Corbyn says police ‘picked on him to silence democratic rights' as case dropped
The former Labour leader and John McDonnell were called for interview after a pro-Palestine protest in London earlier this year.
Mr McDonnell revealed in the Commons that police had dropped their investigation into the pair, but said the Metropolitan Police had originally tried to charge them because MPs were held to have 'a greater culpability'.
Nine people face no further action after a demonstration on January 18, according to the Met, which has told the PA news agency it will not confirm whether either politician was involved.
Raising a point of order, Mr McDonnell told the Commons: 'You may be aware that (Mr Corbyn) and I were called for interview by the Metropolitan Police following our participation in a demonstration in January calling for peace and justice for the Palestinian people and an end to the genocide in Gaza.
'It was alleged that we failed to follow police restrictions on the protest. This is untrue, and at all times we followed police instructions.
'We can now report that the police have dropped the case against us and there will be no charges.'
Mr McDonnell alleged that 'the Metropolitan Police informed us that our case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) because as MPs we were to be held to have, and I quote, 'a greater culpability'.'
The independent MP for Hayes and Harlington, who was once Mr Corbyn's shadow chancellor, added: 'This is an unacceptable practice which flies in the face of the principle that we are all equal before the law.'
Mr Corbyn, now the independent MP for Islington North, said: 'I don't intend to let it rest just there.'
He told MPs: 'If there are elements in the police and possibly in the Crown Prosecution Service who want Members of Parliament to be held to a different standard of account than the general public, that removes us from the normality of law in this country.
'And I think that would be a very, very bad step indeed.'
He later added: 'We have to all – all of us – have the right to take part in public protest about human rights abuse, about war, about peace, about anything else. That is what democracy is about.
'And I saw this whole effort as being a means to try and silence the democratic rights of everybody in our society by picking on us two as Members of Parliament, and I'm grateful for the decision that's been made today.'
Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh said he had 'not often taken part in demos in central London' but spoke to 'show that opinion in this House of Commons is absolutely united'.
'We've always proclaimed what is very much the British way that Members of Parliament are no different from any other member of the public,' the Conservative MP for Gainsborough said.
'If they do wrong, they will be held to account, but they should not be subject to some greater test of culpability just because they're Members of Parliament.'
A Met Police spokesperson said: 'No further action will be taken against nine people who were interviewed as part of an investigation into alleged breaches of Public Order Act conditions during a protest on Saturday January 18.
'The decision in two cases was taken following a review of the evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service, while the remaining seven cases were decided on by police officers.
'While we are aware of names being attributed to those who were the subject of our investigation, we will not be confirming their identities given that matters did not result in any charges.'
Two individuals have been charged with breaching the same conditions as well as inciting others to do so, according to the force, with a further two individuals still under investigation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
The UK stepped back as the rest of Europe stepped up, it is time for Scotland to rejoin the mainstream
AFP via Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... In the wake of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine over three years ago, the world shifted on its axis. Standing alongside the then Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, the former Premiere of Sweden, Magdalena Andersson said, 'There is a before and after 24 February [2022]. This is a very important time in history. The security landscape has completely changed. We have to analyse the situation to see what is best for Sweden's security, for the Swedish people, in this new situation.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Three years on, both of our Nordic neighbours are members of the NATO alliance. Something that would have been unthinkable even a few months before. The brutal reality of expansionist authoritarianism, coupled with the growing complexity of hybrid, non-military threats, demands a profound recalibration for all countries and a political response with the courage to see that through. For the SNP - a party rooted in centre-left, social democratic and pro-European values – this, including lessons from our Nordic neighbours, presents a challenge and an opportunity. As champions of Scottish statehood, it is no small responsibility to articulate a credible security policy that is forward-looking and unapologetically supportive of our common European security. That requires a serious engagement on defence, that other countries would expect of a Scotland that aspires to membership of the EU and other international organisations. Our neighbours would expect no less. To that end the SNP is better placed than the biggest Westminster parties who steadfastly cling onto a Brexit that has left us poorer, less secure and outside the European mainstream at a critical moment in history. It continues to be a massive strategic error that most at Westminster continue to refuse to confront. Rather than taking cheap political pot shots at the SNP, those Westminster parties would be better served using their energies addressing the fundamental weakness that the UK is exposed to by being outside of the EU. However, politics aside, it requires all parties to have difficult conversations around how we engage with the defence sector as well as how to build greater common defence and security links across Europe, as the United States becomes increasingly unreliable and when the international rules-based system is under greater threat than for decades. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This will be in our security and economic interest. One of the recent criticisms aimed at the UK has been the running down of the army. Back in 2004 the SNP walked out of the House of Commons when the then MP for Perth, Annabelle Ewing was thrown out for calling the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, a 'backstabbing coward' after he announced dramatic cuts to the Scottish Regiments. Two decades on neither Hoon nor Ewing is in the Commons, but Putin remains in the Kremlin, and an even greater threat than ever. At the time of that exchange, I was spending time working in the South Caucasus on that region's various conflicts and the international community's stabilisation efforts. Anyone could have told you then of the threat Russia posed to its neighbours, but too many refused to listen, and we are now paying the price. Working with the defence sector and the SNP's values are not, and have never been, exclusive. My party's commitment to social justice, equality, and international cooperation has long been a part of our DNA, and defence is an integral part of that. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a wake-up call, exposing the fragility of the post-cold war settlement. It underscored that peace, democracy and sovereignty—all central to our cause —requires active defence which underpins our principles. As social democrats of the European mainstream, we well understand the value in sharing the burden of continental security. NATO and the EU are the twin pillars of the European security framework. Defence burden sharing isn't a political convenience, but a vital framework for protecting our values and way of life. Neighbouring states such as Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all able to combine progressive social policy with a robust defence stance. Those states, who underscore the benefits that Independence in Europe can bring their citizens, also understand the importance of securing their sovereignty collaboratively. There is much we can learn from our neighbours who understand the need to safeguard the conditions that allow our social democratic vision - free education, a national healthcare service, and a society that values human rights and the rule of law - to exist. The threats we face today are not abstract; they are direct challenges to the open, inclusive societies we seek to build. That requires engaging with our defence and research sectors to secure that peace is secured and Scotland counted on as a reliable part of the European community of democracies. The EU is a significant defence actor and one that is investing in its security. The UK is an important part of that infrastructure but is strategically hobbled by remaining outside the EU – a massive historic error that is still viewed with incomprehension across Europe and the democratic world. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Defence is increasingly a priority for the EU, especially when it comes to industry and procurement. Scotland is a natural partner for Brussels in that regard given our excellence in terms of industry and research as well as our important strategic location. Russia's war of conquest in Ukraine has shown that peace cannot be taken for granted. As a centre-left, pro-European party, we have a duty to protect the democratic ideals that underpin our vision for Scotland's future. Rewiring and renewing our defence platform to take account of this new insecure world, is a credible demonstration of a party of aspiration and responsibility. A Scotland that contributes to European security and safeguards the values we hold dear. The UK stepped back as the rest of Europe stepped up, it is time for Scotland to rejoin the mainstream. The wellbeing of future generations relies on it.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Iranian regime may struggle to recover, but could decide to push for bomb, experts say
Israel's military strikes on Iran have struck at the heart of the country's military leadership and nuclear program, creating a possible vacuum at the top of the regime that could hinder its ability to recover from the onslaught, experts say. But — assuming that it still can — there is a scenario in which the strikes could lead Tehran to abandon negotiations over its nuclear program and instead rush toward building a bomb, according to analysts and former U.S. officials. The killing of top Iranian military officers as well as several nuclear scientists will likely have sparked fears in Tehran that Israeli intelligence had deeply penetrated the regime and that other senior figures could also be in danger. Israel has previously pulled off brazen assassinations inside Iran, targeting senior government scientists involved in the country's nuclear program and the political leader of the Iranian-backed Palestinian group Hamas when he was visiting Tehran. 'You have to assume the system is shell-shocked,' said Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute think tank. 'They don't know… how badly they're infiltrated' by Israel. Iranian media and the Israeli military said Israel's strikes on Thursday killed Iran's top military officer, Mohammad Hossein Bagheri, as well as the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Hossein Salami, and a major general in the Revolutionary Guards, Gholam Ali Rashid. The senior military officers targeted had deep ties to Iran's regime and were known personally by the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, particularly Bagheri, according to Vatanka. Khamenei promoted Bagheri to his post as chief of the armed forces in 2016. 'There's a personal element here, which might be a factor in terms of what Khamenei decides to do,' he said. Shahid Beheshti University said five professors were killed in Thursday's attack as well as 'some' family members. Nuclear program's future The first wave of Israeli military strikes launched Thursday likely inflicted serious damage on Iran's nuclear program, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that air raids will continue for 'as many days as it takes' to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear arsenal. But Iran still has buried nuclear facilities at Fordow and elsewhere that it could potentially use if it chose to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and rescind its commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons. In that case, Iran would need to enrich uranium to weapon-grade levels, a short technical step with its current stockpile, and then build a nuclear warhead. That effort could take roughly a year or more, most experts estimate. The CIA declined to comment as to whether there were any indications that Iran was moving to pull out of the NPT and pursue nuclear weapons. U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be trying to use the Israeli military attack as leverage over Iran, pushing it to make concessions or else face even harsher military strikes. But Iran may calculate that the time for negotiations is over and opt to build nuclear weapons, according to Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group think tank. 'One of the strategic risks in targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure is the potential for backlash,' Vaez said. The strikes 'could incentivize Tehran to reconstitute its program with renewed urgency, driven by a heightened resolve to achieve a credible nuclear deterrent,' he said. Iran has invested decades of effort and trillions of dollars in building its nuclear program, and Iranian political leaders portray it as a point of national pride, a symbol of the country's independence and technological progress. Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank, said Iran's leadership will likely choose to develop nuclear weapons rather than give up the program it sees as a patriotic endeavor. 'It has become a symbol of national prestige and honor,' Miller said on MSNBC. 'When all is said and done, and this regime stays in power, which I suspect it will, the Iranians will probably make a decision to go all out in an effort to weaponize,' Miller said. 'And the Americans and the Israelis are going to have to figure out, over time, how to deal with it.' Jonathan Panikoff, a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Near East at the U.S. National Intelligence Council, said that Iran may conclude that pursuing nuclear weapons is the only way to safeguard the regime. Iran 'may determine that the Israeli strikes mean time is up for the regime to decide whether to obtain a bomb, if it hasn't done so already,' Panikoff, now at the Atlantic Council think tank, wrote in an analysis. 'The conclusion could be that it can no longer sit on the proverbial nuclear fence, and that it has to rush for a bomb or risk never having one.' To many Iranian political leaders, securing a nuclear weapon -- or nuclear weapons capability -- is vital for the survival of the regime itself, he added. But it was unclear if Israel's military strikes could deliver a knock-out blow that would make it impossible for Iran to build nuclear weapons, some experts said. Alex Plitsas, a former senior Pentagon official and a fellow at the Atlantic Council, said it was likely that the Israeli assault, which included sabotage operations, had caused too much damage to Iran's nuclear sites and equipment to enable Iran to rush toward building a bomb. Iran was caught flat-footed by the Israeli attack, even though Israel had sent clear warnings for years and in recent months that it would not tolerate an advancing Iranian nuclear program, Plitsas said. 'The Iranians have misread the signals from Israel again and again,' he said. Even a successful series of strikes against Iran's nuclear sites might only delay Tehran's ability to develop the bomb by up to two years, according to past comments by U.S. officials and estimates by experts. In 2012, Robert Gates, shortly after he stepped down as defense secretary, said military strikes against Iran's nuclear program would likely fail in the end to prevent Tehran from developing the bomb. 'Such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable,' Gates said at the time. 'They would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert.' Iran maintains its nuclear program is designed for purely civilian purposes to generate energy and research, but Western powers have long accused Tehran of laying the ground for a nuclear weapons project, citing enrichment activity far beyond what's required for peaceful uses. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Iran had a nuclear weapons program but halted the project in 2003. A report in May from the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded Iran was not fully cooperating with U.N. inspectors and that the agency could not provide assurance that Iran's nuclear program was 'exclusively peaceful.' On Thursday, the IAEA censured Iran for failing to comply with nonproliferation obligations designed to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. It was the first such censure in 20 years. Democratic lawmakers have criticized Trump for pulling, during his first term, the U.S. out of a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran that imposed limits on its nuclear activities, saying that decision opened the way to the current crisis.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Churchill won the war but lost the peace - was that inevitable?
Plus ca change. The popular history of the Second World War - as pushed by newspapers and the media in general - is usually the story of Churchill. He is the Second World War in the popular imagination. The fact that he was a much more divisive figure back then is often written out of the story, as is the fact that he was leading a coalition government which included many of those who would be part of the radical Labour government of 1945; a government that would essentially create the world we have been living in for the last 80 years; the NHS, the welfare state, nationalised industry (now largely gone, of course) and the postwar consensus that has been fraying since the Thatcher era and is now in the age of Trump perhaps about to disappear. Read more The 1945 election is the subject of historian David Runciman's new 20-part Radio 4 series Postwar which has been stripped across the week from Monday to Friday and continues over the coming weeks (though as I write this many of the episodes are already available on BBC Sounds). These short, sharp historical nuggets paint a more detailed picture than the broad sweep, romanticised history that we get in VE anniversary broadcasts. And it explains why the newspapers got it so wrong. In 1945, Churchill may have been respected and admired, but the British people didn't want him any more. They wanted change. Labour embodied that change. And so ushered in the most radical government of the 20th century (whatever Thatcher fanboys might tell you). 'Why did the man who won the war, the hero of the hour and a hero for the ages, find himself so decisively rejected by the electorate?' Runciman asked in the first episode on Monday. His argument was that Britain had already changed because of the war. It was being run by a coalition government which had taken control of employment, prices, health, education, food. In other words, it was not very Tory, despite the man leading it. 'The new world was already here,' Runciman pointed out. 'It had been created during the war, the question was … who could be trusted with it.' Not Churchill. His reputation in 1945 was less black and white than it is now. He was seen as a man of war, not of peace. And a gambler who was willing to take risks. Many still remembered his gamble at Gallipoli in the First World War that had led to the death of thousands of British soldiers. Perversely, his opponent, Clement Atlee was seen as more conservative and therefore more reliable. (Atlee had fought at Gallipoli and actually approved of Churchill's gamble.) The country was still at war when the election was held. The previous election was in 1935. That meant that in 1945 no one under the age of 30 had voted in a British election (the voting age was still 21). But many of them had fired a gun. The Labour manifesto of 1945 was that rare thing in politics, a genuine bestseller. Voters were hungry for postwar Britain to begin. Kenny Logan (Image: Royal & Awesome) The problems were hardly over, of course. The dismantling of empire and the construction of a postwar peace both loomed large. And the new Britain that emerged was very far from perfect. But it aspired to make a better world for its citizens. However flawed the result, there's a heroism in that. But that's a story we rarely tell ourselves. Postwar deserves credit for doing so. Over on Radio 2 Kenny Logan - of Scottish rugby and Strictly Come Dancing fame - was guest on Vernon Kay's Tracks of My Years slot this week. In between his record choices he spoke about his dyslexia, his prostate cancer diagnosis, farming and Strictly (natch). But the most moving part of the conversation came at the end of the week when he talked about the late, great Doddie Weir, his team mate who battled motor neurone disease in his later years. You could hear the catch in Logan's voice as he spoke about Weir. But the joy too as he recalled a day out with Weir bouncing over a hayfield in the car singing along to Amy MacDonald's This is the Life. In the end we are the memories we leave behind. Listen Out For: Private Passions, Radio 3, Sunday, June 15, noon Singer-songwriter Suzanne Vega is Michael Berkeley's guest on this Sunday's edition of Private Passions. Given that The Divine Comedy's Neil Hannon was also a recent guest I can hear a few Radio 3 refuseniks seeing this as another sign of the station dumbing down. But listening to Vega is always worth your time and her musical choices do include Debussy, Bartok and Philip Glass.
