Children among 30 injured as car driven into Munich crowd in 'suspected attack'
At least 30 people have been injured, including children, after a car was driven into a crowd in a "suspected attack" in Munich, authorities said.
A 24-year-old Afghan asylum seeker, Farhad N, has been arrested after officers fired a shot at the vehicle.
Workers taking part in a union demonstration were walking along a street when the car overtook a police vehicle that was accompanying the group, according to officers in the German city.
They said the car then sped up and ploughed into the back of the group, before police opened fire.
1:24
Bavaria state premier Markus Soeder said the incident was "suspected to be an attack". Some of the victims were seriously injured, and the motive was unclear.
Officials believe the protest, by the service workers' union ver.di, was likely targeted at random, according to state interior minister Joachim Herrmann.
He said the suspect was known to authorities in connection with theft and drug offences.
The man's asylum application had been rejected, but he had not been forced to leave due to security concerns in Afghanistan, said Mr Herrmann.
People were 'crying and shaking'
A damaged Mini was pictured at the scene, along with items of clothing and bags, a broken pram, a shoe and a pair of glasses.
Sandra Demmelhuber, a journalist for local broadcaster BR24, posted an image on X showing the car surrounded by police and emergency crews.
She said: "There is a person lying on the street and a young man was taken away by the police. People were sitting on the ground, crying and shaking."
A 'terrible attack'
The incident happened at a square near downtown Munich, close to the city's central train station at around 10.30am (9.30am UK time), police said.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called the events "horrible" and a "terrible attack", saying "an Afghan perpetrator has severely injured people, and that is not something that we can tolerate or accept".
"This perpetrator cannot hope for any leniency. He must be punished and he must leave the country.
"The government will be starting flights back to Afghanistan despite the lack of diplomatic ties."
0:52
The incident is not suspected to be connected to the upcoming Munich Security Conference which starts on Friday around a mile away.
Security has been in sharp focus in Germany following a spate of attacks involving migrants in recent months and ahead of a federal election later in February.
A two-year-old boy and a man were killed in a knife attack last month in Aschaffenburg, also in Bavaria. An Afghan whose asylum application was rejected was the suspect in that attack.
The killings followed knife attacks in Mannheim and in Solingen last year in which the suspects were migrants from Afghanistan and Syria, respectively - in the latter case, also a rejected asylum seeker who was supposed to have left the country.
A Saudi doctor known to authorities was the suspect in December when a car rammed people at a Christmas market in Magdeburg, killing six.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The Tories must do more than apologise for Liz Truss
Photograph by Henry Nicholls - Pool/Getty Images. Better late than never, and better something than nothing. The Conservative Party should have distanced itself from Liz Truss at the first opportunity – emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly. On the steps of Downing Street on 25 October 2022, as his first act as Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak should have condemned the mini-Budget, apologised to the nation and made it clear that Truss would never be a Conservative parliamentary candidate again. It would have been a justified response to the chaos of the preceding few weeks and a signal that the party had changed. It did not happen. Sunak acknowledged that 'mistakes were made' but left it at that. He was too cautious about splitting his party. The membership had voted for Truss (he should have announced his intention to remove their rights to elect the leader, too) and a large minority of the parliamentary party had backed her. It would have been a bold gamble, and the case for such a move becomes more persuasive when one knows for certain of the electoral obliteration that lies ahead. Maybe we should not be too harsh on the last Conservative prime minister but we do now know how the infamous mini-Budget was brought up at every opportunity in last year's general election, and is continually referenced by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves. This is not just out of habit but will be a consequence of extensive polling research. The public remain furious at the chaos and uncertainty that was unleashed. Mortgage-holders, in particular, will not be quick to forgive. The Tories can survive many accusations, and still win elections. But they cannot win while being perceived as economically reckless. Not only is it a political vulnerability, but the Truss experience prevents them from delivering effective criticism of their opponents. At a time when Nigel Farage is advocating turning on the spending taps while also implementing massive tax cuts, the Conservatives are right to say he is being fiscally irresponsible. But when they say he is 'Liz Truss on steroids', it sounds amiss coming from Truss's party (especially when the line is delivered by those who served her loyally). And if the fears that the bond market vigilantes will turn against the UK come to pass, the Tory attack on Labour will also lack real punch. These factors resulted in the most substantial criticism of the mini-Budget from the Conservative frontbench. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride acknowledged that it had damaged the Tories' economic credibility, and that the party should show contrition. Stride – a reassuring figure who was critical of the mini-Budget at the time – was right to do so, but even then there was too much equivocation. Despite the advance briefing, there was no explicit apology. The language was characteristically measured and thoughtful, but what was needed was something a little more eye-catching and memorable. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Better still, the sentiments should have been expressed by the party leader, not the shadow chancellor. But when Kemi Badenoch was asked subsequently about the mini-Budget, she equivocated. She started to make the argument that the problem was the higher spending on energy support announced on 8 September, not the unfunded tax cuts set out on 23 September (she should check the dates of the market turmoil) and stated that she 'did not want to be commenting on previous prime ministers'. The strategy of distancing the Tory Party from Truss had been watered down after just a day. It is not good enough. Having left any serious criticisms for too long (31 months too long), this is no time for half measures. If the Conservatives want the right to be heard again by those voters who prioritise economic stability, they need to do this properly. Emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly. That means not just taking on Truss, but the thinking behind the mini-Budget. Contrary to the arguments made by the Trussites, tax cuts generally do not pay for themselves. Fiscal responsibility should come before tax cuts. Independent institutions such as the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility are not to blame for our economic difficulties. The events of autumn 2022 were not the result of a conspiracy but incompetence. The leadership of the Conservative Party should be making and winning those arguments now. This means that it will be impossible to offer unfunded tax cuts at the next general election as part of a retail offer, but that is the price that must be paid to recover economic credibility. While they are at it, there are other aspects of the party's recent history that should be addressed. The Conservatives were deeply damaged by the partygate scandal and the impression that the rules that applied to everyone else did not apply to them. According to a parliamentary committee on which there was a Tory majority, Boris Johnson misled the House of Commons about this matter and a 90-day suspension from the Commons would have been recommended had he not resigned as an MP. If the Tories want a reputation for economic competence and integrity (and that should not be too much to ask), they should make it clear that both Johnson's and Truss's days as Conservative parliamentary candidates are over. When distancing themselves from those aspects of their past that alienate the voters they need, what is required from the Tories are confident strides, not small, tentative steps. They have at least made a start, but it would be a grave mistake to think that the job is done. Related
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How a Luxembourg village divided Europe
I am in the most EU-ish bedroom in the EU. That is to say, I am lying in a refurbished room in the handsome 14th-century Chateau de Schengen, in the little village of Schengen, Luxembourg. From my casements, opened wide onto the sunny Saarland afternoon, I can see the exact stretch of the river Moselle where, on a boat floating between Germany, France and Luxembourg, the Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985. This was the agreement that sealed Free Movement as Europe's defining ideal – one whose consequences are still unfolding. I've been in Luxembourg for a week, on assignment, and this week has given me an insight into why the nations of the EU undertook their bold, remarkable experiment of no more borders. The first and obvious motivator was war. Luxembourg can look oddly new, or newish. Ancient-sounding villages are full of blocky 1960s houses. Supposedly medieval churches are clearly modern, lacking the rich patina of age. This is because they were all flattened in war – especially the last German offensive of the second world war, the Battle of the Bulge – which raged across snowbound Luxembourg from December 1944 to January 1945. As a result, much had to be rebuilt or heavily restored. Reviving international trust took even longer, as the war here was brutal. In little towns like Diekirch, teenage Nazi conscripts casually gunned down innocent civilians in the streets. The angered Allies felt no huge need thereafter to take German prisoners alive. The yearning to overcome this evil trauma – and reconcile – was one big driver of the EEC, which reached its frontierless, post-national apotheosis here in Schengen. But another was sheer practicality. Yesterday, my local guide, Anna, told me how she once had to show her passport every day to cross the Moselle to and from Germany. She can remember the queues and frustration. She recalls a crimped, claustrophobic Europe – like an office with too many cubicles. Nowadays the quaint old customs houses have been turned into tourist bureaux or posh chocolatiers, and everyone breezes between countries with total freedom. The other day I drove a meandering route through the rustling green winelands and must have crossed between Lux and DE half a dozen times, barely noticing. At its best, Schengen is indeed wonderful. But there's the geopolitical rub. Schengen at its Platonic best is magnificent. In practice, it may be turning into a tragic failure. A primary reason is migration – not within Europe, but without. To illustrate my point, Anna told me another story of Luxembourg. She explained how, in the 1970s, the now-prospering little Duchy required workers. As she put it, with bracing candour: 'We chose the Portuguese because they were poor and wanted the work, but also because they are European, Christian, Catholic, like us. We felt they would assimilate.' And so they have. You can see unexpectedly good selections of Douro wines in Luxembourg supermarkets. Otherwise, the 15 per cent of the population that is Portuguese is barely discernible. Schengen might, perhaps, be in much less trouble if every other country had followed those careful Luxembourg policies. But they didn't. France drew people from its old empire – Algeria, Morocco, sub-Saharan Africa. Germany imported millions of Turks, then another million Syrians under Merkel's idealistic Willkommen policy of 2015. Britain turned to the Caribbean, then Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. Combining open internal borders with sovereign external migration policies – inviting millions from far outside Europe – was, in retrospect, bound to create a problem. It's like a flat share where everyone agrees to leave their doors open and split the rent, but each person gets to invite their own guests, who then stay forever, use the bathroom, and host loud parties. Irritation is guaranteed. Some housemates will get seriously annoyed. Take, for example, the Somali migrant population in Holland. Tens of thousands of them moved to the UK under Free Movement. The UK could do nothing to stop this – as Britons duly noted. This is one example of how Free Movement, which peaked with Schengen, led quite directly to Brexit. It was perhaps sheer bad luck that Schengen coincided with one of the most ill-conceived experiments of recent times: multiculturalism plus mass immigration. Or maybe it wasn't coincidence, and they derive from the same well-meaning, liberal universalism – only this time taken too far. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real Whatever the case, as I write this in my room in the Chateau de Schengen, I can also read the daily and unhappy news that springs from Europe's mass immigration experience: of riots and deaths in France following the football victory of Paris Saint-Germain; of another call for an inquiry into rape gangs in the UK; of a hard-right Polish politician becoming president, vowing to keep Poland migrant-free; of once-peaceful Sweden – now 'the bombing capital of the West'. Or I can read about de facto blasphemy laws in Britain and Denmark, introduced to placate militant Islam. And I can read of endless terror shifting across Europe untracked, leading even mainstream politicians in Germany, Austria, Italy to argue for the suspension of Schengen. Yes, of course there are multiple good, successful stories of integration and assimilation across Europe. But for many Europeans, judging by the remarkable electoral shift to the hard right, the good is now majorly outweighed by the bad. Is there any hope for that faded but shimmering Schengen ideal of a borderless Europe? I'd like to think so. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real – even if Robert Frost knew what he was talking about when he said 'good fences make good neighbours'. The day is closing here in the Chateau de Schengen, and the summer sun sets lazily over the Auxerrois vines. They have a nice restaurant in the hotel, which has a classic French menu. I want to eat French food in Luxembourg while looking at Germany. It feels Schengen-y. But as the waitress brings my tranche de foie gras maison, the capricious Luxemburg weather turns. It's been in the forecast for a while – now it has arrived: a cold wind from the Ardennes is sweeping down the Moselle valley. The rain lashes the ancient gardens, and the waiters drift toward the windows, watching as the parasols surrender to the storm.
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Passengers flying with major airlines to face new 4 hour rule at airports
In a huge blow to Brits, EU countries have green-lighted controversial plans to lengthen the wait time before delayed passengers can claim compensation for both short and long-haul journeys Customers flying with some big name air operators on short-haul flights have been hit with a brutal four-hour warning over a controversial shakeup. After 12 years of wrangling, EU countries have green-lighted plans to lengthen the wait time before flyers can lodge claims for delayed flights. Currently, passengers have to be delayed by more than three hours before qualifying for compensation. However, under the new stipulations - which still have to be negotiated with the European Parliament before they become law - short-haul travellers will only be eligible to claim compensation after being delayed by four hours or more, while those on longer journeys will have to sit tight for a six-hour hold-up before they can lodge a compensation claim. It's not all bad news though, as EU nations have also agreed to increase the amount of compensation for those delayed on short-haul journeys from €250 (approx £210.47) to €300 (£252.56). But, passengers hit with delays on long-haul flights could see their compensation reduce from €600 (£505) to €500 (£420). The trade body Airlines for Europe (A4E), which represents companies such as Ryanair, easyJet and Lufthansa, and The European Consumer Organisation, the BEUC, both slammed the rules - arguing it would deprive the majority of passengers from being able to claim compensation. This is because most delays are only between two and four hours. "Europe has been waiting for transparent and workable passenger rights for 12 years and member states have fallen at the final hurdle to deliver," A4E said. "Member states have diluted the European Commission's original proposal and introduced even more complexity." According to Yorkshire Live, German members of the European People's Party have also expressed their disapproval, stating that 'decreasing the rights to compensation for air passengers would be a step in the wrong direction'. "Reimbursement after a three-hour delay has been standard for many years and should remain so," they added. A senior EU diplomat is believed to have said that 'no politician wants to say more than four hours' at risk of dampening Europeans' holiday plans. The news comes amidst accusations by 16 consumer protection associations from 12 Member States against seven budget airlines for imposing unfair charges on passengers' hand luggage. "The European Court of Justice has made it very clear that hand baggage is an integral part of the basic ticket price. Normally, there is no surcharge on the price as long as the hand luggage is of a reasonable size," explained Steven Berger, a solicitor with the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC). "All we're seeing is a proliferation of airlines charging for this baggage... We're calling for very clear rules. Passengers must be able to take one piece of luggage, a small suitcase or a rucksack." He added: "At the moment, there are two different opposing positions among the member states in the Council. On the whole, you have the camp of the member states that are going to defend the three hours to be able to benefit from the right to compensation and others that are going to ask for five hours and nine hours based on distance. So right now this is really the big source of conflict." *Prices based on EUR to GBP conversions at the time of writing.
