logo
Mother of Manchester Arena victim welcomes royal assent for Martyn's Law

Mother of Manchester Arena victim welcomes royal assent for Martyn's Law

Independent03-04-2025

The mother of a man who was killed in the Manchester Arena attack, who campaigned for tougher anti-terror legislation, said knowing people's lives will be saved is a 'big thing' after it became law.
Martyn's Law, officially the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, requires UK venues hosting 200 or more people to prepare for a terror attack, after receiving royal assent on Thursday.
Larger venues expecting 800 or more must also take steps such as using CCTV, bag checks or vehicle inspections.
Figen Murray, who campaigned for the law change in memory of her 29-year-old son Martyn Hett, met Sir Keir Starmer at Downing Street and said she is 'absolutely over the moon'.
Ms Murray told the BBC's North West Tonight: 'Somebody earlier was saying, 'is it eight years? It feels like yesterday'.
'And to me, it always feels like yesterday. I remember everything so vividly, of course, and it will stay with me forever.
'But having the campaign come to this kind of end is really massive.'
She later said: 'We lost our child and I can't bring Martyn back, but to know that people's lives will be saved is a big thing.'
Mr Hett and 21 other people were killed in the bombing at the end of an Ariana Grande concert in May 2017.
Ms Murray completed a 200-mile walk from Manchester Arena to Downing Street and delivered a letter to then-prime minister Rishi Sunak in May last year as part of her campaign.
The Bill was laid before Parliament in September.
Sir Keir told the BBC: 'I would like to think I had the wherewithal to do what Figen has done.
'I'm not sure in my heart of hearts I would be able to pick myself up as she has done after the most awful of circumstances, to then campaign and to bring that change on behalf of other people, to make sure they never go through what she has been through and what her family has been through.
'I find that incredible.'
The Prime Minister labelled Martyn's Law a 'landmark moment' in improving safety at public events across the UK.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Martyn's Law will significantly strengthen public safety across our country. I'd like to thank Figen Murray for her tireless work to make this law a reality.
'This Government is securing Britain's future through the plan for change and, as the eighth anniversary of the attack approaches, this new law delivers upon the lessons from the Manchester Arena Inquiry to keep people safe.'
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) will take on the role of regulator for the legislation, the Home Office said.
The Act will not come into force for at least two years to allow the SIA's new function to be established and give those responsible sufficient time to understand their new obligations and plan ahead.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The missing link in the grooming gangs report: cousin marriage
The missing link in the grooming gangs report: cousin marriage

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

The missing link in the grooming gangs report: cousin marriage

When the US Department of Defence set up an interrogation unit at Guantanamo Bay after 9/11, it conducted a detailed study on the suspected terrorists it held. Agents wanted to understand the links between them, the way they had worked together, the better to infiltrate their wider networks. They found nothing. Diddly squat. They conducted audits, led themselves on a merry dance, but achieved zilch. • 'Wrongly prosecuted' grooming gang victims denied compensation Then they hired someone who understood the culture of the people they'd apprehended; someone steeped in Arabic mores. She instantly spotted a pattern in the names of the suspects. A startlingly high proportion were from two clans: the Qahtani and the Utaybi. When she mentioned this to her DoD colleagues, their first question was: what the hell is a clan? Only after she explained the significance of these social institutions, the subtle pattern of names that indicate clan affiliations and the codes of honour and secrecy that make them powerful vehicles for group action did they see the point. The agents were then able to infiltrate the networks and prevent future atrocities. Why am I telling you this? Well, because I read Baroness Casey of Blackstock's report on the rape gangs scandal with rising levels of frustration — indeed much the same emotion with which I read her 2016 report on social integration. I don't doubt Casey's work rate or integrity. But I think that, somewhat like the DoD at Guantanamo, she couldn't see what was before her eyes because she lacked the appropriate analytical lens. • 'Whitehall tried to block Rotherham grooming scandal exposé' You see, to understand many of the most urgent failures of integration, you need to understand the clan. These groups are held together not just by ideology or religion; they are cemented by cousin marriage, a common practice in Arabic cultures and, in the UK, many Pakistani immigrant communities, particularly those hailing from Kashmir. By marrying within small, tightknit groups, they ensure everything is kept within the baradari, or brotherhood — property, secrets, loyalty — binding clan members closer together while sequestering them from wider society. In her 2016 report Casey rightly talked about the failure to speak English, honour beatings and the like, but she missed the point that many of these problems are a function of marriage practices that isolate communities. The academic Patrick Nash of the Pharos Foundation has written of baradari life 'concentrated in small geographical areas spread across a few streets or nearby neighbourhoods where there is little need or opportunity to have much to do with wider society or practise the English language'. To write a report on failures of integration without seeing the link with cousin marriage is, I suggest, like writing on the power grid without noting the significance of electricity. • How the grooming gang report detailed abusers' ethnicity Casey's report on the rape gang scandal was flawed for the same reason. It was a strange experience to read her words as she edged ever closer to grasping the point without quite getting there. She noted that the problem is disproportionately concentrated among British Pakistanis. She even noted that 'two thirds of suspects offended within groups' that were 'based on pre-existing relationships — mainly brothers and cousins'. But then, stunningly, she suggested that these links were 'unsophisticated' and 'informal'. Anyone who studies these things — one thinks of Michael Muthukrishna at LSE — could have told her that this is the unmistakable pattern of clan-based crime: groups whose links are anything but informal and unsophisticated. Charlie Peters, who has investigated this problem for GB News, told me: 'The deeper you probe, the more you see the presence of clans. We know that such communities are more likely to see others as outsiders, of less moral value and, when it comes to young white girls, fair game. The perpetrators also knew that they could commit crimes without getting dobbed in since loyalty is owed to the clan but not victims. In some cases, abusers were aided by relatives in authority.' Nash put it this way: 'Cousin marriage sustains close-kin networks which incentivise clan members both to dehumanise out-group victims and to suppress knowledge of criminal activity to preserve family honour.' • Grooming gangs 'still at large, and the victims aren't believed' A couple of examples. Last year, Shaha Amran Miah, 48, Shaha Alman Miah, 47, and Shaha Joman Miah, 38, were convicted at Preston crown court of horrific abuse perpetrated in Barrow-in-Furness and Leeds. Yes, these were Pakistani men, but they were also brothers within an overarching baradari. In Rotherham in 2016, Arshid, Basharat and Bannaras Hussain groomed and raped children for nearly 20 years while Qurban Ali was found guilty of conspiracy to rape. Three of these men are brothers and Ali is their uncle. I have long advocated a ban on cousin marriage but should perhaps say that I've never regarded it as a panacea. Improving integration requires so much more: ending mass uncontrolled immigration, amending legal frameworks to stop the boats, deporting foreign criminals, not to mention other policies supported by large majorities but serially ducked by politicians. A ban on consanguinity would, though, be of huge value. American states with bans tend to be more prosperous and faster-growing. Nations with bans are richer and more integrated, with less corruption and lower rates of crime. A ban would also reduce the prevalence of the congenital diseases causing untold suffering in Kashmiri immigrant communities from Bradford to Luton. The good news is that Kemi Badenoch has adopted this as Tory policy after campaigning by her colleague Richard Holden, and a poll for YouGov last month showed that 77 per cent of the British people are in favour of a ban (only 9 per cent oppose it). But here's what astounds me: Labour remains against prohibition, despite (I am told) having read the evidence. Why? How? Permit me to suggest that I glimpse through the façade of prevarication a party still terrified of criticising any cultural practice out of fear of appearing racist. Isn't that why it was mute for so long on female genital mutilation and honour beatings and still can't bring itself to describe the burqa as a pernicious symbol of institutional misogyny? In other words, the reason the grooming scandal was not confronted for so long by both main parties (not to mention the police and social services) — namely, the fear of seeming bigoted for investigating ethnic minorities, even while they were gang-raping young girls — is still alive and well in the British government. As the son of a Pakistani immigrant who integrated into this nation (not least by marrying my mum) and came to love it, I find this sickening. One can perhaps forgive Casey for missing the significance of cousin marriage, given that it is a custom with which she is unfamiliar (although, frankly, she should have done her homework), but there can be no excuse for politicians who put cultural sensitivities before basic decency. So I say to Starmer, Hermer, Cooper et al: examine your consciences. Did you really go into politics to be apologists for the worst kind of moral relativism, to acquiesce in the nihilistic pretence that all cultural practices are of equal value, when they emphatically are not? If not, find your backbone, confront the Muslim bloc vote and ban cousin marriage. The alternative is betrayal of the most heinous kind. For here's a thought to focus minds: girls today, even as you read these words, are being abused by ethnic clans operating in this country. Fail to act now, and this is on you.

MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Dogma cares little for the state of Britain's economy
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Dogma cares little for the state of Britain's economy

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Dogma cares little for the state of Britain's economy

This country's economy is now in serious peril. This is not only because the Government is nudging at the very outer limits of what it can raise in tax and borrowing – though it is. It is also because that government is increasingly driven by ferocious dogma which cares little for such concerns. It may be that some in the Cabinet can see the danger, yet others do not even view it as a danger, but as an opportunity for yet more upheaval and dramatic change. The extraordinary developments of last week, in which the current very large Labour majority in Parliament brought about revolutions in abortion law and in assisted dying, are a warning that we are now in uncharted waters. It may possibly be that we have never had a government whose parliamentary forces are so radical. And the uncrowned queen of those forces is the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, increasingly influential and remarkably effective in the Commons and in Whitehall. It is true that there has always been a role for disruptive and troublemaking men and women near the top of the Labour Party. In the Tony Blair years, a similar position was filled by the late John Prescott, a majestic steam-powered Dreadnought originating in the (now remote) days of real class war. Let nobody underestimate Lord Prescott's considerable influence on the government he served. But Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the apparatus of New Labour kept him under control. In this case, it looks very much as if a confident and popular Ms Rayner has slipped free of any restraint by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. Her Employment Rights Bill, which is alarming businesses all over the country, would have been strangled at birth in the days of Blairism. The unions would have been told – rightly – that the public had grown heartily sick of their overmighty antics in the past, and did not want to see them given back the unrestrained power they had rightly lost. And while Sir Keir and his Chancellor Rachel Reeves must know this, they seem either powerless to act, or surprisingly untroubled by the danger of it. Speaking to The Mail on Sunday last week, Ms Reeves simply evaded the question of Ms Rayner's plans. When a successful businessman such as Sir James Dyson accuses you of being 'vindictive' and of 'waging a war on aspiration', you really ought to listen. It is on the success of such businessmen that any future economic growth must be based. Without that growth, where are the taxes to come from to pay for the advanced welfare state in which we live? So we must applaud the open letter to British businessmen sent out by Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith, in which he does what Sir Keir and Ms Reeves will not do, and makes it plain just how dangerous Ms Rayner's plans are. He warns those business chiefs that they are being sleepwalked into disaster, that the Rayner Bill will fundamentally change the balance of power in workplaces, at huge cost. Coming after the idiocy of the National Insurance increase, this a grave threat to the jobs of trade union members, as well as to the economy as a whole. We can only hope that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor will listen and act, for the nation's sake as well as their own.

Kneecap Glastonbury slot ‘not appropriate', says Starmer
Kneecap Glastonbury slot ‘not appropriate', says Starmer

Powys County Times

time2 hours ago

  • Powys County Times

Kneecap Glastonbury slot ‘not appropriate', says Starmer

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said he does not think Kneecap's planned Glastonbury Festival performance is 'appropriate'. He made the comments after Kneecap member Liam Og O hAnnaidh appeared in court on Wednesday, after being charged for allegedly displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist organisation Hezbollah while saying 'up Hamas, up Hezbollah' at a gig in November last year. In an interview with The Sun, Sir Keir was asked if he thought the trio should perform at Glastonbury, to which he replied: 'No, I don't, and I think we need to come down really clearly on this. 'This is about the threats that shouldn't be made, I won't say too much because there's a court case on, but I don't think that's appropriate.' It comes after Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said she thought the BBC 'should not be showing' Kneecap's performance at the festival next week. Mrs Badenoch said in the X post, which was accompanied by an article from The Times that claimed the BBC had not banned the group: 'The BBC should not be showing Kneecap propaganda. 'One Kneecap band member is currently on bail, charged under the Terrorism Act. 'As a publicly funded platform, the BBC should not be rewarding extremism.' The Tory Leader of the Opposition has previously called for the group to be banned from Glastonbury, and last year Kneecap won a discrimination case against the UK Government in Belfast High Court after she tried to refuse them a £14,250 funding award when she was a minister. Kneecap took aim at Mrs Badenoch in their latest single, The Recap, released just before their headline set at London's Wide Awake festival in May, with the song mocking the politician's attempts to block their arts funding and the Conservative Party's election loss. The BBC should not be showing Kneecap propaganda. One Kneecap band member is currently on bail, charged under the Terrorism Act. As a publicly funded platform the BBC should not be rewarding extremism. — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) June 21, 2025 On Wednesday, O hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was cheered by hundreds of supporters as he arrived with bandmates Naoise O Caireallain and JJ O Dochartaigh at Westminster Magistrates' Court in 'Free Mo Chara' T-shirts. During the proceedings, a prosecutor told the court the 27-year-old is 'well within his rights' to voice his opinions on Israel and Palestine, but the alleged incident at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, is a 'wholly different thing'. O hAnnaidh was released on unconditional bail until his next hearing at the same court on August 20. Following the hearing, the rapper said: 'For anybody going to Glastonbury, you can see us there at 4pm on the Saturday. 'If you can't be there we'll be on the BBC, if anybody watches the BBC. We'll be at Wembley in September. 'But most importantly: free, free Palestine.' The charge came following a counter-terrorism police investigation after the historical gig footage came to light, which also allegedly shows the group calling for the deaths of MPs. In April, Kneecap apologised to the families of murdered MPs but said footage of the incident had been 'exploited and weaponised'. In an initial post in response to the charge, Kneecap said: '14,000 babies are about to die of starvation in Gaza, with food sent by the world sitting on the other side of a wall, and once again the British establishment is focused on us. 'We deny this 'offence' and will vehemently defend ourselves, this is political policing, this is a carnival of distraction. 'We are not the story, genocide is, as they profit from genocide, they use an 'anti-terror law' against us for displaying a flag thrown on stage. A charge not serious enough to even warrant their crown court, instead a court that doesn't have a jury. What's the objective? 'To restrict our ability to travel. To prevent us speaking to young people across the world. To silence voices of compassion. To prosecute artists who dare speak out. 'Instead of defending innocent people, or the principles of international law they claim to uphold, the powerful in Britain have abetted slaughter and famine in Gaza, just as they did in Ireland for centuries. Then, like now, they claim justification. 'The IDF units they arm and fly spy plane missions for are the real terrorists, the whole world can see it.' Formed in 2017, the group are known for their provocative lyrics in both Irish and English and their merchandise. Their best-known tracks include Get Your Brits Out, Better Way To Live, featuring Grian Chatten from Fontaines DC, and 3Cag. A BBC spokesperson said: 'As the broadcast partner, the BBC will be bringing audiences extensive music coverage from Glastonbury, with artists booked by the festival organisers. 'Whilst the BBC doesn't ban artists, our plans will ensure that our programming will meet our editorial guidelines. Decisions about our output will be made in the lead-up to the festival.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store