Summary
Here’s a roundup of today’s politics developments, as a row has continued about a series of advert published by the Labour party attacking Rishi Sunak.
A Labour shadow cabinet member, Lucy Powell, refused to endorse a social media advert attacking Sunak over sexual offenders who were allowed to walk free despite being guilty.
Lucy Powell said it was the “cut and thrust nature of politics”.
The period referred to includes the 2010-2015 parliament, when Sunak was a hedge fund manager and not an MP.
A second advert was released, again critical of Sunak for people not going to prison for being found guilty of “possession of a firearm with intent to harm”.
As one legal expert has pointed out – there is no such offence.
A teaching union has said the government is treating teachers with contempt if they continue to refuse to negotiate further over pay.
The firm auditing the Scottish National party’s finances has quit, the news coming days after former chief executive was arrested and released as part of an investigation into usage of party funds.
An event in Northern Ireland has marked 25 years since the Good Friday agreement.
Police have warned of an increased terror threat level on Easter Monday, which will be a quarter of a century to the day since the historic accord.
Emily Thornberry has done an interview with the New Statesman and has said the situation between the Labour party and its former leader Jeremy Corbyn is “very sad”.
That’s all from me today on this Good Friday. Thanks for following along. I’ll be back on Monday for more coverage. Have a good weekend.
Updated
A critical view from one member of the legal profession, as the best-selling author and anonymous Twitter account The Secret Barrister has pointed out that Labour’s claim on its latest advert is not a legal offence.
In a tweet they said that while part of the advert was indisputable, in regards to the offence mentioned: “Well done you’ve managed to bungle it again you tedious fools, there’s not even an offence of ‘possession of a firearm with intent to harm’.”
1st para - Indisputable fact
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) April 7, 2023
2nd para - Indisputable fact
3rd para - Meaningless bluster, but fine
Image and text - Well done you’ve managed to bungle it again you tedious fools, there’s not even an offence of “possession of a firearm with intent to harm” https://t.co/crAkKbeYY3
Updated
