Latest news with #LordYoung
BBC News
6 days ago
- BBC News
Woman jailed for attempted murder of boy with broken bottle
A woman has been jailed for the attempted murder of a teenage boy with a broken gin 16-year-old needed life-saving surgery after the assault near St Enoch shopping centre in Glasgow in August Macaulay, 43, was sentenced to five years and nine months at the High Court in Young praised the skill of the surgeons, saying that without their skill in saving the teenager's life then Macaulay would have faced a murder charge. Police found parts of the broken bottle and glass fragments on her clothes after detaining had been due to stand trial at the High Court in Glasgow last month but pled guilty to attempted murder while acting under remand prisoner observed court proceedings via video link from Young previously heard how the victim and his friends had been out in the city centre on the evening of the ended up in the company of Macaulay and a male friend. The boy ended up in an "altercation" with Macaulay's friend. 'Profuse bleeding' Prosecutor Gareth Reid said Macaulay got involved and a gin bottle she had was of the boy's group grabbed the woman by the hair to try and get her off her Reid told the court that Macaulay struck the boy on the neck with the broken bottle and he fell to the floor fled as the victim's friends flagged down passing British Transport police officers for help. There was "profuse bleeding" to a wound on the right side of his neck which required an operation that will leave permanent scarring. Macaulay claimed the others had been "jumping" on her male friend and that she had also been assaulted, including having food thrown at Thursday, defence advocate Rosalyn McTaggart told the court that her client had a traumatic childhood and suffered from addiction lawyer added that she was genuinely sorry for her Young told Macaulay she would have received a six and half year term if she had not pleaded guilty.
BBC News
05-08-2025
- BBC News
Rapist carried out 'horrific' attack in victim's home
A rapist has been jailed for seven years after carrying out an attack on a woman in her own home. A judge at the High Court in Edinburgh told Robert McGregor his desire to humiliate and degrade the victim during the attack on 22 August 2020 was Young, who was provided with a victim impact statement, said: "The effect on her has been both traumatic and truly life altering."He said aggravating features of the crime included the attempt to degrade the victim and the fact that significant harm was caused to her. McGregor ignored pleas by his victim to stop during the rape, which took place the morning after a party in Greenock. Lord Young said: "This was a horrific attack on a woman in her home in which your desire to humiliate and degrade is obvious."The woman said McGregor's whole demeanour changed before he launched the assault. Offshore scaffolder McGregor, formerly of Brown Street, Port Glasgow, Inverclyde, had earlier denied raping the woman but was convicted of the offence following a judge said he accepted that there was no pre-planning involved in the offence and noted that McGregor was assessed as posing a medium risk of counsel Edith Forrest told the court McGregor continued to maintain the position he took at his said he had "a limited criminal history" but had no previous convictions for sexual offences. She added that at the time of the rape he was drinking and occasionally using was placed on the sex offenders' register indefinitely.
Telegraph
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Rayner faces legal challenge over ‘secret' Islamophobia talks
Angela Rayner faces a legal challenge over 'secretive' plans to revive a definition of Islamophobia that will have a 'chilling' effect on free speech. The Free Speech Union (FSU) said the process would rubber-stamp a controversial definition of Islamophobia, which Labour would then adopt. The definition, which treats Islamophobia as a type of racism, has been criticised for being too widely drawn. The FSU has written to the Deputy Prime Minister expressing concern the new definition is being drawn up behind closed doors. The definition, which treats Islamophobia as a type of racism, has been criticised for being so expansive that it could threaten free speech, act as a de facto blasphemy law, and stifle legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion. Lord Young of Acton, the FSU's director, said: 'The Free Speech Union is concerned that the rush to proscribe 'Islamophobia' will have a chilling effect on free speech. 'If the Deputy Prime Minister presses ahead, we won't hesitate to bring a judicial review in the High Court, as we have with other decisions of this Government.' In his letter, Lord Young said the consultation questions appeared 'heavily weighted' in favour of a 'predetermined outcome', endorsing a definition 'closely aligned' with that put forward by the all party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims. This was adopted by Labour and stated that 'Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.' Lord Young said: 'The consultation questions appear exclusively focused on justifying the adoption of a standard definition of Islamophobia, and on exploring the extent to which Islamophobia should be classified as a form of racism. 'There are no questions inviting concerns about potential impacts on the right to freedom of speech, nor does the call for evidence actively seek out alternative perspectives.' Key groups that would challenge the impact on free speech and provide alternative views had not been invited to submit evidence – such as Christian Concern, The Christian Institute, Adam Smith Institute, and Equality and Human Rights Commission, said Lord Young. 'Non-transparency and avoidance of accountability' Most – if not all – of the five members of the working group had explicitly supported the controversial APPG definition of Islamophobia, including its chair Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, who wrote a foreword for the APPG report. Lord Young expressed concern that the working group's advice to ministers will be kept secret. 'Any attempt to refuse to disclose advice from the working group will indicate that scrutiny is not welcome on a topic that is fundamental to social cohesion and the rights of citizens,' he said. 'Any apparent or perceived bias will undermine confidence in the working group's advice, which will be further exacerbated in circumstances where the advice is not published.' Lord Young warned the secrecy and apparent exclusion of groups from the consultation risked breaching the Government's principles and engagement standards, which govern the working group. 'Non-transparency and avoidance of accountability will undermine the legitimacy of the working group,' he added. Mr Grieve has previously accepted that 'defining Islamophobia is extremely difficult for perfectly valid reasons relating to freedom of expression'. However, he said it was also clear that 'perfectly law-abiding Muslims going about their business and well-integrated into society are suffering discrimination and abuse'. Anti-Muslim hate surged to record levels last year, according to Tell Mama, an organisation tracking Islamophobia. It confirmed almost 6,000 reports as anti-Muslim incidents, more than double the number two years ago, with men targeted more than women for the first time since the body was founded in 2012.
Telegraph
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent
Lord Young suggested the definition could even capture Mr Jenrick, the former immigration minister, who has previously warned that 'excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public.' Senior Labour politicians could also fall within the scope of the definition, he claimed. Lord Young cited Sir Keir's recent statement that without fair immigration rules, 'we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' There are growing fears that police are wrongly seeking to limit free speech. The Telegraph disclosed last month that Julian Foulkes, a retired police officer, was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism. Officers who conducted a search of his house described a collection of books by authors such as Mr Murray as 'very Brexity'. Mr Foulkes later received an apology and £20,000 compensation. Last year, Allison Pearson, the Telegraph columnist, was questioned at home by two officers over an X post following pro-Palestinian protests. The Telegraph has also covered the case of Hamit Koskun, who was fined this week for burning a Koran. It led Mr Jenrick to accuse the courts of reviving blasphemy law. Lord Young said the course material appeared to reflect a shift in the Prevent approach from focusing on conduct – such as acquiring weapons or inciting violence – to 'treating ideology itself as a risk indicator, encompassing belief, alignment or political attitude'. He said the FSU had already had to support members referred to Prevent, including a 24-year-old autistic man whose social worker reported that he had been viewing 'offensive and anti-trans' websites and 'focusing on lots of Right-wing dark comedy'. Prevent referral could stain person's name Even if a person was subsequently deemed to require 'no further action', their name would risk remaining on police and other databases that could be accessed by MI5, MI6, the Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Charity Commission and local safeguarding teams. Lord Young said: 'There are multiple documented cases in which individuals referred to Prevent – despite not meeting the threshold for further action – suffered serious and lasting consequences simply because their names were logged in the system.' The row comes despite a report by Sir William Shawcross, a former independent reviewer of Prevent, which criticised the way that mainstream literature and even a former Cabinet minister had been described as 'cultural nationalists' by a Home Office research unit on extremism. The minister was later revealed as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. Sir William recommended that Prevent must be 'consistent in the threshold that it applies across ideologies to ensure a proportionate and effective response.' He added that there were major failings with Prevent more broadly, including that it wrongly funnelled money to extremist organisations and had repeatedly failed to identify people who went on to carry out terrorist attacks. Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: 'It is a very difficult job that the Home Office has to do, but maybe they should do a careful bit of editing so that people who are close to the political mainstream are not caught up in it.' A former government adviser said the 'cultural nationalism' definition was 'pretty shoddy'. 'Agencies like counter-terrorism police and MI5 are much more rigorous in their classifications,' they said. 'We are talking about Right-wing extremists, who are often neo-Nazis. It undermines the seriousness of what counter-extremism is all about.' Professor Ian Acheson, a former government adviser on extremism, said: 'We are now beginning to see the consequences of a referral mechanism built on training like this which skews away from suspicion by conduct to the mere possession of beliefs that are perfectly legitimate but regarded by Prevent policy wonks as 'problematic.''
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Labour's ‘pub banter' ban is fixing a made-up problem
Rupert Soames, the outspoken CBI chief, hit the nail on the head last week when he told a union chief that businesses are often confronted with what he calls the 'doctor problem'. Doctors, he explained, spend the majority of their time with just 5pc of people who are ill. Like GPs, the HR headaches employers face typically stem from a tiny fraction of staff. His point was that parts of the looming Employment Rights Bill, which will strengthen rights for workers and trade unions, are completely unnecessary. 'You don't go and lock all 100 chickens in a coop, for the fear that one is going to go wrong,' he argued, mixing his metaphors somewhat. A key example of the overreach of the new Bill is its so-called 'pub banter' ban provision, which will force venues such as pubs and universities to do all they can to protect employees from non-sexual third-party harassment. In a nutshell, it means pub and restaurant bosses could find themselves policing customer conversations and any jokes that staff might find offensive. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has already warned that the proposed rules are too broad-brush and could lead to 'excessive limitations on debate'. But perhaps more importantly, there isn't actually much evidence that this is even an issue. The ban seems to be fixing a made-up problem. Free speech campaigner Lord Young will make this point at a Lords hearing on Monday, as the Bill continues to chug through the parliamentary process. He will pull out a survey from last year that shows that just 0.51pc of respondents reported experiencing non-sexual third-party harassment at work in the year to March. Policing something that appears to be a problem for just 0.51pc of workers could prove detrimental to already stretched small businesses such as family-owned pubs and restaurants, which work in boisterous environments and don't have hordes of HR and legal staff to support them. Lord Young will argue in the House of Lords today that such a rule could also have a much broader impact on culture, with football stadiums becoming like libraries and ''banter bouncers' in every beer garden'. Introducing red-tape to solve non-issues doesn't feel like a driver of economic growth, either. Why are we chewing over this 'Alice in Wonderland' clause, as one peer called it earlier this year, when there is so much more important stuff going on in the world? Cash-strapped companies are freezing hiring and sacking staff, while millions of Britons are still not working. Sickness is fuelling a worklessness crisis that incurs a huge cost to the economy. More men are giving up on work than in any other G7 nation. At a lunch last week, a group of recruiters were bemoaning the enormous amount of challenges facing the sector. Notably, nobody brought up offensive customers as an issue. There is a disconnect between the issues the Bill is trying to tackle and the real issues facing businesses, with Soames complaining that the Government has not been listening to business concerns. Ministers say the reforms will boost the economy by raising living standards and creating more job opportunities. In reality, cash-strapped businesses are cutting jobs, hiring people on temporary contracts and thinking twice about taking a chance on those with patchy CVs. Labour is doing itself no favours by pledging to combat a problem that barely exists and setting off a lot of huffing and puffing in the process. A huge amount of unnecessary attention has been thrown in the direction of this so-called pub banter crackdown. On the one side we have union chiefs arguing that those critical of it are just protecting 'their right to be offensive' – and I agree that 'banter' is often just a veil for rudeness – while on the other, critics insist that the clause will simply encourage people to 'sue for hurt feelings'. This is a valid concern, given that there were almost 50,000 employment tribunal cases waiting to be resolved at the end of last year. A hazy rule around overheard conversations could cause claims to snowball even further. To be fair to Labour, this isn't a totally out of the blue or novel idea. It was only in 2023 that Rishi Sunak was facing a Tory revolt over plans to introduce a law that would allow shop assistants, bar staff and doctors to sue their employers if a member of the public offended them at work. The same arguments were rolled out at the time, with senior Tories warning that the proposed law would lead to an explosion of litigation and force business owners to run their establishments like a 'police state'. Ministers decided to let the idea fall by the wayside after the legislation triggered a huge outpouring of Tory anger. Knowing all the arguments, Labour had the perfect chance to do more research to work out whether this law is really needed and pin down exactly what the issues are. When deciding that the legislation was needed, the party could have crafted a more precise law to avoid the kind of controversy Sunak's ideas triggered. Alas, ministers appear to have done none of this. I don't suspect they are actually trying to stop respectful debates about controversial issues taking place in pub gardens, but rather ensure that anyone who feels hurt by overheard 'banter' at work isn't ignored. But it's not a pressing issue, so let's move on to the stuff that really matters. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
