Preloader

Olympus Blog

In the Olympus blog you'll find the latest news about the community, tutorials, helpful resources and much more! React to the news with the emotion stickers and have fun!

Chris Pincher: PM 'bitterly regrets' appointing MP after complaint

BBC News – UK RSS Feed – World News

Published10 minutes agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingThis video can not be playedTo play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.Boris Johnson has apologised for appointing Chris Pincher to a government role after being told about a misconduct complaint against the MP.The PM admitted he had been told about the complaint in 2019 – but had made a “bad mistake” by not acting on it.He did not deny jokingly referring to the MP as “Pincher by name Pincher by nature”.Mr Pincher was suspended as a Tory MP last week over allegations of sexual misconduct.The Tamworth MP has said he was seeking professional medical support and has denied previous allegations of misconduct. He has been contacted by the BBC for comment about the 2019 complaint but is yet to respond.Lord McDonald’s Chris Pincher letter in fullPincher suspended as Tory MP after groping claimPM under renewed pressure over Pincher appointmentSpeaking to BBC political editor Chris Mason, Mr Johnson said he was “fed up with people saying things on my behalf” and wanted to set the record straight.He said he was “aware back in 2019, of a specific allegation against Pincher that was resolved”.But in hindsight, Mr Johnson said, appointing Mr Pincher to the role of deputy chief chip in February this year “was the wrong thing to do”.”There is no place for anyone in this government who abuses power,” Mr Johnson said. He added: “I bitterly regret the decision not to… intervene.”No 10 said the PM was told about the 2019 complaint on Tuesday morning after its account was disputed by the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, Simon McDonald.In a strongly worded letter, Lord McDonald insisted the prime minister “was briefed in person” about an inquiry into the complaint against Mr Pincher in 2019.Government minister Michael Ellis then told MPs the prime minister “did not immediately recall the conversation in late 2019 about this incident”.”As soon as he was reminded, the No 10 press office corrected their public lines,” Mr Ellis said.More on this storyLord McDonald’s Chris Pincher letter in full9 hours agoPM was briefed on Pincher says Simon McDonald7 hours agoPM was made aware of a formal Pincher complaint11 hours ago

Chris Pincher: PM 'bitterly regrets' appointing MP after complaint

BBC News

Published7 minutes agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingThis video can not be playedTo play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.Boris Johnson has apologised for appointing Chris Pincher to a government role after being told about a misconduct complaint against the MP.The PM admitted he had been told about the complaint in 2019 – but had made a “bad mistake” by not acting on it.He did not deny jokingly referring to the MP as “Pincher by name Pincher by nature”.Mr Pincher was suspended as a Tory MP last week over allegations of sexual misconduct.The Tamworth MP has said he was seeking professional medical support and has denied previous allegations of misconduct. He has been contacted by the BBC for comment about the 2019 complaint but is yet to respond.Lord McDonald’s Chris Pincher letter in fullPincher suspended as Tory MP after groping claimPM under renewed pressure over Pincher appointmentSpeaking to BBC political editor Chris Mason, Mr Johnson said he was “fed up with people saying things on my behalf” and wanted to set the record straight.He said he was “aware back in 2019, of a specific allegation against Pincher that was resolved”.But in hindsight, Mr Johnson said, appointing Mr Pincher to the role of deputy chief chip in February this year “was the wrong thing to do”.”There is no place for anyone in this government who abuses power,” Mr Johnson said. He added: “I bitterly regret the decision not to… intervene.”No 10 said the PM was told about the 2019 complaint on Tuesday morning after its account was disputed by the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, Simon McDonald.In a strongly worded letter, Lord McDonald insisted the prime minister “was briefed in person” about an inquiry into the complaint against Mr Pincher in 2019.Government minister Michael Ellis then told MPs the prime minister “did not immediately recall the conversation in late 2019 about this incident”.”As soon as he was reminded, the No 10 press office corrected their public lines,” Mr Ellis said.More on this storyLord McDonald’s Chris Pincher letter in full8 hours agoPM was briefed on Pincher says Simon McDonald7 hours agoPM was made aware of a formal Pincher complaint11 hours ago

Chris Pincher: It was a mistake to appoint him – PM

BBC News – UK RSS Feed – World News

The prime minister has said it was “a mistake” to appoint Chris Pincher, and it was the “wrong thing to do” to make the MP deputy chief whip.Boris Johnson said the MP had behaved “very, very badly” and apologised to those who has been affected.The PM says a complaint was made against Chris Pincher in the Foreign Office three years ago.Mr Pincher has denied previous allegations of sexual misconduct. The BBC has approached him for a comment about a complaint made about an alleged incident while he was a minister in the Foreign OfficeLIVE: PM did not recall hearing about Pincher complaint – minister

Chris Pincher: It was a mistake to appoint him – PM

BBC News

The prime minister has said it was “a mistake” to appoint Chris Pincher, and it was the “wrong thing to do” to make the MP deputy chief whip.Boris Johnson said the MP had behaved “very, very badly” and apologised to those who has been affected.The PM says a complaint was made against Chris Pincher in the Foreign Office three years ago.Mr Pincher has denied previous allegations of sexual misconduct. The BBC has approached him for a comment about a complaint made about an alleged incident while he was a minister in the Foreign OfficeLIVE: PM did not recall hearing about Pincher complaint – minister

Tour de France 2022: Wout van Aert claims victory on stage four

BBC News – Sports RSS Feed – World News

Wout van Aert’s sensational escape in the final 10km of stage four gave him his first win at this year’s Tour de France and extended his overall lead.The Belgian had finished second in each of the first three stages of this year’s race but this time his plan worked to perfection.A breathtaking attack up the final climb sent him clear and he held on in the closing kilometres into Calais.Van Aert moves 25 seconds clear in the General Classification.Behind him, Jasper Philipsen won a bunch sprint to the line and raised his arms thinking he had won the stage, illustrating the chaotic nature of the finish.That was all down to Van Aert’s attack, with a cross tailwind helping to split the pack as they tried to stay with him.Van Aert had been denied a stage win by a photo finish in a bunch sprint as the Tour left Denmark on Sunday, but marked the first day of racing in France with a memorable triumph.”I didn’t want to take the risk anymore,” he said afterwards about the move by his Jumbo-Visma team on the way up up Cote du Cap Blanc Nez.”It was quite obvious that we were trying something with the team,” he explained. “We were in a perfect position thanks to Nathan (van Hooydonck) and Stevie (Kruijswijk), then Nathan opened up on the climb, Tiesj (Benoot) took over and we heard on the radio there was some damage.”The goal was to go full to the top and see what happened, but then I came over the top alone. “I was a bit in doubt whether I should wait for Jonas Vingegaard and Adam Yates behind me, but by going full, I also put Jonas and the others in a good position because they didn’t have to ride. “So I decided to go on alone, and then it was 10km of all-out suffering.”Last year’s winner, Tadej Pogacar, and the other leading contenders for the General Classification recovered to finish together in the group immediately behind Van Aert but, along with the pure sprinters in the race, they were unable to organise themselves in time to catch him.The 27-year-old flapped his arms before punching the air in triumph as he crossed the line in yellow, and later explained his celebration by saying “this jersey gives you wings”.Stage four results1. Wout van Aert (Bel/Jumbo-Visma) 4hrs 01min 6secs2. Jasper Philipsen (Bel/Alpecin-Deceuninck) + 8secs3. Christophe Laporte (Fra/Jumbo-Visma) Same time4. Alexander Kristoff (Nor/Intermarche) Same time5. Peter Sagan (Svk/TotalEnergies) Same time6. Luca Mozzato (Ita/B&B Hotels) Same time7. Danny van Poppel (Ned/Bora-Hansgrohe) Same time8. Hugo Hofstetter (Fra/Arkea-Samsic) Same time9. Michael Matthews (Aus/BikeExchange-Jayco) Same time10. Benjamin Thomas (Fra/Cofidis) Same timeGeneral classification after stage four1. Wout van Aert (Bel/Jumbo-Visma) 13hrs 02mins 43secs2. Yves Lampaert (Bel/Quick-Step Alpha Vinyl) +25secs3. Tadej Pogacar (Slo/UAE Team Emirates) +32secs4. Mads Pedersen (Den/Trek-Segafredo) +36secs5. Mathieu van der Poel (Ned/Alpecin-Deceuninck) +38secs6. Jonas Vingegaard (Den/Jumbo-Visma) +40secs7. Primoz Roglic (Slo/Jumbo-Visma) +41secs8. Adam Yates (GB/Ineos Grenadiers) +48secs9. Stefan Kung (Swi/Groupama – FDJ Same time10. Tom Pidcock (GB/Ineos Grenadiers) +49secs

Breastfeeding mum told to leave Rhyl swimming pool

BBC News – UK RSS Feed – World News

Published31 minutes agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Sarah LappinA woman said she was left feeling humiliated after she was ordered from a swimming pool for breastfeeding.Sarah Lappin had finished a parent-and-toddler swimming session at the pool in Rhyl, Denbighshire, when she began feeding five-month-old son Kalel.But a lifeguard asked the 31-year-old to leave the pool if she wished to continue, even though it is legal to breastfeed in public.Rhyl Leisure Centre bosses have apologised for causing offence.Keen swimmer Ms Lappin said she had breastfed all five of her children in the same pool and was shocked to be told to stop by the lifeguard, who told her: “It’s the rules.”Breast milk bank opens in SwanseaTaking pictures of breastfeeding mothers in public to be made illegalNHS Wales urged to give autistic mothers better helpMs Lappin carried on feeding Kalel as she felt “there’s no such rule”.”He whistled at me again, and said I will have to leave if I carry on breastfeeding in the pool,” she said.”I kept my calm and replied that I can’t stop him once he’s on. Everyone was looking now.”Ms Lappin lodged a complaint with the deputy manager who, she said, told her she would speak with the lifeguard.She said: “I felt so humiliated. I am a very proud breastfeeding mother and have been feeding for almost a decade now with five children.”I have never come across such negative behaviour towards a mother breastfeeding her infant.”Image source, GoogleShe worried some mothers could have had their confidence knocked by being spoken to in such a manner. “There are people who think it’s nudity, or that it should be done in private or at least covered with a blanket or in a breastfeeding room, hidden away,” she said.”It’s wrong to think a mother has to hide to do a perfectly natural thing. It’s our right as women to feed our babies where we want, as it’s not just a source of food, it’s their comfort and makes them feel safe.”She dismissed fears breastfeeding in a pool could be a health hazard.Denbighshire Leisure, which runs Rhyl Leisure Centre, said the company supported breastfeeding.A spokesman said: “We do not prevent any person from breastfeeding in our facilities, but on this occasion, the breastfeeding was taking place in the water.”It is very unclear whether or not a baby should or should not be fed in the water due to conflicting views on the health risks and the heightened risk of vomiting in the pool, which would result in a pool closure.”They said they would seek advice from health professionals and make changes as required.”We apologise for any offence this may have caused,” the spokesman said.More on this storyMum told to stop breastfeeding at Sainsbury’s6 days agoMum creates breastfeeding app to support women16 December 2021Company defends selling human breast milk26 August 2021

Breastfeeding mum told to leave Rhyl swimming pool

BBC News

Published27 minutes agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Sarah LappinA woman said she was left feeling humiliated after she was ordered from a swimming pool for breastfeeding.Sarah Lappin had finished a parent-and-toddler swimming session at the pool in Rhyl, Denbighshire, when she began feeding five-month-old son Kalel.But a lifeguard asked the 31-year-old to leave the pool if she wished to continue, even though it is legal to breastfeed in public.Rhyl Leisure Centre bosses have apologised for causing offence.Keen swimmer Ms Lappin said she had breastfed all five of her children in the same pool and was shocked to be told to stop by the lifeguard, who told her: “It’s the rules.”Breast milk bank opens in SwanseaTaking pictures of breastfeeding mothers in public to be made illegalNHS Wales urged to give autistic mothers better helpMs Lappin carried on feeding Kalel as she felt “there’s no such rule”.”He whistled at me again, and said I will have to leave if I carry on breastfeeding in the pool,” she said.”I kept my calm and replied that I can’t stop him once he’s on. Everyone was looking now.”Ms Lappin lodged a complaint with the deputy manager who, she said, told her she would speak with the lifeguard.She said: “I felt so humiliated. I am a very proud breastfeeding mother and have been feeding for almost a decade now with five children.”I have never come across such negative behaviour towards a mother breastfeeding her infant.”Image source, GoogleShe worried some mothers could have had their confidence knocked by being spoken to in such a manner. “There are people who think it’s nudity, or that it should be done in private or at least covered with a blanket or in a breastfeeding room, hidden away,” she said.”It’s wrong to think a mother has to hide to do a perfectly natural thing. It’s our right as women to feed our babies where we want, as it’s not just a source of food, it’s their comfort and makes them feel safe.”She dismissed fears breastfeeding in a pool could be a health hazard.Denbighshire Leisure, which runs Rhyl Leisure Centre, said the company supported breastfeeding.A spokesman said: “We do not prevent any person from breastfeeding in our facilities, but on this occasion, the breastfeeding was taking place in the water.”It is very unclear whether or not a baby should or should not be fed in the water due to conflicting views on the health risks and the heightened risk of vomiting in the pool, which would result in a pool closure.”They said they would seek advice from health professionals and make changes as required.”We apologise for any offence this may have caused,” the spokesman said.More on this storyMum told to stop breastfeeding at Sainsbury’s6 days agoMum creates breastfeeding app to support women16 December 2021Company defends selling human breast milk26 August 2021

Lord Advocate would not sign off indyref2 bill without ruling

BBC News – UK RSS Feed – World News

Published45 minutes agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesThe Scottish government’s top lawyer was not prepared to sign off on an independence referendum bill, court papers have revealed.Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether Holyrood has the power to legislate for a vote without UK government consent.She said she currently “does not have the necessary degree of confidence” that it does.Nicola Sturgeon has said she wants to hold a referendum on 19 October 2023.The Lord Advocate is still expected to argue the Scottish government’s case at the Supreme Court, and she said there was an issue of “exceptional public importance” for judges to resolve.The indyref2 questions facing the Supreme CourtSturgeon raises indyref2 plan in call with PMMs Sturgeon still hopes to win the agreement of UK ministers for a fresh referendum, but had asked the Lord Advocate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for a ruling on whether one could go ahead without the backing of Westminster.She told MSPs that this would “accelerate to the point when we have legal clarity and legal fact”.However, papers lodged with the court suggest that the Lord Advocate would not have backed ministers in tabling a referendum bill while the question of whether Holyrood has the powers to do so remained unresolved.All bills must be accompanied by a statement underlining that they are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, which must be cleared by the Lord Advocate.The reference to the Supreme Court said that in the case of a referendum bill, “the Lord Advocate does not have the necessary degree of confidence” to do this.Instead, it said that Ms Bain “considers there is a genuine issue of law that is unresolved”, and this is of “exceptional public importance to the people of Scotland”.Image source, Getty ImagesShe also said that the matter was directly relevant to a key manifesto pledge which she said had been endorsed by the Scottish public, with the SNP and Greens holding a majority of the seats at Holyrood.Ms Bain wrote: “The Scottish government, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom ought to have clarity on the scope of the relevant reservations on this issue of fundamental constitutional importance. “Being questions of law, only this court can provide that clarity and unless the issue is judicially resolved there will remain uncertainty and scope for argument about the powers of the Scottish Parliament. That is not in the best interests of the people of Scotland or of the United Kingdom.” Ms Bain will submit a written note of argument to the court, while the UK government will be asked to respond. The Welsh and Northern Irish administrations have also been notified.Handling of the case is currently with the president of the court, Lord Reed – a Scottish former Court of Session judge. He will decide the timescales on which the case will be heard, and whether any preliminary issues need to be dealt with first.If the Scottish government wins the case, Ms Sturgeon said the bill would be introduced at Holyrood and passed swiftly to allow a vote to happen in October 2023.However if judges rule against this, the first minister said the SNP would treat the next UK general election as a “de facto referendum” and seek to use the result to trigger independence negotiations.It was the centrepiece of Nicola Sturgeon’s big referendum announcement – the Supreme Court would be asked to settle once and for all the long-standing question of Holyrood’s powers.The tactic of having the Lord Advocate push the matter to the courts immediately was an innovative one which caught Holyrood’s opposition parties and indeed the UK government on the hop.However, it appears the first minister actually had little choice. Her previous strategy was to pass the bill, then defend it in court against an inevitable challenge, but these papers show that the Lord Advocate would not have signed off on the key first step in that plan.It may make little difference in the grand scheme of things. We are still going to court, and the Lord Advocate is still arguing the case for MSPs having the power to legislate for indyref2.But this illustrates the narrow room for manoeuvre the first minister has on this issue – and the potential difficulty of winning over the judges of the Supreme Court.Image source, Getty ImagesOpposition MSPs had pressed for Ms Bain to give a statement to parliament following Ms Sturgeon’s announcement, but this did not happen before Holyrood’s summer recess.The UK government remains opposed to a referendum with Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab saying on Tuesday that the position has not changed.He told MPs: “We do not think that now is the right time for a second referendum, given all the pressures and challenges and given the outcome of the first.”I think what the people of Scotland want to see is both their governments – in Edinburgh and in Westminster – working closely together.”Scottish Conservative constitution spokesman Donald Cameron claimed that the papers that had been sent to the Supreme Court showed that the SNP was “playing political games by going to court in order to stir up grievance.”He added: “Now we know why the Scottish government, shamefully, failed to allow the Lord Advocate to appear before Parliament last week, ahead of the summer recess – because Scotland’s top law officer is not confident that the First Minister’s plan to hold a divisive and unwanted referendum has any legal basis.”Scottish Labour MSP Sarah Boyack said: “It is clear from the document that the Lord Advocate does not have confidence that what the SNP is proposing is legal.”With the country in the midst of a cost of living crisis, it is deeply disappointing to see Nicola Sturgeon return to the politics of the past.”

Lord Advocate would not sign off indyref2 bill without ruling

BBC News

Published42 minutes agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesThe Scottish government’s top lawyer was not prepared to sign off on an independence referendum bill, court papers have revealed.Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether Holyrood has the power to legislate for a vote without UK government consent.She said she currently “does not have the necessary degree of confidence” that it does.Nicola Sturgeon has said she wants to hold a referendum on 19 October 2023.The Lord Advocate is still expected to argue the Scottish government’s case at the Supreme Court, and she said there was an issue of “exceptional public importance” for judges to resolve.The indyref2 questions facing the Supreme CourtSturgeon raises indyref2 plan in call with PMMs Sturgeon still hopes to win the agreement of UK ministers for a fresh referendum, but had asked the Lord Advocate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for a ruling on whether one could go ahead without the backing of Westminster.She told MSPs that this would “accelerate to the point when we have legal clarity and legal fact”.However, papers lodged with the court suggest that the Lord Advocate would not have backed ministers in tabling a referendum bill while the question of whether Holyrood has the powers to do so remained unresolved.All bills must be accompanied by a statement underlining that they are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, which must be cleared by the Lord Advocate.The reference to the Supreme Court said that in the case of a referendum bill, “the Lord Advocate does not have the necessary degree of confidence” to do this.Instead, it said that Ms Bain “considers there is a genuine issue of law that is unresolved”, and this is of “exceptional public importance to the people of Scotland”.Image source, Getty ImagesShe also said that the matter was directly relevant to a key manifesto pledge which she said had been endorsed by the Scottish public, with the SNP and Greens holding a majority of the seats at Holyrood.Ms Bain wrote: “The Scottish government, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom ought to have clarity on the scope of the relevant reservations on this issue of fundamental constitutional importance. “Being questions of law, only this court can provide that clarity and unless the issue is judicially resolved there will remain uncertainty and scope for argument about the powers of the Scottish Parliament. That is not in the best interests of the people of Scotland or of the United Kingdom.” Ms Bain will submit a written note of argument to the court, while the UK government will be asked to respond. The Welsh and Northern Irish administrations have also been notified.Handling of the case is currently with the president of the court, Lord Reed – a Scottish former Court of Session judge. He will decide the timescales on which the case will be heard, and whether any preliminary issues need to be dealt with first.If the Scottish government wins the case, Ms Sturgeon said the bill would be introduced at Holyrood and passed swiftly to allow a vote to happen in October 2023.However if judges rule against this, the first minister said the SNP would treat the next UK general election as a “de facto referendum” and seek to use the result to trigger independence negotiations.It was the centrepiece of Nicola Sturgeon’s big referendum announcement – the Supreme Court would be asked to settle once and for all the long-standing question of Holyrood’s powers.The tactic of having the Lord Advocate push the matter to the courts immediately was an innovative one which caught Holyrood’s opposition parties and indeed the UK government on the hop.However, it appears the first minister actually had little choice. Her previous strategy was to pass the bill, then defend it in court against an inevitable challenge, but these papers show that the Lord Advocate would not have signed off on the key first step in that plan.It may make little difference in the grand scheme of things. We are still going to court, and the Lord Advocate is still arguing the case for MSPs having the power to legislate for indyref2.But this illustrates the narrow room for manoeuvre the first minister has on this issue – and the potential difficulty of winning over the judges of the Supreme Court.Image source, Getty ImagesOpposition MSPs had pressed for Ms Bain to give a statement to parliament following Ms Sturgeon’s announcement, but this did not happen before Holyrood’s summer recess.The UK government remains opposed to a referendum with Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab saying on Tuesday that the position has not changed.He told MPs: “We do not think that now is the right time for a second referendum, given all the pressures and challenges and given the outcome of the first.”I think what the people of Scotland want to see is both their governments – in Edinburgh and in Westminster – working closely together.”Scottish Conservative constitution spokesman Donald Cameron claimed that the papers that had been sent to the Supreme Court showed that the SNP was “playing political games by going to court in order to stir up grievance.”He added: “Now we know why the Scottish government, shamefully, failed to allow the Lord Advocate to appear before Parliament last week, ahead of the summer recess – because Scotland’s top law officer is not confident that the First Minister’s plan to hold a divisive and unwanted referendum has any legal basis.”Scottish Labour MSP Sarah Boyack said: “It is clear from the document that the Lord Advocate does not have confidence that what the SNP is proposing is legal.”With the country in the midst of a cost of living crisis, it is deeply disappointing to see Nicola Sturgeon return to the politics of the past.”

Undercover police officer 'invited into military armoury'

BBC News – UK RSS Feed – World News

Published1 hour agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, PA MediaAn undercover police officer, posing as a criminal, was invited into a military armoury, a court has heard.It was part of a plot by two serving Coldstream Guards officers to sell him ammunition, prosecutors allege.Southwark Crown Court heard the police officer also visited Kirtland Gill’s house to collect a batch of bullets.Mr Gill, 41, denies conspiracy to sell ammunition and possession of a prohibited weapon. Rajon Graham, 33, previously admitted selling ammunition.At the time of the alleged offences – between December 2020 and January 2021 – Mr Gill was serving with the Coldstream Guards – part of the Household Division, which is responsible for the protection of the Queen and guarding Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.The court has heard how Graham sold a total of 300 9mm Parabellum bulleted cartridges, which he called “sweets”, to the police officer, referred to as “D”.The bullets were wrapped in Bacofoil bags, and sold for £5,800 in cash across four meetings with “D”, the jury was told.’Nervous on camp’The court heard Graham had taken “D” to Victoria Barracks, near Windsor Castle, where the regiment, known for its red jackets and black bearskin hats, is based, on 17 December 2021.Giving evidence from behind a screen, the officer said: “When we entered the camp, he had obviously spoken to the guards at that point.”I was nervous of being on a military camp in the way I was portraying myself as a criminal.””D” said they parked on the parade square, while waiting for Graham’s friend, who he said was being interviewed by The Sun newspaper.The court has heard Mr Gill was interviewed because he was the first black regimental sergeant major in the Household Division.The undercover officer told jurors he said to Graham, who he knew as “Solj”, that he thought it was “too risky” for him to be on the base.’Did not enter armoury'”He kept saying it was fine, I was with him and while I was with him everything would be okay,” “D” said.But asked by prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC if he took Graham up on an offer to view rifles in the armoury, D said: “No. I decided that was a bad idea.”It was a challenge to go into the Army base, but to go into the armoury with live weapons with whom I perceived to be a serious criminal was not a risk I was willing to take.”Graham is then said to have driven “D” to Mr Gill’s nearby home to collect a batch of ammunition, which he bought for £1,000.The trial continues.Follow BBC South on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected] on this storySoldiers sold ammunition for cash, court hears1 day agoRelated Internet LinksHM Courts and Tribunals ServiceThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Undercover police officer 'invited into military armoury'

BBC News

Published1 hour agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, PA MediaAn undercover police officer, posing as a criminal, was invited into a military armoury, a court has heard.It was part of a plot by two serving Coldstream Guards officers to sell him ammunition, prosecutors allege.Southwark Crown Court heard the police officer also visited Kirtland Gill’s house to collect a batch of bullets.Mr Gill, 41, denies conspiracy to sell ammunition and possession of a prohibited weapon. Rajon Graham, 33, previously admitted selling ammunition.At the time of the alleged offences – between December 2020 and January 2021 – Mr Gill was serving with the Coldstream Guards – part of the Household Division, which is responsible for the protection of the Queen and guarding Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.The court has heard how Graham sold a total of 300 9mm Parabellum bulleted cartridges, which he called “sweets”, to the police officer, referred to as “D”.The bullets were wrapped in Bacofoil bags, and sold for £5,800 in cash across four meetings with “D”, the jury was told.’Nervous on camp’The court heard Graham had taken “D” to Victoria Barracks, near Windsor Castle, where the regiment, known for its red jackets and black bearskin hats, is based, on 17 December 2021.Giving evidence from behind a screen, the officer said: “When we entered the camp, he had obviously spoken to the guards at that point.”I was nervous of being on a military camp in the way I was portraying myself as a criminal.””D” said they parked on the parade square, while waiting for Graham’s friend, who he said was being interviewed by The Sun newspaper.The court has heard Mr Gill was interviewed because he was the first black regimental sergeant major in the Household Division.The undercover officer told jurors he said to Graham, who he knew as “Solj”, that he thought it was “too risky” for him to be on the base.’Did not enter armoury'”He kept saying it was fine, I was with him and while I was with him everything would be okay,” “D” said.But asked by prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC if he took Graham up on an offer to view rifles in the armoury, D said: “No. I decided that was a bad idea.”It was a challenge to go into the Army base, but to go into the armoury with live weapons with whom I perceived to be a serious criminal was not a risk I was willing to take.”Graham is then said to have driven “D” to Mr Gill’s nearby home to collect a batch of ammunition, which he bought for £1,000.The trial continues.Follow BBC South on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected] on this storySoldiers sold ammunition for cash, court hears1 day agoRelated Internet LinksHM Courts and Tribunals ServiceThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Nick Kyrgios to appear in court over common assault allegation

BBC News – Asia RSS Feed – World News

Wimbledon quarter-finalist Nick Kyrgios is set to appear in court in Australia next month in relation to an allegation of common assault. Police said it follows an incident in December last year which Kyrgios’ barrister says was “in the context of a domestic relationship”.Kyrgios is now scheduled to appear at the Australia Capital Territory Magistrates’ Court on 2 August.He will play Chile’s Cristian Garin in the Wimbledon last eight on Wednesday. Kyrgios’ barrister Jason Moffett, speaking to The Canberra Times in Australia, said: “The nature of the allegation is serious, and Mr Kyrgios takes the allegation very seriously.”Given the matter is before the court, he doesn’t have a comment at this stage, but in the fullness of time we’ll issue a media release.”A police statement said: “ACT Policing can confirm a 27-year-old Watson man is scheduled to face the ACT Magistrates’ Court on 2 August in relation to one charge of common assault following an incident in December 2021.”The player’s legal team said: “At the present time, the allegations are not considered as fact by the court, and Mr Kyrgios is not considered charged with an offence until the first appearance.”Kyrgios was on site practising at SW19 on Tuesday but moved to a court out of the view of reporters and photographers and did not answer any questions. In a statement, the Association of Tennis Professionals said: “The ATP is aware of the Australian case involving Nick Kyrgios but as legal proceedings are ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”