Migrant Jumps From Lorry At Dover Port

This is the moment a migrant was caught trying to smuggle himself out of Britain in the back of a lorry, pleading with police: ‘I just want to go back to France!’

At the Port of Dover ferry port in Kent, the man was seen leaping out of a truck as it was being checked by police, then sprinting in the direction of the exit.

The footage features in the latest episode of Channel 4 documentary Dover 24/7: Britain’s Busiest Port, which follows the site’s police force and airs at 8 pm today.

Officers patrolling the port were filmed chasing after the migrant in their police van, then grabbing him and forcing him up against a concrete barrier near the taxi rank.

One officer says that ‘we’ve got a prisoner’ as others arrive to stop him escaping again, but the man tells them: ‘Why prisoner? I just want to go back to France!’

Officers Neil and Ian are seen working at the port in the video that was sent to the Daily Mail after they detained a guy who had neglected to show up for court in a different matter.

While heading to a local police station, they get an urgent call about the migrant, saying: ‘There’s a male making off down the buffer zone, away from Securitas.’

The officers perform a U-turn and head to the exit to catch the man, who is described to them as ‘Asian-looking, grey hooded jacket, black jogging bottoms’.

As they drive towards the taxi rank, the man is spotted, and one of them yells: ‘There he is, there he is, get ready.’ They pull up in the van and shout ‘Stop!’

The officers jump out of the van, and another says: ‘Stay where you are.’ One officer grabs hold of the man before a colleague helps and puts him up against a wall.

A third officer then also arrives to assist. One says: ‘We’ve got a prisoner. You get the van.’ They tell the man: ‘Stay there, we’ve got time.’

But the migrant says to them: ‘Why prisoner? I just want to go back to France!’

The officer then says: ‘But I don’t know what you’ve done. The last I know, you’re running away from someone. France says no.’

The police are told the man has just jumped out the back of a lorry after apparently being illegally stowed in the back – and there are another four people in the trailer.

One officer says: ‘Oh God! Did you… four more in the trailer.’

The migrant continues to plead: ‘I just want to go back to France!’

But the officer tells him: ‘I understand. You’re in this country, and there’s borders, and the French say you’re in here, you’re not allowed to France.’

They put him in a police van, and he is told: ‘OK, you’re in there for a minute, nothing silly.’

An officer says: ‘Obviously we’ve got a prisoner in our van, but we’ve got a shout from our colleagues that believe that there’s still some more in the lorry.

‘But the security team are dealing with that. We need to get to custody because this man is under arrest.’ They then ask him: ‘Are you okay in the back there?’

The officers then joke with each other that one of them had ‘said the Q word’ earlier on – suggesting it had been a quiet night, which is seen as bad luck on the shift.

The Port of Dover Police later confirmed that the man received a ‘community resolution’. This is an out-of-court order normally used for less serious crimes and incidents such as low-level public order, criminal damage, theft and minor assaults.

It comes after the Daily Mail reported how Labour had covertly repealed a restriction on small-boat migrants and other illegal immigrants acquiring British citizenship.

The remarkable reversal followed a judicial challenge alleging that the programme violated international refugee conventions and human rights laws.

This means that, three years after the Tories prevented them from doing so, unlawful migrants who are granted refuge here will finally be allowed to get British passports.

Under documents drawn up by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, they have to claim it was ‘outside their control’ that they arrived in the UK without permission.

Arrested for leaving, but not when they arrive because the police don’t know what he’s done, so we’ll just keep the bad ones; that makes complete sense. Why didn’t they just let him go? Now that would have made sense because he can then spread the word that the UK is not worth it.

This is unbelievable, and it makes sense that immigration is growing at an exponential rate when our own government refuse to let people leave when they truly want to.

This man was attempting to flee the freebies and escape his human rights, but we can’t let that happen because it might set a bad example.

If anything, this should be encouraged. Let the French deal with it. If only they were as adept at stopping them from coming in, we wouldn’t have a problem.

Let him go and make sure he takes some of his friends with him.

If he isn’t wanted for a crime, why can’t they stick him back in the lorry? The question is, are we breaching his human rights if he wants to go? It breaches them when we try to deport someone, so it must do if we’re stopping them from leaving, or is it just that our government needs their vote?

Asylum Seekers Must Repay £10,000 Once They Earn

Asylum seekers will be required to pay back £10,000 of what the taxpayer spends on supporting them, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will announce on Tuesday.

Once they have a job, the money can be taken out of their pay cheques in monthly instalments, just like a student loan.

However, because the payments would be means-tested, there are still significant questions about how much money the Home Office can recover.

Those who successfully claim they cannot afford to repay the money will be excused from the scheme.

The £10,000 sum – a flat-rate charge levied on all adult asylum seekers – will partially compensate the taxpayer for the cost of keeping asylum seekers in hotels or self-catering accommodation while their claims are decided.

Last year £4 billion was spent on asylum support in the UK.

The Home Office has said it costs an average of £158,000 a year to support a family of asylum seekers.

Ms Mahmood said: ‘The cost of asylum accommodation on the British taxpayer is too high.

‘We have already reduced asylum costs by £1 billion, but it is also right that we ask those who can contribute to do so.

‘Receiving asylum support is a right, but it is also a responsibility.

‘Once people can contribute and repay the generosity of the British people, we expect them to do so.’

The new Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is scheduled to be submitted in Parliament, will include the additional measures.

The Home Office said the ‘primary mechanism’ for the repayments would be direct deductions from wages, but it could also be done through the tax and benefits systems.

Before being granted permission to reside permanently in Britain, immigrants must settle the entire debt.

Anyone who leaves the country will be required to be making their repayments in order to return.

It is unclear how the policy will deal with asylum seekers who secretly end up working undeclared, cash-in-hand jobs.

Additionally, it’s unclear if it will motivate more asylum applicants to stay unemployed.

Only a quarter of 16-to 64-year-olds given asylum between 2015 and 2023 were in employment within a year, with the proportion rising to half by two years after being granted refugee status.

Asylum hotels currently cost the taxpayer an average of £144 per person per night, and self-catering asylum accommodation costs just over £23 a night.

Claimants in self-catering accommodation receive £49.18 a £ 49.18-a-week allowance, while those on full board get £9.95 a week.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: ‘It is flattering that Labour have adopted yet another policy put forward by the Conservative Party.

‘This precise scheme was proposed by us in an amendment to the Immigration Bill last year, which Labour blocked.’

He added: ‘Labour are failing to remove illegal immigrants and have wasted two years in government tinkering around the edges.

‘The Conservatives have set out clear and deliverable policies which we encourage Labour to copy in order to completely end illegal immigration.

‘We would leave the European Convention on Human Rights and modern slavery treaties that are restricting deportations and would allow for all illegal immigrants to be deported – meaning we then won’t need to worry about who pays for accommodating them.’

Wouldn’t it have been more feasible to not house them in the first place?

And the government’s strategy would only work if they were to find work, so that their earnings could be declared. But they didn’t come here to work; they came here to take. Some might work, but most of them will never contribute.

Of course, this is all smoke and mirrors yet again in an endeavour to deceive the public. It will presumably never happen, and this is why our government are constantly insulting our intelligence.

But from someone with a wee bit of intelligence. Just stop them coming, and stop giving billions in aid to non-British citizens. It’s about time we started taking care of our own citizens. It’s quite simple really, and this makes good sense, something our present government appears to have very little of.

If these migrants can afford to pay thousands to cross the Channel, then they have enough money to sustain themselves, and if they don’t, then remain where you are.

Of course they won’t pay; which goonhead thought this idea up? Yet another brainwave that will never happen – they should not be here in the first place. The clue is in the word ILLEGAL!

Andy Burnham’s Plan To Run Britain Part-Time From Manchester

Andy Burnham wants to manage Britain from Manchester on a part-time basis.

The would-be prime minister yesterday said a new ‘No 10 North’ outpost would be the ‘nerve centre’ of his government, and friends of the ex-Manchester mayor say he plans to spend a day or two a week in his former northern fiefdom when his schedule allows.

Mr Burnham also intends to shun a move to Downing Street, keeping his family home near Wigan and using No 10 only when he is working in the capital.

Set to be established as prime minister in a Labour coronation next month, Mr Burnham – in his first intervention since returning to Parliament – set out a Left-wing manifesto, including a massive new wave of council-house building, a focus on factory jobs and state control of the utilities.

He claimed the moves could revive the ‘working-class aspiration’ of the 1970s.

The No 10 North outpost, he said, would be the ‘nerve centre of a rewired Britain’.

It would help fix Britain’s ‘broken’ political system and deliver ‘the biggest rebalancing of power our country has seen’ in order to deliver ‘good growth in every postcode’, he added.

The Daily Mail revealed that Mr Burnham was eyeing up possible tax raids on middle-class southerners to finance his plans, including an annual property tax based on the value of family homes.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said his agenda amounted to ‘more tax’ so that he could ‘send money to the North of England to try and bribe voters at the next election’.

Security experts have warned it could cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds a year to replicate the fortress-level No 10 security in the North.

Both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak considered staying in their London family homes while serving as prime minister, but were informed that it was not feasible due to the duties of the position.

Some government insiders worry Mr Burnham’s plans could also accelerate Whitehall’s working-from-home culture, with more officials choosing to ‘dial in’ when the PM is out of the capital, but Mr Burnham said the plan was central to his vision for rolling out devolved government throughout England.

One friend told the Mail: ‘He will not be using No 10 as his main home, he’ll be staying in Golborne.

‘He said if he was elected prime minister, he wouldn’t forget where he was from, and he meant it.’

Another supporter said: ‘This isn’t just part of a political strategy. It’s who Andy Burnham is. He isn’t just from the North, he’s of the North. It made him.’

Mr Burnham has escaped scrutiny since his thumping by-election win in Makerfield, which started a coup against Sir Keir.

With possible Labour rivals falling by the wayside, he looks set to become prime minister on July 20, despite not having stood at the 2024 election.

In a tightly controlled appearance in front of the cameras in Manchester, Mr Burnham insisted his plans were ‘consistent with the 2024 manifesto’ which delivered Labour’s landslide. Still, he again declined to take questions from the media about how he will govern and who he will establish in his top team. 

Ironically, aides argued he was unable to answer questions because the self-styled ‘King of the North’ was in a rush to get back to London.

Addressing an audience of Labour activists, Mr Burnham acknowledged that his devolution drive could take a decade to deliver a sustained increase in living standards. Still, he insisted that a radical rewiring of the state was essential to rebuilding Britain.

‘Westminster hasn’t been working for people, and it hasn’t been working for a very long time,’ he said.

‘In fact, it is broken. And, as a result, the country isn’t where it should be. It is stuck in a rut.

‘We cannot go through another decade like the one we have just had. We need a new determination to raise living standards of every person in this land.’

Mr Burnham’s address was light on policy detail. But he vowed to deliver a world where there was ‘good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart’, delivered by mayors with new powers over tax, housing and welfare.

Hinting at more immediate help on the cost of living in a Budget this autumn, he added: ‘While not taking risks with the public finances, I will seek to give Britain some breathing space as soon as I can.’

Nigel Farage warned that Britain could not afford to wait another decade for change to be delivered. 

The Reform UK leader pointed to experience in Wales and Scotland that devolution does not automatically deliver better growth or public services.

Mr Farage said: ‘Just to give more and more powers, including tax-raising powers, to mayors across the country won’t of itself stop the boats; it won’t deal with the national debt.

‘He says it will take ten years to lift Britain back up. Those of us who believe Britain is broken would say we have not got ten years.

‘The country will be completely unrecognisable in ten years. The country wants immediate action.’

Mrs Badenoch said Mr Burnham’s plans amounted to ‘more and more government (being) created all over the country’, adding: ‘More politicians, more outsourcing of decisions to bodies with even less scrutiny and accountability.

‘He doesn’t have a plan beyond telling mayors to go and sort it out. This is not good enough.’

This man seems overly arrogant, has no mandate, is not elected, and declines to respond to any questions, but let’s give it two months and let’s see how little Andy is rated.

This is a northerner who doesn’t even seem to like London, and we are going to have him as our prime minister. It doesn’t give us much confidence, does it? And this will cost the taxpayer, which means he will be squandering money for a 3-year appointment until the next General Election.

And why does he avoid answering questions? Is it because he has no answers?

A General Election is exactly what we need, and we need one right now!

Under Andy Burnham, Universal Claimants Will Receive £304 A Month

If Andy Burnham is elected prime minister, millions of benefit claimants may anticipate increased payouts.

The former Greater Manchester Mayor looks set to take over from Keir Starmer in Number 10, and he will inherit the recently introduced rules over child benefit payments.

Starmer’s Government ditched the two-child benefit cap, boosting the finances of some of the most impoverished families.

He said this would result in half a million children being lifted out of poverty.

However, the Prime Minister faced criticism for being lenient on welfare and providing excessive benefits; Andy Burnham, who is expected to succeed him, will also have to address similar accusations. But the new Makerfield MP has been a fervent advocate for doing away with the cap, which was put in place by the Conservatives.

He said last year that the two-child limit “can’t be defended”. This indicates he will stick with the decision to ditch the two-child limit.

It enables parents to get larger Universal Credit payments if they have three or more children. In the past, they could only make claims for a maximum of two children.

People with three children will be paid £304 extra each month, while the amount will be £608 for households with four children.

Burnham said of the two-child limit last September: “I never supported its introduction. It can’t be defended, because it’s arbitrary.

“Why does the third kid just get cut out or get less, or why do all three if you’ve got three kids? I’m one of the three kids.

“My mum got child benefit for all of us … My parents always said to me something that has definitely guided me in my life – you can never visit the sins of the parents on the kids.”

But what about those pensioners who will never see their pensions? This is the part of the debate that gets swept under the rug, and it’s the part that should make people furious.

Some of those people will die before even reaching the rising pension age, and this isn’t speculative. It’s already happening, and our government raised it knowing that many of those people would not live long enough. It was framed as modernisation, but the financial modelling assumed early deaths so that they wouldn’t have to pay out.

If Andy Burham wants to be popular when he becomes Prime Minister, and he wants people to warm to him, then he seriously needs to lower the pension age, because lowering the pension age would be one of the single most popular things any UK Prime Minister could do, but here’s the thing, it’s popular, it’s morally justified, and it’s economically feasible, but politically terrifying for any leader, and that’s why no one touches it.

Andy Burnham, be bold, be fierce, and be the leader that our country wants and needs.

If he needs to trim anything, then it should be from the wealthy and celebrated, not the working man, not the disabled, not pensioners, but from people who can afford a little less in their pocket.

The government’s financial purse isn’t out of money, but it is in a severe fiscal squeeze. Well, if that’s the case, then our government need to compartmentalise what is really important, particularly for the welfare of the country and not other countries.

I understand that the UK must look rather inviting for some people who enter it legally or maybe not so legally, but if people want to live in our country, then they need to have secured employment before they get here or be able to provide for themselves. We are not a charity!

A Disabled Passenger’s Boarding Ramp Remained Attached To A Train As A Train Driver Was Taking A Personal Call

A London Overground driver was found to be using their mobile phone while pulling out of a station with a disabled passenger’s boarding ramp still attached.

The ramp was dragged down the platform, forcing a member of staff and another passenger to move out of the way before it crashed into an end-of-platform barrier and fell beside the track.

Thankfully, no one was hurt during the near-miss, which unfolded at Norwood Junction station in south London at about 9.52 am on July 1 last year.

Rail accident investigators, however, said there was a very high risk that the ramp could have injured people or collided with platform furniture or railway infrastructure.

The portable ramp had been fitted to enable a passenger using a mobility scooter to board the 9.46 am West Croydon to Highbury & Islington service, but before the passenger could get on, the doors closed, and the train moved off with the metal ramp still fixed to the side.

The traveller, a Norwood resident who frequently travelled by rail for appointments and work, eventually admitted to investigators that they were utilising trains less frequently and experienced acute anxiety when commuting.

A Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) report found the driver’s personal mobile phone was switched on during the shift, and that five calls were made or received while they were driving trains.

The final call covered the journey from West Croydon and included the stop at Norwood Junction, where the misfortune occurred.

Investigators said the calls were likely to have distracted the driver because they involved potentially distressing personal issues.

The driver initially told Arriva Rail London their personal phone had been off for the entire shift and was placed in their bag, but phone records obtained by investigators revealed it had been switched on and used during the morning.

The report also found the wrong type of ramp had been in use at Norwood Junction, meaning the doors could still close, and the train could take power while it was attached.

The correct ramp had not been available at the station since September 2021, but checks had failed to spot the problem.

RAIB has now made six safety recommendations, including better management of portable access ramps and action over the dangers of train drivers using mobile phones.

Unless it’s a work phone, phones need to be prohibited at work.

I come from a time when you had to locate a phone box to phone home. Now, when I look, everyone is glued to their phone.

The driver should have been dismissed for lying and for using his phone while at work, but you can almost guarantee that won’t happen. Let’s face it, he was driving the train whilst using his phone, resulting in dragging a passenger ramp down the platform, and he could have seriously injured somebody. Imagine if the mobility scooter had been on the ramp when the train moved off.

Branded A Coward

The policewoman, left bloodied and sobbing from a broken nose after an attempted arrest at Manchester Airport turned violent, has branded her assailant a ‘coward’.

As university dropout Mohammed Fahir Amaaz was imprisoned for three-and-a-half years, Lydia Ward accused him of showing ‘not one ounce’ of remorse for using her ‘as a punch bag’.

Delivering her powerful statement directly to the 21-year-old, the officer – now promoted to sergeant – told him: ‘You changed my face.’

She criticised Amaaz for having ‘played the victim’ when misleading footage of the aftermath of the incident filmed by onlookers went viral and having ‘allowed the public to feel sorry for you’.

Sgt Ward also movingly disclosed she had been forced to bring her newborn child with her when she gave evidence, telling Amaaz a court was ‘no place for a baby’. 

Challenging him to ‘take a good look at me’ and recognise the 5ft 2in, 8st woman behind the police uniform, she valiantly spelt out the lasting physical and mental trauma caused by his shocking and unprovoked attack.

‘I want you to know I am not weak,’ Sgt Ward told Amaaz.

‘No matter how this has affected me or impacted on my life, I will not allow you to see me as weak.

‘You used me as a punch bag, but I will get back up, and I will show you how strong I am.’

The second policewoman he battered, PC Ellie Cook, meanwhile, told of how she has been left ‘broken’ and her dreams of one day becoming a close protection officer are on hold.

In a case which sparked accusations of police racism and claims of two-tier justice, Amaaz and his brother Muhammad Amaad, 26, fought police officers beside a car park pay station at Manchester Airport’s Terminal Two in July 2024.

The incident started when Amaaz headbutted Shameem Akhtar, a Kuwaiti vacationer he had accused of racially insulting his mother. They had met on an incoming aircraft from Pakistan via Qatar.

Sgt Ward – then a constable – and two armed colleagues caught up with then-19-year-old Amaaz as the group were paying for parking, and they took hold of him from either side ahead of an attempt to arrest him.

Instead, Amaaz fought back before both brothers – from Rochdale – started hurling punches at the officers.

The teenager hit Sgt Ward in the face, sending her sprawling to the ground, before repeatedly hitting PC Cook.

His brother, Amaad, meanwhile, overpowered PC Zachary Marsden and began raining punches down before Amaaz joined in.

The brothers were eventually both arrested after PC Cook fired her 50,000-volt Taser at Amaaz, who fell to the floor.

Amid the chaos, PC Marsden booted the teenager in the face and aimed a stamp close by.

Footage of the kick was filmed by onlookers and went viral online, with protesters taking to the streets holding ‘Black Lives Matter’ placards and calling for the police to be ‘defunded’.

But there was a fierce backlash after leaked CCTV footage revealed the brutality PC Marsden and his two female colleagues had been subjected to just seconds before.

To widespread public fury, it took 150 days for prosecutors to announce that PC Marsden would not be charged with any offence. 

Instead, the brothers were charged with assaulting the three officers. 

The Crown Prosecution Service has emphasised that the delay was caused by the necessity to wait for concurrent police and Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigations.

A trial last year saw horrifying bodycam footage of the brutal brutality meted out by Amaaz, who threw a total of ten punches in the melee.

But while Amaaz was convicted of causing actual bodily harm to Sgt Ward and assaulting PC Cook, as well as assaulting the passenger, jurors could not reach a verdict on whether either brother had assaulted PC Marsden.

In court, they insisted that they were acting in self-defence or the defence of one another. 

Amaaz also denied knowing the two officers he hit in the face were female, saying he had ‘nothing but love and respect for women’.

Prosecutors controversially announced that they would not be requesting a second retrial after a fresh jury at Liverpool Crown Court failed to reach a decision on whether either had attacked PC Marsden last month.

This week, Greater Manchester’s ‘anti-woke’ Chief Constable Sir Stephen Watson said he wanted anyone who assaulted his officers to be prosecuted to the ‘fullest extent of the law’ – but declined to criticise the decision.

Detectives, however, reportedly supported a third trial, according to the Manchester Evening News.

Amaaz appeared via videolink from jail for his sentencing. Amaaz has been detained on remand since being found guilty of assaulting the policewomen.

Jailing him for 42 months and saying all the assaults had been ‘unprovoked’, Judge Neil Flewitt accused Amaaz of showing ‘a total lack of remorse’.

The judge said the policewomen had ‘posed no threat to you or your brother’, adding that he was satisfied Amaaz knew both Sgt Ward and PC Cook were female and police officers when he punched them. 

Due to her small stature, Sgt Ward was ‘clearly no match for a strong young man’, he added.

Referencing ‘online abuse’ said to have been targeted at the brothers and their families, Judge Flewitt said he could not help but ‘wonder whether that was, in part, as a result of your decision to go public at an early stage with mobile phone footage of the aftermath without any reference to what had gone before’.

‘It would have been open to you, having seen the CCTV footage, to acknowledge that there was no justification for your attacks,’ he told Amaaz.

‘Instead, you sought to blame others for what was clearly your responsibility and to portray yourself as a victim.’

Earlier, Imran Khan KC, representing Amaaz, had urged the judge to be ‘cautious about making assumptions’ that ‘Asian men are violent’ or have ‘no prospects’ when he determined the sentence. 

But Judge Flewitt told Amaaz he could ‘rest assured’ that the sentence he was imposing was ‘uninfluenced’ by his ethnic background. 

Amaaz showed no sign of emotion as he was jailed. 

Earlier, while testifying in the retrial, Sgt. Ward gave a stirring victim impact statement about the trauma of having to bring her infant to court while she was still nursing him.

Dressed in black trousers and a black and white sleeveless top, she spoke calmly but powerfully about how she still ‘struggles to make sense of it all’.

Expressionless Amaaz – pictured on a TV screen and wearing a stripy T-shirt – looked straight ahead as Sgt Ward spelt out ‘how you made me feel and how you have changed who I am forever’.

‘Before I begin, I want you to take a good look at me,’ she said. ‘Take away that I am a police officer. Look at me, standing here. What do you see?

‘I’ll tell you what you see. You see a female. A female who is 5ft 2in, and at the time of the incident, I weighed no more than 8 stone.

‘You are a male, and you chose to attack me without a second thought.

‘You chose to attack a female. You knocked me to the ground with one punch, with so much force you broke my nose.’

Sgt Ward challenged him: ‘How would you feel if it was your mother standing here today explaining how she was violently assaulted by a male?

‘What you did was cowardly.’

Sgt Ward said she joined the police eight years ago ‘because I wanted to help people’ and ‘took pride’ in her work.

She added that while ‘conflict and violence’ were part of being in uniform, normally, there are ‘indications that a situation is escalating’.

‘The day you attacked us was different,’ she said.

‘We were totally blindsided, and I felt like it came from nowhere. I never in a million years thought you would have attacked me the way you did.’

The officer told Amaaz she remembered him looking ‘directly into my eyes’ before throwing the punch.

‘Could you see how scared I was? I was petrified. I just remember hitting the floor and thinking: “This is it.” I felt instant pain, and then I saw the blood,’ Sgt Ward said.

‘I have never seen anyone so violent. I have never been so scared. It was utterly terrifying.’

Sgt Ward said she was ‘angered’ by how Amaaz initially ‘played the victim’ when ‘only part of the footage was out in the public’.

‘You are not a victim,’ she said. ‘I am the one who was injured, not you. You had the whole world listening to you, and you showed no remorse. Not one ounce.

‘You allowed the public to feel sorry for you. You made out like we had done something wrong when all we were doing was our job.’

Sgt Ward said she needed an operation to fix her nose and still has a scar and a lump on her brow.

‘I look at myself now, and I can see the difference in my face compared to how it was before this happened.

‘You did that to me. You changed my face. What was it that I did that was so wrong you felt you needed to attack me?

‘I fear for the women in your life. If you can do that to a female police officer, what are you capable of to the women you know?’

She also spoke of the ‘stress’ of having to attend court to give evidence during the first trial last year, a month before being due to give birth.

Then the possibility of a retrial meant her ordeal was ‘hanging over me’ when she was meant to be enjoying bonding with her baby, even having to bring the infant to court with her.

‘I shouldn’t have had to bring my baby to court,’ she told Amaaz. ‘It is no place for a baby.’

Finally, she told him: ‘You deserve no more of my time.’

In PC Cook’s victim impact statement – read out by prosecutor Paul Greaney KC – she told Amaaz how her life that day ‘changed forever’.

Having joined the police in 2018, she was ‘loving’ her new role as a firearms officer, but her ‘dream’ was to one day join the Met Police as a close protection officer.

‘I don’t think you will ever begin to understand what you have done to me, or my family,’ she said. ‘I used to be happy. I used to be driven. I used to be focused. I am now broken.’

PC Cook said being called out to arrest a suspect over a headbutting ‘sounded like a routine job’, adding: ‘How wrong I was.

‘I remember feeling punches in quick succession and with such power behind them that I thought I was being attacked by three to four people.

‘I was terrified. The pain was excruciating with each blow, my vision went black, and I was so disorientated.’

Recalling how she managed to deploy her Taser despite her injuries, she asked Amaaz: ‘What would you have done if I hadn’t?’

In the weeks that followed, PC Cook said she ‘threw myself back into work’.

‘I thought I was fine, but I wasn’t,’ she added.

Seven months later, she was signed off work with trauma, saying she still feels ‘trapped’ in the events of that day. As a result, she has given up being a firearms officer, meaning her career aspirations are ‘on hold’.

‘It hurts and upsets me that you chose to spin the narrative the way you did,’ she said to Amaaz. ‘All you needed to do was to say you had made a massive mistake, own it.

‘But instead, you chose to put us all at risk, even yourselves. Each of our faces were plastered all over national news. Everyone knew who we were. I had to move out of my home, a home where I felt safe and secure. For what? For doing my job?’

She told Amaaz: ‘I hope the words I have read today stay with you for the rest of your life. I hope you have flashbacks of what I am saying, the way I have flashbacks of that day.

‘I hope you never forget, because I know I won’t.’

After reading out her statement, Mr Greaney said it was the prosecution’s case that Amaaz threw a second punch at Sgt Ward, which only failed to connect as she had been knocked to the floor by the first one.

Amaaz ‘punched with full force a woman who was smaller and slighter than him’, he added.

The assault on PC Cook involved ‘substantial force’ and was ‘persistent’, he submitted.

In mitigation, Mr Khan cited positive character references about his ‘caring’ nature, arguing that Amaaz was ‘somebody who seeks to right wrongs’, he submitted.

Headbutting Abdulkareem Ismaeil because his mother had accused the air passenger of racially abusing her on her incoming flight was ‘typical’ of his ‘caring nature’, he claimed.

Similarly, his actions in punching the two policewomen were motivated by ‘an instinct to protect his brother’, he added.

Amaaz was ‘a young man who put others before himself,’ Mr Khan said.

The barrister argued that the initial actions of the officers at the pay station were ‘unlawful’ and that Amaaz’s punches constituted ‘excessive self-defence’.

However, this account was rejected by Judge Flewitt, who said the assaults were ‘unprovoked’.

Amaaz’s supporters, including his brother and previous co-accused Amaad, crowded the public gallery.

After the sentencing, GMP chief constable Sir Stephen said: ‘This incident began after a man was headbutted in a public place in front of his family. 

‘Our officers were responding quickly to precisely the sort of outrageous criminal behaviour that rightly offends the public.

‘In undertaking their duties, officers were met with resistance and violence, followed by online vilification, condemnation and adverse commentary from those who did not have the full facts.

‘It is vital that officers get the respect and support they deserve for routinely putting themselves in harm’s way to protect the public. 

‘Assaults on police officers are sadly all too common – 35 of my officers are assaulted every week across Greater Manchester – and such incidents can never be justified.’

Last month, prosecutors announced they would not be pursuing a second retrial after two juries had deliberated for nearly 30 hours, with a grinning Amaad walking free from court to cheers and applause.

Earlier, Mr Greaney KC said after consideration ‘at the highest level’ the CPS had decided it could not ‘lawfully’ seek a third trial of either brother.

Afterwards, the brothers’ lawyer accused PC Marsden of ‘taking a “rugby style” kick’ at Amaaz’s head and called for him to be placed on trial.

Aamer Anwar also claimed the brothers had been ‘subjected to an orgy of race hate’ online since being charged, alleging social media had contributed to a ‘lynch mob mentality’.

Neither of the brothers had been in trouble with the police before, and six members of the family – including older brother Abid – are current or former officers with Greater Manchester Police.

The IOPC is still looking into PC Marsden and may send him back to the Crown Prosecution Service for possible charges.

Investigations are still ongoing for a second male Greater Manchester Police officer who, along with PC Marsden, challenged onlookers who were recording the altercation.

The same officer is also understood to have been placed under criminal investigation by the IOPC over the leaking of CCTV footage of the altercation to the Manchester Evening News.

Amaaz was indeed a coward, but on the flip side, there should be a minimum height and strength requirement to be a police officer because how is a 5-foot-2, 8 stone copper going to defend or arrest anyone using force?

It goes without saying, though, that an assault on a police officer should be mandatory jail time, but then an assault on anyone should be mandatory jail time, depending on the circumstances, but sadly, this is the result of Britain going soft and woke.

Some people would call this man an animal, but we shouldn’t use ‘animal’ in such a derogatory way because most animals are extremely adorable and cuddly. He was just a disgusting human being.

Archie, Lilibet, And Harry To Visit Diana’s Grave

Prince Harry will take Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet to visit the grave of their grandmother, Diana, Princess of Wales, for the first time during a trip to the UK next month.

The visit to Althorp House in Northamptonshire is expected to take place just days after what would have been Diana’s 65th birthday.

To celebrate the one-year countdown to Harry’s Invictus Games in Birmingham, the Sussexes are scheduled to fly from their California residence.

The duke is also expected to attend engagements with the charities WellChild and Scotty’s Little Soldiers.

Last week, the Daily Mail announced that Althorp, the stately home where Diana grew up and is buried, will be closed to the public for two days while Harry and Meghan are in Britain, fuelling speculation they planned to visit her grave.

‘This is highly unusual,’ a source familiar with the Althorp estate said. ‘Once the house is open to visitors, it’s not usually closed.’

Charles Spencer, Diana’s brother, manages the Northamptonshire estate, which is only accessible to the public in July and August.

The trip will allow Diana’s grandchildren to visit her grave for the first time.

Diana is buried on an island in an ornamental lake in the grounds of Althorp.

A long-running row over UK security for the California-based duke has meant his children, aged seven and five, have never previously visited Diana’s final resting place.

The visit will now proceed, according to The Sun.

Diana lived at Althorp House from the time of her parents’ divorce until she married Charles.

Diana died aged 36 as a result of injuries sustained in a car crash in Paris in August 1997, while Harry was just 12.

Harry rowed Meghan in a boat to the island when they visited Althorp in 2022 on the 25th anniversary of his mother’s death.

‘At long last I was bringing the girl of my dreams home to meet Mum,’ Harry wrote in his memoir, Spare, published the following year. After Harry placed flowers on her grave, he left his wife alone. ‘When I came back, Meg was kneeling, eyes shut, palms against the stone.’

Harry has long claimed that security concerns have stopped him from bringing his family to Britain after his taxpayer-funded protection changed when he stepped back as a working royal in 2020.

Reports have claimed the Sussexes were given assurances ahead of the visit, although sources have highlighted security arrangements are a matter for the Home Office and that the King plays no part in the process.

The trip comes after Harry met his father, King Charles, who is undergoing cancer treatment, for the first time in 19 months last September. 

It will also be the first time Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, have visited the UK since the late Queen’s Platinum Jubilee in 2022.

Harry and Meghan no longer have a permanent UK base after they were asked to leave Frogmore Cottage in 2023, soon after the publication of the duke’s memoir Spare.

One person said they were ‘milking the situation’. I personally don’t believe that they are. Harry’s children are entitled to know who their grandmother was, and I’m sure that Diana would have been thrilled that her grandchildren came to visit. The children might not know who their grandmother was, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not entitled to.

They would have seen photos of her, so showing them where she is buried is a normal part of life, and being introduced to death as a child takes the scare factor out of it. They might not understand the significance at the moment, but in a few years, they will.

Is The Royal Family Good Value For Money?

We want to know if the Royal Family offers excellent value for money after the King disclosed the amount of personal tax he paid last year.

One person said that they were past their sell-by date.

I’m personally not a royalist, but I believe that as long as they pay their taxes, we should really care what they do. After all, they do bring in a lot of revenue, one might say, but nowhere near as much as people claim, and the numbers are frequently significantly inflated. The truth is more mixed and more interesting, once you strip away the PR spin.

Although the Royal Family is long out of date, it is still a traditional way of life. We must keep in mind that they are just people like the rest of us. If the media stopped treating the Royal Family as clothes horses and spent a little more time reporting on the successes of their endeavours, the general public would have a better understanding of their value.

Most tourists come to see our castles, cathedrals, museums, et cetera. None of them even gets to see a Royal, and buying souvenirs with their photos on them is minimal.

We would still get millions of tourists to visit because of our British history. We still have the palaces and castles for people to visit, we still have the crown jewels, and we have so many assets that people visit for, so why do we need a Royal Family at all? Well, the simple answer is, we don’t need a Royal Family in any functional, constitutional sense. The UK can run quite well without one, as dozens of stable democracies do.

Today, I am asking anyone about what is worth spending money on, which will only open up another can of worms. It’s like asking if you’re getting value for money at the supermarket, a West End show, or, if you had £20 or £30k to spend, would you splurge it on a holiday, buy a car, give it all to the HMRC or buy a really useful 2nd hand tractor.

We’re all different, but amongst all of your personal choices and issues, where, precisely, does a King and Royalty fit in, who rule nothing, cost a fortune and show that governments rule the roost as the country falls apart? A king or a costly wet paper bag should be the poll.

But some people have said that the Royal Family should be abolished, and that we should get rid of this outdated nonsense, and some want an elected representative who can be voted out if they do not come up to scratch, and that these pickpockets have had it far too easy for far too long. The monarchy died with the passing of Elizabeth II.

I don’t believe that tourists are attracted to the UK because of the Royal Family, particularly now that Charles is King. They are seduced by the trappings of royalty, Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Beefeaters at the Tower of London, and Trooping the Colour, et cetera, the same as tourists are attracted to Paris by Versailles.

What exactly is the draw, anyway? It’s not any different from an artist or singer, but when it comes to royalty, we have been brainwashed by their “Royalness” and persuaded of their superiority, titles, pomp and ceremony, et cetera. The distinction is that musicians and artists genuinely earn a living.

A poll of foreign tourists to the UK was conducted years ago: “Did the Royal Family influence your decision to visit the UK?” Only 2 per cent said yes.

Labour To Free The Waves Of Killers And Rapists Early

Labour is to begin releasing waves of killers, rapists and violent criminals from prison under its controversial soft-justice plan.

Even those incarcerated for more than ten years will be released early as part of a plan to free up prison space.

The plan will ‘horrify’ victims, Justice Secretary David Lammy was warned, amid calls for it to be halted immediately.

The Ministry of Justice release programme could mean hundreds of serious offenders being released in large batches – potentially even on the same day – magnifying police fears of a wave of criminals on the streets.

Ministers have set out a timetable that will see 6,000 prisoners walk free, starting in September.

Criminals who received sentences shorter than 18 months will be the first to be released.

Releases will then ramp up month by month, depending on the length of sentences. Criminals who have served more than 12 years in jail – some of the most dangerous criminals in the country – will start to be released next June.

Tory spokesman Dr Kieran Mullan said: ‘Victims are going to feel like justice has been stolen from them by these plans. We aren’t talking about shoplifters or vandals.

‘We are talking about paedophiles, rapists and seriously violent criminals. Seeing them walk out of prison years early will horrify most victims and the public as well. The whole programme needs to be stopped.’

As part of a long-term strategy to lower the prison population, Labour’s Sentencing Act permits violent and sexual offenders to be released early after serving half of their sentence, as opposed to the present two-thirds.

If they behave well while incarcerated, other offenders may be released after only a third of the sentence given by the court.

The early-release scheme means a killer imprisoned for 15 years for manslaughter would be released after seven and a half years if they are considered to have behaved well.

Because murderers are given a mandatory life sentence with a minimum number of years they must serve, they will not be taken into consideration.

Ministers are braced for a backlash after a scheme introduced in autumn 2024 saw offenders celebrating at the prison gates by popping bottles of bubbly, driving away in luxury cars and thanking Keir Starmer.

Police leaders have warned that the reforms – which also ditch short jail sentences – will unleash a crime wave. 

Someone even claimed that our government despises us, particularly women, and that it is rather depressing when someone from a completely other nation understands the problems with our government, but the government itself doesn’t, and this is further evidence of their drive to destroy society.

When this government does this type of thing, I actually feel for the families who have lost loved ones. It’s ridiculous that these criminals will be out walking amongst us, and it’s a damn disgrace.

More prisons need to be built, and prison staff need better pay and conditions. The worst prisoners should remain in a cell, no play time, no perks. Others work 9-5, in education or labour. Make it harsh, make it long, make it law-abidingly safe.

I have never, in all my life, ever seen such a disgusting party as the criminal-loving, anti-British Labour party, and don’t you find it funny that Labour always warn you of the dangers of a reform government, but you can see the real danger in plain sight, it’s a Labour government of defectors, taxing you out of existence and making the country extremely dangerous.

In actuality, every institution in this nation is flawed, and there aren’t enough jails to imprison these offenders. We are a joke, and every level of infrastructure isn’t working properly.

Create your own website, free on WordPress.com.Create your own website.
Start free