one asylum seeker, who saw the council's claim against him withdrawn. The case included dozens more unrepresented refugees, with roughly 40 appearing in civil court. During the proceedings, one refugee told His Honour Judge Nigel Bird he did 'not think anybody with a tent there is happy or comfortable'.
READ MORE: Kensington Palace issue unprecedented statement in defence of Princess Kate
READ MORE: Missing man in Tenerife has been 'found needing medical care' after family flies out to search, says sister
'It's not something we chose or have the option [to do], so everyone is going through hell,' he added. The packed courtroom 40 heard Manchester council 'operated a policy of not accepting people they knew were homeless because they wanted to make an example of these defendants and not provide for them', according to the Law Centre's Kathy Cosgrove.
'On October 8, the rough sleepers team told them [Ancoats charity] Mustard Tree was the only place to get advice,' she continued. 'They are diverting them to a voluntary organisation which has no statutory duty.'
Oliver Edwards, also appearing for the Law Centre, added: 'The diversion tactic only applying to refugees moving to Mustard Tree is unfavourable treatment they did not subject UK nationals to. There's a discrepancy between UK nationals and non-UK nationals.'
Kuljit Bhogal KC, representing the council, rebuked the claims. She told the court: 'In so far as it's suggested there's a failure of duty, that's rejected.'
She added the 'Mustard Tree is offered to all asylum seekers' and open to non-asylum seekers. 'There's specific provision there with interpreters,' she explained. 'The provision to have a conversation in the warm.'
Ms Bhogal added homeless camp residents 'have been accommodated' by the council 'through temporary accommodation or the private rented sector'. 'It's simply not right to say the statutory duty has been bypassed,' she went on, also suggesting the camp became a 'revolving door' as new refugees moved in as previous residents were housed by authorities.
HHJ Bird called 'the submission Manchester City Council has deliberately diverted those in St Peter's Square' to the Mustard Tree 'a very serious allegation' which was 'not made out in the evidence I have seen'.
He ruled the refugees — considered trespassers in law — must remove their tents: 'For all those reasons I have come to the conclusion there's no basis I can order direction in regard to the unrepresented defendants.
'I therefore order the unrepresented defendants give up possession of St Peter's Square and I will make an order accordingly.
'St Peter's Square is a public amenity. It stands at the heart of the city and its amenity in my judgment is available for all. I am comforted each of the defendants, named or otherwise, is within part seven of the [housing] system and I am confident the system will move forward.
'I do not order in regards to the 14th defendant [represented by the Law Centre]. I make a possession order in relation to possession of St Peter's Square with the other defendants.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Woman's Husband Vanished and Blocked Her Number. Now, He's Back After 6 Months Like 'Nothing Happened'
A woman says her husband left her and their three children without so much as a note and blocked her calls and texts She says he recently showed up at her door six months later as if "nothing happened,' claiming that he's 'ready to come home' The woman shared her story on a popular community forum to get advice on how she should proceedA woman's husband disappeared for nearly six months — but is now 'ready to come home' without an apology or a 'proper explanation.' The woman detailed her experience in a Mumsnet post titled 'Husband left at New Year's and just turned up like nothing happened.' She explained that her husband left her and their three children — ages 7, 5 and 2 — in early January, leaving 'no note, no message, no nothing. Just packed a bag and vanished.' She said that her husband blocked her on 'everything,' including texts and phone calls, and didn't even respond to his own mother when he disappeared. The original poster (OP) went on to say that she reached out to police, who informed her that he was 'fine' and 'left voluntarily,' so there was 'not much they could do.' The PEOPLE Puzzler crossword is here! How quickly can you solve it? Play now! The OP — who has been solo parenting and 'barely keeping it together ' since he left — was shocked when her husband 'turned up yesterday' as if 'nothing happened.' She said he claims 'he'd been 'sorting himself out' and 'couldn't cope' and that he's ready to come home now.' Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. The woman said that his actions have left her three children 'confused' and her eldest child 'cried all night.' 'I'm angry and numb and tired and I don't even know what I'm supposed to do with this. I feel like I've spent six months mourning and now he's back like a ghost,' she continued. The woman said that she ultimately did not let her husband stay at the house, but 'he's saying he wants to talk.' 'I don't know if I even want to hear it,' she said, before asking her fellow community members if anyone has ever been through anything similar. Post commenters expressed immense sympathy for the OP, with many people sharing that they do not think she should take her husband back or attempt to reconcile. 'I wouldn't let him back under any circumstances, if not just for what he's done to your children already, but because there's every chance he'll do it all again,' one person said. 'I think I'd have to hear him out and get answers, but no way would he be coming back to live,' added another person. Some, however, said they thought the OP should at least listen to what he has to say. 'If he was, prior to this, a good person/good partner, I would hear him out. It sounds like he's had a complete breakdown," someone said. Another person said that the OP should ultimately listen to herself — and disregard the opinion of others on what is ultimately a highly personal issue. 'OP, he can come back if you want him to. He can't come back if you don't want him to. It's completely up to you, and none of us,' they said. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Labour tiptoed cautiously through its first year - now is the time to escape its own shadow
The strategising and multi-year planning going on ahead of this week's Spending Review is the bread and butter of any well-run economy. A Spending Review shows how resources are being allocated between departments and so indicates the government's "when-push-comes-to-shove" priorities. But this time it will be a "different sort of Spending Review", the chancellor's helpers are saying. That's because with the new government nearly one year old, this Spending Review is also a one-off opportunity to show the private sector and international investors that it has a confident, deliverable vision. But having tiptoed cautiously throughout its first year in office, the question is whether this government can convince those potential investors that the economic vision is real? And will other long-term challenges, such as industrial energy prices, social care costs, and worker illness be prioritised or parked? Some chief executives tell me they cannot fathom why a government with such a huge majority can sometimes appear to be scared of its own shadow. There had been talk of Downing Street "wanting to have fights" over planning for major projects. But companies that have major investors waiting to invest in the factories that could start rolling out the mass adoption of green technologies are wondering whether Downing Street really will back them, given the polls, and possible net zero backlash. "They need to stop playing tiny domestic politics," one boss of a major consumer company told me, as he awaits a convincing solid vision. It is with big investors in mind that the chancellor's focus at this spending review has been on long-term capital spending - that's where the big numbers come in. The proportion of the country's GDP that is being earmarked for capital spending, is 2.7% on a five-year average. If that doesn't strike you as eye-watering, it's worth noting it will be at its highest sustained level for nearly half a century. It will be significantly higher than under Brown-Darling in 2010. In 2000 this number was 0.5%. Of course, allocating significant sums is not a guarantee that the money will be spent effectively, or even at all. Spending on capital is often subject to the rollercoaster of short-term government priorities. In a crisis it tends to be the first thing to get hacked back, because the loss of future buildings or roads or rail lines is less politically troublesome than cutting back a public service or, say, teachers' pay in the here and now. That's why under the chancellor's new borrowing rules, the money can at least be allocated to big capital projects. Her reforms to those rules - keeping them strict on day-to-day spending, but consciously allowing more space for long-term investment - were designed for this. The main goal being future growth. Long-term certainty over the capital sums that are being allocated over the next week or so, could be a gamechanger. Private investment is more likely to follow if there are long-term plans in place, especially after so many years of political uncertainty. As part of all this, the chief secretary to the Treasury is also announcing increases in spending on research and development. That is designed to boost science-led growth. But the marquee project for this announcement will surely be the long-awaited high-speed rail line between Liverpool and Manchester. It is a piece of infrastructure forged in the fires of the UK's industrial heritage, including the world's first inter-city passenger line, and of course Stephenson's Rocket, the original steam locomotive. Now, 200 years on from its launch in 1829, it may well be time for another industrial revolution, of sorts. But make no mistake, the government has still had to make some big choices, even within a more generous capital budget. Most of the increase in defence spending announced last week is in the form of capital spending. When the documents are published on Wednesday, it is possible that some other capital projects will have been squeezed to make room. All departments have also reassessed spending from first principles, as part of a "zero-based" review. In theory there could be entire projects axed. There will also be a lot of "investing to spend less". Using the capital budget to invest in, say, AI scanners in the health service, in a way that ultimately is supposed to save money. The aim, ambitiously put, is to "rewire the state" and "get Britain moving". Why Labour is strengthening ties with China after years of rollercoaster relations UK taxpayers no longer own NatWest - but 17 years on, are banks safer from collapse? The secretive US factory that lays bare the contradiction in Trump's America First plan It is with this in mind, that the chancellor will promise the government has learnt the lessons of capital spending debacles, such as HS2. She believes that by waiting, and carefully preparing an infrastructure strategy, she is making sure the spending will go where it will most boost growth. Freeing up supply, for example in the planning system, is supposed to help the rebuilding boom, but without provoking inflation. Those new borrowing rules that freed up spending on big projects, also mean tight settlements on day-to-day spending. The travails of Elon Musk and Donald Trump show the challenges for G7 countries in managing public finances. And Labour are operating in an environment where some opposition parties are now advocating more radical surgery to the size of the state in the UK. Moreover, when it comes to public spending there is still the long shadow from the pandemic. Demand for acute services and benefits related to ill health and care, or special needs, is eating far into budgets for councils, schools and health. The public seems to expect more from the state since the pandemic, even if it does not want to stump up the taxes to pay for it. So budgetary pressures have not gone away. It is, right now, difficult to square extra welfare spending on winter fuel payments and child benefit, extra defence spending, and sticking to the chancellor's rules without some further tax rises in the autumn. Faster growth numbers, and an upturn in confidence after the series of trade deals, could help make the numbers add up, but there are any number of economic uncertainties out there too. While there have been some strained moments in negotiations with Cabinet colleagues, all parties have already negotiated a mini-Spending Review for this year. But that is not to say the chancellor doesn't have to perform a massive balancing act: juggling demands to keep the short-term budget numbers adding up, while unleashing the long-term investment that could finally get the economy growing again. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The world has never been more volatile. Britons must be prepared to fight for their country
When Lord Robertson was asked to co-write a strategic review of Britain's defence, he had one slightly peculiar objective. 'It was suggested at the beginning that the objective of our report should be to stop The Daily Telegraph judging Britain's defence by the number of people in the Army,' the former Nato secretary general said. 'And I think we've done that,' he remarked in an interview with The Telegraph's Battle Lines podcast this week. The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) is a 144-page, 45,000 word prescription for 'root and branch' reform of Britain's military. Officially, it is an instruction to the Government. But at another level, it is addressed to us, the British public. The message is stark: how much are you prepared to sacrifice to make this country safe? That implies a demand no British government has had to make of voters since Winston Churchill promised blood, toil, tears and sweat. It's a reflection of the danger of the current geopolitical moment. And it is why Robertson believes he has made the case in this review for looking beyond numbers of troops, submarines and fighter planes that previous reports have focused on. The real issues, he argues, are much more crucial. 'Too many of the interviews I've had this week have been about the money. Whereas actually this report fundamentally transforms the way in which we do defence. 'It's a strategic review, it is designed for 2035, not just for what we're facing at the present moment. 'It's to do with what we are going to need in future: agile forces, grasping the whole of technology, capturing the innovations that are coming. I think a lot of people have missed that.' Lord Robertson has spent a career in and around defence and security. As Tony Blair's first defence secretary he authored the new Labour government's own strategic review in 1998. He went on to serve as secretary general of Nato from 1999-2003. So he was a natural choice when John Healey, the defence secretary, was hiring independent reviewers to take a new look at the state of British defence. His co-authors were General Sir Richard Barrons, an accomplished soldier who is best known for publicly warning of the current crisis in the forces 10 years ago, and Fiona Hill, the British-American foreign policy expert who advised Donald Trump on Russia during his first term as president. Both have a reputation as the best in their respective fields. The report they have come up with – readably penned by Hill, who Robertson strongly hints was by far the best writer of the three – is both ambitious, and frighteningly blunt. Three years into the biggest war in Europe in 1945, they warn, Britain's Armed Forces remain shaped by the post Cold-War era of small wars, far away, against irregular or poorly armed opponents. 'Exquisite' capabilities have masked the 'hollowing out' of the Armed Forces' war fighting capability. Stockpiles are inadequate. The 'strategic base lacks capacity and resilience following years of under investment. Medical services lack the capacity for managing a mass-casualty conflict'. Poor recruitment and retention, shoddy accommodation, falling morale, and cultural challenges have created a military 'workforce crisis'. And in addition, the relationship with industry is still stuck in the Cold War. 'Business as usual is not an option,' they write. Their plan is to bring Britain to war-fighting readiness over the next 10 years. Will we have that long? General Carsten Breuer, the head of the German army, said this month that Nato could face a Russian attack by 2029. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British defence think tank, found in a report in May that the attack could come as early as 2027, in the admittedly worst-case scenario of America leaving Nato and removing troops from Europe. 'The decade [to 2035] is what we were working to. That was our view about what we needed to do,' says Lord Robertson. 'For a peer adversary attacking the United Kingdom, which is what we're talking about, it would probably require that long for the existing potential adversaries to reconstitute. But it can be earlier, and therefore the model that we have created and are promoting can be accelerated.' Of the 62 individual proposals in this 'root and branch' reform plan, many are of operational implications that will mostly be of interest to those already in uniform. The Royal Navy, it says, will need a greater submarine and anti-submarine warfare capability to protect our underwater pipelines and cables. The RAF is called on to deliver deeper air and missile defence, expand its use of drones, and could be involved in 'discussions with the United States and Nato on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in Nato's nuclear mission'. Some have taken that to mean mounting air-dropped nuclear-bombs on F-35As jets, but Robertson says: 'It's not in the report because we found a huge diversity of opinion about that, ranging from the best nuclear platform to the suitability of the F35.' The biggest implications are for the Army, the least modernised of the three services and the one most depleted by donating kit to Ukraine. It will have to increase its armoured brigades from two to three, implying a massive investment and overhaul. But woven through all of this is a theme of relevance to everyone living in Britain, whatever their relationship to the Armed Forces. The new era, they say, requires an 'all-of-society' approach. Forget recent decades. The Falklands, Gulf, and Afghanistan wars did not require anything close to the scale of national preparation for war, home defence, resilience, and industrial mobilisation that they have in mind. 'We need to have a national conversation among the British people about your defence and security, how safe do people want to be, and what you are willing to pay in order to be properly safe,' says Robertson. 'Our adversaries don't believe in business as usual, and therefore what we are doing can't be business as usual.' Nor will it be business as usual for Robertson, who left Nato in 2003 and at the age of 79 could be forgiven for wanting to spend more time at his home in Dunblane with his wife Sandra. Instead, he says, he and the other reviewers will be visiting 'various parts of the country' to make that case for a new defence pact to the general public. It is a function of just how fundamentally the world has changed since the defence review he last authored nearly 30 years ago. 'We had 10,000 troops committed to Northern Ireland in 1998, either in the province or ready to go there. Nato had just signed the Nato-Russia Founding Act with Boris Yeltsin. China was in the shadows, wasn't really a big player at all, and we thought globalisation was a great idea.' 'So that world has gone. We now have a great power competition playing out in front of our eyes,' he adds. 'We have geostrategic shifts taking place all the time in terms of industry and commerce. The volatility of events in the world is unprecedented, probably in history.' For that reason, the SDR devotes several pages to home defence and resilience, ensuring continuity of national life in the event of infrastructure failures and 'build national preparedness and resilience, ensuring the UK can withstand attacks and recover quickly'. Its prescriptions include renewing the contract between the Forces and the country, enhancing protection for critical national infrastructure, making sure that industry knows what is expected of it in case of war. All of this will be useless without one crucial, but unquantifiable factor. Just as nuclear deterrence depends on the willingness of national leaders to use it, whole-of-society deterrence will only be as credible as our own – that is, ordinary people's – willingness to endure hardship our enemies can inflict upon us. Those hardships will be enormous. Experience from Ukraine shows that full scale war involves electricity, water, and energy supplies being targeted. There will be shortages of fuel and possibly of food. We have already had tasters of the chaos to come. 'If the lights go out in this studio and this building here today,' Lord Robertson says, gesturing around The Telegraph's podcast studio, 'do we know how to get out of it?' I'm not entirely sure I do. He carries on: 'A few weeks ago, the whole of Spain and Portugal lost power. Two modern European countries lost power. Paralysis was the result. 'A transformer blows up and Heathrow airport, the busiest airport in the world, has to close down for 24 hours. Something like 90 per cent of the data that we are using in this country and in Europe as a whole, comes in under sea cables. 'About 77 per cent of the UK's gas imports come from Norway and one in one pipeline. So the vulnerabilities from cyber and from the grey zone, disinformation, targeted assassinations, electoral interference, all of that is part and parcel of today's world.' Once confrontation moves from the grey zone to open war, there is a question of casualties. How would the British public respond, I ask, to cruise missiles slamming into Catterick Garrison leaving dozens, possibly hundreds, of young soldiers dead? Or glide bombs ripping women and children into pieces as they shop? Or a Royal Navy ship being lost with all hands? Are we, as a nation, psychologically and culturally prepared to shoulder the kind of hardship and grief unseen since 1945? 'We'll need to make sure that that is the case and remind people about what it is. And I think that's the job of the media. It's the job of politicians. 'And we need to raise awareness of the issue. What is it you want, what is the insurance premium that will keep you and your family safe in the future. 'But we in the review are talking about how to avoid it. Deterrence is the question. You know, we all go to our beds at night safe because of Article 5 of the Nato treaty.' However Nato – the bedrock of British defence – is under strain. And Britain's relationship with its allies is about to be tested at the annual alliance summit in the Hague later this month. Robertson, Barrons and Hill wrote the Review to parameters set by the government: specifically, a commitment to raise defence spending from 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 and to 3 per cent in the next parliament when economic conditions allow. Nato officials told The Telegraph this week that they expect Starmer to commit to 3.5 per cent at the alliance's annual summit in the Hague. Donald Trump and his defence secretary Pete Hegseth are demanding a much higher bench mark of 5 per cent. Lord Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British Army, said earlier this week that postponing three per cent target is 'tantamount to back in 1937 saying to Adolf Hitler 'please don't attack us until 1946 because we won't be ready'.' Although Robertson argues the money question is a distraction from the 'guts' of the review, it is not difficult to see where the tight budget has constrained ambition. The review clearly states that none of the three Services – Army, Royal Navy, or Royal Air Force can afford to lose any more highly trained and equipped regulars. Yet the authors' proposed remedy is strangely modest. For example, it says the Army should have a total strength of 100,000, consisting of the current nominal 73,000 regulars (the smallest since the Napoleonic wars) and the difference made up by an expansion of the number of reservists. It argues that new technology can make this small force '10 times more lethal' than it is now. And it is true that automation is changing warfare. The audacious Ukrainian operation to strike Russian airbases last weekend, points out Robertson, is a perfect example of the kind of thing Britain should be planning to carry out – and defend against. But high intensity peer conflict still involves casualties. Heavy casualties. In the trenches in Donbas, there is a constant threat of shrapnel, bullet, and blast wounds. Drones may now be inflicting more casualties than artillery, but that is of little comfort to the infantry: unlike a 152mm shell, a quadcopter loaded with plastic explosive can chase your car or fly right through the door of your dugout. That is one reason why this month Russia is projected to suffer its millionth casualty, including dead and wounded. No one is suggesting the British Army should fight with Russian-style tactics. But can a force of 73,000 regulars and 27,000 reservists really sustain modern levels of attrition? 'The Army's lethality is what matters. It's the effectiveness of our forces that actually matter, at the end of the day. And Ukraine is an example, but it's not a template. 'People say that generals, and even strategists are busy fighting the last war, and in some ways, Ukraine is the last war. The next war will be a very different war in many ways with very different sets of circumstances that we have to deal with,' says Robertson. Yet it is difficult to shake the feeling that although Robertson, Hill and Barrons did the best they could within the financial parameters they were set, they would have liked to do more. Would he have liked more money to work with? And does he believe Labour will deliver? Everything in the review has been 'ruthlessly' costed, he says, and the Prime Minister has explicitly promised its recommendations are going to be implemented. 'So the three of us are going to be right there, you know, sitting there like crows on the branch of a tree, watching carefully as to how the recommendations are implemented and how, and, and when and when they are,' he says 'So Labour has created a bit of a rod for their own back by having independent reviewers, but at the same time, it should galvanise them.' The question of raising the budget, he says, is a question for voters. 'What we can say is what we think is necessary, in terms of reference [we were given]. If the British people as a whole decide they want to spend more money on defence and less money on other things, then they will make that decision,' he says. 'At the moment they don't. We had a general election campaign last year where defence wasn't really mentioned at all. We had a Conservative party leadership campaign where defence wasn't mentioned as an issue. So people in the country have to see the threats that exist at the moment and the threats that will be there in the future and make a decision about what they have.' It's a fair point. For all the grumbling about Keir Starmer's timidness, the truth is his government – and British taxpayers – face three equally unpalatable options. They could borrow, while national debt is already at 95 per cent of GDP and growth anaemic; raise taxes, when the tax burden is already on course to be the highest since the Second World War; or make cuts elsewhere, when public services are already struggling. Is the blunt message, then, that to be safe ordinary Britons will have to make sacrifices? 'I think so. Unless the economy improves and unless we get growth – and a lot of what we are doing is promoting growth, defence expenditure is a way of gaining growth – then that makes the pie bigger and the choice is less difficult to make. 'We don't live in a world where there is an infinite amount of money available. It's a question of priorities. And if in a national conversation, which the Prime Minister has promised he's going to lead, people come to the conclusion that they want to avoid the lights going out or the hospitals being shut or the airports being shuttered and the data cables being broken, then the insurance premium that keeps your family safe has got be afforded.' As Robertson leaves The Telegraph, I remark that there is something about our conversation that leaves me uneasy. Here we are, a journalist in his 40s and a peer of the realm in his 70s – blithely discussing a war that neither of us will probably have to fight in. Does he find it morally awkward, talking about sacrifices today's teenagers and twenty-somethings will be asked to make? 'It is, and that's why I'm so obsessive about deterrence,' he says. 'The idea is to do this now so we don't have to fight.' He returns to the nuclear question, and three decades of interactions with top Russian officials. 'I've been in the Kremlin. And I am convinced that even if we did everything you've suggested – double the size of the army, and so on – the one thing that will really get their attention is the independent nuclear deterrent.' 'You know, there are people who will still argue that if Ukraine had not given up its nuclear weapons in 1994, in return for the paper assurances of the Budapest memorandum, that Russia would never have dared to have crossed the border. I don't know if you can prove that or disprove that. 'All I know is that Nato and the Article 5 guarantee is a deterrent to any aggressor who thinks that they can take on these 32 countries. So all of the missiles, all of the submarines, all of the planes that we are proposing are part of the build-up to war readiness are designed not to be used. 'They're designed to make sure that nobody fires that cruise missile.' Watch the full Lord Robertson interview on the Battle Lines podcast here. You can also listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
