Category: Opinion

  • You’d perhaps be mistaken for thinking the big political stories of recent days came from the Labour Party. Whilst Keir Starmer attempted to blow smoke up the TUC’s arse and many of Labour were showing they had no backbone and so were going to let pensioners freeze to death were sad, nothing came close to the tragedy that struck the Conservative Party. Over in the Tory leadership battle, a valiant hero fell as none other than this columnist’s favourite, Mel Stride, was the latest to be knocked out of the race.

    HAHAHAHA THE WET WIPE GOT BINNED

    Sorry for worrying you all there, as a long-time hater of Mel Stride this was of course the best news of my life.

    The dangerous little wet wipe has had his hopes of ruling the Tory party dashed, as he got just 16 votes in this round. While that might seem small that’s only because there are gloriously barely any Tory MPs left. The winner in that round Robert Jenrick only got 33 votes.

    So in honour of our fave little wet wipe’s departure, here’s a best bits round up. If you want Mel, you can imagine this is a Strictly montage as you’ll unfortunately still have to warm the opposition benches and can’t pursue your real dream of media luvvie a la Balls just yet.

    Stab-vest-o-clock

    Although Mel was made DWP chief wet wipe in October 2022, I first became aware of his true absurdity when he donned a stab vest in May 2023. This was during that truly incredible time when the then-minister for disabled people Tom Pursglove was cutting about like the shittest Liam Neeson ever, and filming dawn benefits raids. Not one to miss out on some public humiliation, Mel Stride had to get in on the action.

    Soundtracked by seemingly those video piracy ads from the 00s, and interspersed with flashy images of police dogs, Stride told criminals “DON’T” like some disappointed deputy headteacher. He told the Sun he had “the determination of Ted Hastings” and that “Sun readers don’t expect our benefits system to be abused”:

    Mel Stride

    Yeahhh but Sun readers also believed Freddie Starr ate someone’s hamster, so it’s not a high bar.

    WCA cruelty from Mel Stride

    One of the cruellest things Mel Stride is responsible for is the truly callous proposed changes to the work capability assessment. The changes would see 440,000 people lose their benefits as they could be deemed fit for work despite previously being told they had limited capability for work.

    Stride aimed to fix this in two ways: the first not allowing doctors to write sick notes anymore because they were apparently too close to their patients. Which is hilarious when GP appointments are like gold dust around here.

    The even more bullshit solution was that apparently all disabled people can work from home. Last September he told the Commons:

    The Work Capability Assessment doesn’t reflect how someone with a disability or health condition might be able to work from home, yet we know many disabled people do just that.

    However he of course cherry-picked these answers.

    20% of people in the ESA Support Group or on the Universal Credit LCWA element said they “would like to work at some point in the future”. This however ignored the 80% who said they wouldn’t or couldn’t. There was also the fact that just 4% of people said they felt they would be able to work now if the right job and the right support were available. But those are just semantics to an evil bastard like Stride.

    Truly disgusting rhetoric

    Speaking of being disgusting to disabled people, Mel Stride is responsible for some of the worst rhetoric about us in a long time. He particularly took aim at people with mental health conditions who he thought were all just being softies

    sometimes everyday anxieties are being labelled as medical problems, and that isn’t right

    You mean like the anxieties of having your benefits taken away and starving to death? There were also bizarre claims at one point about curing long-term conditions.

    But his worst words were saved for unemployed disabled people. In his regular Telegraph column he was responsible for headlines such as “Epidemic of long-term sick leave is stifling the economy” and let’s not forget how much he furthered the media’s love of calling us all shirkers.

    Whatever the fuck happened with PIP and vouchers

    His most batshit and scariest time at the DWP was when he was just throwing ideas about for PIP and going with whatever stuck. The worst of these was the idea that disabled people on PIP don’t actually need money. No, they could survive on vouchers or invoice the department.

    Only someone who has never relied on benefits would suggest vouchers when many disabled people use PIP to pay their bills and buy food. But you’ve got to be horrifically conceited about how well your department is being run if you think the DWP could handle thousands of invoices a week.

    The car crash of Mel Stride’s WorkWell

    As part of the Tory re-election campaign, Mel Stride starred in a truly horrific video where he declared:

    Join me on the road for the next generation of welfare reforms. We’ll be making a few stops along the way!

    Hilariously this came the week after I’d started a column with “all aboard the hating disabled people bus” and it seemed Mel had completely stolen my work. Where I’d said the first stop taking away sicknotes he went “full throttle” towards a little fit notes layby.

    WorkWell itself was a proposed four sessions of physio and a meeting with a counsellor, but it’s not worse than Labour’s plan to put work coaches in therapists’ offices.

    Telling the world he cares but too chicken to face disabled people

    During his tenure, Mel Stride had plenty of chance to engage with disabled people, but that would of course mean having to hear how dangerous his plans were – and quite frankly he didn’t care about that.

    The Disability Action Plan (DAP) and National Disability Strategy (NDS) both went down like lead balloons, mainly because they do fuck all to actually help us, but particularly because there was no engagement with disability action groups. The DAP which focussed on the short-term cared more about playgrounds and the Special Olympics than tangible things to support us.

    Meanwhile, the government were taken to court by disabled activists over the NDS and it was found unlawful as it hadn’t sought to consult disabled people fully or give us long enough to complete the consultation.

    Then there’s the fact that when the government were given the opportunity to prove what they were really doing for disabled people in front of the UN, Mel decided he couldn’t be bothered. This is despite the fact he was in Paris the day before, one of the stopovers on the way to Geneva.

    The Great Wet Wipe Media Tour of Summer 2024

    Before Brat Summer was a twinkle in Charli XCX’s eye, Mel Stride was having what my best friend dubbed as his own Twat Summer all over our TVs and radios. While everyone else deserted the Tory Party, Stridey boy was there front and centre.

    In one morning alone at the end of June he showed up at Times Radio, GB News, Sky News, and BBC Breakfast, BBC Radio 4, LBC, and GMB (Heyyyy Macarena).

    His incredible gaffs along the way on his media tour included telling Nick Ferrari “It isn’t for me to start announcing policy on the hoof”, having to attempt to defend the batshit national service “plan” and trying to turn the nation against Martin Lewis. He also thought he was clever naming Starmer “no idea Keir” and incredibly saying that PPE was inevitable.

    Back off into irrelevancy for you Mel Stride

    Unfortunately for Mel Stride, whilst he lost the leadership race theres no Strictly sambaing off into the sunset yet. While his party went down in flames he won his seat again by a whopping 61 votes, so he’ll be stuck pretending to oppose Starmer and Kendall’s Tory-red plans for the next four years. Who knows mate, maybe one day you’ll be a Pointless answer, I’d make a joke here about you already being pointless but it’s really too easy.

    But I’ll leave you all with possibly my favourite thing that has ever happened to Stride, and this time I mean this sincerely. If you haven’t seen this already, I present to you, the General Erection

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Binoy Kampmark in Melbourne

    Between tomorrow and Friday, the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC) will host a weapons bazaar that ought to be called “The Merchants of Death”.

    The times for these merchants are positively bullish, given that total global military expenditure exceeded US$2.4 trillion last year, an increase of 6.8 percent in real terms from 2022.

    The introductory note to the event is mildly innocuous:

    “The Land Forces 2024 International Land Defence Exposition is the premier platform for interaction between defence, industry and government of all levels, to meet, to do business and discuss the opportunities and challenges facing the global land defence markets.”

    The website goes on to describe the Land Defence Exposition as “the premier gateway to the land defence markets of Australia and the region, and a platform for interaction with major prime contractors from the United States and Europe”.

    At the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre in 2022, the event attracted 20,000 attendees, 810 “exhibitor organisations” from 25 countries, and ran 40 conferences, symposia and presentations.

    From 30 nations, came 159 defence, government, industry and scientific delegations.

    Land Forces 2024 is instructive as to how the military-industrial complex manifests. Featured background reading for the event involves, for instance, news about cultivating budding militarists.

    Where better to start than in school?

    School military ‘pathways’
    From August 6, much approval is shown for the $5.1 million Federation Funding Agreement between the Australian government and the state governments of South Australia and West Australia to deliver “the Schools Pathways Programme (SPP)” as part of the Australian government’s Defence Industry Development Strategy.

    The programme offers school children a chance to taste the pungent trimmings of industrial militarism — visits to military facilities, “project-based learning” and presentations.

    Rather cynically, the SPP co-opts the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) aspect of government policy, carving up a direct link between school study and the defence industry.

    “We need more young Australians studying STEM subjects in schools and developing skills for our future workforce,” insisted Education Minister Jason Clare. It is hard to disagree with that, but why weapons?

    There is much discontent about the Land Forces exposition.

    Victorian Greens MP Ellen Sandell and federal MP for Melbourne Adam Bandt wrote to Premier Jacinta Allan asking her to call off the arms event.

    The party noted that such companies as Elbit Systems “and others that are currently fuelling . . . Israel’s genocide in Palestine, where 40,000 people have now been killed — will showcase and sell their products there”.

    Demands on Israel dismissed
    Allan icily dismissed such demands.

    Disrupt Land Forces, which boasts 50 different activist collectives, has been preparing.

    Defence Connect reported as early as June 4 that groups, including Wage Peace — Disrupt War and Whistleblowers, Activists and Communities Alliance, were planning to rally against the Land Force exposition.

    The usual mix of carnival, activism and harrying have been planned over a week, with the goal of ultimately encircling the MCEC to halt proceedings.

    Ahead of the event, the Victorian Labor government, the event’s sponsor, has mobilised 1800 more police officers from the regional areas.

    Victorian Police Minister Anthony Carbines did his best to set the mood.

    “If you are not going to abide by the law, if you’re not going to protest peacefully, if you’re not going to show respect and decency, then you’ll be met with the full force of the law.”

    Warmongering press outlets
    Let us hope the police observe those same standards.

    Warmongering press outlets, the Herald Sun being a stalwart, warn of the “risks” that “Australia’s protest capital” will again be “held hostage to disruption and confrontation”, given the diversion of police.

    Its August 15 editorial demonised the protesters, swallowing the optimistic incitements on the website of Disrupt Land Forces.

    The editorial noted the concerns of unnamed senior police fretting about “the potential chaos outside MCEC at South Wharf and across central Melbourne”, the context for police to mount “one of the biggest security operations since the anti-vaccine/anti-lockdown protests at the height of covid in 2021–21 or the World Economic Forum chaos in 2000”.

    Were it up to these editors, protesters would do better to stay at home and let the Victorian economy, arms and all, hum along.

    The merchants of death could then go about negotiating the mechanics of murder in broad daylight; Victoria’s government would get its blood fill; and Melbournians could turn a blind eye to what oils the mechanics of global conflict.

    The protests will, hopefully, shock the city into recognition that the arms trade is global, nefarious and indifferent as to the casualty count.

    Dr Binoy Kampmark lectures in global studies at RMIT University. This article was first published by Green Left and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Belén Fernández

    In July 2014, shortly after the kickoff of Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” in the Gaza Strip — a 51-day affair that ultimately killed 2251 Palestinians, including 551 children — Danish journalist Nikolaj Krak penned a dispatch from Israel for the Copenhagen-based Kristeligt Dagblad newspaper.

    Describing the scene on a hill on the outskirts of the Israeli city of Sderot near the Gaza border, Krak noted that the area had been “transformed into something that most closely resembles the front row of a reality war theatre”.

    Israelis had “dragged camping chairs and sofas” to the hilltop, where some spectators sat “with crackling bags of popcorn”, while others partook of hookahs and cheerful banter.

    Fiery, earth-shaking air strikes on Gaza across the way were met with cheers and “solid applause”.

    To be sure, Israelis have always enjoyed a good murderous spectacle — which is hardly surprising for a nation whose very existence is predicated on mass slaughter. But as it turns out, the applause is not quite so solid when Israeli lives are caught up in the explosive apocalyptic display.

    For the past 11 months, Israel’s “reality war theatre” has offered a view of all-out genocide in the Gaza Strip, where the official death toll has reached nearly 41,000.

    A July Lancet study found that the true number of deaths may well top 186,000 — and that is only if the killing ends soon.

    Protests for hostage deal
    Now, massive protests have broken out across Israel demanding that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enact a ceasefire and hostage deal to free the remaining 100 or so Israeli captives held in Gaza.

    Last week, when the Israeli military recovered the bodies of six captives, CNN reported that some 700,000 protesters had taken to the streets across the country. And on Monday, a general strike spearheaded by Israel’s primary labour union succeeded in shutting much of the economy down for several hours.

    Although certain wannabe peaceniks among the international commentariat have blindly attributed the protests to a desire to end the bloodshed, the fact of the matter is that Palestinian blood is not high on the list of concerns.

    Rather, the only lives that matter in the besieged, pulverised, and genocide-stricken Gaza Strip are the lives of the captives — whose captivity, it bears underscoring, is entirely a result of Israeli policy and Israel’s unceasing sadistic treatment of Palestinians.

    As Israeli analyst Nimrod Flaschenberg recently commented to Al Jazeera regarding the aims of the current protests, “the issue of returning the hostages is centre stage”.

    Acknowledging that “an understanding that a deal would also mean an end to the conflict is there, but rarely stated”, Flaschenberg emphasised that “as far as the protests’ leadership goes, no, it’s all about the hostages”.

    The captives, then, have assumed centre stage in Israel’s latest bout of blood-soaked war theatrics, while for some Israelis the present genocide is evidently not nearly genocidal enough.

    Press a button for ‘wipe out’
    During a recent episode of the popular English-language Israeli podcast “Two Nice Jewish Boys”, the podcasting duo in question suggested that it would be cool to just press a button and wipe out “every single living being in Gaza” as well as in the West Bank.

    Time to break out the popcorn and hookahs.

    At the end of the day, the disproportionate value assigned to the lives of the Israeli captives in Gaza vis-à-vis the lives of the Palestinians who are being annihilated is of a piece with Israel’s trademark chauvinism.

    This outlook casts Israelis as the perennial victims of Palestinian “terrorism” even as Palestinians are consistently massacred at astronomically higher rates by the Israeli military.

    During Operation Protective Edge in 2014, for example, no more than six Israeli civilians were killed. And yet Israel maintained its monopoly on victimisation.

    In June of this year, the Israeli army undertook a rescue operation in Gaza that freed four captives but reportedly killed 210 Palestinians in the process — no doubt par for the disproportionate course.

    Meanwhile, following the recovery of the bodies of the six captives last week, Netanyahu blamed Hamas for their demise, declaring: “Whoever murders hostages doesn’t want a deal.”

    General consensus over Israeli life
    But what about “whoever” continues to preside over a genocide while assassinating the top ceasefire negotiator for Hamas and sabotaging prospects for a deal at every turn?

    As the protests now demonstrate, many Israelis are on to Netanyahu. But the issue with the protests is that genocide is not the issue.

    Even among Netanyahu’s detractors, there persists a general consensus as to the unilateral sacrosanctity of Israeli life, which translates into the assumption of an inalienable right to slaughter Palestinians.

    And as the latest episode of Israel’s “reality war theatre” drags on — with related Israeli killing sprees available for viewing in the West Bank and Lebanon, too — this show is really getting old.

    One would hope Israeli audiences will eventually tire of it all and walk out, but for the time being bloodbaths are a guaranteed blockbuster.

    Belén Fernández is the author of Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Detention Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), and Martyrs Never Die: Travels through South Lebanon (Warscapes, 2016). She writes for numerous publications and this article was first published by Al Jazeera.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • And there you have it. A British Labour Party prime minister, barely able to contain his glee that he can use… *double checks notes*… Kemi Badenoch as some sort of bizarre validation for his starve-a-senior, heat-or-eat Christmas social murder extravaganza.

    What kind of a defence is that supposed to be? The hard-right Tory with the racist Tory donor, Kemi Badenoch, agrees with him?

    How dare any fool call this malignant bunch of bought-and-paid for, dog-whistling, poor-hating, private-sector-pleasing filth, “centre-left”?

    What next? Keir Starmer introduced on to stage at the next Labour conference by the ‘French moderate, Marine Le Pen’?

    Starmer didn’t even need the corporate media to sink him

    True blue Starmer is a hopeless basket case of a leader and I am convinced he will be unceremoniously booted out by the hard-right of the Labour Party, after only one term in office.

    I’m equally convinced that Keir Starmer is the first Labour leader for some time that can honestly say that the right-wing British media hasn’t played any part in their rather sudden downfall. They didn’t need to, because the hapless, compulsive freeloader with the magical

    £22 million black hole has done a rather magnificent job of it himself, in less than two months.

    The honeymoon is well and truly over for Keir Starmer.

    Although it does seem like the British corporate press — one of the least trusted throughout the world — are far more concerned with the deputy Prime Minister throwing some shapes in Ibiza than they are with the Prime Minister starving some pensioners in Britain. Obviously.

    If Starmer’s strategic political nous was anywhere near the size of his parliamentary majority I don’t think we would ever see the end of him. But it’s not. Starmer is neither infallible or unbeatable.

    Labour is a moral crusade… sometimes…

    Harold Wilson once told the Labour Party Conference that the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing. Fast forward to 2024 and Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is a moral abandonment or it is nothing.

    Hated Tory policies such as the cap on child benefit, the punitive and immoral bedroom tax, the horrifying Tory ‘rape clause’ and eye-watering student tuition fees have all been embraced by Starmer’s Labour.

    Trident renewal, no freedom of movement, low taxes for high earners and striking workers stood on a picket line, someone, anyone, please explain to me the key differences in policy between the Labour Party of today and the last fourteen years of Conservative misery, as if I was a five-year-old.

    And what of your NHS?

    How long will it be before Starmer and Streeting publicly advocate sorting yourself out through private healthcare, rather than ‘burden’ the dangerously deliberate underfunding and understaffed health service that delivered an overwhelming majority of our population into this world?

    I’ll go out on a limb here and predict the Labour Party that created the National Health Service will be the Labour Party that destroys the National Health Service.

    Streeting will continue the managed decline of the NHS

    Sure, the foundations for its destruction have been in place for several decades, but no Prime Minister has been willing to deliver the fatal and most final blow to what was once seen by the British public as our greatest socialist creation, our national treasure, and was routinely at the top of the electorate’s priorities.

    But year after year, and decade after decade the ruling classes have manipulated the British public into believing the NHS is a failing relic from days gone by. But the NHS isn’t failing, it has been failed by successive governments, both Labour and Conservative.

    The current state of the NHS is the predictable result of insidious managed decline. Targeted, widespread cuts in health funding have led to fewer staff who have struggled to cope in the face of a massive increase in demand across the health service.

    Noam Chomsky’s “privatisation technique” describes this so much more clearly than I ever could or will:

    Defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.

    Fellow Canary columnist, Dr Julia Grace Patterson and her fantastic EveryDoctor advocacy group have already been meticulously sifting through parliament’s Register of Members Interests from 2023 to May 2024, and what did they find?

    No less than £500,000 worth of donations to Labour’s then-shadow-cabinet from firms with links to private healthcare such as lobbyists, private equity firms and hedge funds.

    Prior to the general election, Dr Julia was trolled relentlessly by Labour supporters, accusing her of being a “Tory enabler”. But she stood her ground and reminded people this was never about which political party she prefers and everything about defending our precious National Health Service.

    I expect JuJu is a bit too classy to tell you this, but she told us so.

    Labour makes me even sicker

    One or two of you will know, I’ve spent most of my week trying to recover from several illnesses and bugs, so you can only imagine my delight when I saw Keir Starmer doing his Kemi Badenoch thing and little Rishi Sunak asking Starmer why he is prioritising high earners over freezing pensioners.

    Is one of the three new prescriptions making me hear things? Was I hallucinating? What on earth is going on?

    It’s almost as if we’ve just got rid of one intolerable, corrupt Tory administration and replaced it with another equally intolerable, corrupt Tory administration.

    I think I’m going back to bed.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • OPEN LETTER: Our Action Station

    Dear TVNZ,

    We are deeply concerned with the misleading nature of the journalism presented in your recent coverage of the escalating crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. By focusing on specific language and framing, while leaving out the necessary context of international law, the broadcast misrepresents the reality of the situation faced by Palestinians.

    This has the effect of perpetuating a narrative that could be seen and experienced as biased and dehumanising.

    The International Court of Justice’s ruling on January 26, 2024, mandated that Israel prevent its forces from committing acts of genocide against Palestinians and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

    This ruling highlights the severity of Israel’s actions and the international community’s obligation to hold those responsible accountable. However, TVNZ’s coverage has often failed to reflect this legal and humanitarian perspective.

    Instead it echos biased narratives that obscure these realities. This includes the expansion of genocidal like acts to the West Bank and the serious concerns about the potential for mass ethnic cleansing and further escalation of grave human rights violations.

    Under international law, including the Genocide Convention, media organisations have a crucial responsibility to report accurately and avoid inciting violence or supporting those committing genocidal acts.

    Complicity in genocide can occur when media coverage supports or justifies the actions of perpetrators, contributing to the dehumanisation of victims and the perpetuation of violence. By failing to provide balanced reporting and instead contributing to harmful stereotypes and misinformation, TVNZ risks being complicit in these grave violations of human rights.

    Tragic history of attacks
    New Zealand’s own tragic history of attacks on Muslims, such as the Al Noor Mosque shootings, should serve as a powerful reminder of the consequences of dehumanising narratives. The media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception, and it is deeply concerning to see TVNZ contributing to the marginalisation and demonisation of Muslims and Palestinians through biased reporting.

    We urge you to review your coverage of the genocide to ensure that it is fair, balanced, and aligned with international law and journalistic ethics. Specific examples of biased reporting include recent stories on Gaza that failed to mention the ICJ ruling or the context of an illegal occupation.

    This includes decades of systematic land confiscation, military control, restrictions on movement, and the suppression of Palestinian voices through media censorship and the shutdown of local newspapers. Accurate and responsible journalism is essential in fostering an informed and empathetic public, especially on matters as sensitive and impactful as this.

    On August 29, 2024, TVNZ aired a news story that exemplifies problematic media framing when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The story begins by benignly describing Israel’s “entry into the West Bank” as part of a “counter-terrorism strike”— the largest operation in 10 years — implying that the context is solely anti-terrorism.

    Automatically, the use of the word terrorism, sets the narrative of “good Israel” and “bad Palestinian” for the remainder of the news story.  However, the report fails to mention numerous critical aspects, such as the provocations by Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque and threatening to build a synagogue at Islam’s third holiest site, or Israel’s escalations and violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

    The Convention considers the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into the territory it occupies a war crime, and under international law, Palestinians have the right to resist such occupation, a right recognised and protected by international legal frameworks.

    The story uses footage, presumably provided by the IDF, that portrays the Israeli military as a calm, moral force entering “terrorist strongholds”, which is at odds with abundant open-source footage showing the IDF destroying infrastructure, terrorising civilians, and protecting armed settlers as they displace Palestinians from their homes.

    Bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes
    It portrays the IDF entering the town with bulldozers, but makes no mention of how those bulldozers are used to destroy Palestinian homes and infrastructure to make way for Israeli settlements.

    Furthermore, the report fails to mention that just last month, the Israeli government announced its plans to officially recognise five more illegal settlements in the West Bank and expand existing settlements, understandably exacerbating tensions.

    The narrative is further reinforced by giving airtime to an Israeli spokesperson who frames the operation as a defensive counter-terrorism initiative. The journalist echoes this narrative, positioning Israel as merely responding to threats.

    Although a brief soundbite from a Palestinian Red Crescent worker expresses fears of what might happen in the West Bank, the report fails to provide any counter-narrative to Israel’s self-defence claim.

    The story concludes by listing the number of deaths in the West Bank since October 19, implying that the situation began with Hamas’s actions in Gaza on that date, rather than addressing the illegal Israeli occupation since 1967, as the root cause of the violence.

    Why is this important?
    The news story is a violation of the Accuracy and Impartiality Standard with TVNZ failing to present a balanced view of the situation in Palestine, potentially misleading the audience on critical aspects of the conflict.

    Secondly, the news story violates  the Harm and Offence Standard, being an insufficient and inflammatory portrayal of the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine contributing to public misperception and harm.

    Additionally, there is a concern regarding the Fairness Standard, with individuals and groups affected by the conflict not being given fair opportunity to respond or be represented in the broadcast.

    These breaches are significant as they undermine the integrity of the reporting and fail to uphold the standards of responsible journalism. Holding our media outlets to high journalistic standards is essential, particularly in the context of the genocide in Gaza.

    The media plays a significant part in either exposing or obscuring the realities of such atrocities. When news outlets fail to report accurately or neglect to label the situation in Gaza as genocide, they contribute to a narrative that minimises the severity of the crisis and enables and prolongs Israel’s social license to continue it’s genocidal actions.

    Should there be no substantial changes to address our concerns,  we will escalate this matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for further review.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • On Monday 2 September, Kemi Badenoch officially launched her Conservative Party leadership bid. To tease that she put out a video on Twitter and it was as serious as you’d expect. Instead of focusing on something trivial such as actual policies, Badenoch decided to once again attempt to take aim at Doctor Who legend David Tennant.

    Badenoch’s unhealthy obsession with Tennant (and trans people)

    The campaign teaser opens with a TV being turned on and Tennant saying:

    until we wake up and Kemi Badenoch doesn’t exist anymore, I don’t wish ill of her I just wish her to shut up.

    This is strange for two reasons. 1) his speech wasn’t televised (well until the right blew it up) and 2) it’s very ridiculously obvious how much this has been clipped from a much larger clip, namely because it makes no sense.

    At the end of June the beloved actor and LGBTQ+ ally made an offhand comment at an awards show about Badenoch. The former business secretary had previously spent the month wanging on about what a woman is whilst failing to explain how she’d ban trans people from single sex wards, because she couldn’t just say ‘genital inspections’, presumably.

    What did the good Doctor actually say?

    So here’s what Tennant actually said whilst accepting his British LGBT ally award

    If I’m honest I’m a little depressed by the fact that acknowledging that everyone has the right to be who they wanna be and live their life how they wanna live it as long as they’re not hurting anyone else should merit any kind of special award or special mention because its common sense isn’t it? It is human decency, we shouldn’t live in a world where that is worth remarking on.

    He then made an off hand remark:

    However, until we wake up and Kemi Badenoch doesn’t exist anymore, I don’t wish ill of her I just wish her to shut up.

    As explained by Dawn Butler in the Metro, which is also something that made sense to any other rational person:

    Yes, he was clumsy to suggest he wants to live in a world where she doesn’t exist, but his further clarification made it clear to me that it was simply her politics that he wished did not exist.

    Tennant concluded:

    Whilst we do live in this world I am honoured to receive this, I am thrilled to be here and to be a part of this night!, pride is very important in our house its a family affair we’ve got skin in the game so this event tonight thrills me.

    In the aftermath of this comment Badenoch and the then-PM Sunak decided to spend a whole week of their campaign attempting to turn the British public against David Tennant.

    Yes, Doctor bloody Who. The man who for many of us was a huge part of our lives for our formative years. The man who will always be beloved for not only playing the voice of reason in the universe but for at times being the real-life sense we all need too.

    No, please – do just shut up

    But back to Kemi’s campaign video, she followed up the definitely full clip with:

    No I will not shut up when you have that type of cultural establishment trying to keep conservatives down you need someone like me who’s not Afraid of doctor who or whoever and who’s going to take the fight to them and not let them try and keep us down.

    Just so we’re clear here, it’s a TV actor from Scotland who’s the establishment, not someone who literally served in the Tory cabinet and is now running for Tory leader.

    As Tennant said at the time, his family have skin in the game. One of his and wife Georgia’s children is nonbinary and because the Tennants are thoroughly good people they of course support their kid.

    Of course the image of parents supporting their child no matter their gender enrages these cunts. They want to portray that parents are terrified of their children being brainwashed so of course that lot all decided the Tennants must be the ones doing the brainwashing.

    I dunno man, I spent far too fucking long reading Glinner’s tweets about this and I’m still none the wiser.

    Now, you may not be a Whovian like me – so lemme explain.

    Badenoch is the one on the ‘idiot’s lantern’, not Tennant

    The doctor is the good guy who wants to make the world a better place. He’s indiscriminate on who he takes down, daleks and British prime ministers alike. We root for him. We don’t root for people who want to fight him.

    So that makes Kemi what? That’s right! The villain. And it’s a role she’s seemingly happy to portray.

    Whilst I was writing this, Badenoch was giving her proper speech announcing her leadership bid, and it made as much sense as trying to reignite a feud with a beloved TV star. In it she referenced WWII, said the Conservatives acted like Labour, and took boring swipes at Robert Jenrick. Most dangerously though, she said Reform MPs aren’t the problem:

    When everyone was worried about the election of Reform MPs, I was far far more worried about the 5 new MPs elected on the back of sectarian, Islamist politics- alien ideas which have no place here.

    Because here’s the thing.

    The doctor is fictional. Much like this “trans ideology” threat that right-wing weirdos like Badenoch are obsessed with. But what isn’t fictional is the fact that people like her want to wipe out anything that’s different. They will make anyone they can their bogeyman so that the British public don’t look at who’d really doing the damage – the rich in power.

    And y’know what? Tennant is also a rich and powerful person, but unlike them he uses his influence to make the world a better place.

    People like Tennant terrify Badenoch and her ilk so much because he’s everything they will never be – respected.

    So good luck trying to turn us all against the man who was so good he played the best character EVER twice. You’ve more chance of us supporting the Daleks than you.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • I spend a lot of time online speaking to people about the NHS, and about UK politics in general. I receive a lot of messages from both NHS patients and staff explaining their experiences within the system, and they’ll often also tell me why they think the problems exist in the first place.

    This serves as a very useful barometer, because it allows me to identify the impact of unhelpful media messaging about the service. It also reveals a lot about attitudes towards one politician or another, the priorities of the public, and the things they’re most worried about. 

    In recent years, a growing number of people became deeply unhappy with the Conservative Party’s actions towards the NHS. I received many messages from people who felt unhappy about the “austerity cuts”, the behaviour of Boris Johnson and other senior Conservative politicians, and the lack of definitive action to invest in the NHS as we emerged from the pandemic.

    They saw the problems developing in the NHS; the deterioration of services, the under-staffing, the poor treatment of the staff who remained – and many attributed those problems to our political leaders. 

    This summer, however, and particularly over the past few weeks, another theme has emerged.

    There are still many people blaming politicians for the problems in the NHS, but I am also receiving a growing number of messages and comments under my posts suggesting that NHS problems are related to immigration.

    Immigration is NOT to blame for NHS chaos

    Just the other morning, someone told me that there should be rules dictating how long someone should live within the UK before they could access a GP. I’m being told (often in aggressive terms) that the service is no longer fit for purpose because there are too many people arriving from overseas demanding treatment, and that if we fixed problems with immigration, then the NHS would function properly. 

    It is undeniable that the NHS is under a lot of pressure. Several weeks ago, statistics came out from NHS England explaining that A&Es were experiencing their busiest summer ever.

    GPs are very stretched at the moment as well, with recent figures from the Royal College of General Practitioners showing that the average full-time fully-qualified GP is now responsible for 149 patients more than they were five years ago. NHS staff are bearing the weight of responsibility for all of this which takes a huge toll. Meanwhile, patients are losing out, with 7.6 million cases on the NHS waiting list in England alone. Those waiting lists aren’t shrinking either; they have grown for the past three months in a row.

    But immigrants aren’t to blame for these pressures. An article from the NHS Confederation last year explained that over 17% of NHS staff in England come from overseas, and when you consider nursing staff alone, that figure rises to close to 27%. They considered the overall impact of immigration on the NHS, and concluded that immigration “is of net benefit to the NHS”. So why are people focusing on immigration so heavily when they talk about the state of the NHS, and the possible ways that things could be improved? 

    Blame the Tories, not the refugees

    Horribly, I suspect that many people have absorbed inaccurate, unhelpful, sometimes even abusive messaging from certain media outlets and politicians in recent months, which scapegoat immigrants for many of the problems in our society instead of drawing attention to the policies and budgetary decisions made by the Conservative government. 

    After all, it was the Conservative government who repeatedly pledged to increase the numbers of NHS GPs since 2015, and yet we now have less full-time GPs working in the NHS in England than we did nine years ago. 

    It was the Conservative government who significantly cut the number of hospital beds, which has led to a situation where we now routinely have bed occupancy rates within our hospitals which are far higher than the accepted “safe” levels of 85%.

    And it was the decisions of the Conservative government which led to real-terms pay cuts for thousands of NHS staff, many of whom have cut their hours or have left the NHS altogether. 

    If we want to improve things in the NHS now, we are going to have to hold politicians to account for the decisions they make about our public healthcare system.

    The NHS is in a state of emergency, and it’s not a situation which has been caused by immigrants, or by lazy, greedy staff or by NHS patients who expect too much. It’s been caused by poor policy, callous decisions, underfunding and privatisation, and we need change urgently now.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Dr Julia Grace Patterson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The greatest threat to Keir Starmer’s leadership is Keir Starmer. It’s not the Tories. It is not Farage. The Lib Dems are as threatening to the Labour prime minister as a hungry vegan is to a bowl of pan-fried offal.

    Starmer — delivered to power on the crest of a wave of apathy and a deep, burning hatred for the Tories — is set to make exactly the same catastrophic mistakes that the Tories made for the last fourteen miserable years.

    I say “mistakes”, but let us be absolutely crystal clear. Austerity isn’t a mistake. It is a political decision, not an economic necessity.

    Austerity is neoliberal policy agenda designed to rapidly enhance the growth of capitalism while reallocating the burden of the failures of capitalism onto an overwhelming majority of the population. This is just so 2010.

    Austerity was the greatest success story of the 21st century – just not for you and me

    What did austerity ever give to us?

    Increased child poverty, homelessness, and rough sleeping.

    But what else did austerity deliver?

    Increased racial inequality and the social murder of hundreds of thousands of disabled people.

    Maybe austerity did have its good points?

    If you consider an unprecedented decay in public services and a staggering decline in life expectancy to be a good thing, then yes – mission accomplished.

    I am absolutely sick of being told by bought-and-paid-for multi-millionaires that we need to tighten our belts. Haven’t you had enough yet? Is this what you were hoping for when you voted for Labour, just so you could get rid of the Tories?

    I can remember this new Labour government pledging to halve spending on external consultants during this parliament amid warranted criticism that Whitehall has grown overly reliant on ludicrously expensive advisers.

    Yet less than two months into the age of beige, external consultants KPMG have seen a contract worth an eye-watering £223 million to train civil servants signed off by Labour.

    So let me get this right. Another round of cuts for pensioners and disabled people, regardless of the human cost, but there’s plenty in the British kitty for proxy-wars and nearly a quarter-of-a-billion quid for exactly the type of contract that Labour promised to cut back on?

    Stagnant Starmer’s own personal approval ratings are tanking for a very good reason.

    David Cameron-impersonator Starmer is stagnating

    Starmer has never been particularly likeable. It’s very easy to mistake a whopping parliamentary majority achieved through an archaic and undemocratic voting system with personal popularity.

    His best hope of building on the general election victory was to deliver the change that he promised, speech after speech, throughout the general election campaign.

    But Starmer has typically betrayed the electorate, because he has got himself into power and planted himself to the right of where David Cameron was when he came into office in 2010. Nobody voted for this.

    Keir Starmer has promised you ‘misery now’ for long-term gain. What next? Hug-a-hoodie? Cut the green crap? The big society? We’re all in this together? Nobody voted for this.

    Kid Starver and Rachel Thieves are the David Cameron and Gideon Osborne of 2024. Pensioners, children, disabled people, those without a home, and some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society were promised a better tomorrow, but now their futures have never looked so fucking bleak. Nobody voted for this.

    Cast your minds back to 2020. I wonder how many of you centrist dads (and mums) that promised us “another future is possible”, in exchange for a promise to vote for Keir Starmer’s Labour Party at the following general election, only to now realise you have conned the electorate into voting for a full-blown police state to provide a safe space for Israel’s ongoing genocide?

    The virulent police state

    Sarah Wilkinson, a respected left-wing journalist and human rights activist, was arrested by “9 or 10” police officers following her online posts that routinely expose the brutality and criminality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

    Sarah, someone who I have admired and been inspired by for the last ten years, isn’t the first left-leaning pro-Palestine journalist to feel the full force of the law, simply for exposing the atrocities that are being committed by the genocidal state of Israel.

    Just last week, journalist and activist Richard Medhurst was arrested on board his plane at Heathrow. Medhurst was charged with supporting a proscribed organisation and was bailed for three months for his reporting on Gaza and the Palestinian resistance.

    Isn’t it quite incredible how the BBC still refer to Keir Starmer’s Labour Party as “centre-left”? I don’t know of any apparent centre-left outfit that would commit such a blatant assault on press freedom.

    Leveson Two’ has never been such a remote possibility.

    Once more for everyone at the back…

    We shouldn’t be surprised by authoritarian Starmer’s intensifying attacks on our freedom. After all, the ex-Trilateral Commission member is an asset of the British security state.

    But we cannot accept left-wing journalists being locked up for their part in exposing the genocide of Gaza, simply to protect the deranged, racist state of Israel, can we?

    Here’s the thing. We might not agree with people from the centre and the right when it comes to war, public services and austerity, but we and they have liberties that must be protected in order to maintain a healthy, functioning democracy.

    Starmer’s rapid lunge towards an oppressive police state is undoubtedly designed to crack down on what he believes is anti-Israel sentiment, both online and on the streets.

    Being vigorously opposed to the current genocide in Gaza doesn’t make you anti-Israel, or even the old favourite, virulently antisemitic. But it does make you pro-humanity, and that is something to be proud of.

    Starmer: hand me a lettuce, quickly

    So, what have we learned since Keir Starmer was gifted the keys to the front door of Number 10, Downing Street?

    Ideological austerity, war, and an assault on our press freedom and civil liberties is equally as wrong, no matter who is in power, and no matter the colour of the rosette that is pinned to their chests.

    Without some remarkable, screeching U-turns, Keir Starmer’s popularity will continue to decline, and the vultures from the hard-right of the Labour Party will swoop.

    Has anyone got a spare lettuce?

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • I’ve never thought it very useful to poke and prod everything Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says, mostly because I feel like criticism of her often takes on a strange disproportionality, and is a proxy for deeper ideological disputes. AOC Discourse also seems to forget she’s not the leader of the Democratic Party; she’s one of 535 members of Congress. But she may be the most famous progressive in Congress, and a favorite punching bag of Fox News. This doesn’t, in and of itself, necessarily entail any added moral burden. But Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s comments last week on the topic of Gaza during the Democratic National Convention ranged from insipid to actively harmful. They are worth discussing because they are a useful example of a mode of politics that has completely captured the far-right and the far-left wings of the Democratic Party, and Ocasio-Cortez playing into this mode of politics shows just how total their dominance over liberal discourse has become. 

    This is the politics of Feigned Helplessness. Democrats, we are repeatedly led to believe, are not a party of powerful people with the privilege and duty to help, to shape the world, to work for votes and constantly reassert and earn their moral authority, but a passive club of entitled do-gooders, bureaucrats, social media influencers, and human rights champions watching history unfold as they struggle to keep the far right at bay. Much has been written about the Democrats’ reliance on a related model of politics, Learned Helplessness—which psychologists define as a phenomenon whereby a person or group of people “continuously faces a negative, uncontrollable situation and stops trying to change their circumstances, even when they have the ability to do so.” The general idea is that the Democrats’ default position, because they’ve lost so much for so long, is concession, so they start every political fight with lowered expectations, thus moving our politics rightward.

    And while this is no doubt partly true, I think something deeper and more sinister is going on. I think there’s increasingly an element of Feigned Helplessness—a posture, an agreed- upon framework, an increasingly go-to path of least resistance. This is especially true on the subject of genocide in Gaza and Democrats’ continued arming of it.

    Everyone is an intern, no one knows who’s really in charge, and while there’s often a manager to talk to, the manager’s manager remains elusive.

    The animating element behind most liberal discourse is the avoidance of ideology and expressing ideological preferences. Instead, what our center-left media feeds us is an elaborate regime of excuse-making, process issues, burden-shifting, and insistence upon powerful Democrats’ alleged lack of agency. Everyone is an intern, no one knows who’s really in charge, and while there’s often a manager to talk to, the manager’s manager remains elusive. This makes sense: Ideology is messy, it’s bad for politicians’ careers, and—because politicians are disproportionately lawyers—it’s simply not their preferred language. From college they are inoculated against viewing themselves as ideological agents, but rather as technocratic managers of a system that works well—even if it needs tweaking and better rules.

    Let’s begin with an interview Rep. Ocasio-Cortez gave New York City Councilperson Chi Ossé during the DNC. It’s a particularly cynical and bleak example of this mode of politics that’s worth using as an object lesson in how Feigned Powerlessness limits debate and protects reactionary positions. Asked about Harris’ refusal to meet the baseline demands of the Palestinian civil society, the Uncommitted movement, and seven major labor unions, all calling for an arms embargo, Ocasio-Cortez gives a defeated, meandering answer loaded with contestable assumptions: 

    Ocasio-Cortez simply accepting the premise that Harris’ position of refusing to support an arms embargo (e.g. use actual leverage to end genocide) is a fixed feature of the universe—like the speed of light or the gravitational constant—reduces Gaza to a trolley problem of oppressed people competing for support, and is a very blinkered framing that removes all agency from Harris. The dilemma she lays out in the clip, while superficially sensible, is not a law of the universe. It isn’t an inherent feature of the world imposed on Democrats by an outside force. It isn’t imposed by Republicans. Biden can end this perverse trolley problem overnight with a simple phone call. Harris can appease voters angry about her pledge to continue arming genocide in Gaza by simply not arming genocide. We don’t have to pit oppressed people stateside against oppressed people in Gaza and elsewhere. It’s a false choice created entirely by the administration and the Democratic candidate.

    Rather than treating Harris’ pro-genocide policy commitments as an unchangeable law of nature, and placing the onus on powerless voters to simply suck it up, progressive electeds ought to reframe the issue altogether. The moral and useful response to the question of Harris’ indefensible Gaza policy is, “Harris should do the right thing and back an arms embargo and render this dilemma a non sequitur. Justice in Gaza and justice in the United States for oppressed communities need not be in competition with each other.”

    Certainly this would be a perfectly reasonable answer. It’s not needlessly combative, it doesn’t speak ill of the President or Vice President, it’s not snarky or dismissive. It simply wishes she do the right thing without accepting her pro-genocide policy as something outside her control.

    By running with the premise that months more of suffering and death in Gaza is baked in, all of the agency is placed upon faceless voters rather than the most powerful humans on earth. Why are maimed children in Gaza being pitted against trans kids being oppressed in Texas as if these are the only two options? This is a dilemma entirely of Harris’ making, and she can end it at any time.

    But the politics of Feigned Helplessness reign supreme in liberal discourse. The burden is not on Harris to switch course, to reject Biden’s manifestly horrific and—by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s own admission—genocidal policy. The burden is on angry and disillusioned voters to suck it up and pull the lever because if they don’t, we are extorted, they’ll have the same genocide anyway, plus other bad things.

    But, Harris has power. She has agency, and, more importantly, she has the ability to radically alter the course of the lives of millions of people in Gaza in a matter of days by simply doing the obviously right thing.

    The moral and useful response to the question of Harris’ indefensible Gaza policy is, “Harris should do the right thing and back an arms embargo and render this dilemma a non sequitur. Justice in Gaza and justice in the United States for oppressed communities need not be in competition with each other.”

    Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is, of course, not alone. On no other issue have the politics of Feigned Helplessness driven the discourse more than that of Gaza. The vast majority of Democratic electeds still support sending endless bombs to Israel so their payload can continue to shred babies and unleash increasingly novel hells, ad infinitum and without conditions. It should be noted that a handful of congressional Democrats, including Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, back an arms embargo in theory. But only one, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, was willing to condition their support for Harris on it.

    Democrats don’t want to own the inevitable implications of their anti-arms embargo position. With the notable exception of John Fetterman, who at least has the decency to rationalize the scores of dead Palestinian children coming across our timelines every day, the bulk of liberals who support the continued arming of Israel are too cowardly to own their support for genocide, or defend why they are backing a candidate doing so. Instead they try to bifurcate Netanyahu from the Israeli military campaign premised on collective punishment and mass killing, and continue to thread the needle of arming a genocide while opposing its more vulgar aspects.

    Pursuant this increasingly untenable goal is a never-ending list of prefabricated excuses ready, at a moment’s notice, for intellectual installation.

    You’re a leftist, or just a morally sane human being, outraged Harris and Biden refuse to condition aid to Israel at all? Don’t worry, there’s a revolving door of excuses at the ready. After all, those in power aren’t actually responsible for anything. The goal is to avoid the fact of genocide and Democrats’ support for it. The goal is to reduce any and all moral objections to non sequiturs, to avoid the ideological debate.

    Harris is Vice President, she can’t undermine President Biden.

    Wait, this is just a made up norm and not a real limitation? Okay, well, Biden is working on a ceasefire. 

    Wait, he actually isn’t? Okay, well, it doesn’t matter because Israel wouldn’t listen.

    Wait, Israel has no choice but to listen, because US military support is dispositive? Okay, well, it would be electorally bad and we can’t lose to Trump.

    Wait, an arms embargo against Israel actually helps Democrats electorally? Well, okay, but Harris is Vice President, she can’t undermine President Biden.

    Rinse and repeat the excuse-making routine until you no longer remember why it is we even have a liberal political party in this country. The point is, no one is actually responsible for anything. No one has to own the consequences of the policies they support. Everyone’s hands are tied. Israel has gone rogue. The US has to arm a genocide or Israel will turn to China, or AIPAC will unleash spending or Trump will be worse, blah blah, on and on. 

    One element of this disempowering brand of politics is that those adjacent to powerful institutions—those in the party’s prime-time speaking slots, elected to Congress—present themselves as just another voter forced into the hard choice of Lesser of Two Evils. And while it’s true that the average person is more or less forced to pick a less aggregate evil, influential party spokespeople like Ocasio-Cortez, while not leaders, have some leverage, some influence over those asking for their support. But countless progressive electeds and institutions did not condition their support for Harris in exchange for a commitment to arms embargo. They handed it over right away in the interest of “parity unity” and moved on to the rah-rah section of the presidential campaign, which perhaps makes sense in some moral calculus (again, it’s odd to see the crime of crimes being treated as just another boutique ideological hang ups), but it’s very clear that—even in the event they could have potentially exercised power and joined with their colleague Rep. Rashida Tlaib in conditioning endorsements in exchange for commitments on Gaza—our progressive champions avoided power like it was a hitchhiker with pets.

    While it’s true that the average person is more or less forced to pick a less aggregate evil, influential party spokespeople like Ocasio-Cortez, while not leaders, have some leverage, some influence over those asking for their support.

    This bizarre theater of Feigned Helplessness was also reflected in Bernie Sanders’ DNC prime-time speech. The Vermont senator got favorable write-ups for simply “calling for a ceasefire” (something he refused to do for months, and then suddenly agreed to do but never explained why he shifted). 

    “We must end this horrific war in Gaza,” Sanders said. “Bring home the hostages and demand an immediate cease-fire.”

    Demand from whom exactly? If Sanders is demanding a ceasefire from a specific person or entity, then he ought to say this. The person who can force one, and the person who can very likely force one in January (though, realistically, Harris’ support for an arms embargo now would likely compel Biden to do the same) is backstage. Go talk to them! They’re responsible, the people you are endorsing are responsible. Is Sanders calling for a real ceasefire in which the US actually uses its leverage and forces Israel to agree to a cessation of hostilities? Or is he appealing to the bad-faith, fake “ceasefire talks” the US is propping up to buy Israel time? 

    Unclear. Remaining vague is part of this broader regime of powerful people not being responsible. Of course, DNC speeches are vetted by the campaign, but if Sanders is going to speak in campaign-approved platitudes then he shouldn’t bother discussing Gaza at all. It’s an insult to the anti-genocide movement and, more broadly, everyone’s intelligence. 

    Indeed, the average viewer could watch the whole of the DNC, listen to all the follow-up interviews from liberals, conservatives, and progressives, and have zero idea what all the fuss was about or why Pro-Palestinian marches and the Uncommitted movement were even bothering to protest Harris. After all, isn’t the issue of a “ceasefire” out of her hands? Isn’t Biden pursuing some nebulous “talks” to achieve one? Haven’t Biden and Harris done all they can? 

    One expects this regime of Feigned Helplessness to be a feature of centrist and liberal discourse—it long has. But watching pillars of the electoral left, such as it is, embrace and employ it to win over voters who are justifiably angry over Gaza shows just how ubiquitous this formulation is, how grim our prospects are. Powerful people, they tell us, are spectators, standing by and watching horrible things unfold before them. They have no agency or responsibility for committing to open-ended arms transfers fueling an ongoing genocide. The moral demand is not on them, every progressive elected except Rep. Rashida Tlaib tells us—it’s on you, the voter at home. Your duty is to accept this as inevitable and engage in isolated acts of harm reduction. The burden is on you to fall in line, not on those seeking your vote to do the morally obvious thing.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • On Monday night Tanni Grey-Thompson had to do something she’s unfortunately accustomed to now – crawl off a train. She had the same experience 12 year ago, too.

    Tanni Grey-Thompson’s experience is the norm

    The paralympian who uses a wheelchair had once again been abandoned by passenger assistance and after waiting 15 minutes on an empty train after 10pm in London. She had no other choice but to take matters into her own hands – literally.

    Yesterday morning, after listening to Grey-Thompson recant her experience on Radio 4, baroness Sal Brinton tweeted about how she’d also had this experience, but she also made an interesting point.

    Brinton said:

    If the new Labour Government wants more disabled people in work… then barriers to getting to work (getting on and off trains, lifts working, priority on buses, recognising PIP helps with additional costs only faced by disabled people) must be addressed.

    Brinton as usual is spot on here. If this government is as intent on forcing disabled people back to work as the last, they have to actually invest in making sure we can physically get to work.

    Barely accessible: the UK’s transport network

    Tanni Grey-Thompson is far from the only wheelchair user this happens to. Many regularly tweet their frustration using the hashtag #DisabledByTheRailway that they’ve been left on trains, not been able to get on them due to ramps, or abused by other passengers who were using the wheelchair space for luggage storage.

    From travelling with wheelchair-using friends I’ve witnessed rage from other passengers who’ve tried to push onto trains first, and flippant train staff. On the flipside I’ve also seen the kindness of strangers who’ve had to help us off tubes we were told had level boarding.

    And that’s just wheelchair users. As someone who regularly uses buses and trains I have to sacrifice my energy by using a cane instead of a walker as there’s more chance I’ll be able to board and have a space without jostling with mothers and prams.

    And of course there’s only one mobility aid space on most buses, meaning that only one disabled person gets to travel at once. Because nobody who’s disabled could possibly have friends, family, or partners who are also disabled.

    On my local buses the dedicated pushchair space has been replaced with extra seating so now parents have to share the space with wheelchair users. While wheelchair users are supposed to have priority many just refuse to move and drivers don’t advocate for disabled passengers.

    And that shouldn’t be a decision disabled people or indeed parents should have to make. We all deserve to be able to get to where we want to go. But when services deprioritise disabled people we all lose.

    Labour must take seriously disabled people’s transport woes

    I’m lucky to be able to work from home. But I’ve heard countless stories from people who’ve missed important meetings, been unable to get to their jobs, or even been sanctioned by the DWP because they couldn’t get on a bus, nobody arrived to help them on the train, the lift was out at the station or it didn’t even have one, or they were given wrong or unsafe support from staff who were adequately trained.

    Brinton also pointed out that PIP enables a lot of people to pay for the extra things they need to get to work. For me, the fallback of PIP enables me to only work the amount of hours I know won’t leave me exhausted and in too much pain. How are vouchers going to help support me in that way?

    In all the flurry of getting back to work panic, there’s also been nothing on how they’ll tackle the two-year-plus Access to Work backlog. Many are risking losing job offers or putting themselves through more pain whilst the support they were promised doesn’t materialise. There’s also no mention of training employers on how best to support disabled people. That and the fact that disabled people earn six times less than non-disabled people.

    Stop the ‘scrounger’ narrative

    There’s so much more that needs to be done to actually support disabled people into work than just job coaches and threatening to cut their benefits.

    One thing’s for sure, if Labour continues to allow the scrounger narrative to spread and plough ahead with cruel welfare reforms, without support disabled people will be forced into jobs that could kill them.

    If Labour are actually passionate about supporting disabled people back into work and not just using us as a welfare scapegoat they’ll actually invest in physically getting us there.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • This is the fifth and final part of Samantha Asumadu’s series on the ‘permanent state’.

    I did the best writing of my life in 2018/2019. I was in the midst of a trauma induced breakdown (see chapters 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 33 and 38 of my new book) but that didn’t seem to affect the quality of my writing.

    I get extremely productive and write well under pressure and throughout traumatic experiences. I think It’s the heightened fear. I feel like I have to finish things before I am either thwarted or murdered. It’s not worth it though. I’d rather the peace.

    A lot of that writing features in Between a Rock, a Hard Place and a Dystopia. However I didn’t even really know that I was a writer until 2018 when Kojo told me “you’re a writer”, after reading the first draft of Beyond Reproach? Labour, the Left and White Supremacy.

    Before that I had always solely identified as a filmmaker, who happened to have founded an organisation to foreground the voices of people of colour.

    Really I have Hicham Yezza, Adam Elliott-Cooper, Assed Baig, Justin, and Symeon Brown to thank for encouraging me back then. We had a WhatsApp group, aptly named Burnout that usually got popping in the morning over this or that in 2018.

    To start at the beginning – kind of

    I’ve only ever told this whole story once. And I sounded mad. I’ll never know the truth unless they expand the SpyCops inquiry to include 2022. Currently it ends in 2014. Of course I may be in those documents anyway as a former short-term boyfriend has been named as one of those under surveillance. We’re no longer in contact but at the time (and now) he was a journalist writing mostly about Israel and its agents in the UK. He was getting constant scoops then and now. But his platform is small and has never written for the mainstream press.

    We went out for a couple of months around 2014/2015. But to tell the story I have to go back to 2010. I came back to London from Uganda; my intention was to find funding for my second film, Born Again in the United States of Uganda. Something I had been filming for a few months every time I got the opportunity:

    Back in London, my sister was pursuing her own dream of training to become a pastor. After her daughter died from complications of sickle cell she had become religious, stopped partying, and stopped drinking. I was concerned and just didn’t understand having gone to Catholic schools throughout my childhood and teenage years. I had an aversion to organised religion but wanted to understand more so I could support my sister.

    Confused by this turn to religion from my previously secular sibling and wanting to understand what being ‘born again’ meant, I sought to find out more about the burgeoning Pentecostalism congregations in Uganda. I read the local papers and found an advert for a church just a short drive from where I lived. 

    There I met with the head of the church; the self-styled Bishop Kiganda with a view to following him for a documentary. What I didn’t know when I stepped into his luxurious office at the side of his rundown church was that he was one of the pastors alongside Pastor Ssempa at the helm of a notorious anti-gay movement and leading advocate of the ‘Kill the Gays’ bill.

    Three months later when I’d gained his trust and that of the others in this largely male movement of pastors, the world caught on to what was happening in Uganda. I found myself at the centre of a global story, and an unwitting participant in the video for a viral anti-gay song featuring Pastor Ssempa Eat da poo poo, that was beamed across the world.

    Born Again in the United States of Uganda was about the anti gay bill, prosperity gospel, money laundering and ‘the Family’ also known as ‘the Fellowship’: a secretive neo-conservative boys club who believe in free trade, abolition of abortion, and being anti-gay. The boys club consists of both Democrat and Republican politicians and others with a lot of money. They fund the national prayer breakfast in America and the national prayer breakfast in Uganda. It’s rumoured that Uganda’s president of over three decades is a member. 

    The MP who wrote Uganda’s infamous anti-gay bill, Bahati, is a member. In 2010 the Texas Republican Party brought out a manifesto. It had striking similarities to the anti-gay bill that came out almost simultaneously. I came back to London in 2011 to try and find funding to finish my film.

    I needed over a hundred thousand pounds in my estimation to be able to do the film justice. I’d need to not only go back to Uganda, but Nigeria and America too. This was the text that went along with the trailer I made and the application to ITVS – an American film fund. There is a web of entanglement between US evangelicals, fundamentalists, conservatives and African clergy that exists to maintain a power structure and a severe homophobic agenda that serves the hard-core religious groups.

    This documentary will be the definitive film that shows that the American evangelical right invests heavily in financial and advocacy effort in influencing religious Africans to shun gay rights and that the Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill was an import from the West. Uganda is the test bed for Texas.

    The ecstasy was short-lived. I didn’t get awarded the money. Another film similar on the surface to mine did. Another film about the Anti-Gay Bill, and the underground gay scene which the two white American filmmakers, neither of whom had been to Uganda I found out, were more interested in than the money laundering and corruption I wanted to investigate.

    C’est la vie

    Going underground

    So, I went underground. And found Twitter. I would chat with British and American anarchists until 4am in the morning or later; good times. Some of them were as much on the periphery as me, which became apparent a few years later when Novara Media was founded by Aaron Bastani. His ‘break the house’ party was legendary. It was there I was first in the company of James Butler, his eventual co-founder, and even Laurie Penny was there. 

    The former was about to move from the rented accommodation and a last house party was the only way to celebrate that. Aaron Bastani had been along for the anarchist ride. Clearly no longer, considering his appearances on GB News.

    I consider myself an anarchist at heart and a socialist in practice. I’m not sure what he would call himself these days. I was pretty lost in those few months. No second film, no boyfriend. I started questioning my position on this earth. That led to a perhaps unhealthy obsession with Twitter but it also led me to finding some people that I had never considered before – anti-imperialists, I soon learned.

    I found a meeting that was to be gathered somewhere in North London that would be the founding of the small, nascent, and barely existent anti-imperialist movement until the recent war on Gaza.

    At the centre of the 2010 were charismatic characters like Sukant Chandan, Lowkey, Pablo Navarette, Adam Elliot-Cooper, Jody McIntyre, Akala and others. The women were less known. Nonetheless, it birthed films, music, writing, protests, and campaigns.

    It was a campaign called Hands Off Somalia that I joined which is relevant to the title of my book. Hands Off Somalia was convened by a group called the Revolutionary Communists, known colloquially with the acronym RFRI. They included a woman who calls herself Nikki, who is now part of Prisoners Advice Service, who organised many protests, had a newsletter and so on. For this campaign they got involved with some Somalis who were on the periphery of the anti-imperialist movement. They were fierce poets and public speakers. I was in awe. They were the first hijab wearing women I had met. A far cry from the depiction that the mainstream media would have you believe of meek, controlled, and subservient.

    One woman was particularly charismatic. We’d added each other on Facebook back then and I hadn’t thought of it again. Until 2022 when out of the blue she called me.

    Kill the Bill

    I was in the midst of organising the Nationality and Borders Bill fight back. I had brought lots of different campaigns together, and I did an interview for Al Jazeera, which reported:

    Samantha Asumadu, a campaigner for representation in the media, told Al Jazeera: “I only knew about the bill on Friday through the New Statesman piece, that said that up to six million people were at risk of being deported.”

    In that recent report by the New Statesman magazine, reporters alleged that the the bill focuses on minorities – who currently make up nearly six million people in England and Wales – and who could be at risk of deportation if they were to commit a crime that was deemed applicable by the government.

    Asumadu called for cross-community action to resist the bill.

    “The goal is to stop the Nationality and borders bill in its entirety. Collaboration among all groups is are only and best option. Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and more have come together in the last few days to oppose this bill. The opposition will only grow as it approaches its next trading [sic] in the House of Lords.”

    And wrote an article for openDemocracyWhy we need to join forces to oppose the Nationality and Borders Bill Democracy – and two for Ceasefire MagazineOn the Nationality and Borders Bill and the UK Left and For the Culture: Reflections on Black & Brown Activism.

    It was apparently the openDemocracy article that the charismatic woman I previously mentioned read and made her want to get involved. She’d missed the Zoom meeting I convened with 23 different groups, but I sent her a link to the recording. I’d had no reason to distrust her before:

    Duly she turned up at the first protest held outside Downing Street where she made a beeline to meet some of the other organisers and quickly became second within the group. Some of whom I had known before; Dome I hadn’t but they all had long track records in community organising. Checking out her Facebook a few weeks later it seemed she had done little since 2010 since I first met her. Perhaps some university? It wasn’t clear.

    The group used all the tools available for us to communicate – email, Twitter and WhatsApp. It was Twitter that caused the final fragmentation.

    Before that however alongside our protests, there was another organisation called Kill the Bill. They were organising huge protests, larger than ours. Thousands were on the street. A friend and I went along, and met the Somali woman and a friend of hers. By that time another person who had no track record – other than his insistence had been arrested once at a protest and a Twitter account – had joined us. He was by the looks of things South Asian. He would repeatedly bring up this arrest as a symbol of his bona fides. None of us cared. We had no intention of getting arrested, even with encouragement from him.

    After this massive protest I found myself in a cafe with these three characters. It was there I started to feel uneasy. The South Asian guy began to talk about the royal family – saying it was their fault for the bill – I didn’t take the bait, and said my mum loved the royal family. Then he moved on to another FGM campaigner I knew who happened to be good friends with Boris Johnson’s wife and attempted to get me to stage her off. I said, gosh, I haven’t seen her for ages, last time was at a party somewhere in North London, she’d been looking good! 

    Eventually he left and me and the Somali woman and her friend went outside to chat. I hushed them and said ‘can you turn your phones off’. They looked at me incredulously. Whilst I wish I had never watched Homeland, London Spy, or any of those TV shows or read any John Le Carre books (I love him really) they are good for teaching/understanding spy craft. And on the flip side, learning evading tactics. I said “please just turn your phone off” and then laid out my suspicions to them. And left. 

    Enter the wreckers

    I then noticed photos I had taken in Cardiff of me and Shirley had gone missing from my phone. The next day my laptop stopped working. Soon after that I left the Nationality and Borders bill campaign group completely. Other than being in a DM group on Twitter that I never looked at, my involvement was over. One of my good friends remained however and she gave me a call out of the blue a few weeks later, saying that the Somali woman had accused her and others of being spies, and the group was having a meltdown. I said I’d give the Somali woman a ring seeing as I had brought her into the group and known her for years (I hadn’t seen her for 12 years). We had a chat. It seemed fine.

    Then she and her friend announced in the DM group that someone had screenshotted a message they had put in the group and it was circulating outside. In affect accusing someone in the group of being a spy and selling us out. I knew this was rubbish. And as far as I was concerned had confirmation that this woman and her friend were wreckers – spies or informants. It didn’t matter which, but they had destroyed the careful, painstaking work we had done to first get together then put on two protests, get a petition to over 200,000 signatures, publish writing etc.

    Whilst I left, the paranoia didn’t abate. In fact it had only just got started. I reached out to Tom Fowler. Tom Fowler was targeted by undercover officers for many years whilst part of South Wales Anarchists and active in environmental and social justice campaigns. He has spent much of the last 14 years taking legal action against the police, doing live reports from the SpyCops Inquiry, launched in 2015, and producing the Spycops Info Podcast

    Tom said:

    I mean, like, Yeah, I can’t say I got anything really to like, I can’t really shine a light on it. But there are lots of bad faith actors in all these things. As well as undercover officers. There’s like informants, infiltrators, there’s grasses, there’s a whole corporate world of infiltration that doesn’t come from the state. One of the big the big roles of all this intelligence gathering, gathering is what they call vetting what we would refer to as blacklisting. So you know, the idea that someone would be sent out to like, kind of update a vetting of somebody by questioning people who are associated with them sounds perfectly, like a believable sort of thing that would happen. I don’t I don’t know anything about this particular case. But yeah, I mean, I’ve cut off these people. I’m not going to name names. I don’t want any trouble. But they did ruin that. But yeah, the I would say it’s down to those two women, at least, the organising stuff,

    I’m gonna, I’m gonna, on top of that, you know, there, there is a lot of people in activism who are fucking funny types, funny fish. And like, you know, there’s plenty of ways in which groups get destroyed by the internal dynamics of it. I would say that my personal experience, the people who did that world, and they would they were encouraged in the planes are fanned by undercover officers who nobody thought was doing things like that. But then you look back at it. And you saw the way in which they lifted up the voices of those who were, you know, there’s a role within that as well. Disrupting undermining and destroying groups was a big part of what their deployment was about, right. It wasn’t just about intelligence gathering. Yeah. The whole sector of the state, it’s about undermining and destroying groups.

    TV shows, more than anywhere – even my time spent In Congo where I trekked guided through the forest and was told by the ranger violence still broke out there and later interviewed broken looking ex FDLR fighters in a tent administered by either the UN or an NGO – is where I learned the disturbing behaviour I exhibit when in the midst of a triggered PTSD meltdown: 

    • Turning all the lights on in my flat when I enter.
    • Checking every room and cupboard for intruders.
    • Only speaking on WhatsApp or Signal.
    • When feeling under threat making everyone I meet turn their phones off.
    • Taking longer routes when walking, stopping intermittently, occasionally doubling back on myself.
    • Putting my phone on aeroplane mode.
    • When feeling under threat taking all the cash out of my bank account so I can’t be tracked by credit or debit card transactions.
    • Leaving household items in particular places so I can check if anyone has been in my flat whilst I was out.
    • Playing loud music so whoever has bugged my flat can’t overhear me.

    There’s probably more. 

    Hypervigilance

    This all sounds like paranoid stuff to the general public. However when I talked to an actual investigative journalist and also talked to author Michela Wrong, she understood completely having been hyper-vigilant because of the book she had just published and the Rwandan government’s reaction to it. 

    Foreign correspondents understand living in fear because we have done stories that meant we had to, if we were to expose what was happening. In Congo I was followed by a mining company only because I was doing a story on blood minerals. In Uganda I was scared because after covering a landslide and nearly being buried alive and fearing my death that day, I then had to cover the Al Shabab bombings of Kampala in 2010. I wasn’t supposed to be in Kampala but had missed my flight to London the week before so subsequently covered it for CNN

    For me, (undiagnosed) PTSD has manifested because I have seen and been tangentially involved in so much bad shit during my short time as a breaking news reporter and foreign correspondent that bad things seem to happen a lot more (to me and those around me) than actually happens in reality. For example I haven’t gotten on the tube for 12 years because of what happened in Bududa.

    Last month I was told that I do not have PTSD, But I do have trauma-informed claustrophobia due to the landslide:

    Yes I am a big old troll where it comes to spies and informants and their handlers:

    It’s unlikely a tube tunnel is going to collapse on me but it feels like if it’s going to happen to anyone it would happen to me. It’s unlikely I will get caught up in a city where there’s another terrorist attack but in my brain it seems very likely that I will. It had seemed unlikely that I would ever come across as big a story as the blood minerals one I did in Congo 12 years ago. However then came #NationalityAndBordersBill followed quickly by #JusticeForIPPs, all massive and necessary stories, meaning to me and my overtaxed brain those odds about tunnels collapsing got smaller again.

    So even though these shows are all fiction, done very well, they bring danger and violence closer but also present ways to combat some of the intrusion of being at the other end of the state.

    Thus as the story below shows basically everyone is a spy until they are proven not to be a spy, they have a normal job, such as nurse that doesn’t allow for travel whenever you feel like it. Or I have known them for at least 20 years:

    A Black Lives Matter group in South Wales has been closed following an alleged infiltration attempt by the police. Swansea BLM cited concerns for their members’ safety, harassment and threats from the far right as the primary reasons for shutting down its operations. The news emerged after one of the group’s main organisers, Lowri Davies, revealed last year that a police officer tried to persuade her to become an informant, secretly recording the approach and publishing it. In a statement published months after, the collective explained that the decision had been taken following concerns for their members’ welfare. 

    “We’re dissolving our organisation for a number of reasons, including the physical and mental safety of all our team members. Whilst we have found that our organisation has done some important work, we have been subject to an attempt of infiltration at the end hands of South Wales Police, doxxing and targeted harassment from Voice of Wales and some far-right members turning up at members’ homes.” 

    Justified paranoia – but that doesn’t make it right

    For a brief moment last weekend whilst messaging with author and journalist Matt Potter, who I interviewed for a podcast called The Information War, that my transcription service tells me was about:

    The discussion centers on the concept of an ongoing information war, tracing back to 1999, emphasizing the integration of cyber and physical warfare. The conversation highlights Russia’s use of cyber attacks and disinformation since the Kosovo conflict, noting the rise of “hacker industrial complexes” and the role of script kiddies. The Ukrainian government’s call to hackers to join the “Ukrainian IT Army” is discussed as a strategy to counter Russian cyber threats. The conversation also touches on the naivety of Western approaches to cyber warfare, the impact of social media on political movements, and the need for radical empathy in global conflicts. 

    I convinced myself that Matt was a spy, which is ridiculous when you consider his body of work! 😂😃😄 (Matt’s first book tracked post-Soviet pilots running arms, drugs, and worse from Afghanistan to Somalia.)  The reason was literally because of a band name I had tweeted that I had  forgotten I had tweeted. He referenced my tweet in a message and because I didn’t remember ever writing a tweet with ‘The Metres’ in it on Twitter (I had done it automatically from the source) I went to investigate and only calmed down once I found the tweet I had sent unwittingly earlier that day.

    Crazy stuff.

    So my paranoid PTSD meltdown three weeks ago was more than justified in the context of the Nationality and Borders Bill organising and subsequent IPP exclusive that thousands left in English and Welsh prisons have been left without release dates, despite controversial indefinite sentences long being scrapped. But not my suspicion of a perfectly nice man chatting to me about music, vinyl, and books on a Saturday morning rather than finishing his overdue manuscript:

    Thankfully I finally spoke to a doctor two days later (I had been waiting three weeks for a telephone appointment with my GP) about the PTSD stuff. I explained to her about Congo, the bombs and the landslide. 

    She saidyou’ve had quite a life”.

    Then I said yeah “but it was a poem that pushed me over the edge” 😃😄😆 She was surprised that I had never been diagnosed before. She asked me what service I would be transferring from. I said i hadn’t realised until around 2017/2018 that I even had PTSD. That I have had therapy/CBT numerous times before but they NEVER mentioned I might have PTSD or ADHD. Internally i was saying If they had things wouldn’t have got this bad’. 

    Racist assumptions or neglect I don’t know, but it was definitely an abdication of duty of rather than disappear into the ether, making me look like a spy in 2016, and 2019 a lot of pain and trouble for people/a person other than me could have been avoided if I had been diagnosed/had the correct therapy in 2010. CBT does not cut it.

    Writing this book has meant reliving some old pain. My brother says that finishing it will relieve my anxiety meaning even potentially finally getting rid of my eczema which is invariably exacerbated by my anxiety. My book research was mostly of the low brow variety – looking up WhatsApp messages, old Facebook and Instagram statuses.

    Whilst reliving pain can be cathartic I suppose, it has also pushed me to places that maybe would be best left in the past. As well as reading my old social media I had to read my old articles from 2018/2019. Some were published, some were just on my old blog that doesn’t exist anymore. 

    I have been notifying people that they are in the book since 2022. Some couldn’t care less, others did. One particular person in 2022 who I sent a chapter to felt that I had betrayed him and our confidences going back years. Whilst I think it’s important to have an outside critique once in a while, we all come with our own biases and perceived relationships/slights etc. 

    The chapter I wrote was coloured by the fact that I felt he had betrayed me or our friendship. I should say back in 2019 when he had I thought chosen someone else over me. It turned out that wasn’t the case. And just speaking to each other resolved a lot of the differences and I realised I had been unfair to him in parts of the chapter. 

    Which starts:

    I always thought Madani was perfect. Radical and perfect. Radical, successful and perfect. Busy too. But never too busy for me.  I think he reached out to me (via his assistant) as founder of Media Diversified. He thought we were radical too. And on our way to being successful. He was determined to help me get there. And it would shore up his cred as radical while he was at it.

    Not all but part was unfair. But today it becomes even more important as he too was a friend of me and my charismatic peers from around 2012 onwards. I’m as sad for him today as I am myself, Anthony, Lowkey, Adam, Symeon, Pablo, Akala, Malia, and others affected by the ‘permanent state’:

    SpyCops is not a lesson of history, but a lesson of our present

    I spoke to Tom Fowler on 30 July, four days before the hacking of my social media accounts, the same same day I scanned and found AirTags in my vicinity and the day my laptop stopped working again. Here is an abridged version of our interview in which according to the AI summary of our conversation says:

    the conversation delves into the UK’s spy cops scandal, where undercover police infiltrated activist groups since 1968, using stolen identities of deceased children. The inquiry, initiated by Theresa May in 2015, is chaired by Sir John Mitting and involves numerous legal representatives. The first tranche covered 1968-1982, suggesting the unit should have been disbanded. The second tranche, 1983-1992, is ongoing. Key points include the use of trauma for empathy and withdrawal, the infiltration of various political movements, and the long-term impact on activists and their families. The inquiry aims to uncover the extent of police misconduct and its broader societal repercussions. Plus it  delves into the inquiry, revealing that over 1,000 left-wing groups were infiltrated by undercover units, while only one far-right group, the BNP, is known to have been infiltrated. The inquiry, which began in 2015, is expected to conclude by October 2026. The conversation highlights the historical lack of police action against the far-right and the impact of undercover operations on social justice movements. It also touches on the broader issue of police corruption, including cases of sexual misconduct and the use of covert surveillance. The speakers emphasize the need for public awareness and accountability, urging listeners to follow the #Spycops hashtag for updates.

    Tom: They were, when it happened, spread across the country, or just in London, or where all over the country, initially was eight women in that group, and now it’s 60.

    Sam: Yeah. What sort of groups were they in that were infiltrated?

    Tom: I mean, basically, I mean, like, it goes the same. There’s over 1000 groups infiltrated by the undercover units. They’re almost exclusively left wing, progressive environmentalism, anti racism, human rights, women’s rights, evil group found is there’s a real lack of reporting on the far right. We heard about one officer who infiltrated the BMP last week, hm, 56 and, I mean, like it was, I mean, it was fucking pathetic. He infiltrated for 10 months. I mean, he gave one report at the start of his deployment. He didn’t then report them. Another four months. He just did incredibly little. He was absolutely petrified the entire time. He was worried that fellow undercover officers were going to out him. Because, I mean, essentially, he didn’t say this, but you get the impression that, and as we know from previous investigations that happened in the past, that there’s sympathy for the far right within the British police and within special branches, particularly, we heard from our officers that were were tasked with infiltrating anti-racist groups the 1970s who said the National Front weren’t a problem. They cooperated with the police. It was only because they were getting attacked by lefties. Police really refused to make a connection between the racist murders that were happening and, like, the growth of the far right. So, I mean, like, for example, when we looked at the BNP HQ that used to be in Welling in the late eighties, it was like, set up there in 89 and there’s big protest against it 93 that’s like, which the police, like, absolutely battered everybody… they did police horse charges into like, people sitting in the road… But like, you know, the area around the national BNP HQ there was, like, that’s where Stephen Lawrence was killed. That’s where there was a number of racist murders in that area. I’m not using the names that might get it wrong, because there’s so many, there’s so many names you kind of end up with. 

    Tom: But so there was lack of a feeling that, you know, because the far right believed in the queen. I mean, that sounds insane, right? But like, you know, we heard a lot from a lot of the undercover officers talking about, like, the protection of the Queen’s peace is the highest calling of any police officer. And they just didn’t see the far right as like, a threat to social attitudes in the way in which the far left was and is. And you can, like, see the kind of the whole thing about, they talked about public disorder and subversion, but what they’re really, actually concerned with is social attitudes they didn’t want. Like, we heard from undercover officers during tranche, one who, I mean, this is direct quote. ‘There’s a lot of long haired, long haired layabouts in need of a good clout’. And like, that’s, I mean, that’s literally how they saw it. I mean, they saw the new left of the late 60s and the social attitudes that went with it. You know, one of the earliest groups to be infiltrated was Women’s Liberation Front. I mean, their demands were things like, you know, ban rape in marriage, allow women to have bank accounts. You know, children born out of wedlock should have the same legal rights as unborn in wedlock. Incredibly minor things. Sometimes we forget how far this country’s come on, some really basic stuff. I mean, rape in marriage was only made illegal in 1990 it was 1974 before a woman could open a bank account in the UK. It simply wasn’t possible for women to get a mortgage before that. These kind of social attitudes, these changes, social actions which were happening were real. You can see, like the SDS as part of a rear guard action against all those slowing them down from happening in any sort of sensible pace. Like it’s the way in which Britain really has, like, kind of lagged behind the views of its population. I mean, there’s lots of ways that they do.

    Sam: The state has lagged behind Jimmy, the permanent state

    Tom: Yeah, behind the views of the population of the country. Yeah, absolutely.

    Sam: And do you think there’s a difference between the permanent state, as in SDS, blah, blah, and the governments that come in?

    Tom: Yeah. I mean, whoever government is in power, it’s the Tory state, right? It’s like the aristocracy owns this country. We just live here.

    Sam: There’s two things I wanted to pick up on what you just said. One, you said there was one person who has given evidence, who did infiltrate the BNP for 10 months, etc. You also said there was 1,000 groups that were infiltrated. So are you saying there was only one far right group that was infiltrated out of all of their deployments?

    Tom: That’s all we’ve heard of so far. Now there is a number of undercover officers who have got such a high level of anonymity. We don’t have their cover names, we don’t have their real names, and we don’t have a cipher for them. There’s a lot of bullshit being put out by the inquiry about how dangerous their deployments were, and it sort of inferred that these were officers were infiltrating the far right. But we don’t have any details about that. We don’t know if that was them infiltrating the far right proper, or, like, some aspect of it, or something unrelated. Were they infiltrating the anti-fascist groups? Because we heard also about another officer in the 70s who infiltrated a left-wing party, the Workers Revolutionary Party. And whilst he was infiltrated doing that, they were doing a lot of anti-fascist work, and they got him to go undercover into the far right. So he was like an undercover officer in the left pretending to be left wing activist pretending to be a right wing activist to report back to. So I mean, you know, we get examples like that that happen, and we know that the role of Searchlight in infiltrating the far right has been significant in the past.

    Sam: Explain what Searchlight is, please.

    Tom: Searchlight is an anti fascist magazine set up by Gerry Gable… and they’ve had very, very close links with the security services. They send their activists undercover into far-right groups. There’s a lot about them that’s really dodgy. It’s not an area I have that much of a specialist on. But… the point I’m making is, is that there was obviously some monitoring of the far right that took place, but we have no evidence beyond this one officer or the role that the SDS took in that.

    Sam: But Joe, you’ve got a lot of evidence on the left wing groups from like, you know, that’s that’s suspicious. Basically, you’re suspicious of that, yeah?

    Tom: But it feeds into, you know, certainly when we talk about, like, the really big fascist mobilisations of the 1970s like Southall places like that. You know where Blair Peach was murdered, the Red Line Square where Kevin Gately was murdered. You know that these, these are incidents that there was no undercover police officers in the far right, but there were significant numbers in the far left, right?

    Sam: Can I ask another you said these undercover cops, they were going in. So it’s, you know, boots on the ground. What were they? Was there any technology involved? Is there any phone tapping?

    Tom: All those things that are undoubtedly all those things are part of what the British state does. Theoretically, the police are governed by more specific more of the law than security services. So it would take a warrant to tap someone’s phone historically, whereas it would take the oversight of one senior officer to deploy an undercover officer into someone’s life. So particularly for the early years the unit, it’s the it’s the human infiltration, the covert human intelligence source, which is used willy nilly, really, whereas it would take a lot more paperwork to do things like wire tapping. Obviously that changed massively in the modern era. And like, you know, when you, when you start looking into this stuff, you start being really, like, kind of, I used to be very quick to make suggestions for how things are done now, I would I’m more wary of doing that now, because the more you know about the past, the less you want to speculate. But we certainly live in a year of neoliberal policing, where the use of private firms to do police work is commonplace, the use of informers for criminal cases is – the national former database has exploded over the last couple of decades – and the use of covert, electronic covert surveillance is everywhere, right? So, I mean, obviously that has changed massively, but when we talk about the historic period, it really is human beings.

    Sam: So there’s two BBC articles from 2013. The first one is called Mi5 spy unhappy with ex’s calls. I’ll read you a little bit of it:

    An Mi5 five spy accused of assaulting his fellow spy. Ex- girlfriend went to another phone to call her at work when she ignored him. A jury has heard the woman referred to by her Mi5 pin number 2363, then answered the call but became uncomfortable. The Crown Court heard the defendant, using a false name Mark Barton for security reasons, denies two assaults counts and one of harassment, a sexual assault charge was dropped during the trial… So a former line manager of the woman who was a spy as well, told the court that a few weeks before the woman complained to police about Mr. Barton’s behavior at the end of august 2011 he was aware of an occasion when 2363 took a telephone call that she was uncomfortable with taking… Earlier this week, the court heard that Mr. Barton was out of control. After 2363, left him, she said that after following her from a work party, Mr. Barton had lifted her off the tube in a bear hug and forced her to return to his flat. And Mr. Barton had wanted to discuss their relationship and did not accept the romance was over. The woman said she tried to leave but Mr. Barton physically restrained her, throwing her into a cupboard… The trial was going to to continue the next Monday.

    Sam: That’s the first article. Now I don’t know. Do you know of any on about any spy on the spy, like abuse, like that, is that something that’s come out?

    Tom: I mean, it’s certainly not that many much about there have been a number of cases of Mi5 agents behaving appallingly, that there’s been a number of cases. I’m not sure if this is the same one as there’s another one which was, I think, more recent than that of an Mi5 officer who was sexually abusing his partner. I would say, like the SDS, though, they are spies, they are cops. These are police officers. They’re not special agents. They haven’t had anything like that kind of training. They come from a very different background. They’re not allowed to kill people like Mi5 officers are. They are allowed to arrest people though which Mi5 officers aren’t. There’s a much, much bigger scandal than all of this that like relates to the way in which men treat women, right? I mean, we live in a deeply misogynistic society, a patriarchy, when men feel they have a right to women’s bodies. And that manifests itself in a multitude of ways, you know. Surprisingly enough, people who were given the license to break society’s norms in the name of the state abuse that to abuse people, particularly when there’s no oversight. And there was no oversight with these cases, and there’s very little oversight on my phone, yeah. So, yeah, I’m sure there is, like, a multitude of cases like,

    Sam: Yeah, I mean something you said just made me think of something that I’ve been doing recently, because I found that on Twitter that I get, like, every day, there’s some sort of court case or tribunal or something of a police officer who have committed some crime, and it can be any police, it’s not just the Met, it’s not even just GMP, it’s all over the shop. They’re getting convicted of rape, of drug dealing, of abuse. It’s actually thieving off dead people. It’s mad. So I created this hashtag, like police crime daily. I wasn’t online yesterday. I wasn’t able to update it, but I’m sure there was more cases that came out every single day, and it’s tip of the iceberg, right? Because the vast majority of police officers don’t get held to account for their crimes.

    Tom: Yeah, it’s endemic. It’s endemic.

    Sam: Yes, I’ll just go on to the other other article. I think it may it may be about the same case and the reporting of it, but, yeah, so. So this one is in July 2013:

    Mi5 spy assault and harassment claims, total nonsense. an Mi5 spy has dismissed as total nonsense allegations that he harassed and assaulted his former girlfriend… The defendant, who is using a false name for security reasons, told the jury that he did not think his ex girlfriend had ever been frightened of him. Mark Barton denies two assaults and one of harassment against the woman. A charge of a sexual assault against Mr. Barton has been dropped during cross examination. The prosecutor Alison Morgan, asked Mr. Barton if he had ever been violent towards his ex girlfriend, referred to in court only as 2363, and he said, ‘that’s a ridiculous suggestion. That’s absolutely total nonsense. I’ve never been physically aggressive to her in my life’. Asked if she’d been scared of him he said, ‘there’s absolutely no way she was frightened whatsoever’… then asked if he told 2363, three’s mother that the couple would be married in two years. Mr. Barton told the court. I did not say we would be married in two years, but I made it very clear that I was very committed to her.

    Sam: I mean, it goes on like that. I can’t actually get to where if he was convicted or not, which is a shame they seem to have stopped reporting on it after a while. That’s not too great, is it?

    Tom: There’s a series To Catch A Copper, and if you’ve seen it, it’s like, fairly recent series. And I mean, like, essentially, it’s one of those ones where they use police footage. I mean, the police cooperates with it, where they show police footage of police abusing their position, and then the investigation into them, and then they all get off.

    Sam: It’s been nine years for a short period. What do you see? How long do you think this is going to take to do all six tranches, and what will, what accountability will there be after this?

    Tom: Okay, so, I mean, I’ll answer the second one part. First, absolutely none whatsoever. There’s no question of anybody getting any response, any responsibility, any blame being pinned onto anybody. The police will go away completely scot free for all their crimes. The point of the inquiry is not to do that. It’s purely to learn the lessons. And there’ll be a bunch of recommendations that will come out of it. In terms of when it reports. The last government demanded it be finished by October 2026. Totally unreasonable, totally unlikely that would happen. The inquiry intends to, like, speed up its process to try and be finished by then. It means we’re just rushing through the important detail of the inquiry whilst we spent so many years like faffing around appeasing police fears about anonymity.

    Sam: I wanted to ask you about, like, some specific things just to, just to end us off, because my interest in this is actually personal as well. I mean, I’ve been, I’m a I’m a journalist, I’ve also been an activist in the past. And and something came up on my Twitter a little while ago. It’s, you know, Batt Murphy, who are a team of lawyers, they wrote in a statement at today’s undercover police inquiry hearing ‘the Met has apologised unreservedly for undercover officers spying on family, campaigns and community organisations seeking justice, and in particular to members of Black and Asian communities seeking to hold the Met to account’. So I asked, just in general, like, where do we find a list of which groups and people they were surveilling? Because I had weird things happen to me over the years from 2013 onwards, though, I mean, I’m quite paranoid person. I used to be a foreign correspondent. I was in Congo, and I was followed by mining companies specifically because of work that I was doing there that was about blood minerals. So, somebody replied to me, and they sent a list. The current list of 246 core participants is on the UCPI website. So I looked at it, and I replied again, well, wow, there’s a guy I used to go out with for a few months on there, which, which is, which was quite shocking to me. Well, no, not shocking, because he’s a journalist. He’s a good you know, he’s an activist journalist. He does some really great work on like Israel and Palestine. He’s done that for years. I’m not going to identify him at all. It was a short relationship. So this, this other person, this friend of mine, replied to me, saying, so if you were, in fact, of a close relationship with someone who were themselves under SDS, MPOIU surveillance, ‘I would expect you to have been subject to a background check at minimum, but in and of itself, that would not qualify you for inquiry participant status’. Like, can you comment on that? Is that something because, because the relationship I had was after 2010?

    Tom: the person you’re talking about is a co participant because they were spied on. A lot of people who were directly named in a lot of the documents have been refused core participant status. So the core participant is quite high bar it would appear to be to become a core participant. Yeah, it only relates to stuff before 2010 in terms of what the security services and Special Branch have been up to when it comes to monitoring or activists since then, we don’t know, and we’re unlikely to find out through this process, we definitely need to run sort of other process for that. But yeah, there’s, I mean, there’s a huge number of people who were what what they call collateral intrusion into their lives, who are simply being disregarded by the inquiry and any of these processes in terms of the effect that it had on them.

    Sam: Okay, well, I mean, I’m still, I have a little worry about this, and I’ll tell you why. So, I mean, the person told me that a lot of these SDS officers from the 68 to 72 period are dead. So that, I mean, not that they were going to be accountable at all, but they can’t even participate, or can’t be exposed.

    Tom: If they’re abroad, they don’t have to give evidence. So a lot of people have moved abroad. They start when the inquiry started. They live in the UK, and they thought, actually, do you know what I’m going to abroad? so in one case, hn 109, says he’ll kill himself if he’s called to give evidence. So the inquiry hasn’t called him to give evidence. It’d be interesting to see how many other former undercover officers try that technique as a method of not giving evidence themselves.

    Sam: Well, I mean, you alluded to it. We don’t know any inquiry won’t cover what’s happened since 2010. You said that they were is about social attitudes. Was there any actual legislation that they were trying to to uphold, like we’ve got the Public Order Act now. What did they have in the 70s? Was there anything official

    Tom: Criminal justice acts and public order acts a hallmark of British governments. They come out every couple of years. There were numerous bits of legislation all through the 70s, the SDS were not managed through any piece of legislation. The closest thing was RIPA, which was released in the early 2000s which gives a certain sort of free framework. More recently, Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 legalises basically anything you can rape and murder as an undercover officer, and it’s perfectly okay, perfectly legal. I mean, if you look at, like, kind of the mood music, but that will Lord Walney report. I mean, they’re, they’re demanding, you know, higher levels of infiltration of groups again, but yeah, in terms of legislative framework, there wasn’t for the majority of this through the STS. The CHIS Act had support of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer said it was just formalising what already happens anyway.

    Sam: Yeah, that’s something that’s, that’s a, that’s a theme of what I found. You know, the work is going on. The boots are on the ground. It’s just legislation catching up with what actual policy is on the ground. Something I wrote about in my exclusive for the Canary, published on 30 July:

    According to Netpol, a campaigning group that challenges police power by working on the front lines with movements for social justice, the Bill “seeks to revive the amendments that it lost in the Lords”. The PCSC Act and Public Order Act were just laws catching up with actual operational policy.

    Sam: When the Nationality and Borders Bill was announced, my organisation, myself, we got together with about 22 other organisations to try and oppose it.

    Bad-faith actors are vetting you

    A this point, I recounted to Tom my story of Hands Off Somalia, the Nationality and Borders Bill campaigning, what happened in the cafe, and the potential infiltration of the group.

    Tom: There are lots of bad faith actors in all these things, as well as undercover officers. There’s like, informers, infiltrators, there’s grasses, there’s a whole corporate world of infiltration. It doesn’t come from the state. One of the big, the big roles of all this intelligence gathering, gathering is what they call vetting, what we’d refer to as blacklisting. So you know, the idea that someone would be sent out to like, kind of update, the vetting of somebody by questioning people who are associated with them, sounds perfectly like believable sort of thing that would happen. I don’t, I don’t know anything about this particular case.

    Sam: I’ve cut off these people. I’m not going to name them. I don’t want any trouble, but they did ruin that. But yeah, I would say it’s down to those two women, at least the organising stuff.

    Tom: On top of that, you know, there, there is a lot of people in activism who are fucking funny types funny fish and like, you know, there’s plenty of ways in which groups get destroyed by the internal dynamics of it. I would say that my personal experience, the people who did that were like that. They were encouraged and the blames were fanned by undercover officers who nobody thought we were doing things like that. But then you look back at it, and you saw the way in which they lifted up the voices of those who were, you know, there’s a role within that as well, disrupting, undermining and destroying groups was a big part of what their deployment was about, right? It wasn’t just about like, intelligence gathering, yeah, you know that the whole sector of the state, it’s about undermining and destroying groups.

    Sam: I mean, you mentioned the guy who got to the top of his his organisation?

    Tom: Rick Gibson with the Troops Out movement, yeah. I mean, he, he really pioneered the whole way of using sex as a way in which of bringing people onside, he had sex with a number of women in the groups that he was infiltrating, which led to those groups he was in, like supporting his candidacy to be the regional organiser and the national organiser for the Troops Out movement in the mid 1970s. Yeah, that kind of that seemed to be a bit of a blueprint, then, for later officers who use sexual relationships as a primary method, not just to building their legend, but like, giving access to privileged information.

    Sam: so, you know, their handlers, would their handlers be near? Are these? What does the handler do?

    Tom: So much of these roles informal, so there’s not, like, some rule about, like, how many, how many meters away they had to be the old times, but certainly they were kept in close contact. What we know from Kate Wilson’s case of the IPT is that Mark Kennedy was communicating with his handler every couple of minutes, sending him text messages, making phone calls. It’s constant, relaying of information constantly, really about both his professional deployment and his personal life – massively overlapped throughout the whole time period.

    Sam: So what to just to end off, what is the one thing you want the public to know? Because there’s been a bit of reporting. I’ve seen some in the Guardian. Your Twitter feed is like my Bible to go for when I want, you know, just, you know, daily updates, I just click on your profile and have a read and know what’s going on and so, but not everybody’s following you on Twitter. Let’s say two questions. What do you think of the reporting so far from the mainstream press on this?

    Tom: So, I mean, the problem is, is that we’ve got a very tabloid influenced media in the UK, sex, the sex angle has dominated the majority of the reporting. Certainly, I think a lot of editors, when presented with new information about this case, go, we covered that sex story 10 years ago. I think there’s, there’s a willful ignoring of the democratic angle, the suppression of dissent in general. It seems human interest. I mean, that’s not to downplay the human interest element at all. The lives were destroyed, personal relationships were damaged beyond repair. You know, I mean, like, I’m somebody whose personal life was completely destroyed by this. Like, I don’t, I don’t downplay any of that at all. There’s a much bigger story about what I said the beginning. It affects all of us. It’s not just about those of us who, like, were directly impacted. And that’s the story that doesn’t really get told very much. If it does get mentioned in passing, it’s certainly something which campaigners forefront brought that element to it, as well as the institutional sexism. Yeah, the coverage is very limited, frustratingly so, given that, like, police corruption is such a popular topic in Britain today for like, fiction and stuff. So, you know, we were sat in court all day talking about real police corruption, and in the evenings, everybody was on about this fictional police corruption, and they weren’t interested in the real stuff, which was kind of weird, you know.

    Tom’s interview brought up lots of additional questions for me, not least about the government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. John Woodcock, or Lord Walney as he is now called, Keir Starmer when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, and his now-right hand woman, Sue Gray a senior civil servant up until recently.

    The (un)civil service in action

    In 2021 she led the inquiry into Party Gate and gave a rare interview, indeed her first ever one, to an Irish outlet. According to our transcription service, the interview:

    featured an interview of Sue Grey, who held a significant role in the propriety and ethics team at the cabinet. Speaker 2 clarifies that the titles “Deputy God” and “most powerful woman in Britain” were given by journalists, not a self-proclaimed title. Speaker 2 also discusses their experience running a pub in Newry and their unsuccessful bid for the head of the civil service position, speculating that their reputation as a disruptor may have hindered their chances. The interview touches on the perception of Speaker 2 as a potential spy, which they dismiss. Speaker 3 then introduces themselves, mentioning an assault incident at Nando’s and expressing gratitude for the support received

    Here’s an abridged version edited for clarity:

    Interviewer: You’re bit of a mystery. I mean, I’m just going to read out some of the titles that I’ve heard applied to you, “Deputy God”, that’s a good one, the most powerful civil servant you’ve never heard of, or the most powerful woman in Britain. Do you recognise those titles?

    Gray: They obviously relate to my former job. The Deputy God title was that I worked for Gus O’Donnell, and his initials are God, and so I was his deputy. And therefore I was Deputy God. I, you know, most powerful person you’ve never heard of. I actually was just doing my job. And I think that was some of your journalist colleagues probably actually devised that.

    Interviewer: But I suppose the mystery around you, this is the first interview you’ve ever done. You were the director general of the propriety and ethics team at the cabinet, and it said you did have the power to make or break political careers, and that is exactly what you did.

    Gray: So I would always have just given my advice to the prime minister, and it was obviously then was the prime minister’s decision, but the job I was doing then was very different to the job I do now. And I don’t necessarily recognise all that you’re saying about me. I’m not actually sure many permanent secretaries in Whitehall have run a pub in Newry…

    Interviewer: And you were with your husband and that venture, of course…

    Gray: And he’s not very good at it. So, he hated the pub, and actually most of the customers didn’t like him either, because he was quite miserable in it. So he after six to eight weeks, it was making him a bit fed up, so I sent him back to London, and I carried on running the bar on my own. Whenever he was back, when he would come back for a short time, I would make sure that I booked him to sing and play music in the bar on a Thursday and Saturday night, and that went down quite well. But as for his bar skills, they’re not the best. I think I felt I was being a bit pigeon holed in Whitehall in a particular role. So I thought, do something very, very different, and that’s what I did. I did go for the head of the civil service job, and I really wanted that job. So I’m going to be completely honest, I was disappointed not to get the job. I really wanted the job, but had to get over it. And you know, why didn’t I get the job? I’m not sure I’ll ever quite know, but I suspect people may have thought that I perhaps too much of a challenger or a disruptor. I am both, and perhaps I would bring about, you know, perhaps I was there to be too much change. And yes, I wanted to have change.

    Interviewer: Did you think you obviously thought the civil service needed change… I’ve even had someone put it to me that you are a spy.

    Gray: I know you’ve had that put to you. And I think if I was a spy, I’d be a pretty poor spy. If people are talking about me being a spy… 

    On 2 June this year the Guardian published an article authored by three journalists , Jessica Elgot, Pippa Crerar, and Rowena Mason, titled Why Labour staffers and MPs don’t say no to ‘power behind the throne’ Sue Gray. It was a mythmaking article added to her legend in all sense. They said:

    Gray is not only interested in the mechanics of government, but in policy. “She has been painted as this very Whitehall figure, but she’s very political,” one colleague said. “She’s not the voice of caution. If anything, she has been telling shadow ministers: ‘You own this issue, you can legislate, make your mark, don’t be too timid.’”

    Those policy interests were first revealed in Starmer’s biography, written by Tom Baldwin, for which Gray agreed to be interviewed. Her proposal for the party to look at the wider use of citizens’ assemblies was picked up by the national press and quickly disavowed by the party, though it gave an illuminating insight into Gray’s character.

    Far from being a Whitehall creature, she is invested in active citizenship and inspired by how consensus was built in Ireland by citizens’ juries on equal marriage and abortion. But among Labour staffers, there has been little discussion of the substance and more on whether it was appropriate for the interview to take place.

    The first some aides heard about it was from Baldwin himself. “It’s a book about Keir,” said one. “It feels a bit odd for her to have done it.”

    In the interview, Gray said:

    she was working on the creation of a unit at the centre of government that would be “focused purely on mission delivery and transparency of performance”.

    Sue’s time in Northern Ireland has come in to sharp focus in the face of the recent and ongoing pogroms by the far right and paramilitary groups who we discussed in the fourth article/podcast of this series. 

    Hacking, betrayal – yet no atonement

    On the 13th August I interviewed Dr Adam Elliot-Cooper for my book Between a Rock, a Hard Place and a Dystopia. I told him something that I had only told in full to a couple of people before: Biz Pears from the Financial Times, the comedian Ava Vidal, and Ayaz Rafik a former columnist at Media Diversified. I told him exactly what happened in the months leading to closing Media Diversified in 2019.

    The AI transcription summary said:

    The conversation covers various personal and professional topics. Speaker 1 discusses personal challenges, including being hacked and dealing with betrayal in a professional context. They mention the importance of documenting historical activism and the impact of not doing so. Speaker 1 also talks about a book project covering East Africa and London activism from 2007 to 2018. They express frustration over being betrayed by colleagues at Media Diversified, detailing financial mismanagement and deception.

    Here’s the conversation edited for clarity:

    Sam: You gotta try and do something When you’ve retreated into the heteronormative nuclear family.

    Adam: Oh my God. How many syllables was that? But, yeah. But, you know, a lot of people don’t practice what they preach. Do they like? What do they call the word um, Praxis in there? Okay, yeah. Like, you get a lot of revolutionary men who don’t, don’t actually help out at home and stuff.

    Sam: It’s nice to hear your voice. It’s been a while. I’ve spoken to Simeon quite a bit recently because of the work. Well, I don’t know if you know, I know you’re not online much, but because of this investigative work I’ve been doing, I’ve had somebody hack all my Twitter accounts, all three, hack my laptop. Just, just really make life difficult, difficult, in the sense that I get very paranoid and worried about it, you know. And then there was air tags on my phone, and so, um, so, yeah, I spoke to Simeon about, could the Black Writers Union put earlier statement out or something, just so? So it looks like I’m not just by myself. I’ve got some institutional support, basically.

    Adam: That’s horrible, things happen. Yeah? I remember when, yeah, at the monitoring group, they the fascists hacked our work computers and deleted all of our files.

    Sam: What the fuck I didn’t know that. I remember you telling me that lots of stuff happened at the monitoring group, but I never quite found out what. What actually happened?

    Adam: Yeah. Lots of, yeah. Lots of, what’s been around little bail on pumps been around since the 70s. So, yeah, lots of thing going down over the years,

    Sam: Okay, that’s cool. That’s cool. Yes. So thank you very much for agreeing to speak to me. Of course, that’s not necessarily, of course, I don’t think, but no, I appreciate it. So so a little bit about the book, so you know where I’m situated. And, yeah, so it isn’t a memoir, but it’s also a kind of history of East Africa in the late 2000 you know, the late noughties, I should say so, 2007 to 2010 and then it’s a short kind of history of London more than anything. And then a history of London anti-imperialist scene, plus the white left scene, kind of an activism in the in sort of 2011 up until 2018-ish, including Media Diversified. For media diversified only me and Yasmin know everything. And well, Yasmin doesn’t even know everything, so, so she knows a big part of Media Diversified ‘me’. And Manveer knows a different part me, and Marcus knows a different part. If I don’t write it down, it’s just lost. And so, and I think that early 2000 and 10s period, the anti imperialist stuff that didn’t go very far is quite important as well, because at that time, I was like, I knew Pablo Navarette, and he made me an associate or producer on this film with Lowkey. So I knew Lowkey a little bit, all of those people, and then I knew you. I do not know how I met you, or whatever it might have been through Black students, through Malia. I’ve no idea, but I’d remember, maybe, yeah, because I forgot about Malia for a little while, and finally I thought, oh my god, Malia. She was really important person, uh, figure, in my life and a lot of people’s lives in the early 2000 and 10s, until they monstered her. So I’ve asked her for an interview, but she’s quite I mean, she’s been quiet for years. They literally got rid of that woman from the public space. I know she’s an editor at Red Pepper, but it’s terrible. And I know Sarah, my friend, was really close to her, so she told me, you know, she was affected by it. Of course you would be. I mean, some people have got tougher skins, but even me, I was affected by shit. And even though mine’s a mental health thing, it did affect me, some of the crap that I got daily from white people and black and brown people. You know, I don’t think you know what happened to Media Diversified in 2019?  Why? Why we? Why I took over again from Henna and Maurice, because I thought Henna was going to take over permanently, but they really, they really fucked me over. Well, yeah, because, basically I went on a sabbatical, and I told her, and I made Henna a director as well, just so that she had an investment into the to the organisation, and that she would, you know, hopefully do stuff. I before I left, I got all this funding so she could pay herself. She could pay Morris and and Samira, you know, I didn’t take any of that money. I pursued that money for two years. I didn’t take a thing. I just left it to them. And I thought, yeah. And then, you know, I came back, and I was like, I still didn’t want to be involved. But I then I I was helping out, because people saw me, because Media Diversified had gone really quiet. They were publishing stuff, but they weren’t too social. So every time things came up, people would come to me and asked me, could do, what about this? Sam What about this? Can I publish this? And I’m like, I’m not the editor, man, what’s going on? And so I got involved on that basis. And then, yeah, I’d had meetings, a couple of meetings, with them over five months. Yes, I was back for five months, and we’d meet together. I see, is there anything you need to tell me, or anything these people lied to my face for five months? Henna, in the meantime, had made Maurice and Samira directors as well, meaning that if we had some sort of vote, I would be voted out. I see they did not tell me. I found out by accident. Henna sent me some papers to sign, and I actually read them… and I was like what are these directors? How many directors? What’s going on? And so I emailed her. She didn’t reply. And so I emailed a couple  of questions to Yasmin: did Henna make some more directors, or what’s happened? And she said, I have no idea. We’ve hardly met since you went, Sam. I was like, what? And then so I spoke to Samira, what is going on – Henna made you a director? And she said, Yeah, me and Morris, I’m sorry I didn’t tell you. I actually, I don’t even think. She said, sorry the stupid cow. And I said, five months I’ve been with you guys, and I asked you to, you know, to tell me if there’s anything you need, to tell me they lied to my face for five months..

    Adam: that’s bad. That’s really bad, really bad.

    Sam: And what happened is, in the end, I did, and in the meantime, they’ve been doing consulting work for various people, saying it’s Media Diversified and just taking all the money and not putting it in media diversified bank account… So we got this funding, and they were splitting it in three parts, so they pay everyone, and we got a payment, and it was in the bank account. They hadn’t taken it yet. And so I start emailing Henna, what is going on? I’ve got my friend who’s a company secretary, so she’s looking through things and seeing what is this. And so she puts a list of questions to Henna. Henna’s gone quiet. She’s not saying a fucking thing yet. And then what she does is she goes into the bank account and takes all the money out and she was leaving and they should invoice and so people started emailing me, asking me to be paid their invoices. She’d taken the fucking money I just paid people out of my own money. Absolutely, absolutely mad. And I didn’t put it out publicly because I didn’t want to smear Media Diversified and people, you know, all the chat that would have happened, all the crap, of course, I just, I just hated them for that. What she did over months, and I didn’t know she was trying to take my life, be me in some way, but me as a real fucking capitalist who fucking takes money off other people. I just, it’s just horrendous, what she did.  So then I’m finding all this stuff, like, right? I’m taking this back. I am not having them in it. So she’s trying to, like, secure the website. But what she doesn’t know I’ve got the like, the website, Media Diversified, is linked to my email or something like that. So what I could do is change the password, and change all the passwords for the for the website. I didn’t know until I saw Usayd last month, he said, “you know, Henna emailed me around that time, saying, Could I help her with the website? And I said no”, because he doesn’t know her, and all he knows of her is she likes money, and so he didn’t do anything. I didn’t even know this part of the story. She’s trying to get the website back from me. And you know what? The chapter in my book, it’s called DJ Takeover, because I went through everything, I changed the passwords of everything. I locked them out of everything. I went to the bank and said, cut it off. Do not let them take any more money out. Jesus the drama. The drama was so deep, I think I told Biz Pears about it all, and Maurice was involved with all of it. And it’s not surprising now you see that he’s Fraser Nelson’s best friend. These people I trusted, trusted to my soul because I’d worked with him for years. Can you imagine somebody lying to your face for five months. I wouldn’t have said anything if she wanted to make them directors. She could have told she could have asked me. I would have said yes. That’s the thing. I thought they were invested. So I would have said yes. But instead, they did it in a sneaky, nasty fucking way, and it made me paranoid. It made me not trust people. It still makes me not trust people.

    Adam: That’s really horrible, yeah, and you put so much work into that project as well.

    Sam: We built it over years, but you know, with my mental health and all of that. It was just too much for me. In the end, I couldn’t take it. It was still hurtful. Sorry. I haven’t talked about it for a long time, and now I’m supposed to be interviewing you, were you able to listen to any of the counseling

    Adam: I haven’t listened to a podcast in ages, unfortunately, sorry, yeah. 

    Sam: So the reason I asked it Sukant is I just did like a two hour interview with him, and what I wanted to talk about is the early days, like when I vividly remember this meeting I went to. I can’t remember where he held it, but it was him and Carlos were the top people, sort of, who convened this meeting. It’s a room full of people, and the people I met there. I don’t think you were there actually, but I did meet some British Iranian people… You know the people I met, Shafi and so on…

    Lurking in the shadows

    On 10 August I posted the following on Instagram. 

    Went to Kew Gardens last week and interviewed Sukant Chandan, who was born into a family of leading anti-colonial resistors in Kenya and India. I’ve known Sukant since 2011. I was interviewing him for my book, Between a Rock, a Hard Place and a Dystopia, but it was such a great chat I turned it into a podcast: The Activist – Forged in the Fires of Junglism

    Sukant has been committed to the anti-colonial grassroots since 1994, when at the age of 16 he organised an anti-racist police patrol watch at Eid celebrations on Southall Broadway. He is also a committed Junglist, on Pirates and inna dance, and been a MC since 1996 as MC RebelBase.

    I hope Lowkey, Hicham Yezza, Pablo and Akala will listen to this 🙏🏿 I think it will show you a side of Sukant you’ve never seen before. It delves in to history, his activism, fallouts, Grime, Libya and there’s some fucking great Jungle in there

    Sukant told me his origin story/legend and had been successful in convincing me of his bona fides, which I hoped to convince others of. Because I felt sorry that he was not in contact with other people who had been in the anti-imperialist movement he had founded alongside Carlos Martinez. And his mental health struggles he told me about back in 2012 had stayed with me. His frequent emails and WhatsApp messages checking in on me had always touched me too:

    On 15 August someone who calls themselves William Crow contacted me on Twitter. He replied to a song I had posted of David Bowie and linked me to a Jungle tube he said it reminded me of. I replied to him saying “Are you a Junglist?👀”. He identified himself as a Junglist:

    I sent him the podcast I had recorded with Sukant Chandan a few days before, The Activist – Forged in the Fires of Junglism, In which Sukant had created a big legend and I had allowed him to myth make. 

    He quoted the podcast back to me and we proceed to chat back and forth first publicly, then in DM and then on Signal. An Ai transcription summary of our discussion on Sukant says the following:

    The conversation revolves around a series of interactions on Twitter and Signal between Speaker 1 and William Crow, who bonded over their shared love for jungle music. They discuss various personal and political topics, including William’s involvement with Palestine Action and his struggles with mental health and ADHD. Speaker 1 expresses concerns about potential undercover agents due to past experiences with infiltrations. William shares his family photos to alleviate these concerns and discusses his dissertation and activism work. They also plan to attend a jungle event in Manchester and discuss potential collaborations and investigations

    • William offers to help Speaker 1 (Sam) with investigations in Manchester, sharing his own experiences with the police and ambulance services.
    • Speaker 1 (Sam) mentions planning to visit Manchester and suggests meeting William and another mutual friend, Harry Stokes, to listen to jungle music.
    • William transition to a more secure communication platform, Signal, to discuss their work further.

    Building Trust and Sharing Personal Stories

    • Speaker 1 (Sam) and William continue to share personal stories, including their experiences with mental health and medication.
    • They talk about their love for Manchester and their experiences with the city’s culture and people.
    • Speaker 1 and William discuss their political views and social issues, including their thoughts on Palestine Action and their work.
    • They talk about their experiences with mental health and the challenges they face in their daily lives.
    • William shares his thoughts on the effectiveness of medication and the broader issues of poverty and economic inequality.
    • They discuss their experiences with tattoos and the role they play in their lives, including the pain and symbolism behind them.

    He ended our conversation by saying please tell people on Twitter to email their support for Palestine Action detainees. Was that another attempt to identify subversives, whether that be anti-imperialists or trans people, who they think inherently subservient and who the permanent state, with the help of people such as Claire Fox, try to legislate against?

    Unwarranted scrutiny – just for being a Black woman in journalism

    On Friday 24 August Women Press Freedom also known as the Coalition for Women Journalists published an article. It followed a long conversation with myself and the author, her investigating, and reading. She said the following:

    The situation mirrors an incident two years prior when Asumadu suspected her laptop had been compromised. At the time, Asumadu was trying to distance herself from activism by focusing on her book. Her writing process was interrupted when her Chromebook asked for an unfamiliar login—an email address that closely resembled hers but wasn’t hers. Despite taking it to IT experts, they couldn’t resolve the issue or explain who was behind the attempt. This led to a year of leaving the laptop unused, fueling paranoia about surveillance and hacking.

    In another unsettling episode, she recounted how photos taken with a contact she suspected could have been surveilling her, mysteriously disappeared from her phone when she had not deleted them. The photos remained in her cloud storage.

    Asumadu has not ruled out the possibility that British security services may be involved, given her investigative work, including her interview with Tom Fowler, a man with deep insights into state infiltration of activist networks, and her inquiries sent to prominent figures and outlets investigating the recent riots in the UK. Asumadu also thinks that her past activism against the Nationality and Borders Act, which she believes disproportionately targets marginalized groups, has also made her a target for surveillance and far-right agitators.

    “Whilst I don’t always know where a threat is. I know there is a threat,” says Asumadu. “Security services/special branches etc. follow both activists and journalists. Activists are hyper-vigilant in different ways. They are used to their groups being infiltrated. The thing with me is. I am an activist and a journalist. So, I am hyper-vigilant in both ways. It’s served me quite well so far.”

    In the meantime publishing the same day, my editor at the Canary said this:

    Samantha Asumadu is a highly experienced journalist, broadcaster, and editor. She has been a working journalist since 2010 when she lived in East Africa. Asumadu has done breaking news reporting for CNN and France 24. She created news pieces for AFP, filmed in the DRC for DW Global, and also directed a documentary for Al Jazeera English.

    Now, Asumadu has opened herself up to further scrutiny. She said:

    “Recently I embarked on a five-part investigative series about state surveillance and government authoritarianism for the Canary. Three parts have been published and there are two to go.”

    Her work for us covered the notorious Forde Report into racism within the Labour Party. It also looked at how the state is silencing and imprisoning peaceful activists. Asumadu most recently delved into the links between the recent far-right race riots and the ‘acceptable’ faces of this kind of ideology like Douglas Murray.

    People who have read my work for years were incensed, one even saying, 

    independent media professional and @thecanaryuk writer Samantha Asumadu has been subject to attempted hacking.

    I am relentless – and rightly so

    There was even some new information in the Canary editorial that I wasn’t aware of. I haven’t had any mail for over two weeks. Usually I would have reminders about not paying my rent. I have had none. Speaking to the former editor in chief of an Independent publication, he told me:

    I’m convinced there’s a different unit or team that works out of/ adjacent to Whitehall and outside the ‘normal’ security services structures that does basically low intensity digital attack.

    I seek patterns, that’s how I do investigative journalism plus asking questions, often seemingly obtuse questions, but lots of them. Relentlessly. And at the same time I try to keep myself from falling over the edge into psychosis.

    It’s possible I have apophenia. I try my best not to self diagnose though. I noticed that many people in my circle and in my periphery had taken the Civil Service Test in the early 2000s but then had only briefly or had not gone on to work for the civil service:

    For example Anthony Anaxagorou’s partner and mother of his child had taken the test. She told the Observer in 2019 that:

    I wanted to be a spy – or anything that was exciting and took me to different places.

    Helping to build her legend the Observer’s theatre columnist, Arifa Akbar, wrote in an article entitled, Sabrina Mahfouz: ‘People used to say they expected me to be a lot more foreign’  about her adaptation of noughts and crosses set to tour the UK and her anthology of Muslim writing picked for Emma Watson’s book club. The article noted that:

    Her parents never tried to direct her passions, so she was able to dabble and experiment as she wished. She began a classical archaeology degree at King’s College London, but changed to English literature and classics because the original course was too scientific for her liking. By her 20s, she had changed direction and signed up to the civil service’s fast-stream programme with the Ministry of Defence… That career was stymied by her not receiving top secret security clearance, for reasons she sees as being linked to class and ethnicity.

    Then there’s Andrew Neilson the director of campaigns for the Howard League for Penal Reform for the last seventeen years, who was previously a Ministry of Justice press officer and chair of the Poetry Society, who both I and Anthony Anaxagorou have had unfortunate unsolicited runnings into on X:

    We asked questions of both Sabrina Mahfouz and Andrew Neilson, At the time of publication we have had no reply

    Pushing through, regardless

    Last weekend I asked the writer of the Women Press Freedom article whether these people wanted to kill me. She didn’t directly answer but did say:

    ADVICE I WAS GIVEN BY AN EXPERT: I think it’s good idea, to take note of your exact location coordinates, the time and any other details about the tag, I’m not sure how they work exactly. But document what you can, so you can send to access now, and they can advise you properly. Stay with people you trust ❤

    I really think you should stay with friends until you feel safe. I know they were useless before but if you are feeling this unsafe you should go to the police. Report feeling unsafe and feeling you are being followed. I understand you feeling so stressed, and I want you to be safe above anything else. Please report to the police if you feel it can escalate. From my experience, working with journalists this is generally a tactic to intimidate and doesn’t escalate physically, and speaking publicly as you have normally helps too but you need to do the best for you right now. Secure your digital security with the help of the experts and go to police, maybe you know a friendly officer?  And document everything.

    Whilst I don’t know and friendly police officers, I have documented everything. It is a habit I have. 

    Subsequent to that I purposefully reached out to people I know who were either rich, powerful, editors in chiefs or lawyers. I told them the situation. I sent them the two articles and told them I may need their help. I know that asking people for help or advice makes them more beholden to you than giving your help. It’s an ego thing, human nature. I posted photos of my self at journalism awards events in order that the permanent state knew I was not just a line freelancer. I had powerful connections, if not money and state power myself.

    I managed to push through and work despite the most challenging of circumstances and for that I am proud.

    Black and brown people who work as spies for the state must be psychopaths no?

    They’re literally working against their own interests if they are doing spy shit for Mi5 on behalf of the Home Office, right? Isn’t that the definition of a psychopath, they think they are special? Adding to my theory here.

    On the flip side, foreign correspondents are mostly ADHD and subsequently all get PTSD. The best foreign correspondents – that is, the survivors – are psychopaths. I am however getting good at spotting the difference between your garden variety narcissist and a spy. With Black and brown narcissists as Professor Yasmin Gunaratnam pointed out to me last week:

    identity can become a commodity, something that is an extension of the ego, rather than the site for politics. You can then end up flogging it on different markets. Like selling off the family silver.

    I believe the same goes for white working class narcissists.

    White, middle-class narcissists and spies are a whole other kettle of fish. Who knows why they do what they do.

    In my interview with Matt Potter in 2018 he told me that:

    the rise of Trump and Brexit and so on, is the creation of whether you want to call them useful fools, or whether you want to call them kind of, you know, there’s this word floating around, so and so is an asset. So and so it’s a Russian asset. And actually, that’s I’ve always found that to be a very frustrating word. It covers a multitude of sins. So it could that could mean, and in intelligence circles, it can mean somebody who is an informant, paid or or lent on or otherwise, who just isn’t a member of the intelligence service, but he’s effectively a spy, or it could mean somebody who is just bumbling along and doing things that the accuser claims is useful to the opposition, in which case it’s just about everybody on Earth.

    In 2018, myself and Ava interviewed investigative journalist Mark Watts for our NDA (No Dickheads Allowed) podcast. Watts pointedly reminded me that Tony Blair thought the Freedom of Information Act was his “biggest mistake”.

    Being yourself is a hell of a responsibility; one that some people do not take on

    When I set out to write this article, I intended to focus on Keir Starmer. It was going to be the revealing of him as a spook. I teased it in the third article by ending on calling him the man, the legend. A play on the fact that spies create what’s called a ‘legend’, which Tom Fowler explained to me, how much work goes into it.

    But Keir has always been public. He literally had a title called the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, when asking about him I came across a wall of silence. Nobody would talk to me. It was as unsettling as the silence around the Forde Report. which I wrote about in the first article in this series. I contacted barristers who he had worked with before he was DPP at Doughty Street Chambers, I contacted other barristers he would have interacted with during the London Riots, investigative journalists who have taken a critical stance on the permanent state, and authors who had written about the British state, cyber warfare, and and even a former colleague who had worked at Brunswick financial PR company (on a punt).

    Nobody replied. Not one single person.

    According to the Times, in a keynote speech on 26 August the prime minister will prepare the public for potentially unpopular decisions, such as tax rises, by blaming the ‘rubble and ruin’ left by the Conservatives:

    Sir Keir Starmer will compare the government’s job to the efforts of communities, such as in Middlesbrough, to clean up after the recent riots. Keir Starmer will say that he needs 10 years as prime minister to rebuild the country following the ‘rubble and ruin’ left by the Tories. He will also compare the ‘hard work’ of the British people cleaning up the streets after the riots to his job of cleaning up the country after Tory rule. 

    The Independent’s headline for the same press briefing was Keir Starmer issues stark warning: Things will get worse before they get better

    It is a speech to pave way for unpopular decisions.

    Author and poet Sylvia Plath once said:

    It’s a hell of a responsibility to be yourself. It’s much easier to be somebody else or nobody at all.

    I believe I have been a useful fool, an asset and an agent of change.

    The latter us why I was targeted by the permanent state.

    The former was because I was more useful than a their informants and agents put together. That’s because I have love for people whether they be Black, white, Muslim, Jew, or brown. These narcissists and psychopaths also known as informants and spies can feel no love. Nonetheless I feel sorry for them.

    As Albert Camus said:

    Some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.

    Imagine having to do that.

    Featured image via the Canary and additional images via Samantha Asumadu

    By Samantha Asumadu

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Can’t work due to bad mental health? You’re a selfish scrounger with no self respect according to the NHS director of mental health Claire Murdoch in the Times On Friday, the Times published a piece lauding the government’s new DWP plan to tackle the supposed ‘worklessness crisis’ by putting work coaches in mental health services.

    Not only will this put more pressure on an already struggling NHS (which the government regularly blames disabled people for), but it will also mean anyone seeking support for mental health issues will be forced to focus on getting a job.

    Work coaches in NHS mental health services

    The Times explained that mental health services will be stocked with teams of employment advisors offering everything from help with CVs to mock interviews. Because when you want to die due to the mounting fear of having your benefits cut, you actually don’t need a therapist – you need someone to show you how to format a CV.

    The most perverse thing about the article is the jovial attitude and use of words like ‘offer” which make it seem like this will in any way be a choice. There’s of course no mention of what will happen if disabled people turn down this “offer”.

    With the government refusing to remove conditionality from the welfare equation you can only assume that benefits will be dependent on whether patients ‘engage’ with these new work coaches in the same way the current system does.

    The article also focused on how services help those who have been unemployed for a long time and seek mental health services have been supported into work. But it doesn’t address the reality that many can’t work and that schemes like this will force them into jobs that could cause their conditions to deteriorate and their mental health to worsen.

    Work is NOT a health outcome

    So you’d think that mental health practitioners would be against this right? Lol, here’s what Claire Murdoch, director of mental health at NHS England, had to say:

    As the NHS, we want to help people find work or keep work. The NHS can, should and does think of itself as a contributor to economic growth.

    She continued, by making disabled people feel like a burden:

    The NHS is really clear that work is good for you. It’s a way of making a contribution, putting food on your table, being connected to something bigger than just yourself or your own life.

    Oh but it got much worse. She finished with:

    Work is part of self-respect and self-worth, using your talents, and having structure and meaning to a day.

    Nothing instills confidence in those struggling with their mental health like being told by the people running the services that are supposed to help you that they have no self-respect.

    As consultant clinical psychologist and activist Dr Jay Watts put it best on Twitter:

    Er no. The NHS can, should and does think of itself as a contributor to health.

    Dr Watts continued

    Mental health staff have a moral duty to reject any ‘health as work’ agenda involving the DWP. DWP sanctions take away respect and the means to survive; integration destroys trust. Fear of DWP policies is so intense, it drives people to starvation. Informed consent is impossible.

    The DWP: infecting the NHS with work coaches

    The scheme won’t mean disabled people are supported into work. It will instead mean that less disabled people who desperately need these services will be more reluctant to access these services for fear of having their benefits cut.

    It will mean that those deemed ‘difficult” whilst having very real mental health crises will be marked as ‘not engaging’ and not only will they lose support, but they’ll also – you guessed it – have their benefits cut.

    There’s a lot of talk about Britain’s mental health crisis, but it’s too often through the lens of getting people back into work. If the government is actually committed to helping people with mental health issues it needs to stop seeing us as cogs in a machine and instead as people who are worthy of support.

    It’s dangerous to put DWP responsibilities on the NHS, as those two things should never be put together. Unfortunately, it has been going on for years – and the new Labour government appears hell-bent on ramping NHS-DWP integration up.

    But more than anything, it shows how blatantly callous the government is. They care more about work than they ever will about disabled people.

    So far I see no “change” from the last lot.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Starmer, the cliché-ridden pile of self-righteous, moralising, steaming wombat turd, seems to be pitching his “changed” Labour Party just slightly to the right of the last Tory administration.

    We’re facing a permacrisis of our political and economic systems globally, so just doing the same old thing to the delight of the elitist billionaires doesn’t offer any tangible solutions to that.

    Unless there just so happens to be a yacht nearby.

    Starmer: he’s doing ‘better than expected’, apparently

    I have absolutely no idea why Keir Starmer’s Starmerites think the anally-retentive bore that we’d all dread getting collared by at an office party is “doing better than expected”.

    Better than expected for whom, may I be so bold as to ask?

    Is it better than expected for disabled people?

    There is mountains of evidence the DWP repeatedly ignored recommendations to improve the safety of its disgraceful disability benefits assessment system, leading to hundreds, and most-likely thousands of avoidable deaths of disabled claimants, throughout fourteen years of Conservative neglect.

    There was no mention in the Labour manifesto for an inquiry into the countless deaths linked to the cruel and inhumane DWP’s actions over the last fourteen years — a pledge that was made at the last general election in 2019 by the previous Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn — but quietly ditched by the new Labour government.

    To make matters worse, the red Iain Duncan Smith, Liz Kendall, is trying to block the release of data from reports compiled under the Tories on how many people’s deaths were linked to the hated and punitive Universal Credit, which is set to be rolled out to disabled people from next month.

    On that basis I would suggest Keir Starmer isn’t doing better than expected for disabled people. In fact, he is covering up the very worst of the Tories punitive benefits regime so his Labour government can continue where the Tories left off, implementing the same hateful and discriminatory policies that became synonymous with successive Tory governments.

    Give him a chance!

    Every time I pop my head above the parapet to have the temerity to criticise Sir Kid Starver I routinely find myself being told to “give him a chance, he’s only just got in”.

    Forgive me if I am wrong, but Starmer spent the best part of three full years telling anyone that would listen that his changed Labour Party was “preparing for government”.

    You cannot really argue Starmer just got his feet under the desk when he has spent more time on his knees for Rupert Murdoch than Jerry Hall.

    I’ll give Keir Starmer the same chance he gave the left of the Labour Party when he suspended a number of his own MPs for refusing to vote for greater child poverty and hunger. The rascals.

    Once the media-supported honeymoon period has passed we’ll remain in a cycle of managed decline, and Starmer’s apparent popularity will tank. It’s so fucking predictable.

    Surely, the whole point of getting into power should be to bring about structural reform, rather than continue with the same failed system that has delivered austerity for the many and prosperity for the very few?

    Out torying the Tories

    Ten million pensioners have seen their Winter Fuel Allowance axed. Even the callous Tories didn’t go there. What next, put on an extra jumper this winter?

    It’s back to heat or eat, I’m afraid.

    Think about it. Your energy prices will be increasing around 10%. The last time this happened, Rishi Sunak gave every household £600 towards their energy bills. As insignificant as it was at the time, it was something.

    Labour’s response to soaring energy costs is to take away the Winter Fuel Allowance for ten million pensioners.

    Isn’t that just slightly concerning?

    £3 billion worth of NHS contracts have already been offered out to the private sector by the very same party that created the National Health Service. Do you really believe your NHS is safe in the hands of a secretary of state for health that receives significant funding from donors with links to private healthcare?

    Wisdom and morality has been chasing you, Mr Starmer, but you have always been so much faster.

    Your water bill is going to increase by as much as 44%. Remember: when seeking the votes of the Labour Party membership, Keir Starmer pledged:

    Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing out NHS, local government and justice system.

    Whoever thought the Labour Party would become so fundamentally dishonest they would end up making Eylon Levy look like a respected bastion of truth?

    Starmer: riding a wave of chronic apathy

    The biggest winner of the general election of 2024 wasn’t the Labour Party, but apathy.

    No matter how many times these anti-democratic carpetbaggers crow over Keir Starmer’s majority, the facts are there for all to see.

    The British people didn’t endorse Keir Starmer, they rejected the Conservatives. They rejected the entire archaic political system and rightly asked themselves if there were any good reasons to vote for any of the establishment candidates. Labour’s victory was by way of default.

    And the early evidence would suggest they were right to do so, because this Labour government — willing to fuel and fund a proxy war in a country with a huge neo Nazi problem, but unwilling to feed starving, homeless children in Britain — is barely distinguishable from the routed Conservatives we suffered under for fourteen miserable years.

    Keir Starmer is the epitome of an out-of-touch politico who really has no respect for the electorate, who’ll just tell you anything today and who knows tomorrow.

    I hate to say “we told you so”, so I won’t. But I will suggest to the moronic, fanatical supporters of the metropolitan, neoliberal Starmer that they really should be paying a bit more attention if they thought they would end up with a Labour government that stood for equality, public ownership, justice, and a kinder, fairer society

    So far, so very, very bad.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The already crisis-ridden NHS lunged further into decline, having capitulated to a shady deal with Palantir – a nefarious organ of surveillance activities with a poor reputation. The move stoked vast outcry from conscientious civil society actors, and for good reason. This ill-advised contract binds the NHS in corporate servitude and contradicts its core values.

    Moreover, the decision was reached by means that shielded negotiations from scrutiny sufficient and necessary to ensure the decision be made in the public interest. By agreeing to let Palantir supply the technological framework for managing patient data, NHS negotiators have opened the door for them to bulk harvest patient data, a power Palantir will abuse.

    Of course this is by no means the first time big contracts and dodgy deals have been made in the realm of contracting for public services.

    The NHS-Palantir deal is pretty much the norm

    It’s pretty much the norm that class loyalty amongst elites means procurements are given to the cronies of government figures. This tendency was illustrated during the incompetence and mismanagement of the government response to the Covid-19 pandemic, awarding procurements to cronies rather than the highest quality or best value bidder.

    The reason the alliance between the NHS and Palantir deserves special attention is because it is the high water mark of corporate efforts to commercialise the NHS, a point of no return from which there will be very little chance to reverse the surge towards healthcare that puts profit before human wellbeing.

    The notion that sick people could become sicker – or even dead – for the sake of bottom line profit margins is utterly nauseating.

    It buries the oft invoked idea that post-Brexit Britain is a panacea of sovereignty and freedom. Brexit was painted as emancipation from a harsh, alien power, but if anything it has further exposed us to being carved up and swallowed up by faceless corporate monoliths. The ease with which Palantir acquired the contract illustrates this point.

    Data is 2024’s oil

    Since the emergence of the internet, our world is increasingly dominated by the existence of enormous data portfolios, the desire to acquire them, and the opportunity to implement their many possible applications.

    In and of itself this is not inherently dangerous. However, in a neoliberal system the balance of power favours corporations who have conquered the web by stealth, giving them a incalculable advantage over us.

    I once heard someone make the observation that today, data is being traded in the same way as oil was during the gold rush. This is the harsh, cold truth of the Information Age.

    Palantir originated and developed in the fields of law enforcement, policing, and as a military asset, so it’s reasonable to doubt it will operate benevolently.

    Its involvement in our NHS is an attack on democracy and the welfare state of unprecedented extent.

    Palantir is set to play a massive role in the future direction of the NHS, but we do not need it, and it will only be detrimental to core NHS values.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Megan Sherman

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • This story was published by in In These Times on Aug. 19, 2024. It is shared here with permission.

    Chicago, we all know why we are here.

    We are drowning, and our hearts are broken.

    We are drowning in debt. In medical bills. In rising rents. In inflation.

    We are under attack in this country. The Right has declared war on people of color, on trans people, on women. They are trying to dismantle our systems of education, trying to criminalize teaching Black history and the realities of racism, oppression and exploitation in this country. 

    They openly call for mass deportations and want to strip Black people of voter rights.

    Demonstrators on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Photo by Steel Brooks

    Every year, the climate crisis kills more people of heat, of floods, of fires. Every year, the number of climate refugees at home and abroad climbs and climbs.

    “They have provided an infinite supply of bombs to destroy Gaza’s homes, its schools, its hospitals, its playgrounds, its mosques, its churches, its croplands, its infrastructure.”

    And in this moment of absolute disaster, of absolute crisis.

    The American ruling class —the people descending on this city for the Democratic National Convention — have seen fit to spend our money on killing children in Gaza. 

    They have provided an infinite supply of bombs to destroy Gaza’s homes, its schools, its hospitals, its playgrounds, its mosques, its churches, its croplands, its infrastructure. 

    As the most powerful country on earth, they have bullied the rest of the world in the name of protecting a far-right government openly committing a genocide.

    And now …

    Now they want our votes.

    They say they have earned them by showing a little more empathy towards those poor Palestinians they happened to kill.

    Vice President Harris, we hear your shift in tone.

    But …

    Your tone will not resurrect the dead.

    “Your tone will not pull bombs out of the sky. Your tone is not enough.”

    Your tone will not shelter the living.

    Your tone will not pull bombs out of the sky.

    Your tone is not enough.

    Genocide Joe would still be on the ticket if it were not for this movement, for all of us. Our movement is one of the main reasons that you are now the Democratic candidate for President in the most powerful country on the planet.

    You, Vice President Harris, get to run for office because we ousted your predecessor right here in these streets. But it was never just about him. It was about the 40,000 Palestinians he helped kill.

    The Bodies Against Unjust Laws march on August 18 in Chicago included calls to link the struggles for abortion access, queer liberation and an end to the genocide in Gaza. Photo by Steel Brooks

    And now we are telling you that ​“Not the other guy” is not a platform.

    We are telling you that you actually have to earn our votes.

    And we are telling you exactly how to earn them.

    We are telling you we want a weapons embargo.

    We are telling you we want a permanent ceasefire.

    And we are telling you that we want them NOW.

    “But the majority of Americans, in poll after poll, say they disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza.”

    You keep telling us that democracy itself is on the line.

    You keep telling us that fascism is knocking at the door.

    You keep telling us that Trump would be worse.

    But the majority of Americans, in poll after poll, say they disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Study after study shows that a weapons embargo would earn you more votes, would secure you this election.

    Vice President Harris, why are you risking the end of democracy, the rise of fascism, the return of Trump to protect Netenyahu’s war on children?

    You are not the protector of democracy.

    We are the protectors of democracy.

    If you want to see democracy, look to Chicago’s streets this week. We are democracy speaking back to power, saying we will not be ignored.

    Eman Abdelhadi at the march on August 18 in Chicago. Photo by Steel Brooks

    We want to house our unhoused.

    We want to feed our hungry.

    We want to heal our sick.

    We want to guard our planet.

    We want to build our future, not rob Gaza’s children of theirs.

    You may think that the people who make it into the United Center today are the ones who get to shape the future of this country.

    That’s not true.

    “We want to build our future, not rob Gaza’s children of theirs. You may think that the people who make it into the United Center today are the ones who get to shape the future of this country. That’s not true.”

    We make the future of this country. We make it where we’ve always made it, right here on the streets.

    Vice President Harris, you have a choice. You could join a movement for justice. You could make a place for yourself in history. You could be a leader who chose to listen to her people rather than the interests of the war manufacturers. Or you could aid and abet a war criminal.

    Vice President Harris, if you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, WE ARE SPEAKING.

    Hear us. We will not be placated by tone. 

    We need you to act — and we will not leave the streets until you do.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • The number of Palestinians murdered by Israel‘s attacks on Gaza since 7 October has surpassed 40,000. Nearly 16,500 of the victims of Israeli terrorism were just children.

    Another 10,000 people are lying dead underneath hundreds and thousands of tonnes of rubble.

    Israel: evaporating children with impunity

    One Al Jazeera correspondent, Hani Mahmoud, suggested the 40,000 figure is “a very conservative reading of the number of casualties across Gaza”:

    There are still those who are missing and trapped under the rubble, who haven’t been identified, haven’t been collected, haven’t been counted yet.

    There are those who are missing, whose family members don’t know anything about their whereabouts. There are those who were evaporated, given the intensity and the scale of the bombs.

    Evaporated. Wiped off the face of the earth for having the misfortune of being born in another part of the world to you and I.

    Displaced children, bombed in their beds as they sleep in makeshift tents. Israel has already destroyed their homes. It was a dire situation long before 7 October 2023, but now it is a catastrophe, a humanitarian crisis, created in Washington and delivered by their colonial outpost in the Middle East.

    The world is utterly complicit with the Israeli terrorist regime. If this happened in any European country — quite literally any — how would other countries react?

    The damage unleashed by Israel’s relentless bombardments of the Gaza Strip and the undefinable toll of misery and suffering experienced by a hungry population, struggling to find safety in an area where there is no sanctuary to be found.

    How would we react?

    How would we react if this was happening in Paris, Madrid or Milan?

    On average, Israel has killed about 130 humans every day in Gaza over the past 10 months. The unprecedented scale of the Israeli occupation military’s destruction of homes, hospitals, schools and places of worship is way beyond anything a majority of us have experienced in our lifetime.

    How would we react if this was happening in Amsterdam, London or Brussels?

    The accumulative effects of Israel’s barbaric war on Gaza could mean the true death toll could reach more than 186,000 human beings. War has indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from the violence itself, and it will continue to cause many indirect deaths in the coming weeks, months and years through life-ending diseases and the destruction of health facilities and food distribution centres.

    How would we react if this was happening in Athens, Budapest or Vienna?

    While we were distracted with a general election and the Farage-incited race riots that swept across England, Israel has gone about unleashing some of its most brutal aggressions to date.

    Did anyone else notice how so many far-right rioters in England were also fanatical Israel supporters? Strange that.

    The savagery is unfathomable

    The horrific massacre at al-Tabin school in the Daraj neighbourhood in central Gaza City, this past week, condemned by the global south, claimed the lives of more than 100 innocent civilians, a majority of whom were women and children seeking shelter from the never ending cycle of violence.

    Israel claimed the school was yet another Khamas “control and command centre”, without providing a single piece of evidence to support their ludicrously dishonest and repetitive assertions.

    But this is a military that savagely massacred dozens of its own people on 7 October – witnessed by numerous Israeli citizens while getting its kill lists from leaked WhatsApp data.

    It’s all very well and good for the morally bankrupt and entirely complicit Western leaders to say it’s unacceptable and tragic, but it means absolutely nothing if they refuse to follow it up with some sort of meaningful action — something they have failed to do

    The same global nuclear powers can scream and shout as much as they like about Israel’s right to self-defence, but what about the Palestinians right to self-defence? They’ve been suffering under a brutal occupation for nearly eighty years.

    Britain, the United States, and its embarrassingly sycophantic allies continue to both-side a genocide as if it hasn’t been live-streamed around the world for all to see for themselves.

    The elites think you are fucking stupid. They are relying on the same meticulous pro-Israel spoon-feeding that has served them so well for generations.

    But I sincerely believe we are past that now. The Gaza genocide has opened the eyes of the world to the unbridled evil of Israel and all of those that continue to offer their backing — politically, financially and militarily — to the gravest of crimes committed against humanity in a vast majority of our lifetimes.

    Israel and the West think we’re all stupid

    Those poor, deluded people that thought Keir Starmer was going to stride on in and put an end to Britain’s complicity in genocide must be feeling ashamed of their very existence right now.

    And what about these Trump-supporting ‘pro-Palestine influencers’ that deservedly earn a decent crust for the work they do in highlighting and exposing the atrocities being committed by Israel?

    While they have been absolutely right to call out Joe Biden’s complicity, how do they plan to sell the ultra-Zionist Trump to their hoards of followers when the loathsome orange turd gives his genocide maniac friend, Bibi, the go ahead to wipe out the remaining third of Gaza and commit his very own Nagasaki for the 21st century?

    As tens of thousands have perished in Gaza, Israel has stepped up its de facto capture of Palestinian land in the West Bank. Israeli authorities have approved strategic land seizures — almost 6,000 acres this year alone, marking the most significant territorial changes in the West Bank in decades.

    Extremist settlers — essentially a violent, armed militia — are descending on Palestinian villages in the West Bank, wreaking havoc upon innocent Palestinians, under the protection of the Israeli state. The death and destruction isn’t exclusive to Gaza.

    Netanyahu and his far-right allies in government have emboldened the extreme far-right settler movement. And while Netanyahu publicly condemns these settler attacks, the sheer extremism of the Zionist militia simply reflects the extremism of the Israeli government.

    History will not treat us kindly

    Whether the final death toll of the Gaza genocide is 50,000, 100,000 or even the staggering 186,000 that was predicted in the Lancet, earlier this year, historians will look back on these moments and ask why the West supported the genocidal, racist, apartheid endeavour that is Israel.

    In a week where we have witnessed newborn twins brutally murdered in Gaza by an Israeli airstrike as a father registered their births, the unbearably painful sight of Palestinians having to use plastic bags to collect the body parts of their loved ones, murdered by Israel while sheltering in a school, and yet another Palestinian baby beheaded by an Israeli attack on innocent civilians, our calls to end the genocide of Gaza must grow louder and stronger than ever before.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The new Labour Party government might be in summer recess, but there’s no time like the present for throwing disabled people under the bus.

    It’s summer recess – but don’t let that stop you

    Keir and his pals might be on their summer holibobs, but since they conveniently forgot to throw out the previous lot’s vile and frankly abusive plans for disabled people before they went, they’ve been left to fester like the mould in JK Rowling’s castle.

    The prevailing theory on why Labour didn’t immediately cancel all plans for tougher work capability criterion and of course the infamous PIP vouchers consultation is because they will be going along with it. So, as is usually the case in the run-up to the Autumn Budget, the seeds of disability scrounger hatred are being sown so nobody feels bad for us when we have our vital benefits cut.

    In amongst other truly incredible headlines such as the Telegraph blaming disabled people for the riots and the Daily Mail making their front page about workshy DWP scroungers from seemingly the opinion of one unnamed Tory, the British media decided to take aim at disabled kids – because they’re apparently fair game too

    The Telegraph decided that making vulnerable disabled people the enemy wasn’t enough, they had to go one disgusting step further and try to turn people against disabled children. Of course not all disabled children though, no these aren’t the super bubbly inspo-porn brand of disabled kiddies we see on Children in Need – I’m of course talking about the ones with lying benefit-scrounger parents.

    Scrounging kids getting tax-free benefits to spend on fags and booze

    Figures released early this week showed that a record number of children received Disability Living Allowance. The Telegraph pointed out this was tax-free because I forgot kids pay taxes.

    Of course, the Torygraph’s take on this was that kids are being over-diagnosed with ADHD and autism so that their scrounger parents can claim for them.

    Despite linking the two and putting the main total of 730,000 kids with DLA – much, much further down, the article itself explains that less than half of claims (337,000) were for “neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism and Asperger’s syndrome”. They then pulled out that 72,500 kids claimed benefits for “hyperkinetic syndrome – also known as ADHD”, despite making it sound like a separate figure this will have actually gone in with the 337k.

    Along with deliberately using outdated terms to delegitimise the conditions, they were quick to point out that claims for these had risen by a third and a fifth respectively.

    The article claims that many are concerned that if they start receiving support this early it will encourage them to always stay on benefits and not work – because the children clearly yearn for the mines, and accessible jobs of course are in abundance.

    Or maybe, just maybe, support now means they will grow up with a support system and be helped throughout education and into a career that suits them. Or if they can’t work be supported regardless, because our right to live shouldn’t be determined by how much money we make for the economy.

    A something-for-nothing culture in pre-schools, apparently

    More infuriatingly, this wasn’t the only story the Telegraph ran on this.

    They followed it up by attacking toddlers.

    Yes, you read that right.

    This is the shocking news that nearly 30,000 kids under five are receiving support for “severe behavioural disorders” again with the outdated-as-fuck language.

    The article also claims parents only put themselves and their children through awful benefits assessments as it “doubles their benefit income” with the two-child tax credit benefit cap. Because again it’s scrounging parent’s fault and not the fact that the government are happy to let kids starve.

    I first became aware of this when I got a call from a producer at LBC to go on and talk about it, with about an hours notice. I tried to prepare for what I expected would be an “is everyone pretending to have ADHD and autism for benefits” onslaught but nothing could’ve prepared me for what I was actually up against.

    Corporate media running disabled people ragged

    Along with talking me in circles about why everyone deserved benefits who needed them, and constant talk of functioning labels, came the presenter’s baffling assumption that some schools forced diagnoses so that they could get extra funding. Despite no evidence for this, it was presented as fact. He even had the audacity to ask me if it was true. To which I replied the only way I could

    I don’t know and neither do you.

    I came out of this interview feeling absolutely awful, like I’d failed the disabled community.

    But I now realise that I couldn’t have done anything to “win” that, and there lies the problem. As I said on TikTok yesterday, I am sick of being asked on shows and told it won’t be a debate only for presenters to force me to defend disabled people’s right to support, and by extension life. My life and the lives of other disabled people shouldn’t be a debate – especially not kids.

    Disabled people: the media want you to be broken

    Despite trying this hard to disparage neurodivergent people for a long time, I think the takeaway should be this quote from the scrounging toddler’s piece

    A government spokesman said:

    We are committed to ensuring parents with children with disabilities are supported fairly.

    Awareness of neurodevelopmental conditions has increased over the past decade with a rise in the numbers of children seeking formal diagnoses reflected in those seeking support.

    This is what we need to be focusing on. Neurodivergent conditions aren’t being over-diagnosed, we just have more awareness of them now.

    The reason kids are getting more support is because they SHOULD be getting this support. As I always say, disabled children will likely grow into disabled adults, and it’s much more preferable that they get a diagnosis and support now than growing up thinking they’re wrong and broken.

    But that’s exactly what the media want.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Since Tuesday 30 July, there has been an uprising of far-right terror on British streets. Beginning on the aforementioned night, the Southport Mosque was viciously attacked after a vigil held for the child victims of the Southport Stabbings. At the event there was already the germinal of violent disorder, despite the attempts of the community to hold a peaceful and respectful vigil for the tragedy.

    Those men who attended that vigil were reportedly intoxicated, aggressive, and gravely inconsiderate of the grief of the loved ones in attendance. They would soon after go on to attack the local mosque, willingly or unknowingly believing false information that the stabbings had been carried out by a Muslim asylum seeker, and thereby aiding to light the kindling for a fascist revolt on the British Isles.

    The fuel to this flame was the now infamous propaganda campaign, led by some of the British far right’s most influential figures – resulting in race riots.

    Where has the fight against the far right been?

    In the coming week since this has occurred, we have come to see clashes on the streets between these rioters and the police/the antifascist public, the latter who have come out to valiantly defend their communities against the blood thirsty and blood curdling attacks of the far-right.

    Yet the relatively new rebirth and cancerous growth of British fascism was without question not unprecedented, not unpredicted, and not unpreventable.

    For years, Black and brown people and many on the left in this nation have demanded a fight against British fascism, yet to no avail.

    The EDL (officially defunct for over a decade), Patriotic Alternative, and the similarly defunct Pie and Mash Squad; these organised groups of racist, fascist, neo-Nazi thugs have operated in the UK for long enough that the British upper classes – those with disproportionate material influence in the nation – to have noticed and acted accordingly.

    Yet as in eras gone by, the liberal and conservative factions of the political class, with their eye on authority and capital, have drastically failed to protect us, and it has led to this monstrosity.

    It has taken direct violent attacks on holy places, hotels, and Black and brown members of the public for the government to even attempt to act decisively. This, even then, they have failed to do, as the people of Bristol were left as the last and only line of defense against an attack on the Mercure Hotel on Saturday 3 August.

    Similar phenomenon has, however, been seen before.

    Kristallnacht

    On November 7 1938, Herschel Grynspan, a Polish Jew whose family had been victims of Nazi persecution, opened fire on German diplomat Ernst vom Rath, assassinating him in Vienna, Austria.

    In Germany over the coming days and nights, after tensions had been stoked by the conspiracy theories of Minister for Propaganda Joseph Gobbels, wide-scale attacks on Jewish educational institutions, synagogues, and businesses lit up the German sky with flames. And while the differences between the two events are crucial – the 1938 assassination was overtly political, whereas the murders of the three girls were not (crucially, those three victims were entirely innocent).

    Further, the violence in the case of Kristallnacht was largely coordinated by a centralised state apparatus, whereas the attacks of recent weeks have not been. Despite this, however, the similarities of the retaliations are striking.

    Both events hinged upon a conspiracy of sedition from within, spread by powerful individuals (both within the state and without) of a racially different caste that sought to supplant or subvert the purity and legacy of the nation. Both events are characterised by chaotic attacks on key infrastructure of those communities. And both were indiscriminate in their attacks on the ethnic minorities.

    Though the demonstrable similarities of these two events, a critical difference prevails: actions can still be taken to combat fascism in this country.

    The far right in the UK has to be countered

    The coordinated defense of the people of this country by antifascist elements everywhere has been inspiring, but it must grow. The failure of the police in some areas of the UK to adequately defend against terror has seen the arsine attack on the Holiday Inn in Rotherham, which threatened the lives of asylum seekers reportedly housed inside.

    This cannot be allowed to continue. British antifascism must become omnipresent and attentive in order for our country and the people who live in it to be safe.

    The philosopher Hannah Arendt states in her book the Origins of Totalitarianism:

    In each one of us, there lurks such a liberal, wheedling us with the voice of common sense… There is a great temptation to explain away the intrinsically incredible by means of liberal rationalizations.

    What was meant by these statements is that the temptation to overlook fascism when it is on the rise is great, but must at all cost be avoided.

    That complacent emotional and rational impulse has been (and will continue to be) followed by the British Conservative and Labour parties and their supporters for nearly a decade and a half now, and was followed by them during the first rise of ultra-nationalism in Europe. It cannot, for the sake of our livelihoods, be allowed to continue.

    The only consequence of that realisation, then, is a call to action.

    It is imperative that every breathing human being that resides on the British Isles seeks to oppose fascism in their community and beyond. Antifascism is essential for a society in which the horrors of fascism are historically apparent, and because of that it is the responsibility of all who are able to be engaged in it, in whatever capacity they are able.

    It is the most important issue of our time, for if we fail to address it, everything we hold dear is at risk.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Horton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Brittany Nawaqatabu in Suva

    Regional leaders will gather later this month in Tonga for the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Tonga and high on the agenda will be Japan’s dumping of
    treated nuclear wastewater in the Pacific Ocean.

    A week ago on the 6 August 2024, the 79th anniversary of the atomic bombing of
    Hiroshima in 1945 and the 39th anniversary of the Treaty of Rarotonga opening for signatures in 1985 were marked.

    As the world and region remembered the horrors of nuclear weapons and stand in solidarity, there is still work to be done.

    • READ MORE: Other nuclear wastewater in Pacific reports

    Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has stated that Japan’s discharge of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean does not breach the Rarotonga Treaty which established a Nuclear-Free Zone in the South Pacific.

    Civil society groups have been calling for Japan to stop the dumping in the Pacific Ocean, but Brown, who is also the chair of the Pacific Islands Forum and represents a country
    associated by name with the Rarotonga Treaty, has backtracked on both the efforts of PIFS and his own previous calls against it.

    Brown stated during the recent 10th Pacific Alliance Leaders Meeting (PALM10) meeting in
    Tokyo that Pacific Island Leaders stressed the importance of transparency and scientific evidence to ensure that Japan’s actions did not harm the environment or public health.

    But he also defended Japan, saying that the wastewater, treated using the Advanced Liquid
    Processing System (ALPS) to remove most radioactive materials except tritium, met the
    standard set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    Harmful isotopes removed
    “No, the water has been treated to remove harmful isotopes, so it’s well within the standard guidelines as outlined by the global authority on nuclear matters, the IAEA,” Brown said in an Islands Business article.

    “Japan is complying with these guidelines in its discharge of wastewater into the ocean.”

    The Cook Islands has consistently benefited from Japanese development grants. In 2021, Japan funded through the Asian Development Bank $2 million grant from the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, financed by the Government of Japan.

    Together with $500,000 of in-kind contribution from the government of the Cook Islands, the grant funded the Supporting Safe Recovery of Travel and Tourism Project.

    Just this year Japan provided grants for the Puaikura Volunteer Fire Brigade Association totaling US$132,680 and a further US$53,925 for Aitutaki’s Vaitau School.

    Long-term consequences
    In 2023, Prime Minister Brown said it placed a special obligation on Pacific Island States because of ’the long-term consequences for Pacific peoples’ health, environment and human rights.

    Pacific states, he said, had a legal obligation “to prevent the dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter by anyone” and “to not . . .  assist or encourage the dumping by anyone of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter at sea anywhere within the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.

    “Our people do not have anything to gain from Japan’s plan but have much at risk for
    generations to come.”

    The Pacific Islands Forum went on further to state then that the issue was an “issue of significant transboundary and intergenerational harm”.

    The Rarotonga Treaty, a Cold War-era agreement, prohibits nuclear weapons testing and
    deployment in the region, but it does not specifically address the discharge of the treated
    nuclear wastewater.

    Pacific civil society organisations continue to condemn Japan’s dumping of nuclear-treated
    wastewater. Of its planned 1.3 million tonnes of nuclear-treated wastewater, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has conducted seven sets of dumping into the Pacific Ocean and was due to commence the eighth between August 7-25.

    Regardless of the recommendations provided by the Pacific Island Forum’s special panel of
    experts and civil society calls to stop Japan and for PIF Leaders to suspend Japan’s dialogue
    partner status, the PIF Chair Mark Brown has ignored concerns by stating his support for
    Japan’s nuclear wastewater dumping plans.

    Contradiction of treaty
    This decision is being viewed by the international community as a contradiction of the Treaty of Rarotonga that symbolises a genuine collaborative endeavour from the Pacific region, born out of 10 years of dedication from Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, the Cook Islands, and various other nations, all working together to establish a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. Treaty Ratification

    Bedi Racule, a nuclear justice advocate said the Treaty of Rarotonga preamble had one of the most powerful statements in any treaty ever. It is the member states’ promise for a nuclear free Pacific.

    “The spirit of the Treaty is to protect the abundance and the beauty of the islands for future
    generations,” Racule said.

    She continued to state that it was vital to ensure that the technical aspects of the Treaty and the text from the preamble is visualised.

    “We need to consistently look at this Treaty because of the ongoing nuclear threats that are
    happening”.

    Racule said the Treaty did not address the modern issues being faced like nuclear waste dumping, and stressed that there was a dire need to increase the solidarity and the
    universalisation of the Treaty.

    “There is quite a large portion of the Pacific that is not signed onto the Treaty. There’s still work within the Treaty that needs to be ratified.

    “It’s almost like a check mark that’s there but it’s not being attended to.”

    The Pacific islands Forum meets on August 26-30.

    Brittany Nawaqatabu is assistant media and communications officer of the Suva-based Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG). 

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • In silent darkened rooms where millions lie, the world turns unaware of profound loss of life. myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS) is not just a disease. It takes lives.

    While the stories that make the headlines often feature young, beautiful women whose promising lives are cut short, there is a vast ignored population of older sufferers whose lives have been equally devastated for much longer. Their stories too, deserve to be heard and acknowledged.

    ME/CFS is a long-term (chronic), fluctuating, neurological disease that causes symptoms affecting many body systems, more commonly the nervous and immune systems. ME/CFS affects at least 1.2 million people in the UK (likely an underestimate) and at least 65 million people worldwide – if not far more.

    Ruth’s story: a lifetime stolen by ME/CFS

    Ruth will turn 60 next year. As a runner and cyclist with dreams of becoming a marine biologist, her life was irrevocably altered at the age of 14.

    After contracting glandular fever, her future became decades of debilitating illness.

    For 45 years, Ruth has endured the relentless grip of ME/CFS, a fluctuating disease not only widely misunderstood but often dismissed as psychosomatic.

    Her journey through the healthcare system is marked by disbelief, misdiagnosis, and neglect. From being prescribed antidepressants to treatments like graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) that worsened her condition, Ruth’s story is the reality of systemic failure of a system that millions of ME/CFS sufferers face.

    In 2018, Ruth’s condition deteriorated to the point where she could no longer sit up or eat, or to tolerate light or sound. Hospitalized, she received no meaningful treatment or advice. Sent home, her plight continued in isolation, a common reality for many with ME/CFS who are forced to endure appalling symptoms alone, away from a medical profession that often gaslights and stigmatises them.

    The contrast: young faces in the media

    The media often gravitates understandably towards stories of young, beautiful women whose lives are suddenly and tragically halted by ME/CFS.

    The striking before-and-after images of vibrant dancers, skiers, and fashionistas transformed into small, grey shapes confined to darkened rooms evoke immediate sympathy and empathy. These narratives are powerful and poignant, and shed light on the severe impact of the disease.

    However, this focus leaves out a significant part of the ME/CFS community: the older women and men who have battled this illness for decades, whose stories are equally heartbreaking but never told. They were once young, vibrant people too, with dreams and aspirations that were crushed by ME/CFS. Their lives should not be diminished in value by age.

    A collective grief

    Ruth is not alone. Her story is typical of the unseen majority who retire to darkened rooms. Most sufferers learn to avoid seeking medical help, having learned first that there is none and second that disbelief and cruelty are often the response to their suffering.

    Decades of terrifying symptoms are borne in apparent silence.

    The energy required to protest or even ask for help is something many sufferers do not have.

    The advent of the internet has provided a valuable platform for shared experiences and hedge treatments. The voices of the voiceless are now there to be read.

    The loss experienced by those with ME/CFS is colossal. Not only do they lose their health, but they also lose the ability to participate in life’s joys and important milestones. Birthdays, weddings, and funerals pass without their presence, replaced by their daily struggle for survival. Families grieve for the lost potential of their loved ones. Alongside the loss of life of the carers who devote time, energy and resources sometimes for decades.

    Ruth lost the children she decided not to have as she was not well enough to look after them. She lost her career in marine biology as she was not well enough to go to university. She lost friends, a husband, and even a sister who eventually said, “I believe you believe you are ill.” This is a profound loss of a life.

    The scandal, not just the medical issue

    This is not just a medical issue; it is a profound scandal. Benefits are often withheld, and those with ME/CFS are left to navigate their debilitating condition with little to no support. Their poverty causes further physical suffering.

    Dr. Nancy Klimas, a renowned expert in the field, says:

    There’s evidence that ME/CFS patients experience a level of disability equal to that of patients with late-stage AIDS, patients undergoing chemotherapy, or patients with multiple sclerosis. The only difference: NO treatment for ME/CFS.

    How much clearer could the need for recognition and action be made?

    Forty-five years after Ruth became ill, and even after a global pandemic highlighted the long-term consequences of viral infections, the architects of neglectful policies are often unchallenged. Even when they wilfully ignore NICE guidelines. Meanwhile, lives continue to be lost in the shadows, as those affected by ME/CFS and now Long COVID endure their lives half-lived.

    The parallels with other public health disasters are striking. Like the Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, and the Grenfell tragedy, the plight of ME/CFS sufferers is a humanitarian crisis that demands accountability.

    We must take action on ME/CFS

    As we grieve for the lifetimes lost to ME/CFS, action must be taken. It’s time to bring this tragedy into the light, to demand that the medical community, society, and policymakers address the suffering of millions. Only then can we begin to heal the profound wounds inflicted by decades of disbelief and neglect. The loss of life caused by ME/CFS is a tragedy that must no longer be ignored.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Lisa Catherwood

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The social media platform which calls itself X is in a terrible state, and I think we need to talk about it – and Elon Musk. 

    Numerous coping mechanisms for X – but are they wearing thin?

    It’s always difficult as an NHS campaigner to reveal personal feelings, because we are abused relentlessly online by those who seek to silence us.

    An admission that we are affected by this abuse is often perceived as an invitation for more. I’ve lost count of the days when I have opened up Twitter/ X in order to reach the audience of people who care about winter pressures, or the safety of frontline NHS workers, only to be confronted with a barrage of abuse. 

    We get through all of this by gritting our teeth, by taking long walks, by telling ourselves that none of this is real; it’s just bots, or misinformed people. We tell ourselves to feel sorry for those people, because it’s not really their fault.

    Even as they call us grifters and scammers and frauds and worse, we tell ourselves that they’ve been primed for this.

    Primed and ready

    Primed by a collection of media outlets that seek to divide, and to inflame hatred between different groups.

    Primed by ads paid for by dubious political campaigns, and dubious political actors. Primed, because they have been failed for many years themselves by politicians, and although we’re the punchbag, their anger isn’t really directed at us. Perhaps they are suffering from that particular, horrible, cocktail of a lack of fair pay, a lack of safe housing, a lack of security in their own lives.  So many people are now, after all, because the country is in a complete mess. 

    That doesn’t stop it hurting though. I’ve had images doctored to falsify my views. I’ve had my face added to images of things I would never say or do. I’ve had people try to identify where I live.

    I’ve worried for the safety of my young children sometimes, because as the flames of hatred lick higher and trolling reaches fever pitch online, there is a genuine concern that someone could take things too far. 

    Have I considered leaving social media, removing myself from the arena? Of course; many times. But I haven’t done it, because the work matters too much.

    We still have to push back

    Our public healthcare system is being destroyed because of the actions of politicians and the long tentacles of influence coming from corporate interests. The service has been underfunded and undermined, the staff workforce have been treated terribly, and privatisation is being enabled to infiltrate the NHS in increasing ways, despite the fact that it does not help patients, it does not help staff, and it does not help the sustainability of our healthcare system either.

    Unless we push back, the NHS as we know it will be gone. A two-tier healthcare system is already developing in the UK; one which is seeing burgeoning profits for private healthcare companies while millions languish on interminable NHS waiting lists. As a doctor, this is horrifying to recognise, and I feel very strongly that we cannot tolerate what is happening, we must push back en masse

    Which brings me back to Twitter, or X, a place which was never easy to interact on, but where the big conversations happened, and meaningful debate, and powerful campaigning work.

    Things have changed under Musk

    I only joined Twitter in 2020, but quickly found that a lot of people wanted to discuss the NHS and involve themselves in important campaigns to push for safety. The trolling was the backdrop, but it was the backdrop to something much bigger. We reached millions of people, raised awareness, and made a real impact.

    Things have changed now though.

    It felt like they changed when Elon Musk took over the running of Twitter in late 2022, in ways which were difficult to identify. This is anecdotal, because I can only speak from my own experiences, but It felt like we couldn’t reach a wide audience as we had done before. It felt like the conversation was blunted – as if we would only see the content we vehemently agreed with, or vehemently opposed, and none of the grey areas in between, which are so necessary to inform and enable debate to take place. 

    Some people might say that this doesn’t matter; that if one social media platform implodes (as it looks like X might be doing) then we’ll simply find another. But since Musk took over, people have been trying to identify that place.

    Where to go after X?

    We saw lots of people (including myself) move across to Mastodon temporarily, in the hope that we would find our community there again. But there weren’t enough people who made the move, the platform felt a bit clunky, and it didn’t really work out.

    Since then, lots of people have left Musk’s X for Threads, which definitely feels less toxic, but it’s more difficult to see breaking news and so the platform feels less exciting than X used to. I’ve decided to make a go of it on TikTok, which is obviously huge now and growing fast, and we’ll see what happens there. 

    But I’d be interested to hear what you think about this situation. The NHS needs campaigners, and those campaigners need a wide network of supporters and interested people who we can speak to. How do you think we should be doing that, and where? 

    Featured image via TED – YouTube

    By Dr Julia Grace Patterson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Whilst we’ve been attempting to fend off both a literal country on fire and a figurative one under the new Labour Party government, we haven’t had time for one of the small pleasures: post-election laughing at desperate Tories. But it’s buy one, get one free today – as Thérèse Coffey and Mel Stride are both looking more wet wipe-like than usual.

    Thérèse Coffey: just WHO do you think you are???

    First, the news that Thérèse Coffey has gone crawling to Labour for a job.

    According to the Telegraph, Coffey – who was of course defeated in the recent election – applied to be the UK director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

    The job pays £183,400 a year, roughly double that of an MP, and as it’s a finance role it’s under Treasury boss Rachel Reeves – usually held by a civil servant.

    The EBRD was set up in the wake of the Cold War to help support growing eastern European economies. It’s owned and funded by 73 countries, including the UK, with a board made up of senior government officials from each one (usually their equivalent of chancellors).

    Whilst Reeves holds the UK’s governor role, the board is also made up of directors with two from each country who play a more active role in the bank’s running.

    Typical of a Tory to fuck up the economy and then attempt to run into a cushy bank job.

    Coffey also didn’t hang about attempting to get a position in the new government. The role was advertised on LinkedIn in July, meaning she probably went straight from being booted out to plotting how to get back in.

    In a true show of overconfidence, Coffey told the Telegraph:

    It was an interesting role. I thought I would apply given my experience in government on international work. I have dealt with these sorts of banks before.

    I’m not sure I’d be bragging about my ‘experience in government’ if I were Thérèse Coffey, but then I don’t have the self-belief of a Tory who has never been told no in their life.

    How many lettuce puns are there?

    In case you need a refresher – because Thérèse apparently does – she was deputy PM for about 20 minutes back in that heady summer of Liz Truss pretending to be PM in 2022.

    Strap in for some truly great lettuce puns. You have been warned.

    Of course, her being outlasted by a literal vegetable was just the tip of the iceberg. ‘Lettuce’ not forget that during that brief time, Truss tanked the economy with her disastrous mini-budget, the mini ‘gem’ of budgets if you will (shut up). It caused interest rates to soar, stemming the worst cost of living crisis in 40 years. Almost as many weeks as she lasted.

    However, way before Lettuce Liz was a twinkle in a Reach PLC digital editor’s eye, Coffey was already out there ruining lives.

    Between 2019 and 2022 she acted as the DWP secretary during which time she just flat refused to release reports on the true scale of disabled deaths due to having benefits denied or removed.

    I mean you would too if you were the cause of thousands of untold deaths.

    DWP deaths: not our problem, says Coffey – and it wasn’t Stride’s either

    At the time Coffey said:

    We do not have a statutory duty of safeguarding, though of course we do care about our claimants.

    She wriggled out of having to reveal it due to a loophole, because the reports were commissioned under a previous DWP minister. That hardly seems fair when we had countless heads of the DWP in recent years.

    She was of course unsuccessful in her job hunt, which is just as well really considering Rishi made her a dame for all her years of grovelling to the revolving door of Tory PMs.

    Elsewhere in former DWP wet wipe news, Mel Stride is once again opening his big mouth and just running with whatever comes out of it.

    Speaking of someone with far too much Tory-fueled overconfidence, we have a man who is running for leader whilst not aware that most voters have no idea who he is. In an IPSOS poll on who would be a good Tory leader, he’s not even named.

    Whilst trying in any way to be relevant, he’s now ranting about the riots and blaming anyone but his party. Last week he went from blaming Farage to saying Farage was putting the police at risk to calling Musk’s comments about civil war “deeply unhelpful”.

    This week however he’s seemingly agreeing with those arseholes because it means he gets to blame immigrants. He said that white working-class boys have it hardest in society and that it’s a levelling-up issue that they can’t find jobs, whilst casually throwing in that migration should be capped.

    Nah mate, it’s a deprivation issue that the government caused and we both know it.

    They should be in jail

    As I said last week, those in power want to keep us down so that they can continue to galivant around and not suffer any consequences.

    This week marks a year since the EHRC ruled the DWP and the British government had failed to implement any of the recommendations in the UNCRDP 2016 report.

    Whilst disabled people continue to suffer, those who made our lives worse get to carry on flitting about playing politics – when they should all be in jail.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Environmental destruction is not an unintended side effect, but a primary objective in colonial wars of occupation.

    By David Whyte and Samira Homerang Saunders

    Many in the international community are finally coming to accept that the earth’s ecosystem can no longer bear the weight of military occupation.

    Most have reached this inevitable conclusion, clearly articulated in the environmental movement’s latest slogan “No Climate Justice on Occupied Land”, in light of the horrors we have witnessed in Gaza since October 7.

    While the correlation between military occupation and climate sustainability may be a recent discovery for those living their lives in relative peace and security, people living under occupation, and thus constant threat of military violence, have always known any guided missile strike or aerial bombardment campaign by an occupying military is not only an attack on those being targeted but also their land’s ability to sustain life.

    A recent hearing on “State and Environmental Violence in West Papua” under the jurisdiction of the Rome-based Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT), for example, heard that Indonesia’s military occupation, spanning more than seven decades, has facilitated a “slow genocide” of the Papuan people through not only political repression and violence, but also the gradual decimation of the forest area — one of the largest and most biodiverse on the planet — that sustains them.

    West Papua hosts one of the largest copper and gold mines in the world, is the site of a major BP liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility, and is the fastest-expanding area of palm oil and biofuel plantation in Indonesia.

    All of these industries leave ecological dead zones in their wake, and every single one of them is secured by military occupation.

    At the PPT hearing, prominent Papuan lawyer Yan Christian Warinussy spoke of the connection between human suffering in West Papua and the exploitation of the region’s natural resources.

    Shot and wounded
    Just one week later, he was shot and wounded by an unknown assailant. The PPT Secretariat noted that the attack came after the lawyer depicted “the past and current violence committed against the defenceless civil population and the environment in the region”.

    What happened to Warinussy reinforced yet again the indivisibility of military occupation and environmental violence.

    In total, militaries around the world account for almost 5.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions annually — more than the aviation and shipping industries combined.

    Our colleagues at Queen Mary University of London recently concluded that emissions from the first 120 days of this latest round of slaughter in Gaza alone were greater than the annual emissions of 26 individual countries; emissions from rebuilding Gaza will be higher than the annual emissions of more than 135 countries, equating them to those of Sweden and Portugal.

    But even these shocking statistics fail to shed sufficient light on the deep connection between military violence and environmental violence. War and occupation’s impact on the climate is not merely a side effect or unfortunate consequence.

    We must not reduce our analysis of what is going on in Gaza, for example, to a dualism of consequences: the killing of people on one side and the effect on “the environment” on the other.

    Inseparable from impact on nature
    In reality, the impact on the people is inseparable from the impact on nature. The genocide in Gaza is also an ecocide — as is almost always the case with military campaigns.

    In the Vietnam War, the use of toxic chemicals, including Agent Orange, was part of a deliberate strategy to eliminate any capacity for agricultural production, and thus force the people off their land and into “strategic hamlets”.

    Forests, used by the Vietcong as cover, were also cut by the US military to reduce the population’s capacity for resistance. The anti-war activist and international lawyer Richard Falk coined the phrase “ecocide” to describe this.

    In different ways, this is what all military operations do: they tactically reduce or completely eliminate the capacity of the “enemy” population to live sustainably and to retain autonomy over its own water and food supplies.

    Since 2014, the bulldozing of Palestinian homes and other essential infrastructure by the Israeli occupation forces has been complemented by chemical warfare, with herbicides aerially sprayed by the Israeli military destroying entire swaths of arable land in Gaza.

    In other words, Gaza has been subjected to an “ecocide” strategy almost identical to the one used in Vietnam since long before October 7.

    The occupying military force has been working to reduce, and eventually completely eliminate, the Palestinian population’s capacity to live sustainably in Gaza for many years. Since October 7, it has been waging a war to make Gaza completely unliveable.

    50% of Gaza farms wiped out
    As researchers at Forensic Architecture have concluded, at least 50 percent of farmland and orchards in Gaza are now completely wiped out. Many ancient olive groves have also been destroyed. Fields of crops have been uprooted using tanks, tractors and other vehicles.

    Widespread aerial bombardment reduced the Gaza Strip’s greenhouse production facilities to rubble. All this was done not by mistake, but in a deliberate effort to leave the land unable to sustain life.

    The wholesale destruction of the water supply and sanitation facilities and the ongoing threat of starvation across the Gaza Strip are also not unwanted consequences, but deliberate tactics of war. The Israeli military has weaponised food and water access in its unrelenting assault on the population of Gaza.

    Of course, none of this is new to Palestinians there, or indeed in the West Bank. Israel has been using these same tactics to sustain its occupation, pressure Palestinians into leaving their lands, and expand its illegal settlement enterprise for many years.

    Since October 7, it has merely intensified its efforts. It is now working with unprecedented urgency to eradicate the little capacity the occupied Palestinian territory has left in it to sustain Palestinian life.

    Just as is the case with the occupation of Papua, environmental destruction is not an unintended side effect but a primary objective of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The immediate damage military occupation inflicts on the affected population is never separate from the long-term damage it inflicts on the planet.

    For this reason, it would be a mistake to try and separate the genocide from the ecocide in Gaza, or anywhere else for that matter.

    Anyone interested in putting an end to human suffering now, and preventing climate catastrophe in the future, should oppose all wars of occupation, and all forms of militarism that help fuel them.

    David Whyte is professor of climate justice at Queen Mary University of London and director of the Centre for Climate Crime and Climate Justice. Samira Homerang Saunders is research officer at the Centre for Climate Crime and Climate Justice, Queen Mary University.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Despite decades of activism, women are still burdened with the effects of slut shaming in everyday life. Dr Hilary Caldwell’s new book, Slutdom, argues or women’s enjoyment of sex as a force to advance gender equality. BroadAgenda editor Ginger Gorman had a chat with Hilary.

    For those in Canberra, you can see Hilary speaking live about her book on Friday, August 23. Details here. 

    In a nutshell, what is your book about? 

    Sex! Slutdom is a celebration of the importance of sex to individuals and to society, while showing that sexual scripts create unfair gender roles, which in turn cause gender-based violence and ultimately prevent gender equality.

    Before we go further, tell us about your background. 

    I started sex work twenty-one years ago when I was a single mother of four and working part-time as a nurse while paying for childcare on rotating shifts. I could make more money as a sex worker, and it allowed me to have more control over my time so I could parent my girls. As the children grew and my physical workload at home eased, I began to study sex.

    Like the sex work, I enjoyed it and just couldn’t stop! I completed a Master of Health Science (Sexual Health) and together with previous counselling qualifications, I set up a side hustle as a sexologist so I could transition out of nursing. Over time, I started researching clients of sex workers and did a Master of Applied Science with a focus on male clients, and then later a PhD about women clients.

    I am a kinky, queer doctor and a sex worker, mother and grandmother.

    Hilary Caldwell, PhD

    Dr Hilary Caldwell getting her PhD. Picture: Supplied

    Why do you like sex work? How hard was it to come out to the world – and to your kids – as a sex worker? (Did this influence you writing the book?) 

    I kept my sex work a secret for over twenty years to protect my family. I knew that stigma about sex would negatively affect them, their relationships and perhaps their careers. At the same time, helping people have better sex as a sexologist caused cognitive dissonance – my growing knowledge of the beneficence of sex work to individuals and society was also something I was proud of.

    Keeping the secret cost me more than emotional pain. I also experienced the discrimination all sex workers face because of the way society treats us. My interactions with the basic systems that most people take for granted in Australia – health, banking, insurance, justice and policing – were compromised because my profession wasn’t recognised as legitimate. For example, I was refused EFTPOS services for my sexology business, affecting my reputation and career, due to ‘possible ties to human trafficking’.

    As my children became young women themselves, I finally realised that the unique perspective I had from living the madonna/whore dichotomy could benefit them, and all women. Coming out in the book has been hard but empowering. I think my struggle reflects how challenging it is for any woman to reject a lifetime of social conditioning that tells us that sluts – women who dare to be sexual – are bad.

    Ultimately, what I want my readers to understand is that being sexual is not something we should be ashamed of or judged for – we should be liberated by it. Sex is good for us, and we should all have equal access to erotic, de-stressing, empathy-inducing sexercise. Sexual equality is a human rights issue.

    Hear Hilary speak about her book live via Libraries ACT on 23 Aug 2024 from 6:00pm to 7:00pm. Book tickets here.
    The title of your book is deliberately provocative. You are fighting to reclaim the word “slut.” Why?

    I use my story to ‘call out’ the way women who enjoy sex – labelled as ‘sluts’ or ‘whores’ – are treated, and to show how this kind of sexual shaming harms everyone. Slutdom includes the stories of fifty women I interviewed for my PhD and I have used their voices to ‘call in’ people who have not yet noticed the way that slut-shaming has affected them, or those who don’t yet have the capacity to stand up to slut-shaming.

    Because what I found, was that when women feel sexually empowered, they fight back against gendered stereotypes and change the way they live their lives. While the words ‘whore’ and ‘slut’ have any negative connotations, women will be shamed sexually, maintaining a gender imbalance.

    How do you see sex and its relationship with gender equality?

    Unexamined sexual inequality prevents gender equality. Social conditioning gives men permission to acknowledge, develop and enjoy their sexual desires but this is not the case for women. Current statistics suggest that Australian men report masturbating two to three times more often than women. According to a 2017 US study, men enjoyed forty-six per cent more orgasms than women.

    My background as a nurse and sexologist has taught me that there is nothing in our biology to explain these findings, and everything to do with our cultural constructions about gendered sexual roles. Interestingly, the statistics also suggest that twenty-five per cent of women are not interested in sex compared with eight per cent of men.

    What I have learned is that sexuality is experienced in our bodies on a primal level, but our behaviour is controlled culturally. Would more women experience all the benefits of feeling powerful in their bodies, if they truly interrogated the effect that shame-based sexual narratives have on their lives?

    The cover image of Hilary's book "Slutdom." Picture: Supplied

    The cover image of Hilary’s book “Slutdom.” Picture: Supplied

    Your book barracks for women’s sexual empowerment and posits this as a mechanism to change their entire lives. Can you unpick this for me?

    Feeling uninhibited joy in our bodies as a result of sexual thrills can serve as a rebellion against generations of conditioning that tries to tell us that a woman’s sexual experience is bad, dangerous, dirty and wrong. Pride in sexual experience brings empowerment – and not just in the bedroom. I’ve already had feedback from readers who have told me that after reading Slutdom, they stood up to their boss about workplace harassment issues or initiated a new relationship with someone.

    ‘You walk in a different way when you feel sexually powerful. You work in a different way. You approach your friendships in a different way,’ said Charlotte in Slutdom. I imagine a slutopia where no woman is controlled by slut-shaming narratives.

    Increasingly the pornography industry is being questioned for promoting and enabling violence against women and children. How do you see this powerful industry fitting into the picture when it comes to women and sex? 

    Porn is any depiction of visual sexualised material. Some is perceived as violent without any nuance or understanding of performers preferences, but the real problem starts with gender stereotyping when we are young. The way in which ‘romance’ and ‘love’ are portrayed in popular culture – think Disney-style fairytales and romantic comedies – reinforce destructive gender stereotypes where men chase women who submit with dubious consent.

    If women’s sexuality was taught to subsequent generations as powerful, with women taking the lead, calling the shots, scoring the scores, hitting the home runs; and if men’s sexuality was considered passive, overly complex and mysterious, and only available in strict ‘love’ scenarios, then porn would look very different indeed. Strict codes of sexual behaviour, divided into gender roles that privilege men, are the forces that control the sexual climate. Porn is just a barometer.

     Is there anything else you want to say? 

    If we are serious about protecting women and children from gender violence, we will need to change the way we socialise our genders. Angela Saini, in the Patriarchs: How men came to rule, shows us that we can change these social scripts, and they are changing all the time. We just need to be able to clearly see the damage done to women by every slut-shaming incident, and understand that we all have a role to play in removing stigma. If we understand a slut to be a sexually empowered woman (regardless of her behaviour) then we can encourage everyone to be sluts for the benefit of all. When women are not divided, we are all #Slut(s)Too.

    The post ‘Slutdom’: A bold call to embrace women’s sexual empowerment appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • It seems not a day goes by without the gutter corporate media spouting a new tirade of disgusting stigma and punching down on marginalised people. On Monday 12 August, Cornwall Live published an abhorrent headline about a Cornwall man’s tragic, accidental death. With one word, the outlet erased everything else about him as a person and reduced him – and his death – down to his alcoholism.

    Cornwall Live:

    Let’s start where the gutter press failed to begin its appalling excuse for reporting – his name. David Duffy was a 58-year-old man from Bude. On 1 October 2023, he died after a fall holding a barbell weight, while intoxicated.

    The inquest into his death concluded that he died from a hypoxic brain injury and cardiac arrest. In other words, a lack of oxygen reaching his brain and a heart attack. It did not determine the cause of this. Instead, coroner Andrew Cox suggested this could have been from multiple factors. He put forward alcohol consumption, strenuous exercise, or hitting his head on the floor as possible triggers, but none as conclusive.

    The Canary didn’t want to dig up the private details of Duffy’s life, but to at least give some tribute to it where other outlets didn’t. On a post by his sister on a local Facebook group notice board, friends of Duffy’s commemorated him. A work colleague described him as “a really good man”, while another poster said that Duffy “was a good soul”.

    Because at the heart of it, Duffy was a brother, friend, colleague, and likely much more to many other people. Naturally, the corporate media ignored all this and went straight for the stigmatising language. In an abhorrent headline, Cornwall Live wrote:

    ‘Bude drunk died after trying to deadlift 45kg barbell’

    Similarly, its social media headline carried the title:

    ‘Drunk died after trying to deadlift 45kg barbell’

    Obviously, for one, it’s a viciously disrespectful, disgusting headline. In short, it referred to a deceased man who had experienced alcoholism with the disparaging term ‘drunk’. Feature writer Rebecca Tidy called the news site out on this:

    Put simply, it stripped away all else about Duffy’s identity and honed in on his alcoholism. This was also in spite of the fact that the coroner didn’t attribute his death to this. Yet, even if he had, this shouldn’t have been the focus.

    Ostensibly, the prejudiced and homogenising label was there to push shame and stigma. Cornwall Live wanted readers to view Duffy’s accidental death as the product of his own bad life decisions – in this instance, his intoxication. It was weaponising his alcoholism against him. One person aptly summed up how this is the right-wing corporate media writ large:

    But its coverage also has much broader ramifications too.

    Cornwall Live ‘perpetuating a stigma’

    As Tidy highlighted:

    In other words, by further entrenching this social stigma, Cornwall Live was putting people managing alcoholism at risk. Heartbreakingly, Tidy recounted her aunt’s death to alcoholism:

    Tidy also highlighted that the outlet posted this in the context of the high rates of substance-related deaths in Cornwall:

    Of course, never an outlet to miss the chance to compound its abhorrent abuse, it doubled down on its disgraceful vitriol on social media. In particular, it went after Tidy for her comment:

    Unsurprisingly, it later deleted this. Now, the outlet has also altered its headline on the site. At the time of writing though, the social media title remains.

    Tidy kept the receipts however:

    The Canary also found that while the title has changed on the website and Google, news aggregator MSN’s search engine link still sports the original headline:

    Article on Google with the headline: "Bude drunk died after trying to deadlift 45kg barbell"

    Reach Plc at it as always

    One person mused it had Reach Plc all over it:

    And that would be because it does. Reach Plc owns Cornwall Live, along with a slew of other local ‘front’ media outlets. It’s why many of these will carry the same headlines about stories of a national interest.

    Essentially, these act like Astroturf sites for the large media conglomerate. They purport to represent local communities, but instead toe the rancid editorial lines of its big corporate shareholders.

    Largely, those would be a shareholder who’s who of major asset management companies and investment banks. Among these are big players in the financial sector such as Hargreaves Lansdown, BlackRock, and JP Morgan.

    Reach also operates a number of national media sites including the Express, the Mirror, the Daily Star, and the Daily Record.

    As the Canary has previously pointed out about its sister outlet Birmingham Live, demonising narratives about marginalised communities are their bread and butter. Primarily then, it’s all for clicks and giggles at oppressed, sidelined communities the media can scapegoat for the problems corporate capitalist wankers in the City have manufactured. This Cornwall Live article was no exception.

    Toxic culture and rot at the heart of it

    What Reach Plc and its publications routinely obfuscate, is that people are not the sum of all their problems. Moreover, they are also NOT the problem in the first instance.

    Because at the end of the day, it likely wasn’t Duffy’s alcoholism or even the barbell that really killed him. It was this very toxic media culture that stigmatises, degrades, and shames people battling alcoholism – and an equally toxic, broken, and deeply uncaring system that pushes people into it in the first place. It’s a state-fractured society that leaves people without the care and support they need – and all too often, even the very basics to live.

    It was that Cornwall Live piece yesterday, probably another Reach Plc hit-piece tomorrow, that places blame and shame on the shoulders of alcoholics, and not the fucked up, capitalist, patriarchal, and bigoted hell we call society.

    I don’t know anything about Duffy’s life – and Cornwall Live wanted it that way. Because to peel back his past, is likely to remove the sticking plaster that conceals the festering rot at the heart of this austerity-addled, spending-cut scarred country, that places private profits above people’s lives at every turn.

    Tidy’s hugely personal account of her aunt hinted at the problems rife that mean when people have nowhere else to turn, the numbing, warm solace of alcohol beckons.

    In her aunt’s instance, misogyny, male violence, and a criminal justice system that never holds perpetrators to account killed her. For others, it was – and is – entrenched classism, racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and psychological stigma. Because when it comes down to it, that’s the true face of the right-wing click-bait hellscape we call the UK media.

    People are clicks, reads, shares (both kinds) to its corporate benefactors and beneficiaries. They’re ‘drunks’, or ‘benefit fraudsters’, not human beings with lives and loved ones, and stories of their own. It’s gutter outlets with these enormous platforms like Cornwall Live’s very indifference to this fact that means society will continue to let people like Duffy down. If there’s shame anywhere, lets lay it at the feet of these contemptible corporate media shills.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Gavin Ellis

    The New Zealand Herald and its publisher are failing to follow a golden rule: Engage with readers when they question your actions.

    The Herald is currently confronted by two controversies. The first is its decision to use artificial intelligence to write editorials. The second is its decision to publish a highly divisive advertising wrap-around paid for by the lobby group Hobson’s Pledge.

    In neither case has the newspaper or its owner NZME offered an explanation that justifies its decisions. Indeed, it has given little insight into what its decision-making processes were on either matter.

    Following RNZ’s revelations over The Herald’s use of iterative AI to write editorials, The Herald’s reaction was to simply say it did not apply sufficient “journalistic rigour” and that it would be calling a meeting of all editorial staff to discuss AI policy.

    This commentary last week posed a series of questions relating to the processes that went into the publication of those editorials. If they were answered at the staff meeting, neither I nor The Herald’s other readers are any the wiser.

    Staff were left in absolutely no doubt that what went on at that meeting was confidential and Herald staff I have spoken to have scrupulously observed that obligation not to disclose what occurred. NZME declined to comment to other media that enquired about the meeting (the fact it was taking place had been publicly disclosed).

    Instead, several days later the company used its customary conduit, editor-at-large Shayne Currie’s Media Insider column, to ensure the narrative remained positive.

    Review of protocols
    Currie disclosed some of what was discussed at the meeting (I guess he had a waiver on confidentiality) and said The Herald “will review and further tighten artificial intelligence protocols”. He did not, however disclose the mood of the newsroom in reaction to the news that editorials had been written by AI, choosing instead to merely report editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness “addressing concerns from staff”.

    Kirkness apparently told the meeting critical issues were “the level of human oversight, that the publication was transparent with readers, and that policies were continually reviewed and updated”.

    The controversial New Zealand Herald wrap-around advertisement last Wednesday
    The controversial New Zealand Herald wrap-around advertisement last Wednesday . . . the newspaper was immediately condemned for publishing it with Māori journalists expressing “profound shock and dismay”. Image: NZH screenshot APR

    None of that told readers how or why the editorials came to be robotically written in the first place, nor why the publication had failed to be transparent with readers. It certainly did not reveal whether the editor-in-chief had been taken to task by staff who, in private correspondence before the meeting, had expressed their dismay.

    The Herald’s current statement on its use of artificial intelligence includes no requirement for public disclosure of its use on any story. The only requirement for disclosure is when AI generated images are used on features or opinion pieces: “When we do this, we will acknowledge this in the image caption or credit.”

    I get the impression all other use of AI by The Herald is covered by its general statement that, yes, it does employ artificial intelligence. That disclosure is in a statement that you will find at the very bottom of The Herald website. You’ll find it here.

    Initially I went looking for it on the mobile app, then the app on my iPad. I gave up. I assume it’s there somewhere.

    NZME is doing the right thing by reviewing its policy, but it should not wait until that review is completed — and the current AI statement on the website presumably replaced — before offering adequate explanations and assurances to its readers.

    Fundamental principles
    There are fundamental principles here that do not require prolonged analysis. Editorials are the opinion of the newspaper — not iterative content — and must be written by designated staff overseen by the most senior editor on duty. Transparency is paramount and stories created by artificial intelligence should carry a disclosure, just as stories from non-Herald sources carry a credit line.

    Stuff’s Code of Practice is clear: “Any content (written, visual or audio) generated or substantially generated using generative AI will be transparently labelled outlining the nature of AI use, including the tool used.” It should be clear, too, to The Herald and its readers.

    Assurances can and should be given now.

    The Hobson’s Pledge advertisement that wrapped last Wednesday’s Herald is a different issue but, again, one the publisher has not handled well. It followed a government announcement that it disagrees with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation in a case defining the customary interests of iwi in the eastern Bay of Plenty, and it intends to change the Marine and Coastal Areas Act to set the bar higher for claims. The advertisement painted a picture of wholesale Māori “ownership” of the foreshore if the law did not change.

    The Herald was immediately condemned for publishing the wrap-around, with Māori journalists expressing “profound shock and dismay”, Te Pāti Māori saying it “will no longer engage” with the newspaper, and social media posts calling for boycott.

    The response from NZME was a statement that the company was “keenly aware of its obligations as a publisher and broadcaster, including in respect of legislation and Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) codes”.

    “Advertising responsibility sits with NZME’s commercial team and is separate to NZ Herald editorial.

    “The content is a paid ad from an independent advertiser and is clearly labelled as so.

    “There are thousands of ads placed across our platforms every week and publishing an ad is in no way NZME’s endorsement of the advertised message, products, services or other.

    “We’re reviewing our processes and policies around advocacy advertising.”

    Answer to obvious questions?
    All true (although in my day as editor I had responsibility for all published content), but that does not answer some obvious questions, the most important of which is whether it passed tests devised to deal with the thorny issue of advocacy advertising.

    Last night The Herald announced — again through Shayne Currie — that it had rejected a second advocacy advertisement that Hobson’s Pledge had tried to place with the newspaper. As to why, it again said no more than “we are reviewing our policies and processes”. There was no expression of the reasons, in the meantime, the ad had been rejected.

    The right to free expression is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights Act. That right, however, is not unlimited and judgment needs to be exercised in determining the boundaries in individual cases.

    The Advertising Standards Authority has acknowledged advocacy advertising presents some of the greatest challenges facing its complaints procedures. Before they reach the complaints stage (and the Hobson’s Pledge advertisement is apparently the subject of a number already), the same challenges face the publications asked to publish them.

    For that reason, the ASA has issued a fulsome guidance note on advocacy advertising. You can read the guidance here.

    This was a wrap-around of The Herald, meaning that, although it was clearly labelled as a paid advertisement, it sat directly beneath the paper’s own masthead, which is more significant than if it had been carried on an inside page. The connection with the masthead means even greater care needs to be taken by the publisher in determining whether to accept the advertisement for publication or not.

    The question NZME has yet to answer is whether it subjected the material to all of the tests set out in the ASA guidance note. If it did so and all the tests were passed by the first advertisement, there is a compelling free speech argument for its publication.

    Disclosure statement
    A decision to publish in such circumstances would benefit immensely from a disclosure statement from the editor (the custodian of the masthead) attesting to all of the steps that had been taken in judging fitness for publication. Similarly, readers should be informed whether the same tests had been applied in rejecting a second advertisement and how it differed from the one judged fit for publication.

    The guidance note sets out a list of points against which an advocacy advertisement should be weighed:

    • It must be clearly identified as an advertisement
    • It must clearly state the identity and position of the advertiser
    • Opinion must be clearly distinguishable from factual information
    • Factual information must be able to be substantiated
    • Any combination of opinion and fact must be justifiable
    • It must not contain anything that is indecent, or exploitative, or degrading or likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence, or give rise to hostility, contempt, abuse, or ridicule
    • Heed must be taken of the likely consumer takeout of the advertisement (in other words, whether there is there a contextual justification)

    The guidelines also deal with the weight given to academic studies, the status of the organisation placing the advocacy advertisement, and the use of such advertising by official bodies.

    I am making no judgement on the Hobson’s Pledge advertisements. If the first had been subjected to those tests by The Herald and had satisfactorily passed each of them, NZME could (and should) have informed readers of the fact.

    If the advertisement had failed any of the tests, the company would have had legitimate and defensible reasons for rejecting it. It presumably has those solid grounds for rejecting the second advertisement.

    Obviously contentious
    The published wrap-around’s subject matter was so obviously contentious that The Herald should have gone to some lengths in the same edition to explain its decision to run it. Assuming the application of the ASA guidelines determined that it could be published, readers should have been informed of that fact.

    Instead, they were given a bland statement of NZME’s awareness of standards, and little more in the announcement of the rejection of the second.

    Given the likelihood of adverse reaction from some quarters to publication, the first advertisement should also have been a statement from the publisher justifying publication, perhaps as a matter of free expression in which all sides of an issue should be allowed to be aired because, in the words of John Milton’s Areopagitica, “in a free and open encounter” truth would prevail.

    Similarly, last night it should have explained why the second iteration should not be subjected to that “free and open encounter”. In doing so, it might have invoked Stanley Fish’s essay There’s no such thing as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too in which he discusses the way in which free speech is, in fact, a space we carve out. It acknowledges that some forms of speech “will be heard as (quite literally) intolerable” and sit outside that space.

    Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes the website knightlyviews.com where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • This is the first in a series of three articles on Stand Up To Racism, left-wing protest movements, and accessibility for chronically ill and disabled people

    On Saturday 10 August, thousands of people across the UK took to the streets. There were many different events – like the estimated 15,000 people who were present in Belfast to the estimated 5,000 who protested outside the UK Reform Party’s HQ and then marched through the streets of Westminster, to finally reclaim Trafalgar square. This gathering of solidarity against racism, Islamophobia, and hatred towards refugees was organised by Stand Up To Racism in response to the far-right race riots and spread of disinformation in the wake of the Southport murders.

    Thanks to far-right, hate-spreading accounts on X like Tommy Robinson (not his real name btw), and the accumulation of false ideologies by both mainstream media and political careerists, thousands of far-right racist thugs took to the streets, rioting as well as attacking any Black and brown people that they could find.

    After watching these riots unfolding on social media, the news, and in some cases in our local communities, many of us where not only horrified and disgusted with these actions, we also wanted to do something about it.

    So, from the fantastic response like the ‘Nan against Nazis’ in Liverpool to the walls of protection around local mosques up and down the country, the left have been coming out – and coming out in numbers.

    Standing up to racism

    The Canary was on the ground at the events in Southampton:

    We were also in Brixton:

    And we were at the event outside of Reform UK’s HQ that then went through Westminster to Trafalgar Square in central London.

    Wearing our Stand Up To Racism t-shirts me and Steve Topple travelled to the event in Brixton via Uber. The driver that took us asked us when we got into his car what we were standing up for, not seeing our t-shirts properly. We both responded, “racism”. The Uber driver then turned round, looked at us properly and said “thank you so much” – which was really sad to hear and quite disgusting that he felt he even had to say it.

    During our 10-minute journey we discovered that this man was an African refugee who has been living and working in the UK for years along with his family and children who were born in the UK.

    We were discussing the horrors of recent events and the disgusting treatment of refugees or any Black or brown person in this country. He then told us that his teenage daughter, born in the UK, is currently asking to move to Africa. He explained that his daughter is so concerned about what might happen, she would rather move to a foreign country than stay here.

    This is what years of mainstream media narratives, political point scoring, and classism has caused – allowing racism, Islamophobia, and hatred towards Black and brown people to spread like Covid through an austerity-riddled population that is being divided and conquered by the real enemy; as someone said at Brixton, “the one’s that fly into the UK via jets, not the ones who come here via boats”.

    Marching through South London

    The event at Brixton started with speeches from members of Stand Up To Racism and from allies who discussed the issues that Black and brown people are facing both due to the recent riots and within growing movements and activism in general. Labour MP Bell Riberio-Addy spoke:

    We heard a powerful and emotional speech from an artist called Phoenix who, although slightly nervous, discussed the issues that Black and brown activists have faced whilst fighting for their rights – including around the impact the Black Lives Matter protests had, how activists were treated at the time, and how they continue to be affected – including living with PTSD. All the speakers were Black or brown, except for one white local councillor.

    After the speeches at Brixton the event took an interesting turn. In the spirit of DPAC, we began to march onto the road through Brixton. With police in tow, Stand Up To Racism and its supporters continued their march as a peaceful protest from Brixton to Victoria:

    Stand Up To Racism brixton

    Apart from the police attempting to push a man and unsuccessfully getting no reaction from him, or their attempt to tell another man who was pushing his child in a pram that this was child neglect, the march to Victoria was noisy but uneventful:

    On joining the other estimated 5,000 people at Farage HQ, the peaceful protest continued from Victoria, along past Westminster to finally finish in Trafalgar Square:

    Stand Up To Racism

    There’s a few ‘buts’ when we stand up to racism

    Going to this march and showing solidarity along with the thousands of people who also did across the country, regardless of the fact that I’m a chronically ill and a disabled activist, was for me really important.

    To see the faces of every person who came out, who were looking out of their windows, or who were supporting us as we walked through their communities was something I will never forget. And regardless of political views on the left, this is what we should all be about in my opinion. Inclusive movements that unite communities at a time when we need to show solidarity and fight for all of our human rights.

    However, they also need to be accessible for all – for everyone that wants to support these movements or protests, like the thousands of disabled and chronically ill people in this country that don’t really ever get represented, have a voice, or are thought about when actions are being created. The left really does need to do better. After all, disability never discriminates.

    What I have learned from this experience is there is little consideration, intentionally or not, for disabled and chronically ill activists at these types of events. I’m going to be looking at this more in a second article.

    I have also, after being subjected to abuse on X for going, realised that there is a section of the left, (yes, not the right), that do not support Stand Up To Racism. So, I’m going to be looking at the history of the group and what people say the problems with it are, in a third article.

    Despite people coming out to ‘stand up to racism’, it seems that along with the abuse and ableism in activism that exists we’re also going to need a “left-wing rule book” too, about what protests we can and can’t go to. That was news to me – and it might well be news to you, too.

    Featured image and additional images via the Canary

    By Nicola Jeffery

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Friday 9 August, the inquest into the death of very severe myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS) patient Maeve Boothby O’Neill concluded that she died of natural causes because of her ME.

    It was always unlikely that the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital that treated her was going to be found negligent. However, the coroner in the case has made the situation for everyone living with this devastating and potentially deadly illness in the UK a whole lot worse.

    Maeve: the most horrific of cases

    If you’re familiar with the case of Maeve, then I won’t need to furnish you with the details of how utterly heartbreaking and horrific it was. She died – effectively from starvation – on 3 October 2021, aged 27. Her death came after what can only be described as neglect, malpractice, and in some instances abuse, by the NHS.

    Her mother Sarah said in her witness statement submitted to the inquest:

    I believe the evidence shows Maeve is likely to have died from malnutrition and dehydration, because she had severe ME. I therefore believe her death was both premature and wholly preventable. As it is likely that her death could have been prevented, I am hoping the inquest will try to ascertain how three separate admissions to the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Hospital Trust (RDE) failed to save her life (chronology of events)…

    As an unqualified but concerned observer, it seemed to me the RDE did not respond to the severity of Maeve’s presentation, and failed in its duty of care and missed important opportunities to preserve the right to life; it did not refer to published guidance on ME, and it did not take available specialist expert advice on how to prevent malnutrition in severe ME.

    Sadly, this was not the outcome. In fact, some of the coroner’s conclusion may have just compounded the dire state for people with ME in the UK.

    A “true illness” is utterly subjective

    ITV News reported that assistant coroner Deborah Archer – barely fit for purpose and clearly either not paying attention to what was being said or not understanding it – said:

    she hoped important lessons will be learned from Maeve’s death and she said she did not find any of the clinicians who treated Maeve did not believe ME was a ‘true illness’

    Contrary to what some people are saying online, the coroner did NOT conclude ME was a “physical illness” – just a “true” one. Archer completely missed the point. The entrenched problem with ME is NOT whether doctors think it is a “true illness”. It is whether they believe ME is psychiatric, not physical.

    On day five of the inquest, Dr Kashyap Patel who had been involved in Maeve’s care at the hospital, was giving evidence. When asked by the coroner whether ME was real, he said he believed it had “physical symptoms” – but fell short of stating it was a physical illness. Sean O’Neill pressed him on whether he believed ME was a physical or psychiatric condition. Patel said:

    As far as I understand the cause is not known. I should not speculate. I’m not going to speculate how much is this, how much is that [physical versus psychiatric] – the fact we are all sitting and talking about it tells us we don’t know…

    We should not speculate and do what we can based on what we know at that particular time…

    I’m not in a position to speculate on the evidence [about ME] and give my opinion on it… the fact that everyone is arguing on it means we don’t know… I did not even think, fight, argue, with the diagnosis Maeve had… because… the point was to make her better at the time. Knowing what caused it would not have influenced what I or people like me would have done.

    That wordsoup effectively meant that Patel would not commit to whether or not he believed ME had a physical or psychiatric cause, or a combination of both.

    The inquest was littered with other examples of this – from the GP practice including psychiatry on Maeve’s care pathway to one consultant saying she had “hypermania” via another who treated Maeve at the hospital saying:

    I do not know what the cause of ME is. Therefore I’m not able to say if it is or is not a physical condition. That isn’t at all the same as saying I believe it isn’t… I find the literature generally to be unclear. For me the focus needs to be on what management does a patient need who is suffering with that diagnosis.

    So, what Deborah Archer has done is merely compound the debate around whether ME is physical or psychiatric. She has given credence – and leverage – to the psychiatry lobby which would have that ME is a condition that primarily needs to be treated with exercise and talking therapies.

    Doubling down

    Archer then compounded this by saying:

    In conclusion there is no known treatment of ME… The reality of this case is it is not possible for me to say if any treatment could’ve halted her decline – I hope lessons will be learned in the hope future deaths can be prevented.

    In saying this, she threw Dr William Weir – one of, if not the, leading ME expert in the UK – further under the bus. This came after his peers in the medical profession at Royal Devon and Exeter hospital had already put him under there, after passively-aggressively disparaging him throughout the inquest.

    However, crucially Deborah Archer has also set back the entire ME community. By saying there was nothing more the alleged medical professionals at Devon and Exeter could have done, she has given other hospitals a free pass to dismiss other very severe ME patients, their families, and people like William.

    Carla Naoum, currently being mistreated, neglected, and abused in West Middlesex hospital being a case in point. Doctors there are also ignoring William Weir’s repeated advice and Carla is now in a perilous state.

    Knowing her situation first hand, I know it has been near-identical in many respects to Maeve’s. The hospital’s approach to feeding, for example, has been very similar – with the same, incorrect assumptions around issues like aspiration and a refusal to change from an NG tube or to alter the position at which she lies.

    Archer’s conclusion will effectively give legitimacy to West Middlesex’s approach of ignoring the family and ME experts, and treating Carla in the way they think is appropriate, despite it making her demonstrably worse. This now is, thanks to Archer, ‘because there’s nothing that West Middlesex can do that they’re not doing already’.

    There was plenty more doctors could have done for Maeve – except they chose to ignore William, Sarah, and Maeve herself. Archer has now legitimised NHS doctor’s entrenched dogma surrounding ME. This will not be changing anytime soon – because of the lackluster NICE guidelines and the likelihood the government’s ME Delivery Plan will also be a whitewash.

    An inquest was not bringing Maeve back – but it could have changed things for other people with ME

    Ultimately, though, Maeve’s inquest was never going to be a watershed moment for the ME community. As former barrister and person with ME Valerie Eliot Smith wrote for David Tuller’s Virology:

    An inquest is not a public inquiry, as the coroner in this case has emphasised. The remit of an inquest is much narrower and confined to the death in question…

    An inquest is not a trial nor is it about apportioning blame. It is confined to establishing the facts and reaching a conclusion in a statutory form.

    Anyone watching knows that Royal Devon and Exeter hospital catastrophically failed Maeve due to misogyny, dogma, negligence, ignorance, and entrenched God complexes.

    An inquest was never going to address that.

    Nor was it going to bring Maeve back.

    However, what it and the coroner have done is muddied the already murky waters of just how the NHS supports people living with ME even further. This leaves people with severe and very severe ME in an even more perilous position than they were already.

    Featured image supplied

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The post What Do They Want Us to Believe? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Let’s call it exactly what it is. Far-right racist, Islamophobic terrorism and race riots.

    Filipino nurses attacked, an Asian man stabbed at a train station, mosques under siege, a Muslim bus driver racially abused in London, and businesses destroyed by gangs of fascist, feral thugs. Once peaceful communities are now fearing for their safety as hoards of poster children for pro-choice roam the streets, spilling cans of Stella down the front of their In-ger-land football shirts.

    The suitless Farage, Tommy Robinson, was absolutely right when he claimed “none of us are feeling safe in our own country, in our own towns”.

    Except it is our communities that are in danger of a visit from his brainless bunch of follicly-challenged far-right thugs.

    Questions, questions, questions

    Why does ‘Robinson’ even begin to think of Britain as his own country anyway? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the poisonous hate goblin with the charm and scent of an unflushed toilet after an £8 Wetherspoons curry night seems more Israel first than Britain first these days.

    Whoever thought that “taking back our country” would involve brazenly stealing something that someone else has worked hard for? Only a far-right imbecile whose only tangible purpose in life is to be an organ donor.

    What kind of crayon-wielding twat would think “protecting our women and children” would involve setting fire to a budget hotel that is housing… yep, you guessed it… women and children? An inadequate lump of Islamophobic, racist pig shit.

    And why oh why would anyone in their right mind loot a fucking Greggs for a steak bake when you can get a meal deal in Tesco for £3.50?

    I think I’m supposed to suggest the occasional answer in my columns, so please do forgive me for the barrage of questions because I’m struggling to understand how these far-right thugs with the room temperature IQ actually manage to go about their days without endangering themselves and the people around them.

    Swindon: ‘give us are cuntry back’

    This past Wednesday was an interesting day in Swindon (enter joke here folks).

    Local social media was alight with the news of the fash making their way to sleepy Swindon for one of these “give us are cuntry back” gatherings. Shops closed early, the shutters went down on some business fronts, but the vast majority of us that don’t believe everything that we read on Facebook just went about our days.

    Was it the THIRTEEN Swindonian Greggs outlets that tempted Tommy’s trash to the northern part of the Islamic republic of… erm… Wiltshire?

    Perhaps the grubby little cue-ball bonced Faragists wanted to take on the extreme challenge of crossing Swindon’s infamous Magic Roundabout without getting stampeded by both of Swindon Town’s fans?

    But for the second time in just five days, the gammon stayed under the grill, Swindon’s anti-racist protestors stood in solidarity, and not a single Andrew Tate Stan was to be seen or heard.

    Your race riots have no place here

    And as the week progressed, this became a recurring theme as tens-of-thousands of anti-racist demonstrators filled the streets of England to defend the values of tolerance, compassion, and not kicking the shit out of someone on the say-so of these self-styled right-wing “influencers”.

    This is what we love to see. Solidarity amongst the people. We will not be cowed, we will not let them win. We’ve been through austerity and Covid together in recent years. We have helplessly witnessed a brutal live-streamed genocide. As if we are ever going to let these chronic malcontents even begin to dictate our way of life.

    The hatred and venom we have seen pouring on to the streets has no place here. For every sexually frustrated far-right rioter with the pineapple cube body odour are a thousand decent, caring, anti-racist humans that couldn’t care less what colour your skin is or what god you choose to pray to.

    Why would we? Haven’t we got enough struggles going on in our own lives already? How insecure must these flag-wielding idiots actually be to be consumed with so much hatred for our family, friends, and neighbours?

    The power of the people must continue

    Anti-racist and anti-fascist isn’t a special name you can band about for a couple of weeks for a few likes. It is a non-negotiable default position that you pick up from the moment you know the difference between right and wrong.

    The small-boat-obsessed Daily Mailhistorically the establishment’s most fervently anti-refugee tabloid — has spent decades whipping up hatred towards ethnic minorities and those seeking sanctuary on our shores.

    But even they were forced to ironically and hypocritically celebrate the sight of thousands upon thousands of people from all walks of life that had turned out to counter-protest the handful of pond life that was intent on wreaking havoc in our communities.

    The power of the people has won through. Useless Starmer might have the podium, and the Mail may well have the platform, but we’ve got the people, and the people united, will never be defeated.

    No more race riots. Never again.

    Again, I would urge the prime minister to proscribe the Patriotic Alternative, Robinson, and all those intent on spreading misinformation and disinformation.

    Farage needs to face a full police investigation regarding his ‘they’re not telling us something’ comment, and be charged with incitement to violence.

    And the punishment for the seven hundred or so egg head fash that have been arrested for their part in this deeply troubling episode must be severe enough to act as a deterrent against potential future race riots.

    Locking up climate activists for five years while giving a brick-throwing hoodlum a slap on the wrist for a bit of racist terrorism doesn’t sit well with me.

    If we are to put the fascist far-right in history’s dustbin, let us do it now.

    Let’s not wait five years to see how they get on at the next election. Let’s not wait for further race riots in our communities.

    Let’s do it now.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.