Australian senator who heckled King makes rude gesture at Buckingham Palace

An Australian senator who heckled the King has courted controversy again by making a rude gesture outside Buckingham Palace.
Lidia Thorpe made headlines around the world last October when she interrupted a reception for the King and Queen during their visit to parliament house in Canberra, yelling 'f--- the colony', 'this is not your land' and 'you are not our King'.
In London this week to attend a conference, the indigenous senator wore a 'blak sovereign movement' T-shirt and held up an Aboriginal flag outside the gates of the Palace.
She posed for a photograph making a rude gesture with her middle finger, which she shared on social media with the caption: 'Dropped by to collect all the stuff this lot stole, but Charlie wasn't in.'
The post sparked division among her followers, with some asking whether the UK visit was being funded as a work trip.
One responded: 'Do you know you don't speak for Australia. We actually can't stand you – I personally look forward to your term ending in the Senate.'
Ms Thorpe was censured by the Australian parliament last November, with a motion passed by 46 votes to 12. It condemned her actions as 'disruptive and disrespectful', but there were no further constitutional ramifications.
The Senate said it no longer regarded it 'appropriate' for her to be a member of any delegation 'during the life of this parliament'.
Anthony Albanese, the Australian prime minister, said Ms Thorpe's behaviour was not of the standard 'Australians rightly expect of parliamentarians'.
But after the censure motion was passed, the senator said she did not 'give a damn' about it. She tore up the piece of paper while being interviewed by ABC TV, and said that she would use it 'as kindling'.
She vowed to repeat her actions if the King and Queen ever returned to Australia, saying: 'If the colonising King were to come to my country again, our country, then I'll do it again. And I will keep doing it. I will resist colonisation in this country.
'I swear my allegiance to the real sovereigns of these lands: First Peoples are the real sovereigns,' she said.
Moments before her protest, the King had delivered a speech in which he paid his 'respects to the traditional owners' of Australia. He was said to be 'unruffled' and determined not to let it spoil a 'wonderful day'.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Western Telegraph

25 minutes ago

• Western Telegraph

Sir Mark Rowley ‘shocked' at planned protest in support of Palestine Action

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said a protest supporting the 'organised extremist criminal group' was due to take place in Westminster on Monday. He said until the group is proscribed the force has 'no power in law' to prevent the protest taking place, adding that breaches of the law would be 'dealt with robustly'. The act of vandalism committed at RAF Brize Norton is disgraceful. Our Armed Forces represent the very best of Britain and put their lives on the line for us every day. It is our responsibility to support those who defend us. — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 20, 2025 The Home Secretary will update Parliament on Monday on the Government's plan to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper will provide MPs with more details on the move to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support it, in a written ministerial statement. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being investigated by counter-terror police. The actions that they undertook at Brize Norton were also completely unacceptable and it's not the first Jonathan Reynolds In a statement on Sunday, Sir Mark said: 'I'm sure many people will be as shocked and frustrated as I am to see a protest taking place tomorrow in support of Palestine Action. 'This is an organised extremist criminal group, whose proscription as terrorists is being actively considered. 'Members are alleged to have caused millions of pounds of criminal damage, assaulted a police officer with a sledgehammer and last week claimed responsibility for breaking into an airbase and damaging aircraft. Multiple members of the group are awaiting trial accused of serious offences. 'The right to protest is essential and we will always defend it, but actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest. 'Thousands of people attend protests of a different character every week without clashing with the law or with the police. The criminal charges faced by Palestine Action members, in contrast, represent a form of extremism that I believe the overwhelming majority of the public rejects. 'We have laid out to Government the operational basis on which to consider proscribing this group. If that happens we will be determined to target those who continue to act in its name and those who show support for it. 'Until then we have no power in law to prevent tomorrow's protest taking place. We do, however, have the power to impose conditions on it to prevent disorder, damage, and serious disruption to the community, including to Parliament, to elected representatives moving around Westminster and to ordinary Londoners. 'Breaches of the law will be dealt with robustly.' A spokesperson for Palestine Action previously accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our Government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' Cabinet minister Jonathan Reynolds said he could not rule out the possibility of a foreign power being behind Palestine Action. The Business and Trade Secretary told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: 'It is extremely concerning they gained access to that base and the Defence Secretary is doing an immediate review of how that happened. 'The actions that they undertook at Brize Norton were also completely unacceptable and it's not the first. It's the fourth attack by that group on a key piece of UK defence infrastructure.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Don't forget about Gaza. While the world is distracted, almost 400 people – queueing for food – have been gunned down by Israeli forces. You don't accidentally kill 400 people waiting for aid, they have been deliberately massacred. The UK must end all arms sales to Israel now. — Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) June 19, 2025 Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group. Former justice secretary Lord Charlie Falconer said vandalising aircraft at RAF Brize Norton would not solely provide legal justification for proscribing the group. Asked whether the group's actions were commensurate with proscription, Lord Falconer told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: 'I am not aware of what Palestine Action has done beyond the painting of things on the planes in Brize Norton, they may have done other things I didn't know. 'But generally, that sort of demonstration wouldn't justify proscription so there must be something else that I don't know about.' Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf said the Government was 'abusing' anti-terror laws against pro-Palestine activists, as tens of thousands of protesters marched in London on Saturday. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Home Secretary @YvetteCooperMP is banning Palestine Action. We are pleased that the Home Secretary has listened to our representations over the last week. Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF… — Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) June 20, 2025 The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe Palestine Action, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman also said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. A pro-Palestine protester at Saturday's march in central London said it was 'absolutely horrendous' that the Government was preparing to ban Palestine Action. Artist Hannah Woodhouse, 61, told the PA news agency: 'Counter-terrorism measures, it seems, are being used against non-violent peace protesters. 'The peace activists are trying to do the Government's job, which is to disarm Israel.' Palestine Action has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire.

Daily Mail​

41 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

STEPHEN DAISLEY: We're governed by a born-to-rule elite...and the WhatsApp scandal shows EXACTLY how out of touch they are

Against stiff competition, one of the most outrageous happenings inside Nicola Sturgeon 's government was the routine deletion of messages during the Covid-19 pandemic. The revelation came in evidence before the UK inquiry into the management of the global health crisis. One after another, senior figures in the Scottish Government admitted they had deleted WhatsApps and other messages. Sturgeon had erased her digital missives and so had John Swinney. National clinical director Jason Leitch described 'WhatsApp deletion' as 'a pre-bed ritual'. Senior civil servant Ken Thomson posted on message threads that their contents were 'discoverable under FOI' and advised: 'Know where the "clear chat" button is.' In office, Sturgeon seldom missed an opportunity to highlight where Scotland's government was outperforming England's, but here was one regard in which she was happy to be unexceptional. Senior Westminster figures got rid of their messages and their Holyrood counterparts were no better. Why am I raking up this ancient history when the world is exploding all around us? Well, because an important announcement was slipped out on Friday - usually a quiet day in Scottish politics - and I think it deserves a little noise. Deputy first minister Kate Forbes confirmed that her ban on ministers and civil servants using unofficial messaging apps to do official business was now in effect. The prohibition was initially trailed before Christmas and reflects concern about rules and practices at the height of the pandemic. Now, six months on, WhatsApp and similar platforms have been removed from government-issued phones, with the (common sense) exception of services that deal with public safety and emergencies, which will get longer to make the transition. Speaking on Friday, Forbes said: 'The use of mobile messaging apps increased during the pandemic as staff worked remotely in unprecedented and difficult circumstances. Having reflected on our working practices, we are now implementing changes to the use of such apps.' However, the Scottish Government should not be allowed to issue a lowkey update and then press on with other business. Let's recall how we got here. Because ministers aren't alone in having 'reflected' on their working practices. In addition to Lady Hallett's inquiry, and the negative public response to top officials wiping their communications archives, message retention was put under the microscope in the Martins Report. Former Channel Islands Information Commissioner Emma Martins was tasked with reviewing the Scottish Government's information protocols and what she found was lamentable. There was 'little to evidence a consistent and widespread knowledge, understanding, or application' of the policy on messaging apps, 'including rules around retention, exportation, and deletion'. There was 'insufficient evidence of a proactive strategy' on records management and 'an abundance of missed opportunities and early warning signs'. Martins concluded that it was 'impossible to take any comfort from the policy'. The report recommended a fresh approach to messaging apps that ensured 'all government communication is conducted in a managed environment' and that systems have 'appropriate security and data retention facilities'. Banishing external communications platforms from government phones is certainly a step in the right direction, but why is it a step that's needed at all? It's no coincidence that the minister rolling out these changes is one of the few who did the right thing when it came to pandemic-era communications. Whatever else her critics might say about her, Forbes understood her obligations to transparency and public accountability. Even after she was told to begin deleting messages with her private office two years after the outset of the pandemic, she retained all WhatsApps to and from Cabinet colleagues and government officials. Her integrity meant Lady Hallett's inquiry was able to access conversations at the most senior levels that would otherwise have been lost to the erase button. But that same integrity must compel the deputy first minister to be honest about this policy. Among the various security and data protection advantages of in-house communications networks, there is also the greater monitoring capability they hand to administrators. In plain language: it's harder for a user to delete messages from an in-house system than from WhatsApp or Telegram. On the most charitable reading of this policy, it's an admission that those in the most senior roles in the Scottish Government are inept in the proper use and storage of communications. A less charitable reading is that the Scottish Government does not trust its personnel, ministers and civil servants alike, not to scrub information that could be of national importance. That is a desperate state of affairs. As Emma Martins stated in her report, 'something went wrong for the Scottish Government' and the issue was one that 'runs much deeper than a single policy document or checklist'. An organisation, she said, needed 'those operating within it to share a basic set of values'. Abiding by the rules was 'not a tick box exercise' but 'a way of thinking', which must be 'embedded into everything', not to avoid 'the threat of sanction' but because 'it is the right thing to do'. Tel:ling ministers and officials to use only permitted messaging systems, to treat data with care, to retain communications or log their salient points - these are all well and good but the very fact that the people running the country need to be told this speaks to an institutional problem inside the Scottish Government. Systems and safeguards are only as good as the willingness of those who use them to abide by their spirit as well as their letter. The citizenry should feel reassured that public servants have the integrity to do the right thing without needing it spelled out to them. That they are storing messages properly because they recognise their obligations to scrutiny and transparency, not because a spreadsheet is monitoring their compliance. Kate Forbes did the right thing during the pandemic but her messaging policy can only succeed if there are enough like her in government, and that seems unlikely. A government marinated in spin and cynicism for so long isn't about to mend its way because of new rules. You need people in public life who are there for the right reasons. After 18 years of the SNP in charge, transparency and openness have been thoroughly sidelined. Going through the motions is not the same as genuine accountability, it's working to a policy rather than a moral principle. This administration talks a lot about its commitment to open government but time and again it is shown to be a hollow promise. We have a born-to-rule elite with altogether more confidence in their abilities than is merited and this arrogance has engendered a conviction that the public deserves to know only what their betters want them to know. This is no way to run a democratic government, but it is not a problem that can be tweaked away. It can be addressed only by a blunt and bracing assessment of the calibre of politicians and policymakers coming into Holyrood and a conversation about how we can do better. The WhatsApp deletion scandal was a low moment for devolved government in Scotland but it would be foolhardy to assume that the problem has been solved. Holyrood requires a new culture of integrity, transparency and accountability. The work of creating this culture cannot be undertaken by those responsible for the past two decades. It calls for a new government under new leadership.

The Guardian

an hour ago

• The Guardian

Reform unveils plan to top up poorest workers from £250,000 fee on rich UK newcomers

Reform UK are to offer wealthy foreigners and returning British expats a bespoke tax regime in exchange for a one-off payment of £250,000 with all funds collected redistributed, the party claims, to Britain's lowest-paid workers. The proposal, dubbed the Britannia Card, is due to be unveiled by party leader Nigel Farage later this week. It promises a 10-year residence permit and a return to the controversial 'remittance basis' of taxation, allowing cardholders to shield overseas income from UK tax and avoid inheritance tax entirely. In return, high-net-worth applicants would pay an upfront 'entry contribution' of £250,000, which Reform UK said will be distributed in full to the bottom 10% of UK earners. Reform estimates this 'Britannia workers' dividend' could provide a tax-free annual payout of £600-£1,000 to roughly 2.5 million low-paid full-time workers, depending on uptake. The money would be delivered directly by HMRC at the end of each tax year. Under the plan, foreign nationals and wealthy British returnees would gain access to the UK through a tax-light regime that exempts all overseas income and assets from UK taxation for a decade. Inheritance tax is also scrapped entirely. In effect, Reform is proposing to sell exemption from the UK tax system – reinstating the abolished non-dom privileges in a simplified form but with a cash price attached. The party insists the fee is not a 'golden visa' but a way of ensuring wealthy newcomers 'immediately contribute to British society'. Unlike Labour's 2024 abolition of non-dom status, the main change the former Tory chancellor Jeremy Hunt pointed to in his last budget, which placed all new arrivals onto a residence-based tax system, Reform's approach would reintroduce tax advantages for the globally mobile – while simultaneously claiming to deliver for the British working class. Critics are likely to seize on what amounts to a structural loophole: the ability for millionaires to buy their way out of full UK tax liability, while ordinary residents remain subject to standard tax rules. Reform claims the policy will channel billions directly into the bank accounts of Britain's poorest workers. Under its lowest-uptake scenario (6,000 Britannia Cards issued a year), the scheme would generate £1.5bn – enough to fund a £600 tax-free bonus to 2.5 million workers. A high-uptake scenario (10,000 cards) would raise £2.5bn, delivering £1,000 per worker. Only full-time workers in the bottom 10% of the income distribution would qualify, with payments issued automatically via HMRC. Reform said the boost would disproportionately benefit workers in Wales, Scotland and the north-east of England – regions where a greater share of jobs sit in the bottom pay decile. The party has yet to publish a clear threshold for who qualifies as a 'high-net-worth newcomer' nor how the policy would be enforced or integrated into HMRC's current tax framework. No legislative draft has been released. Since sweeping to power in more than 670 council seats in May and taking control of 10 councils and two mayoralties, Reform has emerged as a serious national contender. The party now leads in multiple polls: a recent Sky/YouGov tracker shows Reform on 34%, with Labour trailing at 25% and the Conservatives at just 15%. The move is part of Farage's latest attempt to position Reform as the party of working people, not through traditional wage policies or trade unionism, but via direct wealth transfers and blunt fiscal symbolism. The Britannia Card is his clearest move yet to dominate the 'red wall' on economic terms. However the policy is likely to raise questions over who would be eligible with no confirmed income or asset threshold for applicants. It is also unclear whether HMRC could legally define and enforce the £250,000 fee. There are also concerns over it creating a two-tier tax system with British workers still paying full tax on global income while wealthy newcomers will not, and that it consists of a one-off fee and is not a recurring tax yet grants up to 10 years of preferential status. A Reform spokesperson said: 'We are serious about repairing the social contract. It's time workers feel the benefit of high-net-worth individuals entering the country. 'We are taking policy formulation very serious internally, as can be seen by today's announcement.' Responding to the trail of Reform's non-dom policy, a Labour spokesperson said: 'Nigel Farage can brand this whatever he wants - the reality is his first proper policy is a golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country. 'As ever with Reform, the devil is in the detail. This giveaway would reduce revenues raised from the rich that would have to be made up elsewhere - through tax hikes on working families or through Farage's promise to charge them to use the NHS.'