Gloucestershire cheese rolling could be added to UK heritage list
An annual cheese rolling event could be officially recognised and protected if it is added to a new heritage list. Gloucestershire's cheese rolling race on Cooper's Hill near Brockworth attracts competitors and spectators from around the world every year. The tradition sees competitors chase a 7lb (3kg) wheel of Double Gloucester cheese down a steep hill.The government will soon be seeking submissions from members of the public to nominate their favourite traditions that best reflect the nation, which will be recorded in the new Inventory of Living Heritage in the UK.Heritage minister Baroness Twycross said: "The UK is rich with wonderful traditions."
The UK-wide inventory aims to start a conversation, raise awareness and keep track of the crafts, customs and celebrations that are valued across the country. Nominations will be separated into seven categories including performing arts, crafts and social practices such as festivals and customs. Sports and games will also have a category, along with oral expressions like poetry and storytelling. Other traditions in the county like surfing the Severn Bore or Woolsack Races in Tetbury could be submitted for the list.
The government will work with the devolved governments to create the list and will consider submissions from across the UK.It comes after the UK signed the 2003 Unesco Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Culture Heritage, which requires member states to compile an inventory of living heritage practised by communities in each country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
KEMI BADENOCH: A simple way to deter migrants? Make them wait for ten years before they can claim any benefits
The issue of immigration is a simple one for the Conservative Party: we need to crack down on it in every form, both legal and illegal. For me, this is about basic fairness. Britain today seems to work more favourably for those who jump the queue, who break the rules, who get into our country illegally but then denigrate our customs and our culture. And those of us who work hard and do the right thing, hoping one day to leave a better life for our children, are left footing the bill. The billions of pounds of taxpayers' money we are spending to put asylum seekers up in hotels, for example, is well known. Less well known, however, is the fact that low-paid immigrants and refugees who stay here for five years qualify for 'indefinite leave to remain'. This allows them to claim the same benefits British citizens are entitled to, such as social housing and Universal Credit. They become automatically entitled to make such claims regardless of whether they've paid taxes or have simply lived off the state throughout those five years. To my mind, that is fundamentally unfair to all the hard-working Brits who have dutifully paid into the system – and I'm determined to stop it. But it's likely to come as no surprise that the Labour Government has no such interest. It voted against our Deportation Bill last month, which would have introduced a strict cap on the number of newcomers to these shores, as well as doubling the time it takes for immigrants to be able to claim benefits from five to ten years. The same ten-year rule would also apply to people seeking the privilege of British citizenship, up from the current five years. And, to make sure those who come here are serious about contributing to our society, rather than just ripping it off, the Bill would have barred anyone who'd claimed benefits from getting indefinite leave to remain. It would also have given the government the power to remove settled status from those who commit any crime – preventing them from claiming that precious British passport. All in all, that Bill was designed to protect our borders and uphold fairness in our benefits system. But thanks to Labour, it was shot down. To be honest, many – if not all – of the measures it contained would probably have ended up going the same way as the former government's abandoned scheme to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda. That became bogged down in our courts and frustrated by unnamed foreign judges interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mel Stride (pictured), when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC (pictured), and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights Other potentially transformative policies of ours have floundered in similar ways. Mel Stride, when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them. I call this lawfare – the use of litigation as a political weapon. Even if these legal activists aren't successful, the costs and delays they incur are crippling to democracy. It is turning us into a country afraid of its own shadow. This must change. I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC, and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do – get control of our borders, protect our welfare system and restore fairness – can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. They will get to the bottom of how we got into this legal quagmire, and the challenges to getting us out. If their conclusions are that we cannot enact reasonable policies to put British citizens first when it comes to social housing and scarce public services, then I will know that we need to leave. The commission's findings will also help me make a workable plan to get us out of the ECHR, while taking into account the need to ensure essential human rights remain protected. The greatest danger we now face is allowing lawfare to make this country less fair, less safe and less democratic. But I'm determined that, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will protect our values, our democracy, our country – and, ultimately, our people.
Daily Mail
44 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
British businessman accused of spying for China reported to a Red Army agent with close ties to Chinese president Xi
A British businessman accused of spying for China reported to a high-ranking intelligence officer closely linked to President Xi Jinping, The Mail on Sunday has learned. John Miller, who the MoS last week revealed was the subject of an FBI sting operation, was arrested with his 'handler', Cui Guanghai, just hours before they were due to board a flight to Beijing. Both men are accused of trying to buy weapons and sensitive military technology in the United States for the People's Liberation Army. This newspaper can now reveal that Cui, 43, is an Edinburgh University graduate suspected of working for China's military intelligence and described as 'important' to President Xi. Court documents claim Miller, a 63-year-old recruitment specialist from Tunbridge Wells, was 'working for and being directed by' Cui. The two men were once pictured together in London 's Chinatown. Other images on social media show Cui and his wife at locations in Edinburgh, Dublin and London, including the Houses of Parliament. Britain's security services are understood to be liaising with the FBI, examining both Cui's activities in the UK and Miller's background. Last night Miller's sister Avril said: 'I am totally devastated and shocked, but it has nothing to do with me. I last saw him at a wedding 14 years ago.' The MoS revealed last week that Miller was caught on intercepted phone calls referring to Xi as 'the boss', suggesting he was acting under the control of the Chinese government. Now it can be disclosed that Miller once accompanied Cui on a business trip to Colonel Gaddafi-era Libya, a country with close economic ties to China. A family friend said: 'He [Miller] told me he was starting a business building prefab houses for Africa which he was having made in China.' The detention of Cui and Miller in Belgrade, Serbia – where they remain under house arrest – is believed to have led to a diplomatic row. China's ambassador to Serbia, Li Ming, is said to have clashed with the country's interior minister, Ivica Dacic. A source said Mr Li demanded to know why Cui – whom he called 'our agent' and 'important' to President Xi – was arrested at the behest of the FBI. China is the biggest foreign investor in Serbia. Miller and Cui were seized at the city's Hyatt Regency Hotel on April 24 having flown in from Hungary where they met business associates – and apparently fell into an FBI trap. Sources say agents waited for Cui to leave China for Europe before issuing the arrest order. Both men now face extradition to the US. It is not clear how Cui and Miller first met. The Englishman once ran a company bringing Chinese students to the UK, while his son from his first marriage has been based in China for years and is a close friend of Cui. Court documents claim Miller organised the surveillance and harassment of a Chinese-American artist critical of Beijing, telling a henchman to make him an 'offer he can't refuse... like The Godfather'. Miller has been charged in the US with smuggling, stalking and violations of the Arms Export Control Act. If convicted, both he and Cui face up to 40 years in prison. A 14-page indictment filed in Wisconsin alleges that Miller was caught in a sting after arms dealers he was negotiating with turned out to be undercover FBI agents. Family and friends of Miller, who described him as outgoing and charismatic, expressed astonishment at the news. The son of a builder from the Gorbals in Glasgow, Miller grew up one of six children on a council estate in Coventry, sharing a bedroom with his three brothers. A family friend said he had 'a real drive about him and was always looking for the next big thing'. They added: 'He had a hard time growing up and was driven by success. He wanted a nice life; he wasn't going to stay on a council estate. Eight of them in a three-bed house wasn't easy. And then their mum died when she was only 43. That was tough for all of them. Of them all, Johnny was a bit different, a one-off. 'He always had big ambitions.' Miller went into the Armed Forces, becoming a boxer representing the Royal Navy. It was during this time he met his first wife, 'a Puerto Rican beauty', with whom he had two children. They lived in the US, where Miller retains residency status, but later divorced. His daughter from his second marriage attended one of England's top public schools. Friends describe a chequered business history. Miller has been a director or a majority shareholder of at least nine firms, including a courier company. 'When I last saw him at a wedding over ten years ago, he was flying,' said a friend. 'His company had bases in London and New York, and he drove a nice Saab.' But at some point his fortunes waned and he was reduced to asking family and friends for loans. 'I think he saw an opportunity in China,' said another friend. 'He was hyperactive when it came to work.' The US court documents allege that Miller attempted to procure equipment including surface-to-air missiles, predator drones and a handheld device for the secure communication of 'classified and sensitive national security information'. A second 67-page indictment, filed in California, accuses Miller and Cui, also known as 'Jack', of targeting artist Hui Bo, who had created an 'embarrassing' sculpture of Xi and his wife Peng Liyuan naked from the waist up. Transcripts between Miller and an associate allege they discussed shooting Hui or hitting him with a baseball bat.
Daily Mail
44 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
LORD ASHCROFT: 'We can sniff Starmer's fear of Farage' say voters as they back winter fuel U-turn and insist two-child benefit cap must stay
Mrs Merton, the comic interviewer created by the late Caroline Aherne, famously asked Debbie McGee what first attracted her to the millionaire Paul Daniels. In the same satirical spirit, voters have been wondering what it was about the Reform party's surge in the local elections that prompted Keir Starmer to tighten his immigration policy and row back on cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Some welcome the winter fuel reversal and even give Labour some credit for listening and learning. More sceptical voters, of whom there are plenty, see a weak Government that can't make a decision and stick to it. Some wonder which taxes will rise to pay for the U-turn. On all sides, the link between Labour's plummeting popularity and the winter fuel climbdown is obvious (in my research, Starmer's explanation that his newfound largesse was the result of an improving economy just made people laugh). 'You've kind of gotta sniff a bit of desperation,' one 2024 Labour voter told us. The same is true of Starmer's recent conversion to tighter immigration controls, with promises of stricter education and language requirements and a longer wait for settled status. On this issue, voters are, if anything, even more doubtful – for at least three reasons. First, they don't think he means it: the human rights lawyer and free-movement advocate has not suddenly seen the merits of firm border control ('If that was what you truly believe, it should have been on the table months ago,' a Reform supporter said). Second, they don't think it will happen: my poll found only just over a quarter of all voters think Labour would succeed in cutting immigration numbers, even if it wanted to – which most think it doesn't. Third, they think he's aiming at the wrong target. As my poll also showed, people care much more about illegal migration, and the vast hotel costs that follow, than about those coming here legitimately to work. Some worry that Starmer's new rules will make it harder to recruit, especially in crucial areas such as the care sector, even as migrants arrive on our beaches in record-breaking numbers. In a double blow for Starmer, the people who take his new immigration rhetoric most seriously are the ones who like it least, often inside his own party. Most of them don't think he means it either, but some longstanding Labour voters find it profoundly depressing that the Prime Minister seems willing, as they see it, to pander to the Right. Many found his warning that Britain risked becoming an 'island of strangers' particularly worrying. 'When you're quoting Enoch Powell, I draw a line at that,' one told us last week. Evidently aware of these tensions, Labour figures are dangling the prospect of an end to the rule under which families can only claim child-related benefits for up to two children. This would please the Left and many party activists, but infuriate rather more than that. In my poll, most Labour voters backed the two-child benefit limit, while Conservatives and Reform voters did so overwhelmingly. They see it as an issue of fairness: 'I've got six children and I agree with the cap, because all the extra children I had, I've paid for,' one participant put it. These debates underline the dilemmas facing Chancellor Rachel Reeves as she prepares to unveil her spending review on Wednesday. With the economy struggling to grow under the weight of her extra taxes and regulations, she faces difficult choices over how to maintain public services – and the Government's new commitments on defence – while sticking to her fiscal rules. I found voters tend to want her to balance the books by controlling spending rather than raising taxes, but think she will do the opposite. Starmer has tried to divert attention from Labour's troubles by highlighting the contradictions in his opponents' plans. It is certainly true that Nigel Farage is offering simultaneously to slash taxes and boost spending – not least by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. But these attacks on Reform slightly miss the point. Those drawn to the party know its policies are a work in progress; it is the change of direction they want to see. They want a government that takes them seriously and puts Britain first. They won't be fact-checked into submission. More interesting is Starmer's acknowledgment that Reform is now Labour's chief opponent – a view shared by voters of all parties. Strikingly, my poll found Farage is considered the most likely of the current leaders to be PM after the next election. This is not good news for Kemi Badenoch. Most in my poll expected her to be swapped out before the election. This is not because it would be a good thing or would help the Tories' chances, but because that's what they believe the party does. No Tory leader has served a full term since David Cameron. The leadership circus has long been part of the Conservatives' problem. Another round would signal to many potential supporters that the party is not serious. And with Labour in trouble and Reform promising whatever it pleases, seriousness is above all what the Tories need to prove.
