Headlines: 'Nesting pigeon' and 'teen BMX champion'
Our pick of local website stories
A prisoner died at HMP Bristol on Christmas Eve due to "unsafe healthcare", according to a new report. He showed symptoms of pneumonia, but was not referred to a nurse by a senior member of medical staff.The opening of a new zebra crossing in Bath was delayed by more than a month because of a nesting pigeon. The council had to wait for the bird to move on before they could trim back a tree.The University of Gloucestershire's new City Campus opens to the public on Monday.Esme, 13, from Salisbury, has been named as the eighth best BMX racer in the world following a championship contest in Denmark.A pub with a Grade II-listed roof is set to reopen again after being closed and used as a crime hotspot for years.
Our top three from yesterday
What to watch on social media
A man from Yeovil who created a "web of lies" to defraud women out of thousands of pounds has been jailed.A woman from Weston-super-Mare had her dog mistakenly seized by police on Sunday after somebody reported it for a biting incident.Bristol City Council activated its Severe Weather Protocol to provide emergency help for rough sleepers throughout the heatwave.Police seized an illegal bike from a Deliveroo driver in Swindon. It will be destroyed, officers confirmed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
a minute ago
- Daily Mail
Police used 'Orwellian' powers to 'gag' firefighter who was arrested after criticising his bosses online
Police used 'Orwellian' powers to 'gag' a firefighter who was arrested after criticising his bosses online, it has been claimed. Robert Moss was allegedly told by Staffordshire Police that his right to 'freedom of expression' must be 'limited to maintain public safety and order' after he was arrested on suspicion of malicious communications on July 8. Prior to his dismissal in 2021, the former firefighter, 56, had served Staffordshire fire and rescue service for 28 years and even worked as the county's Fire Brigade Union's secretary. An employment tribunal in 2023 later found that he had been wrongly dismissed from his position, with a judgement ruling it had been an 'unfair' decision. Following this, in a private Facebook group, the father-of-one had provided advice to firefighters, alongside making several critical comments regarding the fire service's management. At a bail hearing held at Newcastle-Under-Lyme magistrates' court, the police's 'gagging clause' was eventually overturned due to concerns about the draconian approach by officers. While Mr Moss was never charged with a crime, his home was raided at 7am in July, with officers seizing two telephones, an iPad and a computer. He was then given bail with six conditions that included being prohibited from posting any communication relating to the county's fire service, alongside anything related to the ongoing investigation. Mr Moss was also prohibited from contacting the fire chief officer, Rob Barber, and his deputy, Glynn Luznyj. Now, the former firefighter has criticised Staffordshire Police's decision to arrest him, telling the Telegraph that the online messages were 'certainly not criminal' but, rather, 'anodyne'. Mr Moss went on to accuse the fire service of 'weaponising the police' in a bid to 'silence' him, adding that the 'gagging' order represented a human rights breach. During the magistrates' court hearing, Tom Beardsworth, a barrister hired by the Free Speech Union, said that two of Mr Moss' bail conditions represented a 'deep threat to the right of free expression'. He added: 'For the police to prohibit an arrested person from speaking about their arrest is extraordinary and Orwellian, and it is not hyperbole to put it in those terms. 'We do not live in a police state and Mr Moss should have every right to speak about his arrest.' However, arresting officer DC Isobel Holliday said that the bail conditions had been 'proportionate' given the 'malicious and reckless' online posts by Mr Moss. Following the evidence, Paul Tabinor, chairman of the magistrates' bench, ruled that while Mr Moss would be permitted to post messages about the fire service, he was no longer banned from posting about the police investigation. Sam Armstrong, the FSU's legislative affairs director, described Mr Moss' case as 'amongst the most egregious abuses of state power' the organisation had come across. A spokesperson for Staffordshire Police said: 'We arrested a 56-year-old man, from Newcastle-under-Lyme, on Tuesday 8 July, on suspicion of harassment without violence, sending communication/article of an indecent/offensive nature and knowingly/recklessly obtain or disable personal data without consent of the controller. 'The man has been released on conditional bail as our enquiries continue.' Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service said it would be inappropriate to comment during the active proceedings. Mr Moss' dismissal is believed to be the latest in a string of heavy-handed police responses over 'thought crimes', with writers, councillors and parents talking in school WhatsApp groups targeted in recent months. Just last week, Ring doorbell footage emerged of an embarrased police officer reluctantly knocking on a suspected 'anti-migrant' protester's door amid an increasing backlash over the scourge of 'thought police'. Doorbell footage shows two West Midland Police officers approaching the property in Coventry to give the homeowner a leaflet ahead of a planned anti-immigration demonstration. But one of the officers is hesitant to carry out the task and admits his visit is 'woeful' and a 'load of 'b******'. Speaking into a ring doorbell, the police officer tells the homeowner: 'Warwickshire have asked me to come round. 'It's a load of b******* but it's about this protest tomorrow in Warwickshire. They're aware that you might be wanting to attend that planned protest. 'And obviously that's absolutely fine. You've got a freedom of speech and there are no issues at all. A spokesperson for West Midlands Police told the Daily Mail: 'We're aware of footage circulating on social media showing an officer visiting a property. 'The footage is being reviewed and we are speaking to the officer in relation to the circumstances. 'This visit was part of the work our officers have been doing to support Warwickshire Police in their engagement and preparations for a planned protest in Warwickshire this weekend.' Meanwhile, in November 2023, a a retired policeman was arrested and handcuffed in his own home in May by six police officers armed with batons and pepper spray. Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham, was detained by Kent Police cops - the very same force he had given around ten years of his life to - after he questioned a supporter of pro-Palestine demonstrations on X (formerly Twitter). Bodycam footage of the incident in November 2023, shows officers describing the 71-year-old's books and literature scattered around his home as 'very Brexity things', according to The Telegraph. Police also raised worries over a shopping list, written by the retired man's hairdresser wife, which included items such as bleach, tin foil and gloves, whilst they seized Mr Foulkes electronic devices from his home. They also searched through most of his personal items, including newspaper clippings from the funeral as well as the police probe of his daughter, Francesca's death, who had been killed by a drunk driver whilst holidaying in Ibiza 15 years ago. A police officer was heard stating, according to the publication: 'Ah. That's sad,' as she continued to rummage through the retired special constable's items, before he was put in a police cell for eight hours. After hours of interrogation on suspicion of malicious communication, Mr Foulkes accepted a warning as he worried it could affect any future visits to see his daughter who resides in Australia. 'My life wouldn't be worth living if I couldn't see her. At the time, I believed a caution wouldn't affect travel, but a conviction definitely would,' he said. Kent Police later confessed the decision to give Mr Foulkes a caution was a mistake and have wiped it off the 76-year-old's record. Mr Foulkes has since aired his concerns in what he believes to be an attack on freedom of speech, quipping: 'I saw Starmer in the White House telling Trump we've had it in the UK for a very long time, and I thought, 'Yeah, right.' We can see what's really going on.' The 76-year-old's ordeal started when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, which saw 1,200 people killed and over 250 taken hostage. An incident which sparked several pro-Palestine marches in London. The retired policeman had been told by his Jewish friends about how they felt unsafe travelling to the bustling city. Later that October, he had become increasingly worried having reports of mobs storming an airport in Dagestan, Russia to intercept Israeli citizens. So, the next day when he saw a post from an account called Mr Ethical, which read: 'Dear @SuellaBraverman – as someone who was on one of the 'hate marches', if you call me an antisemite I will sue you,' he felt inclined to respond. He responded to the tweet saying: 'One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals…' He claimed he had never been in contact with the account prior, and was warning of possible escalation with the on-going pro-Palestinian protests.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Now we have proof free speech is a joke in two-tier Britain
After Labour councillor Ricky Jones stood at a demonstration in Walthamstow decrying 'disgusting Nazi fascists' and telling a crowd through a microphone that 'we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all', a jury of Mr Jones's peers cleared him of any offence. When Lucy Connolly – married to a Tory councillor – posted on social media 'set fire to all the f-----g hotels full of all the b------s for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it', she chose to plead guilty under apparent pressure from the state. Ms Connolly is currently serving a 31-month prison sentence, at times on a 23-hour lockdown confined to her cell with no privileges, for her ill-tempered words. Others, who stood their ground, walked free. The results were still unpleasant – the process is in part the punishment – but better than they might otherwise have been. It is hard not to feel that the difference between the two cases is less a matter of law than politics. Lucy Connolly was denied bail as Sir Keir Starmer and the judiciary worked on their 'shared understanding' that anyone expressing sentiments that could have encouraged last year's riots needed to be made an example of. Sir Keir himself told the nation that individuals would be held on remand. The Home Office openly risked prejudicing trials by labelling those arrested, charged but not yet convicted as 'criminals'. If there's a lesson here, it may well be that people can say stupid things without the world collapsing around them. And that the public – which did not visibly respond to either exhortation – can be trusted, for the most part, to recognise the distinction between genuinely threatening language and idiocy, both on the streets and in jury deliberations. Unlike our American cousins, British people have only a very qualified right to free speech. While the human rights system appears to go out of its way to undermine attempts to control borders or crack down on crime, protection of speech is heavily caveated. And the British state makes full use of these carve-outs in its attempt to maintain its fragile grip on the country it has built. Its most important aim is to prevent tensions between groups. Speech that might inflame them is subject to stringent oversight and exacting scrutiny by officials terrified of what might spiral out from a frank examination of the country as it is. People on the Left, however, can speak with relative security. The result, in the words of Reform's Zia Yusuf, appears to be 'a country in which those who have the correct 'regime' political views can openly call for their political opponents to be brutally murdered, be filmed doing so, and face no criminal consequences'.
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Policing catcalls doesn't make women safer
Undercover jogger – no, not the name of a character in Liam Neeson's new The Naked Gun, but an actual police role announced earlier this week. Female officers in Surrey went out for a run aiming to ensnare cat callers from their vehicles and give them a good telling off. The pilot scheme has allegedly resulted in 18 arrests for harassment, sexual assault and theft. Catcalling may be unpleasant, but it's not illegal. Of all the serious issues facing women that the police have hitherto failed to get to grips with – from shoddy rape reporting to the infamous failures relating to grooming gangs – catching catcallers is hardly high up on our list. I can't believe I'm about to defend the right to catcall, but this all feels a bit like police overreach. Inspector Jon Vale, Surrey's violence against women and girls safer spaces lead, said that officers had 'made a number of interventions' in which 'it was deemed appropriate to provide education around antisocial behaviour'. Do women really need police officers to lecture men in defence of our honour? The argument in favour of doing something about catcalling is that it's the beginning of a slippery slope. 'We have to ask: 'Is that person going to escalate? Are they a sexual offender?'' Vale told LBC. Funny that police officers in the Met never asked those questions about some of their own – such as Wayne Couzens. But the idea that there's a clear and distinct line between wolf-whistling and rape is just nonsense, as if men simply slip from loutishness to extreme violence and all it takes is a few undercover officers to set them on the straight and narrow. The argument against is a little trickier to make, as women who aren't that bothered by catcalling are often told they are simply cursed with internalised misogyny. But like all human sexual behaviour, catcalling has its grey areas. There is not much to be said for a man who thinks it's okay to shout at a strange woman on her run, but if the context was switched to a boozy high street on a Friday night, both parties might feel differently about the interaction. To suggest that all unsolicited male attention is always bad is to pretend that men and women don't sometimes indeed behave badly and – whisper it – enjoy it. But the better argument in favour of telling the police to leave us alone is that playing the knight in shining armour for women does more harm than good. When sexist men behave like pigs, they are not doing it in the hope of a date – no one could be that stupid. What they are doing is asserting their power and dominance over what they believe to be an afraid woman. This means that the only way to really fight back is for women to refuse to be painted as constantly in fear. The undercover jogger approach is safetyism writ large – the idea that women need someone watching over their shoulder in order to go about their daily lives. This not only infantilises us, it also cements the very sexist notion that these men tend to have: that we are damsels in distress. What would a better approach be for joggers? Carrying a brick along with your electrolytes? It would make for a better workout if nothing else. More bobbies on the beat would be no bad thing, but this kind of stunt is just a way for Surrey police to grab a few nice headlines. The most common crime affecting women, joggers, and indeed anyone at the moment, is theft. Getting a handle on that would make women's lives a hell of a lot better – not least because we like to text and run. But the job of fighting for women's freedom cannot be done by the authorities on our behalf. It's time to get out the steel-toe-capped Nikes, girls.
