Category: Analysis

  • Bosses of oil and gas companies, and a privatised water utility company, have been targeted with attempted citizen’s arrests by a new direct action group hoping to achieve environmental justice.

    Actions by the Citizen’s Arrest Network (CAN) started appearing on social media feeds in March and April 2025, showing smartly dressed members of the group approaching senior executives of companies and attempting to perform citizen’s arrests.

    The Citizen’s Arrest Network: a new direct action group fighting the CEOs of big polluters

    The activists said they had dossiers which they say provide evidence of crimes ranging from public nuisance to mismanagement of customer funds.

    As of 16 April 2025, CAN has targeted executives including CEOs of fossil fuel companies BP, Shell, Perenco, EnQuest, Harbour Energy, and Serica. Privatised water firm Thames Water was also singled out.

    CAN claims it has been successful in placing the company representatives under citizen’s arrest, but it appears that it has not physically held the individuals, and no police action appears to have taken place.

    The companies did not provide comment when approached by the Canary.

    CAN: a response to crackdown on mainstream protests

    The Canary spoke with Citizen’s Arrest Network spokesperson Gail Lynch, who said CAN started because there was no response to the climate crisis “by anyone with any true power” and “things were only getting worse” despite petitions, letters, marches, and protests.

    Lynch said:

    This is mirrored in other industries where profit comes first and the impacts are ignored.

    She continued:

    It feels like this relentless, almost desperate drive to maximise financial return at all costs is well and truly out of control.

    Lynch said protests against environmentally damaging activities:

    get panned in the media and activists are increasingly penalised for their attempts to raise awareness.

    More than a dozen activists from Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil have been jailed for their parts in direct action protests in recent years. The custodial sentences were handed out following a crackdown on environmental activism by the Conservative government. The Labour government appears content to carry on with the authoritarian treatment of protesters.

    Therefore, Lynch said that:

    It was time for something different, and so almost two years ago, the idea was borne and a huge amount of research began. How could we approach the individuals behind the logos and request that they cease and desist The executives at the helm of these organisations are the ones taking the decisions, and therefore need to be held to account.

    Killing of health insurance exec threw focus on corporate leaders

    In December 2024, United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was killed in New York City, in an attack apparently motivated by a hatred of the conduct of private health insurance companies and their denial of care to Americans.

    The killing of Thompson sent jitters around corporate executives that they might personally be targeted because of public perceptions of the conduct of their companies.

    In the aftermath of the attack, mainstream media outlets expressed shock at the lack of sympathy expressed by the public towards the CEO’s family, and the admiration some showed towards suspect Luigi Mangione.

    In a March 2025 statement on its website, CAN said it handed “draft indictment papers” against executives at BP and Shell to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) because the group:

    believes that all executive staff at both oil majors have been instructed to stay away from head offices.

    The statement said CAN believed the “stay away” notice has been issued “in response to citizen’s arrests” carried out by the group.

    How legitimate are citizen’s arrests?

    The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says that:

    A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant … anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence

    And it states that:

    anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

    Lynch said:

    Whilst we might imagine a stand up citizen tearing after and rugby tackling a bank robber to the ground, that’s not how it reads in law.

    University of Reading’s Reading Centre for Climate and Justice director professor Chris Hilson told the Canary there are “technical risks” to performing citizen’s arrests.

    The risks include the possibility of the citizen’s arrest itself being a criminal offence or being sued in a civil court for assault or false imprisonment, he said.

    Why is CAN using citizen’s arrests in particular?

    Lynch said CAN is:

    simply motivated by the need for these individuals to stop, think twice about the harm their work causes and recognise that they have the power to make the change that is needed.

    She continued that executives who don’t stop and change their ways:

    need to be arrested, charged and prosecuted on grounds of Public Nuisance for the serious harm they inflict by virtue of their employment.

    She also said CAN:

    is not a protest, it’s a legal campaign operating within the bounds of the law.

    Lynch told the Canary that CAN wants the companies the group is targeting to:

    realise they can not hide anymore, we see them, and we know the individuals leading the charge towards irreparable damage to our planet’s health.

    Moreover, she expressed that:

    If people think twice about taking up such jobs in the future, that’s a win, but the best thing would be that they accept that their days are done and start in earnest a true shift to cheaper, cleaner energy for all.

    She also said she wants the campaign to pass “the pub test” and get the public talking about why CAN is carrying out its actions:

    We want local communities everywhere talking about why we did what we did, do what we do and agree that it’s an important way to shine a light on people behind the scenes taking harmful decisions and doing damaging business.

    CAN needs support for its legal endeavours

    She also made a plea for funding to support the legal side of CAN’s work:

    We need funds to support our legal endeavours and to bring justice to bear on people who are breaking the law.

    Lynch said that:

    Lawyers are committed and generous with their time but they need to be paid and the research takes time to uncover and be carefully checked. In short we need resource and money to help us hold the biggest culprits to account.

    CAN’s crowdfunder can be found here, or via its website.  CAN is on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, and Bluesky.

    Climate campaigning needed ‘more than ever’

    Hilson told the Canary that:

    In the end these arrests are more performative than real.

    However, the performativity of the act does not necessarily mean it is not effective. He explained:

    Throwing paint at works of art and stopping traffic no longer really work for the climate and environmental movement.

    Those types of protests have been criminalised, making them harder; but they are in any event viewed by many members of the public as ‘irresponsible’, which has put them off the message.

    Hilson added that he thought:

    climate and environmental messages need to be landing now more than ever.

    This new tactic of citizens’ arrests, in contrast, looks much more like ‘responsible’ citizenly behaviour.

    And the arrests squarely target those who are, in a very different sense, responsible for climate and environmental harm, and not members of the public.

    Those being arrested now become seen as the irresponsible ones.

    Featured image supplied

    By Tom Pashby

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Last week, 36 of the over 300 members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote an open letter criticising Israel’s crimes in Gaza. And the right-wing group has now turned its longstanding pro-Israel witch hunt against its own deputies as a result.

    Board of Deputies punishes criticism of Israel

    The letter’s signatories said they “cannot turn a blind eye or remain silent” over the “loss of life and livelihoods” in the occupied Palestinian territory. They added that “Israel’s soul is being ripped out and we… fear for the future of the Israel we love and have such close ties to”. The government of the apartheid state, they insisted, had opted to “break the ceasefire” rather than seeking a lasting peace deal. The BBC called the intervention “the first show of opposition to the Gaza war by some members of the board”.

    A statement from the Board of Deputies’ Executive on 22 April revealed the consequences these signatories would now face. It said that, after an “extraordinary meeting of the Executive Committee”, it could confirm that:

    all 36 signatories of the letter to the Financial Times are now subject to a complaints procedure in accordance with Appendix G to the Board of Deputies’ Constitution.

    It added:

    All members of the Executive eligible to vote, unanimously approved a motion temporarily suspending the Vice Chair of the International Division from that role and the Executive while they remain subject to the complaints procedure, having signed the Financial Times letter and given further media interviews on it.

    And it said “the complaints procedure is likely to take at least four weeks”.

    Tearing itself apart… much like Israel?

    The Board of Deputies played a key role in smearing former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Then, in the 2020 Labour Party leadership race, the Board of Deputies pushed candidates to back a highly controversial list of demands. Many Jewish left-wingers firmly opposed this divisive list – which, as a Jewish Canary editor at the time wrote, essentially asked Labour to “ignore socialist Jews” and “Jews who don’t support the actions of the Israeli state”.

    One might have hoped the Board of Deputies would change its gushingly pro-Israel tune slightly during a genocide. But it has stuck to its guns and continued to attack critics of Israel’s war crimes.

    Is it now going to tear its own organisation apart to shill for Israeli war criminals?

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Arms company General Dynamics has been education-washing its image by sneaking its way into a multitude of partnerships with UK schools. That is, it has flaunted itself as sponsors, with speakers at school career fairs and events, all as Israel uses bombs it supplied to commit educide and massacres children across Gaza.

    Now, outraged parents and carers are demanding that it get out of public education after discovering the arms corporation had recently visited a host of local schools and colleges.

    General Dynamics: arms company infiltrating UK schools

    Notably, the arms company has made visits to several schools this academic year. This included Rye College, Bexhill College, Robertsbridge Community College, and Hastings Academy, among others.

    Meanwhile, Claverham Community College proudly advertises General Dynamics as a link company to the school. It states how it has “good working relationships” and promotes work experience and careers with the company.

    The Careers East Sussex volunteer enterprise advisor for Claverham Joy Sheen, is an employee of the weapons manufacturer.

    One mum, who preferred not to be named, wrote to the head teacher after her child had been given a free, friendly-looking ‘squishy’ toy from the weapons company at a careers fair stand. She said:

    I couldn’t believe they were there! I just had no idea that they would allow an arms manufacturer to attend a careers fair. They are manufacturing the bombs that have been supplied to Israel and used in Gaza, killing thousands of children. It’s appalling.

    When questioned on the suitability of an arms company visiting schools and colleges, Careers East Sussex said in a statement:

    The East Sussex Careers Hub works with schools in the county to help them link young people with local employers to learn about careers opportunities in the area and make individual informed choices about their next steps.

    General Dynamics UK is a local employer which, like any company, has to meet the legal obligations set by national governments. The Careers Hub does not have any role in these matters.

    Schools Out for General ‘Genocide’ Dynamics campaign

    Now Hastings & District Palestine Solidarity Campaign (HDPSC) has launched the ‘Schools Out for General ‘Genocide’ Dynamics’ campaign to give parents, carers, and students the tools to demand their school stops hosting the arms company.

    HDPSC secretary Laurie Holden said:

    Right now ‘Genocide’ Dynamics is making billions in profit from selling technology, bombs and weapons used to kill thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza. Meanwhile, East Sussex schools and colleges are allowing it to ‘STEMwash’ its role in this genocide and pretend to local children that it is just a normal company.

    HDPSC has held 16 protests at the two General Dynamics sites in Hastings over the past 18 months. It has done so to draw attention to the presence in the town of the world’s fifth largest weapons manufacturer and its role in the genocidal assault on Gaza:

    General Dynamics protest

    Its new campaign reflects growing outrage across the UK at Britain’s role in continuing to arm Israel, which stands in the dock at the International Court of Justice for genocide, as well as the normalisation of war profiteers in schools:

    At its recent annual conference, Britain’s largest teaching union the National Education Union (NEU) voted to ‘disarm education’. The union, which represents half a million teachers, support staff, and leaders up and down the country, called for all schools to cut ties with arms companies and to end careers collaborations and partnerships.

    General Dynamics: ignoring the UN and the ICJ

    General Dynamics supplies the Israeli military with huge 2,000lb bombs. Israel has dropped these on displaced families in tents, as well as schools, hospitals, and thousands of homes. These bombs are so powerful they level buildings and destroy all life within a 365-metre radius.

    Israel’s assault has so far claimed over 60,000 Palestinian lives, including over 18,000 children. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UN experts, as well as genocide scholars have confirmed the continued forced starvation, deprivation of water, displacement, and killings as ‘genocidal acts’.

    The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, the UN has ordered countries and companies to stop all weapons and ammunition transfers to Israel: an order which General Dynamics and the UK have ignored.

    The website for General Dynamics’ local factories states that they make systems for fighter jets and ground vehicles but does not mention its larger role in manufacturing bombs and ordnance.

    Sanitising genocide and the arms trade in schools

    And some of their school visits appear to be taking place under the radar.

    HDPSC officer Olivia Cavanagh, a single parent, said:

    We have consistently campaigned for General ‘Genocide’ Dynamics to stop arming Israel. It is appalling to think they are getting into our schools without parents and carers knowing about it. Effectively, this company is targeting pupils to work with them in the future to produce weaponry that will obliterate other children, without informing them that this is what they actually do. Our children should not be exposed to a deeply immoral company arming a rogue state in defiance of international law.

    One grandmother only discovered the company had visited her grandson’s school after noticing he was drinking out of a branded General Dynamics water bottle. It was a freebie the company had given out to students during a careers fair. She said:

    I was disgusted. We don’t think it’s right to be offering jobs in schools here while they are causing such destruction in Palestine. They get away with it because most parents don’t know who they are or what they do.

    A post on Bexhill College’s Instagram account said they were ‘privileged’ that the weapons manufacturer ran an assembly for 60 STEM students in February. This boasted of the school’s “growing partnership” with the arms company.

    However, one student there said:

    They are selling themselves as an ordinary company, which is misleading because they make bombs. When I told other students what they did, they were quite shocked. The college is treating them like a normal company but there is nothing normal or respectable about profiting from genocide.

    Featured image and additional images supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The global markets have been rattled under the presidency of far-right menace Donald Trump, revealing the stark failure of the promises made at his inauguration and exposing the broader fragility of the Global North’s economic models.

    Contrary to the hopeful predictions of a triumphant surge in the stock markets following Trump’s rise to power, the S&P 500 has plummeted by a severe 14% since he took office. This marks the worst start to a presidential term in nearly a century, as reported by the IndexBox Market Intelligence Platform.

    The decline is historic in its scale; the 14% fall in just three months is the most significant drop since 1928 and even surpasses the 9% fall seen during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s third term amidst the cataclysmic conditions of 1941.

    Donald Trump: the worst start to a presidency in 100 years for the stock markets

    The Bespoke Investment Group’s analysis reveals that the initial spike in the market, sparked by Trump’s promises of tax cuts and rolling back regulations, has been swiftly undone by his erratic and unpredictable trade policies, which have sown uncertainty and chaos.

    While the US market has stumbled, the global picture is uneven yet telling. Across the board, 45 country ETFs have been surveyed, and only Taiwan’s market has fared worse, collapsing by 15.5%.

    Meanwhile, European markets have displayed a sharp contrast to this turmoil. Germany’s iShares MSCI ETF climbed by an encouraging 10.8%, and Italy’s stock market rose by 10.2% over the same timeframe, demonstrating a resilience that starkly contrasts with America’s faltering financial stage.

    This unfolding economic drama underscores the failures not only of Trump’s administration but also highlights the inherent weaknesses in the broader Global North’s economic systems.

    Promises of growth and prosperity under leadership primarily focused on corporate and elite interests have resulted instead in instability and fear, hitting ordinary people hard across the US and beyond.

    The Global North: falling apart

    The continued turbulence of US markets reflects deeper systemic issues, where short-term gains for a privileged few come at the grave expense of the majority’s economic security.

    As the shockwaves of Trump’s policies ripple globally, it is clear that the myth of the American economic miracle has taken a hard knock, urging a critical look at the directions championed by the Global North’s ruling elites.

    The sharp market decline acts as a stark headline for the failures many have long warned about—failures which not only devastate domestic livelihoods but also weaken economies worldwide.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Thousands of older people could be owed payouts from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after a new State Pension communication failure has come to light, the Daily Record is reporting.

    The damning findings follow a Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigation that exposed the DWP’s persistent failure to inform pensioners properly about crucial alterations to their State Pension, leaving many vulnerable individuals financially worse off and unnecessarily stressed.

    The DWP: yet ANOTHER state pension scandal

    The latest scandal centres on the case of 82-year-old Adrian Furnival, a British ex-pat living in Brittany, France.

    Adrian and his wife Sheila moved there in 1994, only to discover in 2018—in the annual DWP uprating letter—that, from 2020, he would no longer receive the Adult Dependency Increase (ADI). This payment is a vital DWP supplement designed for households where the main earner reaches State Pension age, but their partner has not yet done so.

    Losing ADI means Adrian faced a staggering cut of more than £3,000 per year, or over £250 a month, hitting his retirement income hard.

    Shockingly, DWP changes to ADI were announced back in 2010 to those living in the UK. However, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed that the DWP failed spectacularly to communicate these changes to Adrian and potentially thousands of others living abroad. In fact, the DWP should have informed him in April 2010 but did not do so until nearly a decade later, in 2018.

    The Ombudsman also condemned the DWP for dragging its feet when Adrian raised concerns, pointing out that the Department “failed to respond to his initial queries and complaints in a timely way.” The repercussions for Adrian were severe: not only did he lose out financially, but the lack of clear communication caused him significant distress during his retirement years.

    Poor communication – yet again

    Following the investigation, the PHSO demanded that the DWP apologise to Adrian and pay him £675 in compensation for the injustice he endured. Moreover, the Ombudsman has recommended that the DWP must offer “a comparable remedy to anyone who approaches the Department in a similar situation,” signalling that thousands more pensioners could be entitled to redress.

    Rebecca Hilsenrath, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, said:

    Poor communication from Government departments damages trust in public services. DWP has a history of failing to communicate pension policy changes clearly and failing to learn from its mistakes. In Adrian’s case, this meant that, without the right information, he lost the opportunity to prepare for his retirement. It also caused him unnecessary financial worry.

    Addressing the wider implications, Hilsenrath urged anyone who believes they have had similar experiences to contact the DWP immediately.

    In May 2019, just a year before ADI payments ended, the DWP informed Parliament that 10,817 people were still receiving ADI support overseas, a clear indication that this issue may impact a significant number of pensioners living abroad.

    The communication failures uncovered are a part of a long-standing series of blunders by the DWP.

    Perpetual chaos at the DWP – not least with the state pension

    Just last December, the Department accepted maladministration findings by the PHSO related to how it handled State Pension age changes for women born in the 1950s – the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign. Despite this, the DWP and Labour Party government declined to set up a compensation scheme for those affected, sparking further outrage among claimants left in financial limbo through no fault of their own.

    The PHSO has called on the government to ensure all pension-related communications are “always fair, clear, and consistent.” However, the repeated delays, errors, and dismissive attitude toward claimants raise serious questions about the Department’s commitment to delivering this promise.

    For pensioners, disabled people, and non-working people, these failings by the DWP add insult to injury.

    Many depend wholly on accurate and timely information about their entitlements to plan their lives and manage their limited income. The repeated neglect and poor communication only deepen the hardship faced by some of society’s most vulnerable people.

    The DWP remains under scrutiny as more cases come to light. Currently, those who believe they have been affected by similar State Pension or ADI issues are urged to contact the Pension Service, with full details available on gov.uk

    While the DWP has pledged to learn lessons and work with the Ombudsman on an action plan, the true measure of progress will be in whether claimants finally receive the respect, compensation, and clear information they deserve, ending these ongoing injustices once and for all.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Labour Party is now unequivocally the party of the private healthcare sector. Thanks to campaign group EveryDoctor, we now know its MPs in parliament have taken millions in donations from companies and individuals linked to the private interests carving up the NHS for profit. Tellingly, elected Labour politicians have racked up four times the number of donations of any of the

    And who happens to be front and centre of a sizeable chunk of these donations? None other than dodgy think tank that simultaneously orchestrated Jeremy Corbyn’s electoral downfall and propelled Keir Starmer, and many of the neoliberal Labour MPs now calling the shots in Cabinet into power: Labour Together.

    EveryDoctor: private healthcare donations

    EveryDoctor pored over donations that the current crop of elected MPs have accepted between 2023 and 2025. It found that MPs had bagged more than £2.7m in donations from individuals and companies directly or indirectly linked to the private healthcare sector.

    Previously, EveryDoctor had revealed to its supporters ahead of releasing the full research that:

    • More than half (£1.4m) of the donations came from companies with investments in the private healthcare sector such as asset management firms.
    • A tenth of the donation (£312,204) came from companies that already provide services to the NHS.
    • More than £230,000 was donated to MPs from directors of companies that have investments in the private healthcare sector.
    • Lobbyists with private healthcare clients donated more than £110,000 to MPs.

    Now, the campaign group has published a report delving into these donations in more detail. Alongside this, it has produced a searchable map. Each red pin denotes an MP with donations connected to the private healthcare sector.

    Where an MP isn’t marked on the map, EveryDoctor explains that it has yet to find said links. However, it tempers that this is a ‘living’ map; the campaign group is still exploring data for 2025 and will continue to update it as MPs add new entries to the register of donations.

    Labour: the party of the private healthcare sector

    Arguably the most staggering finding was the sheer scale of the Labour Party’s slice of the private healthcare donation pie.

    Notably, Labour MPs took more than £2m of those £2.7m donations. It accounted for four times the amount of every other political party combined.

    Of course, some of this could be owing to the fact the Labour Party has a significant number more MPs in parliament after the Tories tanked at the election. At 403 seats, the Labour Party occupies 62% of the House – or in other words – has 1.6 times the number of seats of every other party combined.

    However, that hardly accounts for having quadruple the number of donations from the private healthcare sector.

    Evidently, the private healthcare sector has considered Labour the right horse to back for advancing its interests, namely through NHS privatisation.

    What’s more, the situation gets more revealing when you consider the proportion of those donations going to the Labour government’s current cabinet members. Notably, fourteen ministers collectively raked in £869,625. That’s close to a third of the total donations that EveryDoctor identified linked to the private healthcare sector.

    Surprise surprise, Labour Together has its fingerprints all over it

    So, who’s responsible for a significant proportion of these donations? That would be think tank Labour Together, that gave Labour candidates more than £1.4m ahead of the election. It’s the infamous brainchild of prime minister Keir Starmer’s now chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

    This isn’t the first time in recent months that the think tank has reared its ugly head. In March, the Canary uncovered the plethora of connections between the think tank and MPs pushing for the government’s disgraceful disability benefit cuts. Moreover, as the Canary’s Steve Topple pointed out at the time, this is the same Labour Together that:

    • Plotted to destroy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party.
    • Fomented the exaggerated antisemitism crisis.
    • Went after grassroots Labour supporters and smeared them as antisemites.
    • Created Stop Funding Fake News to try and destroy the CanarySKWAWKBOX, and other independent media outlets.

    And notably, as EveryDoctor highlighted in its report, the think tank has a multitude of private healthcare links:

    Its biggest funder is Martin Taylor whose hedge fund Crake Asset Management holds over $20m (£15.8m) in shares in United Health, one of the largest private hospital operators in the US and the parent company of UK-based health services firm Optum.

    Other major political donors include businessman Trevor Chinn, a senior advisor to private equity firm CVC Capital Partners, which owns stakes in dozens of private healthcare companies across the UK, Europe and Asia.

    Moreover, it also pointed to individual Labour Together donors – who happened to pour sizeable donations into the pockets of Labour MPs ahead of the election as well. One was Daniel Luhde-Thompson, an advisor at the now notorious hedge fund Quadrature Capital.

    This is indeed the very same Quadrature that gave the party that £4m bung. EveryDoctor noted that Luhde-Thompson donated £25,000 in total to four Labour MPs ahead of the election. On top of that, he ploughed a further £50,000 into Labour Together. And significantly, it underscored that according to investigative outlet Torchlight:

    Quadrature Capital has invested more than $200m (£158.7m) in private healthcare firms

    Paying dividends for the private sector

    The inordinate scale of private healthcare-linked donations should be a stain on the conscience of MPs. The fact it isn’t shows how little this parliament cares about political integrity. But then, it’s all in service of that revolving door into high-paying private sector positions for many of these MPs who will be booted out at the next election.

    The connections once again call into question the degrees of separation between Whitehall and the private sector. Corporations can curry favour with this Labour government. And it’s clear, this is already – quite literally – paying dividends.

    For instance, EveryDoctor honed in on health secretary Wes Streeting. It revealed that he had taken £65,000 from head of UK investment firm Egerton Capital John Armitage. Its a hedge fund that holds “hundreds of millions” in US healthcare stocks. Significantly, it has $216m (£169m) invested in Big Pharma corporation Eli Lilly.

    In October, the Labour government struck a deal with the UK government for a £279m investment in a new life sciences centre.

    He also received a donation from multimillionaire recruitment tycoon Peter Hearn as part of the £260,304 he made to several Labour MPs. As EveryDoctor highlighted:

    Hearn made his fortune through recruitment firms PSD and Odgers Berndtson, which has faced criticism over some of the senior executives it has helped place in the health service.

    So, it’s evident that these donations are already paying off for some of these private healthcare interests. Largely, it’s all amidst this Labour government’s fixation on privatising the NHS – which will only be to corporations’ further benefit.

    Selling the NHS down the privatisation river

    Overall, the research makes for a damning pool of privatised healthcare connections to the Labour Party and government.

    You can look at its broader findings in its report here, or search the map database for specific MPs here.

    Of course, this is hardly the first time EveryDoctor has painted an appalling picture of politicians in the pockets of private healthcare. The Canary’s Maryam Jameela wrote about its previous research on the very same thing back in 2020. Then, the situation was no different to how it is now. Prominent Labour MPs like Wes Streeting were taking donations from all the same culprits.

    Now however, EveryDoctor’s new research shows without a shadow of a doubt that this Labour government can’t be trusted not to sell the NHS down the privatisation river. However, if that wasn’t clear by now – you haven’t been paying attention.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By Joel Hodge, Australian Catholic University and Antonia Pizzey, Australian Catholic University

    Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with double pneumonia.

    Cardinal Kevin Farrell’s announcement began:

    “Dear brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.”

    There were many unusual aspects of Pope Francis’ papacy. He was the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas (and the southern hemisphere), the first to choose the name “Francis” and the first to give a TED talk.

    He was also the first pope in more than 600 years to be elected following the resignation, rather than death, of his predecessor.

    From the very start of his papacy, Francis seemed determined to do things differently and present the papacy in a new light. Even in thinking about his burial, he chose the unexpected: to be placed to rest not in the Vatican, but in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome – the first pope to be buried there in hundreds of years.

    Vatican News reported the late Pope Francis had requested his funeral rites be simplified.

    “The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Diego Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”

    Straddling a line between “progressive” and “conservative”, Francis experienced tension with both sides. In doing so, his papacy shone a spotlight on what it means to be Catholic today.


    The Pope’s Easter Blessing    Video: AP

    The day before his death, Pope Francis made a brief appearance on Easter Sunday to bless the crowds at St Peter’s Square.

    Between a rock and a hard place
    Francis was deemed not progressive enough by some, yet far too progressive by others.

    His apostolic exhortation (an official papal teaching on a particular issue or action) Amoris Laetitia, ignited great controversy for seemingly being (more) open to the question of whether people who have divorced and remarried may receive Eucharist.

    He also disappointed progressive Catholics, many of whom hoped he would make stronger changes on issues such as the roles of women, married clergy, and the broader inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.

    The reception of his exhortation Querida Amazonia was one such example. In this document, Francis did not endorse marriage for priests, despite bishops’ requests for this. He also did not allow the possibility of women being ordained as deacons to address a shortage of ordained ministers. His discerning spirit saw there was too much division and no clear consensus for change.

    Francis was also openly critical of Germany’s controversial “Synodal Way” – a series of conferences with bishops and lay people — that advocated for positions contrary to Church teachings. Francis expressed concern on multiple occasions that this project was a threat to the unity of the Church.

    At the same time, Francis was no stranger to controversy from the conservative side of the Church, receiving “dubia” or “theological doubts” over his teaching from some of his Cardinals. In 2023, he took the unusual step of responding to some of these doubts.

    Impact on the Catholic Church
    In many ways, the most striking thing about Francis was not his words or theology, but his style. He was a modest man, even foregoing the Apostolic Palace’s grand papal apartments to live in the Vatican’s simpler guest house.

    He may well be remembered most for his simplicity of dress and habits, his welcoming and pastoral style and his wise spirit of discernment.

    He is recognised as giving a clear witness to the life, love and joy of Jesus in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council – a point of major reform in modern Church history. This witness has translated into two major developments in Church teachings and life.

    Pope Francis on respecting and protecting the environment
    Pope Francis on respecting and protecting the environment. Image: Tandag Diocese

    Love for our common home
    The first of these relates to environmental teachings. In 2015, Francis released his ground-breaking encyclical, Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home. It expanded Catholic social teaching by giving a comprehensive account of how the environment reflects our God-given “common home”.

    Consistent with recent popes such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, Francis acknowledged climate change and its destructive impacts and causes. He summarised key scientific research to forcefully argue for an evidence-based approach to addressing humans’ impact on the environment.

    He also made a pivotal and innovative contribution to the climate change debate by identifying the ethical and spiritual causes of environmental destruction.

    Francis argued combating climate change relied on the “ecological conversion” of the human heart, so that people may recognise the God-given nature of our planet and the fundamental call to care for it. Without this conversion, pragmatic and political measures wouldn’t be able to counter the forces of consumerism, exploitation and selfishness.

    Francis argued a new ethic and spirituality was needed. Specifically, he said Jesus’ way of love – for other people and all creation – is the transformative force that could bring sustainable change for the environment and cultivate fraternity among people (and especially with the poor).

    Synodality: moving towards a Church that listens
    Francis’s second major contribution, and one of the most significant aspects of his papacy, was his commitment to “synodality”. While there’s still confusion over what synodality actually means, and its potential for political distortion, it is above all a way of listening and discerning through openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    It involves hierarchy and lay people transparently and honestly discerning together, in service of the mission of the church. Synodality is as much about the process as the goal. This makes sense as Pope Francis was a Jesuit, an order focused on spreading Catholicism through spiritual formation and discernment.

    Drawing on his rich Jesuit spirituality, Francis introduced a way of conversation centred on listening to the Holy Spirit and others, while seeking to cultivate friendship and wisdom.

    With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, it is too soon to assess its results. However, those who have been involved in synodal processes have reported back on their transformative potential.

    Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, explained how participating in the 2015 Synod “was an extraordinary experience [and] in some ways an awakening”.

    Catholicism in the modern age
    Francis’ papacy inspired both great joy and aspirations, as well as boiling anger and rejection. He laid bare the agonising fault lines within the Catholic community and struck at key issues of Catholic identity, triggering debate over what it means to be Catholic in the world today.

    He leaves behind a Church that seems more divided than ever, with arguments, uncertainty and many questions rolling in his wake. But he has also provided a way for the Church to become more converted to Jesus’ way of love, through synodality and dialogue.

    Francis showed us that holding labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” won’t enable the Church to live out Jesus’ mission of love – a mission he emphasised from the very beginning of his papacy.The Conversation

    Dr Joel Hodge is senior lecturer, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, Australian Catholic University and Dr Antonia Pizzey is postdoctoral researcher, Research Centre for Studies of the Second Vatican Council, Australian Catholic University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

  • In recent weeks, a small but pointed COVID-based theater project has triggered a strange trail of digital disruption.

    First came the play announcement: a poster featuring an empty chair, an exploding heart, and a quote attributed to “(Not) Eric Bogosian” — “Why is everybody sick all the time?” A riff on his 2002 monologue collection Wake Up and Smell the Coffee, it signalled the arrival of Wake Up and Smell the C*VID: An Evening Without Eric Bogosian — a black-box elegy for prophetic clarity in a time of silence, grief, and ongoing pandemic collapse. Then came the coverage. And then, articles began to disappear from search engines. Quietly. Strategically. Almost completely.

    Now, across cities, empty chairs have started to appear, planted outside theaters, civic spaces and natural environments, in LA, New York, across the Atlantic in Barcelona, even in a shorn springtime cornfield in the Midwest. Each one bears the phrase “Wake Up and Smell the C*VID.” No flyers. No QR codes to ticketing sites. No pamphlets. Just presence. Just absence.

    The Timeline: What Happened?

    • March 31 – The Canary UK publishes the first article on the play, with both COVID and Eric Bogosian in the headline.
    • April 6 – Broadway World publishes an article about a mask handout by Mask for Pleasure. The piece mentions Bogosian in the body, but not in the title.
    • April 13 – The Canary publishes another article: a review of Bogosian’s own play Humpty Dumpty as a canny pandemic parable.

    Then, by the end of April 15:

    • The first and second articles vanished from Google News.
    • The third, just published, was still there. But not for long.

    On April 16, within 12 hours of a public Instagram post drawing attention to these disappearances and asking readers to monitor the third article, it too was de-indexed.

    By the afternoon of April 16, that third article returned. The next day, the first reappeared in some regions. On the 18th, it was fully restored and on first- or second-page results. As of this writing, they are trending in Google News across regions and devices.

    But the second article, the one from Broadway World, has not returned to Google News.

    Even if you search for its title: Mask for Pleasure: COVID-impacted Artists Raise Awareness at George Clooney’s Broadway Opening, nothing appears.

    Even if you search for a unique phrase from the article: mask for pleasure, you get nothing.

    And that raises a question: why this one?

    What Explains The Disappearance?

    We’ve been thinking about this a lot. Here’s what we’ve learned, and what we now believe are the most plausible explanations.

    1. Reputation Management Tools Likely Flagged It.

    Public figures, even those not actively working with PR firms, often have automated digital protection systems in place. These services scan the web for combinations of names and flagged terms (e.g., “COVID,” “critique,” “protest”), and can trigger search suppression requests automatically or semi-automatically.

    Eric Bogosian is not a mega-celebrity. But he is an institution in New York theatre, a public intellectual, and highly visible in TV. It’s entirely plausible that years ago, something was said, like: “Sure, keep my reputation clean. Filter for slander, ragebait— you know, the usual.”

    The system likely did what it was trained to do without needing direct input.

    1. It Was More Vulnerable to De-Indexing.

    Unlike the Canary pieces, the Broadway World article did not include “Eric Bogosian” in the title, metadata, or URL, only in the body of the text. That means it was already less visible to Google’s algorithm when users searched for his name.

    But more importantly: that lack of strong indexing made it easier to remove.

    When an article is weakly anchored in search (i.e., not reinforced by headline or tags), it takes less for it to be flagged or pushed out of results. Even minor algorithmic suppression, from third-party reputation management tools or content sensitivity filters, can cause the system to treat the piece as non-essential and quietly remove it from visibility.

    NOTE: Of course, if the article’s disappearance was triggered by a reputation filter, something semi-automated or quietly flagged because of name and keyword proximity, there are subtle ways it could return.

    If a reputation service or PR contact marked the article as reputational risk, they could simply remove that flag or mark it as resolved. In many systems, doing nothing further also works; most flags expire unless renewed.

    No retraction is needed. No public move. Just a soft release. That alone could be enough to let Google reindex it on the next crawl. It’s a small gesture, invisible to most, but one that would mean a lot to people who saw themselves in that piece. And it would be felt. Quietly. Appreciatively.

    1. So Why Did the Other Two Articles Come Back?

    That’s the real question.

    And it leads us to two possibilities:

    1. The flags were reviewed and rejected, meaning the content was judged to pose no reputational risk.
    2. Or someone, somewhere, let them go, consciously or passively. No further flags, no further pressure. Quiet disappearance followed by quiet reinstatement.

    We don’t know.

    But when we asked readers to watch the third article, it vanished within hours and returned just as fast. Something was tracking visibility. Something, whether human or algorithmic or both, flinched when watched.

    And that makes the silence louder.

    The Bigger Picture: “Why Is Everybody Sick All the Time?”

    That was the first poster. A simple question, attributed to (Not) Eric Bogosian.

    A question you could imagine him asking in a blackout monologue in 1988.

    But ask it in 2025 and watch what happens.

    Type it into Google: “Why is everybody sick all the time?”

    What do you get?

    • Vague speculation about “stress”
    • Hand-waving about “summer flu”
    • Conspiracy theories about “immunity debt” (from lockdowns that happened five years ago)
    • Wellness blogs selling fatigue supplements

    What you don’t get is this:

    1. COVID is not a respiratory illness, it’s a multi-system disease with some respiratory symptoms. Remember how HIV infection starts with a ‘flu’?
    2. COVID is airborne, meaning the SARS-CoV-2 virus is expelled into the air passively, just by breathing, even in the absence of symptoms. It accumulates and spreads out in enclosed spaces. Like theatres. Hand washing won’t prevent its spread.
    3. Rapid tests are as low as 30% accurate because our immune systems have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, so don’t reach thresholds detectable until three days of being symptomatic, if at all. Molecular testing like PlusLife is more reliable.
    4. It targets the endothelium, the cellular lining of blood vessels, a superhighway to the whole body.

    The damage is cumulative. The virus persists in the body, continuing to cause damage. Infective SARS-CoV-2 has even been found in skull shavings in autopsies.

    1. It is linked to spikes in rare and aggressive cancers, likely due to its oncogenic potential, including mechanisms that parallel HIV, HPV, and hepatitis C.
    2. It causes long-term immune system damage, including T-cell exhaustion —akin to chronic HIV, but with broader systemic damage.
    3. It killed more people in four years than AIDS did in forty. Excess deaths have surged from secondary effects of COVID, especially cardiovascular disease, liver disease, respiratory infections, and other causes.

    It’s frightening enough to imagine that AIDS could happen again.

    It’s more frightening to consider that it already has, and that it’s multi-system AIDS, but happening quietly, globally, and to everyone.

    More terrifying, how could we all be so alienated from our own bodies as not register what’s happening?

    How COVID Is Systematically Suppressed

    This experience of de-indexing has been valuable because it shows what even one moderately resourced public figure can do to shape reality. Reputation management is, at its core, perception control. You can justify it by saying it protects against falsehoods, but if it also suppresses artistic commentary and public health messaging, often automatically, then it becomes part of the very machinery we set out to expose.

    The tools used to defend an image are the same ones erasing truth.

    If one person can suppress reporting, scale that to one billionaire, or several billionaires, and we’re not so much constructing a reality about a person, but about people.

    Why are most people unaware of what COVID is doing to their bodies?

    Because we are being systematically, algorithmically gaslit.

    Here’s what we know, not what we guess:

    Meta (Facebook and Instagram) has implemented broad automated filters for COVID-19 misinformation since early in the pandemic. While Meta says they reduce harmful falsehoods, these systems have flagged legitimate medical reporting and peer-reviewed content, a concern raised by organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and highlighted during a dispute with the BMJ over a flagged article.

    Twitter/X, under Elon Musk, ended its COVID-19 misinformation policy in November 2022, as confirmed by Twitter’s official policy page. Since then, the platform has drawn criticism for becoming a major outlet for anti-mask, anti-vaccine, and anti-public health narratives.

    The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) identified a core group of high-profile individuals responsible for the majority of vaccine-related misinformation in its 2021 Disinformation Dozen report [CCDH, 2021]. Stanford’s Internet Observatory has similarly tracked the role of prominent users in spreading COVID misinformation, particularly surrounding vaccine hesitancy [Stanford, 2022].

    While there is no public documentation that Google News deliberately deprioritizes ongoing COVID-19 reporting, patterns in both academic research and lived experience suggest that sustained pandemic coverage — especially stories on long COVID, mitigation, or structural health failures — may not receive consistent visibility.

    A 2021 study published in Patient Education and Counseling found that only 41% of news reports about long-haul COVID mentioned the duration of symptoms, reflecting a broader trend toward underreporting of the long-term impacts.

    YouTube has maintained policies aimed at curbing COVID-19 misinformation, including removing or demonetizing content that contradicts guidance from public health authorities. However, enforcement of these policies has affected videos intended to inform or critique, particularly those discussing masking, air quality, or government response.

    A 2022 study in BMJ Global Health found that a substantial portion of widely viewed COVID-19 content on YouTube still contained misinformation, despite the platform’s moderation efforts. Meanwhile, reporting by Business Insider detailed how automated moderation tools sometimes removed videos that were attempting to debunk false claims or offer critical analysis of public health measures.

    Across multiple platforms, content considered “overly negative” or “anxiety-inducing” has sometimes been subject to throttling or de-prioritization, not because it is factually incorrect, but because it is deemed potentially harmful to engagement or user experience.

    Meanwhile — What Do The Exorbitantly Wealthy Know?

    They know enough to protect themselves.

    The World Economic Forum at Davos is a clear example: Davos has implemented multi-layered COVID protections — including HEPA filtration, Far-UVC lighting, daily PCR testing, mask mandates for staff, and controlled access.

    Patrick Soon-Shiong, billionaire biotech entrepreneur and owner of the Los Angeles Times, reportedly requires routine molecular COVID testing for employees. As a a prominent cancer surgeon and biotech entrepreneur who has recently expressed concerns about a potential link between COVID-19 and the emergence of aggressive cancers, these anecdotal reports and public statements appear to align.

    If it’s true that people with the most resources understand the science, why suppress it?

    Disaster Capitalism, Narrative Control, and Quiet Violence

    There are two primary frameworks for understanding what’s happening. And they aren’t mutually exclusive.

    1. Profit Extraction

    Sick populations are more exploitable. Chronic illness creates dependency on pharmaceutical care, on telemedicine platforms, on gig work, on digital systems that track and monetize every interaction. People who are physically weakened and economically insecure are easier to tether to unstable labor, fragmented social services, and algorithmic governance.

    As Naomi Klein outlines in the Shock Doctrine, disaster capitalism profits from destabilization, extracting value from populations in crisis and consolidating control while the public is too disoriented to resist.

    1. Power Consolidation

    The political logic is just as stark: a population that is chronically ill, cognitively impaired, or preoccupied with survival is easier to govern… or abandon. Governments are cutting public health infrastructure even as tech and surveillance systems expand.

    And if this all seems too coordinated to be plausible, it isn’t.

    History gives us plenty of precedents.

    Iran–Contra revealed a covert, international operation in which U.S. intelligence agencies facilitated arms deals with Iran and redirected the profits to the Contras, a U.S.-backed paramilitary group in Nicaragua, in direct violation of federal law. This required coordination between the CIA, National Security Council, Pentagon, foreign governments, shell companies, and known drug traffickers. The CIA Inspector General’s 1998 report confirmed that U.S. officials were aware of Contra-linked cocaine trafficking into the U.S. and failed to act. The result was a weapons-fueled proxy war abroad, and a crack epidemic at home.

    During the 1918 influenza pandemic, U.S. and European governments censored coverage to preserve wartime morale. Under the 1917 Espionage Act, American newspapers were barred from reporting the scale of the outbreak. Civilian deaths were downplayed or misattributed. The disease became known as the “Spanish flu” not because it began in Spain, but because Spain, as a neutral country with a free press, was among the first to report on it. That misnaming, and the broader information suppression, directly contributed to delayed responses, disorganized public health efforts, and over 50 million deaths worldwide. (Barry, J.M., The Great Influenza, 2004)

    Look at what happens when the state’s legitimacy and the wealthy’s accumulation strategy begin to align.

    If this moment feels like it doesn’t make sense, it’s because it’s probably not just about profit, and maybe not even about power.

    If you take COVID seriously, both the irreparable damage being done to the global population and the systematic suppression of this information by people who are aware the damage SARS-CoV-2 causes, and who take precautions but are getting infected anyway because hubris can’t contain something that lives in the air, and then you ask who benefits from this suppression, you start to hit something more difficult to name. You see the contradiction at the heart of it:

    Some people at the top are probably grabbing what they can most likely out of nothing more interesting than habit, even if it means shortening their own lives and those of the people closest to them. Perhaps they aren’t even planning to survive. They’re enraged. Their mortality is catching up to them. And they are trying to take everyone down with them.

    If this is the case, the head-scratching over the regime’s policy decisions dissolves as the strategy becomes more legible as a murder-suicide pact that none of us signed up for.

    These conjectures are beyond science, or even activism that grounds itself in rigorous methodologies, but if you look at the big picture with an artist’s clarity,  especially the kind that once cut through media illusion and unflinchingly mapped the rot at heart of anti-human impulses, it starts to feel like the final act of a dying men who know they’re dying, and want to script the ending.

    And if you’re someone like Eric Bogosian, who used to name contradictions before they solidified into ideology, then deep down you may already see it.

    COVID. The Play.

    The disappearance of reporting on this project, and its partial, unexplained return, proves its own point. Articles vanished from search not because they were untrue, but because they were most likely flagged. Whether this was done by automated reputation management software, personal intervention, or a combination of both, the outcome was the same: manipulation of reality.

    What is a modest but weird transdisciplinary arts collective supposed to do when its reporting disappears, and it becomes clear that algorithmic suppression is most likely not a glitch, but a mechanism of reality control? What does it mean when the very person invoked in the work, a self-styled provocateur, a prophet of uncomfortable truths, appears to be using those same systems to maintain the curated unreality of a brand?

    The usual impulse — and we felt it too — is to go full scorched-earth. Make it a callout. Draw the lines. Call him Emil Jannings and wonder if he flinches.

    The irony stings.

    But it also creates an opening.

    Because this isn’t really about any one person. It’s about the systems we’re all trapped inside, systems of brand protection, narrative control, and passive digital repression. Systems that even someone like Eric Bogosian, whose public identity was built on confronting suppression, may now be complicit in, passively, unknowingly, in service to maintaining a reality built on narratives people with money control rather than one that’s more complex, messy, terrifying, but also real and could point a way out of the self-referential, nihilistic illusion.

    So, What’s the Play Here?: COVID as Aperture

    SARS-CoV-2 is not just a virus. COVID is not just a pandemic. It’s an aperture, a breach in the fabric of our shared reality.

    It makes things visible.

    And once you see it — really see it — you can’t unsee anything.

    Which leads us to what we are asking for.

    We want you—Eric Bogosian (and anyone else who considers themself a truth-teller, or who is starving for something real in a curated unreality)—to use your gifts to document, expose, and pressure this moment before it hardens into myth. Not to react from a distance, but to shape it.

    Part of the reason you may have stayed quiet is that the language has shifted, not just in terminology, but in tone, gatekeeping, and risk. You’ve been publicly dragged on social media before: for earlier work taken out of historical context, and for political positions misrepresented online.

    You’ve been called a Zionist despite having voiced support for Palestinian liberation well before it became a litmus test that, partially driven by algorithms that promote all-or-nothing thinking that punishes the good in the name of an unachievable standard of perfection, becomes for some a performative activism that stifles real action while saving no lives of people experiencing genocide.

    And you’re not alone.

    The critical theory frameworks that emerged in the 1970s by punk philosophers like Foucault, Deleuze, Spivak — particularly the turn toward language, discourse, and constructedness — have since been flattened by digital culture. What was once a tool for careful analysis has, in many cases, become a bludgeon, pushed by algorithms that reward ideological purity, escalate conflict, and fragment coalitions.

    That environment punishes people trying to re-enter the conversation in good faith. It obscures the fact that many of us are building differently now: collectively, imperfectly, and with the understanding that our differences, of voice, of method, of generational experience, make our work stronger. You are not unwelcome. The punitive discourse you may have seen isn’t representative. It’s shaped by systems designed to isolate, discredit, and exhaust, the very same dynamics your early work critiqued with precision.

    We discovered this writing in your rhythm: the clipped, spiraling cadence, the tension that builds like a pressure cooker and then cuts sideways into revelation. That sharp, observational edge. The way you stack discomfort until it cracks. We already have. You can’t copyright vibes.

    But you can still use it yourself. We’ve sharpened the tools, and we’re handing them to you.

    Maybe write a monologue from the perspective of Peter Thiel, someone whose main motivation for burning down the world might be that no amount of money will make white supremacists want to fuck him.

    Write the play about the Gleichschaltung happening in the U.S. now, except rich people are paying PR firms to generate puff pieces saying they were in the resistance from the beginning.
    Write about how some feckless, masked punks terrorized a man who had earned his peace by mourning him in public while he was still alive.

    If you’re wondering why we don’t just create ourselves, why it was a choice to inhabit a vibe, whether anonymity is an affectation, then you haven’t looked around properly. Some people can no longer safely exist publicly. Some people have been exiled to their bedrooms by the cumulative effects of this virus, some people have been exiled from their country because this regime has already put a target on their backs. Professional development is off the table indefinitely. Having a face and voice right now is a hefty privilege and we hope you use it well.

    Perhaps this will also resolve any questions about motivation, that there’s no money or clout to be gained. All that can be gained is what you can offer to this world. You’ve already seen that the tools used to maintain your brand, likely without your knowledge, can be used to amputate what’s real. Since there is no opting out of constructing our shared reality, why not take responsibility for it and shape it?

    The other ask is that can protect yourself not through silence or omission, but by wearing a mask and requesting other COVID safety measures like testing and air filtration in the spaces you work. Your insight and fire are not disposable, and the rest of you, according to one of our collaborators, is ‘too pretty to be shredded by a bat virus.’

    If tomorrow, Sunday April 20 2025, turns out to be the moment everything shifts, the Reichstag Fire decree moment where a dictatorship is formalized, or if it comes soon, just know that a group of people were aware of that, and still thought it was a sound use of their time to make art that posed this question.

    Can we unbury the soul of a nation by calling its prophets back from the dead?

    Here’s your first monologue. We think you can write it better.

    ERIC (spotlight, standing still now, no pacing — it’s all tension):

    So let me get this straight.

    You call yourselves HEPA.

    Holy Erotic Propaganda Arson.

    Jesus Christ. That’s not a collective — that’s a downmarket poetry MFA polycule.

    Empty chair — I get it.

    Daddy’s not coming. The State’s your father.

    Oedipal rage turned into a Tumblr moodboard.

    You made a play, and you buried it in hashtags and elegies and blurbs that read like someone Xeroxed The Wooster Group through a zine about grief kink

    And now you want the guy whose voice you’ve been parroting in post-ironic sepia to step back into it.

    For what?

    You want me to wear a mask in rooms where a fucking air purifier is a conspiracy theory.

    To make art that names the machine, while the same people calling for that art are already one social media post away from calling me a Nazi?

    I’ve been called everything.

    Crypto-fascist. Genocide apologist.

    All because I didn’t say the exact right thing, in the exact right tone, at the exact right moment, through the exact right filter.

    Half these kids don’t even know “crypto” means something other than an mlm written in code. They just throw it at anything with a pulse and a publication date before 2005.

    And you, in your masks, taking no personal risks, want me to burn down my own house for a world that already unfollowed me?

    Let me tell you something.

    Yeah, you’ve got it bad.

    You’ve got front row seats to extermination.

    I see that.

    But don’t think for a second I don’t know what happens to people like me under dictatorships.

    I’ve read the book. I’ve written the book.

    You think old men who talk too much and don’t fit the new moral syntax get to slip away quietly?

    They come for us too. Just later. After the lights are off.

    So why not sit it out?

    Why not enjoy the peace I earned by screaming into the void long before you knew it had acoustics?

    Because maybe what scared you about that voice wasn’t the rage.

    It was the residue under it.

    Maybe it scares me…

    That little pilot light buried under prophetic ashes that said:

    This could be different.

    I don’t want to just survive this.

    I want to meet it on my own terms.

    So maybe I’ll write.

    Not to resurrect a brand.

    Not to rise to your bait.

    But because they’re coming for culture. They always do.

    When the regime decides I already spoke.

    When the archives are mined for contamination

    That turns me into a liability.

    You think they’re gonna see “provocateur” and clap?

    They’re gonna see degenerate art.

    Rot in the social body.

    Something to cut out.

    Doesn’t matter what I meant.

    Doesn’t matter what I wanted.

    The dictatorship isn’t placated by silence

    it hunts for pretext.

    And when they come digging through the record?

    They won’t say I slept through it.

    They’ll say I lit the match

    And I’m going to make that inevitable indictment true.

    So no, this isn’t guilt.

    It’s not some plea for understanding.

    It’s a final entry.

    So when they try to twist it,

    they choke on the truth.

    Legal Disclaimer

    This work is a piece of political art, cultural commentary, and speculative criticism. All analysis, interpretations, and character monologues presented herein are offered in the spirit of fair use, protected speech, and public interest.

    The figure of Eric Bogosian, a well-known public figure, is discussed solely in relation to his public artistic legacy, published works, and cultural visibility. No claim is made regarding his private conduct, personal beliefs, or direct actions unless otherwise supported by publicly available sources. Where plausible inferences are made, they are clearly identified as speculation, not fact.

    Any fictionalized monologue or dialogue attributed to Eric Bogosian is a transformative, creative work intended to reflect on contemporary political and artistic conditions. It is not affiliated with, authorized by, or representative of Mr. Bogosian. These portions are artistic pastiche or parody in accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107), particularly for non-commercial, critical, and transformative purposes.

    All citations have been drawn from publicly available sources to the best of the authors’ knowledge at the time of publication. If errors of fact are discovered, they can be corrected upon request. No harm, misrepresentation, or malicious intent is intended.

    This article is not monetized, does not promote commercial products or services, and exists solely for expressive and educational purposes under the protection of the First Amendment.

    Featured image supplied

    By HEPA (Holy Erotic Propaganda Arson)

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By Ben Bohane

    This week Cambodia marks the 50th anniversary of the fall of Phnom Penh to the murderous Khmer Rouge, and Vietnam celebrates the fall of Saigon to North Vietnamese forces in April 1975.

    They are being commemorated very differently; after all, there’s nothing to celebrate in Cambodia. Its capital Phnom Penh was emptied, and its people had to then endure the “killing fields” and the darkest years of its modern existence under Khmer Rouge rule.

    Over the border in Vietnam, however, there will be modest celebrations for their victory against US (and Australian) forces at the end of this month.

    Yet, this week’s news of Indonesia considering a Russian request to base aircraft at the Biak airbase in West Papua throws in stark relief a troubling question I have long asked — did Australia back the wrong war 63 years ago? These different areas — and histories — of Southeast Asia may seem disconnected, but allow me to draw some links.

    Through the 1950s until the early 1960s, it was official Australian policy under the Menzies government to support The Netherlands as it prepared West Papua for independence, knowing its people were ethnically and religiously different from the rest of Indonesia.

    They are a Christian Melanesian people who look east to Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Pacific, not west to Muslim Asia. Australia at the time was administering and beginning to prepare PNG for self-rule.

    The Second World War had shown the importance of West Papua (then part of Dutch New Guinea) to Australian security, as it had been a base for Japanese air raids over northern Australia.

    Japanese beeline to Sorong
    Early in the war, Japanese forces made a beeline to Sorong on the Bird’s Head Peninsula of West Papua for its abundance of high-quality oil. Former Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam served in a RAAF unit briefly stationed in Merauke in West Papua.

    By 1962, the US wanted Indonesia to annex West Papua as a way of splitting Chinese and Russian influence in the region, as well as getting at the biggest gold deposit on earth at the Grasberg mine, something which US company Freeport continues to mine, controversially, today.

    Following the so-called Bunker Agreement signed in New York in 1962, The Netherlands reluctantly agreed to relinquish West Papua to Indonesia under US pressure. Australia, too, folded in line with US interests.

    That would also be the year when Australia sent its first group of 30 military advisers to Vietnam. Instead of backing West Papuan nationhood, Australia joined the US in suppressing Vietnam’s.

    As a result of US arm-twisting, Australia ceded its own strategic interests in allowing Indonesia to expand eastwards into Pacific territories by swallowing West Papua. Instead, Australians trooped off to fight the unwinnable wars of Indochina.

    To me, it remains one of the great what-ifs of Australian strategic history — if Australia had held the line with the Dutch against US moves, then West Papua today would be free, the East Timor invasion of 1975 was unlikely to have ever happened and Australia might not have been dragged into the Vietnam War.

    Instead, as Cambodia and Vietnam mark their anniversaries this month, Australia continues to be reminded of the potential threat Indonesian-controlled West Papua has posed to Australia and the Pacific since it gave way to US interests in 1962.

    Russian space agency plans
    Nor is this the first time Russia has deployed assets to West Papua. Last year, Russian media reported plans under way for the Russian space agency Roscosmos to help Indonesia build a space base on Biak island.

    In 2017, RAAF Tindal was scrambled just before Christmas to monitor Russian Tu95 nuclear “Bear” bombers doing their first-ever sorties in the South Pacific, flying between Australia and Papua New Guinea. I wrote not long afterwards how Australia was becoming “caught in a pincer” between Indonesian and Russian interests on Indonesia’s side and Chinese moves coming through the Pacific on the other.

    All because we have abandoned the West Papuans to endure their own “slow-motion genocide” under Indonesian rule. Church groups and NGOs estimate up to 500,000 Papuans have perished under 60 years of Indonesian military rule, while Jakarta refuses to allow international media and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit.

    Alex Sobel, an MP in the UK Parliament, last week called on Indonesia to allow the UN High Commissioner to visit but it is exceedingly rare to hear any Australian MPs ask questions about our neighbour West Papua in the Australian Parliament.

    Canberra continues to enhance security relations with Indonesia in a naive belief that the nation is our ally against an assertive China. This ignores Jakarta’s deepening relations with both Russia and China, and avoids any mention of ongoing atrocities in West Papua or the fact that jihadi groups are operating close to Australia’s border.

    Indonesia’s militarisation of West Papua, jihadi infiltration and now the potential for Russia to use airbases or space bases on Biak should all be “red lines” for Australia, yet successive governments remain desperate not to criticise Indonesia.

    Ignoring actual ‘hot war’
    Australia’s national security establishment remains focused on grand global strategy and acquiring over-priced gear, while ignoring the only actual “hot war” in our region.

    Our geography has not changed; the most important line of defence for Australia remains the islands of Melanesia to our north and the co-operation and friendship of its peoples.

    Strong independence movements in West Papua, Bougainville and New Caledonia all materially affect Australian security but Canberra can always be relied on to defer to Indonesian, American and French interests in these places, rather than what is ultimately in Australian — and Pacific Islander — interests.

    Australia needs to develop a defence policy centred on a “Melanesia First” strategy from Timor to Fiji, radiating outwards. Yet Australia keeps deferring to external interests, to our cost, as history continues to remind us.

    Ben Bohane is a Vanuatu-based photojournalist and policy analyst who has reported across Asia and the Pacific for the past 36 years. His website is benbohane.com  This article was first published by The Sydney Morning Herald and is republished with the author’s permission.

  • We’re humbled to introduce our Canary writer, Alaa Shamali from Palestine – but currently a refugee in Oman. We will be publishing him in Arabic – but if you right click on the screen the menu that appears should give you the option to translate the article to English. If you are reading on mobile, this will be in the burger menu (the three dots) of your browser.

    في الأزقة المدمّرة وبين ركام البيوت المحترقة، تتردد خطى صغيرة لأطفال غزة الذين وجدوا أنفسهم في قلب حرب لا ترحم، تلاحقهم أصوات القصف والجوع والعطش في كل زاوية. لم تعد طفولتهم كما يجب أن تكون، فقد سُرقت منهم تفاصيلها البسيطة: الضحكة، اللعبة، وحتى قطرة الماء.

    طفولة مكسورة

    منذ بدء العدوان الإسرائيلي على قطاع غزة في 7 أكتوبر 2023، باتت حياة الأطفال الفلسطينيين رهينة الرعب والخوف. أكثر من 14 ألف طفل استشهدوا، وآلاف آخرون أُصيبوا بجراح دائمة، بينما يعيش الناجون في صدمة نفسية لا يمكن وصفها، بحسب تقارير وزارة الصحة ومؤسسات حقوق الإنسان.

    تقول أُم ناصر، والدة الطفل علي (9 سنوات): “كان يحلم أن يصبح طبيبًا… اليوم، كل ما يتمناه هو أن يشرب ماءً نظيفًا وينام ليلة واحدة دون صوت قصف”. هذا الحلم البسيط تحوّل إلى رفاهية نادرة في غزة.

    الماء… حلم يومي

    بحسب تقارير أممية، يعيش أكثر من 95% من سكان غزة دون مياه صالحة للشرب، بعد أن دمرت إسرائيل شبكات المياه ومحطات التحلية. ويضطر الأطفال إلى السير لساعات بين الأنقاض بحثًا عن دلو ماء، قد لا يكون حتى صالحًا للاستخدام.

    يقول الطفل محمد (11 عامًا): “نمشي أنا وأختي كل يوم أكثر من ساعتين لنملأ جالونين من الماء… أحيانًا نرجع بلا شيء، أو نُقصف ونحن في الطريق”.

    مدارس تحوّلت إلى ملاجئ

    تحولت مدارس “الأونروا” التي كانت تحتضن أحلام الأطفال إلى مآوٍ للنازحين، مكتظة بالأسر الفارّة من الموت. فقد تعطّل التعليم كليًا، وتوقفت الحياة الدراسية، بينما أغلقت أبواب الأمل في وجه جيل بأكمله.

    تقول المعلمة سحر يوسف، وهي نازحة في إحدى المدارس: “الطلاب كانوا يكتبون مواضيع عن السلام والأمل… اليوم يكتبون عن الشهداء والجوع والموت”.

    أصوات العالم… صمتٌ مطبق

    رغم حجم الكارثة، لم تلق مأساة أطفال غزة الاهتمام الكافي من المجتمع الدولي. تستمر إسرائيل، بدعم غربي، في حربها، بينما يُحرم القطاع من المساعدات الأساسية، بسبب إغلاق المعابر. ووفقًا لليونيسيف، فإن الوضع الإنساني في غزة بلغ “مرحلة الانهيار التام”، مع تحذيرات من مجاعة تطال الأطفال أولًا.

    الحق في الحياة… مفقود

    في غزة، لم يعد للأطفال الحق في اللعب أو التعلم، أو حتى الحياة الآمنة. تُروى الحكايات بصوت أمهات يبحثن عن أطفالهن تحت الأنقاض، وبدموع آباء يحملون جثامين صغارهم.
    بين صواريخ الاحتلال وعطش الحياة، يقف أطفال غزة على مفترق مصير قاسٍ. هم ليسوا أرقامًا في تقارير الأخبار، بل وجوه بريئة سرق منها العالم حقها في الحياة. ولا يزال السؤال قائمًا: متى يستيقظ الضمير الإنساني؟ ومتى تتوقف آلة الحرب عن سحق الطفولة

    By Alaa Shamali

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rumours and comments from the government have been circulating for months over a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) survey on how people spend their Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Since October last year, the corporate media has been drip feeding stories with little substance about the supposed DWP PIP research.

    However, now people are coming forward saying they’ve got the survey – after a minister confirmed this week that it was going ahead. The first, and only thing, to say on this is: do NOT fill it in. How you spend your DWP PIP is none of the government’s business.

    DWP PIP survey on how people spend their money: yes, it is real

    As the Canary reported last October, minister for disabled people Stephen Timms referenced the DWP PIP survey in response to a written question by Poole MP Neil Duncan-Jordan.

    Duncan-Jordan was querying what assessments the department had made to assess the “adequacy” of PIP for supporting the “extra costs of disability.”

    As part of his reply, Timms said that:

    DWP pays close attention to the evidence base on the extra costs faced by disabled people; including academic research, analysis by Scope, and DWP’s own commissioned research on the Uses of Health and Disability Benefits from 2019. In order to understand more, DWP is now undertaking a new survey of Personal Independence Payment customers to understand more about their disability related needs. This project has an advisory group of experts including representatives of the disability charity Scope and academic experts.

    Fast-forward to this week, Duncan-Jordan and Timms had another DWP PIP exchange. The latter confirmed that:

    DWP is now undertaking a new survey of Personal Independence Payment customers to understand more about their disability-related needs. It is expected to produce findings in Autumn 2025.

    However, that was all the detail provided. Buried on the DWP website was a shred of detail. On 7 April, it announced all research programmes that were being undertaken by private companies. Listed was:

    April to July 2025 Verian – Areas of extra cost survey If you are claiming Personal Independence Payment you may be contacted to take part in research. The aim is to understand disability-related needs and assess how these translate in additional costs that claimants incur.

    Now we know

    Now, thanks in part to Atlanta from campaign group Disability Rebellion, people have been coming forward with the details of the survey – as Verian has already being sending it out:

    Replies to Atlanta’s post included this video – where the father of a DWP PIP, ‘Disability Talk With Steve’, claimant talks the viewer through the survey:

    The questions in the survey revolve around things such as spending on aids and adaptations; travel, and food. Essentially what the DWP is doing is asking people about costs for each component (task) that features in the PIP Daily Living and Mobility elements of the benefit.

    Meanwhile, Verian had also sent it to other people:

    So, the much-talked-about DWP PIP survey has arrived. However, the department is not the only one conducting this kind of survey. Campaign group There For ME, which raises awareness around the illness myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS), along with other organisations is also conducting their own survey into DWP PIP and benefits:

    This survey too, linked to a parliamentary group of MPs with an interest in ME, also asks questions on how benefit claimants spend their money.

    For the avoidance of any doubt, do NOT tell either the DWP or a charity how you spend your DWP PIP money – or any benefit money for that matter.

    DWP PIP survey (and the others): not benign exercises

    Firstly, it is none of the DWP’s business.

    Secondly, this is not a benign exercise from the government.

    By tailoring the questions to be specifically around each component (task) of the DWP PIP assessment, Labour is looking for ways it can cut PIP. For example, if a lot of claimants say they spend their PIP on aids and adaptations, then the DWP could argue this should be a matter for local authorities, who already fund adaptations – ergo, they can cut that financial part of PIP.

    On a side note, There For ME and the other organisations conducting their own survey’s on DWP PIP claimant’s spending habits are being useful idiots for the government. They may think that they are showing the extra costs people with ME have, to use as some sort of leverage in mitigating parts of Labour’s planned cuts. However, Keir Starmer’s government is not going to care one iota – and if There For ME’s survey gets to them, the evidence will be used against chronically ill and disabled people.

    So, in short the DWP PIP survey is here – and do not fill it out. It is a phishing exercise to help given a manipulated evidence base for Labour’s cuts. anything thinking otherwise needs to get their heads out of the sand, and quickly.

    When 1.3 million chronically ill and disabled people are facing cuts, giving them a helping hand in doing it is perverse, at best.

    Featured image via screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • We’re humbled to introduce a new Canary writer, Alaa Shamali from Palestine – but currently a refugee in Oman. We will be publishing him in Arabic – but if you right click on the screen the menu that appears should give you the option to translate the article to English. If you are reading on mobile, this will be in the burger menu (the three dots) of your browser.

    اتهمت حركة حماس رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو بتعمد عرقلة التوصل إلى اتفاق شامل لتبادل الأسرى، مشيرة إلى أنه يرفض إطلاق سراح الأسرى الإسرائيليين دفعة واحدة لتحقيق “مصالحه السياسية الشخصية”.

    وتقدر إسرائيل وجود 59 أسيرًا لديها في قطاع غزة، بينهم 24 على قيد الحياة، في المقابل، يقبع أكثر من 9500 فلسطيني في السجون الإسرائيلية وسط أوضاع إنسانية صعبة، تشمل التعذيب وسوء المعاملة والإهمال الطبي، ما أدى إلى وفاة عدد منهم، حسب تقارير حقوقية فلسطينية وإسرائيلية.

    وفي كلمة متلفزة، قال زاهر جبارين، القيادي في حماس والمسؤول عن ملف الضفة الغربية، إن إسرائيل “لن تنجح في اقتلاع الشعب الفلسطيني من أرضه”، مؤكدًا: “إما أن نعيش فوق أرضنا أعزاء أو نموت شهداء”.

    وأضاف أن “جرائم الإبادة التي يرتكبها الاحتلال لن تمر دون عقاب”، مشيرًا إلى أن إسرائيل تدفع اليوم ثمنًا سياسيًا وأخلاقيًا باهظًا على الساحة الدولية.

    ومنذ 7 أكتوبر 2023، تشن إسرائيل هجومًا واسعًا على قطاع غزة بدعم أمريكي، أسفر عن أكثر من 167 ألف شهيد وجريح، معظمهم من الأطفال والنساء، بالإضافة إلى أكثر من 11 ألف مفقود، وفق إحصائيات رسمية فلسطينية.

    ويخضع القطاع لحصار مشدد منذ 18 عامًا، تفاقم مع الدمار الشامل للبنية التحتية، ما جعل نحو 1.5 مليون فلسطيني بلا مأوى، وسط تحذيرات من دخول القطاع في مرحلة المجاعة نتيجة إغلاق المعابر ومنع دخول المساعدات.

    وأشار جبارين إلى أن حماس تبذل جهودًا لوقف العدوان وإنهاء الحرب، لكنها تصطدم برفض نتنياهو للاتفاق، الذي يتطلب انسحاب الجيش الإسرائيلي الكامل من القطاع وتبادلًا شاملًا للأسرى.

    وأوضح أن أكثر من 100 ألف إسرائيلي، بينهم جنود سابقون وأفراد احتياط، وقعوا عرائض تطالب بإتمام صفقة التبادل حتى لو استدعى الأمر وقف الحرب، إلا أن نتنياهو، بحسب تعبيره، “يترك أسراه للموت جوعًا أو بردًا أو تحت القصف”، بسبب إصراره على استئناف الحرب لأهداف تتعلق ببقائه السياسي.

    يذكر أن المرحلة الأولى من اتفاق التهدئة وتبادل الأسرى، بوساطة مصرية وقطرية وبدعم أمريكي، انطلقت في 19 يناير 2025، والتزمت بها حماس، بينما رفض نتنياهو تنفيذ المرحلة الثانية، التي تشمل وقف القتال وانسحاب القوات الإسرائيلية من غزة.

    وفي 18 مارس الماضي، أعادت إسرائيل تصعيد عملياتها العسكرية نتيجة ضغوط من الجناح المتطرف داخل الحكومة، ما أدى إلى استشهاد 1691 فلسطينيًا وإصابة 4464 آخرين، معظمهم من النساء والأطفال، بحسب وزارة الصحة في غزة.

    وختم جبارين بأن نتنياهو “يُضحي بالأسرى الإسرائيليين في غزة من أجل مصالحه السياسية الشخصية”، محملًا إياه مسؤولية فشل التوصل إلى اتفاق شامل حتى الآن

    By Alaa Shamali

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Former director of communications for Jeremy Corbyn James Schneider took former communications chief for Reform Gawain Towler to task over inequality on GB News.

    James Schneider: “special pleading” for the super rich

    Gawain Towler was arguing against a wealth tax on the super rich with the classic myth that they will leave:

    If you punish people for success… you do that, people will leave and people will not come and invest in this country

    In response, James Schneider branded the angle “special pleading”:

    What you are saying is completely ludicrous and is special pleading… look who’s been doing well in the last 15 years. It’s not people who use the NHS it’s not people who… work in the NHS. But the wealth of billionaires has tripled in that time.

    Towler retorted with the same line:

    You launch into the rich in that way, they leave, then there’s no money.

    But Schneider said:

    Wealthy people in this country are wealthy because they own a lot of assets that are in this country. A person can leave the country – the assets are here. So the idea that assets can just be spirited out of the country and there’s nothing we can do about them, is nonsense.

    The myth of an ‘exodus’

    The idea that the super rich will leave if they’re taxed more has been parroted across the corporate media for a long time. For instance, a flurry of media reports from January claimed that there has been an “exodus” of the super rich since Labour came to power.

    Apparently, 10,800 millionaires have left. But that represents just 0.5% of the more than three million millionaires the UK harboured in 2023. The UK already has a proportionately very high number of millionaires.

    Tax Justice Network, meanwhile, has documented that just 0.01% of super rich households relocated after Norway, Sweden, and Denmark introduced increased wealth tax reforms.

    The organisation points out that there are many factors that prevent them from leaving:

    Research suggests that the majority of wealth holders have strong ties to their countries and a genuine desire to contribute as citizens. Factors such as family and social connections, access to education, and overall economic stability carry more weight than tax levels when it comes to their decision on whether to relocate

    Indeed, even 68% of millionaires themselves support a wealth tax, according to polling by Survation.

    Besides, economist Gary Stevenson has argued that the super rich who own valuable assets in the UK such as commercial property are the “least mobile” people in the world when it comes to tax. He distinguishes them from people who are paid to work for a living, because they could take a job abroad, whereas assets are based here.

    Stevenson further said

    Who owns your country? Who owns the wealth in your country? Look around you… Look at all of the land. Look at all of the buildings. Look at all of the property. Look at all the productive buildings and machinery and all of the natural resources. Somebody owns that. Who do you want to own it?

    The former city trader notes that we are “losing” the middle class because of spiralling inequality.

    The Labour government could bring in a wealth tax of 1-2% on assets worth over £10m. This would rebalance society by £22bn per year.

    James Schneider knows this – and so does Gawain Towler. But only one of them is willing to acknowledge it.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Israel has bombed children and other civilians who were inside tents in Al-Mawasi, Khan Younis. A spokesperson from the civil defence agency, Mahmud Bassal, said:

    At least 16 martyrs [were killed], most of them women and children, and 23 others were wounded following a direct strike by two Israeli missiles on several tents housing displaced families in the al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis.

    The area that is bombed is designated a so-called humanitarian or safe zone. However, Israel has repeatedly designated areas as safe zones for people to shelter in, before brutally bombing them.

    Israel’s impunity

    Shocking footage on social media of the attacks showed people engulfed in flames and crying out for help.  Journalist Motasem Dalloul posted the carnage Israel unleashed:

    In the clip, people are running to retrieve survivors from the all-encompassing flames, as sirens sound. Dalloul also shared information on who had been hurt in the attacks:

    In the past 4 hours, Israeli occupation forces have KILLED:

    • 4 displaced persons in their tents in Al Mawasi
    • 15 displaced persons, most of them are CHILDREN, in their tent in Al Astabl street of Khan Younis
    • 4 displaced persons in their tent in Beit Lahiya
    • 6 displaced persons in their tent in Jabalia
    • 7 displaced persons in their tent in Jabalia!

    Israeli aggression is still continuous..

    Drop Site News shared horrific footage of the charred remains of children Israel burned to death. You can view it here.

    A resident of the camp, Yusuf Abu Roos told Middle East Eye:

    The corpses were charred… to the point that nothing was left, even the metal in the tents were burnt.

    Yusuf said the corpses were:

    as if they were skeletons, melted skeletons.

    Majedeh Abu Roos, whose daughter and three grandchildren died during the attack, explained that her family were asleep when they were slaughtered:

    The [strike] burnt the tent, they were all burnt, they were all charred.

    Look at all those who died, they were all just children and women… Have mercy on us, we are exhausted.

    She sobbed as she told Middle East Eye:

    Every day we await our deaths, every minute and every moment, we are awaiting our end.

    Diplomat Mohamed Safa showed a hellish scene:

    Palestinian Muhammad Smiry showed the destruction Israel had caused:

    Silence from mainstream media

    Journalist Assal Rad documented how Western media has by and large been ignoring this horrifying attack:

    As usual, Israel’s bombing is being reported by Middle East outlets like Al-Jazeera, Middle East Eye, and the Quds News Network. As ever, Palestinians aren’t considered human enough for mainstream Western media to report on their deaths. Quds News Network (QNN) had the details on an extremely bloody past 24 hours:

    QNN, as they always do, included details of the specific people who’d been killed:

    It has become commonplace for social media feeds to be the place where we see Palestinians dying, screaming in pain, covered in blood, buried in rubble. Whilst the likes of the BBC are quick to cover the details of Israeli victims, no such humanisation and collective grief is forthcoming for Palestinians.

    The least Westerners can do is keep up to date with Israel’s atrocities. That involves breaking news and emerging footage of attacks, but it also involves understanding that the Palestinians massacred are not numbers in statistics, but people. Children like Ahmed Abu Al-Rous have a whole universe inside them, are the whole universe to somebody else.

    Mainstream media’s refusal to commemorate Palestinian deaths is a mirror to their refusal to treat Palestinians as people with human rights.

    Israel war crimes

    Mondoweiss‘ Qassam Muaddi spoke to people in Al-Mawasi who were trying to shelter from bombing. Muaddi reported:

    Israel not only resumed airstrikes across the strip at the same rate as the days before the ceasefire entered into force, but has also sealed it off through a complete blockade of humanitarian aid, closing all crossing points into Gaza and provoking the return of famine conditions, a critical shortage of medicine, fuel, and skyrocketing prices.

    Israel is committing a genocide. They’re herding Palestinians around the Gaza Strip, bombing safe zones that they themselves designate. Their forces are throttling any entry of aid into the area, so Palestinians starve to death and live in abject misery with little water or electricity. They’re bombing medical facilities so any treatment Palestinians might receive is further scarce. They’re committing war crime after war crime and a silent world is not just watching along, but enabling this genocide with their complicity.

    Featured image via screengrab

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has exposed that, far from the 300,000 people figure the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) says could lose part or all of their Personal Independence Payment (PIP) under controversial changes – it could actually be nearer a staggering 1.3 million people.

    DWP PIP: cruel changes

    As the Canary has previously reported, the Labour Party government has now laid down its plans for cuts DWP PIP and the health-based part of Universal Credit. DWP boss Liz Kendall launched its Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working green paper on 18 March.

    The paper included a suite of regressive reforms to make it harder for people to claim disability benefits like PIP. As expected, the changes it’s proposing will target certain claimants in particular, namely young, neurodivergent, learning disabled, and those with mental health disorders.

    Moreover, disabled people who need help with things like cutting up food, supervision, prompting, or assistance to wash, dress, or monitor their health condition, will no longer be eligible.

    Specifically, it’s increasing the number of points a person will need to score in their DWP PIP assessment to access the daily living component of the benefit. This will now require people to score four points or more in a daily living category to claim it.

    Alongside this, there’ll be cuts to out-of-work benefits like the LCWRA health-related component of Universal Credit. Once again, Labour additionally want to make this harder to claim, and all as it ramps up reassessments and conditionality requirements for doing so.

    Lie after lie

    However, Labour and the DWP have already lied about how many people the PIP changes will affect. As the Canary previously reported, according to a DWP impact assessment, as many as 370,000 current claimants (10%) could lose their PIP entitlement due to changes in eligibility rules set to be implemented in November 2026, pending parliamentary approval.

    Crucially, about 430,000 future applicants are anticipated to be denied the benefit, creating an average annual loss of around £4,500 for those affected. People, including children transitioning from Disability Living Allowance to DWP PIP, will lose out. The figure is nearer 20% based on the DWP’s own data – plus 150,000 carers who will also lose their Carer’s Allowance.

    What the department has also failed to even calculate is how many people will lose higher or standard rate Daily Living because of its DWP PIP cuts.

    But an FOI has now revealed this.

    It took an FOI to get the DWP to tell the truth

    Martin Bonner submitted a request to the DWP. He wanted to know:

    The number of claimants currently in receipt of PIP daily living component at:
    a) The standard rate
    b) The enhanced rate

    For each of the above, please also state what percentage of these claimants were awarded less than 4 points in all of the ten daily living activities under which their eligibility is assessed.

    The DWP replied – and the figures are shocking:

    Essentially, due to so many people receiving less than four points on all Daily Living activities, around 209,000 people getting enhanced rate DWP PIP will lose it. Moreover, around 1.1 million people getting the standard rate will lose it.

    That means in total, 1.3 million people could, on reassessment, lose their Daily Living element of DWP PIP.

    What is not clear from this is how many of these people get standard or enhanced Mobility Element of DWP PIP. Therefore, it is impossible to say how many of the 1.3 million would lose their whole entitlement.

    However, what is clear is that Labour and the DWP have been lying to the public. Far from affecting 10% of DWP PIP claimants, over a million may well get swept up in these cruel, vindictive reforms. Yet so far, Labour has failed to even address this.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Prominent Sudanese organisations in the UK have come together to write a damning letter to foreign secretary David Lammy over the situation in Sudan.

    A coalition of groups gathered under the marker The Sudanese Initiative Against War, and a coalition representing Sudanese doctors, lawyers, and journalists, and many more groups penned the open letter ahead of a planned protest in London on 19 April. More than 14 million people have been displaced since the start of the civil war in Sudan. Some estimates have found that more than 150,000 people have been killed.

    On Saturday 19 April, a demonstration will assemble at 1pm to march from Marble Arch to Downing Street.

    Sudan summit

    The letter raises a number of points the group feel have gone unaddressed by the government. They write:

    When discussing solutions to the war and conflicts in Sudan, it is essential to highlight and address the root causes, reflect on previous failed international and regional interventions and take into consideration the local on-ground popular forces and their genuine demand of having a sovereign civil democratic state that is in control of its resources and national economy.

    Earlier this week, the British government led an attempt to progress ceasefire negotiations. However, talks soon fell apart as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) failed to reach consensus. As the Guardian reported:

    Sudan and others have long accused the UAE of arming the RSF – which it strenuously denies – while Egypt has maintained close ties with the Sudanese army.

    And, in fact, the open letter to Lammy expressed concerns at the UAE’s involvement:

    we strongly condemn the role played by the United Arab Emirates and its direct involvement in Sudanese affairs through its military and logistical support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and funding their political meetings. We equally condemn Egypt’s government reported involvement in orchestrating the 25th Oct 2021 Coup and ongoing military support to the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

    As far as the coalition of prominent Sudanese groups is concerned:

    Achieving peace must come through ensuring justice and accountability. Those who committed atrocities or participated in funding or physically supported the warring parties must be disempowered and sanctioned. The impunity for actions committed must end now.

    Accusations abound

    Both Egypt and the UAE have been accused of interference in the Sudanese civil war. The UAE have repeatedly denied the claims:

    All allegations of the United Arab Emirates’ involvement in any form of aggression or destabilization in Sudan, or its provision of any military, logistical, financial or political support to any faction in Sudan, are spurious, unfounded, and lack any credible evidence to support them.

    However, these denials fly in the face of mounting evidence from the United Nations (UN) and other sources. Just days before the peace summit, the Guardian obtained a leaked report from the UN which contradicted the Arab state’s claims that they’re not supplying arms to fighters in Sudan. The Guardian reported:

    an internal report – marked highly confidential and seen by the Guardian – detected “multiple” flights from the UAE in which transport planes made apparently deliberate attempts to avoid detection as they flew into bases in Chad where arms smuggling across the border into Sudan has been monitored.

    The allegations raise complications for the British foreign secretary, David Lammy, who controversially invited the UAE alongside 19 other states for Sudan peace talks at Lancaster House on 15 April.

    The report demonstrates a “consistent pattern” of weapons originating from the UAE and being sent to Chad. The leak is particularly embarrassing for Lammy who has said:

    Many have given up on Sudan – that is wrong – it’s morally wrong… We simply cannot look away.

    As the open letter made clear, until Lammy is able to take the UAE to task for their interference in Sudan, talks of ceasefire or peace are doomed. Meanwhile, the RSF’s leader has accused Egypt of being involved in air strikes in Sudan. Egypt have denied the claims, but as the results of the summit show, global interference in Sudan is hampering the ceasefire process.

    Engineering peace in Sudan

    In the open letter to Lammy, the groups conclude:

    We urge the international community to hear the voices of Sudanese civil society, grassroots organisations, women and youth, who have been at the forefront of the revolution to achieve a long-lasting peace rather than short-lived temporary solutions.

    Sudan is being torn apart, but until international interference is addressed the conflict cannot be resolved. Meanwhile, it is Sudanese people who continue to suffer unimaginable atrocities while political leaders stall and delay.

    The march on 19 April to Downing Street hopes to put pressure on the British government to follow its talk with action and put justice and accountability forwards.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Five Just Stop Oil supporters found guilty for planning an action at Heathrow have launched appeals against their convictions after evidence emerged of serious misconduct by the jury.

    Just Stop Oil: appeals against sentence launched

    The five launching appeals were among eight Just Stop Oil supporters found guilty of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance by majority verdict at Isleworth Crown Court after a seven week trial before Judge Duncan.

    Raj Chada of Hodge, Jones, and Allen will be filing appeals on behalf of Rosa Hicks and Hannah Schafer, while Adam Beard, Sally Davidson and Sean O’Callaghan will be filing separate appeals.

    The grounds of the appeal include that the Attorney General has received evidence of juror misconduct during the trial which has been referred for police investigation. The misconduct arose from one juror making internet searches about the defendants and the Just Stop Oil campaign and sharing that within the jury room. In light of this evidence the appeal will say that the guilty verdicts are manifestly unsafe.

    Further grounds for appeal include that the judge was wrong to imply that the existence of a climate emergency is a matter of opinion as that contradicts the agreed facts in the case and that the police exhibited prejudicial conduct during the trial including in front of the jury. They wrongly arrested Sally Davidson, mid-trial, after confusion over her bail conditions and arrested a Just Stop Oil supporter who had been sitting in the public gallery at court and in sight of one of the jurors, who later described the incident to two further jurors.

    ‘Devastating’

    One of the appellants, Sally Davidson, 37, a hairdresser from Portland, Dorset said:

    The prospect of facing a retrial is personally devastating but in the interest of justice we have no other option but to appeal these convictions. Some of our group have now spent nine months in prison awaiting trial and now sentencing.

    Judge Duncan ruled early in our trial that the reality of climate breakdown while “concerning” was irrelevant to the jurors deliberations. She then intervened to stop us each and every time we tried to communicate the severity of climate collapse, and the threat it poses to the rule of law. In trials like ours, relating to acts of conscience, juries are being routinely told they must ignore reality, and focus on evidence without the relevant context.

    This trend by members of the Judiciary to attempt to decouple the law from morality is not how most people understand the British legal system to work. It is obvious that these trials are politically motivated, morally wrong and a huge waste of public money. Money that could be better spent supporting vulnerable people and those who are being made increasingly unsafe due to the deadly impacts of unchecked fossil fuel burning.

    Adam Beard, 55, a gardener from Stroud, who had represented himself at trial said:

    After seven months in prison on remand for resisting the genocidal burning of fossil fuels, and more than seven weeks in court, it now looks like our convictions followed misconduct by at least one member of the jury. This followed a trial where we were frequently stopped by the judge from telling the jury the truth.

    We will be sentenced on 16 May and I am likely to face further time in prison. For the sake of justice it is imperative that our convictions be quashed and my co-defendants who are still in prison be released.

    A ‘gruelling trial’ – and now this?

    Hannah Schafer, 61, a sailing instructor from Cardigan said:

    We have been through a long and gruelling seven week trial which must have cost the state a small fortune. Much of this time was spent arguing about why we shouldn’t be allowed to explain our actions to the jury. We are now undertaking an appeal due to issues around the behavior of that jury. Is it any wonder they used their initiative to find out more after being fobbed off and sent out of the room numerous times during the trial?

    This has led to a situation where our convictions could be deemed unsafe and we may have to go through the whole trial again. We have all spent time in prison, at yet more cost to taxpayers, and face long custodial sentences at our next appearance on 16 May.

    Is this a sensible way to police peaceful protest? Is it a sensible use of the overstretched and under funded justice system? Does it represent good value for money? Or would it be more sensible to address the issues we are trying to draw attention to – the need to take urgent action to halt the death and destruction being willfully wrought on the world by the fossil fuel industry.

    Tim Crosland, a former government lawyer and spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, said:

    There is compelling evidence that these convictions resulted from a juror conducting Google research and sharing partially false and highly prejudicial information with their fellow jurors. Given the concealment of evidence from juries in these cases, it’s not surprising that juries lose faith in the process, with unpredictable results.

    As it is, it should be obvious to everyone that that is a fatal flaw in the trial process and the convictions must now be quashed as a matter of urgency. For the moment the trial judge is left in the invidious position of having to pass sentence on people on 16 May, knowing that they have not properly been convicted of anything.

    Let’s hope some common sense and humanity prevails.

    Just Stop Oil: time will tell

    The Heathrow trial , which was due to start on 20 January, was delayed after Isleworth Crown Court experienced problems with its heating system and ran into the limit of its ‘sitting days’ allowed by the Ministry of Justice. Defendants were told that the trial would be postponed to September 2025 at the earliest and possibly would not be heard until February 2027. Four days later they were informed that the trial would begin on 27 January.

    The Heathrow eight are due to be sentenced on 16th May.

    Two of the eight, Luke Elson and Luke Watson have been in prison on remand since 24 July 2024. Will Goldring was remanded following the trial to await sentencing. Rory Wilson, who pleaded guilty in September, was recently granted bail after being on remand for eight months.

    If leave to appeal is granted the case may not be heard for many months. If the appeal were to be successful, and the convictions quashed, the most likely outcome is that the prosecution would seek a retrial.

    Featured image via Jamie Lowe

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The disaster of water privatisation is never ending. It turns out, water companies have overseen a large increase in serious sewage pollution incidents. They’re at a ten year high, according to data that Surfers Against Sewage obtained. There were 2,487 incidents in 2024, which is over twice the limit that the Environment Agency (EA) set.

    This is separate to the total number of sewage spills, which stood at 3.614 million hours of spillages into our lakes, rivers and seas in 2024.

    The EA set a target that water companies must collectively deliver a 40% reduction in pollution incidents compared with 2016. But instead there was a 31% increase.

    “Staggering” sewage pollution shows Surfers Against Sewage

    Giles Bristow, the chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, said:

    The numbers are staggering: record hours of sewage discharges, huge bill increases, thousands of people becoming ill and yet still the industry has the gall to still pay out billions of bill-payer money to shareholders. Things could not be clearer: this broken system needs urgent and radical reform.

    Since privatisation, water companies have paid out £78bn in dividends. That’s money that could’ve been invested in infrastructure to improve the sewage system through increasing capacity and dealing with sewage and rainwater separately. Meanwhile, every year we are charged £5bn more because of the private ownership model, according to research from the University of Greenwich.

    Bristow continued:

    We can change things if we change the way our system is run. Across the globe, the norm is to manage water at a local level, rather than the 100% private ownership model in place in England that has proved catastrophic for the environment and public health.

    England and Wales are the only countries to have privatised the actual water infrastructure, rather than some other countries that only contract private companies to manage it. That said, it’s unclear why you can’t pay people to do that in-house.

    Privatised water delivers unclean environment

    There is a correlation between public ownership of water systems and a cleaner environment. Countries with water in 100% public ownership like Cyprus, Austria, and Malta have above 95% excellent water in bathing sites. By contrast, the UK’s privatised system harbours an average of 66.3% excellent water, putting us near the bottom of our European counterparts.

    And over in Scotland, publicly owned water has overseen proportionately five times more rivers in good condition compared to England with its huge sewage problem.

    Under public ownership, it’s cheaper to invest in infrastructure because the government has the entire nation’s tax bill as its security. It can also invest through quantitative easing. Public ownership also prioritises social good over private profit. So the water utilities are less likely to cut corners in order to protect short-term shareholder gains.

    Referring to the best performing publicly owned water companies, water expert and winner of the Stockholm Water Prize Professor Asit Biswas said:

    Not a single privatised water utility comes even close to their performance

    The Glasgow University academic also said:

    Water supply is not rocket science. We have known what to do for decades. Sadly, all the British water utilities fall well short of good practices

    Biswas does point out that public ownership is not a silver bullet. There are still publicly owned water companies that mismanage sewage and perform badly. But the bottom line that it’s cheaper to own water, something we literally need to survive, than it is to rent it from rich people, is clear.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) is launching a new campaign to kick Israel out of DSEI – one of the world’s largest arms fair – which is due to take place at London’s ExCeL centre between 9-12 September 2025.

    CAAT is calling on the government, event organisers – Clarion Events – the ExCeL centre, and the London Mayor to take urgent action to ensure that those responsible and complicit for Israel’s genocide are not allowed to attend DSEI.

    Israel at DSEI? Hardly surprising.

    petition is calling for the banning of Israel arms companies and the official government invited Israeli delegation, as well as banning Israeli speakers and the Israel country pavilion.

    Israel always plays a prominent role at DSEI. with the UK government inviting an official Israeli government delegation. If this happens in 2025, it will be our government rolling out the red carpet to legitimise and enable war criminals coming to shop for even deadlier weapons to wage their genocide against Palestinian people

    In 2023, in addition to Brigadier General Dr Danny Gold, head of directorate of defense research and development for the Israeli Ministry of Defence giving a keynote speech, Israel had its own country pavilion with 48 domestic Israeli arms companies exhibiting at the event.

    These are companies that are directly responsible for, and directly profiting from, Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the war crimes it is committing in the West Bank and Lebanon. For example, Elbit Systems provides 80% of the drones that the Israeli military use in Palestine.

    CAAT argues that there is a clear legal and moral case for banning Israel from DSEI given Israel’s horrific war crimes, the ICJ finding that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, the ICC issuing arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, and this government imposing a partial arms suspension finding that Israel is not committed to complying with international law.

    CAAT: protests to DSEI are crucial

    However, CAAT is also clear that even if it achieves this aim, its “protests and opposition to DSEI” will continue. Even if Israeli delegations and companies are banned, there are plenty of domestic arms companies, such as BAE Systems – the main UK producer of the 15% of F-35 combat aircraft that is made in the UK, and that Israel is using to drop 2000lb bombs on Gaza – will still have a massive presence.

    They will be joined by top arms companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon who supply many of the arms Israel is using in Gaza.

    CAAT’s Media Coordinator Emily Apple said:

    DSEI will be a huge opportunity for Israeli companies to market military equipment that is no longer just “battle-tested” but now genocide tested, on a global level. Every company and government body responsible for Israel’s inclusion at DSEI is complicit in aiding and abetting Israel’s genocide and the commission of war crimes

    It is unconscionable that Israeli delegations and arms companies will be allowed to conduct business as usual at DSEI, and it is down to campaigners to do everything they can to kick Israel out of DSEI and stop this from happening.

    However, while we believe that banning Israel from the event is a clear moral and legal objective, and one that we hope is achievable, we want to see this disgusting arms fair shut down entirely. DSEI is a massive marketplace in death and destruction. It is a one-stop-shop for human rights abusing regimes to stock up on military equipment to wage wars abroad and repress their populations at home. From Saudi Arabia, to Qatar, to Turkey, DSEI will roll out the red carpet for delegations from human rights abusing regimes across the world.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Countless Muslim graves in Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery in Hertfordshire have been desecrated, in what has been labelled an Islamophobic hate crime by police. 85 graves in the Muslim section of a cemetery, largely the graves of babies and children, have been vandalised.

    Disturbing pictures showed the desecrated site, with name plaques broken, soil from marked graves dug up, and damaged headstones.

    Islamophobic attack at Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery

    The cemetery where the vandals struck is owned by Brent Council. Its leader, Muhammed Butt, said:

    Our thoughts are with the families of those whose graves were desecrated. I cannot imagine how they must be feeling at this moment.

    Muhammed Butt also told reporters that the council would reach out to the affected families to make arrangements to repair damaged graves, and added:

    If it means having patrols in the next few days and weeks coming forward, we will absolutely do that.

    Wadi Funeral Care, who operate in the area, said in a statement:

    We are heartbroken and outraged by the recent desecration of the Muslim burial section at Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery. Reports indicate that children’s grave plaques were destroyed, and some graves were subjected to unspeakable acts of disrespect. These heinous actions have caused immense pain to grieving families and our broader community.

    A spokesperson from the funeral home told ITV News:

    It’s had a huge impact. It’s not long ago that Woodcock Hill Cemetery, not far away from here, was also desecrated.

    People feel that these sorts of attacks are becoming more frequent.

    Less than a year ago, Muslim graves were also vandalised in Burnley – an incident which was also labelled an Islamophobic hate crime.

    Ishrat Zuberi, who regularly visits her father’s grave, said:

    I’m speechless. I haven’t actually processed this because it’s so awful.

    Grief

    Reactions on social media featured an outpouring of grief, as the horror of the desecration set in. Journalist Taj Ali called for serious action on Islamophobia:

    One user expressed disbelief at the horror of the Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery desecration:

    The An-Nisa Society, which works for the welfare of Muslims, was not impressed with the response from the council:

    The society also added:

    This is clearly not just an act of vandalism, it is an Islamophobic attack, & must be recorded as such.

    The group make an important point. As usual, the police took their time in determining whether the solely Muslim graves that were desecrated constituted an Islamophobic hate crime, or random violence. They don’t seem to have such trouble when it comes to attacks that can be designated terrorist. But, that’s probably a much simpler endeavour when all you have to do is see how dark skinned the attacker is to determine if it’s terrorism or merely violence.

    Abject

    Every one of the 85 graves vandalised at Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery contains a Muslim who was deeply loved. Even in death, Muslims still cannot be left in peace. Whoever chose to break headstones and plaques, and dig up topsoil in a cemetery undoubtedly knew they were committing a horrific and obscene act.

    But, as with all disturbing events like this, they do not happen in isolation. The desecration of these Muslim graves is a product of a deeply Islamophobic society. This Labour government have repeatedly not taken action on Islamophobia, and anti-Muslim sentiment has become normalised and even expected. No doubt, local residents will assist Muslim communities with clean-up efforts – and good on them. Nevertheless, this is clearly a societal problem for which more than just the vandals alone bear responsibility.

    Featured image via screengrab

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Another Columbia student, Mohsen Mahdawi has been detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Mahdawi is a green card holder who, alongside Mahmoud Khalil, organised protests against Israel’s genocide in Palestine. Now, senators in Vermont, where Mahdawi was apprehended have released a blistering statement:

    Earlier today, Mohsen Mahdawi of White River Junction, Vermont, walked into an immigration office for what was supposed to be the final step in his citizenship process. Instead, he was arrested and removed in handcuffs by plainclothes, armed, individuals with their faces covered.

    Whilst such a form of detention is not unheard of, it is extremely rare. The senators continued:

    These individuals refused to provide any information as to where he was being taken or what would happen to him. This is immoral, inhumane, and illegal. Mr. Mahdawi, a legal resident of the United States, must be afforded due process under the law and immediately released from detention.

    The Trump administration is evidently carrying out a terrifying campaign of detainment and deportation for Palestine supporters of colour. The manner of Mahdawi’s detention reads more like a state abduction than any form of due process.

    Mohsen Mahdawi detention: ‘unconstitutional’

    Footage of Mohsen Mahdawi’s arrest has been posted on social media:

    Mohsen can be seen being led away by plain clothes officers wearing hoods. He flashes a peace sign at the camera as he’s brought to a waiting car. Mohsen’s lawyers have, alarmingly, said that they don’t know where he’s been taken. His attorney Luna Droubi said:

    We have not received confirmation as to his whereabouts despite numerous attempts to locate him.

    Droubi also explained that:

    We have filed a habeas petition in the District of Vermont and have sought a temporary restraining order restraining the government from removing him from the jurisdiction or from the country.

    U.S. District Judge William Sessions granted the request. Other students in similar situations have been moved to detention facilities in Louisiana or Texas. As CNN reported:

    Such transfers underscore ICE’s power in deciding where to house detained migrants – a power that some immigration attorneys say the Trump administration is now using to move disfavored migrants far from their attorneys, families and support systems.

    Droubi also made it clear exactly why Mohsen was arrested:

    the Trump administration detained Mohsen Mahdawi in direct retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of Palestinians and because of his identity as a Palestinian.

    She also said:

    his detention is an attempt to silence those who speak out against the atrocities in Gaza. It is also unconstitutional.

    Organising

    Mohsen Mahdawi’s lawyers have also explained that the Columbia student was:

    an outspoken critic of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and an activist and organizer in student protests on Columbia’s campus until March of 2024, after which he took a step back and has not been involved in organizing.

    Just as with Mahmoud Khalil, Mahdawi is facing deportation under a rarely used invocation. As the Canary previously reported:

     Mahmoud has US residency via a green card which are rarely revoked without a criminal conviction. Khalil has no such criminal conviction and is instead facing deportation regardless because the US government:

    has reasonable ground to believe that your presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.

    Mahdawi was born in the West Bank, and has been a legal resident in the US for 10 years. He’s due to graduate from Columbia next month, and begin a Masters programme at the same university in the autumn semester. Just as with Khalil, Mahdawi’s detention is a punishment for advocating for Palestine, and condemning Israeli genocide.

    Campaign of intimidation

    Bizarrely, Trump’s administration has claimed that Mohsen Mahdawi, a student, could “potentially undermine” the Middle East peace process. However, as reported by The Verge, Mohsen is well known in the local activist community for reaching out to both Palestinian and Israeli individuals. On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly clear that facts have nothing to do with the Trump administrations dogged pursual of a campaign of terror and intimidation against Palestine advocates.

    Mohsen has built a life in the US after being born in a refugee camp. However, that life means nothing to the Trump administration and to border agents. It doesn’t matter to them that Mohsen built a life that featured family, loved ones, study, because Palestinians aren’t humans as far as the Trump administration is concerned. Mohsen has effectively been abducted during what was supposed to be an interview to secure his permanent residency.

    The time is far past for pleas to care about Mohsen Mahdawi and Khalil in case it might happen to you. This is happening to Palestinians across the US, and either you believe in their rights, or you’re happy to have those rights trampled over by a fascistic government.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • An open letter has had to spell out to the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) British citizens’ rights to free speech, as well as international laws enshrining oppressed peoples’ rights to resist their oppressors. This is because the CPS currently has preposterous terrorism charges levied against two Palestine advocates and SOAS University of London students. Specifically, in March, the Met Police arrested and charged the ‘SOAS 2’ under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act.

    The force imposed this repressive overreach of terrorism powers for the crime of?

    Speaking out for Palestine.

    It’s but another instance of the Israel genocide-enabling British state targeting the people standing against the brutal Zionist war criminal and apartheid regime.

    SOAS 2: an open letter calling the CPS to drop the outrageous charges

    In early March, the UK criminal justice system ramped up its repressive crackdown on those speaking out against Israel. An atrocious abuse of Section 12 Terrorism Act powers has seen one vocal critic of Israel served charges and a second arrested days after.

    On 4 March, the CPS issued the trumped-up charges against Sarah. This came more than 13 months after her initial arrest.

    The Metropolitan Police had originally arrested Sarah in a dawn raid on 31 January 2024. Notably, this was at the behest of Zionist legal lobby group, UK Lawyers for Israel, who’d pushed for the force to make the arrest.

    Sarah’s crime? A speech she gave at SOAS University in October 2023. In this, Sarah had articulated support for Palestinian’s rights to armed resistance under illegal occupation and an oppressive apartheid regime. Alarmingly, Zionists had brought the speech in question to the attention of the Met by tagging them in social media posts online.

    In other words, Sarah was arrested, and now has been charged, due to a concerted campaign from Zionists to silence supporters of a free Palestine. Specifically, the charges centre round the allegation her speech was “inviting support for a proscribed organisation”, namely Hamas.

    Then, on 7 March, the Met arrested the second student on suspicion of an offence under the same legislation.

    The Act carries a possible sentence of up to 14 years in prison.

    So now, an open letter with a significant list of left-wing activist groups, esteemed academics, journalists, musicians, and more, has called out the CPS’s outrageous charges.

    An attempt to ‘intimidate and censor’ support for the Palestinian’s freedom struggle

    The Revolutionary Communist Group Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! (FRFI) launched the SOAS 2 letter towards the end of March. Since then, it has garnered more than eighty signatories. An accompanying public petition has also brought in a further over 2,000 signatures to date.

    Significantly, the open letter is demanding that the CPS drop all charges against Sarah and discontinue its investigations against the other SOAS student. The letter states that the state “suppression of free speech” in these cases is a “calculated targeting” and:

    is an attempt to intimidate and censor any expression of support for the Palestinian freedom struggle. It is an attack on the entire solidarity movement.

    Crucially, it lambasted the use of counter-terror laws clamping down on expressions of support for Palestinian resistance. Notably, under international law, occupied people have the right to defend themselves against occupying forces. This includes by armed resistance if necessary. So, as the open letter lays out:

    Resistance is not terrorism

    Kotsai Sigauke from FRFI therefore told the Canary in a comment that:

    It is not terrorism for an oppressed people to resist ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism and genocide through armed struggle. It was not terrorism when the people of Algeria fought French imperialism, it was not terrorism when the people of Ireland fought British imperialism, it was not terrorism when black South Africans fought apartheid and it is not terrorism for Palestinians to fight back against the genocidal Zionist state. United Nations General Assembly resolution 37/43 and the Geneva Conventions Protocol 1 explicitly gives Palestinians, and all oppressed people, the right to resist their oppressors by any available means, that includes armed struggle.

    Signees have faced similar state repression

    Of course, the SOAS 2 joins an unenviable list of Palestine advocates with all too similar experiences of state repression. There’s a palpable and growing trend of state crackdowns on free speech in relation to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

    Police forces around the country have continued to violently crack down on student Palestine protest encampments. A damning exposé from Liberty Investigates revealed in February that universities have subserviently collaborated with local police forces investigating their students. Acting as servile and complicit instruments of the state:

    at least 36 universities had correspondence with the police concerning student protests and more than a dozen held meetings with officers. In many cases universities shared social media posts or images of event flyers with police, and discussed the political views of guest speakers.

    Among those who have so far signed the open letter is Electronic Intifada journalist Asa Winstanley. In October, the Met’s counter-terrorism unit raided his home and seized all his electronic devices. While he wasn’t arrested, nor charged, the act of police intimidation of a journalist investigating and writing on Israel’s genocide in Gaza had all the same repressive ingredients as the Met and CPS’s treatment of the SOAS 2.

    Winstanley also faced state accusations of encouraging “support for a proscribed organisation”. This is deliberate harassment of a journalist – by any other name – from a key arm of the state’s law enforcement.

    Of course, Winstanley wasn’t the first journalist advocating for Palestine that the state attempted to silence using counter-terror laws last year either.

    The Met raid on Winstanley’s home followed British border police detaining independent journalist Richard Medhurst at Heathrow airport. It also came after another raid by counter-terror cops on journalist and activist Sarah Wilkinson’s home, who also had personal items confiscated.

    Systemic state repression

    Another signee is the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol).

    The same day FRFI published the open letter over the SOAS 2, Netpol put out a first-of-its kind damning new report. The State of Protest in 2024 laid out in no uncertain terms how aggressive police use of Tory anti-protest laws and portrayals of protesters as threats to democracy, amounted to nothing less than state repression. In one salient part of the report, Netpol detailed that:

    Out of 80 arrests for terrorism offences directly related to the war in Gaza, about half relate to protests

    The point here is that the state has liberally deployed these counter-terror powers against a significant number of Palestine supporters.

    This has included Palestine Action activists like founder Richard Barnard. The Labour Party government’s attorney general, Richard Hermer, personally signed off on the terrorism charges the state is bringing against him. Once again, it’s all over speeches he made at protests. Naturally, Section 12 reared its head amidst the charges. Again, this alleged he’d expressed support for a proscribed organisation: Hamas.

    Netpol’s report marked out the terrorism offences as one tool amid the broadscale arsenal of the state’s repressive reactionary tactics to silence advocates for a free Palestine.

    Sigauke from FRFI drew similar parallels with the ongoing Met police use of dodgy pre-crime laws, and frequent arrests under Tory anti-protest powers:

    Under this Labour government we’re seeing an escalation in repression against the working class and the Palestine solidarity movement in this country. The Metropolitan Police carried out an outrageous raid on Youth Demand’s meeting on 27 March and the Filton 18 are still held in prison on remand for taking action against genocide. There is also the SOAS 2.

    Needless to say, Youth Demand is another signatory to the open letter.

    He continued:

    The SOAS 2, the Filton 18 and Youth Demand all need our unconditional solidarity. Everyone who supports Palestine, wants to defend democratic rights and cares about free speech must support them.

    SOAS 2: time to stand together and fight back

    The FRFI noted one vital thing that over a year and a half of Israel’s genocide and British state response to protests against should now make abundantly clear. The police is not – and never has been – on marginalised communities’ side. Because time and again, the racist enforcement arm of the establishment has shown its alignment to the oppressors.

    So, Sigauke also called out the Labour Party government for increasing police funding. It laid into the government for further machinations to oppress working class, Black, brown, and other oppressed communities in the UK:

    Under the Labour government, the state is also introducing measures to further criminalise the working class and anyone who dissents. One of the goals of its ‘safer streets mission’ is to put 13,000 more racist police on our streets. That means more black youths being harassed, more people being brutalised and more black children being strip searched (sexually assaulted). The Labour government is also bringing in the Crime and Policing Bill that has a whole laundry list of measures that will oppress and criminalise the working class, give the police more powers, and further restrict our right to protest.

    Ultimately, he said that the state’s increasing repression signals something significant. This is that, people speaking out and standing up for Palestine has them rattled:

    The Labour Party and the police want to crush the movement for Palestine, criminalise young people and oppress the working class because they are scared of them. Capitalism and imperialism are decaying, that is why the state is becoming more reactionary. We won’t sit down and accept criminalisation and repression, we’re going to stand up and fight back. That is why we are supporting the protests in April.

    In short: the SOAS 2 are a testament to the state running scared. Everyone who stands on the side of and in solidarity with oppressed communities, here and in Palestine, should support them.

    You can sign the petition against this latest appalling manifestation of state violence and repression here.

    Featured image supplied

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Dozens of Labour MPs, including cabinet ministers with flimsy majorities, risk losing their seats over the government’s incoming Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cuts to disabled people’s support. Data shared between MPs shows there are over 80 seats where majorities are slimmer than the number of people who may lose their Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

    There will be a possible June vote on the £5 billion cut, which to many is simply austerity 2.0 and another instance of Labour acting potentially worse than the Tories.

    One issue is that, ahead of the 2024 election, Keir Starmer purged as many left-wing MPs as possible, while filling the Commons with ‘yes men’ who do whatever he says. This placed Starmer’s government on an authoritarian footing, after he already attempted to suppress the democracy of the Labour membership through nullifying their power and lying to them. It has resulted in many Labour MPs merely writing strongly worded letters about the cuts to disabled people’s support, rather than actually voting against them.

    Just one term for Starmer thanks to DWP cuts?

    But the lack of a robust approach to government may have electoral consequences. Health secretary Wes Streeting risks losing his seat to independent Leanne Mohamad. In the 2024 election, she was only around 500 votes away from unseating him. And indeed, polling from April has Mohamad on 41% and Streeting trailing on just 19%. Even the Tory candidate is ahead of him.

    Then there’s Jess Phillips, safeguarding minister. In the last election, disabled activist and candidate for the Workers Party of Britain Jody McIntyre came within around 700 votes of unseating her.

    Justice secretary Shabana Mahmood may also lose her seat because of the number of disabled people losing DWP support in her constituency. Independent candidate Akhmed Yakoob came within around 3,400 votes of thwarting her in the 2024 election.

    Although, there are many at risk seats that have Nigel Farage’s party in second place. Labour’s Nia Griffith is only around 1,500 votes away from losing her seat to the Reform candidate in Llanelli.

    A number of Westminster voting intention polls since the October budget have had Labour either behind or neck and neck with Reform. One Survation poll from April showed Starmer’s party bleeding huge numbers of votes to Reform in the North.

    Starmer had won back their support through committing to Brexit. That’s after he shamelessly championed a second referendum to sabotage Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership while he was shadow Brexit secretary.

    Labour failures – a brighter or darker future?

    It’s not just the proposed DWP cuts to disabled people’s support. YouGov polling from March found that 81% of people believe Labour is handling the cost of living crisis ‘badly’, while only 12% think they are doing well on this key issue. Further, 70% of Britons (including almost half of Labour voters) say the government isn’t managing the economy well. And just one in seven believe chancellor Rachel Reeves has done a good job.

    The issue is, at present, Labour’s failures especially around DWP cuts appear to be paving the way for Reform rather than a left alternative. The Green party made historic gains in 2024. But they still do not seem to be making the most of Labour’s move to the right.

    People may well mistake them for a single issue party – more of a pressure point than a governing force. And the concern that the electoral system favours the two main parties is another factor. 50% of people considering voting Green view them as a potentially wasted vote.

    Perhaps a left electoral coalition could prove successful, like what we saw in France.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In a significant development in an ongoing fight for justice, Alan Bates has urged fellow subpostmasters to consider legal action against the Labour Party government for persistently delaying financial redress over the Post Office Horizon scandal.

    Post Office scandal: WTF is Labour doing?

    The Post Office Horizon accounting software, which was fraught with unreliable reporting issues, turned into a huge scandal. It unjustly implicated over 900 subpostmasters in financial discrepancies between 1999 and 2015, leading to wrongful prosecutions and severe professional and personal consequences for many.

    In an email addressed to members of the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA), Bates highlighted the dismaying reality that, based on current progress, it might take until November 2027 for all claims to be resolved.

    Under harsh scrutiny, many subpostmasters continue to endure the hardships of waiting for compensation, despite previous government announcements that those with quashed convictions would be eligible for payouts amounting to £600,000 each.

    Bates stated:

    It’s time for others to step up; hopefully you’ll all agree I’ve done my bit.

    His call for action reflects not only a sense of urgency but also a deep frustration with the current state of affairs.

    Frustration

    The situation over the Post Office scandal was deemed so dire that Christopher Head, the youngest subpostmaster in Britain when he took on the role at just 18 years old, expressed his readiness to assist efforts in taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). He mentioned he had purposely made his case public to promote transparency within the process.

    The infrastructure designed to address these injustices, notably the Group Litigation Order (GLO) scheme, has been labelled a “mess” by Bates. This scheme aimed to deliver justice to the 555 claimants who had collectively sued the Post Office between 2017 and 2019, but according to Bates, it has repeatedly fallen short.

    In his words, he contended that:

    Advice on how to streamline and speed up the scheme… is ignored out of hand with the feeblest of excuses.

    He voiced concerns that not only the GLO scheme but all financial redress mechanisms are suffering due to systemic issues in their administration.

    As frustration mounts among those affected by the Post Office scandal, Bates has suggested that revisiting the courts may be the swifter route to securing fair treatment for all subpostmasters. He noted the exasperation felt by many who, out of “desperation or despair” or under pressure, had settled for inadequate offers, implying that fresh legal action could provide a pathway for these claims to be reassessed fairly.

    Post Office scandal: a distressing battle for justice

    In light of the ongoing legal struggles, the prospect of launching a national fundraising campaign to offset the costs of pursuing legal options has also been floated. The emotional and financial toll on the victims of the Post Office scandal has reached alarming levels, underscoring the critical need for comprehensive redress and support for those wronged by the system.

    The government’s silence on the matter, as indicated by the failure to respond to inquiries from the media, serves only to exacerbate feelings of disillusionment among affected subpostmasters.

    They find themselves caught in a lengthy and distressing battle for justice, left to navigate a system that seems to continually sidestep accountability and fair compensation.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A vibrant new, inclusive online community has sprung up to fight back against the Labour Party government’s brutal Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) disability benefit cuts and the rampant ableism these plans have emboldened.

    Filling a vital niche, Disability Rebellion is one disabled artist, writer, and activist’s answer to a rights movement that too often still, excludes chronically ill and disabled people unable to turn out to in-person demonstrations.

    The Canary spoke to founder Atlanta about the new group, and its ambitions for taking on the impending cuts.

    Disability Rebellion: ‘galvanised into action’ by ‘cruel DWP cuts’

    After the Labour Party DWP boss Liz Kendall announced the government’s suite of regressive disability benefit cuts, Atlanta launched Disability Rebellion towards the end of March.

    Currently, the group spans two social media sites. On X, it has a community that X users can request to join. Over on Facebook, there’s a landing page, alongside a similar private group to become a member.

    In a nutshell, it describes itself as:

    a feisty fightback against ableism + government cuts. A space free from ableists!

    That is, in essence, the basic premise of the new group. It’s a welcoming online community and safe space for disabled people to organise. In that vein, Atlanta explained that:

    There is a strong emphasis on being a supportive community where we disabled people can help each other, support each other and be there for each other. Such solidarity and support is needed at this difficult time for disabled people, where we are not only having to manage our disabilities and illnesses, but also having to fight for the healthcare we need, fight against hateful rhetoric and ableism, keep a roof over our heads and fight against the cuts. It is a lot to manage for anyone alone and I hope that as a community we can help each other get through this.

    Significantly, Atlanta has expressed how she was “galvanised into action” by the government’s DWP Green Paper announcements. In her online blog, she confided how these impacted her and were the impetus for the new group:

    The cruel government cuts to disability benefits felt like I had been dumped into an ice bath. After a decade of being trapped in the agonising, mind-numbing fugue of chronic migraine, I woke up to harsh reality; the anger and despair was immense. I could no longer sit there and watch as the government gutted disability benefits and continued the work started by the Tories.

    This is when the Disability Rebellion was born.

    Atlanta told the Canary that its aims are to:

    put pressure on the government to abandon the cuts, to raise awareness of the ableism in our society, to fight back against anti-disabled hate, to challenge the harmful and hateful rhetoric coming from the government about disabled people, and to provide a supportive environment where rebels can network with each other for support and solidarity without the fear of abuse from trolls and ableists.

    True inclusivity means breaking the mould on traditional methods of activism

    Straight away, it’s evident that Atlanta’s own experience living with chronic health conditions has fed into the vision for the group. Notably, while the moment has called for concerted boots and wheels on the ground action, it shouldn’t mean bed-bound and house-bound disabled people are left out of forging the fight back.

    In fact, chronically ill and disabled people at home are arguably some of the voices most needed. Notably, it’s this demographic who are more likely to be among those unable to work.

    Of course, it’s also the case that DWP cuts will hit them the hardest. The government has justified these plans through hostility to those who can’t work. All the while, ‘disability confident’ work-from-home part-time positions are shamefully sparse, to virtually non-existent.

    So, Atlanta told the Canary that:

    We are creating a community where disabled people from all over the country can come together to oppose ableism and the cuts – in whichever way they can. The difficulty disabled people have is that we’re typically isolated in a largely inaccessible world – and so it can be difficult for us to be represented and to register our discontent and dissent using traditional methods. It can be difficult for many disabled activists to get to  protests and so, disabled people from over the country are coming together in this online community to share ideas and work together in a supportive environment to find ways to effectively oppose ableism and the cuts to welfare.

    Moreover, she articulated that she wants Disability Rebellion to embody inclusivity:

    We recognise that disability is intersectional, affecting people from all backgrounds, and so Disability Rebellion is an inclusive movement that represents disabled people, regardless of who you are, where you are from, and regardless of sexuality, gender, sex, age, disability and religion. It has been amazing seeing people from all backgrounds coming together to fight back. There is strength in numbers. If we are united, we can stand up as one large community and tell society that “No, this is not how we are meant to treat disabled people and other marginalised groups.” It is easy to divide us – especially in a time where so many people (not just disabled people) are struggling to have their basic needs met – so we must resist that by working together and being inclusive.

    In short, Disability Rebellion has thrown down the gauntlet in the disability rights movement. It’s posing a vital challenge to all groups fighting on the welfare cut front. This is: what good is a movement advocating for societal inclusivity, if it isn’t embedding this within its own work?

    An ‘evolving and growing’ community with bold plans

    Speaking to Atlanta, it’s clear the group has bold plans to boot for all this.

    The group wants to “educate the public” about the lived realities of being disabled.

    On top of this, Atlanta envisages the group going for charity status. In particular, she wants to explore this option in order to raise funds for the group’s future activism.

    She also hopes that the group can assist in funding legal cases that disabled people bring to oppose the DWP cuts. Specifically, she articulated that she’d like:

    to see a mass class legal action against the government and I’m sure we could work with other disability movements and organisations to make this possible.

    There’s no shortage of ideas. Atlanta mused that she also eventually intends for the group to:

    have a team of advisors on board who can help disabled people advocate for their rights.

    Overall, she noted that:

    As this is an evolving and growing community, we are excited for the future and can’t wait to see where this takes us next.

    However, as it says on the tin, it’s a ‘rebellion’ first and foremost – a focal point for a call to action. This is precisely what Atlanta wants to see the group become. In particular, she relayed to the Canary how Disability Rebellion is, in part, a response to the urgent need for direct action:

    We want to make some noise – not just online – so we want to eventually organise direct actions (such as protests) that are accessible for disabled people. We would like to work with other disability movements, charities and organisations who align with our values. We recognise that we need training because this is new to most of us. We’d welcome all the help we can get!

    Fighting ableism brings out all the bigots

    The set up as private groups across the two platforms has enabled Atlanta and fellow admins Jessica and Matt to moderate the content. Atlanta lamented how necessary this has been. Unfortunately, but perhaps unsurprisingly on the cesspool of billionaire-owned social media that have allowed bigotry to fester, and at times actively fanned it, the group has faced the very “rampant ableism” Atlanta started the group to dismantle.

    Needless to say then, Disability Rebellion has of course attracted a rancid panoply of far-right ableist detractors:

    The only negative response has come from ableist trolls online and uniformed members of the public who believe the rhetoric against disabled people. Some of the abuse I’ve seen directed at myself, other members and members of the wider disabled community has been quite horrific, with some sinking to fascism and demanding that disabled people be eradicated from society because we are a drain on society, according to them.

    However, Atlanta and team have only seen this as all the more reason for Disability Rebellion to press on:

    every time we see comments like this, it provides further motivation to stand up and counter that violent narrative.

    In short, the group won’t be cowed – the ecosystem of hate is exactly why it has sprung up – and it won’t be silenced.

    What’s more, this has paled in comparison to the broad and spanning support Disability Rebellion has compelled. Atlanta said that:

    We are totally blown away by the response to our growing movement – which has been mainly positive – with a lot of support and encouragement coming from disabled people, activists, welfare charities, writers, health professionals and other members of the public. It seems that there has been a need for something like this. It is a way to channel our anger and fear into something positive and proactive. Often we feel powerless and unable to fight back and I believe that Disability Rebellion provides that channel through which we can fight back and empower each other to do so.

    Disabled people are ‘here’ and will be ‘seen and heard’ by the DWP

    Under the surface, this has been a rebellion brewing for a long time. Ahead of the DWP announcement, the corporate media had been leaking and speculating over the government’s plans. This of course, as the Canary has been pointing out, was all about exploiting the uncertainty and disabled people’s fears for clicks and resulting ad revenue.

    Amid this shitstorm of right-wing press and political maneuvering, Atlanta was already connecting with communities online. She detailed that:

    I have spoken to many disabled people and carers over the last few months who are angry and afraid for their futures. People who join this movement are tired and frustrated. We’ve had enough of being treated as less than human, as if we don’t count because we’re not seen as productive because many of us are unable to work. Disabled people are subjected to so much abuse – especially online – no doubt driven by the government’s anti-disabled rhetoric which is magnified by mainstream media. After 14 years of hell for disabled people under the Tories, we are being forced to endure it for much longer under the Labour government. It feels like a betrayal, because the Labour Party is meant to represent the working class – which includes disabled people too. We feel like our lives don’t count because many of us aren’t “working people”. So we want to get together to rebel against the ableism, hate and benefits cuts.

    Ultimately, Atlanta expressed that Disability Rebellion will be a force for amplifying chronically ill and disabled people:

    All too often, disabled voices are being drowned out by a government and mainstream media hostile towards disabled people. We must fight this rising tide of hate.

    We want to be heard, because it is difficult to be heard and seen by society. I often get that feeling the the government and some members of society would rather we were not seen and not heard. It feels like they want to pretend we do not exist. We want to say we’re here and we’re not going away, and we will be seen and heard.

    While it’s early days, it’s clear Disability Rebellion plans to pull no punches, in punching up against the government, media, and far-right forces trying to destroy disabled communities in the UK. Needless to say, there could not be a more crucial time for an online community like this.

    You can join Disability Rebellion on X here, or on Facebook here.

    Featured image supplied

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Undertones singer-turned-anti-sewage campaigner Feargal Sharkey has been fighting shit on multiple fronts. The latest turd of a tall-tale is from the very government body – the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) – responsible for mopping up the almighty mess of a regulatory system on sewage.

    This is because, Defra now has the audacity to claim it’s “taking rapid action” on polluters – when it couldn’t be clearer the Labour Party government is doing nothing of the sort.

    And notably, Defra’s latest exercise in pumping out PR bullshit has made one thing patently apparent. That is, the government’s key environment arm should really be renamed Department for doing diddly squat on sewage pollution.

    Don’t look now, Defra is going to do bugger all to bring big sewage polluters to heel

    On Sunday 13 April, Defra was out blowing its own trumpet full of bullshit all over X:

    As Feargal Sharkey highlighted however, the little PR stunt is not really all as it seems.

    For one, the plans it hyped up are not really news, because they’re not actually anything new.

    The government had previously announced £104bn of private sector investment. But, when you put this in the context of the dividends and bonuses companies have paid out, it looks a lot less ‘new’ investment, than playing catching up. As the Canary’s James Wright recently underscored:

    Water and sewage companies have paid out £73 billion in dividends since Margaret Thatcher initiated privatisation. Additionally, the average pay for water and sewage company CEOs in England is around £1.7m. And they have received £25m in bonuses and incentives since 2019.

    Thanks to all that rank profiteering, consumer bills are over a third what they should be.

    And, there’s another huge problem there too. Notably, there’s nothing stopping these profit-skimming racketeers from passing the costs of this investment to consumers:

    We already know spineless industry regulator Ofwat sure as hell isn’t going to stop them. It is, after all beholden to a ‘growth duty’, which goes some way to explaining its pitiful record protecting the public from private water’s de facto persistent price-gouging. That is, after all, privatised public services and human rights in a nutshell.

    Ofwat just laying cover for the industry like usual

    Then, there’s the bosses’ bonus ban. It’s part of the government’s new law, that parliament passed in September 2024. The Water (Special Measures) Act came into force in February.

    Is the ban painfully close, but no cigar on the concerted change that needs to happen? Not even that.

    Here’s what Defra’s bluster-fuck has actually meant so far. Yes, the new Act does mean regulators can ban bosses’ bonuses. No, that doesn’t mean it will actually do it on anything like the scale the slimy water company CEOs deserve. Water regulator Ofwat told the Guardian in March that it was:

    near-certain to ban some water CEO bonuses this year.

    That ‘near’ and ‘some’ is obviously doing a lot of the heavy lifting in that statement. In other words, what the regulator was saying, was that it’s going to take action on a handful, if that, of company CEOs to make it look like it’s taking this “rapid action”. As ever with this half-assed Labour government, it’s all about the strongman optics.

    All that’s only after a consultation anyway, because if there’s one thing this Labour Party shitshow love, it’s a kicking-the-can-down-the-road consultation.

    And, it doesn’t really get better when you look at what Ofwat is actually proposing. For instance, it suggests that the government could prohibit bonuses if:

    the company has received a 1-star (“poor performing”) rating in the Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) for the calendar year preceding the end of the PRP [performance related executive pay] payment year.

    Might that be the abysmally pointless and failing star-rating system that’s let sewage companies score “industry leader” level ratings while pumping UK waterways full of crap?

    Labour previously indicated it is mooting tinkers to this which will deny companies “the highest score” if they mark down poorly in the sewage discharge metric. See the problem here yet?

    Water companies might not get a full sweep if they maintain their sewage-polluting ways, but they could still wrack up two, or even three stars thanks to other metrics. Meaning, in other words, they won’t fall foul of Ofwat’s “1-star (“poor performing”) rating”.

    As Feargal Sharkey spelled out at the time, CEOs from the likes of big polluters Severn Trent, and United Utilities basically used the ranking system to their advantage:

    Apparently though, toothless Ofwat’s new plan to lay cover for the industry will mean that they hardly even need the top ranking. Anything more than one star – bonuses all round (for the execs that is).

    Water pollution criminals get their comeuppance? Don’t be ridiculous

    Moreover, as Sharkey has previously pointed out, why should it stop at the water company CEOs? The privatisation buck sure as hell doesn’t stop at them, so the ban shouldn’t either.

    That is, the government should be going after the scummy private investors that ultimately profiteer a pretty penny out of pumping our waterways full of poo. Name and shame, and ban the bonuses of the banks, the hedge funds, the big shareholders. Like, for instance, the former Thames Water owner and “vampire kangaroo” Macquarie that left London’s sewage infrastructure a leaking, dripping state of disrepair and made off with all the profits.

    And if you thought literal criminal records could put a stop to CEOs paying themselves handsome payouts, think again. Ofwat thinks that there should be “exceptions”. Supposedly, this would apply where courts determine there is “low/no harm or culpability”.

    Paging another on-point dress-down from Feargal Sharkey, who’s previously articulated just how useless will be in practice too. Look at all the criminal prosecutions UK governments have taken out on water company bosses:

    The only potential saving grace might be the bonus ban plan for companies wracking up financial penalties.

    Here’s Thames Water in all its financial penalty glory. Pathetic slaps on the wrist to be sure, but if in future these prohibit bosses’ bonuses, that’s one small boon. However, there’s a catch again. It would ONLY apply to fines from Ofwat over “consumer matters”. So it wouldn’t be for fines from other regulatory bodies like the Environment Agency.

    This ties in with new regulatory powers the Labour Party introduced in February 2024. The new rules would enable Ofwat to impose fines of up to 10% of the company’s turnover.

    Again though, let’s be real – Ofwat is still only on the consultation stage of this – meaning that no companies to date have received such penalties.

    Reeking of reputation management over sewage chaos

    Call it whatever else you like, but a bunch of pending consultations does not for “rapid action” make. If it even makes for ‘action’ at all.

    We might be gracious and give the gov the benefit of the doubt, if, a big IF, it weren’t for the small fact that, it has done basically bugger all to date.

    So when all is said and done, Defra has shit spewing out its PR-mongering orifice too, as one unconvinced X user aptly put:

    The Defra post reeking of government reputation and crisis management? Say no more.

    It’s more masterclass in Orwellian double-think than doubling down on big polluters at the end of the day:

    In fact, it’s astonishing the department could drum up any achievements amid the stinking pile of failures it has to its name. Instead, one person on X was ready and raring to rattle off an example of water company sewage crimes the government has done nothing to redress:

    So, like Defra says: #TheBoatRace2025, am I right?

    Here, here, Feargal Sharkey

    Yet, even the middle class and upper elite echelons of the Oxford Vs Cambridge University annual boat race haven’t been buying it. On 9 April, Oxford rowers lambasted the appalling levels of sewage in the Thames. Notably, three members of last year’s race came down with stomach bugs before the race.

    To sum up then:

    • Thames Water gets a £3bn bailout after filling our rivers full of shit,
    • The public foot the bill for water company chronic underinvestment (again),
    • and Defra is being all middle class raging at the establishment machine “I’ll write an email” about it with another round of weak consultations.

    When all is said and done, Defra to “put an end” to sewage pollution my ass.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has come under fire for its refusal to amend a long-standing policy that has effectively denied around 500,000 British people living abroad the chance to benefit from what could amount to a significant cash increase in their state pension.

    The latest figures indicate that these people are missing out on a potential £470 triple lock boost due to their residing in countries where pension payments are not uplifted.

    DWP: hitting people claiming state pension abroad

    Campaigners from the End Frozen Pensions Campaign are vocal in their criticism of the DWP state pension chaos, highlighting the financial strain imposed on British citizens who have dedicated their working lives to the UK, including a significant number of veterans and former civil servants:

    Government inaction to address this issue is a longstanding failure to protect the UK’s most vulnerable citizens and has condemned many recipients of the UK state pension to live under harsh financial conditions.

    The current policy means that DWP state pension payments for expatriates are ‘frozen’ at the amount they first received when they either left the UK or became eligible for their pension.

    This freeze results in decreased purchasing power over time, as inflation steadily erodes the value of their income, leaving many struggling to afford essential needs.

    Alarmingly, a recent survey conducted by the End Frozen Pensions Campaign revealed that nearly 40% of those affected have had to make drastic cuts to necessities such as food and medication. Furthermore, more than half (51%) reported serious financial stress attributable to the frozen state pension policy.

    Proponents of the campaign are adamant that the current approach is a ‘political choice’ rather than an unchangeable circumstance. They assert that it could be reversed through straightforward legislative action here in the UK.

    Despite this, the DWP’s stance remains unwavering.

    ‘It’s just how it is’

    In a statement, the department remarked:

    The policy on the uprating of UK state pension paid overseas is a longstanding one. UK state pension are payable worldwide, without regard to nationality, and are only uprated abroad where there is a legal requirement to do so – for example in countries with which we have a reciprocal agreement that provides for up-rating.

    Critics argue that the inaction from the DWP on the state pension reflects a troubling disregard for the needs of older people whose contributions were integral to shaping modern Britain. The financial hardships faced by them are compounded by rising living costs, making their plight more dire than ever.

    As the debate continues, many older people and their advocates are left feeling abandoned. They assert that it is unjust for their retirement income to be dictated by the geographical location of their residence rather than their lifetime contributions to the UK economy.

    The hopes of those campaigning for an end to the frozen state pension policy hinge on the ability to convince the DWP to reevaluate its approach, and ultimately prioritise the financial well-being of its expatriate citizens.

    State pension scandal: a microcosm of a wider problem

    The plight of these 500,000 older people exemplifies the broken DWP system, highlighting disparities. abuse, and systemic neglect that affect not only older people but many chronically ill and disabled people, too.

    The call for change on the state pension echoes louder as advocates for fair treatment rally behind the very real struggles faced by these citizens, a situation that demands urgent reconsideration from those in power.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A new report has issued a damning assessment of the effect the UK Labour Party government’s hostile environment policies is having on refugees and asylum seekers’ mental health.

    In its latest edition, the Mental Health Foundation has spelled out in no uncertain terms how the UK’s gruelling system is destroying the mental health of people.

    Crucially, off the back of the new report, the non-profit is calling for the government to end its senseless rule denying asylum seekers the right to work. This is because the nonsense policy is a central factor driving their deteriorating wellbeing.

    Report reveals dire mental health for asylum seekers in the UK

    The Mental Health Foundation supports asylum seekers and refugees with their mental health through various programmes across the UK.

    In February 2024, the non-profit previously issued a scathing report. This was on the state of asylum seekers’ and refugees mental health in the UK. Notably, it underscored how:

    The social and economic conditions in which they live post-migration can have an equally powerful influence on their mental health. Experiences of poverty, financial insecurity, unemployment, lack of adequate housing, social isolation, loneliness, prejudice, stigma, and discrimination all carry a higher risk of poor mental health [10],​ and asylum seekers and refugees are at higher risk of experiencing all these inequalities. Asylum seekers will also often be dealing with stress about the status of their claim and challenges in accessing healthcare.

    Moreover, it called for:

    a trauma-informed and person-centred approach to asylum claim processes, housing, education, health and care provision experienced by asylum seekers and refugees.

    Now, the foundation has followed this up – and found the situation for refugees and asylum seekers is no less dire. Crucially, its latest report now covers the new UK Labour government’s actions since the 2024 General Election.

    Give asylum seekers the right to work

    In particular, the report paints a damning picture of the detrimental impacts on asylum seekers of not allowing them to work. This includes a loss of self-esteem, loneliness, and an increased risk of depression. This results in a greater likelihood of people having to use already oversubscribed NHS mental health services in the future.

    So, the foundation is urging the Labour Party government to redress this. Specifically, it is demanding the right to work for asylum seekers waiting longer than six months for the government to process their claim.

    Currently, the government only grants asylum seekers the right to work after 12 months in specific circumstances. And, even then, it limits this to jobs on the Immigration Salary List. In reality, this rarely gives them the ability to work.

    Given the appalling state of people’s mental health, the foundation highlights this as an unconscionable situation to maintain. Moreover, it put the context of this in terms the fiscally conservative Labour government would understand. Notably, it laid out how this would be a no-brainer for the chancellor’s budget savings agenda.

    Changing these rules to allow working after six months, with no restriction on the type of jobs, would bring £4.4bn in government savings. It would generate this by reducing the number of asylum seekers who rely on the state. In addition, this would deliver an estimated £1bn in growth to GDP, and raise £880m in new tax revenue.

    Destroying physical and mental health

    Ishmail Yambasu is a refugee who was a social worker in Sierra Leone before he had to flee the country. He told the Mental Health Foundation about his experiences of the UK’s system. In particular, the UK Home Office denied him permission to work while he was an asylum seeker. Ishmail said:

    I came here with over 10 years’ experience as a social worker. When I arrived, I wanted to work and to contribute, I wanted to help and give back. But instead, I was forced to rely on just £49.18 a week. My hands were tied because I wasn’t allowed to work.

    I struggled for food when I wasn’t working, I had to rely on charities and food banks. I wasn’t able to eat healthily – the doctors told me I wasn’t eating well enough, and my anxiety was getting worse.

    The right to work is not just the right to work. It’s the right to freedom for asylum seekers. It builds community – a social network – and allows asylum seekers to give back to society, so we can contribute to taxes and give back to the country. Everyone in my community wants to contribute.

    While I was an asylum seeker, my dream was to give back to the community as a social worker. Now I’ve been given refugee status, I’m doing my masters in Social Work and Welfare at Strathclyde University, and hope to get involved in the UK social work system in the future.

    A no-brainer to remove the ‘harmful and expensive’ restriction

    Alongside the right to work, the charity is also calling for asylum seekers who are not in work to be given free access to bus travel.

    This is essential to allow them to build and maintain better connections with their communities.  On top of this, it will increase the chance they will be able to find employment. Asylum seekers and refugees also must be supported with improved English language lessons. Doing so will facilitate them to better integrate into society, achieve work, and help them support their wellbeing.

    Chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation Mark Rowland said:

    There is a clear-cut moral, economic, and public health case for giving asylum seekers the right to work after six months on the waiting list. As our latest report into the mental health of asylum seekers and refugees lays out, such a move would bring billions of pounds of economic benefits to the UK, reduce the strain on asylum seekers’ mental health, and build connections between asylum seekers and their new communities. Many of the arguments given in opposition to this change are based on myths and misunderstandings, most notably a non-existent ‘pull-factor’, while the benefits seem to be under appreciated.

    Giving asylum seekers the right to work is a no-brainer. Everyone – from asylum seekers, to businesses, to the government, to the NHS, to our communities – benefits when asylum seekers are given the ability to support themselves. The current system, which is both harmful and expensive, cannot continue as it is.

    Give asylum seekers ‘roots’ in their communities and they will flourish

    Refugees & Asylum Seeker Programme development officer at the Mental Health Foundation Mahdi Saki experienced the system himself after fleeing Iran. He said:

    As someone who waited four years for my asylum claim to be processed without permission to work, I now work alongside incredible asylum seekers and refugees who volunteer their time and effort in civic forums to make Scotland a better place.

    Every day I see the value asylum seekers want to add to our country, and the benefits that their work brings us all. It gives asylum seekers roots in the community and positively impacts their mental health. I’m also keenly aware of how damaging it can be for asylum seekers’ mental health when they’re denied the opportunity to contribute, and how their difficult financial situations can impact them. Giving asylum seekers the right to work after six months would be revolutionary.

    The latest edition of The mental health of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK also contains further recommendations. It set out a roadmap of reforms to the system for the betterment of everyone, including changes to avoid re-traumatisation of people, improving accommodation arrangements, and creating a more inclusive environment.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Richard Burgon, the Labour MP for Leeds East, is at the forefront of a campaign that is stirring significant public interest and debate regarding proposed Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cuts to disability support like Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit.

    DWP PIP cuts – or a wealth tax…?

    Burgon has initiated a petition titled ‘Tax Wealth – Don’t Cut Disability Support,’ which has already attracted over 40,000 signatures, indicating robust support from the public. You can sign the petition here.

    The crux of the campaign relates to the government’s current proposals that aim to tighten eligibility for DWP PIP, which serves as the principal disability benefit across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

    Additionally, the plans include reducing the Universal Credit health element. These proposed changes have been met with widespread disgust from various quarters, particularly from those who assert that the most vulnerable members of society should not bear the financial brunt of a crisis that they did not instigate.

    Speaking to Left Foot Forward, Burgon emphasised the need for the Labour Party to rethink its cuts to both DWP PIP and Universal Credit. He stated:

    We shouldn’t cut a single penny in support for disabled people – we should tax the wealthiest instead.

    The petition argues that implementing a modest 2% annual tax on assets exceeding £10 million could generate as much as £24 billion annually. This figure dwarfs the £5 billion the government claims it would save through the proposed cuts to disability benefits.

    Overarching opposition

    The campaign’s petition articulates a poignant argument that:

    slashing disability benefits instead of taxing extreme wealth is a political choice—and it is the wrong choice.

    Burgon, who has previously held a shadow ministerial role under Jeremy Corbyn, expresses a strong commitment to advocating for the rights of disabled individuals and preserving their vital support systems.

    As discussions around welfare reform continue, a vote on these proposed DWP PIP and Universal Credit changes is anticipated as soon as next month.

    In a related development, it has been reported by Labour List that at least 27 MPs have publicly committed to opposing the DWP PIP and Universal Credit cuts. However, these MPs may face pressure from Labour whips to conform and back down before the government introduces a bill that would revise the PIP points system and eliminate the health element from universal credit for new claims, scheduled for May.

    The campaign against the cruel cuts to DWP PIP and Universal Credit has received a significant boost from the Fire Brigades Union, whose general secretary, Steve Wright, has become the first leader of a Labour-affiliated trade union to explicitly urge MPs to resist these proposed reforms.

    Wright expressed his concerns in an interview with the BBC, stating:

    The most vulnerable and poorest in society are being asked to pay for a crisis they didn’t cause. I don’t believe that is why people are involved in the Labour movement.

    He further warned that such DWP PIP cuts could lead to the “normalisation of the cost of living crisis,” a trend he believes society should vehemently reject.

    Don’t cut DWP PIP

    The situation serves to highlight an ongoing struggle between government austerity measures and the rights of disabled individuals and those reliant on social support like DWP PIP. As pressure mounts on the government for a more equitable approach to funding, the voices of the advocates, claimants, and trade union leaders continue to grow louder, demanding fair treatment and highlighting a growing disparity in the accountability of wealth distribution in the UK.

    With government proposals aimed at reforming crucial welfare support on a fast track, the coming weeks are poised to be decisive in shaping the future for many disabled and non-working people across the nation.

    The collective stance of numerous MPs, trade unions, and advocacy groups underscores the importance of accessibility and support for society’s most vulnerable members in an era rife with financial uncertainty.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A North East mother has passionately called on the government to scrap the controversial Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two-child benefit cap, arguing that the policy has unfairly restricted her family’s resources and left her children struggling to keep pace with their peers.

    This plea comes as new figures reveal that over 70,000 children in the North East are affected by the cap, with campaigners asserting that its removal could help lift many families out of poverty and inject more than £90 million into the region’s economy.

    The two-child benefit: forcing mothers to buy food on ‘buy now, pay later’ credit

    In a heartfelt letter addressed to chancellor Rachel Reeves, the Northumberland mother expressed the dire financial situation she faces. As Chronicle Live reported, she said due to the two-child benefit cap:

    I have found myself relying on credit cards and ‘buy now pay later’ for essential items like bills and fresh food, fruit and vegetables to feed three growing children.

    She further lamented that her children’s involvement in extracurricular activities—which contribute positively to education, social skills, and self-confidence—has been severely limited by financial constraints.

    During the recent pandemic, the mother reported that her children lacked access to crucial educational resources such as laptops and tablets, severely hindering their learning opportunities.

    She expressed concern for her son, who has additional needs, stating that he would greatly benefit from educational apps that are often inaccessible without certain devices that she cannot afford. “My son cannot keep up with his peers,” she concluded.

    Hitting the North East hard

    The End Child Poverty Coalition has pointed out that the two-child benefit cap affects a staggering 70,110 children in the region, with a significant number hailing from working households.

    The cap disproportionately impacts areas like Newcastle Central and West, Gateshead Central and Whickham, and Newcastle East and Wallsend, placing further strains on families already struggling to make ends meet.

    Beth Farhat, the chair of the North East Child Poverty Commission, shared her perspective on the pressing need for policy change:

    There is a growing mountain of evidence that there is absolutely no route to ending child poverty, both here in the North East and across the country, without scrapping the two-child benefit cap in full.

    Farhat believes that abolishing this policy could lead to an immediate reduction of poverty levels among tens of thousands of children, as well as provide a significant boost to the local economy through increased spending by families.

    Echoing these sentiments, Steph Capewell, founder of the Sunderland baby bank Love, Amelia, remarked:

    We see the deeply damaging impact of the two-child benefit cap every single day at Love, Amelia. This cruel policy leaves families—many of whom are in work—unable to provide essentials for their children, so they have to turn to charities like ours for vital support.

    Labour should – but won’t – scrap the two-child limit

    Capewell expressed that ending the cap would not only ease the financial burden on many families but also provide children with opportunities for growth and success that every child deserves.

    Introduced during the Conservative government in 2017, the two-child benefit cap restricts families from receiving financial support for their third child and any subsequent children. May consider the policy little more than Eugenics.

    Although Labour initially opposed this significant policy, in 2023, they confirmed their intent to maintain the two-child benefit cap – with DWP boss Liz Kendall even announcing the move behind the paywall of iNews.

    The consequences of the two-child benefit cap are evident, with families in need facing mounting hardships as they grapple with everyday essentials.

    The urgent calls for reform from campaigners, charities, and local leaders highlight the growing sentiment that such policies should be reassessed to ensure the well-being of children across the North East, many of whom find themselves at a disadvantage through no fault of their own.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.