Reform gains another Scottish Tory councillor
Commenting on his decision, Lonchay remarked:
The reasons for this decision are many, and I have particularly recently been unable to influence the running of the council for the benefit of my constituents. I have therefore decided to join Reform Scotland, and I look forward to working with colleagues in the unaligned group of councillors for the benefit of my constituents.
It's the latest blow for Tory-run council, after its leader Gillian Owen quit following a row which saw her brand her own colleagues 'f***ing bastards'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Are the SNP taking my vote for granted like Labour used to?
In the run-up to the 2026 election, it's undeniable that for many of the electorate the SNP will be seen as a party that's been in government for far too long. I'm more than confident that the media will be backing that, storyline after storyline. Unionists will vote tactically as usual, anyone but the SNP, and for others still wavering, the over-simplified 'change' mantra may help swing their votes. But the big question has to be: to whom? The stage is even more crowded with Reform UK, Galloway and Corbyn. With that new mix to pick from, Labour's hope of hoovering up the disenchanted from the SNP/pro-indy fold is long gone. Are Reform sufficiently established not to be considered the one-man Farage band, and just what traction is there in Scotland for the 'I'm not racist, but ...' line? No matter the Workers Party name, George is still the main attraction, even with Yvonne Ridley throwing her hat in the ring. I doubt their focus will genuinely be on the future of Scotland, more the failure of Labour to stand against genocide. Call me a cynic, but it would appear they've carefully chosen their constituencies, but with what in mind? An anti-genocide protest vote going their way? And as for Jeremy? Engaging as he was when I doorstepped him, I don't think his notion of a new party in Scotland that offers an alternative to the 'control freaks' of Labour and the 'dangerously divisive' politics of Reform UK will do more than split votes the same as Reform and the Workers Party will do. In turn, splitting the vote shouldn't detract from the fact that these parties, and what they claim to stand for, will get votes, something we ignore at our peril. That cynic in me suspects that as ever Scotland will be a testing ground, three parties testing the electorate before the next UK General Election. So where is independence in all of this? I'd agree that if the SNP and various politicians haven't secured that miraculous indy majority until now, why will they do so this time round? Sadly, no matter how hard the Yes grassroots worked in the run-up to the referendum, we didn't manage it either. I've subsequently heard it said often enough that with a date set for a referendum, the gang would get back together again. That's not going to happen! Over the years I've never consciously wasted my vote and I've voted every time. But I'm beginning to consider myself voting fodder for the SNP, the way Labour took so many of us for granted in the past. However, come 2026 I'd rather have the SNP in Holyrood than Unionists dismantling what devolution and mitigation has been hard won. The grassroots/Yes movement and civic society need to come together, speaking out with the (very broad) independence message. It's a message that requires examination, interrogation and participation as wide as possible. How do we get that going? Selma Rahman Edinburgh I AM baffled that any local council keeps its disabled toilet locked (FM urged to act on illegal toilet locks, Aug 14). Is the lock on the toilet one that doesn't allow disabled people to use their special RADAR keys? If that's the situation then they are blatantly breaking the law. I understand they wouldn't want the toilets vandalised but they should have locks that allow access with disabled people's keys, which are available to all disabled people. AGAIN I must stress that this council may be breaking the law! Anne Smart Glasgow
Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly
Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: 'Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, told the PA news agency: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Hackers capture personal data of former Tory ministers, British troops and thousands of Afghans allies in latest Ministry of Defence blunder
Personal data of former Tory ministers, British troops and thousands of Afghans has been lost in another embarrassing blunder for the Ministry of Defence. Defence officials sent a warning on Friday to 3,700 affected individuals warning their personal details, including their name, date of birth and passport number, had been hacked. It comes exactly a month after it was revealed the MoD had been running secrets flights to Britain, bringing in thousands of Afghans after a data blunder put 100,000 of them 'at risk of death' from the Taliban. The latest leak concerns many of the same people and is the third involving the personal data of former frontline Afghans since 2021. Former special forces interpreter Rafi Hottak, who was seriously injured in Afghanistan, said: 'How can it be that we've now had three separate data leaks involving one of the most vulnerable groups of people. 'I am truly worried about how badly the UK MOD has mishandled the personal data of Afghan allies. 'Once again, they have failed to protect those who stood shoulder to shoulder with them.' The personal details of former Conservative government ministers are also understood to have been compromised. Former special forces interpreter Rafi Hottak, who was seriously injured in Afghanistan , said: 'How can it be that we've now had three separate data leaks involving one of the most vulnerable groups of people' Such is the sensitivity of the leak that both the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Security Centre are involved in the investigation. It follows a cyber attack on a third-party sub-contractor used by the MoD for flights into Stansted – the airport that brings Afghans to the UK. They have been flown over in a secret operation following a major data leak, which was uncovered in 2023 and then remained secret for almost two years after an unprecedented government super-injunction. It is believed that some of the Afghans whose data was leaked in that first blunder have now been impacted a second time. A subcontractor called Inflite The Jet Centre which provides ground handling services for flights to the airport was compromised. It also handles flights for the Cabinet Office. The data covered the period from January to March last year, when hundreds of Afghans, relocated after risking their lives to help British troops, were flown to the UK. The hack, which happened recently, related only to those flying into Stansted Airport. Investigations are underway into the cyber attack and ransomware demands, said the MoD. The flights were used for bringing Afghans to the UK, as well as travel to routine military exercises and official engagements. The database at the heart of the super-injunction scandal, seen by the Daily Mail, contains details of more than 100 Britons including senior military officers and government officials The MoD alert warned: 'Please remain vigilant and be alert to unexpected communication or unusual activity.' The email has been sent to those who travelled during the period. It explained that certain information was required by the contractor to enable flights to depart and arrive. It is understood the hack primarily concerned Afghans being brought here, although 100 UK personnel were also affected. MoD sources said there was currently no evidence to suggest that any data has been released publicly or on the dark web. Investigations are underway into the cyber attack and any possible ransomware demands. Tens of thousands of Afghans who served alongside UK forces during the war have been rescued and brought to the UK. Professor Sara de Jong of the Sula Alliance, which campaigns for Afghans who worked beside UK forces during the 20 years of conflict, said: 'It's extraordinary that Afghans at risk are affected by yet another data security incident involving the Ministry of Defence. 'This will even further erode the trust of Afghans, who supported British military goals and who thought they could rely on protection in return, in UK institutions. 'Afghans who are now affected by several data leaks will also be left wondering why the Ministry of Defence's communication and advice is different each time, with the limited security advice and guidance, given very little reassurance.' In a statement, Inflite The Jet Centre Limited said it 'recently experienced a data security incident involving unauthorised access to a limited number of company emails. 'We have reported the incident to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and have been actively working with the relevant UK cyber authorities to support our investigation and response. 'We believe the scope of the incident was limited to email accounts only, however, as a precautionary measure, we have contacted our key stakeholders whose data may have been affected during the period of January to March 2024.' A government spokesman said: 'The incident has not posed any threat to individuals' safety, nor compromised any government systems.' 'We were recently notified that a third party sub-contractor to a supplier experienced a cyber security incident involving unauthorised access to a small number of its emails that contained basic personal information. 'We take data security extremely seriously and are going above and beyond our legal duties in informing all potentially affected individuals.' The government super-injunction was imposed after a list of those looking to relocate to Britain from Afghanistan after the Taliban took back control was accidentally emailed out by a soldier. When the Daily Mail uncovered the leak, it, followed by other media, was gagged.
