Event planning review after Liverpool parade crash
Liverpool City Council leader Liam Robinson commissioned the review to see if any lessons can be learned from the 26 May incident on Water Street which he said had "cast a dark cloud" on Liverpool FC's Premier League title celebrations.
Former Royal Marine and local businessman Paul Doyle, 53, of Burghill Road in West Derby, has been charged with seven offences in relation to the incident.
Four adults injured in the incident were named on Tuesday after a judge lifted reporting restrictions.
Mr Doyle is accused of the unlawful wounding with intent of Simon Nash, 52, causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent to Susan Passey, 77, and Christine Seeckts, 66, and the attempted GBH of Ethan Gillard, 18.
He is set to appear again for a plea hearing at Liverpool Crown Court on 14 August.
Some businesses in Liverpool city centre have raised questions about how traffic management was handled by the authorities around the Bank Holiday Monday parade.
Many fans also complained of "absolute carnage" in trying to get home from Lime Street station afterwards.
At a town hall council cabinet meeting, Robinson confirmed the local authority would review its plans for all major events following the "distressing" end to the parade.
He said people injured in the incident remained at the centre of the council's thoughts.
Robinson met Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Liverpool City Region mayor Steve Rotheram following the incident.
Robinson said people really came together to support one another after the parade, adding that "no city responds to times of crisis like this like Liverpool".
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
Liverpool parade traffic decisions criticised
Police confirm 109 people injured in parade crash
Local Democracy Reporting Service
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Just Signaled Something Deeply Disturbing About the Next Term
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Reading the tea leaves from cryptic Supreme Court orders can be perilous business because the justices are not bound by the questions they ask at oral argument, the offhand comments they make at a judicial conference, or even their monumental 'shadow docket' rulings on emergency petitions that have become all too common. But a technical briefing order in a long pending case out of Louisiana, posted on the Supreme Court's website after 5 p.m. on a Friday in August, was ominous. The order was likely intended to obscure that the court is ready to consider striking down the last remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2. Such a monumental ruling, likely not coming until June 2026, would change the nature of congressional, state, and local elections, all across the country, and likely stir major civil rights protests as the midterm election season heats up. Louisiana v. Callais, the case that was the subject of last Friday's cryptic order, is a voting case over the drawing of Louisiana's six congressional districts. Louisiana has about a one-third Black population, but after the 2020 census the state legislature drew a districting plan, passed over a Democratic governor's veto, that created only one district in which black voters would be likely to elect their candidate of choice. Before Callais, Black voters had successfully sued Louisiana in a case called Robinson v. Ardoin, arguing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required drawing a second congressional district giving black voters that opportunity. Section 2 says minority voters should have the same opportunity as other voters to elect their candidates of choice, and courts have long used it to require new districts when there is a large and cohesive minority population concentrated in a given area, when white and minority voters choose different candidates, and when the minority has difficulty electing its preferred representatives. After Robinson and more litigation, the Louisiana legislature drew up a new plan which created the second congressional district. The state drew the second district to otherwise favor Republicans in the state overall, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. A new group of voters then sued in the Callais case, arguing that Louisiana's drawing of the second district violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by being a racial gerrymander. Since the 1993 case of Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court has found racial gerrymanders when race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines, and the state has no compelling interest in drawing such lines. When the Supreme Court first held oral argument in the Callais case in March, it appeared to be another in a long series of cases (many out of Louisiana) in which the court considered whether race or partisanship predominated in the drawing of district lines. I've long written that this is an impossible exercise in places like Louisiana where the factors overlap —most white voters in Louisiana are Republicans and Black voters are Democrats, so when the state discriminates against Democrats it is also discriminating against Black voters. It appeared from the initial March oral argument that the court was going to once again determine whether race or party predominated. But instead of deciding the case at the end of June when the court ordinarily disposes of the cases heard during the term, the court set the case up for re-argument. That's rare but not unheard of. Back in 2010, the Supreme Court set the Citizens United case up for re-argument the following September. But when the court issued its June order in Citizens United for re-argument, the same order told the parties that the court wanted something new to be briefed and argued on re-argument: whether to overrule a line of cases allowing limits on corporate spending in elections. The court the following January then overruled these cases in one of the most consequential election law cases of our time that has had significant reverberations for our politics ever since. Fifteen years later, something similar seems to be happening with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In June of this year, rather than deciding the case it heard in March, the court issued an order in Callais setting the case for re-argument and stating that 'in due course, the Court will issue an order scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing.' Justice Clarence Thomas impatiently dissented from the order, saying now was the time to recognize that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the court's racial gerrymandering case are on a collision course and to kill off Section 2 or rewrite it to be toothless. We waited weeks for the court to issue its rescheduling order and when it came this past Friday it was a doozy. The court pointed specifically to a set of pages in plaintiffs' brief which argue that Section 2 is unconstitutional, at least as applied in this case, and that the Voting Rights Act cannot serve as a compelling interest to defeat a racial gerrymandering claim when race predominates. 'The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question raised [in that brief]: Whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Although the court's order did not explicitly mention Section 2 or even the Voting Rights Act more generally—unquestionably to obscure things further—there is no doubting what's going on here. The court is asking the parties to consider whether Louisiana's compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by drawing a second majority-minority district—as the earlier Ardoin case seemed to require—was unconstitutional under a view of the Constitution as requiring colorblindness. If the Supreme Court moves forward with this interpretation it would be a sea change to voting rights law. A reading of the Constitution as forbidding race-conscious districting as mandated by Congress to deal with centuries of race discrimination in voting is at odds with the text of the Constitution, with the powers granted directly to Congress to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and with numerous precedents of the Supreme Court itself. It would end what has been the most successful way that Black and other minority voters have gotten fair representation in Congress, state legislatures and in local bodies. It would be an earthquake in politics and make our legislative bodies whiter and our protection for minority voters greatly diminished. Even if the court less drastically says that Section 2 could not be used to require the second congressional district in this case, such a superficially more minimal ruling would mean the quick unraveling of most Section 2 districts because if the facts in Louisiana don't justify drawing a second district, most other Section 2 claims would fail too. A ruling killing or crippling Section 2 would be in line with what we have come to expect from the Roberts Court. Back in 2013, the court struck down as unconstitutional the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act, the one requiring that jurisdictions with a history of race discrimination in voting get federal approval before making changes in voting laws that could decrease minority voting power. When the court did that in Shelby County, holding that the formula for deciding which jurisdictions had to get preclearance was outdated, Chief Justice John Roberts left open the possibility that Congress could write a new formula, knowing full well that it wouldn't be able to write one that would satisfy both a majority in Congress and the Supreme Court. He further assured us that 'Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in § 2.' And now, that second pillar could well fall too. Court conservatives likely thought teeing up the issue of overruling Section 2 on a hot summer weekend would avoid public notice. But that's a short term strategy. Come next June, any decision to strike down what's left of the Voting Rights Act could kick off the start of a new civil rights movement and more serious talk of Supreme Court reform in the midst of crucially important midterm elections. A court fundamentally hostile to the rights of voters places the court increasingly at odds with democracy itself. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Crystal Palace: Woody Johnson completes purchase of John Textor's 43% stake in club
New York Jets co-owner Woody Johnson has completed the purchase of Eagle Football Holdings' 43% stake in Crystal Palace. The announcement brings to an end controversial former co-owner John Textor's four year association with the club. Textor is co-owner of Eagle Football Holdings, who owned stakes in both Lyon and Palace as part of a multi club ownership model. Upon Palace qualifying for the Europa League last season, UEFA ruled that Textor had decisive influence in the south London club, demoting them to the Conference League as a result of Lyon also qualifying for the Europa League. UEFA rules state that clubs owned, to a certain threshold of influence, by the same person or entity cannot compete in the same European competition in the same season. Textor also aimed several digs at Palace chairman Steve Parish in an interview with talkSPORT earlier this month. 78-year-old Johnson has now bought Textor's shares, signing the Premier League's Owners' Charter in the process. Johnson, former U.S. Ambassador to the UK under Donald Trump, joins Parish, Josh Harris, and David Blitzer on Palace's board. On completion of the deal Woody Johnson said: 'I am honoured and privileged to be joining the ownership group of Crystal Palace Football Club. "It is an organisation with a proud history, tradition, and deep roots in English football in South London, which I came to admire during my time as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom. "Eagles fans have demonstrated extraordinary loyalty, passion, and unwavering dedication and I am excited to meet and get to know them. "I have great respect for Steve Parish and the leadership he has provided over the years. I look forward to working with him and the entire ownership group to build on the club's recent successes and help shape an exciting future for Crystal Palace. "This is more than an investment - it's a commitment to realising the vision for the club, the community, and the culture around Selhurst Park.' Chairman Steve Parish added: 'At this exciting time for Crystal Palace, we are delighted to be welcoming Woody to the ownership of the Football Club. "We very much look forward to working alongside him to build on our historic recent success moving forwards.'
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Gaza starvation: Like that meme, we're all trying to find out who did this
As it turns out, humans, even Palestinians, need food to live. But before we discuss such a lofty dispensation 21 months into a near-total blockade of humanitarian aid, a brief bit of levity: For my money, the best sketch comedy show out isn't 'Saturday Night Live,' but former 'SNL' writer Tim Robinson's 'I Think You Should Leave.' Robinson specializes in constructing surrealist, cringe-inducing social nightmares, then extracting side-splitting comedy with an extremely committed performance with a flawless, unforgettable one-liner. One of the show's most memorable sketches, 'Hot Dog Car,' starts with a mysterious hot dog-shaped car crashing into a clothing store. The whodunit is solved within seconds as Robinson emerges with a series of excessive and absurd denials that the car is not his — all while wearing a hot dog costume. 'Now, we're all trying to find the guy who did this,' he claims, rejecting his obvious culpability while clumsily portraying himself as someone zealous to find the real culprit. Epitomizing the Shakespearean embarrassment of a man who 'doth protest too much,' nobody at the store is convinced. Anyway, fun's over. Back to the genocide. Roughly 2.1 million people remain in Gaza, and according to the UN World Food Programme, a third of those have gone multiple days in a row without food. Doctors Without Borders says 100,000 women and children are suffering severe acute malnutrition. Gazans do not have food for the same reason they do not have medicine; for the same reason they do not have homes or hospitals or schools or mosques or churches. It's the same reason they do not have electricity or fuel (which means they do not have water), the same reason they don't have journalists on the ground able to tell you what happened to these things they used to have. While I appreciate those who have acknowledged that no children should have their ribcages poking through their skin — an ideological spectrum that stretches from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump — this reality was obvious to many millions of Americans who took to the streets and student halls in protest months and years ago. As Jewish Currents writer David Klion notes, a larger consensus around the atrocities of the war would have been far more useful then than now. The Biden administration dismissed lawmakers who called for an immediate ceasefire as 'repugnant' and 'disgraceful.' Those who protested the governments responsible for restricting the safe passage of food — including the Palestinians watching their people go hungry and the Jews who bore witness — were collectively characterized as antisemites. As the bombs fell and the food dwindled, then-President Joe Biden insisted Israel 'wants to do all it can to ensure civilian protection.' Some who begrudgingly admit that Gazans are starving lay the blame primarily at the feet of Hamas militants who provoked Israel's ongoing siege when they killed about 1,200 Israelis and took about 250 hostages. If only Hamas would simply release the hostages, then everyone else (including the hostages) would have food, the argument goes. Even assuming most spoken and implied false premises about the nature of this conflict were correct — such as the charge that Hamas won't agree to ceasefire proposals or that Israel does not itself have thousands of Palestinian prisoners, many of them held without charges — it operates under the fundamental logic of collective punishment, a notion that civilians should suffer for the choices made by their government. Consider the implications anywhere else. If you happen to read this on or in our print edition, chances are high that your governor pardoned a white supremacist murderer and agreed to build literal concentration camps. Vile acts of discrimination and tacit support for terrorism at best. Systemic stripping of human rights at worst. All escalations towards lethal violence we all decry. I personally would not like to be punished in any regard for the decisions of any elected official, even one as charming as Greg Abbott. Palestinians deserve that, too. There is no lone culprit or solitary super villain. But since November, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been wanted for arrest by the International Criminal Court, a judicial body representing 125 countries on charges of, among others, 'starvation as a method of warfare.' None of those accusations stopped a bipartisan group of senators, some of whom mourned the fatally malnourished on social media, from meeting with Bibi and, naturally, posing for the 'gram. Our valiant detectives are assuredly, to quote Hot Dog Guy, 'trying to find the guy who did this.' I wish them well on their chase.
