Trio in court after van allegedly driven into arms factory fence
Riddell was also charged under the Road Traffic Act 1988, aggravated by having a 'terrorist connection'.
During a short private hearing the Sheriff granted Fitzherbert, of London, and Riddell, of Glasgow, bail.
Their next appearance at court is to be confirmed.
Stubbs-Gorman, of Glasgow, had her application for bail continued one day and will appear before the court on Tuesday.
Supporters of the three women held a demonstration outside the court before their appearance, many waving Palestinian flags or holding placards with pro-Palestinian slogans.
Jessie Normaschild, 67, who was at the demonstration holding a Campaign Against Arms Trade banner, said she was attending to show support for the three women, and to protest about government support for arms manufacturers.
'Leonardo is a big arms factory in Edinburgh, and it makes the F-35 (fighter jet) targeting system,' she said.
'The F-35s are being used to bomb Gaza. And we don't want Leonardo in [[Edinburgh]].
'We don't want Scottish Government money, taxpayers' money, to fund Scottish Enterprise to give the money to Leonardo and Raytheon and BAE.'
Leonardo previously said it does not supply equipment directly to Israel and that its main customer is the UK Armed Forces.
On Sunday Police Scotland said its counter-terrorism unit is leading the investigation into the incident, and that inquiries are ongoing.
The force also issued an appeal for information to trace the movements of two vehicles.
One is a blue Ford Transit van which was seen around Gorgie Road on Monday and Tuesday prior to the incident.
The other is a white Honda CR-Z which was found in a car park on Gorgie Road after the incident.
Police have asked anyone with information to get in touch by calling 101, quoting reference number 0416 of July 15.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The oppression of Sally Rooney
Almost a decade ago the Irish academic Liam Kennedy published a tremendous book with the title Unhappy the Land: the Most Oppressed People Ever, the Irish? It is a dissection of one of the most curious pathologies in the world: the desire to have been oppressed; a glorying in being repressed. Kennedy, like a few other brave writers (Ruth Dudley Edwards, Malachi O'Doherty, Kevin Myers) has the courage to point to an under-examined seam in Ireland's history. Specifically he takes aim at the mawkishness that exists in contemporary Irish affairs. The desire to be the first victim, perhaps the greatest victim, of all victims, anywhere in the world. You see similar strains of aspiring victimhood in other mini-nationalisms. Over recent years, Scots and Welsh Nats have all sought to join in the victimhood jamboree. Some years ago I heard a Welsh poetess speaking to a very international and diverse audience. She made her opening plea, or boast, by saying that everyone should remember that the Welsh were the 'first victims' of colonisation – a point which can only be responded to by some combination of a yelp and a yawn. But nobody ever beat the Irish in the victimhood Olympics. Whatever era in their history they want to look at, they can always find a narrative of suffering. Sometimes it has some justification, as with the famine of the 1800s. At other times, as with the Easter Rising and the IRA, the story is sugar-coated to turn people's attention away from the fact that Irish history has been dominated by an unusual percentage of vainglorious murderers and aspiring martyrs. As Kennedy writes: 'There is an almost palpable sense of victimhood and exceptionalism in the presentation of the Irish national past, particularly as reconstructed and displayed for political purpose.' Now that the Troubles are largely over, some Irish people seem almost bored by the peace dividend. And so they scour the Earth looking for other beleaguered people with whom they can claim brotherhood and whom they can, in a variety of ways, patronise. In recent years, no group has been a better candidate for adoption by the Irish than the Palestinian people. It can be seen in the proliferation of Palestinian politics in Irish politics and the singling out of the state of Israel for unusual vilification. It can be seen in the Irish government's planned anti-Israel legislation and in its other curious efforts to interpose themselves into the centre of a conflict in which they have absolutely no role. Given that the Irish government in the 1930s and 1940s looked at the Allies and the Nazis and found it impossible to decide which side to come down on, the current Irish decision to draw a simplistic and ill-informed position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is doubly odd, until you realise that it allows a certain type of Irish person the opportunity to be a sort of bigger sibling in suffering to the Palestinians, with the side-offering of a dose of good old Irish anti-Semitism. This week the newspapers led with a story about the Irish writer Sally Rooney. Her novels have gained some popular acclaim, have sold well and been adapted for television. Born in 1991 in County Mayo, she appears to have been well-marinaded in the prejudices of her native land. In 2021 she made headlines when she refused to have her latest book translated into Hebrew. After all, we can't allow those Hebrew-ites to enjoy middle-rate fiction, can we? She has also called for a boycott of all Israeli cultural institutions. I don't believe Rooney has called for a boycott of any other nation at war, but then why would she? In the Guardian and elsewhere she has expounded her low-resolution understanding of a foreign conflict into which she seeks to throw herself gleefully. Recently the group Palestine Action was proscribed by the British government as a terrorist group. Rooney was one of the 'celebrities' who chose to lobby against this decision. She said: 'Palestine Action is not an armed group. It has never been responsible for any fatalities and does not pose any risk to public safety.' Which isn't quite true. The group has claimed responsibility for hundreds of incidents across the UK, many of which have turned violent. Last summer, Palestine Action activists broke into the Bristol HQ of defence technology firm Elbit Systems. Two police officers were struck with a sledgehammer and an employee suffered head injuries. One of the officers was taken to hospital, while his colleagues seized sledgehammers, axes and other weapons. In June, Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton and damaged aircraft. Estimates of the cost of the damage run from £7 million to more than £30 million. One of those allegedly involved, Muhammad Umer Khalid, 22, faces charges relating to criminal damage and the compromising of this country's security. One of the group's heads faces prosecution over a speech he made on 8 October 2023, in which he said that the massacre of Jews in Israel (named by Hamas 'the Al-Aqsa flood'), which was then still going on, should be emulated everywhere. Or as he put it: 'When we hear the resistance, the Al-Aqsa flood, we must turn that flood into a tsunami of the whole world.' Still, Rooney claims that a ban on Palestine Action constitutes an 'alarming curtailment of free speech'. The other day in the Irish Times, Rooney made herself the martyr in all this, writing ominously: 'My books, at least for now, are still published in Britain and are widely available in bookshops and even supermarkets.' In a similarly self-important vein, she declared that she intended to go on supporting Palestine Action in any way she could, including by donating royalties from her books and TV adaptations. Although she seems to hear the jackboots of the Stasi British police at her door, Rooney is of course Irish, and appears to live in Ireland. And so wittingly or otherwise she joins a long list of Irish public figures willing to throw themselves into the middle of a row – any row – so long as it allows them the warm, fuzzy feeling of continuing to be part of the most oppressed people ever.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Where have all the upper-class Tories gone?
A currently fashionable conservatism is militantly against Ukraine and, by more cautious implication, pro-Russia. We who disagree are, I quote Matthew Parris in these pages last week, 'prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin'. Others put it more unkindly, speaking of 'Ukraine brain' as a mental affliction among the Cold War generations. One should not project the entire second world war on to now, but some similarities with the 1930s are undeniable. Dictator exploits resentment at what he says is an unequal treaty after defeat; claims land in various places as the true property of his people; occupies some of it, changing borders by the threat of force, later by direct force; keeps demanding more; keeps threatening. The European democracies mostly dislike what is happening, but understandably wish to appease. As it all gets nastier, some incline to criticise the behaviour of the victim nations and their leaders (Benes then; Zelensky now) and downplay the sins of the aggressor. Matthew, for example, wants Zelensky to 'get off his high horse' without noticing that Putin's horse is much, much higher. The United States wants as little to do with it as possible. Dictator has a much firmer purpose than his democratic opponents, so he wins. At first, only the direct victim suffers. Later, all of us do. This argument is not exact, but it is not idiotic either. Elsewhere in this week's issue, Ursula Buchan writes about her grandfather John Buchan's time at The Spectator, the grounding for his career in political life and as a celebrated novelist. His very first article for the paper (20 January 1900) was called 'The Russian Imperial Ideal'. Buchan identified 'the two parties in the [Tsarist] government… both vigorous, one demanding internal reform, the other seeking external empire. At present she seems to have chosen for the latter, but… an Empire and commercial supremacy can only be built upon a genuine and healthy national life, and Russia, while she has the materials for such a life, has hitherto neglected to use them. Militarism and economic reform, where the former is so triumphant and the latter so urgent, are the lion and the lamb which will never lie down together.' They never did, though Gorbachev tried. The lion ate the lamb long ago. Tom Gordon, a Liberal Democrat MP, is leading a campaign to recruit more working-class people for parliament. He praises the few 'salt of the earth guys who are making it all happen' in his part of England (Harrogate and Knaresborough: not, it must be said, a super-working-class area). Mr Gordon does not confront the problem that nowadays the working class has been almost abolished, partly by the largely good trend of upward mobility and partly by the largely bad one of a welfare system which pays the poorly educated not to work. Looking at the 2024 intake of MPs, I would say that by far the greater problem is that so many, whatever their family roots, came into politics through politics/activism/politicised charity work, and know about nothing else. Looking at the question in class terms, I would say the more noticeable absence is members of the upper class. Nearly 40 years ago, I commissioned a scholarly piece (The Spectator, 3 May 1986) by the late Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd called 'The Descent of Tory Man'. It analysed the social class of all Conservative MPs at that Thatcher high tide and found 19 (including William Waldegrave, Nicholas Ridley, Lord Cranborne and Nicholas Soames) in the top social class, 33 in the second highest, 86 in the third, and the majority (there were 392 Tories at that time) in classes four to ten. Trying to apply that analysis to the present 121 Conservatives, I can think of only one – the wise and public-spirited Jesse Norman – who could be described as upper-class, and even he might have reached only class 2 according to Massingberd's exacting criteria. What applies to the Tories applies, a fortiori, to all MPs. So when parliament is more despised than at any time since the Great Reform Bill, it is also the least aristocratic it has ever been. Are these two phenomena related? I wish all the argument about pronouns had been raging when I was a teenager. That was the time when it first became commonplace to address God as 'You' in the liturgy and in translations of the Bible. I was against the change then because it sacrificed beauty, but I could never quite answer those who said it was better to speak to God less formally and more intimately. In my then ignorance, I did not know that 'Thou', as is the case with the second person singular in many other languages, was historically the more intimate and loving form, and so I did not understand that the plural 'You' was the more distant one. The use of 'You' is also theologically inaccurate, since it grammatically implies that there is more than one God. The Trinity, after all, are not some things. It is one thing. Recently, I booked a hotel room in the north of England. We could have 'de luxe' or 'superior'. It was explained to me that superior, in this context, meant inferior: de luxe had been recently 'refreshed'; superior had not. We were inclined to take 'de luxe', but then I asked whether de luxe had baths. No, it had only walk-in showers. Superior, however, had baths. So we took superior, thereby saving more than £100. This must be the first generation in human history which has paid less for a room with a bath than for one without. Why the change? I can think of four possible reasons: 1) Americans prefer showers. 2) Showers save water, and therefore the planet. 3) Showers save space, and therefore property cost. 4) Many customers are too old or fat to get out of baths. In another generation, will baths be objects only of historical interest, like mangles?
ITV News
3 hours ago
- ITV News
Harrowing scenes from Gaza airstrike, as IDF prepares to widen offensive
A cameraman working for ITV News in Gaza was one of the first on the scene of an Israeli airstrike near his home on Tuesday night. His harrowing footage is a vivid illustration of the impact of the bombardment, as ITV News International Correspondent John Irvine reports Israel's military has said it is calling up 60,000 reservists ahead of an expanded military operation in Gaza City. Calling up extra military reservists is part a plan to begin a new phase of operations in some of Gaza's most densely populated areas, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) said. The plan, which is expected to receive the chief of staff's final approval in the coming days, also includes extending the service of 20,000 additional reservists who are already on active duty. It comes as negotiators scramble to get Israel and Hamas to agree a ceasefire and amid warnings that an expanded assault would deepen the crisis in the Gaza Strip, where the widely-displaced population faces the threat of famine. Israeli troops in the the city's Zeitoun neighborhood and in Jabaliya, a refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip, are already preparing the groundwork for the expanded operation, which could begin within days. Though the timeline wasn't clear, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said on Wednesday that had ordered the "reduction of the timetables for taking over the last ettrorist strongholds and defeating Hamas". Netanyahu said earlier this month that the objective was to secure the release of the remaining hostages and ensure Hamas and other militants never threaten Israel again. The planned offensive has sparked international outrage and fuelled fears of another mass displacement among Palestinians. Palestinians have said there is nowhere to flee after 22 months of war that has killed tens of thousands of people and destroyed much of the territory. Qatar, which has become a key mediator between Israel and Palestine, said a ceasefire was needed urgently. It said Hamas had shown a "positive response" to a proposal from Arab countries, but that Israel had not yet responded and its position remained unclear, as members of Netanyahu's coalition opposed a deal that did not 'complete the defeat of Hamas'. The proposed deal would include a 60-day truce, the release of some Hamas-held hostages in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and more aid into Gaza. The latest proposal has been modified slightly since an earlier one put forward by the United States, which Israel had accepted. The Palestinian death toll passed 62,000 on Monday, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which is part of the Hamas-run government. The ministry did not say how many were civilians or combatants, but said about half were women and children. It also said 154 adults had died of malnutrition-related causes since late June, when it started counting those deaths. At least 112 children have died of malnutrition-related causes since the war began. Hamas has said it would only free the remaining hostages in exchange for a lasting ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. On Sunday, one of Israel's largest protests against the war erupted in Jerusalem. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets and protested outside politicians' homes and military headquarters, calling for a deal to free hostages in Gaza.
