Britain's rights watchdog warns against heavy-handed policing amid Gaza demos
The letter, from EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner, raised concerns about 'reports of police engagement with individuals participating in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation'.
The commission referenced a report by the Guardian newspaper about a woman said to have been threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and signs saying 'Free Gaza' and 'Israel is committing genocide'.
The woman was reportedly told by police that her demonstration in Canterbury, Kent, in July expressed views supportive of Palestine Action, an organisation which has been banned by the Government.
The woman said neither of her signs mentioned Palestine Action and that she had told police she did not support any proscribed organisations.
Baroness Falkner said any interference with protest rights 'must be lawful and assessed case-by-case'.
She added: 'Heavy-handed policing or blanket approaches risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences.
'This concern extends beyond those directly affected by police engagement to the broader health of our democracy, because the perception that peaceful protest may attract disproportionate police attention undermines confidence in our human rights protections.'
The EHRC said Government and police authorities must 'ensure that all officers receive clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations' when it comes to protests.
'This guidance should ensure that the appropriate balance is maintained between public safety and the protection of essential human rights,' Baroness Falkner added.
Palestine Action was proscribed by the UK Government in July, with the ban meaning that membership of, or support for, the group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000.
More than 500 people were arrested last weekend on suspicion of displaying an item in support of a proscribed group, as demonstrations took place in central London.
Downing Street has described Palestine Action as 'violent' and said it has committed 'significant injury' as well as criminal damage, adding that evidence and security assessments shared in closed court supported its proscription.
Palestine Action said Downing Street's accusations were 'false and defamatory' and 'disproven by the Government's own intelligence assessment'.
The Metropolitan Police, Home Office and Kent Police have been contacted for comment.
Meanwhile, campaigners including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Quakers in Britain have written to the Attorney General asking for prosecution decisions of those arrested at the London march at the weekend to be delayed until after further legal action over Palestine Action's proscription.
A High Court hearing is set to take place in November challenging the group's ban as a terror organisation.
In their letter to Attorney General Richard Hermer, the groups argued that 'prosecuting individuals for offences connected to that proscription before the court has determined its legality raises significant legal and moral questions' and said delaying prosecution decisions 'would demonstrate restraint, fairness and respect for the ongoing legal process'.
The Attorney General's office has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
13 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Crown Estate: Westminster holds the power claims campaign group
It follows two letters received by the group. One from Welsh secretary Jo Stevens on behalf of prime minister Keir Starmer, confirming Westminster's refusal to transfer the Crown Estate to Wales. The other, from first minister Eluned Morgan confirming the Welsh Government's commitment to securing control of the Crown Estate. YesCymru chairman Phyl Griffiths said: 'These letters reveal exactly where decisions about Wales are really being made – and it's not in Wales. "The Welsh Government understands that control over our natural resources is key to our economic future, but Westminster's answer is simply 'no'. This is why our campaign will only intensify until the Crown Estate is transferred to Wales.' YesCymru has led a national campaign for transferring the Crown Estate to Wales, which is backed by all 22 Welsh councils. YesCymru director Rob Hughes said: 'It's a farce that YesCymru has to act as a go-between to get clarity on the Crown Estate. "Why are the Welsh and UK Governments not talking directly to each other about Wales' resources? This back-and-forth through us only highlights how little say Wales has in decisions that should be made here at home. "Until we have independence, we will remain at the mercy of a system where Westminster holds the power and Wales gets the leftovers.'
The National
13 minutes ago
- The National
Owen Jones: Genocidal Israel has its sights set on West Bank
Normally, states – like individuals – which commit terrible crimes go to great lengths to suppress their real motives: after all, doing otherwise represents a confession. But having rationally decided that its Western benefactors have granted it immunity, Israel's leaders and officials simply said, in public, over and over again, what their criminal and indeed genocidal intentions are. Which brings us to two Israeli ministers. One is Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's financial minister and the de facto governor of the illegally occupied and colonised West Bank. In a speech, he has declared: 'We will bury the Palestinian state, Europe will have nothing left to recognise.' READ MORE: Scotland's post-war pain and pride brought to life in powerful Fringe play debut Here, he is openly taunting the empty posturing of European states, like Britain. Keir Starmer has declared that his government will recognise Palestinian nationhood next month unless certain conditions, like Israel accepting a ceasefire, are met – using an inalienable right as a bargaining chip. But in doing so, Starmer had opted for the most symbolic option, rather than, say, ending all arms sales, imposing sanctions and ending trade. Smotrich knows this, which is why he is openly mocking the likes of Starmer. He knows Western leaders are not actually interested in putting pressure on Israel, that all this rhetoric is meant purely for domestic consumption, to try to dupe Western citizens into doing something. The 'two-state solution' exists, in practice, as a crutch for Western leaders to get through interviews without having to answer questions about meaningful action. What Smotrich is planning here are construction plans which cut the West Bank's north off from its south in order to – in his words – create a 'reality that buries the idea of a Palestinian state – because there's nothing to recognise and no one to recognise it'. Housing units for thousands of illegal Israeli settlers will be built. For those who believe that Smotrich is a fringe figure, despite all his genocidal aspirations in Gaza having been granted: he boasted in this speech of how Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had 'supported and enabled me to carry out this revolution' in the West Bank. The West Bank has long been the site of Israel's murderous suffocation. There are hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers there, living with the privileges afforded to them under a system of apartheid. The indigenous Palestinians, on the other hand, are deprived of basic rights and are systematically driven from their homes. Hundreds were slaughtered in the years running up to October 7, and hundreds more since. Since January, more than 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced in the West Bank, the largest forced displacement since Israel's occupation began in 1967. This is a slow-motion Gaza. One of Smotrich's colleagues, Israel's national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, also underlined that Israel's genocidal intent is not simply confined to Gaza. A hideous video has been posted of him confronting Marwan Barghouti, who is frequently described as the Palestinian Nelson Mandela. Hailing from Ramallah in the West Bank, this unifying leader has been imprisoned for more than two decades, languishing in solitary confinement: looking shockingly frail, the video clearly intended to emphasise how much he'd suffered. 'You will not defeat us. Whoever harms the people of Israel, whoever kills children, whoever kills women … we will erase them,' says Ben-Gvir. This is nakedly genocidal. There is, as ever, no pretence. The Israeli state is telling the world that it intends to erase the Palestinian people, because it quite rationally understands there will be no consequences. Has it not wiped Gaza from the world map, exterminated tens of thousands of its people, deliberately starved its entire population, buried its hospitals in rubble, butchered medics and aid workers, presided over industrialised torture and rape – and only suffered Western handwringing as a result? READ MORE: I was cut off on air for saying BBC is complicit in genocide. Here's why I did it And that is why the Israeli state knows that it won't just eliminate Palestinian Gaza, but successfully annex the West Bank and remove its Palestinian population there, too. Indeed, the West Bank was always the jewel in its crown. But given the impunity, Israel has given notice about its real plans. This week, Netanyahu made his expansionist ambitions clear. He was asked by a TV interviewer if he felt connected to a vision of a 'Greater Israel', and replied: 'Very much.' This 'Greater Israel' includes parts of Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Imagine the leader of a state hostile to the West openly made clear their desire to annex the land of multiple neighbours, in order to expand an ethno state. It would lead news bulletins, be splashed on newspaper front pages, be denounced by Western leaders – all as damning evidence of naked, unhinged aggression. But not so here. Over and over again, Israel's leaders simply state their criminal intent, and yet the vast majority of Western media outlets act as though it's not really happening, or as though it's some parallel universe. But there's no subtlety, no secrecy. Here is a crime confessed to over and over again: no one can say they were not warned.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
No U-turn as thousands more to be hit with inheritance tax
There will be others who may be simply unaware of the government's plans that could impact their private and workplace pension savings as other policies aimed at balancing the nation's books and controlling our borders continue to dominate the domestic news coverage. When the reforms were announced in the Autumn Budget back in October, a technical consultation followed seeking views on the proposals for the reporting and payment of any inheritance tax on the pension component of an estate. The response to that consultation has now been published and, whilst there are some changes around the administrative responsibilities (personal representatives rather than pension scheme administrators will be responsible), the government has made it clear that it intends to implement its overarching inheritance tax policy, despite strong industry consensus pointing to simpler alternatives. There are to be no U-turns afforded to these pension reforms. It is somewhat ironic that, on one hand the Government is increasing the tax burden on pensions, but has also revived the Pensions Commission to tackle the barriers that stop pension saving. Their policy of taxing pensions on death is not conducive with encouraging people to save more into their pensions. The reality of what this all means is that, from April 2027, if the value of a person's estate, once unused pension funds are included, exceeds the nil-rate band (currently £325,000), then inheritance tax may apply on the excess. It is important to note that the usual spousal exemption will apply. There is no inheritance tax to pay on estates passed to, and gifts between, UK domiciled spouses and civil partners. The government estimates that, from the estates with inheritable pension wealth in 2027 to 2028 (and before assuming any behavioural change), around 1 in 4 people will be impacted. That translates to 38,500 estates having to pay more inheritance tax than previously, and 10,500 estates becoming liable for inheritance tax where this would not previously have been the case. For those affected, simplicity has now been replaced with complexity and a much higher tax bill. As things stand, it is a relatively simple affair of ensuring expression of wishes are up-to-date and, there is the peace of mind in knowing that no action is necessary for any pension leftover to be passed on without any inheritance tax implications, no matter when death occurred. These changes will mean that active decisions will be needed to attempt to balance an individual's own needs as well as leaving beneficiaries in the best position, if they have concerns around the inheritance tax impact. A further sting in the tail is that the existing income tax treatment on unused pensions on death will continue to apply, whereby the age at death will be a determining factor for the income tax treatment in the hands of the beneficiaries. Where death occurs before age 75, any lump sum or income withdrawal will be tax free. Where death occurs after age 75, any lump sum or income withdrawal will be taxed at the recipient's marginal rate. This presents the dim prospect of some unused pensions on death suffering both inheritance tax and income tax (where the nil-rate band is exceeded and death occurs after age 75). No doubt, for some, the changes will make them consider accelerating the drawings of their pension benefits to enable gifting. But here time is of the essence as generally a seven-year rule applies to gifts, as no inheritance tax is due where the transferor lives for seven years after giving the gift. However, death within seven years of giving a gift is subject to inheritance tax (gifts given in the three years before death are taxed at the 40% standard rate and gifts given three to seven years before death are taxed on a sliding scale, reducing the rate by 8% per year). Additionally, regular payments made from income (including pensions) can be considered and benefit from being exempt from inheritance tax provided they are part of an individual's normal expenditure and they are left with enough to maintain their normal standard of living. Spare a thought to what could be described as an extremely unfair situation should death occur before age 55, which is normal minimum pension age, and the earliest point pension benefits can normally be accessed. In such a situation, an individual would not get the benefit of their pension in their lifetime (so not have the opportunity for gifting) but potentially suffer inheritance tax. That does appear particularly harsh and does not suggest joined up pension policy thinking. Often the cost associated with professional advice is the focus, rather than the value the advice offers. This is perhaps one area where the value of advice and planning can be tangibly measured. But whether getting professional help or going it alone, for some it is no longer the case of 'wait and see'. Lee Halpin is head of technical services @sipp
