Palestine Action’s ban under terrorism legislation has been ruled unlawful by the High Court in a humiliating blow for the government but the ban will remain in place until a further order by the courts.

Huda Ammori, co-founder of the group, took the Home Office to court over the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws, with her lawyers saying that the move was unprecedented.

Since the proscription last July, thousands of people have been arrested for holding up placards in support of Palestine Action. Hundreds of trials are expected throughout this year and into the next for those accused of taking part in protests, but they face being upended by the High Court’s ruling.

Justice Victoria Sharp told the High Court on Friday that the proscription of Palestine Action “did result in a very significant interference with the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of assembly”.

open image in gallery

She added that “the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate”, saying only a very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to terrorism. She said that the group’s acts “had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”

Dame Victoria Sharp, Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn have decided that the terror ban will remain in force until further legal hearings can take place.

Lawyers for Ms Ammori and the Home Office have till the 20 February to provide further submissions to the court ahead of more hearings that will decide whether the ban should be lifted.

In their judgement, Dame Victoria Sharp, Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn accepted that the terror ban had meant people were being forced to “self-censor” themselves and change their behaviour out of fear of falling foul of the law. They accepted that journalists, academics, and campaigning and civil liberties organisations could be impacted by the wide-ranging affects of the proscription.

While they described Palestine Action as a group that “promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality”, the judges said that criminal law is sufficient to prosecute these acts.

The Independent revealed yesterday that the Home Office has spent £700,000 in legal fees so far fighting Ms Ammori’s case.

Then-home secretary Yvette Cooper took the decision to ban the group under terror laws after activists broke into an RAF base and damaged two military aircraft. Human rights groups have condemned the move as a “grave abuse of state power” and UN high commissioner Volker Turk called the ban “disproportionate and unnecessary”.

open image in gallery

During the court case, Ms Ammori’s lawyers insisted that Palestine Action does not advocate for violence, saying any examples of serious violence against property or person “are not the norm, they are rare”.

Ms Ammori responded to the news on Friday saying that the ruling was a “monumental victory for both our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people”.

She added: “It would be profoundly unjust for the government to try to delay or stop the High Court’s proposed order quashing this ban while the futures of these thousands of people hang in the balance, many of whom are elderly or disabled and facing up to 14 years’ imprisonment for this entirely peaceful protest.”

open image in gallery

Home secretary Shabana Mahmood said she was “disappointed” by the High Court’s ruling, adding: “I intend to fight this judgement in the Court of Appeal”.

As news came through of the judges’ decision on Friday morning, about a hundred people gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice building in central London started cheering and chanting “Free Palestine”.

Akiko Hart, director of human rights organisation Liberty, said they welcomed the court’s finding but said “the practical effect will depend on the government’s appeal”.

She added: “This case has exposed a deeper problem where the line between direct action and terrorism has become dangerously blurred, and this will continue to have a chilling effect on protest and free speech”.

Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, said that the verdict was a “shot in the arm for British democracy”.

Areeba Hamid, a director at Greenpeace UK, said the government’s use of terror laws had been “the stuff of dystopian novels”. She added: “The Crown Prosecution Service should immediately drop the terror charges against the peaceful protesters who opposed this ban”.

This is a breaking story. More to follow..

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is appearing to take steps to name his daughter as his official successor.

South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) said it believes Kim Ju Ae, who is thought to be around 13 years old, is already providing input on policy matters, suggesting she may be being touted as a future leader.

The teenager has been increasingly visible over the last year, attending missile launches alongside her father and, in 2025, at China’s “Victory Day” parade, which marked her international debut.

The NIS said it will now look to see whether she attends the upcoming Workers’ Party Congress and how she is presented at the party’s biggest political conference, including whether she receives an official title.

“In the past, the NIS described Ju Ae as being ‘in study as successor’ but today the expression used was that she ‘was in the stage of being internally appointed successor’,” South Korean lawmaker Lee Seong-kweun told reporters following a closed-door briefing on 12 February.

If she does become leader, it would extend the family dynasty to a fourth generation.

Who is Kim Ju Ae?

Apart from her age and name, not much else is known about Kim Ju Ae, and even those details are unconfirmed.

While North Korean state media has never published her name, it does refer to her as Kim Jong Un’s “most beloved” or “respected” child.

South Korean media has previously speculated that she is the leader’s second of three children, and that the first child is a son. However, analysts have questioned the credibility of the reports.

North Korea, which is one of the world’s most secretive nations, has not confirmed whether Ju Ae has any siblings.

It is thought she is the child whom US basketball star Dennis Rodman called Mr Kim’s baby daughter after his trip to the capital Pyongyang in 2013.

Surprise reveal

Ju Ae made her first public appearance in November 2022, when she watched a long-range missile test launch with her father.

It came as a huge surprise to foreign experts as neither Kim Jong Un nor his father Kim Jong Il were mentioned in North Korean state media before they became adults.

Following her sixth public appearance in 2023, a North Korea analyst told Sky News there was a “theme” emerging.

Jean H Lee, who set up the Associated Press news agency’s first bureau in North Korea, said the events she has been attending tend to involve “weapons and missiles”.

She said the most striking images of Ju Ae were from when she attended a military banquet marking the 75th anniversary of the country’s army in February 2023.

“When you look at these pictures she’s front and centre. She is there. It’s like this tableau of father, mother, daughter. And I think what people noticed, of course, first and foremost was, ‘oh my gosh, he’s presenting his daughter’. What does that mean?”, she told the Sky News Daily podcast.

Her carefully crafted appearances have since included missile tests, military parades, and the launch of a naval destroyer in April 2024.

She also accompanied her father to the official opening of the Wonsan holiday resort on the country’s east coast, a concert, and a visit to the Russian culture minister, Olga Lyubimova.

How likely is she to succeed her father?

Mr Kim likely believes his daughter has the capacity and resolve to succeed him as leader, according to an analyst at the private Sejong Institute in South Korea.

“By accompanying her father on major events, it’s like she’s learning kingship and building a human network at a tender age,” Cheong Seong-Chang said.

However, South Korea’s intelligence service has a patchy record when it comes to confirming developments in its neighbouring country.

Dr Edward Howell, a lecturer in international relations at the University of Oxford, added that it needs to be remembered Mr Kim is only 43.

He said in the event of Mr Kim’s death in the immediate future, power would likely go to the leader’s sister Kim Yo Jong.

North Korean state media has never officially confirmed or commented on the succession plan.

Read more:
Who is Kim Jong Un’s sister Kim Yo Jong?

Does gender matter?

In the past, the NIS and other South Korean government officials have cited North Korea’s male-dominated power structure. Since its foundation in 1948, North Korea has been ruled by successive male members of the Kim family.

Dr Howell said crucial for the survival of the Kim dynasty is the “Baekdu bloodline” which ensures that any leader is a Kim, regardless of gender.

“Whatever pairs of chromosomes you might have, that doesn’t play a big roll compared to being a Kim, a member of the bloodline.”

Analyst Jean H Lee, told Sky’s Daily podcast in 2023 that Ju Ae’s appearances are a “cultivation of the Kim family, monarchy and dynasty”.

She said: “I’m sure there is in some part a strategy of trying to portray themselves, kind of like the Royal Family in the United Kingdom.”

The Met Office has forecast a mix of rain, sleet, and possibly snow over the weekend

The Met Office forecast says that show is ‘possible’ in the East of England this weekend. Temperatures will remain low in Cambridgeshire, with lows of 2C forecast.

The Met Office forecast for Saturday (February 14) said: “A cold and frosty start. Partly cloudy, but largely dry and bright. Hazy sunshine into the afternoon. Winds strengthening overnight, becoming cloudy with rain, sleet and some snow possible.”

The maximum temperatures expected for the East of England is reportedly 5C. The outlook for Sunday to Tuesday shows “cloudy with rain, sleet or snow and strong winds early Sunday” with “a band of rain following later.”

Weather site, WX Charts, have suggested that some parts of Cambridgeshire could see snow in the early morning of Sunday, but clearing later on. Areas affected include Cambridge and Ely.

BBC Weather does not indicate any snow on Saturday but states “any overnight snow will soon clear” on Sunday morning. This means that any snow is not expected to settle.

Drivers have been told to avoid the area

The A10 has been closed for more than 12 hours after a ‘serious’ crash in the area. The incident happened between the edge of Ely and Grange Lane in Littleport.

Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service were called to the A10 at 6:43pm on Thursday (February 12). Crews from Ely, Soham, and Chatteris attended.

The road has been closed from the roundabout at Comice Way to Littleport. Drivers have been told to avoid the area.

Cambridgeshire Police has said it will release more information about the incident on Friday (February 13).

A spokesperson for Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service said: “We were called at 6.43pm last night (Thursday 12) to a road traffic collision on the A10 between Littleport and Ely. Crews from Ely, Soham and Chatteris attended.

“Firefighters worked alongside police to make the area safe before returning to their stations.”

You can follow our live blog for the latest updates.

To get more breaking news and top stories delivered directly to your phone, join our new WhatsApp community. Click this link to receive your daily dose of CambridgeshireLive content.

We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.

The search operation involved Larne and Portmuck Coastguard rescue teams, RNLI lifeboats from Larne and Donaghadee, and an HM Coastguard rescue helicopter

A search operation has been stood down after reports of a man overboard from a passenger ferry.

HM Coastguard said crews responded to the incident on the P&O Ferries Stranraer to Larne service at 1.21pm on Thursday.

It said its response had been stood down after “extensive and thorough searches” with “nothing found at this time”.

The search had not begun again on Friday morning.

In a statement, P&O Ferries said: “HM Coastguard has now suspended their search and rescue operation.

“We are continuing to support the authorities with their inquiries.”

The search operation involved Larne and Portmuck Coastguard rescue teams, RNLI lifeboats from Larne and Donaghadee, and an HM Coastguard rescue helicopter.

Crews on other vessels in the area also assisted, the RNLI said.

The ferry company describes the ship as “one of the fastest ferries on the Irish Sea”.

The twin deck vessel operates six daily crossings from Scotland to Larne, which take about two hours and can carry up to 410 passengers, 375 cars and/or 116 commercial vehicles.

For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our daily newsletter here

Just over 18 months ago, Keir Starmer said the “fight for trust is the battle that defines our age”. Now a scandal surrounding his former ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, could end his political career, precisely because of the damage it could cause to public trust.

At the heart of the story are documents released by the US government showing that Mandelson continued to be friends with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction for sex offences. The prime minister insists Mandelson lied about the depth of his friendship with Epstein, though he has acknowledged he knew that it continued after Epstein’s conviction.

Some reporting suggests that there was a view in Downing Street that the “risk” of appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US – his past political career, his then publicly known relationship with Epstein – was less important than the benefit to the national interest. As Peter Kyle, secretary of state for business and trade, put it in September (before further files were released): “Britain needed someone with outstanding and singular talents”.

This implies a specific view of how politicians should behave. When the national interest is at stake, actions are acceptable that would otherwise be morally questionable. Some politicians seem to think political effectiveness can outweigh standards. Philosophers sometimes agree that politics makes “dirty hands” unavoidable. Machiavelli thought politicians should learn not to be good. To achieve important political ends, it can be necessary to act badly.

It’s striking that Downing Street might have thought that this extended to Mandelson’s alleged relationship with Epstein – and that even this could be traded off against improving the UK’s relationship with the White House.

Similar views appear to have been taken when it came to Boris Johnson. He was a man of whom high standards were not expected in office, but who could effectively deliver important political outcomes (an electoral victory, Brexit).

But a large majority the public believes standards should take priority over delivery in politics – according to research from UCL’s Constitution Unit.

This suggests the public and those in politics lack a common understanding of how the latter should behave. And that poses a problem for rebuilding trust. Philosophical perspectives suggest a common understanding of this kind is central if we are to be able to trust well.

What is trust?

When we talk about trust in politics, we often pass over what trust is. And it is frustratingly difficult to set out a clear definition. Researchers significantly disagree about how to conceptualise trust.

Philosophical views vary. Trust may be a demand to be ethically considered by others or to have a deep-rooted psychological need for attachment to others satisfied. It could be to rely on others acting out of goodwill towards you or your desire to do something overlapping with someone’s desire to do something else.

By failing to define what trust is when we aim to restore it, we may act counterproductively or misdiagnose the problems we face.

A growing family of views in philosophy share a central insight. Trust requires more than just expectations about how a person will behave – it also relates to expectations about how a person ought to behave. Philosophers call these “normative expectations”.

I’m not trusting my partner to make dinner tonight simply because I think that he will. That’s just to rely on him. I trust him only if I think that there is a reason he ought to cook dinner tonight, and I think that he will act in line with this reason. Perhaps, I know he values fairness and that I cooked last night. Maybe he said he’d cook yesterday, and I know that I can take him at his word.

Philosophers debate exactly what these expectations are. Some think trust is concerned with commitments or obligations we should act in line with. Others think it’s that we expect a responsiveness to others counting on us.

All these views suggest a specific environment is required to allow us to trust well. We need some shared understanding of what we should do. If my partner recognises no reasons why he ought to cook me dinner tonight, he most likely won’t. If I come to trust him to do so and he doesn’t, then my normative expectation of him is likely to be wrong. My trust will be broken.

If that discrepancy about how we each think that we should behave grows, trust will be broken more often.

Misaligned politics

If we think about how politicians ought to behave, we can see how there might be a problem of trust.

The same Constitution Unit research shows that the public value standards like honesty and accountability. They think those in public life should behave in line with high standards.

Some politicians look at the same situation and see other reasons that suggest they ought to act differently. Where a relationship essential to Britain’s national security is at stake – or some other element of the national interest – then some politicians think they ought to overlook honesty and integrity.

This mismatch will lead to public trust being repeatedly broken.

Much discussion among politicians focuses on “delivery” as central to establishing trust. Actions will certainly matter. But more work should be done to ensure alignment between what the public expects of politicians and what they actually do. In a volatile world, a public conversation is needed on when – if ever – national need can outweigh these standards. Culture change in government and Downing Street will matter.

This is vital. Falling public trust in politics and distrust in politicians have been linked to voters switching off from politics and turning to protests or populist parties.

We need to align our expectations for high standards in public life. Then we need to require them of everyone, however useful they may be.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

MUNICH (AP) — An annual gathering of top international security figures that last year set the tone for a growing rift between the United States and Europe opens Friday, bringing together many top European officials with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others.

The Munich Security Conference opens with a speech by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, one of 15 heads of state or government from European Union countries whom organizers expect to attend.

The many other expected guests at the conference that runs until Sunday include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. In keeping with the conference’s tradition, there will also be a large delegation of members of the U.S. Congress.

“Trans-Atlantic relations have been the backbone of this conference since it was founded in 1963 … and trans-Atlantic relations are currently in a significant crisis of confidence and credibility,” conference chairman Wolfgang Ischinger told reporters earlier this week. “So it is particularly welcome that the American side has such great interest in Munich.”

At last year’s conference, held a few weeks into U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term, Vice President JD Vance stunned European leaders by lecturing them about the state of democracy on the continent.

A series of Trump statements and moves targeting allies followed in the months after that — including, last month, his later-abandoned threat to impose new tariffs on several European countries in a bid to secure U.S. control of Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark.

With Rubio heading the U.S. delegation this year, European leaders can hope for a less contentious approach more focused on traditional global security concerns, though a philosophically similar one. Rubio will face a heavy lift if he wants to calm the waters, however.

“In the end it’s about trust: do we trust each other as partners and can this lack of trust be repaired?” said Claudia Major, a senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. “Particularly Greenland has been a fundamental change for Europeans. That one NATO ally threatens another NATO ally has deeply affected European trust in the trans-Atlantic relationship.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has bragged about building a political war chest exceeding $1.5 billion — a staggering sum that he can wield at his whim to shape November’s midterms and the 2028 race to succeed him.

Trump’s stockpile — which dwarfs any amounts raised by his predecessors in their second terms — is not easy to precisely calculate given that much of it is being collected by groups that aren’t required to file regular financial disclosures.

Current and former staffers, as well as others in Trump’s orbit, wouldn’t say exactly where his political bank account stands six months after the president announced on social media that he’d raised, just since Election Day 2024, “in various forms and political entities, in excess of 1.5 Billion Dollars.”

But what is not in question is that it represents a mountain of cash that could reshape Republican politics for years to come — if he chooses. He’s been reluctant to spend money on other people’s races in the past, and he’s even found ways to funnel some cash to his own businesses.

The $1.5 billion Trump claimed is roughly equal to what he and outside groups spent on his successful 2024 reelection bid, according to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan group that tracks political spending.

By comparison, Democratic President Joe Biden’s various super PACs, political groups and nonprofits, as well as the Democratic National Committee, raised roughly $97 million during his first year in office, according to public disclosures. That’s only about 7% of Trump’s total, and Biden was gearing up for a reelection run Trump isn’t allowed to make.

“I think a lot of people are asking, ‘What is it all for?’” said Saurav Ghosh, federal campaign finance reform director at the Washington nonprofit Campaign Legal Center.

It’s enough to shape the midterms and beyond

People close to Trump say the main benefit of all that cash is unmatched influence heading into November. They insist Trump is eager to help Republicans so his political agenda isn’t stymied, like when Democratic victories derailed his first-term agenda after 2018’s midterms. His stockpile has helped the GOP build a sizable cash advantage over Democrats ahead of November, at least so far.

“One of the main reasons a lame-duck president might want to amass this much money is to maintain political relevance,” said Daniel Weiner, a former Federal Election Commission attorney and current director of the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program. “Certainly he’s been far more aggressive about this than any of his predecessors.”

Trump on Wednesday vowed political consequences for Republicans opposing his tariff policies, and could spend big to hurt them in GOP primaries. Chief among his targets is Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who opposed Trump’s tax and spend package and defied the White House in helping force the release of federal files on Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump has also endorsed a primary opponent of Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., after he voted to convict Trump during his 2021 impeachment trial over the mob attack on the U.S. Capitol. Still, the extent to which Trump will open his pocketbook in congressional races remains to be seen.

“What I’m a little surprised about is that Trump has not leveraged — at least overtly — the money he controls going into that election on his congressional agenda,” said Jason Roe, a Republican strategist in Michigan.

Indeed, Trump has a history of not spending big on races where he isn’t running. In 2018, Trump’s America First Action super PAC spent less than $30 million — a pittance given that super PACs spent about $820 million that cycle, according to OpenSecrets.

He doesn’t always follow through on his threats, either. Despite pledging to travel to Alaska to help defeat Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2022, a Trump-affiliated PAC instead gave $1.5 million to a group opposing her. Murkowski was reelected anyway.

The president also has made no major moves so far to oppose state lawmakers in Indiana who refused to back new congressional maps championed by the White House.

Trump’s campaign bank account also would let him play a decisive role in the next presidential race. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are the early favorites, with Trump suggesting pairing them on a GOP ticket he says would be formidable.

‘A slush fund’

Much of Trump’s political cash comes from the MAGA Inc. super PAC, which raised $100-plus million in the last six months of 2025 and entered this year with more than $300 million. The Republican National Committee reported raising $172 million last year.

There’s also a constellation of pro-Trump nonprofits, including Securing American Greatness, which are only required to release limited information about their finances. Donations to one Trump entity can be moved through the various nonprofits and super PACs, making it difficult to track what’s spent where.

“Because there are virtually no restrictions on what super PAC money can be used for, it essentially can be operated as a slush fund at the disposal of whoever controls it,” Weiner said.

There are many ways Trump has used political funds to enrich his businesses in the past, including billing his campaign for the use of his own airplane. He could also stage political events at his properties in Florida or New Jersey, or his golf club outside Washington.

At least $26 million has been spent by conservative groups and Republican committees at Trump properties since 2015 — and the actual figure is likely higher since some groups don’t have to offer detailed spending figures.

Though federal rules govern the ways political donations can be spent, they can also be skirted. In 2020, Trump’s campaign paid tens of millions of dollars to limited liability companies controlled by aides, a move that satisfied federal disclosure rules, but masked the ultimate recipient of the money. In 2024, his political operation clawed back millions of dollars in donations it made to a super PAC supporting Trump’s run and used the money to instead pay legal bills that mounted after his indictments in four federal criminal cases while also facing civil trials.

“As with so many things Donald Trump, he is sometimes pushing the envelope on what’s permitted, sometimes blowing right through what are pretty clear legal limits,” said Ghosh, of the Campaign Legal Center.

Who’s helping Trump’s campaign bank account grow?

Trump’s fundraising efforts are tireless. The day after his 2024 election win, he ordered staff to begin fundraising anew, and he’s since attended frequent fundraisers. His allies send out emails seeking donations constantly, often multiple times daily.

“I’m sitting here. Alone. In the war room. Fighting for you,” Trump wrote in one such message last month. In another, a Trump-affiliated group tried to spur on donors to give by asking, “Does ICE need to come and track you down?”

During his first presidential run, Trump relied heavily on small donations. But much of his operation now relies on large checks from uber-wealthy donors and well-connected businesses.

Greg Brockman, co-founder of OpenAI, and his wife, Anna, donated $25 million to MAGA Inc. last year, as Trump talked constantly about helping ensure U.S. companies dominate the artificial intelligence field globally.

Other big donations came from crypto interests that have had federal investigations dropped and big tobacco companies hoping to ease regulations.

The parents of Howard Brodie, Trump’s ambassador to Finland, donated $500,000 to MAGA Inc., while Isabela Herrera gave $3.5 million before her father, Venezuelan banker Julio Herrera Velutini, was pardoned by Trump on bribery charges.

“Each of these wealthy individuals. corporations, they are ponying up for a purpose,” Ghosh said. “What we’re seeing with Trump’s administration is just an unprecedented level of pay-to-play.”