SAJID JAVID on Monday (14) said “respect for the rule of law” was sacrosanct as he rebelled against Boris Johnson’s legislative bill that would override parts of the Brexit treaty struck with the European Union last year.
The former chancellor was joined by top Tory figures such as former attorney-generals Geoffrey Cox and Jeremy Wright in abstaining from voting on the internal markets bill.
Notably, every living former prime minister -- Conservatives John Major, David Cameron and Theresa May and Labour's Tony Blair and Gordon Brown -- also warned of the risk to Britain's global reputation.
Though the bill managed to clear the first hurdle in Parliament, the prime minister saw two Tory MPs — Sir Roger Gale and Andrew Percy — voting against it.
Johnson had argued that the legislation was a "safety net" against what he claimed were EU threats to impose tariffs on UK internal trade and even stop food going from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland.
However, Javid, who had stepped down as chancellor in February, said: “One of the UK’s greatest strengths is respect for the rule of law.
“Breaking international law is a step that should never be taken lightly. Having carefully studied the UK internal market bill it is not clear to me why it is necessary to do so.
“I will therefore regretfully be unable to support the Bill… and urge the Government to amend it in the coming days.”
In another blow for the government, Conservative MP Rehman Chishti quit as the prime minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief on Monday morning, saying he would not vote for the bill as a “matter of principle”.
“I have real concerns with the UK unilaterally breaking its legal commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement,” he said in his resignation letter to Johnson.
“During my 10 years in Parliament and before that as a Barrister, I have always acted in a manner which respects the rule of law.
“I feel very strongly about keeping the commitments we make; if we give our word, then we must honour it.
“Voting for this bill as it currently stands would be contrary to the values I hold dearest.
“I am only too sorry that our difference on this matter means that I cannot vote for the Bill in its current form, on a matter of principle, and thereby will not be able to continue to serve as your Special Envoy.”
Cox, who was axed during the cabinet reshuffle in February, echoed similar views, saying: “It is unconscionable that this country, justly famous for its regard for the rule of law around the world, should act in such a way.”
He added that the UK should opt for “lawful remedies open to us… rather than violating international law and a solemn treaty”.
“What I can say from my perspective is we simply cannot approve or endorse a situation in which we go back on our word, given solemnly not only by the British Government and on behalf of the British Crown, but also by Parliament when we ratified this in February, unless there are extreme circumstances which arrive involving a breach of duty of the good faith by the EU,” he told Radio Times.
“We signed up, we knew what we were signing, we simply can't seek to nullify those ordinary consequences of doing that and I simply can't support that.
“The breaking of the law leads ultimately to very long-term and permanent damage to this country's reputation and it is also a question of honour to me.”
Shadow business secretary Ed Miliband, who stood in for self-isolating Labour leader Keir Starmer, targeted the prime minister, saying the issue highlighted “incompetence” and “failure of governance”.
“And I have to say to him, this is not just legislative hooliganism on any issue, it is on the most sensitive issues of all.”
He added that there was only “one person responsible” for the logjam. “This is his deal, it's his mess, it's his failure,” he said.
Johnson, however, remained unrelenting even as many Conservative MPs planned to pressure him to amend the bill before it is taken up for discussion at the committee level.
He said the bill will ensure "unfettered access" for trade after that within the UK's four nations -- Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
But the legislation would see London unilaterally regulate UK trade and state aid within Northern Ireland -- in violation of the Brexit treaty, that demands Brussels have a say.
The prime minister acknowledged some personal "unease" at giving ministers powers to override the Brexit treaty but said they would not be needed if a trade deal was agreed as hoped with Brussels.
"What we cannot do now is tolerate a situation where our EU counterparts seriously believe that they have the power to break up our country," he said.
"That illusion must be decently despatched."
Johnson, though, said it was essential to counter "absurd" threats from Brussels including that London put up trade barriers between Britain and Northern Ireland and impose a food blockade - steps he said threatened the UK's unity.
"The EU still have not taken this revolver off the table," he told Parliament before the vote. "What we cannot do now is tolerate a situation where our EU counterparts seriously believe that they have the power to break up our country."
Home Secretary Priti Patel was among stalwarts who backed Johnson. “When it comes to preserving the integrity of the UK and clearly delivering for the people of Northern Ireland... we’ve said from day one that we would always stand by our word and not compromise when it comes to unfettered access in goods and services but also standing by the Good Friday Agreement,” she said on BBC Breakfast.
Suhas Subramanyam speaks during the House Oversight And Government Reform Committee meeting at the US Capitol on March 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
INDIAN AMERICAN Congressman Suhas Subramanyam has strongly condemned recent attacks on Hindu temples across the US, saying that every American should be able to practise their faith without fear.
Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives, Subramanyam said: “Hate has no place in our communities, and that’s why I condemn the recent hateful attacks on Hindu temples and mandirs all across the country.”
The Democratic lawmaker highlighted several recent incidents, including the desecration of the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in Greenwood, Indiana, and gunfire directed at the ISKCON Sri Radha Krishna Temple in Spanish Fork, Utah.
“These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a rise in violence and division in our country,” he said. “It’s not just temples that are being attacked. All places of worship are at risk.”
Subramanyam, who represents Virginia’s 10th Congressional District, urged more resources to strengthen security at religious sites.
“We must be committed to doing more to combat the rise in hate that we’re experiencing in the United States and ensure that our communities are protected. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do that,” he added.
The ISKCON temple in Utah reported that 20 to 30 bullets were fired at the building while devotees were inside, causing heavy damage to its carved arches. Similar acts of vandalism have taken place at BAPS temples in New York, Los Angeles and Sacramento. Last month, the Bay Area Shiv Durga Temple in Santa Clara, California, was also attacked.
Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi earlier condemned the break-in at the Santa Clara temple “in the strongest terms possible” and called for those responsible to face justice. He said such crimes were part of a troubling rise in attacks on Hindu temples. “In America, everyone should be able to pray in peace and safety,” he said.
In a separate incident, the Sri Panchamukha Hanuman Temple in Dublin, California, was burgled last week, with thieves taking jewellery and cash worth about $34,000. It was the second burglary at the site this year. Police said they are still investigating and that there is no evidence so far to suggest religious prejudice as a motive.
Subramanyam, a lawyer by profession, previously served as a White House technology policy adviser to President Barack Obama before entering politics.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Charlie Kirk, 31, shot dead at Utah Valley University during a student event; shooter still at large.
FBI falsely announced an arrest, later retracting the claim, raising questions about investigation handling.
Retired Canadian Michael Mallinson wrongly accused online as the shooter; misinformation spread rapidly on social media.
Security at the event was minimal, with no bag checks.
The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a student event at Utah Valley University has left the nation shaken and investigators scrambling. The 31-year-old was fatally shot in the neck while answering questions under a campus tent, in what officials are calling a sniper-style attack. The shooter remains at large, and the aftermath has exposed investigative missteps, rampant misinformation, and a dangerous level of political vitriol that threatens to push an already polarised America closer to the edge.
Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah Valley University Getty Images
Manhunt or mismanagement?
While Kirk’s body was still en route to the morgue, the FBI announced an arrest. FBI Director Kash Patel posted on X that a “subject” was in custody, then later wrote that the individual had been released after interrogation, statements that conflicted with those of other local officials and added to early confusion about whether a suspect was actually detained.
Within hours, the Bureau retracted the statement. No shooter was in custody. Instead, one man, George Zinn, had been detained and charged only with obstruction before being released; officials say he was not tied to the shooting. The actual assassin remained at large, likely dressed in dark clothing, armed with a rifle, and vanished from a rooftop roughly 137–183 metres from the stage. Authorities later said they recovered a bolt-action rifle believed to have been used.
This embarrassment for the agency came on the same day three former senior FBI officials filed a federal lawsuit alleging politically motivated firings and accusing leadership, including Director Kash Patel, of politicising bureau personnel decisions.
— (@)
Digital witch hunt
While investigators combed through footage and witness statements, the internet took matters into its own hands.
Michael Mallinson, a 77-year-old Canadian retiree, became the face of the assassination online after a fake Fox News account posted his photo alongside the caption: “This is the shooter.”
The post went viral. Thousands shared it. Hate poured in. Even automated tools and chatbots (including xAI’s Grok) echoed the false identification proving how AI and social platforms can amplify misinformation in real time.
Mallinson was nowhere near Utah. He had not left Toronto. On YouTube, creators used footage of Kirk’s killing as clickbait. On Telegram and fringe platforms, users celebrated his death.
Graphic footage circulated widely, reposted by some YouTube and TikTok channels and amplified on fringe and encrypted platforms, where pockets of users celebrated the killing. The assassination was not just a news event, it became content.
— (@)
Security failures laid bare
Kirk was a controversial figure. He knew it. His team knew it. Yet security at the event was shockingly lax. Students and attendees say no bag checks were conducted. While Kirk had private security alongside six university officers, the setup was more suited to crowd control than to the threat of a long-range attack. The shooter used that exposure to their advantage
The killing has reverberated far beyond Utah. Donald Trump called Kirk “legendary,” while Turning Point affiliates in the UK and Australia declared him a martyr. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán blamed “the international hate campaign of the liberal left,” while Italy’s Giorgia Meloni called it “a deep wound for democracy.”
This swift politicisation has in fact deepened divides, with experts warning that framing the death in martyrdom terms risks fuelling further violence.
— (@)
The human toll
Behind the politics, violence and digital noise remains the wreckage of a young family. His wife Erika now faces raising two children who were close enough to hear the shot that killed their father. Public figures offered condolences and leaders across the political spectrum described it as a tragedy and warned against political violence.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination is more than a criminal case. It is a failure of security, a test of law enforcement credibility, and a mirror held up to the toxic speed of misinformation. The shooter is still free, and the questions are multiplying about safety, accountability, and how political violence is inflamed.
Charlie Kirk stands in the back of the room as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a swearing in ceremonyGetty Images
The investigation will eventually name a suspect. But no arrest will erase the fact that a man was gunned down in front of his family, and that the aftermath, from false custody claims to viral lies, has made a fractured nation feel even more unstable. Not in abstract political terms, but in the daily lives of people who now fear rallies, campuses, and speech. That is the cost we can least afford to ignore.
Keep ReadingShow less
Prince Harry visits the Centre for Blast Injury Studies at Imperial College London, in London, Britain, September 10, 2025. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett
PRINCE HARRY had tea with King Charles on Wednesday (10) at their first meeting in 20 months, in what may prove a first step toward ending a much-publicised rift between father and son.
Harry, the Duke of Sussex, last saw his father in February 2024, shortly after it was announced that the king was undergoing treatment for an unspecified form of cancer.
Buckingham Palace confirmed that Charles, 76, had a private tea at Clarence House in London with his son on Wednesday.
Harry, 40, travelled directly to an Invictus Games event in London after the meeting. Asked by a reporter about his father, he said: "Yes, he's great, thank you."
Harry flew into Britain on Monday (8) for a series of engagements, and earlier on Wednesday visited a research centre which specialises in improving treatment for victims with blast injuries.
Since Harry and his American wife Meghan moved to California in 2020 where they now live with their two children, they have been highly critical of the royal family and the institution in interviews, TV documentaries and Harry's autobiography Spare.
Harry had some particularly barbed comments for Charles and his elder brother, heir-to-the-throne Prince William, leading to a total breakdown in his relationship with his family.
"Of course some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book. Of course they will never forgive me for lots of things. But you know ... I would love reconciliation with my family. ... There's no point in continuing to fight anymore. And life is precious," he told the BBC.
"I don't know how much longer my father has. He won't speak to me because of this security stuff, but it would be nice to reconcile."
Buckingham Palace and Harry's representatives had been tight-lipped ahead of the prince's visit to Britain about whether there would be a meeting with the king.
However, Charles' communications chief and Harry's media representatives were pictured in July at a secret meeting in London in what newspapers suggested might be the first steps towards a reconciliation.
Historian and author Anthony Seldon said mending their relationship was important for the monarchy and for both Charles and Harry as individuals.
"The king is the king, but he's also a human being and a loving father," Seldon told Reuters. "I think the rift will have caused both of them a lot of anguish. So if that can be healed, at least in part, now or subsequently, then that's all to the good."
(Reuters)
Keep ReadingShow less
The commemoration event honoured two South Asian WW2 veterans who died this year, Havildar Major Rajindar Singh Dhatt MBE and Sergeant Mohammad Hussain.
TWO South Asian Second World War veterans were honoured at a commemoration event in London on Wednesday, September 10. The ceremony paid tribute to Havildar Major Rajindar Singh Dhatt MBE and Sergeant Mohammad Hussain, who both died this year.
The event, hosted by British Future and Eastern Eye with support from the Royal British Legion, also launched My Family Legacy, a project to raise awareness of South Asian contributions in the world wars and preserve family stories for future generations.
More than 2.5 million people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka served in the Second World War, forming the largest volunteer army in history. New polling by Focaldata, released alongside the launch, found that only half of the UK public – and fewer than six in ten British Asians – know that Indian soldiers served in the war.
Sunder Katwala, Director of British Future, said: “We should never forget what we all owe to those who won the second world war against fascism. South Asian soldiers were the largest volunteer army in history. Ensuring that their enormous contribution is fully recognised in our national story remains important work in progress. My Family Legacy aims to help people to find, document and tell these family stories of courage and contribution, service and sacrifice in the world wars.”
Gail Walters, Director of Network Engagement at the Royal British Legion, said: “Honouring the South Asian soldiers who served in Britain’s World Wars is about remembering their bravery and also gives a fuller picture of our shared history. The service and sacrifice of South Asian soldiers are integral to Britain’s national story and helped build the country we are today.”
Amrit Kaur Dhatt, granddaughter of Havildar Major Dhatt, said: “It is so important to capture stories of Commonwealth and ethnic minority soldiers, like my grandfather’s, because they were left out of mainstream history. I find that even the disparity and awareness between VE and VJ Day remains shockingly significant. But remembering isn’t just about the past. It is about shaping the future. And I fear that today’s society clearly hasn’t learnt enough from history. Baba Ji had always hoped that future generations would never have to see the devastation that they [war veterans] had to endure.”
Ejaz Hussain, granddaughter of Sergeant Hussain, said: “As the last soldiers of the war fade before our eyes, it remains imperative that we capture their stories. We - as a country and a people - are blessed to be here today, enjoying liberty and safety directly because of the sacrifices of those from the greatest generation, of which my grandfather was one.”
Journalist Sangita Myska said: “Honouring the service given by South Asian soldiers is vital to understanding the intertwined and complex relationship forged by our forebears with Britain.”
Actor Adil Ray OBE said: “This is the greatest war story that’s never been told. Millions of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs from India, today’s Pakistan and Bangladesh fought two world wars, fighting for our freedom. We owe everything to Major Dhatt and Sergeant Hussain and their fellow soldiers. Their history is our history.”
IT WILL be a two-way contest between education secretary Bridget Phillipson and former Commons leader Lucy Powell for the post of Labour’s deputy leader after Emily Thornberry and Paula Barker withdrew from the race on Thursday (11).
Thornberry, who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee, had secured 13 nominations from Labour MPs while Barker, the Liverpool Wavertree MP, had 14, well short of the 80 needed to progress.
Their withdrawals follow that of housing minister Alison McGovern, who pulled out on Wednesday (10) and backed Phillipson. Bell Ribeiro-Addy, MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill, remains in the running but with 15 nominations is unlikely to make the threshold by the 5pm deadline.
Phillipson has already secured 116 nominations, well above the requirement, while Powell has 77 and is expected to cross the line with late support.
The contest was triggered by the resignation of Angela Rayner, who admitted underpaying stamp duty on a flat and stepped down as deputy leader and deputy prime minister last week.
Her departure has left a gap in Labour’s leadership at a time when prime minister Sir Keir Starmer is managing his first year in government.
Thornberry, announcing her withdrawal on social media, said she was “deeply grateful” for the backing she received and described it as “a privilege to take part in this race with such brilliant women”. Barker said the next deputy leader must be willing to challenge the government when necessary and later endorsed Powell as someone who could be “a constructive friend to the government”.
Phillipson, a long-standing MP for Houghton and Sunderland South, has presented herself as a candidate with experience in Cabinet and the ability to take on populist threats, while Powell, who was removed as leader of the Commons during last week’s reshuffle, has argued she can devote herself fully to the deputy leadership role without ministerial duties.
Supporters of Powell say she offers a voice more independent of the leadership, while Phillipson’s backers highlight her loyalty and strong performance as education secretary.
The next stage of the contest will see candidates who meet the MP threshold secure backing from either five per cent of local constituency parties or three affiliated organisations, including at least two trade unions, in order to make the final ballot.
Voting among Labour members and affiliated supporters opens on October 8 and closes on October 23, with the winner to be announced on October 25.
The result will not affect the role of deputy prime minister, which has already been filled by David Lammy, but it will decide who takes the deputy leadership of the Labour party at a time of internal debate about direction and priorities.
The race, widely expected to run through Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool later this month, is seen as a test of party unity and the balance between loyalty to the leadership and space for dissent.
Senior figures have said they want the next deputy leader to be a woman and from outside London to address perceptions of a male-dominated and London-centric leadership.
Both Phillipson and Powell fit that profile, raising expectations that the final outcome will be decided not on geography but on whether members prefer a loyal cabinet figure or an independent backbencher with more freedom to speak out.