A 29-year-old man has been charged after climbing Big Ben, prompting concerns about security at historical sites.
A 29-year-old man has been charged following an incident in which he scaled Big Ben’s Elizabeth Tower at the Palace of Westminster in central London. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that Daniel Day, residing on Palmerston Road in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, has been charged with intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance and trespassing on a protected site.
The incident occurred early on Saturday morning, around 7.20am, when Day climbed the iconic clock tower barefoot. He remained on the structure for the duration of the day and reportedly descended just after midnight on Sunday. The significance of the protest, including any messages conveyed by the individual, has not been detailed in reports.
Upon his descent, Day was taken into police custody and has since been remanded. He is expected to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday. The event drew public attention, highlighting concerns about security at historical landmarks within the city.
The situation continues to unfold as further details emerge regarding the motives behind the protest and its potential implications.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShZCPLihMck – This YouTube video reports on the incident of a man climbing Big Ben’s Elizabeth Tower, highlighting the response of emergency services and the eventual arrest of the individual. It corroborates the details of the event, including the timing and the involvement of a protester.
- https://www.euronews.com/2025/03/08/pro-palestinian-protester-climbs-onto-the-uk-parliaments-tower – This article from Euronews provides additional context about the incident, mentioning a pro-Palestinian protester climbing the tower, which aligns with reports of a protest-related motive. However, it does not specifically mention Daniel Day or the charges against him.
- https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/article-xi-miscellaneous – This guide does not directly relate to the Big Ben incident but provides general information on legal procedures and evidence handling, which could be relevant in understanding the legal context of the charges against Daniel Day.
- https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tmlaw.pdf – This document from the USPTO deals with trademark rules and statutes and does not directly relate to the incident at Big Ben. It is not relevant to the article’s claims.
- https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Report-of-the-Impeachment-Inquiry-of-Joseph-R.-Biden-Jr.-President-of-the-United-States.pdf – This report is unrelated to the Big Ben incident and focuses on an impeachment inquiry of President Biden. It does not support any claims in the article.
- https://www.noahwire.com – This URL is mentioned as the source of the article but does not provide additional information beyond what is already stated. It is not a specific news article or report about the incident.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mwxxn71w0o – Please view link – unable to able to access data
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative appears to be recent, as it mentions an ongoing situation with expected court proceedings. However, without a specific date in the narrative, it’s difficult to pinpoint its exact freshness.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
There are no direct quotes in the narrative, which means there is no need to verify any quotes.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from the BBC, a well-known and reputable news organisation.
Plausability check
Score:
9
Notes:
The claims are plausible as they involve a specific incident with details about the location and legal consequences. However, the motives behind the protest are not detailed, which might suggest that the narrative is still unfolding.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is likely recent and originates from a reliable source. The lack of quotes and the plausible nature of the incident support its credibility. However, some details, such as the motives behind the protest, are not yet fully disclosed.
