Partner of crossbow victim says Leeds attack shows urgent need for restrictions
A woman whose partner was killed in a crossbow attack says the injuries inflicted on two women in the recent incident in Leeds is further proof that action is needed on the sale of these weapons.
Laura Sugden was commenting after counter-terror police announced that 38-year-old Owen Lawrence – the man suspected of carrying out a crossbow attack in the Headingley area of Leeds – had died.
Mr Lawrence, from Headingley, was taken to hospital on Saturday with a self-inflicted wound after two women were injured in Otley Road.
Ms Sugden was seriously injured in 2018 by a crossbow-wielding neighbour – coincidentally called Lawrence – who killed her partner Shane Gilmer.
Since that attack in the village of Southburn, East Yorkshire, Ms Sugden has campaigned to halt the unregulated ownership of crossbows.
She said she welcomed Government proposals outlined earlier this week designed to tighten the law around crossbow sales, but said on Wednesday that they need to go further.
Ms Sugden said: 'This recent attack in Headingley shows yet again how dangerous and accessible these weapons are.
'We've been campaigning for crossbows to be treated with the same seriousness as firearms, including licensing and police checks.
'Crossbows are devastating weapons – in some cases more dangerous than guns – and it's far too easy to get hold of one today.'
She said: 'While a total ban may not be feasible, we must have legislation in place that offers real protection and accountability.
'The latest proposals are a start, but we need real, meaningful action that stops tragedies like Shane's from ever happening again.'
Home Office minister Dame Diana Johnson said on Monday that amendments tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill aim to strengthen age verification controls on both the online sale and delivery of the weapon.
Dame Diana also expressed concerns about how people can go online and 'in a few clicks' buy a crossbow, as she signalled the Government intends to bring forward further measures.
Her remarks came during an urgent question about the incident in Leeds at the weekend in which two women, aged 19 and 31, were injured and a crossbow and firearm were recovered.
Ms Sugden's solicitor Gemma Vine, from Ison Harrison, said her client is encouraged by Dame Diana's comments but asked the Government to publish its response to the consultation on this issue which closed more than a year ago.
Ms Vine said: 'New, restrictive laws would mark a turning point after years of dedicated campaigning and offer some measure of closure for victims like Laura.
'More importantly, they would prevent further avoidable deaths and bring these dangerous weapons under proper control.
'With more lives now lost, we urge the Home Office to urgently publish its response and provide a clear plan and timetable for reform.'
Police believe Owen Lawrence was acting alone and say they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the Leeds attack.
His Facebook accounts are being examined as the investigation into what happened continues.
Posts on two accounts that appear to be linked to Lawrence include images of a gun and makeshift wooden knives, as well as a rambling entry setting out an apparent plan to kill people taking part in the Otley Road Run pub crawl.
Mr Gilmer, 30, died after his next-door neighbour, Anthony Lawrence, broke into his house in January 2018, and shot both him and Ms Sugden.
Lawrence was later found dead in a camper van in North Yorkshire.
Ms Sugden told a 2021 inquest that she went upstairs and found Lawrence in her daughter's bedroom, holding a crossbow.
She said Lawrence brought the already injured Mr Gilmer into the room and then shot her.
Ms Sugden, who was pregnant at the time, managed to pull the arrow out of her head but Lawrence took it from her and pushed it into her neck.
She told the jury that she pleaded with Lawrence and manged to escape as Mr Gilmer told her to get help, saying: 'Keep you and baby safe.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Terry Moran Insulted Stephen Miller? That's None of the Government's Business.
Terry Moran is a senior national correspondent for ABC News. Over the weekend, his employer suspended him over a statement he posted (and subsequently deleted) on X. In it, Moran described Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, as "richly endowed with the capacity for hatred." "You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment," wrote Moran. "He eats his hate." The tweet drew a fierce rebuke from Vice President J.D. Vance, who described it as an "absolutely vile smear." Vance, of course, is entitled to that opinion. But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt went a step further, declaring that "we"—i.e., the federal government—would be inquiring with ABC about disciplinary action. This is a textbook example of "jawboning"—when the government tries to accomplish some censorship by threatening improper government action. It is exactly the sort of thing that conservatives rightly hated about the previous administration: President Joe Biden, his senior advisors, and various federal employees browbeat social media companies into taking down content that the feds deemed wrong, hateful, or dangerous. They didn't just say that they disagreed with major platform moderation policies: They raised the possibility of punitive legislation against Facebook, Google, and Twitter unless they complied. Leavitt is free to complain about Moran's comment, as Vance did. But her insinuation that she would be speaking with Moran's manager reads like a threat, and thus like an attempt at censorship. As Jenin Younes, a civil liberties attorney, noted in a reply to Leavitt, the Trump administration issued an executive order to prevent the kind of jawboning that took place under the previous White House. To turn around and do the same thing is obviously hypocritical. "Journalists and everyone else can say what they want about members of the Administration (and anything else) without having to fear reprisal from the government," wrote Younes. "You should delete this tweet and apologize for your attempted act of tyranny and also failure to understand basic constitutional concepts." As for Moran's post: It probably was unwise for a straight news reporter to share his spicy speculations about Miller's motivations. Mainstream media organizations have different rules for news reporters and opinion commentators, and it's possible that Moran violated his company's social media policy. He has a First Amendment right vis a vis the U.S. government, not with respect to ABC. That said, these prohibitions on reporters sharing their own opinions on social media seem increasingly outdated. Does anyone harbor doubts that virtually all straight-news journalists possess deeply held ideological convictions, perspectives, and biases? Isn't it better to know what they actually think? Large numbers of Americans now get their news from independent writers, content creators, and influencers on social media, Substack, YouTube, and other places—and the most successful voices tend to be upfront about their opinions. Expecting journalists to conceal their perspectives seems quaint and not exactly useful. Moran's statement that Miller derives "spiritual nourishment" from feasting on pure hate is a tad dramatic. (Emperor Palpatine, anyone?) But Miller is, in fact, a fanatical supporter of deporting not just violent or gang-connected illegal immigrants but everyone who may be in the country illegally. He recently reportedly yelled at representatives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) because they were prioritizing deportations of violent criminals; Miller reportedly wanted ICE agents to patrol Home Depots and 7-Elevens and arrest anybody who looked like they might not be here legally. Insults like "fascist" and "Nazi" are frequently overused to describe prominent Republican figures. But it's not exactly insane to say that Miller comes off as kind of hateful. The post Terry Moran Insulted Stephen Miller? That's None of the Government's Business. appeared first on
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Police to get above-inflation boost after 11th-hour spending review wrangling
Policing is expected to receive an above-inflation boost in the spending review after eleventh-hour Cabinet negotiations over the weekend. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is prepared to announce real-terms increases to budgets for the service every year as she sets out spending plans for the next three years on Wednesday. The Times newspaper reported the boost would see cuts to other areas of the Home Office, which had been facing a significant squeeze to pay for extra funding in the NHS and defence. Ms Reeves is expected to highlight health, education and security as top priorities when sharing out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But she has acknowledged that she has been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back in a sign of the behind-the-scenes wrangling over her spending review. Economists have warned the Chancellor faces unavoidably tough choices in allocating funding for the next three years. She will need to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, as well as her strict fiscal rules which include a promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. The expected increase to police budgets comes after two senior policing figures publicly warned the Chancellor that the service is 'broken' and forces are left with no choice but to cut staff to save money. Nick Smart, the president of the Police Superintendents' Association, and Tiff Lynch, acting national chairman for the Police Federation of England and Wales, said policing was in 'crisis'. In a joint article for the Telegraph, they said: 'Police forces across the country are being forced to shed officers and staff to deliver savings. These are not administrative cuts. 'They go to the core of policing's ability to deliver a quality service: fewer officers on the beat, longer wait times for victims, and less available officers when crisis hits.' The Department of Health is set to be the biggest winner in Ms Reeves' spending review on Wednesday, with the NHS expected to receive a boost of up to £30 billion at the expense of other public services. Meanwhile, day-to-day funding for schools is expected to increase by £4.5 billion by 2028-9 compared with the 2025-6 core budget, which was published in the spring statement. Elsewhere, the Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Home secretary yet to agree deal days before spending review
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is the last minister yet to agree a funding deal with the Treasury before Wednesday's Spending Review, BBC News understands. Ministers have been locked in talks with Chancellor Rachel Reeves and her team ahead of the major financial statement, which sets budgets for government departments covering the next few years. Housing Secretary Angela Rayner reached a settlement on Sunday evening after "progress" in negotiations, the BBC has learned, but Cooper is holding out in talks also involving No 10. Police budgets are expected to get a real-terms increase in each of the next three years, but negotiations are ongoing about the wider Home Office budget. Earlier on Sunday, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said police needed to "do their bit" towards reforming public services. Kyle told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that "every part of society was struggling" and that the chancellor was facing pressure from all departments for additional funding. He said the review would boost spending for schools and scientific research but declined to rule out a squeeze on policing. Earlier on Sunday, BBC News was told that Home Office ministers do not believe there is enough money to recruit the additional 13,000 new police and community support officers Labour promised in its manifesto. Kyle said the government had already provided an extra £1bn to the police, adding: "We are delivering investment in the police. "We expect the police to start embracing the change they need to do to do their bit for change as well." Spending Review: When is it and what might Rachel Reeves announce? Kyle also declined to guarantee that Rayner's housing department would be protected from budget cuts when asked about the government's plan to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of the parliament. But he added: "We made a manifesto commitment. We are absolutely laser-focused on delivering that." The last-minute talks come ahead of what is set to be a highly significant week for every part of government. It is expected there will be extra money for the NHS, with reports the Department for Health will receive increased funding. A substantial increase in funding for the NHS would come at the expense of other parts of government, as the chancellor seeks to meet her own fiscal rules, which are not to borrow to fund day-to-day spending, and for debt to be falling as a share of national income by 2029/30. But other parts of government will see their budgets squeezed as the chancellor seeks to meet her own fiscal rules, which are not to borrow to fund day-to-day spending, and for debt to be falling as a share of national income by 2029/30. Some elements of what will be included in the statement have emerged in recent days. On Sunday night the government announced £24m funding to boost artificial intelligence lessons in schools, as part of a wider £187m package to boost tech skills across the economy. Earlier on Sunday, the government announced an £86bn package for science and technology to help fund drug treatments and longer-lasting batteries. And on Wednesday, the chancellor unveiled a £15.6bn package to fund extensions to trams, trains and buses in Greater Manchester, the Midlands and the North East. Spending decisions come against the backdrop of a broad commitment to increase defence spending further to 3% by 2034. The government has already committed to increasing defence spending from 2.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) to 2.5% by 2027 - an extra £5bn a year - funded by a cut in the overseas aid budget. Reeves has previously confirmed the government will revise its controversial decision to limit Winter Fuel Payments to those in receipt of means-tested benefits. While the government is expected to share some information about who will receive the payment as part of the Spending Review, full details will not be released until the Budget later in the year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said "relatively modest" growth rates mean "sharp trade-offs are unavoidable". The think tank said the level of spending on health would dictate whether cuts were made to "unprotected" areas – those outside the NHS, defence and schools. Spending Review: Massive cheques from the chancellor for some - but what do totals hide? Labour tiptoed cautiously through its first year - will it now decide to escape its own shadow?
