Latest news with #Sumption
New Statesman
23-07-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Letter of the week: A catastrophic war
Photo by John Morrison / Alamy How did we arrive at such a place, bearing witness to the horror, the terror, the catastrophic eradication of Palestine? The eminent lawyer and historian Jonathan Sumption meticulously chronicles Israel's unstoppable – and, I believe, genocidal – war, which can and must be proved in a court of law, under any of the relevant international laws, conventions and treaties Israel has signed up to (Cover Story, 18 July). Meanwhile, I and the world look on, helplessly, hoping to comprehend why no action, no intervention can be made. If I criticise Israel, I am accused of anti-Semitism; if I speak up for Palestine, I risk arrest for supporting a terrorist organisation. Now, silently weeping, cursing the empathy bequeathed to me as a human being, hearing only the agonising cries of children, the haunting wailing of their mothers, the utter rage, rage against the dying in the night. John Marshall, Bridlington Legal opinions The Guide to Judicial Conduct calls on retired judges to be circumspect in voicing controversial opinions, for the public still regards them as representative of the judiciary. The continued participation of UK judges in Hong Kong courts, criticism of the Supreme Court ruling on gender, challenging lockdown or intervening in the Post Office cases are good examples. Now we have another one. Lord Sumption is no expert on the Middle East. He parrots the most incorrect and damaging clichés about Israel and its foundation, without ever referring to the release of the hostages, an event that could bring an end to the war. He over-represents Israel's strength, without considering that it is a country whose very existence is threatened, hence the need for that strength. He does not mention Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, after which Gaza could have transformed itself into a state. Anti-Semitism has not risen from the Gaza war; it has a 2,000-year history, promoted by persecution, expropriation and expulsion. Today, it presents itself as anti-Zionism, and an attempt to destroy the world's only refuge for Jews. If Sumption has no solution, it might be better if he turned his vitriol to occupied Tibet or Cyprus, or the 'two-state' solutions of India and Ireland. As it is, the UK has forfeited all influence in Israel because of its historical mishandling of the Mandate, as well as the current government's bias. Baroness Deech, Oxford I read Jonathan Sumption's article and watched the corresponding interview on YouTube, both of which were thought-provoking. In relation to the conflict in Gaza, Sumption pinpoints exactly where the state of Israel has likely fallen foul in the context of the relevant international legal frameworks that were set about 80 years ago, precisely to avoid what's been occurring before our very eyes – namely, the systematic violation of human life. I understand he doesn't have an ideological position on the conflict, but I sense that he at least recognises the prima facie injustice of the past 21 months and before, including for the victims of 7 October 2023, and the wider historical context that underpins the dispute between both sides. Sumption aptly observes that International Humanitarian Law still has an inherent moral value and authority as long as abiding nations comply. This point resonated with me and offers a semblance of hope for the next generation. When it comes to the question of genocide in Gaza, I think it is more clear-cut than Sumption realises, and perhaps because more is coming to light each day. To give one example, a British NHS surgeon operating on those wounded at militarised aid distribution sites in Gaza relayed to BBC Radio 4 on 18 July that doctors he works with have had formula confiscated by Israeli border guards. Four newborn premature babies reportedly died that week. This routine confiscation may well constitute genocidal intent. Oliver Albuquerque, London Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe You give great prominence to Jonathan Sumption's diatribe against the Israeli response to the 7 October pogrom. Of course, much of Sumption's case for the prosecution can be contested, but not sufficiently in a letter. So, bearing in mind the possibly incendiary nature of Sumption's article, can I suggest you give equal prominence to a piece by someone with similar qualifications, putting forward the Israeli side of the argument? Providing a platform for the defence case would underline your claim to be a journal of serious debate rather than one which pushes just one point of view. Stan Rosenthal, Haywards Heath, West Sussex Jonathan Sumption sets out in detail Israel's violation of every norm in respect of defence against an aggressor. Essentially, he points out that Israel's operation in Gaza, 'Gideon's Chariots', 'expresses the traditional narrative… of the underdog fighting for survival'. Israel's survival is under no immediate (or, perhaps, long-term) threat, but the underdog perception remains. The underdog becomes the bully when circumstances permit. Since 1948, the persecution of Palestine – the innocent occupants of an ancient Jewish homeland – has been the stance of the bully. To redress the problem will require intervention from the Western powers to establish equity in the land between the river and the sea: two cooperative states. David Clarke, Oxford Thank you for publishing the article by our most eminent living jurist, Jonathan Sumption, which sets out in the clearest possible and unequivocal terms how Israel is inflicting war crimes upon the Palestinian people. The Labour government must face the verdict of history if it continues its support of Israel, while tut-tutting about non-entities shouting abuse from Glastonbury, and extending the domestic definition of terrorism to encompass protests that inflicted criminal damage on suppliers of goods to Israel. By the standards of international law, the government – that is, the UK as a state and a member of the UN Security Council – will be deemed complicit. John Crawley, Beverley I think the front cover featuring a single paragraph from Jonathan Sumption's article was inspired, voicing what many of us have thought for a long time. Unfortunately it needs to be restated. I hope that those who make decisions about who we support militarily can take heed. David Booth, Abernethy, Perthshire Thank you for the 18 July edition of the New Statesman. I've long argued that one can be critical of the appalling crimes of the Israeli government without being inherently anti-Semitic; the media has generally shied away from this position. Your cover was brave and right. I applaud you. Keep going! The New Statesman is truly a light in the current darkness. Paul Heritage-Redpath, Kynnersley Thatcher's turbo sell-off I'm astonished that Katie Lam can blame the housing crisis on '20th-century socialism' (Interview, 18 July). Although unusual for a Tory in that she doesn't wet herself at the mention of the Iron Lady, surely she is aware that '20th-century socialism' turbocharged the provision of social housing post-1945, only for Thatcher to turbocharge the sale of said provision without allowing the proceeds to be used to build replacement homes. Peter Lock, Woolton, Liverpool Skiff upper lip To continue the rowing theme, if people seek an alternative to Henley and its class-ridden baggage (Correspondence, 18 July), they could have been in Stranraer earlier this month, where more than 2,000 rowers from 78 community rowing clubs across four continents participated in the Skiffie World Championships. Or to any of the 200-odd clubs where people of all ages (11-80 in our club), backgrounds and abilities enjoy open-sea social rowing in wooden skiffs all year round. There, you'll find life jackets and colourful hoodies instead of boaters and blazers. Both racing and social rowing have immense benefits for individuals and communities through shared enjoyment and pride. Sheila Currie, Cromarty, Highland Rave review I can't recall ever laughing out loud at a book review (The New Society, 18 July), but Will Lloyd's withering critique of Sarah Vine's book was great fun. Les Bright, Exeter One day at a time I just wanted to offer a reflection on Pippa Bailey's poignant writing since the death of her father (Deleted Scenes, 18 July). Reading it crystalised a number of thoughts I have had since losing my father late last year. Alas, I wish it was a pain not shared by anyone else. It takes great courage and introspection to leave oneself so open and exposed in writing. I would like to offer Pippa my sincerest condolences. Take it a day at a time and hold the good memories close to your soul. Beautiful writing and an excellent reason to return to the New Statesman. Mark A Monaghan, Coventry Write to letters@ We reserve the right to edit letters [See also: Kemi Badenoch isn't working] Related
The National
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Former Supreme Court judge says Israel is committing war crimes
Jonathan Sumption, a former justice of the UK supreme court, made the comments in an article for the New Statesman on Wednesday. He said that while he had no ideological position on the conflict, he "sometimes wonder[s] what Israel's defenders would regard as unacceptable, if the current level of Israeli violence in Gaza is not enough". READ MORE: See the full list of rebel Labour MPs suspended in Keir Starmer's 'clear out' "This is not self defence. It is not even the kind of collateral damage which can be unavoidable in war," Sumption wrote. "It is collective punishment, in other words revenge, visited not just on Hamas but on an entire population. "It is, in short, a war crime." Sumption wrote that there is "a strong case" that Israel is guilty of war crimes, as he said that a court would also "likely" regard Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide. He went on: "The most plausible explanation of current Israeli policy is that its object is to induce Palestinians as an ethnic group to leave the Gaza Strip for other countries by bombing, shooting and starving them if they remain. "A court would be likely to regard that as genocide." Sumption added that debate around Israel's actions in Gaza "is muffled by two dangerous falsehoods", adding: "One is the idea that this story began with the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023; the other is that any attack on Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is anti-Semitic." He continued: "The tragedy is that what Israel is doing in Gaza is not even in its own interest, although it may be in the personal interest of Netanyahu if it helps him to stay in power. "Hamas is, among other things, an idea. It is an idea which will not disappear and which Israel will have to live with, for it will never have peace until it learns to recognise and accommodate the natural attachment of Palestinians as well as Israelis to their land. READ MORE: Trump Organisation hold talks to discuss Open returning to Turnberry "That will involve considerable concessions by Israel, but the alternative will be worse." Sumption's comments come as at least 20 Palestinians were killed in a stampede at a food distribution centre run by the Israeli-backed American organisation Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Witnesses said GHF guards threw stun grenades and used pepper spray on people pressing to get into the site before it opened, causing a panic in the narrow, fenced-in entrance. The Gaza Health Ministry said 17 people suffocated at the site and three others were shot. The United Nations human rights office has said that 875 Palestinians have been killed while seeking food since May. Of those, 674 were killed while en route to GHF food sites. The rest were reportedly killed while waiting for aid trucks entering Gaza.
The Herald Scotland
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Shame on you, Labour. How can you still sell arms to Israel?
Sandy Slater, Stirling. • What appalling, deeply distressing scenes were screened on Channel 4 News on Tuesday night with people in Gaza desperate for food being mown down by Israeli Defence Force bullets. Former UK Supreme Court senior judge Lord Sumption was interviewed on the programme and said he believed Israel was committing gross breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza by killing on an indiscriminate scale. He also opined that genocide was the most plausible explanation for what was taking place. Gaza is now in ruins with most of its infrastructure, hospitals, schools and other public buildings shattered beyond repair. People are starving, hundreds are being slaughtered every week and children are suffering unimaginable horrors. Why oh why are our Labour MPs not up in arms; how can they watch this deteriorating catastrophe every night on TV news and do nothing? Why is Scottish Secretary Ian Murray not leading a delegation to Westminster to demand we stop supplying Israel with arms as of now? I truly despair. Alan Woodcock, Dundee. Read more letters Scotland could be Ground Zero With great fanfare, Keir Starmer and John Healey this week revealed that the mysterious magic money tree, never available for things that people need but always in full blossom for incendiary hardware, is once again being shaken down for "defence". Meanwhile, a former director of Russia analysis at the CIA tells the journal Foreign Policy that "the Russians recently revised their nuclear-use doctrine, and one of the things that they specifically said in there was that if there are attacks by an adversary on important state or military infrastructure that would disrupt responses, potentially by Russia's nuclear forces, that is potentially a trigger for Russian nuclear use". The fact that Ukraine is a non-nuclear nation becomes irrelevant, because it is perceived to be enabled by the US and Nato, which ARE nuclear powers, ergo justifying a potential nuclear response. Long ago, a Westminster political correspondent said that if there were to be a nuclear war, he was certain that in the aftermath I would be saying "I told you so" [as a former chair of CND]. It gives me no pleasure at all to say we are very possibly nearing that stage, and none of the things Messrs Healey and Starmer have announced would make any difference, even if we already had them. I don't need to remind anybody where Ground Zero in Europe is. Oh yes, aside from the US submarines currently in the Atlantic, Scotland would be the most significant target. In fact, in US nuclear war planning, it's always been "independent". It's called Unit 11. Marjorie Ellis Thompson, Edinburgh. PM is right over Russia Hugh Kerr's 'the Russians are not our enemies' claim (Letters, June 3 on the basis that 'they lost 20 million people helping us defeat Nazi Germany', is I suggest delusional. Firstly, Stalin, who murdered millions of his own citizens, not least in Ukraine, before the war, was an ally of Hitler, until Hitler betrayed him and invaded the Soviet Union. Then the Soviets became our allies on the basis that our enemy's enemy was our ally, but certainly not in reality our friend. Nor is Putin's dictatorship, murderers of civilians, abductors of children and suppressors of political opposition, the kind of friend I would wish to have. It is only too clear that his invasion of Ukraine is just the start of his dream of expanding westwards. Whatever Keir Starmer's failings, he is right to warn of the threat that Putin's Russia poses to European liberal democracy, of which the citizens of these islands are a fundamental part. By relying on American heft, Europe, UK included, has for too long under-invested in defence. With Donald Trump in the White House, those days are over. We must shoulder that burden ourselves because a government's first responsibility is the defence and safety of its people, and we know the price of appeasement. As the Romans had it: "Si vis pacem, para bellum' – if you want peace, prepare for war. Roy Pedersen, Inverness. Despairing of the SNP Where does one even begin with the SNP? No, to £2.5 million to one of Scotland's and the UK's cutting-edge employers ("SNP in munitions ban hypocrisy row over Ferguson Marine", heraldscotland, June 3); yes to £2.5m to promote a language that virtually no one in Scotland speaks or even comprehends. Then, the leader and his prospective candidate in the Hamilton by-election disagree on how to manage child poverty, an issue that's been an awful by-product of capitalism since that economic system became dominant ("SNP candidate Loudon takes different stance on the Scottish Child Payment from Swinney", The Herald, June 4). You'd think that a party who'd been in power for 18 years would have the perfect opportunity to come up with fresh ideas on how to eradicate child poverty, and many other of society's problems. But wait, if that government is the parochial SNP, whose total stock of ideas, strategies and tactics amounts to how to make Westminster and the UK look bad, then none of our problems is addressed, and you end up with our leading Scottish politician eating rusks with two-year-olds, rather than talking to fellow politicians about the defence of the UK which, last time I looked, included Scotland. Stuart Brennan, Glasgow. Capital woes will get worse Edinburgh's woes continue with the £1.7bn sea of debt that is only going to get bigger ("Edinburgh faced with £1.7 billion 'sea of debt' amid fears for services", The Herald, June 4) This is symptomatic of the general situation in Scotland as a whole under the less than careful guidance of the SNP. Large debts accrue because of reckless spending and suddenly taxes must rise to cover this but it is never quite enough and so the cycle goes on ever upward. There is a limit and it has already been breached. Edinburgh wants to introduce a visitor levy, and is also mooting a congestion zone tax on cars. Elsewhere, taxes on cruise ship passengers are in the pipeline. This will actually lead to the exact opposite effect, a drop in revenue as people go elsewhere. If Scots return an SNP administration in 2026 all this will continue until the penny finally drops with Holyrood, that is once it has sorted out its toilet rules properly. Scotland is going down the pan. Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and with Defence Secretary John Healey (Image: PA) Flip side of the equation Once again Guy Stenhouse seems determined to present his jigsaw but with several key pieces missing ("Public sector workers who refuse to come into the office should be sacked", The Herald, May 31). He makes rather sweeping assumptions about Tesco and Aldi and suggests that their performance in one field somehow equips them, or other private sector organisations, to deliver important public services. To take the examples he cites, Tesco and Aldi can certainly be considered successful if profit levels are the only factor taken into account – £3.1 billion and £553 million respectively. At face value, he might be entitled to think he has a case. However he might want to consider other significant figures in this equation such as the fact that 30% of children in the UK are now living in poverty. He might also want to look at the exponential rise in food banks in recent years and the fact that over three million people last year were having to make use of them. While there are many factors giving rise to this situation, I believe it does call into question the "success" of the supermarkets if their pricing policies are putting their products beyond the reach of a significant number of people, particularly the most vulnerable. Mr Stenhouse might consider taking a more measured view the next time he wants to offer up another "private sector good/public sector bad" rant. Andy Crichton, Cupar.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Only a very clever man like Lord Sumption could be so stupid when it comes to Lucy Connolly
Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them. Substitute 'judges' for 'intellectuals' and George Orwell's marvellous aphorism applies perfectly to an article by Jonathan Sumption first published on The Telegraph website on Monday. I wasn't going to write about Lucy Connolly this week, but so incensed was I by Lord Sumption's awful opinions that I cannot stay silent. It was good to see that a huge number of readers – more than 9,000 comments at the time of writing (a record, I think) – had the same furious reaction to Sumption's unforgivably callous, 'I shall not waste any sympathy on Mrs Connolly'. Why does Lord Sumption think sympathy for Lucy is wasted? She is mother to a 12-year-old girl who has been without her mummy for 10 months and may yet sustain long-term psychological harm. A woman of previous good character who lost a child in horrifying circumstances and lashed out in rage and sorrow last summer when six parents suffered the anguish of their little girls being slaughtered in a massacre that bore the bloody hallmark of an imported crime. A 42-year-old childminder, tender carer to the infants of immigrants, who shares the majority British view that hordes of undocumented males from backward cultures, put up at vast expense in 'asylum' hotels, pose a threat to our society in general, and our children in particular. Lucy acted in haste, posted something she called 'disgusting' and repented quickly. A model prisoner, she could have been released on tag last November but instead has been kept inside while fellow inmates, who are openly planning the robberies they will commit to fund their drug addiction, are let out. Any decent judge or magistrate would be looking for a reason to avoid giving such a person a custodial term when community service would suffice. Sarah Pochin, Reform UK's first woman MP and a magistrate for 20 years, yesterday described Lucy's sentence as 'draconian', saying she should never have gone to prison in the first place and it would not happen under a Farage government. Yet Mrs Connolly, who was given a notably harsh jail term for a post on social media when thousands of violent men and paedophiles get off with a lower, even a suspended, sentence (more of this warped judicial behaviour anon) is apparently unworthy of compassion or mercy from his lordship. Really? I have been a fan of Lord Sumption. The former Justice of the Supreme Court is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant legal minds of his generation. During Covid, those of us who thought lockdown was an appalling mistake were grateful and reassured to have this pillar of the establishment on our side. He warned that British society was becoming 'totalitarian' and the government was deliberately stoking up fear and 'acting with a cavalier disregard for the limits of their legal powers'. 'The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country,' Sumption said, and his words carried huge weight. Why that same, deeply clever man cannot see how Lucy Connolly's case represents exactly the kind of authoritarian overreach we saw during lockdown (with fear as its instrument) is a puzzle. Or maybe not if the idea is to buttress Sumption's colleagues in the Court of Appeal, who have attracted considerable criticism since Lord Justice Holroyde declared last week that there was 'no arguable basis' that Lucy Connolly's (manifestly excessive) original sentence was 'manifestly excessive'. Lord Sumption concedes: 'English law has generally been on the side of freedom of expression… it has always drawn the line at threatening language which is likely to provoke a breach of the peace… If a rabble-rouser stood on a soap-box in front of a howling mob and urged them to head for the nearest immigration hostel and burn it down, this point would be obvious. Doing it on social media is worse because the reach of social media posts is much greater. Its algorithms thrust words like Mrs Connolly's under the noses of people who are already likely to agree. The internet can whip up a howling mob in minutes.' But there is zero evidence that Lucy's words, posted on the evening of the Southport murders, incited violence. Riots did not break out 'in minutes'. They started days later following Sir Keir Starmer's infamous and insulting 19-second laying of a wreath in Southport before a jeering crowd. And after the authorities had done their sly best to conceal from a distraught public key information about the killer, Axel Rudakubana – compare the alacrity (and sigh of relief) with which they announced that the alleged Liverpool car attacker was a white, middle-aged male. Funny what can be disclosed when an alleged offender doesn't belong to a protected minority, eh? No normal person agrees with Lord Sumption that fleeting tweets are worse than, to take just one example, what suspended Labour councillor Ricky Jones is alleged to have done in person at the time Lucy was arrested. Jones was filmed at an anti-fascism demonstration apparently urging a crowd to attack rioters: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists and we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' For reasons which I'd quite like the Ministry of Justice to explain, Jones was granted bail while Lucy Connolly had her bail application rejected twice. Jones has been a free man since January (no pressure to plead guilty for him, no kangaroo hearing within days) and his much-postponed trial will finally take place in August (unless the judge has a pressing lunch engagement or pigs are seen flying over the Old Bailey). By which time, Lucy will have served a whole year behind bars. It is this apparent two-tier justice which Lord Sumption did not address in a piece where he loftily dismissed the claim that Lucy is a free-speech martyr or 'even a political prisoner'. I am no student of jurisprudence (a lucky escape as I got into Cambridge to read law) but to me, and to millions of others, it is perfectly obvious that a political prisoner is exactly what Lucy Connolly is. Prison authorities at Drake Hall in Staffordshire have just punished their exemplary prisoner for 'press engagement' – that's communicating her predicament via her husband, Ray, to yours truly. 'Auntie Judith', AKA your columnist, has sadly been struck off the list of people Lucy is allowed to phone. She has also repeatedly been denied release on temporary licence (ROTL) with her child and sick husband. 'You've offended a lot of people, Lucy,' one official chided. Probation officers and prison guards alike have expressed astonishment that Lucy is still not free. After the Court of Appeal's heartbreaking decision last Tuesday, her cell was full of officers coming to commiserate: they all assumed she was going home, and other prisoners had already distributed Lucy's stuff among themselves. After months of unfair treatment, when Lucy dared to complain to someone outside the prison that she wasn't being allowed the leave on licence to which she was entitled, the prison authorities said she would, yet again, not be allowed that leave, because of, yes, complaining to someone outside the prison. What does that sound like to you? Joseph Heller called it Catch-22. I am told that prison authorities have been 'rattled' by The Telegraph's coverage of Lucy's case. Good. So they bloody well should be. The free press – are we still allowed one of those, Prime Minister? – will not stay silent when we perceive a carriage of misjustice. I could easily fill this column with examples of heinous cases where an offender was afforded more lenient treatment than Lucy Connolly. One that leaps out concerns the Court of Appeal, which just dashed Lucy's hopes. In March 2023, the court cut the jail term given to former Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham for sexually abusing two children in the 1970s. Ahmed was convicted of trying to rape an underage girl on two occasions and seriously sexually assaulting a boy under the age of 11. He was jailed for five years and six months at Sheffield Crown Court in February 2022. The judge told Lord Ahmed: 'Your actions have had profound and lifelong effects on the girl and the boy, who have lived with what you did to them for between 46 and 53 years. They express more eloquently than I ever could how your actions have affected and continue to affect their lives in so many different and damaging ways.' However, in their infinite wisdom, three Appeal Court judges, including Lord Justice Holroyde who decided that Lucy Connolly's 31-month sentence was 'not manifestly excessive', reduced the jail term of the sexual abuser and Labour Muslim peer to two years and six months because his age at the time of the offences was not given sufficient weight. Let us pause for a moment, lords, ladies and gentlemen, and marvel at the very clever stupid men who think that a mother who put something hateful for four hours on social media deserves a longer prison sentence than a man who tried to rape and molest children, and got away with that dreadful crime for half a century. 'I shall not waste any sympathy on Mrs Connolly,' quoth the finest legal mind of his generation. 'What she did was a serious offence.' She didn't try to rape a child though, did she, Lord Sumption? She didn't sexually assault a little boy and claim that two traumatised children told malicious falsehoods about her. She didn't use power and influence to put herself above the law. She didn't get her outrageous sentence reduced by privileged men who seem to have a problem relating to white women from ordinary families with sensible views about immigration. Honestly, the way the judiciary extends leniency to sex offenders is repellent to the point of warped. At least 177 paedophiles have walked free since Lucy Connolly was sentenced on October 17 2024. A devoted mum jailed for two years and seven months while depraved men in possession of the worst category of images of children being violated don't lose a single day of their liberty. (Huw Edwards being just one notorious example: a six-month suspended sentence for the BBC boy-groomer!) By now, it should be amply clear to the British people that our justice system is broken and politicised. Here is a retired judge who emailed the Planet Normal podcast: 'For 40 years, I felt proud and privileged to be a member of what I perceived as a noble and learned profession. Alas! No longer it seems. The way the judiciary has treated poor Lucy Connolly and her family is nothing short of an outrage and scandal that should offend all decent people, while those who bring terror and mayhem to the shores of this nation are admonished (if they are even caught) with little more than a slap on the wrist. I am actually surprised that a senior member of the judiciary has not resigned in the most public of ways to distance himself from the heartlessness of his brothers. Lucy Connolly's treatment has a political motive behind it. Of that there can be no doubt, despite the Separation of Powers being one of the cornerstones of our unwritten constitution. Keep up the good fight, Allison, for all our sakes.' And here is a Telegraph reader who styles himself DC Anonymous: 'I'm a serving police officer of 25 years. I've been a detective on specialist crime units, so I know my way around the justice system. The grossly disproportionate sentence and treatment of Lucy is an embarrassment to the justice system. Her tweet was vile and nasty. However, a community sentence would have been more appropriate. My colleagues and I often work long hours to get convictions over the line and often see paltry sentences dished out to some of the most dangerous offenders with all mitigations taken into consideration. Only for a lady who poses no threat to society to be given two years, seven months. It sickens me to my stomach. Most of us joined the job to arrest real criminals, not see innocent members of the public criminalised for hurty words. My colleagues and I are sick to death of woke management, judges and politicians making our difficult jobs even tougher. No wonder the public has lost respect for us.' I am close to tears when I read emails like those, and as I watch Lucy's crowdfunder appeal edge towards £150,000. Thank God there are still good people who are appalled that 'hurty words' – Orwellian thought crimes no less – receive swingeing sentences while villains go free. It's not hard to foresee that this institutional madness could end up in the serious civil unrest that making a scapegoat of Lucy was meant to forestall. On Tuesday, Tommy Robinson, the far-Right activist, was released from prison after his 18-month sentence was reduced by four months at the High Court last week. Looking like an Old Testament prophet, eyes blazing with religious fervour, a heavily-bearded Robinson (who endured weeks of solitary confinement) said that a war was being waged 'against free speech in Britain'. Citing Lucy Connolly, Robinson said she was 'not a violent criminal' and demanded to know why she had been jailed for so long. While Sir Keir claimed not to have heard of Lucy (does the dreadful man expect us to believe a word he says?), Boris Johnson said that 'Starmer's Britain is losing its reputation for free speech and turning into a police state'. Too right. On Tuesday, Nigel Farage became the latest heavyweight to champion Starmer's political prisoner, saying: 'I want to make it absolutely clear that Lucy Connolly should not be in prison… Although she should not have said what she said, there were millions of mothers at that moment in time after the Southport [massacre] feeling exactly the same way.' Beautifully put. Compare and contrast with Lord Sumption's cold, contemptible, 'Lucy Connolly is in prison where she belongs'. This is what happens when judges have minds so brilliant they cannot be polluted with common sense – or mercy. I just spoke to Ray Connolly, who is at home in Northampton. Ray said that he had read The Telegraph article and Sumption seemed to be a 'stupid git' (possibly the first time the law lord has been described in that way!) and that Sir Keir must be 'regretting the day he tried to make an example of Lucy Connolly'. So, where do we go from here? Drake Hall prison authorities told Lucy that a previous ROTL had been denied because she had expressed 'extreme views' in her phone conversations (possibly with 'Auntie Judith'). But that had now been downgraded to 'strong opinions'. 'Are they saying that Lucy's ROTL is now good to go?' asks Ray, who is desperate for his wife to be able to come home and hug and reassure their daughter even for one day and a night. What further ridiculous excuses and delaying tactics can the justice system come up with for denying Mrs Connolly the temporary leave to which she is entitled? 'The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country,' Lord Sumption said when free speech was brutally suppressed during Covid lockdown. Well, dear Lord Sumption, I think they're starting to understand it all too well, thanks to Lucy Connolly. 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.
The Herald Scotland
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Harvie: Holyrood trans toilet ban may breach human rights
READ MORE: Has Holyrood misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling on sex? MSPs express 'deep concern' over trans toilet ruling Holyrood adds gender-neutral toilets after sex ruling Mr Harvie is one of 17 MSPs to have signed an open letter criticising the recent change in policy. The letter—also signed by 30 staff members, most of whom work for MSPs—was organised by the Good Law Project. It described the new rules as 'transphobic', warning their implementation would be 'deeply invasive' and risk 'humiliation, harassment or worse'. During an urgent question at Holyrood, Mr Harvie cited former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who has said that organisations are permitted—but not obliged—to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces. Mr Harvie told MSPs: 'In making the decision to take this exclusive, exclusionary approach, I am concerned that the SPCB is risking taking us back to the breach of human rights which existed prior to the creation of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 and a position that just as little as 10 years ago was the obsession of the extremist fringe of the US Republican Party. "It is not enough to use words like inclusive experience and welcoming environment." He asked whether the corporate body recognised the impact the changes had already had on 'those who are being told that they are no longer permitted to use basic facilities like toilets on the same basis as everyone else, and who now feel unwelcome and demeaned in their own workplace'. Holyrood adopted the policy following the Supreme Court ruling (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) Responding on behalf of the SPCB, SNP MSP Christine Grahame said it was 'rather unfortunate' that Mr Harvie had used such language, and insisted the corporate body had acted 'in a tolerant and sensitive manner, in a very delicate and balanced manner'. 'The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect the founding principles and to be an open, accessible institution to promote participation and equal opportunities,' she said. 'We remain deeply committed to these principles and to provide—I know you do not like this word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary community, feel supported and welcome to work and visit.' The changes, which came into effect earlier this month, follow the Supreme Court ruling that 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. An interim update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission advised that in most workplaces and public-facing services, trans women should not be permitted to use female-only facilities, and vice versa. Under the new policy, all toilets and changing rooms marked 'male' or 'female' at Holyrood are now designated on the basis of biological sex. The Parliament has increased the number of gender-neutral facilities by redesignating three public toilets and two private facilities used by MSPs and staff. Ms Grahame said Parliament would not 'police' toilet use, but a complaints process was available. 'We are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities,' she said. 'This is not going to be policed by the corporate body.' Several MSPs, including the SNP's Emma Roddick, questioned whether the decision had been made prematurely and whether it risked creating a hostile working environment. Ms Roddick asked: 'Does [the SPCB] recognise that this unexpected and surprising policy change has put [trans and non-binary staff] in an impossible situation and potentially a hostile working environment?' Ms Grahame replied: 'I certainly hope and expect that this will not put anyone in this Parliament in a hostile environment. That is not the culture within this building.' READ MORE Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton asked that 'no parliamentary staff member will be put in the position of having to challenge a toilet user in the future'. Green MSP Lorna Slater asked how trans people would be expected to 'prove' their right to use a facility. 'Members in this chamber may be aware of the lively internet conspiracy that I myself am a trans woman,' she said. 'If a complaint is made about me using a woman's toilet, how does the SPCB expect me to demonstrate or prove my ability to use this toilet? Should I bring my birth certificate? Should I subject myself to a medical examination?' Ms Grahame replied: 'No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything, and I fully intend to use the gender neutral toilets myself.' Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said the discussion was a 'farcical waste of time'. 'The people of Scotland expect politicians to focus on what matters—rising household bills, their children's education, getting a GP appointment, fixing the roads, keeping communities safe—yet the priority for out-of-touch SNP, Labour, LibDem and Green MSPs is an urgent debate about the Holyrood toilets.' His colleague Craig Hoy questioned whether the decision had been unanimous, which would suggest Green MSP Maggie Chapman had 'both supported these measures and also wrote a letter in opposition to them'. Ms Grahame responded: 'Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote—they are made by consent.' A full consultation by the SPCB is expected later this year, once a revised statutory code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been finalised and approved by ministers.
