Man given suspended sentence for sending racist death threats to Rishi Sunak
The emails were spotted by Mr Sunak's personal assistant and reported to the police.
The CPS said the language in the two emails was 'racist, offensive and suggested Mr Sunak should be killed by the public'.
The emails had been sent by Shaw's phone and police traced them to his email address and a hostel where he was staying in Birkenhead, Merseyside.
Shaw was arrested by police on September 3 2024 and charged with two counts of sending by a public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing message.
When the allegations were put to him by police, Shaw said: 'I don't even remember sending an email. I was probably drunk.'
Shaw pleaded guilty to both counts at Liverpool Magistrates' Court on July 10 2025.
He was sentenced at the same court on Wednesday to 14 weeks' imprisonment for both counts, to run concurrently, with the sentence suspended for 12 months.
Shaw must also complete 20 days of a rehabilitation activity and a six-month drug rehabilitation course.
The CPS also successfully applied for a restraining order which the court imposed for two years – it states that Shaw must have no contact with Mr Sunak or his constituency office in that time.
District Judge Timothy Boswell said at the sentencing: 'Direct access to your constituency MP is a cornerstone of democracy. Misusing that access is detrimental to the democratic process. Clearly it is a highly aggravating factor for the offence.'
Senior Crown prosecutor Matthew Dixon, of CPS Mersey Cheshire, said: 'Liam Shaw took to his phone that night to send racist and threatening messages to a person in an extremely important public office.
'The work of Members of Parliament is extremely important and the police and the Crown Prosecution Service play their part in keeping them safe and able to do their work without fear.
'The Crown Prosecution Service has always and will continue to safeguard a person's right to freedom of expression.
'But this is clearly a case where the comments made were utterly beyond the boundary of what is tolerable in a fair, just and multi-racial society, and passed into the realm of criminality.
'Racist abuse has no place, anywhere, in this day and age.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sturgeon: Some gender reform critics are driven by prejudice
She also revealed she had received horrific abuse in recent days, saying "people who call themselves feminists, standing up for women's rights" had laughed at her miscarriage and wished for her to be raped. READ MORE Ms Sturgeon has undertaken a number of media interviews and public events in recent days following the publication of her memoir, Frankly. In the book she writes that she should have considered pausing her bid to change the law. MSPs passed the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill in December 2023, aiming to speed up and simplify the process for a trans person to obtain a gender recognition certificate and change their legal sex. Under the current system, the process takes at least two years, involves a medical diagnosis and is only available to those aged 18 and over. Holyrood's Bill would have cut the waiting time to six months, lowered the age threshold to 16, and scrapped the need for a medical diagnosis — often described as self-identification. Before it could become law, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, blocked it using the first-ever order under Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act. First Minister John Swinney has since ruled out revisiting the legislation, saying it is beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament and his government 'quite simply cannot proceed with it'. During a discussion with broadcaster Kirsty Wark, Ms Sturgeon was asked about the language she used to describe some critics of her gender reforms, including calling them transphobic. The Glasgow Southside MSP conceded that this had closed people out of the conversation, but said she had always caveated her remarks by making clear it was not true of all opponents. 'I am not saying everybody falls into this activity, but I am sorry, I do not care what side of this debate you are on, I defy anybody to say that there are not supporters of Trump, of Putin, of Erdoğan, and people here, supporters of people like Farage, who fall into these categories and have chosen to take on this issue. 'It is the soft underbelly of other prejudice. And I am sorry, I find it really hard to believe that even people who passionately disagree with me cannot see that.' Ms Wark told Ms Sturgeon that as first minister her job should have been to bring people together, asking if she had been 'inclusive enough in these conversations'. 'Probably not, no,' Ms Sturgeon replied. 'I do not think I was.' She added: 'The debate is toxic on both sides of this debate. It is not all one way, and sometimes it is presented as if it is. 'I have had, just in the last couple of days — and I do not spend a lot of time looking at the bowels of social media — occasion to see people on the other side of this debate. Not faceless bots, but real people. 'People who call themselves feminists, standing up for women's rights, saying things about me such as, when I described my miscarriage experience the other day, 'I have not laughed as much in years,' and accusing me of making it up. People saying they hope I am raped in a toilet. 'So these are the kind of things that go in both directions at the end.' READ MORE While she insisted not all opponents of gender reform are transphobic or homophobic, Ms Sturgeon said she had been worried that pausing the legislation would have meant 'giving in to that', but added: 'I might have been wrong, and I probably was wrong about that.' Speaking later to journalists, Ms Sturgeon said the abuse she had received made her concerned for the state of democracy. She said she had not contacted police over the comments. 'Of course, allegations of criminality should be reported to the police, but I think in terms of online abuse, sometimes we just have to kind of all take a step back and stop doing it, rather than think that the recourse is always to go to the police. 'I do not look at it very often. I try not to, but it makes me deeply concerned, not for myself so much as for the state of democracy. 'I speak to young women, young men as well, who are interested in politics, who would love to think about going into politics, but actually think that they could not do it because of the abuse. 'And if we carry on down that road, then democracy is in an even worse state than sometimes it appears it is right now. 'As a frontline politician for three decades, I am not without responsibility for the state of public discourse. "I have got to take my share of collective responsibility, but I think we have also all got to just stop shouting abuse at each other, and take a step back and try to find a way of disagreeing, but doing it a bit more agreeably than we seem to be capable of right now.'
Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
First Farage, now Jenrick, the BBC pandering to the extremists does nothing to dial down the temperature
What message does it send when the man maligning millions of people, about whom he knows nothing, comes out as the good guy? Robert Jenrick has some brass neck contending with the widely-held belief that the latest of his poisonous remarks, consistently demonising migrants, is xenophobic. The BBC this week issued an apology after the Shadow Justice Secretary complained that a critic had been handed airtime to push back. And when the state broadcaster caves in to men like Jenrick, we are all in trouble. It was theologian and author Dr Krish Kandiah, speaking on the BBC's Thought for the Day who spoke for many - including the ordinary people across the country at risk from the increasingly inflammatory language and people platformed by broadcasters who should know better. Kandian used the word 'xenophobia' in relation to an article in which Jenrick said: "I certainly don't want my children to share a neighbourhood with men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally and about whom we know next to nothing.' Kandian said: "These words echo a fear many have absorbed – fear of the stranger. The technical name for this is xenophobia. All phobias are, by definition, irrational. Nevertheless, they have a huge impact.' Jenrick posted online in response: "On BBC Radio 4 this morning listeners were told that if you're concerned about the threat of illegal migrants to your kids, you're racist. Wrong. You're a good parent.' The BBC's position was that it was apologising to Jenrick for the inclusion of an opinion in a place where it was inappropriate, not passing judgement on the rights or wrongs of the opinion. But when is pushing back against hate ever inappropriate? What message does it send when the man maligning millions of people about whom he knows nothing, comes out as the good guy? And what world are we living in when we cannot use the words (Kandian let him off lightly in my opinion) that accurately sum up yet another of Jenrick's attempts to stir up division. Here's a glimpse at his recent body of work. There was the time in January he used the sexual exploitation of young girls to blanket-condemn 'hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures who possess medieval attitudes towards women'. Describe one of your colleagues' countries at work as medieval with an alien culture and see how far you get before you are disciplined. Twelve months ago Jenrick was vilified for saying police should 'immediately arrest' any protesters shouting 'Allahu Akbar', the Arabic phrase meaning God is great. In response, Conservative party chair Baroness Sayeeda Warsi said: "This language from Jenrick is more of his usual nasty divisive rhetoric.' Labour MPs Naz Shah, the MP for Bradford West, called Mr Jenrick's comments "textbook Islamophobia'. His comments "literally equate every Muslim in the world with extremism" she argued. In a social media post she said: 'Imagine in this climate, either being that ignorant or deliberately trying to stigmatise all Muslims. He should apologise and speak to Muslim communities and learn more about our faith.' Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: 'People like Robert Jenrick have been stirring up some of the problems that we've seen in our communities.' Then there was the time last October the Shadow Chancellor insisted Britain's former colonies should be thankful for the legacy of the empire. Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, lawyer and activist posted on X: 'The ingratitude of this political illiterate @RobertJenrick. Britain would be nothing without colonised African & Asian nations. Its Industrial Revolution & Capitalist Wealth were built on the blood, sweat, forced labour & lives of our forebears. 'The 'inheritance' it left were the resources it stole, lands it pillaged, genocides committed, division of nations, systemic rape & collective punishment committed in the name of its racist British empire – a genocidal & thieving empire that still profits off former colonies to date.' Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on African reparations, said: 'Enslavement and colonialism were not 'gifts' but imposed systems that brutally exploited people, extracted wealth, and dismantled societies, all for the benefit of Britain.' So for the BBC to apologise to Jenrick, even on a technicality, sums up how detached from reality the broadcaster finds itself. In any case, what does Jenrick have to be upset about? Firstly the context. As we know there is precedent for politicians using language like him to insult, vilify entire groups of people and stir up hatred. In 1964, former Tory MP Peter Griffiths was elected to Smethwick, north west Birmingham, on the slogan 'If you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour.' Griffiths refused to disown it, claiming he regarded it as 'a manifestation of popular feeling.' Second, the framing. Jenrick's Tory party closed off all the legal routes into this country in order to deliberately frame those arriving as illegals. To suggest everyone arriving - including families - as a threat is a throwback to the days of Griffiths. Third, the BBC is the channel that ordered one of its non-white presenters to, humiliatingly, apologise for stating that Nigel Farage had been using, in a Reform UK speech, his 'customary inflammatory language' - even though he actually had been using his customary inflammatory language. The Beeb is also the channel which had its own staff publicly rebel after Breakfast show presenter Naga Munchetty was found to have breached the corporation's editorial guidelines in criticising US President Donald Trump for telling black politicians to 'go home'. Munchetty was ruled to have overstepped by accusing the US president of racism. Angry colleagues at the time pointed out that the complaints unit is dominated by older white men with no real grasp of the way in which Trump's words impact ordinary people. It looks very much as though that unit is still crammed to bursting with privileged middle-class high earners with their heads in the sand. Because if Jenrick's remarks don't qualify as xenophobic then what does? The Beeb needs to pick a side, because if you are non-white there have been a number of decisions from the broadcasters which do not help the fight against those who wish to divide us. Remember the time when it broadcast live, in its entirety, that repugnant, 2022 party conference speech by then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman, packed with lies and 'hurricane of migrants' rhetoric. The criticism of the Beeb's decision to hand a season ticket to Farage for its flagship political debate show Question Time, long before he was ever elected to Clacton, is well documented. And there remains a feeling that the broadcaster is happier to chase controversy than play its part in calming tensions. It needs to answer that charge urgently. Because to pander to extremists is simply not good enough. Ends
BBC News
5 hours ago
- BBC News
Northamptonshire council 'not doing enough' to mark VJ Day
A council is being accused of not doing enough to mark the 80th anniversary of VJ Day on occasion commemorates the Japanese surrender, which effectively meant the end of World War Cowley-Coulton, a Conservative member of Northampton Town Council, said it was "absolutely horrifying" that West Northamptonshire Council is not, at the very least, organising a flag-raising Reform UK-controlled authority said it would be observing a two-minute silence across its buildings and flying the Union Jack. Although the surrender document was not signed until 2 September 1945, Emperor Hirohito announced that his country would capitulate on 15 communities in Northamptonshire have organised events to mark the 80th anniversary, including North Northamptonshire Council, which will display peace lamps at five of its a recent statement by West Northamptonshire Council invited residents to "come together to mark VJ Day in a number of ways" and advertised a national two-minute silence. Cowley-Coulton, an army reservist, has written to the council "with some amount of disappointment regarding a lack of events and flag-raising service/ceremony".He noted that there were "next to no events for the 80th anniversary" and called on the authority to organise a flag-raising ceremony to which veterans would be said: 'It's the end of the last major global conflict that all nations were involved in."We do need to come together and we do need to remember it, and I think it's absolutely horrifying that West Northamptonshire Council have not done that.' 'Civic pride' Cowley-Coulton has several relatives who served during the two World Wars, including a great uncle who flew Lancaster said: 'People need to remember their forefathers, and they need to be given the opportunity by a council to restore the civic pride that we had.'The leader of West Northamptonshire Council, Mark Arnull, said: 'We know how important the VJ Day 80th anniversary is to our communities and on Friday we absolutely will be remembering all those who courageously served and sacrificed."We will be observing a two-minute silence across our buildings and encouraging our communities to do the same. The Union Jack flies at our offices as a symbol of national pride and remembrance for all those who both serve and served our country.' Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
