radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Even Laura Kuenssberg is concerned that Labour has gone full-on Tory

    At this point, it seems like most people in the UK want the Tories out of office – largely because of the terrible policies they’ve inflicted. As such, it’s concerning to see Labour aligning themselves so closely with the Tories’ policy platform. It’s a concern that even Tories seem to share at this point if Laura Kuenssberg’s endless supply of anonymous sources is anything to go by. As she writes in her latest blog:

    Whatever cunning wheezes No 10 conjures up, the hole the Conservatives need to climb out of is very deep.

    That’s not just because of the chaos of last year which angered so many of the public. Not just because any party that has been in power for this long is vulnerable to voters just feeling they have had enough.

    But it is also harder to run persuasive campaigns when the contrasts with your rivals are less pronounced. One minister worries the “big dividing lines” just are not there.

    Dividing lines

    Polling shows that the Tories are about as unpopular as they have been at any point in the past two decades. This isn’t because the Tories are any less awful now than when they first got in; it’s because a wider swathe of the population have felt the impacts. It’s easy to turn a blind eye when the government is driving disabled people to suicide or impoverishing children. But it’s much harder to do when the price of diesel goes up by several pence per litre.

    The anonymous Tories queuing up to bare their deepest worries to Kuenssberg are right to suggest that any sort of dividing lines would give them a campaign line. While not screwing people over seems like a winning policy platform, you have to factor in the British media.

    If Labour was to campaign on not starving children, the British rags would sell this as ‘funding tiny scroungers’. Outlets like the Guardian would make a big show about how deeply it felt for these starving kids, but it would also worry that feeding them would be an electoral liability.

    So, what should Labour do if running on not-shit policies is going to attract negative press from the billionaire-backed British press? I’d argue there are two things.

    1. Run on good policies anyway.
    2. Get good at politics and not be such chicken shits.

    Swing right

    Of course, this last point is overly generous to Labour in that it assumes something we all know isn’t true: that Keir Starmer would like to do the right thing, but he thinks the smart political move is to have no friction with the press whatsoever. That isn’t the case, though, is it? Starmer is lurching rightwards because that’s where he wants to be – like a Saturday night sessionist stumbling towards the kebab shop:

    Several of Kuenssberg’s anonymous sources had things to say like this:

    Those lucky enough to have got their posteriors on the leather seats of ministerial cars all know the situation is bad. “The numbers don’t lie,” a senior minister tells me. Another cabinet minister says “there is no point pretending we are not under pressure and it is going to get worse”.

    Another member of the government suggests the chances of turning the situation round are miniscule: “The path was always narrow, now it is looking vanishingly narrow.”

    Others said:

    But the Conservatives have been in the doldrums for a long time. Ministers know they are soaking up a sense that many of the public are profoundly fed up.

    One of the cabinet ministers I spoke to admits: “The public is bored with us and frustrated that things have been announced that haven’t been delivered.”

    The sight of queues at airports, more rail and doctors’ strikes, and this week children not being able to go back to school because of the risk of buildings collapsing all contribute to a tangible sense among many voters that lots about our country just does not really work.

    Labour: next stop the right-wing gravy train

    While we should always doubt the intentions of Kuenssberg’s anonymous political sources, it’s unclear what they expect to achieve from these revelations. Potentially some of them want PM Rishi Sunak to lurch further right himself, but if they do want that, they’re not making it clear. It actually reads like they’re genuinely despondent, and they’re telling Kuenssberg because it’s easier than filling out an expenses form for a therapist.

    This tells us something else, anyway – namely that bar some miraculous event, everyone knows the Tories are on their way out. Given the amount of time left between now and the next election, Labour doesn’t just have unbelievable odds of winning; it also has time to set out a progressive policy platform, and to use the absolute state of Tory Britain to sell it.

    Starmer’s not doing that because he doesn’t want to. And the Tories are worried for the same reason we all should be – namely that the right-wing gravy train is going to be stopping exclusively at Labour’s station for the next few years.

    Featured image via Just Stop Oil – YouTube

    By John Shafthauer

  • Junior and senior doctors to strike together in England for the first time

    On 31 August, the British Medical Association (BMA) announced that junior and senior doctors in England will go on strike together for the first time in the history of the NHS. This makes a new escalation in the workers’ long-running dispute with the government over pay and working conditions.

    Junior doctors have already staged several days of strike action in recent months, and will walk out again in September. The BMA stated that they’ll strike on September 20-22, with one day coinciding with a strike by consultants. Then, junior doctors and consultants will also strike at the same time on October 2-4.

    98% of junior doctors voted in favour of continuing industrial action, with a 71% turnout. This has renewed the mandate through to 29 February 2024 – a further six months.

    ‘No further negotiations’ with BMA

    The Tory government has warned that there will be no further negotiations. They offered junior doctors a pay rise of just 6%, along with an additional consolidated increase of ÂŁ1,250. Consultants also received an offer of 6%. This would do little to counter the fact that doctors’ take-home pay has been eroded over the last 15 years as salaries have failed to keep pace with inflation.

    Health secretary Steve Barclay urged the BMA “to call an end to this callous and calculated disruption”. He claimed that nearly 900,000 appointments have been cancelled due to strike action, adding:

    I fear the BMA’s hardline stance and threat of indefinite action means this number will only keep rising.

    However, the NHS professionals reminded Barclay that the government could end the strike at any time. As a representative of the junior doctors stated:

    We are prepared to continue with our industrial action, but we don’t have to – the prime minister has the power to halt any further action by making us a credible offer that we can put to our members.

    An untenable position

    Rob Laurenson and Vivek Trivedi, co-chairs of the BMA’s junior doctor committee, highlighted the fact that the NHS has already lost around £1bn due to strike action. This is roughly the same amount it would have cost to award the junior doctors their original demands.

    The two stressed that:

    There can be no more delaying, no more wasting time with impositions of pay deals, no more declarations that strikes must end before even stepping in the room with us.

    If he does not come to the table with a credible offer on pay, he will face another six months of strike action. And another six months after, and after that, if [Sunak] continues to ignore us.

    He knows the stakes, he knows our ask, and now he knows our resolve. The prime minister faces a profession united in its determination to address pay erosion.

    Echoing Laurenson and Trivedi’s emphasis on the doctors’ united front, chair of the BMA consultants committee Vishal Sharma added:

    Now, facing the prospect of six months’ more action, including days of both junior and consultant walkouts, surely the severity of the situation with doctors’ pay could not be clearer?

    Our message is simple: work with us, negotiate with us both and we can look forward not to months of more walkouts but instead to a bigger, better valued and more effective medical workforce fit for the future.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via British Medical Association

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Shapps’ appointment as defence secretary is as confusing to Tories as it is to the rest of us

    The government has now appointed Grant Shapps as defence secretary following Ben Wallace‘s resignation yesterday – and even some Tories are upset with the choice of “Rent-a-Minister” Schapps, a man who’s had five different cabinet roles in the past 12 months alone.

    ‘He fucked the railways, now he’ll fuck the country’

    Wallace stepped down as defence minister on 31 August, having committed to doing so back in July. In his letter, Wallace wrote that he wanted to:

    invest in the parts of life that I have neglected, and to explore new opportunities.

    With Wallace gone, prime minister Rishi Sunak drafted in Shapps for his fifth cabinet role in the past year. The decision was immediately met with a combination of humour and horror, including Green Party MP Caroline Lucas describing the new defence secretary as a “Rent-a-Minister”:

    These comments are not undeserved. Not only does Shapps’ rapid revolving-door career bring his knowledge of any specific department into question, but he also has a record of questionable decisions and outright failures.

    Fake names and secret pay deals

    Shapps’ mishaps run from the minor to the massive. Most famously, he used a number of pseudonyms to continue running a web marketing business banned by Google after being elected as an MP. He denied the claims for years until the Guardian exposed him in March 2015. He was the Conservative Party chair at the time.

    This scandal led to Shapps’ reappointment as minister for international development. He was in this post for less than a year before resigning due to another scandal. The Guardian reported in November 2015 that Schapps:

    resigned from the government in disgrace in the wake of revelations that he had been warned about bullying in the party before the death of one of its young activists.

    In 2018, Labour called for an inquiry into Shapps because of his position in cryptocurrency firm OpenBrix, when he was just an MP. The Financial Times had uncovered a “secret pay deal” that saw OpenBrix planning to pay Shapps in tokens worth around ÂŁ170,000. Despite that, the MP had registered his association with the company as “unpaid”.

    The then-transport secretary was also caught up in the ‘VIP lanes’ scandals during the Covid-19 pandemic. Shapps referred Eyespace Eyewear through the government’s high-priority lane for PPE equipment, subsequently winning a ÂŁ1.4m contract. It turned out the company is owned by one of Shapps’ constituents, though the MP denied any knowledge of that.

    Not every mistake was a headline-grabber, though. Shapps has managed to fuck up in lots of small ways too. In June, the Canary reported on his avoidance of a parliamentary debate on the environmental impact of fossil fuels. He was energy secretary at the time. Meanwhile, in August last year, as transport minister, he was apparently unable to read a train timetable. And he even managed to go on holiday to Spain in August 2020 despite knowing the UK government was about to impose travel quarantine rules.

    These are, of course, just some of Shapps’ many fuckups.

    Shapps: encyclopedia salesman

    Shapps hasn’t won many people over, as even Tories came out against Sunak’s appointment of him as defence secretary. According to Sky News, one Tory MP said:

    Shapps is such an uninspired choice as defence secretary. This man… only cares about photos and gimmicky press releases. What a wasted opportunity by Rishi, who could have appointed somebody of substance.

    While another unnamed MP said:

    He sold encyclopedias. It’s a joke given that we’re at war.

    The presenter clarified that, in fact, it is Ukraine at war and the UK is “assisting them”.

    While Shapps’ rent-a-minister reputation can seem ridiculous to the public, it’s catnip to many at the top of the party. The man has shown himself willing to roll over to protect colleagues, such as during the 2015 suicide scandal when Shapps said his resignation meant the “buck should stop” with him. As the Daily Express admiringly proclaimed, Shapps is a minister “willing to get his hands dirty wherver [sic] and whenever necessary”.

    Let’s face it, Shapps’ legacy of mishaps and bullshit can’t make him much worse than any other Tory senior minister right now. Those fawning over Wallace are choosing to blinker themselves to his own dodgy history, including his involvement in an expenses scandal and a bizarre lashing-out at anti-hunting activists.

    What Sunak’s appointment of Shapps does show, though, is that the Tory party has run out of ideas. A general election is looming and Sunak’s desperately trying to keep everything together. However, if Shapps’ history is anything to go by, he’ll soon be helping bring the party down even further.

    Featured image via UK Government/Flickr

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • First the Canary, now the CPAG sounds the alarm over Tax Credit claimants not getting Universal Credit

    The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has issued a warning about Tax Credits. It’s over the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and its managed migration process for claimants over to Universal Credit. The charity says that, potentially, 28% of Tax Credits claimants may lose all their benefits when the DWP forces them onto Universal Credit. It follows analysis from the Canary in August which produced similar findings.

    Tax Credits and managed migration

    Managed migration is where the DWP forces people on old-style benefits like Tax Credits to move to Universal Credit. Recently, the department has been doing this for Tax Credit claimants, and has released some figures on the results. As the Canary wrote on 21 August, we analysed the DWP’s data between July 2022 and March 2023. This was mostly for single Tax Credits claimants. We found that:

    • 82% of all managed migration claimants were women, nearly all of whom were previously claiming tax credits.
    • 24% of people’s claims were closed, presumably leaving them with no benefits at all.
    • Of these, around 79% were women.

    As we wrote at the time:

    24% of people’s benefits stopping is a large number, and problematic. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of them being women is of concern, too.

    Overall, the Canary found that 135,000 single Tax Credits claimants could lose the benefits with the move to Universal Credit. Now, the CPAG has also done similar research – and its come out with a very similar result.

    Universal Credit leaving people without benefits

    The CPAG has also looked at the same figures. However, it used a smaller window of time – between November 2022 and March 2023. As it noted on its website, it found:

    only two thirds of people (1,800) sent a migration notice between November 2022 and March 2023 made a successful UC [Universal Credit] claim before their migration deadline. A further 5 per cent (140 claimants) made a claim after their deadline had passed. Twenty-eight per cent (770 claimants) did not claim UC at all and had their current benefit payments terminated.

    So, the CPAG says 28% of single Tax Credits claimants ended up with no benefits at all. It predicts that, provided the DWP rolls out managed migration at its planned pace (500,000 households by April 2024):

    If the proportion of ‘no-claims’ stays at 28%, 140,000 households could have their current benefits stopped.

    However, there is a problem with the CPAG’s ‘140,000 households’ figure. It uses the 28% the charity found for single claimants only, whereas the 140,000 figure is based on the DWP moving 500,000 claims of all types of Tax Credits over to Universal Credit by the end of March 2024 – not just single claimants. As the department previously said:

    It should be noted that claimants who have been sent an MN to date will not be representative of the complete population who will be sent an MN.

    In particular, the vast majority so far have been single TC [tax credits] households whose likelihood of claiming UC
 may be different to couple TC households and/or DWP legacy benefit claimants, the majority of whom have not yet been sent a migration notice.

    The point being, it might be that fewer families on Tax Credits will lose their benefits than the number of single people who lost theirs. So, the CPAG’s figure of 140,000 should be approached with caution. The Canary previously put the figure at 135,000 people across the entire cohort of single Tax Credits claimants – not just up until April 2024.

    ‘Significant’ consequences for claimants

    Regardless, the fact that both the Canary and CPAG have both come up with similar figures for single claimants is extremely worrying. As the charity summed up [pdf, p11]:

    In some cases, the claimant will have made an informed choice that they did not want to move to UC. But for many claimants the financial consequences of not moving to UC will be significant and the DWP has not published data on the income lost by those who did not to move to UC. Even those with small tax credit awards will miss out on forthcoming cost of living payments worth ÂŁ600, and may miss out on other kinds of support accessed through UC (such as money towards childcare costs).

    It’s crucial that the DWP improves the managed migration process to eliminate cases where people do not move because they have not fully grasped the financial implications or have found the process inaccessible.

    It is highly unlikely the DWP will “improve” managed migration, unless it’s forced to. The CPAG has previously brought successful court cases on Universal Credit against the DWP. So, it might like to start considering another one now.

    Featured image via UK government – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Judge acquits two Palestine Action protesters who shut down a drone factory because their actions were ‘proportionate’

    A judge has acquitted two Palestine Action activists after they blockade the entrance to a drone engine-making factory that supplies Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest privately owned arms company. Crucially, the judge let them off using a precedent of proportionately versus what they were protesting – that is, the pair’s actions were reasonable compared to what the drones would have done in the Occupied Territories.

    Palestine Action: blockading Elbit subsidiary UAV Engines

    Back in September 2022, Jasmine and Iola were protesting at UAV Engines Ltd, which is owned by Elbit Systems. This was part of an ongoing activist camp at the site in Shenstone. UAV specialises in making engines for combat drones. Palestine Action said in a press release that:

    Elbit openly market these as ‘battle-tested’ on the Palestinian population. The Hermes 450 aircraft has been used to surveil and attack the people of Gaza for over a decade, decimating thousands of lives.

    UAV Engines also manufactures parts for the Watchkeeper drone. The UK government uses this to surveil migrants seeking refuge here. This is despite attempts by the company, and the government, to deny that the Israeli military uses UAV Engines’ products. However, an Information Commission Office investigation revealed that UAV Engines holds a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the Israeli military, stopping it from saying it supplies them.

    So, it’s of little wonder Palestine Action targeted the factory. As the group said on its website, on 7 September 2022 activists blocked the gates of the UAV Engines factory with two cars, forcing the factory to close for a day. The group added that:

    The activists behind the wheel threw paint and quickly initiated lock-ons, preventing removal of themselves and the vehicles from the location and leaving operations halted at UAV Engines.

    Using, then setting, a precedent?

    Predictably, cops eventually arrested ten activists including Jasmine and Iola. However, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) looked at the case, it gave notices of ‘no further action’, meaning no criminal charges would be brought against them:

    However, UAV Engines reviewed this decision, which led to the CPS reversing its decision and subsequently charging the two. Their trial at Walsall Magistrates Court lasted two days, starting on 29 August. Both defendants gave evidence of crimes committed against the Palestinian people by the targeted arms factory. Clearly, the judge found Jasmine and Iola’s arguments compelling.

    On Wednesday 30 August, a judge found Jasmine and Iola not guilty of ‘obstruction of the highway’. The ruling was based on the principle of proportionality. This was established in the 2021 Supreme Court case of DPP v Ziegler. So, Jasmine and Iola were acquitted as, according to Palestine Action:

    the judge found their action was proportionate in comparison to the crimes against humanity which they were acting to stop.

    With further trials of Palestine Action activists coming up, the judge’s use of this precedent could prove crucial in future outcomes.

    Feature image via Martin Pope/Palestine Action 

    By Steve Topple

  • The scandal over government-owned flats in Islington poses the question ‘how many more are there?’

    A block of Ministry of Justice (MoJ)-owned flats in Islington has been lying empty for years – all while desperate families wait for accommodation. So, campaigners took over the flats in protest – but were met by a ridiculous response from the cops.

    The protest highlighted the issue of vacant government residential properties. Moreover, the government doesn’t say how many empty homes it owns – and all the while, people live through a housing crisis.

    Islington residents fighting for homes

    In Islington, there has been a long-running local campaign to get the MoJ to hand over 28 empty flats to the council. Currently, there are around 15,000 households on the borough’s housing waiting list, with 1,000 in temporary accommodation – that is, homeless.

    The MoJ is refusing to give up the flats, though, as it wants to sell them to a developer to make a profit. These flats were formerly accommodation for prison officers and their families.

    Islington council has been trying to get the department to hand over the flats for years. It’s even gone to court, and won. However, the MoJ still won’t hand them over. Moreover, since 2016 it’s paid out over ÂŁ600,000 of public money in council tax – despite the most of the flats being empty for over a quarter of a century. As the BBC reported, under council tax rules the MoJ:

    must now pay 300% council tax, the rate charged for homes vacant for a decade or more.

    Protest and occupation

    So, Housing Rebellion, Homes For All, and other activists protested at the flats on Saturday 29 August:

    Protest at MoJ flats in Islington

    Protest at MoJ flats in Islington

    Climate campaigner Zaz said:

    We need to protest and occupy every empty building to highlight this injustice. 40% of UK carbon emissions come from construction and buildings, so it is absolute insanity to allow developers to keep building luxury developments when there are empty buildings like this that could be retrofitted to provide the warm dry affordable homes that we need.

    Inside, the Islington flats were a mess:

    Inside the flats in Islington

    Inside MoJ flats

    Then, cops turned up – for what purpose is not clear:

    Police at the flats

    Housing Rebellion campaigner Alex said:

    I couldn’t believe it when dozens of police turned up to protect an empty building! Then they threaten people with arrest for criminal damage when the real crime is leaving these much needed homes to rot for over 10 years. We are in a climate and housing crisis and we need these homes to be refurbished and given to families who live in temporary accommodation or been waiting years on council housing lists.

    After expelling them from the Islington site, cops then followed the activists to a social centre in East London where they were holding training workshops. Tamsin from Housing Rebellion said:

    We won’t be intimidated from organising peaceful protest. Over 80 people joined the training workshops this weekend and we know there is a groundswell of anger over housing and the environment and people want to find ways to take action. We had all sorts of people come along, some from housing estates facing demolition, some private renters wanting to know their rights and how to resist evictions. As long as these injustices continue, we will hold more actions.

    How many government homes are there?

    As Housing Rebellion stated in a press release, the protest took place in the context of:

    • over 34,000 empty homes across London, the highest number since 2010
    • over 42,000 households with children living in temporary accommodation in the city
    • over 16,000 households on the waiting list in Islington alone

    Islington council has not made entirely clear what it would do with the flats if it could get them. As BBC News reported, in 2019 the council wanted to turn them into “short-term lets” – that is, more temporary accommodation. Also, by the council’s own criteria only around 10 of the flats would need to be for social rent in any development. Neither of those proposals should suffice when 1,000 households are already homeless in the borough.

    On top of this, the story also highlights the issue of empty government residential buildings – or rather, the lack of government transparency on the issue. It stopped publishing data on its property and land ownership in 2019/2020. So, there is no up-to-date information on just what the government is holding onto – meaning there could be more properties like the ones the MoJ has in Islington.

    It’s obscene that during a housing crisis the government is holding on to properties that families could live in. However, it’s par for the course when Tories are in charge.

    Featured image and additional images via Housing Rebellion 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The reality for unpaid carers is laid bare in a new report – while most of the public say they need more money

    The majority of people think unpaid carers need more money than they currently get. That’s the verdict of a new piece of research, which also reveals that every week people perform over 67m hours worth of support in unpaid caring roles.

    Unpaid carers: supporting people in their millions

    Overall, the last census said there were 5.7 million unpaid carers in the UK. However, charity Carers UK believes the figure is likely nearer 11.5 million. The government gives unpaid carers just ÂŁ76.75 a week – and they’re only entitled to this if they do 35 hours a week or more.

    So, TakingCare has released a report called Unpaid and Under Pressure. It looks at the state of unpaid caring in the UK – specifically relating to adult children and their older parents.

    The report found that overall:

    • Women, typically daughters, aged 55-59 are most likely to care for elderly parents.
    • 1 in 3 adults would give up work to care for elderly parents.
    • The amount of Carers Allowance benefits claimed in 2022 was ÂŁ3.2 million.
    • 67,300,000 hours of care are performed every week in the UK by unpaid carers.
    • Social care costs and having ‘no one else’ are the biggest reasons women make this decision.

    TakingCare’s research also threw up some interesting perspectives. As it says on its website, it found that:

    just 1 in 10 adults surveyed have discussed care plans with their parents and only 4% have discussed what they would want to happen in the future with their partners.

    More than 50% of people aged 50+ have not discussed future care plans with their elderly relatives…

    Plus:

    Over two-thirds of over 70s have not discussed care plans with their adult children.

    ‘Left lying in the garden’

    Jacqueline Hooton is a healthy ageing influencer. She lives in Bognor Regis, and has over 250K followers on her Instagram account @hergardengym. Hooton works full time and has two older children living at home, as well as a son at university. Like many women, she has now taken on the responsibility of supporting her elderly parents alongside her family responsibilities and work commitments.

    Hooton’s recent experience highlights the situation for many older people and their children. She said in a press release:

    Despite telling me not to worry, I was understandably anxious when I received this message from my mother recently. My father is eighty-five years old, and my mother is eighty. They have lived in their seaside cottage for over fifty years, and it’s where I grew up. I live a five-minute walk away from my parents, so when I received the message from my mother telling me she’d had a fall, I was able to visit her straight away. I was concerned when I saw her as her face was bloodied and bruised, and she had sustained several other cuts and bruises to her limbs. Luckily, she didn’t break anything though.

    My parents are more fortunate than many older adults who live alone. On the day my mother fell she knew my father would eventually find her. However, she fell over in the garden at the back of the house, my father was in the front of the house at the time and didn’t hear her calling for help. This experience made me, and them, realise that despite my parents relatively good health, and having one another, they are still potentially vulnerable. If my father had been out swimming or playing golf when my mother fell, she could have been left lying in the garden for some considerable time.

    This kind of situation is, as Hooton pointed out, a relatively fortunate one.

    The rich/poor, man/woman divide

    Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that there is a stark rich and poor divide in England and Wales when it comes to unpaid carers:

    There was a higher percentage of people providing unpaid care in the most deprived areas in England and Wales (10.1% and 11.5% respectively) compared with the least deprived areas, which had the lowest percentage of people providing unpaid care in both England and Wales (8.1% and 9.7%, respectively).

    Little wonder, then, that TalkingCare found one of the top reasons people become unpaid carers is because people can’t afford care homes:

    Unpaid carer survey one

    So, it would seem prudent for the government to at least provide unpaid carers with a decent level of support. Of course, this is not the case with Carer’s Allowance being pitifully low. TalkingCare found that the public agree unpaid carers need more money. Its research highlighted that, in the context of how much people thought they would need a week to be an unpaid carer:

    • 80% said it would be over ÂŁ100 a week.
    • 50% said over ÂŁ200.

    unpaid carers survey three

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, it seems that patriarchal attitudes still exist around unpaid caring, too. TalkingCare’s survey found that:

    Two-thirds of those surveyed believed that daughters should be the ones to care for their elderly parents rather than sons

    Data backs this up, with the Local Government Association reporting that in 2021:

    900,000 full-time unpaid carers nationally – most of them women – rely on Carer’s Allowance

    The ONS also noted this, finding that in England 10.3% of women are unpaid carers versus 7.6% of men.

    Rethinking caring

    As Hooton pointed out, the precariousness of the situation for older people and their unpaid carers is very real:

    Whilst I only live a short distance away, and could get to my parents quickly if required, this relies on one of my parents being able to contact me.

    If someone has a fall and can’t get to a phone, they may not be able to summon help, and in some cases, people may fall and sustain a significant injury or lose consciousness.

    Plus, around 120,000 children in England and Wales aged 5-17 are unpaid carers. Moreover, the Carers Trust found that 31% of unpaid carers had seen their own health and wellbeing suffer as a result of their role. As the Trades Union Congress (TUC) recently found, there are currently 152,000 vacancies in social care. This means one in 10 jobs aren’t filled. It also found 61% of social care workers earned less than the real Living Wage.

    So, with little support from government, a crisis in social care, and more and more people needing support, the state continues to put unpaid carers under undue pressure. Radical change is needed to resolve this situation.

    Featured image via Search etc agency

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • With DSEI looming, it’s once again time to ‘stop the arms fair’ in its tracks

    Campaigners are getting ready to resist Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI), one of the world’s largest arms fairs.

    DSEI: courting human rights-abusing nations

    DSEI is taking place at the ExCeL centre in London between 12 and 15 September. As Emily Apple previously reported for the Canary:

    Taking place every two years – supported by the UK government, and organised by Clarion Events – DSEI is a massive event for arms dealers. One of its primary functions is to allow arms companies to network with representatives from some of the world’s most repressive regimes. Companies will encourage delegates from human-rights-abusing nations such as Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to buy the latest weapons to suppress their own populations and/or to wage war against others.

    There is no pretense. DSEI exists to connect buyers and sellers. It exists to make deals that will devastate people’s lives.

    This year, over 2,800 defence and security suppliers will be courting deals. However, every time DSEI takes place, activists also descend on the ExCeL centre and its locality to protest it. Stop the Arms Fair (STAF) organises the resistance – and the Canary has repeatedly reported on this bi-annual horror show.  As we reported in 2017:

    Demonstrations happened throughout the week, with people performing ‘lock ons’ to lorries, blockading roads and camping out. Groups working alongside STAF included legal observers from Green and Black Cross, the Network for Police Monitoring (NetPol) and the British Quakers.

    That year, STAF organised a ‘Carnival of Resistance’. However, as is usually the case, the protests and events were marred by over-the-top and heavy-handed policing from the cops:

    DSEI Five

    In 2019, cops arrested over 110 people – including Canary journalists. Then, in 2021, resistance to DSEI was strong again. So, 2023’s arms fair looks set to be against a similar backdrop of protest.

    ‘Shut this arms fair down for good’

    This year, protests will begin on Monday 4 September, lasting for two weeks. The first week will target the setting up of the arms fair. STAF is coordinating the fortnight of resistance, with other groups organising specific events or days. These days will highlight the intersections of the arms trade and the different areas and communities it impacts, including migrant justice, arms sales to Israel, the climate crisis, policing and prisons, and more. You can find a full lost of STAF’s events here:

    Former Canary journalist Emily Apple is Campaign Against Arms Trade’s media coordinator. She said:

    DSEI is a marketplace in death and destruction. Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastating people’s lives. Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms.

    Arms dealers do not care about peace or security. They care about perpetuating conflict, because conflict increases profits for their shareholders. Meanwhile this government has shown repeatedly that it cares more about the money made from dodgy deals with dictators than it does about the people whose lives will be ruined by the sales made at DSEI.

    It’s therefore down to all of us to take action to resist DSEI and to shut this arms fair down for good.

    The events will include a ‘Festival of Resistance’ on Saturday 9 September. STAF says this will be:

    A day of music and mayhem. A day for the creative celebration of all our resistance… If you’re a performer, a singer, a clown or a just down funny guy and you’d like to share your skills and celebrate our resistance, reach out.

    The Canary will be covering this year’s resistance to DSEI, as we have always done. It is crucial that STAF’s organising is supported – as DSEI is a microcosm of the violence the colonial capitalist system metes out.

    Featured image and additional images via the Canary 

    By Steve Topple

  • Tory proposals to scrap EU water pollution rules are not the answer to the housing crisis

    On 29 August, the Tory government tabled an amendment in the House of Lords that would strip back EU-era water pollution restrictions. Housing secretary Michael Gove proposed the change, stressing its necessity in order to boost housebuilding.

    However, given that private water companies are already heavily polluting our waterways, such proposals show a willful disregard for our embattled environment. Naturally, the move angered green campaigners.

    Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK, asked:

    Who would look at our sickly, sewage-infested rivers and conclude that what they need is weaker pollution rules? No one, and that should include our government.

    What’s more, the taxpayer is – of course – set to foot the bill for the environmental damage.

    Nutrient neutrality

    The ‘nutrient neutrality’ rules bar new developments from adding harmful nutrients to nearby waters. Under these laws, developers have to prove that their housing wouldn’t release nitrates or phosphates – often from sewage – into our rivers. The areas protected include Somerset, Norfolk, Teesside, Kent, Wiltshire, and the Solent.

    Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts, stated that:

    The government has made repeated pledges that they won’t weaken environmental standards and committed just eight months ago to halve nutrient pollution by the end of the decade…

    This is another broken promise and makes clear that the prime minister would rather look after the interests of developers than the environment – money talks.

    A government spokesperson said:

    Over 100,000 homes held up due to defective EU laws will be unblocked between now and 2030, delivering an estimated ÂŁ18 billion boost to the economy.

    They added that nutrients entering rivers “are a real problem”, but the contribution made by new homes is “very small”.

    Private profit, public problem

    However, that “very small” contribution is belied by the cost to fix it. The UK will have to double investment in its nutrient mitigation scheme to ÂŁ280 million “to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge” from the new homes.

    Government ministers have already conceded that this cost would fall at the public’s feet. As such, the Tories are essentially removing regulations which protect the environment, enriching private companies and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces.

    If all of this sounds a little familiar, it should. Back in April, environment secretary ThérÚse Coffey likewise announced that public money would also be used to fix the sewage-dumping mess caused by privatised water companies. 

    The proposed changes to housing regulations come at a time of of increasing demand for houses but declining supply. The Home Builders Federation claimed earlier this year that housebuilding in the UK could fall to its lowest level since World War II. However, simply building new houses is far from a holistic solution.

    Housing in crisis

    Campaign group Action on Empty Homes reported that, earlier this year, over a million UK homes were standing empty. This figure included the 250,000 buildings that the government has declared empty for over 6 months.

    However, it also factored in 200,000 homes that the government didn’t count due to council tax exemptions. Add in 257,000 ‘furnished empty’ second homes, and 70,000 ‘second homes paying business rates as short-term lets, and the empties quickly pile up.

    The choice to enrich house-building firms – and the landlords who buy from them – also has an environmental cost in itself. As the Big Issue reported:

    building a new home has a carbon footprint of 80 tonnes of CO2 – equivalent to building five brand-new cars. But refurbishing an old house carried much less of a carbon footprint, equating to just eight tonnes in comparison.

    Building new homes is already a dicey prospect for the environment, even without removing pollution safeguards. The new proposals will create just 100,000 new homes, whilst endangering our waterways in the process. Considering that fact in the light of the hundreds of thousands of UK homes just standing empty quickly exposes the bogus nature of the government’s stated reasoning.

    However, the push to build new houses at ever-greater costs to the environment is perfectly in line with the motivations of a landlord class of politicians hellbent on private profit. And, as ever, the public will have to pick up the tab for the this pollution nightmare.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Philafrenzy, resized to 770*403,  licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Further evidence emerges that the DWP’s plans for Universal Credit are utterly flawed

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is making some major changes to Universal Credit in the next few months. The changes will see it subject around 700,000 people to stricter rules to get their benefits. Of course, the new policies were already flawed. However, research by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has just further exposed the DWP’s calamitous agenda.

    DWP: more Universal Credit chaos

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP is forcing through changes to parents’ and guardians’ obligations under Universal Credit. This will affect 700,000 people. The new rules will see parents with children aged one having to see the DWP every three months for a work-focused meeting. The DWP previously made them do this every six months. For parents with children aged two, they will have to do this every month. Previously, it was every three months.

    Then, for parents with kids aged from three to 12, the DWP will expect them to be able to work for up to 30 hours a week. It will also force them to do more work preparation and job searches.

    Meanwhile, the DWP is also increasing the amount of childcare costs parents can claim back under Universal Credit. As we previously wrote:

    On average, parents see a 23% shortfall in the costs they can claim back under Universal Credit. As we previously wrote, DWP secretary Mel Stride’s:

    “claim of the DWP ‘helping parents re-enter’ work is based on parents effectively being worse off in work”.

    So, overall the DWP is forcing parents to go back to work, and potentially making some of them poorer in the process.

    Now, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has presented even more evidence that the DWP’s policy is flawed.

    Childcare sector under pressure

    The trade union body has said that childcare providers across England are “struggling to recruit childcare workers”. The TUC’s research used children’s charity Coram‘s family and childcare data. It said in a press release that it found:

    Nearly all (95%) of English councils who responded to a survey told Coram that childcare providers in their area were having difficulty recruiting childcare workers with the right skills and experience to do the job – and eight in 10 (80%) local authorities described it as “very difficult”.

    The analysis suggests childcare recruitment is most difficult in the East of England, the West Midlands and the North East – where 100% of councils said childcare providers found it “very difficult” to recruit sufficient staff the with the right skills and experience.

    And every single one of the local authorities responding in the East of England, the North East, the North West, the South West, the West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside described recruitment of childcare workers as “difficult”.

    Specifically, the TUC found that:

    • Bosses pay 62% of childcare assistants and practitioners less than the real Living Wage (ÂŁ10.90 an hour).
    • Overall, they pay childcare practitioners just 56% of the “median salary for all employees (ÂŁ18,400)” and childcare assistants earn 58% of this (ÂŁ19,000).

    So, not only is the DWP forcing parents back into work, while forcing many of them into poverty, it also also relying on a sector that is understaffed and underpaid to pick up the pieces.

    Benefits and a system not fit for purpose

    Dr Patrick Roach is general secretary of the NASUWT – The Teachers’ Union. He said:

    There is a wealth of research stretching back many years which demonstrates the extent to which the quality of care children receive in their first few years is a key factor in whether they go on to live healthy, confident and fulfilling lives in future.

    Investment in highly qualified and well remunerated early years teachers and carers is one of the best investments we can make as a society in improving health and skills outcomes for young people, whilst raising the status and esteem for the early years sector and its dedicated staff.

    You’d be forgiven for thinking that the DWP hasn’t thought these policies through at all. However, there is a clear agenda here – forcing as many people into work as possible, with no concern for the impact on those affected.

    Featured image via – Videoblogg Productions/the Canary 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • People ask #WheresTom after a Tory minister no-shows a UN meeting on disabled people’s rights

    The Tory government failed to attend a meeting of the United Nations (UN) regarding its treatment of chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people. So, those affected have been asking #WheresTom in response to the absence of the minister responsible for their rights. However, unlike their ministers, campaign groups did attend the UNCRPD (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) meeting in Geneva. They laid out damning evidence showing that somehow, things have gotten worse in the UK for chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people since a previous UN report accused successive Tory governments of human rights abuses.

    The UNCRPD and the UK government

    As the Canary has documented, the UNCRPD is a human rights branch of the UN. It oversees the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The UK has signed up to this conventions. However, in 2016 the UNCRPD assessed how the country was sticking to the rules. It found that successive UK governments had committed “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights.

    Every so often, the UNCRPD monitors countries to see if they are acting in line with the CRPD’s articles or not. The last time the committee looked at the UK was in 2016 – and the report was damning. Then, in August 2017, the UNCRPD followed up on its report; this included its chair accusing the government of creating a “human catastrophe” for disabled people. Yet in 2018 the government effectively whitewashed the UNCRPD report.

    Now, the committee is investigating the UK again – but it’s already met with controversy.

    Minister for disabled people Tom Pursglove is the person ultimately responsible for chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people’s rights at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). However, as the Canary previously reported, his government refused to attend the UNCRPD meeting on Monday 28 August. It was supposed to be giving evidence to the committee on what progress it has made since the last inquiry. This forms part of the UNCRPD’s new investigation.

    #WheresTom?

    The government has instead said that it will give its evidence in March 2024. So, as campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) tweeted:

    On 28 August the UNCRPD meeting went ahead without the UK government. However, disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), charities, and campaign groups did attend. The evidence they gave was damning.

    The Canary previously reported on the more-than-28,000-word report a coalition of DPOs submitted to the UNCRPD. Evidence within it included that:

    • “In 2018 there were 365,000 DDP living in unsuitable properties”.
    • By January 2020, the DWP had removed 102,000 Motability customers’ Personal Independence Payment (PIP) awards that “entitled them to vehicles”.
    • 62% of “working-age people referred to food banks in early 2020 were Disabled”.

    People from the group presented further evidence directly to the committee on 28 August:

    You can watch the full meeting here.

    Damning evidence from chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people

    The evidence DPOs and others gave to the UNCRPD was damning. Paul Ntulila told the UNCRPD:

    7.2 million households with a disabled person are living in poverty. This accounts for just over 10% of the UK’s population, but half of all UK poverty. Deaf and disabled people are almost three-times as likely to be in material deprivation than the rest of the population. Benefits in the UK are comparatively low by international standards, with one of the lowest rates relative to the average earnings.

    He also added that analysis of the impact of tax and welfare changes between 2010 and 2021 showed that deaf and disabled people were “among the biggest losers”. The level of disability within a household was directly linked to higher annual cash loss.

    Ntulila went on to say that:

    The four-year benefit freeze from 2016 to 2020 affected 27 million people – sweeping another 400,000 into poverty. It is not true that this did not affect disabled people… Benefits have not been restored to their real-terms value.

    The Canary has documented much of what Ntulila spoke of. Overall, it’s of little wonder the Tories pulled out of the meeting – as everything mentioned was one damning indictment of their successive tenures after another.

    The Tories: willfully failing disabled people

    Of course, the government is in denial over the issues DPOs have raised. It told the Mirror:

    The Government is fully committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the advancement of rights for disabled people in this country.

    We have followed all of the Committee’s required procedures and we will present the UK’s progress at a hearing in March 2024.

    Ask many chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people and they would likely disagree with the government’s claims of ‘commitment’ to the UNCRPD.

    Kamran Mallick is the CEO of DPO Disability Rights UK. He issued a damning summation of the situation in the country for chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people:

    The UK government is fully aware of the mountain of evidence showing the poor life chances and outcomes for its 14 million disabled citizens, but consistently fails to act. It fails to take seriously its commitments to the UNCRPD and to you. It fails to take seriously its duty to improve the life chances of every disabled citizen in the UK. It refuses to support deaf and disabled people’s organisations and engage with us in structured, meaningful ways.

    The absence of the Tories at the UNCRPD meeting is hardly surprising. It is their willful neglect, disregard, and lack of care that led to the failures in the 2016 UNCRPD report. Their entrenched contempt for chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people now looks set to lead to an even worse report this time.

    Featured image via 5 News – YouTube and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New poll shows even Tories believe Conservative Party fake news propaganda needs to be banned

    The Tories have been conning people with party propaganda disguised as local newspapers. There are no laws against any political party doing this, but new polling shows that the public believes lawmakers need to ban the practice.

    Fake news

    As the Canary previously reported, Byline Times recently exposed a slate of Conservative Party campaigning material masquerading as independent newspapers.

    In one case, local Tories produced the Uxbridge and South Ruislip People, a title that resembles the local council’s paper Hillingdon People. That leaflet pushed the anti-ultra-low-emission-zone line – which supposedly led to Labour’s failure to win the seat in recent by-elections. In another, party campaigners adopted the Lincoln Chronicle name of a well-remembered paper that wound up 15 years ago.

    One particularly misjudged attempt saw High Peak MP Robert Larghans use the name of a paper that is still owned by Quest Media.

    Parties are supposed to put the names of their printer and promoter on their campaigning material, along with their party name. However, as Byline Times explained, these can occasionally be in text so small it is almost illegible.

    One example sent to the Canary by a reader illustrates the point perfectly. It listed the printer and promoter – but only in tiny, light grey text outside the bounding box at the bottom of the page:

    North Cumbria Chronicle, a Conservative Party campaign leaflet disguised as a local newspaper

    It’s also worth noting that these papers don’t even use the colour palette a reader might expect from party political material.

    Now a new poll by Byline Times has revealed that, unsurprisingly, most people are against this con.

    Even Tory supporters disagree

    On 24 August, the paper said that a survey conducted by independent poll company Omnisis on its behalf showed:

    62% of people in Britain think that the fake newspaper tactic should be banned if they do not make clear which party is behind it.

    The figure rises to 65% among Conservative voters, the same as for Labour voters. Liberal Democrats, who also have been known to use fake newspapers for election material, are less in favour of a ban (55%). The figure rises significantly among over 75s, some of whom may be more vulnerable to misleading campaign materials: 75% back a ban on the practice. And opposition sits at 71% among those with no formal qualifications.

    It also noted that the Conservative Party hadn’t yet responded to its questions about the campaign material. However, at least one Tory MP has since given a half-baked apology for such leaflets. The Darlington and Stockton Times reported that local MP Peter Gibson, said:

    I am sorry if any Darlington resident has been confused about the receipt of a Darlington Champion through their letterbox.

    Friends don’t let friends get duped

    However, dozens more MPs who create similar materials have tried to keep their head down. However, there is also no law in place to make them change their actions.

    Byline Times explained how these leaflets exploit loopholes in the law. Specifically, because we’re not yet in an election period, rules on clearly marking campaign materials don’t actually apply.

    As a result, anything goes right now – including brazen deception. We can’t really expect anything less from the current state of our government. However, what we can do is raise awareness about this problem so that our friends and family aren’t duped by these scams.

    Featured image via anonymous, with permission

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour Party income is up and its membership is down, so it’s clear what this is all leading to

    New Electoral Commission figures show that Labour Party membership has fallen by tens of thousands over the past two years. At the same time, its total income has skyrocketed. There’s only one reason for this, and nowhere is it more evident than at its annual conference.

    Labour’s income is a dead giveaway

    On 24 August, the Electoral Commission published the accounting figures of Britain’s political parties for the year to 31 December 2022. It revealed that the Labour Party took more than ÂŁ47m over the year, equating to nearly half of the ÂŁ99.9m income across 18 of 19 large parties in the country. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party took just ÂŁ30m.

    This isn’t in itself surprising news. The Labour Party’s income topped the Tories last year too. However, it was paired with another piece of crucial news: that membership had once again fallen. The Guardian said membership had dropped by nearly 25,000 since 2021, to a total of 407,445. Party membership showed its most recent peak in 2019, at 532,046.

    The Electoral Commission’s breakdown of the numbers shows party membership remained the highest single contributor, with donations a close second. However, it also showed that the balance is tipping away from membership and trade unions towards private donations and companies.

    All of this means Labour is now drawing on a smaller but more affluent audience to fund its activities – and its party conference this year makes that clear.

    Arms, spies and fossil fuels

    A day before the Electoral Commission published its figures, OpenDemocracy reported on the sponsors for the Labour conference’s fringe events.

    Partners and sponsors for this year’s New Statesman Media Group’s (NSMG) programme include arms manufacturers Babcock and Boeing, defence contractor Northrop Grumman, CIA-linked intelligence firm Palantir, and a range of fossil fuel companies – including Cadent, National Gas, and Offshore Energies UK.

    OpenDemocracy said that:

    The party has been slammed for playing host to these industries by environmental groups and anti-weapon groups, who call the sponsorships “disgusting and disappointing.” Its own MP Clive Lewis has also questioned why Labour is “cosying up” to some of the organisations involved.

    Several of these companies also sponsored NSMG’s 2022 fringe event, including Babcock, Cadent, and Offshore Energies UK.

    People on social media were similarly scathing, including rapper Lowkey, who used the news to draw a connection between the current Labour Party and that of former leader Tony Blair:

    Prem Sikka, Labour peer and former advisor to Jeremy Corbyn, questioned leader Keir Starmer‘s intentions:

    A range of campaign groups were likewise appalled by the news:

    Votes don’t win election, money does

    It’s important to be clear that these companies aren’t sponsoring the conference directly. They are sponsoring NSMG’s fringe event. However, the New Statesman has a long-running cosy relationship with Labour’s right wing. OpenDemocacy reported that NSMG billed a partnership with the media company as:

    an opportunity to “showcase your brand, generate leads, nurture relationships,” with “policy makers and politicians.”

    However, they also reveal how the corporate capture of the Labour Party is ramping up just in time for the next general election. Another example can be seen in Judy Botterill, Labour candidate for Ossett and Denby Dale, West Yorkshire. People on social media quickly pointed out she was a lobbyist for Yorkshire Water, which has massively polluted the region’s water.

    Combine that with Starmer’s special relationship with Rupert Murdoch and it’s clear which way ‘left wing’ politics is heading. The next election might bring a Labour government, but it isn’t likely to be one that will act in the interests of the people.

    Featured image via Labour Party/YouTube

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • MPs call for former Guantanamo detainee Ravil Mingazov to be reunited with his family in the UK

    Six MPs have written to home secretary Suella Braverman appealing for Ravil Mingazov, a Russian former Guantanamo inmate, to be able to reunite with his family in the UK. Moreover, United Arab Emirates (UAE) authorities are currently holding Mingazov without charge or trial. So, alongside the letter from the MPs, advocacy group CAGE is launching a campaign for his freedom.

    Release from UAE prison

    The signatories to the letter, dated 17 August, include the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. They also include former Green Party leader Caroline Lucas and Labour MP John McDonnell. Mingazov’s son Yusuf is a constituent of Labour MP Apsana Begum, who is also a signatory, and whose office submitted the letter to the home secretary.

    In 2002, Mingazov was abducted in Pakistan. He spent 15 years – without charge or trial – in Guantanamo. After the US finally released Mingazov in January 2017, he came to the UAE. However, when he arrived, UAE authorities detained him without clear explanation. He’s been incarcerated in the Al Razeen prison in Abu Dhabi ever since, and the authorities now plan to repatriate him to Russia.

    The letter from MPs expressed concern regarding these plans, noting:

    The abuse former Guantanamo detainees have suffered in Russia has been well-documented by Human Rights Watch and other NGOs. Mr Mingazov was never charged with any crime before, during or after his his detention at Guantanamo.

    If Mr Mingazov is repatriated to Russia, he will face serious persecution

    It added that returning Mingazov to Russia would breach the UN Convention against Torture. Plans to repatriate Mingazov to Russia have also received condemnation from UN human rights experts.

    Ravil Mingazov: separated from family

    CAGE’s head of public advocacy Anas Mustapha said:

    Ravil Mingazov was tortured and held without charge or trial by the US. He was misled when the US failed to guarantee his freedom upon his transfer to the UAE where he has been imprisoned since. His son has appealed to the Home Office in 2015 to bring his father home but was refused. MP’s are right to request he is granted access once again in the face of the imminent threat of torture facing Mr Mingazov.

    The US State Department and Senior Representative of Guantanamo Affairs Tina Kaidanow must also right this wrong by ensuring that Ravil is released and reunited with his son in the UK.

    The letter to the home secretary noted that an application from Mingazov to enter the UK had received no response:

    Mr Mingazov made an application for leave to enter the United Kingdom on 10th August 2015, through his legal representatives Thompson HD. Thompson HD advise that the Home Office acknowledged receipt on 24th September 2015 but have not responded since.

    It concluded with an appeal from the MPs:

    We are requesting that you meet with us and urgently contact the UAE to ask that Mr Mingazov not be repatriated to Russia, and that you immediately consider granting his application to enter and remain in the UK, and be reunited with his son and family.

    Yusuf, Mingazov’s son, told CAGE:

    I don’t remember much about my father. But I mostly know about him from my mother, he would tell her how she should raise me. To teach me manners, help those in need, to give to others, those who are disabled and elderly to support them. She said he wouldn’t hurt a fly, if there were insects in our home he wouldn’t kill it but remove it, without harming it. He was a very gentle, kind and smart person.

    I have heard the same good things about him from many people, beyond just my family, such as his friends in Russia also. When I began to speak to him through the Red Cross, I would find the same characteristics in him. In those conversations, he would try and teach me, almost as if to compensate for the things he missed in my childhood.

    Victims of the war on terror

    Mansoor Adayfi, Guantanamo project coordinator at CAGE, was also held in Guantanamo for 15 years. He said about Mingazov:

    I met Sa’eed (Ravil Mingazov) in Guantanamo Bay for the first time when we were protesting in 2003. He was a very polite and sensitive person. He joined us on the hunger strike actions we took to protest our detention. He was targeted by the guards because he tried to convince other brothers to join us.

    A press release from CAGE, announcing their campaign for Mingazov’s release, read:

    The case of Ravil Mingazov underlines significant failures in the US strategy for transferring prisoners from Guantanamo. While Mingazov’s case exemplifies some of the more egregious violations of agreements within the transfer arrangements involving former detainees, numerous other prisoners continue to grapple with formidable challenges, detentions and dire poverty..

    It went on to add:

    The Biden administration’s appointment of seasoned diplomat Tina Kaidanow as the Senior Representative for Guantanamo Affairs signals a shift towards closing the facility. As part of this responsibility, addressing historical injustices becomes crucial, including urgent intervention in the case of Ravil Mingazov.

    The letter from MPs to the home secretary also makes a case for the UK to intervene and help Mingazov reunite with his family.  Whether Braverman and the current UK government will act to correct this historical injustice of the US and UK’s post-9/11 ‘war on terror’, however, remains to be seen.

    Featured mage via Pxhere/CAGE

    By Afroze Fatima Zaidi

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Novara faces reckoning after showing its arse over racism in the Lucy Letby case

    The case of serial baby killer Lucy Letby has shocked the country – though seemingly for the wrong reasons. Predictably, media coverage of the case depicted Letby, a young white woman, in a sympathetic light. People expressed disbelief over how ‘someone like her’ could have committed such heinous acts. Worse still, supposedly left-wing media outlet Novara decided to deny that racism played a role.

    Lucy Letby: ‘her violence is the standard’

    The subtext behind ‘someone like her’ is obviously someone who is a young, attractive white woman from a conventionally respectable background. Barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman noted:

    Almost immediately, to those who know better, the role of race became evident in explaining how Letby managed to evade justice for so long. This was particularly obvious in the fact that a senior doctor of South Asian origin, Dr Ravi Jayaram, repeatedly raised alarm bells regarding Letby – but hospital management shut him down.

    As author and lawyer Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu tweeted:

    Writer and podcaster Kelechi Okafor took to Twitter to state that violence from white women is not anomalous:

    Okafor said:

    They’re presenting it like an anomaly, when actually when we look at it historically and presently, the violence of white women is not an anomaly, it is the standard …

    She went on to state that:

    One of the greatest crimes against humanity was the translatlantic slave trade and colonization, and it was a white female monarch in Britain, if we’re talking about this in the British context, that said, yes, let’s run it.

    Okafor described how the presumed innocence of white women was central to the existence of white supremacist hetero-patriarchy. She also pointed to the way in which white supremacy protects white women despite the evil they commit.

    This, of course, relates directly to the way the Countess of Chester Hospital protected Letby. In fact, even the head of the Royal College of Nursing has said that Letby got away with it for as long as she did because she was white:

    It’s bizarre, then, that talking heads from Novara Media decided to suggest this case doesn’t have to be about race.

    #NoMoreNovara

    Novara‘s Ash Sarkar declared on Twitter:

    Apparently using the words “incredibly reductive” means you can say something stupid and pass it off as intelligent without expecting any scrutiny.

    Fellow Novara-er Michael Walker also decided to get in on the action, though he later deleted his tweet:

    Image

    Never one to sit out a messy take, Aaron Bastani chimed in too, directly quoting Okafor’s words:

    Okafor has written extensively about Black women’s experiences within healthcare. So for Sarkar, Walker, and Bastani – none of whom happen to be Black women – to diminish her input in this way is nothing short of appalling:

    Unfortunately for them, sensible people on Twitter weren’t taking their word for it:

    The hashtag #NoMoreNovara gained traction as people shared their anger in a Twitter space:

    Bad taste

    It also seems as though this has gone far beyond a hashtag. Novara employees minimising the experiences of Black women won’t be forgotten any time soon:

    And although Sarkar later apologised for her words, she didn’t delete her tweet. As Okafor noted:

    And that’s the crux of it, really.  Why would a group of ‘leftists’ – none of whom happen to be Black – argue with a Black woman about the role of racism in shielding white women within healthcare? They’re either complete idiots, or they’re doing it because messy opinions will boost their engagement in a way that standing up for what’s right won’t.

    With allies like these, who needs serial killers.

    Featured image via YouTube/ The Mirror

    By Afroze Fatima Zaidi

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Oxford NHS issues a flippant response on its ‘discriminatory’ use of language towards people with ME

    An Oxford NHS trust has caused further outrage with its response to complaints about a job advert for a clinical psychologist in a myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) clinic. This is because after the trust used offensive language in the advert, it’s simply dismissed concerns – clearly without thought for the patients and its affect on them.

    Oxford NHS: hiring a psychologist for ‘psychotic’ ME patients

    As the Canary previously reported, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is hiring a clinical psychologist. The role will be working in the ME service, and the renal and transplant medicine service. However, the advert for the job has caused controversy.

    Oxford NHS said in the advert that the role would involved working with patients who have:

    difficulties in understanding (such as cognitive deficits, or unconscious denial of psychological conflicts), or overcoming communication difficulties with patient who are hostile, antagonistic, highly anxious or psychotic.

    It would also involve dealing with things:

    including verbal abuse and risk of physical aggression (for example from people with behavioural problems or enduring mental illness).

    On X (formerly Twitter) people living with ME were furious:

    People’s anger at Oxford NHS stems from the fact that many medical professionals psychologised ME for years – and often still do. However, as the Canary has documented, ME is not psychological – it is a chronic, systemic neuroimmune disease. So, people living with ME were rightly upset.

    ‘Inaccurate, offensive’ towards people with ME

    Charity the ME Association got its medical adviser Dr Charles Shepherd to write to Oxford NHS. He said:

    The way in which people with ME/CFS are described is inaccurate, offensive and unnecessary and I am sure that people with kidney disease who are awaiting a transplant would also find these descriptions offensive.

    Shepherd asked the trust to remove the language. So, what did it do? It essentially dismissed his concerns.

    In response to the ME Association, consultant clinical neuropsychologist at Oxford Dr Simon Prangnell said:

    We are very sorry if the wording included within the job description has caused offence. The job description is based on a nationally agreed template from NHS Employers as part of the Agenda for Change Framework.

    The items you have highlighted are not specific to people with CFS / ME but instead are part of a general skill set that clinical psychologists are expected to have should these issues arise. In some situations psychologists are required to respond to urgent / emergency situations not necessarily within their usual service.

    We will bear your comments in mind when advertising future roles, however, and consider better ways of framing these requirements.

    Unnecessary ‘discriminatory wording’

    As the Canary previously wrote, there was a possibility that Oxford NHS’s wording in the advert:

    was an oversight – that someone copied and pasted a standard job description.

    However, Dr Shepherd did not consider this a reasonable excuse. You can read his full response here. Shepherd wrote:

    Having looked at some other job adverts for psychologists it is clear that there is no compulsion to use this form of discriminatory wording from the template.

    So I do not believe that it is necessary to use this sort of language in a job description relating to your ME/CFS referral service.

    Shepherd also noted that:

    I have worked with people who have ME/CFS for over 40 years – some of whom are upset and distressed by the lack of care and support they have been given by health professionals. During this time I have never had to deal with anyone suffering a psychotic episode or who was been physically aggressive. In fact, most people with ME/CFS are far too unwell to be physically aggressive.

    He has escalated the complaint to professor Meghana Pandit, chief executive of the trust.

    Little has changed

    As the Canary previously wrote, one of the main proponents of the psychological model of ME is head of the department this job advert is for. So, for many people living with ME, it can claim all it wants that it was a “template” job description. This may well not wash with them.

    Moreover, even if this was the case, it shows the lack of understanding, insight, and appreciation Oxford NHS has for this group of patients. No one with any understanding of ME – and how decades of systemic gaslighting, prejudice, and negligence has affected people living with it – would even consider using the language Oxford NHS did.

    The job advert shows that despite the efforts of patient groups, other medical bodies, and campaigners, little has changed in the NHS for people living with ME.

    Featured image via Sander van der Wel – Wikimedia, resized to 1910×1000 under licence CC BY-SA 2.0, and the NHS – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • People’s Assembly is calling on campaign groups to join it at the Tory conference this year

    The People’s Assembly has released further details of its protest at the Conservative Party conference – and it wants campaign groups and organisations to get involved. The Canary is happy to say it will be supporting the People’s Assembly’s action once again.

    Hitting up the Tory conference again

    September/October usually marks the Tory Party conference, and this year it’s in Manchester. It presents an opportunity to protest against our right-wing overlords – and the People’s Assembly has repeatedly done so. Now, the group is doing it again.

    It said in statement:

    This year marks ten years since the founding of The People’s Assembly by thousands of trade unionists and community campaigners. In the past decade, we have organised hundreds of marches, protests, rallies and meetings in towns and cities across England, Scotland and Wales.

    Now, as the Tory government prepares to sink lower than ever before, ramming through even more draconian laws to impede our civil liberties and our right to protest, we are all facing the fight of our lives.

    This government has no popular mandate for its policies that punish us all. But unless we mobilise real determined opposition to government policies, vicious attacks on the working class will continue.

    So, the People’s Assembly is going back to Manchester. It’s called for a national demonstration on Sunday 1 October. It starts at 12pm, assembling on Oxford Road:

    More details are still to follow:

    Now, the group has released its set of demands for the demo. It said in a statement that these were:

    • Tories Out
    • End the Cost-of-Living Crisis – Cut Profits, Increase Wages
    • Tax the Rich – Fund Social Care & Social Security
    • Nationalise Energy, Water, Mail and Rail
    • Refugees Welcome – Stop Racist Scapegoating
    • Scrap Anti-Union and Anti -protest Laws
    • Climate Justice Now – No New Fossil Fuel Contracts
    • End the Housing Crisis – Build Council Homes
    • Defend the NHS & Public Services – End Privatisation

    people's assembly demands

    You can get involved

    Overall, the People’s Assembly said that it:

    is calling on all our affiliates and supporters to help us to mobilise the biggest, most united voice from every corner of Britain in coming weeks

    As always, the Canary is supporting the demo. We’re amplifying the group’s call for campaign groups and organisations to get involved. It wants them to adopt model motions in support of the demo and its aims, and share details of the demo on social media, and with their members. It is also calling on local groups to try to organise travel for people to the protest.

    Some groups have already been organising coaches from across the UK:

    So, if your organisation wants to protest the Tory Party conference, and support the People’s Assembly in the process, then contact the group. You can email office(at)thepeoplesassembly.org.uk for more info, and to request the model motion.

    Featured image via the People’s Assembly

    By Steve Topple

  • Tories have backed out of a UN meeting on their breaches of human rights

    The United Nations (UN) is once again investigating the UK government over its treatment of chronically ill and disabled people. As part of that process, it asked to meet with members of the current Tory administration. The UN wanted them to give evidence on what they’ve done since it last investigated the UK. At that time, the UN accused the Tories of “grave” and “systematic” human rights violations. Shockingly though, the Tories have said they are not going to attend the UN meeting this time around.

    The UNCRPD

    The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is a human rights branch of the UN. It oversees the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Many countries, the UK included, have signed up to it. Some, like the US and Russia, have not.

    The convention has a series of ‘articles’ that the UNCRPD says countries should abide by in order to protect chronically ill and disabled people’s human rights. These include:

    • Accessibility.
    • The right to life.
    • Living independently and being included in the community.
    • An adequate standard of living and social protection

    Every so often, the UNCRPD monitors countries to see if they are sticking to these articles or not. The last time the committee looked at the UK was in 2016. And the report was damning.

    ‘Grave’ and ‘systematic’ rights violations

    In August 2017, the UNCRPD followed up on its report; this included its chair accusing the government of creating a “human catastrophe” for disabled people. You can read the Canary‘s full analysis here.

    As the Canary reported at the time:

    Overall, the UN concluded that “systematic violations” of disabled people’s human rights in the UK had occurred. It stated that:

    • The government knew that welfare reforms would “disproportionately and adversely affect the rights of disabled people”, yet it did nothing. It also ignored evidence indicating this.
    • Measures introduced by the government were discriminatory.
    • The government had violated disabled people’s basic rights, including independent and community living and rights to life, social protection and employment.
    • Over half a million people may have had their human rights abused by the government.

    In 2018, the government effectively whitewashed the report. Now, the UNCRPD is preparing to investigate the UK again. As part of this process, Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) have come together to collate evidence. What they’ve found is damning. You can read the Canary‘s full analysis of the report here, but as one of its conclusions summed up:

    There has been continued regression since the last public examination of the UK under the CRDP

    With that in mind, the UNCRPD summoned the Tory government to Geneva for Monday 28 August. However, ministers have backed out of the meeting.

    ‘Scared of the bad publicity’

    As Disability News Service (DNS) reported:

    The government has told the UN committee that monitors implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that it does not want to be examined in public on its progress

    DNS noted that the Tory government has said it:

    will not give its evidence until next March.

    The UN asked the DPOs who prepared their reported to attend in Geneva, too. This is still happening. However, they will then have to attend in March 2024 as well. Disabled activist Ellen Clifford told DNS:

    It is not surprising that the government has chosen not to participate in the special inquiry follow-up this year given that their treatment of Deaf and disabled people is publicly indefensible.

    They are consciously breaching and ignoring substantive obligations under the convention and there is clear evidence of further retrogression.

    She also told DNS that the Tories were:

    scared of the bad publicity at a time when they are in a weakened position with continuing industrial disputes and unhappiness due to the cost-of-living crisis and had hoped to avoid further critical scrutiny and bad press through attempting to postpone the session.

    Where next for chronically ill and disabled people?

    It is likely that the UNCRPD’s latest investigation will result in an even worse assessment of the situation in the UK for chronically ill and disabled people than its 2016 one. For example, as the Canary previously wrote:

    The report will come against the backdrop of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic… Disabled people suffered disproportionately… making up 58% of all deaths between 24 January 2020 and 28 February 2021. Furthermore, countless people experienced cuts to their care and support…

    As always with the UNCRPD, though, there’s little it can do in reality. The CRPD as a set of rules is not legally binding under UK law. It is up to the government whether or not it incorporates part or all of it into domestic legislation. So, the UNCRPD can give its most damning report since the last one – and in reality little will change.

    This is, of course, exactly what happened in the wake of the 2016 report. So, it will be down to chronically ill and disabled people and campaign groups to continue to hold the Tories’ feet to the fire.

    Featured image via Inclusion Europe – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • FTSE bosses just got a 16% pay rise while the rest of us choose between eating and heating

    Think tank the High Pay Centre has found that the pay of Britain’s top bosses grew by 16% in 2022 – while the rest of us struggled with the basics.

    High Pay Centre: damning research

    The High Pay Centre researches bosses’ pay. On Tuesday 22 August, it released figures for FTSE (Financial Times Stock Exchange) company CEOs. These are the bosses of the biggest and most valuable companies that trade on the London stock exchange. For the financial year ending 2022, the High Pay Centre found:

    • The median FTSE 100 CEO pay went up to ÂŁ3.91m – up ÂŁ500,000 from 2021. This is the highest it’s been since 2017.
    • This was 118 times the median full-time UK wage – up from 108 times in 2021.
    • FTSE 350 firms paid ÂŁ1.33bn to just 570 executives – averaging ÂŁ2.33m each.
    • Women are still under-represented at CEO level, with only eight in FTSE 100 companies – down from nine in 2021.

    The think tank also found that for FTSE 250 companies, median CEO pay was ÂŁ1.77m in 2022, up by ÂŁ50k from ÂŁ1.72m in 2021. Looking at some specific examples, the High Pay Centre found that nearly all of the highest-paid CEOs were from companies that profit from death, war, the climate crisis, or – in the case of AstraZeneca – the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic:

    Company

    CEO

    Pay (ÂŁm)

    AstraZeneca

    Pascal Soriot

    15.32

    BAE Systems

    Charles Woodburn

    10.69

    CRH plc

    Albert Manifold

    10.38

    BP

    Bernard Looney

    10.03

    Experian

    Brian Cassin

    9.94

    Shell plc

    Ben van Beurden

    9.70

    British American Tobacco

    Jack Bowles

    9.62

    Anglo American plc

    Mark Cutifani/ Ducan Wanblad

    9.54

    Endeavour Mining

    Sebastien de Montessus

    8.99

    GSK plc

    Emma Walmsley

    8.45

    The rest of us struggling while FTSE 100 bosses rake it in

    All this comes against a backdrop of workers struggling amid the cost of living crisis. As the Canary previously reported, the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures showed that:

    • Unemployment was up.
    • Real-terms pay (adjusted for Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation) was down 0.6% – despite headline regular pay growth apparently being 7.8%.
    • The number of job vacancies has dropped.
    • People off work with long-term sickness has reached a record high.

    Moreover, Black and Brown people are disproportionately hit by the dire UK labour market. Trades Union Congress (TUC) research found that they were much more likely to be in insecure work than white people.

    Overall, director of the High Pay Centre Luke Hildyard said in a press release:

    At a time when so many households are struggling with living costs, an economic model that prioritises a half a million pound pay rise for executives who are already multi millionaires is surely going wrong somewhere.

    How major employers distribute the wealth that their workforce creates has a big impact on people’s living standards. We need to give workers more voice on company boards, strengthen trade union rights and enable low- and middle- income earners to get a fairer share in relation to those at the top.

    Porsches versus poverty

    The think tank is calling for the government to act. It wants:

    • Workers to have seats on company pay committees.
    • Trade unions to be given “guaranteed access” to workplaces to unionise staff.
    • Companies to be far more transparent about pay for the top and bottom earners in their organisations, so there can be “more informed pay negotiations at individual companies and a clearer debate about pay inequality more generally”.

    The TUC echoed similar. General secretary Paul Nowak in a press release:

    While millions of families have seen their budgets shredded by the cost of living crisis, City directors have enjoyed bumper pay rises.

    This is why workers must be given seats on company boards to inject some much-needed common sense and restraint.

    We need an economy that delivers better living standards for all – not just those at the top.

    But under the Tories Britain has become a land of grotesque extremes. As households across the country have struggled to put food on the table, sales of Porsches have hit record levels.

    Indeed, Porsche sold 18,554 cars in the UK and Ireland in 2022 – which that ÂŁ500k FTSE 100 CEO payrise would go a long way towards – all while the rest of us chose between eating and heating. This shocking research shows that, under capitalism, nothing is changing. The rich continue to make themselves richer at the expense of the rest of us.

    Featured image via David Iliff – Wikimedia, resized to 770×403 under license CC BY-SA 3.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • English Chess Federation won’t restrict trans people, in defiance of international rules

    The English Chess Federation (ECF) has said that it won’t impose restrictions on trans people’s participation in the game. This news comes after chess’s international body announced it would change the way trans men and women participated for at least the next two years.

    All trans people facing restrictions

    The International Chess Federation (FIDE) said on 14 August that it was updating its policy on how trans people participate. Among a number of new regulations was a restriction on trans women participating in FIDE’s women’s events until “further decisions are made”. This investigation could take up to two years. As a result, it effectively bans trans women from taking part in women’s events.

    Meanwhile, trans men faced other restrictions. FIDE’s new regulations said trans men would lose any titles they held from women’s events. FIDE also said it would reinstate the titles “if the person changes the gender back”. However, the reverse didn’t apply. FIDE will permit trans women to retain their open-play titles post-transition. There are also no restrictions on players that want to take part in the open category.

    FIDE reasoned its decision by saying it has received an influx of gender change requests.

    Transphobia and sexism

    Both chess players and trans activists criticised FIDE’s move. Chess coach Yosha Iglesias described it simply as “anti-trans”:

    The US-based National Center for Transgender Equality pointed out that it attacked not just trans people but cis women too:

    Meanwhile, trans athlete Kirsti Miller mocked the decision:

    And sociologist Richard Pringle also called out FIDE’s sexism in a Washing Post article, saying:

    It suggests that males are somehow strategically better. 
 It’s not just transphobic, it’s anti-feminist too

    Not all chess bodies agree

    Despite FIDE’s decision, though, the chess world isn’t following suit. The ECF said on 20 August that it will “not exclude trans women and this position will not change”:

    The ECF went on to describe FIDE’s policy as “discriminatory”, and said that it “cannot see the point” in imposing a two-year suspension on trans players.

    Other national chess federations have also taken a similar line:

    Two problems, one source

    While FIDE is busy creating regressive and unnecessarily divisive policies regarding trans people, it appears to have taken little action on actual material threats against women.

    On 8 August, more than 100 women signed a public letter denouncing the chess world’s “sexist and sexual violence” against women. It said that such actions are “still one of the main reasons” that there are far fewer women than men playing the game. Iglesias shared her own experiences of sexual harassment:

    FIDE responded to the letter saying it was still working on a safeguarding policy for women.

    Both these issues point to the same problems, of course: patriarchy and social conservatism. The barring of participation and stripping of titles are cruel forms of public humiliation wielded against trans people, and stem from the same mindset that apparently hasn’t seen fit to create a safeguarding policy for all women, even in 2023. FIDE’s ban also comes at a time when other sporting bodies are manufacturing hostility against trans people under the guise of ‘fairness’.

    Fortunately, though, the EDF and its counterparts aren’t bowing to FIDE’s pressure.

    Featured image via pxfuel

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Nearly a quarter of Tax Credits claimants forced onto Universal Credit end up without any benefits at all

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has released its first-ever set of figures regarding so-called “managed migration“. This is where it forces people on old-style benefits like Tax Credits to move to Universal Credit. Worryingly, the figures show that 24% of the people whom the DWP tried to migrate end up with no benefits at all – the majority of them being women.

    So far, the department has not said what has happened to these people or why. However, if this pattern continues then up to 135,000 people – including children – may lose out.

    Universal Credit: managed migration by the DWP

    The DWP began rolling out managed migration in July 2019, as a pilot scheme. This is where the department forces people who have not yet moved to Universal Credit, either voluntarily or because of a change of circumstance, onto it. This is because the new benefit is replacing old ones like Tax Credits.

    Then, the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic hit, so the DWP had to pause its work on managed migration. In June 2022, it said that it was aiming to get everyone on old benefits onto Universal Credit by 2024.

    The DWP started writing to people in July 2022. It sent them “migration notices”, telling them they needed to move to Universal Credit. So far, there are only full statistics from July 2022 to March 2023. This is because, as the DWP noted, up to May 2023:

    All households sent an MN [migration notice] have been included… However, many households will not have passed their initial migration deadline and may still make a claim to UC [Universal Credit]. These households will be recorded in the ‘In Progress’ column.

    This affects April and May 2023. Therefore, the Canary has only used figures from July 2022 to March 2023. We found that:

    • 82% of all managed migration claimants were women, nearly all of whom were previously claiming tax credits:

    • 24% of people’s claims were closed, presumably leaving them with no benefits at all:

    Of these, around 79% were women – although this figure is the total for July 2022 – March 2023:

    The DWP says…

    The DWP issued a caveat with these figures. It said:

    It should be noted that claimants who have been sent an MN to date will not be representative of the complete population who will be sent an MN.

    In particular, the vast majority so far have been single TC [tax credits] households whose likelihood of claiming UC… may be different to couple TC households and/or DWP legacy benefit claimants, the majority of whom have not yet been sent a migration notice.

    However, 24% of people’s benefits stopping is a large number, and problematic. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of them being women is of concern, too. So, the Canary emailed the statisticians responsible for the analysis. Specifically, we wanted to know if they knew:

    • Why the majority of claimants sent managed migration notices were women.
    • What happened to the claimants whose claims were closed.

    A DWP press officer told us:

    We are committed to helping everyone transition to Universal Credit as smoothly as possible and evidence to date shows that Tax Credit claimants have generally been able to navigate the Universal Credit system to make a new claim with minimal support. We will only stop someone’s benefits as a last resort and only after multiple unsuccessful attempts to engage with claimants by phone and post.

    For anyone who doesn’t claim by their deadline, there is a one-month ‘grace period’ following benefit termination. During this period, any claim to Universal Credit is backdated and transitional protection can still be awarded where required.

    They noted that the majority of single tax credit claimants were women – hence the managed migration gender breakdown.

    However, this is not the first time that the DWP is hearing that large percentages of people on Tax Credits are not entitled to Universal Credit under managed migration.

    135,000 Tax Credits claimants potentially affected

    The department performed a trial of the scheme in May 2022 in Bolton and Medway. There, the DWP found that 13% of the overall cohort did not end up claiming Universal Credit. However, for Tax Credits the figure was 23% – almost identical to the first nine months of the full rollout.

    This should be a red flag to the DWP. Its defence – that the majority of claimants so far have been people on single Tax Credits – is of concern. This is because as of April 2023 there were 595,000 people falling into that category. Moreover, the majority of these people had children, and were claiming Child Tax Credits (CTC):

    If the 23-24% figure of Tax Credits claimants not getting Universal Credit in the early stages of managed migration is extrapolated to the overall numbers, this could potentially mean the DWP could leave over 135,000 people without benefits.

    Leaving people destitute

    For those Tax Credits claimants that do end up on Universal Credit, the DWP already admitted admitted that some of them, including people with children, may be no better off. In fact, it even forecast that some families with children would be made worse off by moving from Tax Credits to Universal Credit.

    In 2019, a parliamentary committee raised concerns about the DWP’s rollout of managed migration. It warned that without proper preparation, the process could:

    plunge people further into poverty and could leave them destitute.

    While it is not known what has happened to the Tax Credits claimants whose benefit claims stopped, there’s a risk this has happened to some of them. The DWP must urgently look at the managed migration rollout, before any more people are left worse off than they were before.

    Featured image via the Guardian – YouTube, and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • No Daily Mail, screening sexualised content from young children isn’t ‘woke gone mad’

    Universal Music Group, a multinational music corporation, has removed the song Fat Bottomed Girls from a new edition of the band’s Greatest Hits: Vol 1 album. The right-wing press described the decision as a result of “woke cancel culture”. But it was less forthcoming about the album’s very specific audience: young children.

    The spectre of woke cancel culture

    The Daily Mail was the first to run the story. On 19 August, it published an article titled:

    EXCLUSIVE: We will woke you! Classic Queen song Fat Bottomed Girls is mysteriously dropped from the group’s new Greatest Hits collection.

    The article briefly mentions that the album is for “Yoto, the new audio platform aimed at young people”. However, a quote by an alleged ‘music industry insider’ dominated the article. It claimed:

    nobody can work out why such a good-natured, fun song can’t be acceptable in today’s society.

    It is woke gone mad.

    Other corporate media outlets then reproduced the article and its sentiments.

    The Sun claimed the song was dropped “due to woke cancel culture” in its headline, while the Express said its removal is the “latest ‘woke’ move”. Meanwhile, the Telegraph  claimed the song was cut “to appease [a] younger audience”.

    Even local news outlets were at it. BirminghamLive used the headline “Queen axe classic song from greatest hits over fears it may offend”, while sister publication LancsLive repeated the “woke gone mad” quote.

    Of course, they led with manufactured outrage whilst burying the lede – or in the case of BirminghamLive, not even mentioning it at all.

    Music for children

    Removing the song was a choice based on the intended audience. Moreover, nobody is stopping adults from listening to the song.

    As the Daily Mail briefly noted in its article, the version of the album in question was for the Yoto platform. Yoto produces music devices that it bills as “screen-free audio player[s] for children”. Furthermore, a press release announcing Yoto’s partnership with Queen stated:

    Yoto is the brainchild of digital music pioneers Ben Drury and Filip Denker, who created a device that enables young children to access the best kids’ audio, without being exposed to adverts, unsuitable content or racking up too much screen time.

    The page for the album on Yoto’s website even gives an age range for its target audience: 6 to 14 years. The player itself is intended for all children from the age of three.

    Fat Bottomed Girls‘ lyrics aren’t the most explicit, outrageous, or offensive content committed to record. Nonetheless, it’s heavily sexualised and filled with innuendo. Moreover, it bluntly objectifies women. So, is this really suitable for children as young as six?

    Sensitive subject matters

    Yesterday, my partner and I had a slightly thorny moment trying to explain Black Sabbath’s Hand of Doom to our young child. It had come on as part of a shuffled playlist in the car, and I had let it play due to a love for the track. Carelessly, I didn’t expect my child to listen to the words and process them. Except they did, and asked what it was about. They were particularly interested in what “push the needle in” meant.

    It’s about a Vietnam war veteran who overdoses on heroin and dies. But in explaining trying to explain that, we chose to avoid talking about drugs and overdosing. Those images can get stuck in a young, inquisitive mind. We were upfront about not being able to fully explain the lyrics, and they accepted that. But the experience was instructive on how quickly even very young children can grasp the content of song lyrics.

    We weren’t ‘cancelling’ Black Sabbath or trying to hide the realities of the world from our child. We were sensitive to the impact media can have, and recognised that maybe – just maybe – not all adult topics are suitable for all children.

    Manufacturing consent

    Sexuality is not a problematic subject matter for children – the framing of it, however, can be. Yoto understood this and decided that providing sexualised material to young children probably wasn’t in its interests, especially with increasing evidence of the impact that early sexualisation has on fostering sexual violence.

    You’d think the Telegraph would be on board, given its recent article titled “It’s time to stop the sexualisation of children”. Ditto for the Daily Mail after its outrage over the recent Balenciaga promotional shoot furore.

    But no. Once again, they’re more interested in manufacturing outrage than ethical consistency. This time they’re appealing to the nostalgia of older generations to stoke the culture war they helped create in the first place – a culture war designed to sell more papers while shaping a societal discourse that’s even more amenable to right-wing politics.

    Featured image via Kaden Kelly/YouTube

    By Glen Black

  • The royals ducking the World Cup final has prompted more calls to ‘abolish the monarchy’

    On Sunday 20 August, the English women’s football team – a.k.a. The Lionesses – faced off against Spain in the World Cup final. Sadly, they lost 1-0. The game drew attention for one unfortunate reason, however, as people noticed certain others didn’t attend – namely ‘prince’ William, ‘king’ Charles, and the PM. It’s just one more reason why people are demanding we #AbolishTheMonarchy:

    They’re staying home, they’re staying home, they’re staying…

    If you’re unfamiliar with women’s football, it’s like men’s football, only the players don’t stop every 40 seconds to pretend they’re injured. If anything, these women have gone too far and are pretending not to be injured:

    So, England fans marched to watch the game at Sydney Harbour:

    Prince William let the squad know he couldn’t be there in person – presumably because he couldn’t get time off work from the job he’s never had:

    Rishi Sunak also couldn’t be there – presumably because he couldn’t get time off work from the job he was never voted in to do:

    It’s unclear what would happen if Sunak spent a day doing something other than failing to run the country (just not that unclear given he went to Disneyland earlier this month).

    Unwelcome but expected

    To be fair, the absolute last people I’d want attending an event are the royals or the Tories. People have rightly pointed out a discrepancy, however:

    This last tweet gets something wrong – namely that these men would “pay thousands” to see anything. In reality, they’d get free tickets and we’d pay for their armed escort.

    People had other criticisms too:

    Some have pointed out that we shouldn’t be encouraging these people to take more private plane trips:

    One person had a solution which should keep everyone happy – everyone except our “workshy” royals:

    The uncommon wealth

    King Charles does at least have an excuse for not wanting to visit Australia:

    Should he be allowed to avoid such challenges, though? I’m a traditionalist, personally, in that I think anyone wants to call themselves the monarch should have to physically prove their superiority in physical combat. We’d let that go on for an afternoon until all the dickheads had slain each other, and then the rest of us would get on with running a proper, grown up country.

    A more civilised form of physical combat is football, and we congratulate the Lionesses on their amazing run in the World Cup. Even though they were runners-up, the fact that they earned their place there shows they’re superior to the king and the PM.

    Featured image via Andy Gott – Flick (cropped to 770 x 403)

    By John Shafthauer

  • ASLEF announce a one-day train driver strike as rail companies continue to refuse a fair wage

    Train drivers’ union ASLEF has announced a new one-day strike in September. It comes as rail companies and the government continue to refuse workers a sensible pay offer. Furthermore, the trade union has backed up the strike with an overtime ban.

    Sixteen companies affected

    ASLEF announced on 18 August that its members will engage in one day of strike action on Friday 1 September. The decision will affect 16 English rail companies:

    • Avanti West Coast
    • Chiltern Railways
    • c2c
    • CrossCountry
    • East Midlands Railway
    • Greater Anglia
    • GTR Great Northern Thameslink
    • Great Western Railway
    • Island Line
    • LNER
    • Northern Trains
    • Southeastern
    • Southern/Gatwick Express
    • South Western Railway
    • TransPennine Express
    • West Midlands Trains

    ASLEF has also announced an overtime ban for the following day, Saturday 2 September. This overtime ban will coincide with action by the National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers (RMT). the RMT previously said its members would strike on 26 August and 2 September. Both unions’ actions will affect many of the same companies.

    Contempt from companies and the government

    Friday 1 September will mark ASLEF’s twelfth one-day strike in its current dispute. The first was held on 30 July 2022. The overtime ban on 2 September will also be its sixth.

    The Rail Delivery Group (RDG), which represents the interests of train companies, said it had made a pay offer to ASLEF. Made in April, it consisted of a 4% raise one year, and another 4% the next. However, the union’s general secretary Mick Whelan described the offer as “risible” at the time. He criticised the offer for not keeping up with the cost of living, which had risen by 10% between March 2022 and 2023 alone.

    As a result, Whelan reiterated the point in a press release for the latest announcement:

    We don’t want to take this action but the train companies, and the government which stands behind them, have forced us into this place because they refuse to sit down and talk to us and have not made a fair and sensible pay offer to train drivers who have not had one for four years – since 2019 – while prices have soared in that time by more than 12%.

    He continued:

    We haven’t heard a word from the employers – we haven’t had a meeting, a phone call, a text message, or an email – since Wednesday 26 April, and we haven’t had any contact with the government since Friday 6 January. This shows how the contempt in which the companies, and the government, hold passengers and staff and public transport in Britain.

    Moreover, ASLEF said its overtime ban will “seriously disrupt the network” because:

    none of the privatised train operating companies employs enough drivers to provide a proper service without drivers working on their days off.

    Another problem with privatisation

    Train drivers in Scotland recently accepted a pay offer from ScotRail. ASLEF members accepted the Scottish government-owned body’s offer of a 5% rise backdated to April 2023, with a further 1% from October. The government-run Transport for Wales made a larger offer to members working in Wales. That means the 1 September strikes will not affect most of Scotland and Wales’ rail networks.

    After accepting the ScotRail offer, Kevin Lindsay – the union’s organiser for Scotland – said:

    This is a resounding vote in favour of accepting the improved pay offer and it shows the importance of a positive approach to industrial relations.

    It is now high time that the Rail Delivery Group and the Tory Government do the same in England and negotiate respectfully and with a willingness to pay our members what they need and deserve.

    When the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) accepted a pay deal in March, it pointed out that direct negotiation with employers had played a crucial role. ASLEF’s experiences north and west of the borders appear to back this up.

    While Scottish drivers negotiated directly with the Scottish and Welsh governments, English drivers are left to battle with the RDG – a body made up almost entirely of private company representatives.

    ASLEF’s ongoing battle isn’t just for fair pay. It’s also a battle against greedy Tory ideology, and that’s something we all need to get behind.

    Featured image via Evening Standard/YouTube

    By Glen Black

  • There’s no-one Keir Starmer’s Labour won’t throw under the bus – as it’s now going to screw workers, too

    Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has reportedly now watered down its pledges around workers’ rights, in a move that’s angered many. This latest news begs the question: just who does Labour represent now? The answer is clear. Starmer’s party represents the rich and powerful.

    Starmer’s Labour: the party of workers, apparently

    The Financial Times (FT) reported on Labour’s pledges around workers rights. It noted that it had seen “text” relating to a meeting on the issue of the party’s “national policy forum in Nottingham last month”. The FT noted that:

    Labour has diluted its 2021 pledge to create a single status of “worker” for all but the genuinely self-employed, regardless of sector, wage or contract type. The policy was aimed at guaranteeing “basic rights and protections” for all workers, including those in the gig economy.

    Instead of introducing the policy immediately, Labour has agreed it would consult on the proposal in government, considering how “a simpler framework” that differentiates between workers and the genuinely self-employed “could properly capture the breadth of employment relationships in the UK” and ensure workers can still “benefit from flexible working where they choose to do so”.

    Then, the FT said that:

    Labour also clarified that its previously announced plans to introduce “basic individual rights from day one for all workers”, including sick pay, parental leave and protection against unfair dismissal, will “not prevent . . . probationary periods with fair and transparent rules and processes.”

    People on Twitter were unimpressed:

    Meanwhile, deputy leader Angela Rayner got “on the front foot” by sharing Labour’s green paper on workers’ rights:

    However, the document doesn’t refute the FT‘s claims. For example, the green paper still includes the single status of worker pledge – but this doesn’t mean Labour won’t consult on it first, as the FT claims.

    It’s a similar story with employers giving workers rights like sick pay from day one. The FT claims that Labour will put this in place, but still allow bosses to put workers on trial periods where they can be sacked. The document doesn’t refute this, either – it just doesn’t mention it.

    So, just who is left for Labour to represent?

    Labour: pro-business and pro-rich people, anti-everyone else

    Previously, the party announced that if it was in government:

    So, that’s everyone who needs the NHS, benefit claimants, refugees, and the planet all thrown under the bus.

    You’d be forgiven for asking ‘What’s the point in Labour?’. Former Green Party leader Natalie Bennett did:

    Well, as the Canary previously wrote:

    Starmer wants us to know that come the next election, we won’t find anything in his manifesto that a Tory would object to. In other words, it will be a Tory Manifesto in everything but name. That is unless Starmer does the one thing Tony Blair never had the balls to do and rebrands Labour the ‘New Conservative Party’

    The Tories’ cataclysmic failure proves Labour needs to be more like the Tories

    So, all that’s left of Labour is a pro-business, pro-rich people husk of a party. From workers, to non-working people, via the NHS, climate, and planet – Labour’s shift to the centre right has thrown them all under the bus. We don’t know about you, but many of us won’t be holding our nose and voting for Starmer’s party at the next election. We’ll either be spoiling our ballots, or voting Green.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 700,000 people to be hit by punitive DWP Universal Credit changes, as netmums plays it down

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is making changes to Universal Credit for parents. Website netmums reported on it – but sadly played down just how punitive the new rules are. Moreover, it didn’t mention the real-world impacts of the new benefits shake-up.

    DWP: cracking down on Universal Credit parents

    As netmums reported:

    The DWP is launching a new Universal Credit (UC) crackdown, and will be targeting some 700,000 parents and carers in a bid to get them back into work.

    “Crackdown” is about as close to the knuckle as the netmums article got. It went on to outline the Universal Credit changes. It said:

    Under the new rules, those who have babies aged 1 will now have to present themselves for a work-focused meeting every 3 months. It was previously every 6 months.

    Those with children aged 2, will be required to see their work coach every month instead of every 3 months.

    netmums continued:

    From the autumn, the DWP will be rolling out the 2nd phrase of the crackdown, where parents of children aged from 3 to 12 will also be required to increase their preparation and search for work, and make themselves available for work for up to 30 hours a week.

    However, it adds that ‘this will be tailored to a parent’s individual circumstances, including the availability of local childcare’.

    However, at the heart of these new Universal Credit rules is a major problem.

    Making parents worse off

    Repeating a DWP quote, netmums said that:

    the changes to the rules for out-of-work UC claimant parents ‘builds on support announced in June to boost childcare payments through Universal Credit by 47% and ensures working parents can get upfront childcare costs paid for’.

    What it failed to tell readers is that many parents on Universal Credit will actually be worse off in work. As the Canary previously reported the idea that the DWP will cover childcare costs is dubious. On average, parents see a 23% shortfall in the costs they can claim back under Universal Credit. As we previously wrote, DWP secretary Mel Stride’s:

    claim of the DWP ‘helping parents re-enter’ work is based on parents effectively being worse off in work.

    So, overall the DWP is forcing parents to go back to work, and potentially making some of them poorer in the process. However, this is the thin end of the wedge of this classist policy.

    Forcing parents into work

    Back in the 1970s, the government paid benefits like the Family Income Supplement up until a child was 16. One adult in the family could work, and the other didn’t have to. However, in recent decades, successive governments have pushed to force parents into work when their children are younger and younger. A good example is Income Support – a benefit which Universal Credit is replacing. As a DWP document noted in 2011:

    Income Support (IS) is the main income-replacement benefit for lone parents. Before November 2008, lone parents with a youngest child up to the age of 16 could claim IS as a lone parent. Since then, this threshold age has been reduced first to 12 and then 10. The age reduced to 7 on 25 October 2010.

    This was part of a DWP plan to reduce the qualifying age further, to five. In other words, it forced lone parents into work by removing their money. It’s the same story with Universal Credit. To get your benefits, you now have to work – and pack your three-year-old child off to nursery, whether you want to or not. What netmums failed to mention regarding this latest policy is that the DWP will sanction parents who fail to comply. So, parents on Universal Credit will have little choice.

    No choice under capitalism

    ‘Choice’ is the point here – not some rose-tinted nostalgia for a time when one parent was a home-maker. If you’re a middle-class family where one parent is earning enough to keep you all, then the other parent has the choice to stay at home and focus on their children and house. This choice, however, has been taken away from poorer families – for whom it previously, albeit precariously, existed.

    Moreover, the type of work poorer parents will end up in is likely to be low-skilled, with unsociable hours – placing a further detriment on family life. “Time poverty” is something that’s rarely discussed, but it’s very real. As the BBC wrote in 2022:

    Research suggests that primary caregivers of many kinds – particularly low-income mothers without access to the support structures available to higher earners – are particularly prone to time pressure, and the chronically time poor often find themselves trapped in a cycle of social and economic poverty.

    The knock on effect of all this is far-reaching – from health, to diet, to personal lives – yet successive governments’ push to force as many people into work as possible has continued regardless.

    This is a capitalist sleight-of-hand: forcing all parents to work ensures more tax revenue comes in; forcing parents to use childcare creates jobs in that industry, and creating jobs in that industry ensures more tax revenue comes in. Ultimately, though, this is a loss for parents, and more importantly children – for whom the cycle will likely repeat itself again.

    Featured image via netmums – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New NHS strikes may be on the cards as another group of doctors threatens action

    Following on from junior doctors and consultants, a third group of NHS professionals is now floating the idea of strike action. The union involved is once again the British Medical Association (BMA), and the doctors are known as SAS ones, who work mostly in hospitals. While the profession may be slightly different, the reasons for the potential industrial action are the same: pay and working conditions.

    NHS SAS as more doctors threaten to strike

    As Health Education England (HEE) wrote:

    Specialty and Associate Specialist (SAS) doctors are a vital part of the workforce, making up 20% of the medical staff in England

    You might not have heard of them, and their role is quite opaque – but as HEE noted, there are a lot of SASs. The difference with the role is that the person has chosen not to take a career-led pathway. That is, they stop ongoing post-graduate training to become a consultant or GP. However, as the BMA noted:

    They have at least four years of full-time postgraduate training, two of which have been in their relevant specialty.

    SAS doctors work in hospitals and have a very ‘hands on’ role with a lot of patient contact.

    There are SAS doctors in every hospital specialty and also in community hospitals (eg psychiatry and paediatrics). Some hold jobs in both the hospital and the community (eg gynaecology and sexual health).

    Some SAS doctors also work part-time as GPs. SAS doctors therefore work across primary, community and hospital care.

    While patients and colleagues value SAS doctors, the government clearly doesn’t. As the BMA wrote:

    Like many other branches of practice, the Government has continually failed to recognise and reward SAS doctors accordingly and they have seen their real-terms pay fall by more than a quarter over the last 15 years, which is driving more talented professionals out of the NHS and putting patient safety at risk.

    So, the union has been in talks with the government over these issues. However, the BMA said “significant progress is still to be made” to avoid moving toward industrial action. So, chair of the BMA SAS UK committee Dr Ujjwala Mohite has written to the health secretary Steve Barclay. In it, she implied that the issues are about more than just pay:

    We believe that making the SAS grade a positive career choice is vital for the NHS. SAS doctors make up an essential part of the NHS workforce, but we are deeply concerned about the rate at which these doctors are leaving the NHS. It is essential we take significant steps now to improve SAS doctors’ working lives and reward them appropriately, to reverse the damaging effect that years of being undervalued has had to this highly experienced group.

    The BMA’s triple threat to the Tories

    With this in mind, the BMA has issued the government with an ultimatum.

    Mohite said in her letter that:

    On 20 September the BMA SAS Committee will meet to decide whether to proceed to an indicative ballot for industrial action. I would much rather present the committee with positive meaningful reforms for SAS doctors that we have agreed with your government. I hope we can meet soon to make meaningful progress on these matters.

    Given the Tories’ intransigence towards junior doctors and consultants, it’s unlikely they’ll be forthcoming in response to SAS doctors’ demands. As the Canary recently reported, Barclay has been lying and making up figures in relation to the ongoing BMA consultants’ strike. These professionals are set to walk out again on 24 and 25 August because the Tories haven’t budged on pay.

    What’s more, junior doctors had only just finished their fifth round of strikes when the government came out and said that negotiations on pay were over. As ITVX reported, health minister Will Quince would only give ground on working conditions. He said the government was “open” to talking about these.

    So, the BMA now represents a triple threat to the Tories, encompassing the majority of frontline hospital doctors. If SAS practitioners decide to walk out, and juniors and consultants continue their action, it would be unprecedented in the NHS’s history. But if that’s what’s needed to make the Tories listen, then so be it.

    Featured image via setrustMedia – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

  • Amnesty International calls out the ‘chilling effect’ of AI facial recognition surveillance on Palestinians

    Amnesty International secretary general Agnes Callamard has called out the “chilling effect” of Israel’s use of facial recognition surveillance on Palestinians.

    Speaking to Middle East Eye, Callamard pointed out the human rights violations inherent in Israel’s discriminatory use of this technology. Her interview follows a detailed report on the issue which Amnesty published in May.

    Automated Apartheid

    In May, Amnesty published an 81-page report titled Automated Apartheid. It documented how the “previously-unreported” Red Wolf facial recognition system formed:

    part of an ever-growing surveillance network which is entrenching the Israeli government’s control over Palestinians.

    Callamard told Middle East Eye that the Red Wolf system used by Israeli authorities at military checkpoints in Occupied Palestinian Territories:

    has major problematic dimensions. The first one is that it is discriminatory, [it] targets Palestinians only. The second is that it has a chilling effect on freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, possibly, by implication, freedom of speech. It has allowed the Israeli authorities to maintain an enormous database of personal data, all of that in the name of… national security.

    Callamard also emphasised that:

    Crucially, crucially, that form of surveillance, automated surveillance as we call it, is part and parcel of the way Israeli authorities are maintaining and imposing a system of apartheid. It is part and parcel of the system of control and oppression and discrimination against one racial group, Palestinians, by the Israeli authorities. That is why… we have said this amounts to automated apartheid.

    Blue Wolf, Red Wolf

    Amnesty’s Automated Apartheid report also noted the ‘gamification’ of surveillance against Palestinians through another system called ‘Blue Wolf’. Operated via a phone app, Blue Wolf incentivised Israeli soldiers to constantly surveil Palestinians.

    The Red Wolf system, meanwhile, is being deployed at checkpoints to severely restrict the movement of Palestinians. In June, Amnesty met with the EU Commission in Brussels to discuss Israel’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) to surveil Palestinians. Speaking to Al Jazeera at the time, Amnesty’s Matt Mahmoudi said:

    What’s particularly chilling about the way that it’s deployed in the context of the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] is the ways in which it is governing movement, so literally stifling individuals from being able to access basic rights and services… it’s very clear that Palestinians now have to contend with the additional calculus of fear involved in just engaging in everyday activities… We have accounts and testimonies of Palestinian families… noting how in Hebron the incursion of facial recognition technologies is effectively destroying any form of social life.

    Facial recognition: ‘a new layer of control’

    Breaking the Silence, an Israeli group, collaborated with Amnesty on the report published in May. Former Israeli Defence Force (IDF) soldier Ori Givati from Breaking the Silence told Al Jazeera in June:

    When we started hearing about the use of these systems, we are hearing about basically a new layer of control… so, if until now, we have been controlling them only in the physical space… we added another layer which is controlling Palestinians’ digital space… So Palestinian today in the occupied territories is not only feeling like his home might be invaded any moment but also that his most private… information is being controlled by the military

    In other words, the use of pervasive electronic surveillance and facial recognition has entrenched even deeper Israel’s military occupation of Palestinians. It has further restricted the freedoms of Palestinians and added yet another level of fear and intrusion as they just try to go about their daily lives.

    The discriminatory and disproportionate application of these systems against Palestinians leaves little doubt that what they achieve is not security, as Israel claims. It is, by definition, apartheid.

    Featured image via YouTube/ Middle East Eye

    By Afroze Fatima Zaidi

  • The Tories have been publishing fake newspapers to try and fool voters

    Byline Times has revealed that the Conservative Party has continued to publish fake newspapers in a bid to trick voters – after the independent media outlet previously called them out over the tactic. Moreover, this news about fake news comes at a time when Tory MPs have also been ‘green washing’ their leaflets – quite literally.

    Politicians’ dodgy ads littering our democracy

    Chief reporter at Byline Josiah Mortimer has been following the story. You can read his latest report here.

    Back in May, Byline wrote about a report by campaign group Reform Political Advertising. It criticised the Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems over they way they all used campaign materials. One example was the Lib Dem’s dodgy bar charts – the below, for example, failed to mention the Green Party had 14 councillors:

    Lib Dem leaflet

    As the report stated, the Lib Dems did this to:

    turn the vote into a two-horse race; any means by which Green votes can be reduced, including misleading by omission, similarly reduces the chance of a Labour/ Green alliance and controlling position.

    Labour didn’t fair much better, with the report slamming the party’s “attack” ads on Rishi Sunak and Johnny Mercer. However, it was the Tories that came off worse. One example was, as Byline reported:

    sending a ‘newspaper’ style A4 political leaflet to voters’ homes in Herefordshire, resembling the local Herefordshire Times publication. The Chair of the North Herefordshire Conservative Association defended the literature, saying that it “clearly identifies” it as being from the Conservatives. While there is a legal requirement for parties to include the name and address of origin, the Reform Political Advertising report notes that in this case it was done in “type so small as to be essentially invisible”.

    Moreover, the article also noted that the Tories in North Tyneside had set up a Facebook page posing as a news outlet. It seems that the Tories are unconcerned with coming across as literal fake news – as Byline found they’d been up to these tricks again.

    In the three by-elections held recently, the Tories repeated their fake news tactics:

    • In Selby and Ainsty they distributed election propaganda posing as the “North Yorkshire Chronicle”.
    • Over in Somerset, it was the “Somerton and Frome Chronicle”.
    • In Uxbridge, the Tories published the “Uxbridge and South Ruislip People”.

    A fake Tory newspaper

    But if you’re a Tory, why stop there?

    Byline: the ‘Lincoln Chronicle’ is not all that it seems

    On Wednesday 16 August, Mortimer reported via Byline that:

    Lincoln Conservative MP Karl McCartney has issued a leaflet to residents branded as the ‘Lincoln Chronicle’ – the same name as a weekly newspaper in the seat that was closed 15 years ago, and which many residents remember.

    Tories fake newspaper in Lincolnshire

    Of course, none of this is new – as Mortimer and Byline noted that the Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems also used fake newspapers during the 2019 general election.

    However, this also comes at a time when Tory MPs are dressing up their constituency leaflets in green:

    As the Canary previously wrote:

    Now, we don’t know about you, but when it comes to political branding, the party we associate with the colour green is the Green Party. Initially, we weren’t sure why that was, but when we had a good, hard think about it, we realised that it’s literally in the fucking name.

    Broken democracy, thanks to politicians

    So, it seems there’s no level of manipulation to which the three main parties won’t stoop to try and dupe people into voting for them. The Tories are, of course, the worst offenders. However, it seems the public aren’t daft – which poses a huge problem in itself. This century, voter turnout at general elections has been the lowest since 1918:

    Statistic: Voter turnout in general elections and in the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom from 1918 to 2019 | Statista
    Find more statistics at Statista.

    This shows just how the political class has disenfranchised many of us – little wonder when all three parties are quite happy to manipulate the public without shame.

    Featured image and additional images via Byline Times, with an additional image via Reform Political Advertising

    By Steve Topple

  • A court banning a landlord for just five years after he housed 40 people in a semi sums up our rotten housing system

    A landlord in Brent, London, was renting a four-bedroom semi-detached house out to 40 people – with one person even sleeping outside under a tarpaulin in the garden. Yet when he was caught and tried, all a court did was fine him around ÂŁ40k and ban him from renting for five years.

    40 people in one semi-detached house in Brent

    As Brent and Kilburn Times reported:

    Jaydipkumar Rameshchandra Valand… has been slapped with Brent Council’s first ever banning order and cannot engage in any property management work in the country for the next five years.

    The landlord, 48, was one of four people found guilty of raking in ÂŁ360,000 by cramming 40 tenants into a single semi-detached home in Napier Road, Wembley, in 2018.

    In 2022, a court fined Valand ÂŁ30,000 and ÂŁ3,347 in costs, plus an extra ÂŁ6,190 in fines and costs for lying about not owning a UK business.

    Since then, a judge has placed the property management ban on Valand. However, he wasn’t the only one involved. As Property Industry Eye reported in 2018:

    Mother and daughter Harsha and Chandni Shah, along with Mrs Harsha Shah’s brother Sanjay Shah, were pocketing around £112,000 a year from the property.

    The council fined them all. Property Industry Eye described how:

    Enforcement officers from Brent Council found appalling conditions in the ‘shanty’ style house.

    They also found a woman living in a lean-to shed in the back garden of the property. The shack had no lighting or heating and was made out of wood offcuts, pallets and tarpaulin.

    the lean to in the brent property

    It also noted that:

    During a raid, enforcement officers… found some residents sharing a single bed, with night workers swapping sleeping shifts with those who worked during the day.

    Moreover, it’s not the first incident like this in Brent. As the Guardian reported in 2018:

    Vispasp Sarkari, 56, another landlord in the area, was fined last year for squeezing 27 people into a four-bedroom semi-detached house that had been converted into seven tiny flats. He was ordered last month to pay a record ÂŁ1.5m penalty for breaking planning laws on that and other properties which he had illegally converted into bedsits. One of the properties where families were found paying ÂŁ650 a month was infested with cockroaches, rats and damp.

    However, these scandals come off the back of a countrywide rotten industry – which has recently caused the deaths of two people.

    A deadly industry

    Two-year-old Awaab Ishak died because of his racist housing association. As the Canary previously reported, a:

    coroner ruled that Awaab died due to mould exposure that RBH failed to deal with. The housing association repeatedly ignored Awaab’s family’s desperate pleas for help.

    Then, Luke Brooks died after developing breathing difficulties linked to his “heavily mould-infested” rented accommodation. As the Canary previously reported, the classist council:

    instructed [the landlord] to make some improvements, but crucially they were not told to address the mould issue. This is despite the inspectors finding mould in Luke’s room.

    However, in Luke’s case, a coroner ruled that “evidence was not sufficient to determine the source of the aspergillus” that lead to his death.

    Only the end of for-profit housing will do

    In both Awaab’s and Luke’s cases of discrimination and neglect, no one has been personally held accountable. The government has introduced the Social Housing Act under which, as BBC News reported:

    Rogue landlords can be given unlimited fines and social housing managers are required to have qualifications.

    Big deal. In both Awaab’s and Luke’s cases, it wasn’t simply rogue landlords that were the problem – but the entire system, which failed them both.

    Moreover, take for example notorious-yet-huge social housing associations like Clarion. A fine means little when they rake in over ÂŁ1bn each year. As the Canary previously reported, Clarion is the second most complained-about housing association.

    What is really needed in order to stop deaths like those of Awaab and Luke – and to stop disgraceful, greedy, and classist landlords like Valand – is an end to the notion of for-profit rented housing. However, that is nowhere on the horizon. So, the best we can hope for is communities and tenants taking it upon themselves to fight back against landlords – whether that be individuals, councils, or housing associations.

    Featured image via Brent Council

    By Steve Topple