Category: UK

  • By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific

    An international relations professor says that if New Zealand joins AUKUS it could impact on its relations with Pacific countries.

    AUKUS is a security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which will see Australia supplied with nuclear-powered submarines.

    That has raised concern in the Pacific, which is under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.

    The topic has come up while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited New Zealand.

    The visit came after he visited Tonga.

    Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, said New Zealand’s views on non-nuclear security are shared by the majority of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and also the Pacific Island states.

    “Even if New Zealand joined AUKUS in a non-nuclear fashion, technically, it may be seen through the eyes of others as diluting our commitment to that norm,” Professor Patman said.

    Sharing defence information
    Professor Patman explained that “pillar 1” of AUKUS is about providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia over two or three decades, and “pillar 2” is to do with sharing information on defence technologies.

    “We haven’t closed the door on it, but it’s a considerable risk from New Zealand’s point of view, because a lot of our credibility is having an independent foreign policy.”

    Professor Robert Patman
    Professor Robert Patman . . . the Pacific may not view New Zealand joining AUKUS favourably – if it is to happen in the future. Image: RNZ Pacific

    Asked about New Zealand’s potential membership in AUKUS, Blinken said work on pillar 2 was ongoing.

    “The door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate,” he said.

    “New Zealand is a deeply trusted partner, obviously a Five Eyes member.

    “We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues.”

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the government was exploring pillar 2 of the deal.

    Not committed
    But she said New Zealand had not committed to anything.

    Mahuta said New Zealand had been clear it would not compromise its nuclear-free position, and that was acknowledged by AUKUS members.

    Patman said that statement was reassurance for Pacific Island states.

    “[New Zealand is] party to the Treaty of Rarotonga,” he said.

    “We have to weigh up whether the benefits of being in pillar 2 outweigh possible external perception that we’re eroding our commitment, to being party to an arrangement which is facilitating the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.”

    He said New Zealand had also been in talks with NATO about getting access to cutting-edge technology, so it was not dependent on AUKUS for that.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific

    An international relations professor says that if New Zealand joins AUKUS it could impact on its relations with Pacific countries.

    AUKUS is a security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which will see Australia supplied with nuclear-powered submarines.

    That has raised concern in the Pacific, which is under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.

    The topic has come up while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited New Zealand.

    The visit came after he visited Tonga.

    Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, said New Zealand’s views on non-nuclear security are shared by the majority of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and also the Pacific Island states.

    “Even if New Zealand joined AUKUS in a non-nuclear fashion, technically, it may be seen through the eyes of others as diluting our commitment to that norm,” Professor Patman said.

    Sharing defence information
    Professor Patman explained that “pillar 1” of AUKUS is about providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia over two or three decades, and “pillar 2” is to do with sharing information on defence technologies.

    “We haven’t closed the door on it, but it’s a considerable risk from New Zealand’s point of view, because a lot of our credibility is having an independent foreign policy.”

    Professor Robert Patman
    Professor Robert Patman . . . the Pacific may not view New Zealand joining AUKUS favourably – if it is to happen in the future. Image: RNZ Pacific

    Asked about New Zealand’s potential membership in AUKUS, Blinken said work on pillar 2 was ongoing.

    “The door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate,” he said.

    “New Zealand is a deeply trusted partner, obviously a Five Eyes member.

    “We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues.”

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the government was exploring pillar 2 of the deal.

    Not committed
    But she said New Zealand had not committed to anything.

    Mahuta said New Zealand had been clear it would not compromise its nuclear-free position, and that was acknowledged by AUKUS members.

    Patman said that statement was reassurance for Pacific Island states.

    “[New Zealand is] party to the Treaty of Rarotonga,” he said.

    “We have to weigh up whether the benefits of being in pillar 2 outweigh possible external perception that we’re eroding our commitment, to being party to an arrangement which is facilitating the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.”

    He said New Zealand had also been in talks with NATO about getting access to cutting-edge technology, so it was not dependent on AUKUS for that.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Campaign group Justice for Bristol Protesters (JBP) has launched an online petition calling for a public inquiry over police brutality in Bristol.

    JBP includes the families of some of those injured and imprisoned after the Kill the Bill protests in March 2021. They want an investigation into police violence against people during these protests.

    Over 100 injured

    JBP points out that police injured over 100 people during the demonstration against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (now an Act) on 21 March 2021.

    Police attacked protesters with batons and used their riot shields as offensive weapons, bringing them down on people’s heads. Officers also deployed pepper spray, horses and dogs against the crowd.

    People fought back, smashing the windows of Bridewell police station and torching several police vehicles.

    JBP calls for a public inquiry into violence

    In total, Bristol Crown Court has sentenced the rebels of Bridewell to over 110 years in prison. But JBP says that no proper inquiry has taken place into the police’s actions. 

    According to a press statement from JBP:

    The police injured more than 100 protesters during the demonstration after indiscriminately attacking the crowd, with some people so severely hurt that they required hospital treatment. In contrast, the police claims that their officers sustained injuries during the protest were later found to be false. The police claim, widely reported on the night, that two officers suffered broken bones and one a punctured lung was later retracted by Avon and Somerset police.

    Heidi Gedge is the mother of Mariella Gedge-Rogers, who was jailed in 2022 for her part in the protests. She said:

    The protesters, who were standing up for everyone’s right to freedom of speech, were brutally attacked by police. Then many were subjected to harsh prison sentences when they tried to defend themselves. 

    Heidi described how police brutally pinned her daughter to the ground:

    This included my daughter, who in an unprovoked attack, was pinned to the ground by 3 police officers, her hand was stamped on and she feared for her life. She is currently serving 5.5 years in prison for riot yet not a single officer has been exposed, questioned or called to account for their outrageous behaviour.

    The Canary interviewed Mariella before her sentencing, you can read her account here, and view JBP’s petition for a public inquiry here.

    Featured image via Shoal Collective

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A former military base being used to hold asylum seekers and refugees has reported a tuberculosis outbreak. The controversial holding centre near Braintree, Essex, has been earmarked to hold 1700 asylum seekers, all of which will be men. The first 46 arrived in July.

    But a spokesperson refused to confirm the number of infected people and defended the controversial holding facility.

    We continue to work across government and with local authorities to look at a range of accommodation options.

    Contested refugee site

    In July, the High Court gave local councils permission to challenge the use of local former military bases like RAF Wethersfield to house asylum seekers. Home secretary Suella Braverman has said she wants asylum seekers housed in such bases to save the public purse. 

    And at the time of the High Court ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said:

    As this matter is subject to ongoing litigation it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

    We remain committed to deliver accommodation on surplus military sites which are not only more affordable for taxpayers, helping to reduce the use the £6million daily cost of hotels but are also more manageable for local communities.

    But far from being about saving public cash, the policy of warehousing refugees in terrible accommodation is a function of the Tories‘ brutal anti-refugee ideology.

    Hostile environment

    In truth, the camps are one of a range of measures brought in to criminalise refugees and strip away their dignity. Are any meagre savings that might come from shoving human beings into warehouses that breed disease worth it? Another similar example is the Bibby Stockholm, a floating prison barge meant to house up to 500 asylum seekers.

    Underpinning it all, however, is the racist Tory anti-refugee bill. As the Canary has reported:

    Braverman’s bill, if enacted, would see huge changes in the way the UK handles refugees and asylum seekers. For example, anyone arriving in the UK via boat or on the back of a lorry will not be able to claim asylum. That stipulation applies even if they have come from a war-torn country, or faced repression.

    Of course, it is predictable that these plans would lead to more misery. And it’s entirely predictable that cramming people into old military bases would result in major health issues. Clearly, it’s past time that a humane and sensible approach to refugees and asylum seekers came into effect.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Glyn Baker, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY 2.0

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A typo meant the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) sent sensitive UK emails to a Russian-allied nation. The classified material ended up being sent to Mali, rather than the US where it was intended to go.

    The emails were meant to be sent to an address ending in ‘.mil’ denoting the US military. Instead, the ‘i’ was dropped, resulting in them being sent to addresses in Mali.

    Until recently, the UK and US were closely aligned with Mali. The UK even sent troops to the country. More recently, however, the military took over and appears to have aligned more closely with Moscow.

    MOD fail

    Cue MOD embarrassment and back-pedalling. A spokesperson told the press:

    We have opened an investigation after a small number of emails were mistakenly forwarded to an incorrect email domain.

    We are confident they did not contain any information that could compromise operational security or technical data.

    The MOD said that sensitive information “is shared on systems designed to minimise the risk of misdirection”.

    They added:

    The MoD constantly reviews its processes and is currently undertaking a programme of work to improve information management, data loss prevention, and the control of sensitive information.

    The US did it too

    Irish news channel RTE reported that the Malian government had recently struck up a grain deal with Russia:

    Mali was among the six African countries promised free grain shipments by Russian President Vladimir Putin after the collapse of the Black Sea deal with Ukraine.

    Now that the US and UK have pulled out of Mali, Russian mercenary firm Wagner is operating in a counter-insurgency role:

    Moscow’s Wagner mercenaries have also been deployed in Mali to fight alongside the army against jihadists

    It is also worth noting that the US recently reported making the same email error. But the result was that millions of military emails may have been seen to Mali.

    Malian conflict

    Fuelled by arms stolen during NATO’s 2011 Libyan war, the war in Mali has ground on for over a decade. Now the Wagner Group is operating in the country.

    But, as the Intercept pointed out, many of the military officers now working with Wagner are US-trained:

    Researchers found that the longtime U.S.-backed Malian military also tortured detainees in an army camp and destroyed and looted civilian property as part of its protracted campaign against militant Islamists.

    In fact, US-trained military officers have been involved in coups all over Africa in recent years. In fact, the framing of Mali across the press as a ‘Kremlin ally’ in relation to the email story seems rather odd. Especially, given that UK troops only pulled out in November 2022.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Harland Quarrington, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under OGL 1.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A new report has found that the UK is “clearly not on course” to protect nearly a third of England’s land and seas by 2030. The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee published the damning findings on 26 July. They showed that the UK is set to fall short of its pledged international commitments.

    Not meeting the 30 by 30 protected area target

    In December 2022, the UK government committed to the new “30 by 30” target. Nations agreed this new aim at the COP15 biodiversity conference. It refers to the global goal of placing 30% of land and sea into protected areas. Protected areas are geographical spaces which are managed in order to achieve the long-term conservation of nature.

    So far, the UK government has only designated 6.5% of England’s land area as protected sites. With just seven years left to meet the promise of 30%, the report concluded that:

    The government faces an extraordinary challenge to halt species decline and recover nature for the public good.

    Protected sites in poor condition

    Conversely, the report highlighted that the UK government has placed 44% of England’s seas under protection. However, it found that much of the land and ocean territory the government claims to be protected remains in:

    a poor condition and in many cases inadequately monitored

    Notably, the UK government’s poor monitoring of protected areas made progress towards 30 by 30 “difficult to assess”.

    The parliamentary watchdog publication concurs with findings from a separate report released by wildlife nonprofit Wild Justice on 24 July. The Canary’s Tracy Keeling reported on the analysis, which found that the government has failed to assess nearly two-thirds of the UK’s Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). These are one of the key protected area designations found in the UK. Crucially, the research identified that the majority of the UK’s over 7,000 SSSIs were in poor condition.

    The UK government consequently risks failing the framework agreed by scores of countries at COP15. Critically, nations pledged to ensure that sites would be “effectively conserved and managed”. In other words, the parliamentary report noted that protected areas need to ensure quality, and not just quantity, of protection.

    Destructive fishing in protected areas

    In addition, the committee report highlighted that Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) were also falling woefully short of conservation goals. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) suggested that just 44% of England’s MPAs were in “favourable condition”. This refers to the healthy status of wildlife and plants that a particular site has been designated to protect. This would mean that the UK government and fisheries authorities are currently protecting just 17.7% of England’s waters effectively.

    Conversely, in its written submission to the committee, conservation nonprofit the Wildlife and Countryside Link (WCL) argued that just 8% of England’s waters are effectively protected. The WCL defines this as areas of ocean where there are bylaws – i.e. regulations – to prevent the most destructive forms of fishing. In particular, these protected areas prohibit the seabed-damaging practice of bottom trawling.

    A December 2022 report by Greenpeace also criticised the UK government’s inadequate management of MPAs. The campaign group found that over 90% of the UK’s MPA network outlawed destructive fishing activities. Moreover, just two sites were fully protected from all fishing pressures.

    As of 5 July, the UK government brought three new fully protected sites into force. These Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) prohibit all forms of fishing and harvesting of marine life. However, ocean protection groups have branded these efforts “feeble” and “piecemeal”.

    In addition, Greenpeace has also previously highlighted how the government has failed to prevent enormous supertrawlers from decimating UK MPAs. The organisation revealed that these vessels of over 100m in length had spent nearly 3,000 hours fishing in supposedly protected sites during 2019.

    “Diluting or revoking” habitat regulations

    The committee report also found that sites covered by EU Habitats Regulations:

    are the sites with the highest strength of protection in England.

    It recommended that the EU regulations are “retained” and not weakened. The rules were previously threatened by the possible revocation of EU laws retained by Britain post-Brexit. However, the government has not included these in the list of legislation set to be removed later this year.

    Despite this, the report warned that the law passed to allow ministers to scrap retained EU legislation should not be used for “diluting or revoking the habitats regulations”.

    A spokesperson for DEFRA insisted the government was “on track to deliver on our commitment to protecting 30 percent of land and of sea in the UK for nature’s recovery by 2030”.

    During Boris Johnson’s period as prime minister, the UK government had committed to meeting the 30 by 30 target. However, the pledge considered that 26% of England’s land extent was already protected by designations. It therefore estimated that just 400,000 hectares – 4% more land – would need earmarking for protection. As the new report demonstrates, most of these areas are failing to maintain and revive biodiversity.

    The government has since recognised that the poor condition of a majority of these sites means that it cannot currently count these towards meeting the target. Nonetheless, it’s clear that the government has a very long way to go to restoring the UK’s badly broken and biodiversity-starved conservation areas.

    Additional reporting via Agence France Presse.

    Feature image via Rosser1954/Wikimedia, resized and cropped to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The University and College Union (UCU) has held a nationwide day of protests at universities. It’s over the ongoing dispute with bosses over pay and conditions, which has seen a nationwide marking boycott. The protests saw support from staff and students alike – and the UCU’s general secretary warned that if bosses don’t move, the union’s action would continue into the next academic year.

    UCU: a protracted dispute with university bosses

    As the Canary as been documenting, the UCU has been on dispute mode for well over a year. At first, it was over pay, conditions, and pensions – resulting in nationwide strikes. The union and the organisation responsible for pensions came to an agreement in April. However, members voted to reject the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) pay offer of derisory and imposed increases of between 5-8%.

    So, UCU members began a marking boycott in April, known as action short of a strike. It’s been going on ever since. The union said on its website:

    we are asking all UCU members in higher education institutions which are part of the pay and working conditions dispute to cease undertaking all summative marking and associated assessment activities/duties. The boycott also covers assessment-related work such as exam invigilation and the processing of marks.

    Strikes, however, have been off the cards. UCU negotiations with the UCEA have proven unfruitful. As the union said:

    UCU previously met with UCEA last week in an attempt to end the UK-wide university marking boycott and resolve the ongoing pay and working conditions dispute. Unfortunately, UCEA refused to table an improved pay offer or provide any redress for members who have been hit with punitive pay deductions.

    So, the UCU called an emergency nationwide demo on Wednesday 26 July, to show the strength of feeling across the workforce as well as from students:

    By all accounts, the protests were a success.

    Demos across the UK

    Across the UK, universities saw demos. Oxford was packed:

    Brighton University has been at the centre of a separate, ongoing dispute over bosses’ plans for redundancies. You can read the Canary‘s coverage of that here. So, staff and students were out in force there, too:

    Keele University also saw protests:

    There was a big turnout at Nottingham:

    And York saw a demo too:

    Crucially, though, and students also supported the UCU’s action. The National Union of Students (NUS) officially backed the protests – while branches came out at individual universities, like University College London (UCL):

    Some students had previously even used their graduation speeches to send support to the UCU – despite them not actually getting their grades. One student said:

    It would not be right to stand here and not acknowledge the hard work of staff, who have been fighting for no more than the bare minimum, fair treatment, and fair pay.

    Back to the table – but to what end?

    The day of action came before the UCU re-entered negotiations with the UCEA. The union’s general secretary Jo Grady said:

    We cannot and will not allow employers to filibuster talks to a point where students miss out on their degrees and punitive pay deductions plunge staff further into debt.

    UCEA now has a choice, listen to the modest demands of staff and students, and work with us to end the marking boycott, or lay the ground for even more disruption in the coming months and into the next academic year.

    The challenge for the UCU is two-fold.

    Firstly, and while a marking boycott is effective, to university bosses it represents nowhere near the same level of disruption as strikes. Do they really care if students have to wait for their final grades? Probably not.

    Then there’s the issue of pay. The government’s acceptance of pay rises of between 5-7% for public sector workers doesn’t help the UCU – given the UCEA was offering between 5-8%. So it remains to be seen how far bosses will move. Therefore, the UCU is likely to have some difficult decisions to make – accept a lower pay offer, or continue the dispute. What it does next will shape the next academic year across higher education in the UK.

    Featured image via Brighton UCU

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Transform Politics is the name of a new group looking to form a fresh left-wing party in the UK. It’s made up of individuals and pre-existing parties – and it’s launched its campaign with a flurry of interest on social media, as well as some criticism.

    Transform Politics: some familiar faces

    The group appears to be the brainchild of Left Unity – the Ken Loach-and-co-founded party. Transform Politics shares the same registered address – working out of Housmans Bookshop in Islington. The project is also supported by the Breakthrough Party, the People’s Alliance of the Left, and Liverpool Community Independents. Some of these groups formed in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s departure from the Labour leadership, and party.

    Transform Politics officially launched on Tuesday 25 July:

    It says on its website that:

    This is an era of crisis: climate change, the cost of living, the erosion of democracy and the spread of war.

    We urgently need an answer. But in Britain, while the Tory party fuels these crises, the Labour Party is failing to provide an alternative.

    The right wing has regained control of Labour. Jeremy Corbyn, and his politics that inspired millions across our society, have been cast out.

    Labour now opposes strikes, rejects renationalisation, refuses to defend refugees, and won’t scrap student fees – or even the two-child benefit cap. [original emphasis]

    Keir Starmer has overseen the driving out of 200,000 Labour members. ‘The many’ who supported Labour politics from 2015 to 2019 are denied a political voice.

    We need a political organisation that offers a real solution: one that challenges the system at the root of every crisis we face.

    Transform Politics has a ten-point list of “core principles” of any party that forms. It says that “the party”:

    1. Is a left party, of and for the working class in all its diversity, seeking to redistribute wealth and power from the elite to the people.
    2. Is eco-socialist, supporting transformative political, social and economic change in order to build a truly sustainable world and achieve climate justice.
    3. Is internationalist, opposing war, imperialism and colonialism, welcoming migrants and standing in solidarity with oppressed people everywhere.
    4. Is feminist and anti-racist, fighting for a world where social injustices including racism, xenophobia, ableism, homophobia, transphobia and the oppression of women have been eradicated.
    5. Is committed to eradicating regional inequality within Britain and supports the right of the devolved nations to determine their constitutional futures.
    6. Is a democratic party, in which members empower, organise and educate each other.
    7. Develops policy democratically, drawing on the knowledge and experience of its members.
    8. Contests elections in order to offer voters a socialist alternative and build power locally and nationally, without promoting the idea that voting alone can solve the present crises.
    9. Seeks to build power in communities, workplaces and on the streets.
    10. Builds meaningful relationships with a wide range of organisations including trade unions, community and campaign groups, social justice movements and left organisations outside Britain.

    Transformational- or Cor-bots in disguise?

    On social media #TransformPolitics was trending on 25 July. There appeared to be a lot of support for it, for example:

    Cautious optimism also existed; hopefully no one in Transform Politics has been a ‘very naughty boy’:

    Of course, Transform Politics also had its cynics:

    The inevitable references to a certain toy/film franchise came thick and fast:

    Others implied it was all a bit familiar:

    And for some people, it was simply all about the “Israel lobby” (no surprises there, given there’s a book out):

    Of note is that so far, the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) and George Galloway’s Workers Party of Great Britain (WPGB) have not got involved. Oh, and nor has Chris Williamson’s Resist Party (Remember that? No? Why on earth not?). TUSC was part of PAL, but the latter excluded the former due to its involvement with the WPGB.

    Some people believe that TUSC already does what Transform Politics is aiming to do:

    Also, others noted that there’s the small matter of the Greens already being a left-wing party – albeit perhaps not a socialist one:

    Plus, under the First Past The Post system, Transform Politics will probably struggle to get anything more than local councillors elected – as people pointed out:

    Watch this space – or more collective watching of navels?

    As of 9am on Thursday 27 July, Transform Politics said that 3,000 people had signed up:

    Overall, the group notes:

    Now we are taking the next step: inviting all who agree with our core principles, outlined below, to move rapidly towards founding a new party of the left.

    We want you to join us in this vital initiative. Together, we can transform politics. The time is now.

    So what can we gather from all this? Well, there’s clearly a group of left-wingers on social media who feel politically homeless and are looking for a new base. There’s also people who’ve ‘been here, done it’ before – with little success, but feel this initiative is worth it. Then there are those that think it’s another pointless exercise in an already divided left. It seems that at present, this is where Transform Politics is at – and where it heads next will very much depend on how much support it gets.

    Featured image via Transform Politics – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • People held a protest outside a Croydon police station over cops’ abuse of a Black woman after they suspected her of dodging a bus fare – even though she had paid. However, wider questions are now being asked of the Met Police’s actions – not least, bosses’ response to the racist and misogynistic actions of cops.

    Protesting the police in Croydon

    As the Canary previously reported, the Met Police are once again facing anger and criticism for officers’ racist treatment of a Black woman. Cops arrested, then “de-arrested”, the woman on Friday 21 July – because they thought she’d had dodged a bus fare. The Met also claim it was because she was being “abusive”. But as the Canary previously wrote:

    Yes, that old chestnut: a Black person defends themselves, therefore they must be abusive.

    This was racism and misogynoir in action from the cops – which left her and her young child visibly distressed. So, people took to a Croydon police station on Tuesday 25 July for a demo.

    Community groups in Croydon, as well as branches of national groups, had organised the protest. Around 100 people came out for the demo:

    Croydon’s toxic Labour Party, who’ve bankrupted the council and are now making poor people pay for it, were nowhere to be seen:

    The local Green Party were there, though:

    Campaigner Afua Rose echoed what the Canary previously wrote over the impact on the mother’s child. She said of the cops:

    How can you take a mother… who could have been my daughter… and manhandle her in front of a…child? Do they understand the corrosion and toxicity they’re putting into this little baby boy? So when he grows up hating the police… why is it that they don’t understand that this is a cycle that keeps continuing time and time again?

    Overall, the demo showed the strength of feeling both in Croydon and nationally about the Met’s actions. Moreover, since the Canary last reported on this there’s been more developments.

    Half-baked investigations and half-baked platitudes

    First, and the Met did its usual – referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). As BBC News reported:

    The police watchdog says it received a “complaint referral” from the Met on Monday afternoon, with the complaint alleging the woman was “racially profiled and verbally abused by an officer”.

    Not that this will instil confidence in Black communities, or racialised groups more broadly. As Novara Media previously wrote in 2022:

    of over 23,000 complaints made about poor policing between 2020-2021, only 18 resulted in a police officer facing a misconduct meeting or hearing. Complaints against police have risen 11% in the last 12 months, new figures also reveal.

    Then, you have boss cops giving the usual half-baked platitudes once they remembered smart phones with cameras exist so people now have proof of their officers’ actions. Chief superintendent Andy Brittain told BBC News:

    our comms perhaps could have been slightly better and and then it’s kind of cascaded into quite a big community concern.

    You don’t say, Andy. The Voice‘s editor Lester Holloway dissected the Met’s ‘comms’ on the incident:

    Or rather, as one Twitter user put it:

    The Met put out a second statement on Twitter as well – which didn’t help them, either:

    Then, Brittain also told BBC News:

    Trust has taken a hit as a result of the video, so it’s really important we understand what took place.

    We assume he was neither joking, nor being ironic, when he said “trust has taken a hit” because of the video – like this is a new occurrence. Black communities have never been able to trust the Met – and now, the majority of London’s population don’t trust them, either.

    People have also been pointing out that one of the officers called the woman a “daft cow” during the incident:

    This just compounds the stench of misogynoir seeping from the cops.

    Nothing will change

    Overall, though the cops’ treatment of the Black woman and her son has prompted the usual response from everyone affected when the Met’s racism rears its ugly head.

    The Met has issued non-apologies. The IOPC will investigate but it’s unlikely any officer will face action. Politicians like Labour’s Sadiq Khan and Florence Eshalomi have asked for ‘urgent explanations‘ and expressed concern – but when the chips are down, will still support the police as an institution. Racists have trolled people over this on social media. And Black people are back to having to protest – all while feeling less and less safe on their own streets.

    Here we go again, you’d be forgiven for thinking. If history, and the present, has taught us anything, it’s that colonialism is so entrenched in UK society that cops racism and misogynoir is systematically embedded in the structures of the police – because it’s meant to be. The police keep showing us who they are, over and over.

    Only abolition will suffice. But in a white supremacist society, there’s a long road ahead.

    Featured image via Nadine White – Twitter screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Tories, transport secretary Mark Harper, and train operators’ plans to close most ticket offices in the country have been thrown into chaos – thanks, in part, to disabled activists and trade unions. After they lashed out over the public’s objections, train bosses have now been left red faced. However, it’s also emerged that they aren’t taking the “Save Our Ticket Offices” campaign very well – threatening staff who get involved.

    Ticket office closures: the thin end of the wedge

    The Canary has been documenting the ongoing debacle over ticket office closures. It’s seen the Tories and train operators in cahoots to close most of the outlets across the country. However, people have hit back furiously – not least the National Union of Rail, Transport, and Maritime Workers (RMT), and chronically ill and disabled people. For the latter, as we previously wrote:

    23% of disabled people are internet non-users. Ticket vending machines are often inaccessible. Plus, wheelchair users can only get their 50% discount on tickets from an office. Overall, the rail network is generally still not fully accessible as well. All this makes for a perfect storm for chronically ill and disabled people.

    Train operators are counter-claiming that they’ll redeploy ticket office staff on stations. However, research by the Association of British Commuters (ABC) has shown this not to be true.

    At the centre of the storm has been the government and train operators’ consultation on the process. It was due to close at 11:59pm on Wednesday 26 July. Two legal challenges – one from two disabled people, and one from five mayors – both claimed the consultation breached various laws and regulations.

    Now, it appears that the Tories and train operators have shit themselves and lashed out.

    Consultative chaos

    As the Mirror first revealed, the outcry and response to the contentious consultation has thrown it, the Tories, and train operators, into chaos. It reported on 25 July that:

    the process could yet be extended following crisis talks between the Department for Transport and train operators earlier today.

    It is understood the consultations could even be extended over the summer and could run into September.

    Why, you may ask? Well, the Mirror said:

    Ministers and train companies have been spooked over legal challenges to how the process has been conducted. At its heart are claims that the 21 day consultation was not only too short but also unlawful and discriminated against disabled people.

    So it came to pass on Thursday 26 July that train operators extended the consultation – probably coupled with red faces in bosses’ offices up and down the country. People now have until 1 September to submit their objections – on top of the 170,000 responses already sent in.

    Bosses behaving badly

    Meanwhile, the RMT has revealed that a train operator has threatened its members with disciplinary action. It’s over them wearing “Save Our Ticket Offices” stickers at work. General secretary Mick Lynch wrote to the offending train operator, LNER. He said:

    I have received very disturbing reports this morning from members at your company who are being threatened by managers with disciplinary action and being sent home without pay as a result of them wearing “save our ticket offices” stickers.

    Threatening staff who are fighting for their very futures and for the services they provide in this way is a quite disgraceful tactic to use and I can advise you that any moves to discipline any RMT member for having a simple statement on a sticker will be met with a full industrial response.

    Lynch continued:

    If a genuine and meaningful consultation process really is to be followed in this process, then surely this would include allowing the very staff whose future employment is threatened to voice their opinions.

    I would therefore ask that any disciplinary threats are withdrawn and that you will assure your staff their democratic right to have their opinion heard on this extremely important matter will be respected.

    I look forward to hearing from you on this as a matter of extreme urgency.

    Members have told the RMT that bosses at other train operators, including Northern, and Greater Anglia, have “interfered with campaigns and removed materials from stations”.

    Great British Chaos Plc

    It seems that far from being a done deal, the Tories’ and train operators’ plans are in chaos – thanks to the hard work of campaigners, trade unions, and chronically ill and disabled people. But then, why break the habit of a lifetime? Chaos in ticket office closures is par for the course from a rail network that exists in a perpetual state of chaos anyway – thanks to Tory privatisation.

    Is it time to bring back British Rail, yet?

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – screengrab, and ITV News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Virgin Media O2 is laying off 10% of its workforce, amid a mountain of debt – yet oddly, they also have made billions in profits, and paid over £1bn in dividends to shareholders. Yet the Communication Workers Union (CWU) has issued a tepid response at best. This is probably because it looks like it made an error of judgement months ago over a pay deal with the company. Moreover, it sends a warning to the other deal the CWU has just agreed with Royal Mail – because if Virgin Media O2 can strike a pay deal with the CWU and then lay off countless staff – Royal Mail could well do similar.

    Virgin Media O2: if in doubt, lay off staff

    UK telecoms group Virgin Media O2 provides phone, broadband, and television services. However, it announced on 24 July it will cut up to 2,000 jobs, or over 10% of its staff. Spanish operator Telefonica and US group Liberty Global merged their UK units O2 and Virgin Media in 2021. The company said in a statement for Agence France-Presse (AFP):

    As we continue to integrate and transform as a company, we are currently consulting on proposals to simplify our operating model to better deliver for customers.

    The group employs 18,700 staff – and after its statement, the CWU hit back. The union’s assistant secretary Tracey Fussey said in a press release:

    This news is causing a tremendous deal of anxiety among our membership, who are now feeling vulnerable about their jobs during an historic economic crisis.

    The confirmation of job losses is a tremendous disappointment, and we will be doing everything we can to mitigate against the redundancies.

    The announcement of 2000 redundancies includes changes already made this year. We will continue to actively work with VMO2 through the consultation processes.

    Workers deserve clarity and security over their futures, and the CWU will do everything in our power to ensure that is what our members will get.

    This news was not new, though. The Mirror reported at the end of June that the company was planning between 800 and 2,000 lay offs.

    The problem is, Virgin Media O2’s job cuts have come just two months after it reached a deal with the CWU and workers over pay and conditions.

    The CWU: a deal amid redundancies?

    Virgin Media O2 had originally tried to impose a 2% rise in 2022. But after the CWU balloted for strike action, it backed down. The union wrote at the end of May that:

    Members across Virgin Media O2 have voted by nearly nine-to-one to accept a CWU-brokered pay deal which delivers fully consolidated rises for all CWU represented grade employees in excess of 7, 8 or 9% this year – plus a cash lump sum of £400 to be paid in June.

    The company’s final offer… was accepted by 86.5% of members participating in a consultative ballot…

    Taking both consolidated and unconsolidated elements into consideration, the deal is worth just over 10% in cash terms this year for members working in O2 stores.

    Fussey said at the time that the deal was:

    at the top end of pay settlements across the whole of British industry at present.

    Now, why could that have been? Probably because bosses at Virgin Media O2 knew all along they’d slash jobs to pay for it.

    The broadband giant: billions in profit and dividends

    Virgin Media O2 actually increased revenues in the year to April 2023. Yet, as ISP Review wrote:

    the move is not unexpected. The operator is known to have been trying to cut costs and are also hoping to benefit from the efficiencies that are likely to flow from their network upgrade projects.

    Moreover, the redundancies are coming after the company paid £1.6bn to shareholders in 2022. It also made £3.9bn in core operating profit (before taxes and depreciation). However, such is corporate capitalist life – and Virgin Media O2 has a staggering £19bn of debt and “lease obligations” on its books.

    So, if you’re a boss who’s making money – but also owes even more money to other people – then the first rule of Capitalism 101 is ‘get rid of the plebs’ to save £350m. Which is exactly what Virgin Media O2 has done.

    Lesson learned for the CWU, you’d think? Possibly not.

    CWU: a bit of a mess, really

    First, the union knew in at least February that some redundancies were coming. It said in a statement early in 2023 that:

    Detailed talks are underway… on behalf of 1,357 employees who’ve been placed ‘at risk’ of potential redundancy as a result of a massive site rationalisation and restructuring exercise.

    Yet, it failed to act on this during its negotiations over pay with Virgin Media O2. Secondly, the union’s most recent weak response to the redundancies is simply not good enough. Saying that it will try and “mitigate” the redundancies, and “work” with Virgin Media O2 over them is flaccid. Given the shareholder dividends and core operating profit last year, the CWU should be balloting for strikes over this.

    However, this disaster for workers has ramifications elsewhere.

    The CWU’s now-ended industrial dispute with Royal Mail is a case in point. The union and 50% of its members recently voted ‘yes’ to a deal. However, it was hardly a good one – for example, with just a 10% pay rise across three years (not even touching the sides of inflation and rising prices) plus some worsening of working conditions. Many members accused the CWU of effectively selling out:

    Stop dancing with the devil you fools

    But with Royal Mail’s unenviable position of being one of the most notorious corporate capitalist entities in the UK, who’s to say that it won’t impose cost-cutting exercises on its workers anyway – in spite of the CWU deal? Parts of the agreement are dubiously phrased (no “compulsory” redundancies until April 2025, ‘learning and honing’ on changes to people’s hours). Moreover, last September Royal Mail was perfectly willing to ‘rip up’ the previous one, agreed in 2013.

    The situation with Virgin Media O2 should be a warning to the CWU: never dance with the capitalist devil. Except it’s probably too late, as the rumba with Royal Mail reached its choreographed denouement weeks ago. Now, we wait and see if the devil bosses have an encore up their sleeves for workers. If it’s the case, the CWU will have serious questions to answer – which it already has plenty of about the situation with toxic Virgin Media O2.

    Featured image via O2 – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Campaign group Just Stop Oil seemed to have cornered the market when it comes to climate crisis protest – becoming notorious (for right wingers and climate chaos denialists, anyway) with its glue-laden, paint-spraying escapades. However, it’s got some fierce competition in Scotland for the title of ‘Most Gammon Frothing-Inducing Activists’. And it comes in the form of This Is Rigged.

    Scotland is rigged

    This Is Rigged is an activist group that’s been active since early 2023. It focuses on the climate crisis. The group said in a press release it:

    is a new Scottish non-violent direct action group – They are demanding the Scottish Government opposes all new fossil fuel projects in Scotland and creates a clear transition plan for oil workers.

    Among its actions, the group has painted Holyrood red:

    This Is Rigged protest

    It also replicated an action by the Suffragettes – smashing the glass housing William Wallace’s sword:

    This is Rigged Protest

    This Is Rigged also disrupted First Minister’s Questions (FMQs) for eight weeks. It did all this because, as activist Lindsey explained:

    There is no such thing as being “neutral” when it comes to new oil and gas developments. Our first minister can either do everything in his power to stick up for life and oppose all new oil and gas, or he can pander to the oil and gas industry. Right now, he, and others in government and in parliament are choosing the latter.

    The group itself further said:

    Despite saying in their recent Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan, “that unlimited extraction of fossil fuels is not consistent with our climate obligations”, the Scottish Government are not opposing the current round of over a hundred new licenses and consents for offshore projects. The First Minister has continually dodged calls to oppose Westminster’s murderous projects such as Rosebank – the biggest undeveloped oil and gas field in the North Sea – which will have catastrophic climate impacts.

    Moreover, as the Canary previously reported the Scottish government has been cosying up to big oil over hydrogen power – an alleged ‘renewable’ that is actually not that green.

    Now, This Is Rigged has taken things up a gear.

    Grangemouth: concreting roads (but not in the usual way)

    On Tuesday 25 July, it targeted the INEOS Grangemouth oil terminal – the petrochemical company that is also notorious in its lobbying for dirty fracking:

    The group said on Twitter:

    No fuel can enter or exit the Grangemouth oil terminal, which supplies 70% of Scotland’s fuel, while they remain on the road.

    Eventually, the initially bemused/confused cops nicked all six activists:

    Jamie from This Is Rigged said:

    We can no longer stand by while we head into a climate disaster. We must put an end to the growth of oil and gas to secure a safe future for everyone and not just line the pockets of the rich.

    This Is Rigged: Scotland’s Just Stop Oil?

    The action came after This Is Rigged previously and repeatedly targeted Grangemouth:

    Then, as Real Media reported:

    In the wee hours of 19 July, members of the campaign group This is Rigged scaled an oil tanker at Scotland’s largest oil and gas refinery, and revealed flags with the group’s name abbreviated to TIR, the Gaelic for ‘dry land’.

    Others sat in front of the gates of the terminal, so that within minutes the INEOS Grangemouth site was brought to a standstill.

    Cops charged a staggering 20 people with supposed “public order” offences – if raising awareness of the impending climate collapse is an offence to the public order of things. Further to this, and on 21 July as Bella Caledonia reported:

    three people blocked Powdrake Road in Grangemouth by locking themselves to a washing machine halting traffic in both directions.

    However, the group doesn’t just limit itself to direct climate-related issues. It has previously done what it called “Robin Hood” actions – where activists took food off supermarket shelves and put it in the in-store foodbank collection bins:

    This Is Rigged protest

    So, it seems This Is Rigged is the Scottish cousin of Just Stop Oil. It’s great to see another group take such direct action over the climate crisis – but in this instance, also branch-out to acts of mutual aid. So, right-wing gammon beware: there’s another loony left group on the block; best get yourselves ready for some serious disruption.

    Featured image and additional images via This Is Rigged  

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Groundbreaking new analysis shows that the Conservative government hasn’t assessed almost two-thirds of the land in England’s key wildlife protection sites in over a decade. Moreover, of the sites it has assessed in recent years, a growing proportion are in poor condition.

    The nonprofit Wild Justice, which carried out the analysis, says that the government’s system of nature monitoring has “fallen into disrepair”. It also warns that the findings point to the possibility that England’s wildlife is “in a much worse state than current estimates admit”.

    England’s wildlife assessments are years old

    Wild Justice published its findings in a report titled A Sight for Sore SSSIs on 24 July. The title refers to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), which are the focus of the analysis.

    As Natural England explains, SSSIs are protected areas aimed at safeguarding a “specific aspect of biological or earth heritage interest”. There are some 7,000 SSSIs across the UK, with over half of them situated in England. Natural England is the government body responsible for monitoring these sites in the country.

    Wild Justice submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the body regarding biological SSSIs. These are sites protected for their important wildlife, rather than their geology or ‘earth heritage’. The organisation sought information on when Natural England last assessed the units that make up these biologically important sites, as well as what the assessments show.

    It found that Natural England has not assessed 66% of SSSIs – by area – in a decade or longer. This means that when the government puts out information on the state of protected nature in England, much of it is unlikely to be a true reflection of what’s happening on the ground. Wild Justice’s Mark Avery explained on Twitter:

    Quite frankly, SSSI condition monitoring is way off the pace and gives a falsely optimistic picture of the biological reality. The public is being misled.

    Wild Justice excluded data that Natural England provided on geological SSSIs from its analysis, along with data on a small number of SSSI units that had incomplete data or ‘destroyed’ status.

    Wildlife in decline

    When Natural England assesses SSSIs, it gives them one of six classifications. These are essentially favourable, unfavourable but recovering, unfavourable with no change, unfavourable and declining, part destroyed, and fully destroyed.

    The status of wildlife is not static. As communities of living organisms, things can change in SSSIs – either rapidly or slowly, based on internal and external factors. The Conservative government has, for instance, carried out a years-long mass slaughter of the UK’s largest land predators – badgers – in England since 2013. Prior to the killing starting, the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), now called Fera Science, warned that “badger control” could:

    have significant negative impacts on either individual species, assemblages of species and/or designated sites.

    In other words, having up-to-date information on wildlife matters. The Wild Justice report helps to illustrate why this is the case.

    The report shows that more recent SSSI assessments point to the declining health of wildlife sites. For example, of the SSSIs assessed prior to 2011, only 1% carry the unfavourable and declining classification. Fast forward to those assessed in the last three years and the number jumps to 31%.

    Similarly, the amount of SSSIs with favourable classifications in assessments before 2011 stood at 41%. However, assessments conducted between 2021 and 2023 show that only 27% are in a favourable condition.

    In its report, Wild Justice warns that:

    An entirely plausible possibility (not a worst case scenario by any means) is that if all SSSIs in England were assessed in the next few years then their condition would resemble the most recent condition assessments made in the last three calendar years.

    If this were the case, only 54% of SSSIs would merit the favourable or favourable but recovering classification. Using its outdated figures, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs currently claims that 89% of SSSIs fit these classifications, the report notes.

    Significant changes needed to restore nature

    Wild Justice is calling for change, both in terms of government transparency and competence. It says authorities should provide yearly updates on SSSIs that make clear when Natural England last assessed each of them. The organisation is also urging the government to carry out a “rapid catch-up” of assessments.

    It further calls for an “urgent review” of what resources Natural England needs to ensure that the government meets its target of 95% of SSSIs being in a favourable or unfavourable but recovering state, based on more up-to-date assessments.

    This call for better protection and oversight of SSSIs follows a recent push from dozens of wildlife-focused charities to secure political backing for a five-point plan for nature. The plan calls for rapid restoration of nature sites by 2030, among other measures.

    Featured image via Julian P Guffogg / Wikimedia, cropped to 1910×1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • “Gruelling” work intensity is a growing problem in “burnt-out Britain’. That’s the conclusion of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), which has published a new report showing people work harder and longer now compared to previous years. Unfortunately for us, it doesn’t look like things are changing any time soon.

    ‘Work intensification’ on the rise

    The TUC says increasing work intensity means workers are having to pack more work into working hours – with work often spilling over into their private lives. It says “work intensification“:

    has been defined as “the rate of physical and/or mental input to work tasks performed during the working day”. Work intensity comprises several elements, including the rate of task performance; the intensity of those tasks in terms of physical, cognitive, and emotional demands; the extent to which they are performed simultaneously or in sequence, continuously, or with interruptions; and the gaps between tasks.

    The union body thinks work intensification is getting worse, so it looked into the issue.

    Polling company Thinks Insight did research for the TUC. Of over 2,100 workers it spoke to:

    • 55% said that their work “is getting more intense and demanding”.
    • 61% are “exhausted at the end of most working days”.

    Moreover, compared to 2021 workers said things were deteriorating:

    • 36% are working more outside of their contracted hours. Tasks include “reading, sending and answering emails”.
    • 32% are doing the same, but on “core work activities”.
    • 40% say bosses have made them “do more work in the same amount of time”.
    • 38% say work is making them feel “more stressed”.

    Predictably, work regimes are hitting women harder than men. The TUC’s research found that:

    compared to men, women are more likely to say they feel exhausted at the end of most working days (67% to 56%) and that work is getting more intense (58% to 53%).

    Women are overrepresented in sectors such as education and health and social care. These are sectors where staff shortages and other factors, such as burdensome scrutiny and long working hours, have led to increased work intensification.

    And women continue to shoulder most of the caring responsibilities at home, which can further add to time-pressures on them.

    Of course, it’s bosses that are making a killing off flogging workers to the brink of exhaustion.

    Bosses: £26bn of our labour for free

    Another piece of TUC analysis found that workers doing unpaid overtime in 2022 meant bosses pocketed £26bn of free labour. It found that 3.5 million people did unpaid overtime last year. On average, each worker put in 7.4 unpaid hours a week. The TUC said of this:

    As well as being detrimental to family life, long term-ill health conditions caused by overwork include hypertension and cardiovascular disease, digestive problems, and long-term effects on the immune system, increasing risk of causing autoimmune disease diagnoses.

    When workers are tired, or under excessive pressure, they are also more likely to suffer injury, or be involved in an accident.

    Moreover, things are not improving any time soon.

    No improvement on the horizon

    The TUC says several factors combine to create a perfect storm for work intensity – which aren’t currently going anywhere. These include:

    • Surveillance technology and algorithmic management: Algorithmically set productivity targets can be unrealistic and unsustainable – forcing people to work at high speed. Algorithmic management can also force workers to work faster through constant monitoring, including monitoring the actions they perform and their productivity.
    • Staff shortages: Low pay, excessive workloads and a lack of good flexible work are key drivers of the staffing crisis. Staff shortages put huge strain on those who remain as they try to plug the gaps, fuelling excessive workloads and long-working hours. This undermines the quality of our public services, and leads to high attrition and absenteeism rates, worsening the workload crisis.
    • Inadequate enforcement of working time regulations: The working time regulations contain important rights for workers which could help safeguard against work intensification and the consequential health and safety risks, but… [the] Health and Safety Executive, which is responsible for enforcement of the maximum weekly working time limits, night work limits and health assessments for night work, has had its budget slashed in half over the past decade.
    • Decline in collective bargaining: Industrial changes have combined with anti-union legislation to make it much harder for people to come together in trade unions to speak up together at work. This decline in collective bargaining coverage has led to less union negotiation around work organisation, resulting in work intensification.

    Plus, the Tories are planning on making all this worse. The TUC said:

    Ministers are currently looking to water down rules on how working time is recorded by employers in the UK, which they could impose using powers in the controversial REUL (Retained EU Law) Act.

    This could significantly weaken our already-inadequate enforcement system even further, making it more difficult for labour market inspectors to prove non-compliance.

    So, what’s to be done?

    Join a bloody union

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    No one should be pushed to the brink because of their job.

    Gruelling hours, pace and expectations at work are growing problems up and down the country. This is a recipe for burnt out Britain.

    Chronic staff shortages, intrusive surveillance tech and poor enforcement of workers’ rights have all combined to create a perfect storm.

    It’s little wonder that so many feel exhausted at the end of their working day.

    It’s time to tackle ever-increasing work-intensity. That means strengthening enforcement so that workers can effectively exercise their rights.

    It means introducing a right to disconnect to let workers properly switch off outside of working hours.

    And it means making sure workers and unions are properly consulted on the use of AI and surveillance tech, and ensuring they are protected from punishing ways of working.

    Of course, Nowak could have summed all that up quite easily: ‘join a bloody union’. While the trade unions in the UK are far from perfect, they are currently workers’ best defence against unscrupulous bosses who are earning off overworking and underpaying their staff.

    Featured image via the TUC – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Cops have arrested a woman in Croydon, south London, for not paying her bus fare. People have been kicking off on social media, and rightly so – not least because the woman had actually paid, but also because the cops’ response was disproportionate in the extreme. A number of officers tussle with the woman, yanking her, and ignoring her pleas. Her young son is visibly distressed, crying loudly at the treatment of his mother.

    You’d be forgiven for asking, what the fuck is wrong with the police? Why did they feel the need to be this heavy-handed over a bus fare – one that had actually been paid? But of course. There’s nothing wrong with the police. They’re functioning exactly how they’re supposed to: as anti-Black, racist, and misogynist thugs.

    Moreover, we’re hearing the same old tropes about an “abusive” Black women who didn’t STFU when she was told to.

    The Met: arresting a Black woman for paying her bus fare

    On Friday 21 July, cops arrested the woman. The video of the incident is being widely shared on social media. However, the Canary is choosing not to include it in our reporting. The state and its actors are often shown brutalising Black women. We think repeating those violent images doesn’t serve the people being harmed – so, we’re not going to share it.

    As LBC reported:

    Police arrested the woman, they said, because she was asked to confirm with a revenue inspector that she had paid her bus fare, but did not agree.

    They handcuffed and arrested her on suspicion of fare evasion because, as they claimed, she became abusive.

    It then emerged she had paid, and she was “de-arrested” and let go.

    The officers were part of the Met Police’s Roads and Transport Policing Command (RTPC). It works with Transport for London (TfL), and is jointly funded by it. TfL says on its website that the RTPC’s duties include:

    • Keep crime low and reduce fear of crime on the surface transport network
    • Reduce road collisions…
    • Investigate the most serious KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) collisions with their specialist investigation skills
    • Carry out cycle safety events

    However, nowhere on TfL’s site does it say that RTPC nicks people for skipping bus fares – which is what its cops did to this woman. Even in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, the Met makes no mention of this being part of the remit. The British state has truly lost the plot in focusing its time and energy on catching bus fare-skippers like some jumped-up school teacher. How does harassing a woman and her son over a little bus fare serve the community?

    TfL’s good little bitches: ignorant in the extreme

    The cop’s good little bitch from TfL, a bus worker called Joe, defended the police’s actions. He alleged to LBC‘s right-wing gobshite Nick Ferrari that after a ticket inspector in Croydon asked for the woman’s bus pass, she became “abusive”:

    And when the police asked her to show the pass, she started abusing the police as well. She could have just shown the pass and walked away – and that would have been the end of the matter.

    Yes, that old chestnut: a Black person defends themselves, therefore they must be abusive. As one Twitter user commented, these:

    responses of ‘she should have stopped,’ ‘just cooperated,’ ‘abusive’ are… unsurprising. Those responses come from those who, from a young age, have not witnessed their loved ones manhandled without dignity, whose body does not stiffen in fear of being accused because of what their skin colour represents to others, who are not adultified… as children, who have to ensure they print a receipt for a bottle of milk to show to a uniformed person in the supermarket…

    As the Canary‘s Sophia Purdy Moore previously wrote:

    Institutionalised misogynoir – ingrained prejudice against Black women and girls – came to the fore when Met police officers shared selfies with the dead bodies of murdered sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman.

    Day after day, cops show what they think of Black women. They systemically disrespect and dehumanise them. Then, the foot soldiers of white supremacy (in this instance, TfL) run along to defend the biggest gang in London: the Met Police.

    Misogynoir: alive and well in the UK

    So, you know – against a backdrop of cops murdering women, institutionalised racism, and prejudice pervading every corner of UK society, and misogyny and misogynoir thrown into the mix too – maybe, just maybe, the woman on the bus was, as one Twitter user said, ‘triggered into a reaction’ that TfL lackeys and the cops then ‘used against her’. As Zeze Millz wrote for Marie Claire, Black women “feel suffocated by the misogynoir, disregard and disrespect in UK society”:

    Imagine continuously seeing people that look like you, your friends or your family being killed, murdered by the very people entrusted to serve and protect you. Imagine the fatigue that is deeply embedded in our very psyche from being continuously gaslit for feelings that we know are real. Imagine seeing constant content that confirms, and affirms, the feelings and notion that Black women are at the bottom of the barrel.

    Not that the racist and misogynistic Met Police (nor their sidemen at TfL) would recognise any of this. The police’s excuse for officers’ ridiculous response to the woman was the usual bullshit: she “became abusive“, the video on social media doesn’t “show the full interaction“, blah, blah, blah.

    Black women are, as Millz wrote, at the “bottom” of UK society. When racism and misogynoir pervade your waking life, it must be exhausting. So, being at first indirectly, and then directly, accused of criminality when there was none was clearly too much for the woman in Croydon. And who can blame her?

    Police and TfL staff did. They did nothing to dispel the idea that the UK is systemically racist and filled to its very core with misogynoir.

    The cycle repeats

    But the saddest part of this story is that the young boy was witness to cops’ treatment of his mother – and with institutional change unlikely, society will allow this cycle to repeat itself throughout his life also. If this is how police treat Black adults, how are young Black children supposed to feel safe around them? This child witnessed police brutalising his mother – and then, days later, it was revealed another Black man has died after contact with cops, also in Croydon.

    That is, of course, the point of the police. They’re not there to ‘protect and serve’. The state puts them there to make Black people feel unsafe, paint them as dangerous, and dehumanise them – just like they did to this woman in Croydon.

    Featured image via Saskia Cole – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • People have taken action in the UK, Canada, and France over the imprisonment of UK pro-Palestine activists. It came after high-profile campaigners, including Roger Waters, issued a joint statement condemning the British state’s persecution of the six people over their activism against the state of Israel.

    Imprisoned for resisting Israel’s apartheid

    As the Canary has reported, the British state is currently detaining six activists. It’s over their part in protests about the Israeli state’s ongoing apartheid against the Palestinian people – including its illegal occupation. Specifically, the protests were over UK-based arms companies, and their supply chains, that sell weapons and military kit to Israel.

    Four of the activists have been in prison since December 2022. It’s because they took action to dismantle Teledyne Labtech – a Welsh factory belonging to American-owned Teledyne. The company is the largest exporter by volume of weapons from Britain to Israel. As campaign group Palestine Action said:

    The four activists are the longest serving prisoners for taking action with Palestine Action to disrupt the war machine. Their incarceration demonstrates Britain prioritising the interests of an arms industry which facilitates the genocide of the Palestinian people, over the freedom of its own citizens.

    The two other activists are locked up over an action they took in June 2021 at company APPH. It makes drone landing gear for Elbit Systems, which supplies 85% of Israel’s military drones. One of the jailed activists is Mike Lynch-White. He and others covered APPH’s building in red paint, scaled the roof, and destroyed equipment. Palestine Action said of the two activists:

    They both took action to disrupt the military industrial complex which profits from the blood shed of the Palestinian people and the apartheid regime they’re subjugated too. For this, they should not be imprisoned.

    So, after support from 80 public figures, including Waters, and also a separate statement from the Palestinian Prisoners’ Movement, Palestine Action organised a day of protests.

    Global solidarity with pro-Palestine activists

    On Saturday 22 July, hundreds of people came out to call for the freedom of Palestine Action political prisoners. In England, people demonstrated in Manchester, Liverpool, London, Birmingham, Sheffield, and Brighton:

    In Sheffield specifically, people took action against Barclays. As the Canary recently reported, the bank, according to the group Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), has:

    over £1 billion in shares and provides over £3 billion in loans and underwriting to 9 companies whose weapons, components, and military technology have been used in Israel’s armed violence against Palestinians.

    Activists also took direct action to “shatter” windows at Keysight Technologies in Telford. It’s a supplier to Elbit Systems:

    Then, there was also international solidarity.

    Groups including Samidoun and Collectif Palestine Vaincra put posters up around France:

    In Canada, people mobilised outside Scotiabank in Vancouver. It holds half a billion dollars in shares in Elbit:

    A ‘desperation’ to protect a foreign apartheid state

    A Palestine Action spokesperson said in a press release:

    For the state to turn to imprisoning its own citizens, demonstrates their desperation to protect the military supply chain of a foreign apartheid state. The show of solidarity from across the world in support of our activists in prison, and others facing prison, for disrupting the production of Israeli weapons, shows the strength of our movement. Collectively, we will resist until all Israeli weapons factories in Britain are shut down and the activists, as well as the Palestinian people, are free.

    As the Canary has documented, the state increasingly criminalising protest is becoming a lot more common and authoritarian as a result of the Tories’ Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts (PCSC) Act. The state jailing pro-Palestinian activists is the thin end of this wedge – but groups like Palestine Action will continue, regardless.

    Featured image via Palestine Action

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In the UK vaping products are easily accessible. In contrast, such products are much more restricted in Australia. And the question of access is important because studies show vape usage presents a general health hazard.

    Health hazards of vaping

    A May 2021 systematic review, published in Heart & Lung, found vaping is directly associated with lung injury. Moreover, a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute paper, published in 2019, warned that vaping:

    may cause harmful effects to lung tissue, including inflammation and genetic damage that could indicate long-term risk for respiratory disease and even cancer

    So what do vapes contain that’s of concern?

    A Harvard Medical School paper, published in June, pointed out that US vaping products can contain the following:

    • nicotine
    • ultrafine particles that can be inhaled deep into the lungs
    • flavorings such as diacetyl, a chemical linked to a serious lung disease
    • volatile organic compounds
    • cancer-causing chemicals
    • heavy metals such as nickel, tin, and lead

    In addition, according to one lung cancer expert, substances commonly found in vapes can include:

    • Diacetyl: This food additive, used to deepen e-cigarette flavors, is known to damage small passageways in the lungs.
    • Formaldehyde: This toxic chemical can cause lung disease and contribute to heart disease.
    • Acrolein: Most often used as a weed killer, this chemical can also damage lungs

    Research shows vaping can lead to conventional smoking

    In 2022, a systematic review conducted by researchers at the Australian National University found that vaping:

    increases the risk of multiple adverse health outcomes, including poisoning, addiction, seizures, burns, lung injury and smoking uptake.

    Furthermore, ABC News said the review found:

    “substantial evidence” that e-cigarette use results in dependence on nicotine, and that e-cigarettes can increase the uptake of tobacco smoking in people who don’t smoke.

    Alarmingly, professor Emily Banks, who led the review, told ABC News that it found:

    Young non-smokers who vape are around three times as likely to take up smoking than non-vapers

    Teenagers and young adults especially at risk

    A July 2022 paper, published in the British Medical Journal, argued that the biggest uptake of vaping is by teenagers and young adults. The study concluded:

    The true impact of vaping on respiratory health will manifest over the coming decades, but in the interval a prudent and time tested recommendation remains to abstain from consumption of inhaled nicotine and other products.

    A UK government report identified a legal loophole that allows shops and companies to give free samples of vaping products to be given to persons of any age. The report also refers to a survey that revealed 24.8% of persons aged 11 to 17 have admitted that friends had given them vaping products.

    Meanwhile, a small US study, published in the Harvard Gazette, showed around 28% of high school students were vape users. That’s despite evidence that vaping can lead to “small airway obstruction and asthma-like symptoms”.

    Vaping products availability in the UK

    Anyone 18 years and over can buy vaping products in the UK – including those containing nicotine – without a prescription. The NHS states it will next review that practice in October 2025.

    In June, the Guardian reported how several pro-vaping lobby groups are promoting their products via social media. They include Save My Vape and #BackVapingSaveLives.

    Global Britain Ltd, which is headed by former Brexit party politician Brian Monteith, is linked to Save My Vape as well as Say No To WHO (World Health Organisation).

    We Vape UK is another lobby group, set up by an Adam Smith Institute (ASI) fellow. It runs the #BackVapingSaveLives campaign. ASI has received sponsorship from Japan Tobacco International.

    Other approaches to vaping availability

    Meanwhile, Australia has adopted a more restrictive approach to vaping. There, it’s illegal for persons “to possess a nicotine-filled vape unless they are over 18 and have a prescription to help them stop smoking”.

    In May 2023, BBC News reported that Australia is set to ban recreational vaping for users of all ages. As a result, only pharmacies will supply vaping products. The country will also ban disposable vapes.

    In Singapore, restrictions are even more severe: all vapes are illegal. In the US it is complicated, with each state legislating differently.

    Further restrictions needed

    Earlier this month, councils across England and Wales urged Westminster to place a ban on single-use products by 2024 on health and environmental grounds. The throwaway products, they point out, are also a fire risk and a pollutant.

    MPs are demanding action too – but only in regard to the packaging and marketing of single-use vapes.

    Associate professor of public health Becky Freeman makes it clear we need to go much further, commenting:

    The ideal public health solution would see the elimination of all vaping product sales, nicotine and non-nicotine alike, that fall outside of the prescription-only access pathway.

    Indeed, given the numerous health risks outlined via evidence-based clinical studies, such a recommendation makes sense. It only remains for the government to act upon that evidence. Or, as with its handling of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, it will risk accusations of again being asleep at the wheel.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons – TBEC Review cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • You may have detected a note of sarcasm in the headline. If not, you’re either very angry with us for going against our left-wing credentials – or you’re a gullible Labour spin doctor who thought that the spin had somehow landed. Obviously the Tories’ current unpopularity isn’t evidence that Labour needs to emulate the Tories. Yet that seems to be the lesson Keir Starmer has taken away from the recent by-elections:

     

    To beat the Tories, you must…

    Both Labour and the Lib Dems had allegedly very good results this week; the Tories, not so much. The three by-elections resulted in the following (as reported by the BBC):

    In political terms, these results are ‘banonkers’ good for the Tories’ political opponents – but only if you’re willing to ignore the dire turnouts of between 44-46%, showing most voters really don’t give a shit any more.

    As the BBC reported, Labour “made history, overturning a 20,137 majority to take the North Yorkshire seat of Selby and Ainsty”. They achieved this despite their candidate being a briefcase-wielding political Stepford child who makes plastic ‘Ken’ Starmer look like a flesh-and-blood human being:

    Any normal person would look at these results and think – ‘ah yes, so the Tories are very unpopular right now – therefore we should do our very best to be as unlike them as possible‘. Not Ken Starmer, though – this guy looked at the results and thought ‘how can I use this to justify our ongoing lurch to the right?

    Jokers to the right

    We published an article last week about Starmer being an unfunny joke. However, the topic of that piece was nothing compared to the hysterical steam of unfunniness he came out with on Saturday 22 July (emphasis added):

    It is a reminder that in an election, policy matters.

    We are doing something very wrong if policies put forward by the Labour Party end up on each and every Tory leaflet.

    We’ve got to face up to that and to learn the lesson.

    The second sentence is so bad you almost miss the first – but let’s start with that.

    Starmer is a creature of the Labour right – a group of unlovable wonks who are famous for their avoidance of clear and/or beneficial policies. Realising that the Labour right is about as popular as Wuhan bat meat, Starmer fought for the Labour leadership by making it seem like he had an actual policy platforma platform he’s worked hard to jettison ever since.

    Given that, the correct way to read this sentence is that Starmer is trying to justify the avoidance of appearing like he supports anything which remotely resembles a policy lest someone somewhere take offence to it.

    This thing called ‘politics’

    This leads us neatly to the next sentence – a sentence which is so abysmal that we’re going to quote it again to confirm it’s real and not some sort of stress-induced hallucination:

    We are doing something very wrong if policies put forward by the Labour Party end up on each and every Tory leaflet.

    We don’t know if Starmer is aware of this, but there’s this thing called ‘politics’, and in this thing called ‘politics’ there are people who compete against one another to realise competing outcomes. Unfortunately, ‘politics’ is also what’s known as a ‘dirty business’, and as a result it’s chiefly conducted by people who don’t mind getting their hands dirty – getting them filthy, in fact.

    One way these muck-flinging politicos en-filthen themselves is by using techniques such as ‘disinformation’ and ‘pure bullshit’ to spin the objectives of their opponents in an unflattering light. This is actually very easy to do – much like when Labour promised free internet in 2019 and the media labelled it “broadband communism” to make people think it was one step away from a Stalinist purge.

    How then should a politician counteract the effects of ‘politics’?

    There are two main options:

    1. Get good at politics maybe? Maybe fling a bit of shit back in the opposite direction? Maybe stand up for what you believe in and make a case for it?
    2. Give up immediately and just emulate all of your opponent’s policies so they can’t criticise you.

    We all know which one Starmer favours.

    ULEZ-vous?

    As stated, the Tories are deeply unpopular right now, so Labour should be doing everything it can to stand apart – not trying to stand slightly to the right and in front.

    Starmer is specifically drawing attention to the issue of Tory voters in Uxbridge being turned off by the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) – a scheme which means Southerners have to pay to drive around London in their little Southern cars.

    We’ll be perfectly frank in saying that we think ULEZ is a dogshit half-measure which primarily punishes ordinary people – a measure which is doomed to failure without simultaneously enacting the actual solution – i.e. massively expanding public transport and making it free to all users. Starmer isn’t making the argument that ‘ULEZ doesn’t go far enough’, though – Starmer is arguing ‘ULEZ goes somewhere at all, and we won’t be having that!’

    Despite its ULEZ policy, Labour came within two percentage points of taking Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Uxbridge and fucking Ruislip. Do you realise how inherently Tory-leaning this area is? Formerly just ‘Uxbridge’, the Tories have only lost it twice since 1885, and given that, it’s hardly the best indicator of how the nation at large will vote (and even then – as stated – Labour nearly fucking won it anyway). That’s how deeply unpopular the Tories are.

    No Labour, No Danger

    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’ – something he’s kind of already hinted at:

    In the 1997 election, the Conservatives famously used the slogan ‘New Labour, New Danger’.

    At the next election, they could realistically change this to ‘No Labour, No Danger’. ‘No Danger’ to the Tories’ billionaire backers, anyway – but an absolute menace to the rest of us.

    Featured image via the Independent – YouTube

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Two youth climate groups in the West of England have joined together to protest against ‘unfair’ buses. The groups are Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate (BYS4C) and Extinction Rebellion Youth Bristol (XRYB). With a list of demands, the group will be marching on Saturday 9 September.

    Demands over buses

    The groups have agreed upon a set of demands which include making buses in the West of England:

    Free – for under 25s, students, and apprentices
    We demand free travel within the West of England (including North Somerset) for all those under the age of 25, all students, and all apprentices.
    Fair – access for riders and conditions for drivers
    We demand a fairer bus service, including reversing the cuts to bus routes and improving working conditions for drivers.
    Franchised – for people not profit
    We demand that WECA follows suit with other local combined authorities around the UK and franchises our bus network, putting power back into the hands of local people and allowing our buses to be run for the good of everyone – not for private profit.

    The Canary has previously reported on the actions of XRYB, writing in February 2023:

    The protests were both part of XRYB’s ‘Free Buses, Fair Buses’ campaign that was launched in June. Alongside other groups, XRYB forms part of the ‘Reclaim Our Buses’ campaign – a coalition pushing for bus franchising in the West of England. Franchising in this instance would mean an end to unfettered deregulation, with councils regaining control over how bus services are run.

    A bus protest

    Banner drops on cranes

    At the time, an open letter from XRYB to the local authority read:

    The private bus companies are entirely profit-driven, so they’re justifying the bus cuts with the falling passenger numbers, rising fuel and wage costs, and driver shortages that make the services unprofitable with no regard for the public need. Further, the financial support from the government during the pandemic will soon end and the private bus companies are not obliged to continue running services that don’t make them profits. This deregulated market is always at odds with the bus services that many in our communities need to get to work, school, shops, and health centres.

    ‘Franchising’

    According to a press release for the upcoming action, the:

    coalition will be holding a rally at 1pm on College Green, Bristol, with speakers from various campaigns across the region. A march will then proceed through the city centre at 2pm, finishing at the WECA offices in Redcliff.

    Supporters of the coalition are still to be finalised, but currently include Nailsea Climate Emergency Group, Bristol Students for Transport, Winterbourne and Frome Valley Environmental Group, and Ditch First Bus.

    The press release adds:

    The campaigners say that we need to take public control of our local buses through ‘franchising‘. With a franchised bus network, local governments would decide routes, timetables, and fares. Bus companies would compete to operate routes but must meet the criteria set out by the local/combined authority. This would prevent cuts to routes and frequency, help reduce fares, integrate different companies’ routes and tickets, and hold operators to account.

    In the Greater Bristol/Bath area, this could be done by the West of England Combined Authority (WECA), led by Metro Mayor Dan Norris. Although FirstBus may still win many contracts, the campaigners say that franchising would allow the public to hold them to account more easily.

    The region has experienced drastic cuts to routes and services over the past year, with 42 services being cut in April, and a further six being cut in June.

    ‘A dire state’

    Bristol-based student Sam said:

    Our local buses are in a dire state. Dozens of route cuts have also isolated some people without cars from local services, education, jobs, and socialising, especially in rural areas, affecting the young, elderly, and working classes. On top of this, young person and student fares have continued to rise, despite a cap on adult fares. It’s time we took the common sense step of delivering a bus network that works for all our communities, with public control being the best way of achieving this goal.”=

    Youth climate activist Josh said:

    We all know that we’re in a climate emergency, with all the local authorities in the Bristol/Bath area committed to net-zero by 2030, but we also face a significant challenge with air pollution locally. That means a large shift towards public transport, walking, and cycling is needed, but to do that we need a reliable, cheap, and sustainable alternative to driving. Our current bus system doesn’t deliver that, with delays, cancellations, and route cuts being all too common.

    Local campaigner Hannah said:

    With public control through ‘franchising’, local government can take control of the network, preventing route and service cuts, integrating different routes, and lowering fares with these gained efficiencies. Under fully private control by companies such as FirstBus, we’ve seen a failed bus network. Public control works well for London and is being adopted by both Manchester and Wales – we need Metro Mayor Dan Norris to take action now to fix our broken buses.

    Featured image via Reclaim our Buses (used with permission for this article), and additional images via XRYB, and Simon Holliday

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Roald Dahl Museum has said that it is working “towards combatting hate and prejudice.” It acknowledged that the renowned children’s writer’s racism was “undeniable and indelible”.

    The admission by the museum, located in Buckinghamshire in southeast England, follows an apology in 2020 by the Dahl family and Roald Dahl Story Company for his well-documented anti-Semitic comments.

    The museum has placed a panel at the entrance of its exhibition acknowledging the racism in Dahl’s work. It has also put up a similar message on its website.

    Anti-semitism, colonialism and misogyny

    Dahl, the creator of books such as ‘Matilda’, ‘The BFG’ and ‘Charlie And The Chocolate Factory’  made offensive remarks about Jewish people in a 1983 interview with the New Statesman magazine.

    Readers have also accused Dahl of misogyny and racism. For example, he depicts the Oompa-Loompas as workers that Willy Wonka has kidnapped “for their own good”. He goes on to say that these characters in ‘Charlie And The Chocolate Factory’ came from the:

    deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had ever been before.

    Puffin, Dahl’s publisher, hired ‘sensitivity readers’ this year to edit and sometimes rewrite offensive sections of Dahl’s work.

    Museum ‘condemns all racism’

    The Dahl museum, which is a charity, said it fully supported the 2020 apology. The museum said on its website that it:

    condemns all racism, including antisemitism, directed at any group or individual.

    Despite Dahl’s racism, the museum says it still sees his creative work as a potential force for good. They continued:

    Roald Dahl’s racism is undeniable and indelible but what we hope can also endure is the potential of Dahl’s creative legacy to do some good.

    The museum said it was:

    committed to being more welcoming, inclusive, diverse, and equitable in all aspects of our work.

    The museum said it had taken steps towards that, including:

    reflecting the visible diversity of our audiences in our marketing, by running accessible and inclusive recruitment campaigns for staff or trustee positions.

    It said it was working closely with several organisations within the Jewish community, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council.

    The museum noted that it chooses not to repeat Dahl’s anti-Semitic statements publicly, but keeps a record of what he wrote in its collection, “so it is not forgotten”.

    Dahl’s comments have long cast a shadow over his personal legacy, which has remained prominent as a number of his children’s classics have made it onto the screen and stage since his death aged 74.

    Cultural problem

    Reflecting on his life, the Dahl Museum said he was “a contradictory person” who could be kind. But:

    there are also recorded incidents of him being very unkind and worse, including writing and saying antisemitic things about Jewish people

    The fact that the museum has taken until now to acknowledge Roald Dahl’s racism is an example of how slow institutions often are to respond to obvious bigotry by celebrated cultural figures. The Royal Mint even considered Dahl as a prospective subject for a commemorative coin five years ago. Although, happily. he was eventually rejected.

    Dahl is by no means the only commemorated UK cultural personality to be an out-and-out racist. Just take fellow children’s authors Enid Blyton and Rudyard Kipling for instance. The excruciating inertia in recognising the oppressiveness in these writer’s work is a testament to the deep-seated racism and colonialism embedded in UK society and culture.

    Featured image via Solarisgirl/Wikimedia Commons, via CC 2.0, resized to 1910×1000 

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse 

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Consultants in England are carrying out a two day strike that managers have warned will leave “routine care virtually at a standstill”.

    The strike comes amid record patient waiting times and multiple strikes across the economy over the past year, as workers battle a cost of living crisis. The British Medical Association (BMA), which represents consultants, found that:

    the pay of consultants in England flatlined at just 14% growth in the 14 years to 2022/23. In stark contrast, the average pay for the UK went up by around 48% in the same period and those in the professions such as law, accountancy, financial services, architects and engineering, enjoyed growth of nearly 80% in wages –  almost six times that of senior doctors.

    This shows all too clearly that not only has consultant pay has failed to keep up with inflation, but it has also failed to keep up with comparable professions.

    The consultants’ strike, only the third time the senior specialist doctors have taken industrial action, began at 6am on Thursday 20 July and will run until 6am on Saturday 22 July.

    Disruption is the point

    NHS medical director Stephen Powis said:

    This could undoubtedly be the most severe impact we have ever seen in the NHS as a result of industrial action, with routine care virtually at a standstill for 48 hours.

    Consultants will not only stop seeing patients themselves, but they won’t be around to provide supervision over the work of junior doctors, which impacts thousands of appointments for patients.

    Of course, disruption is the point of strikes. Doctors are doing what they can to signal to NHS management and the government that they’ve had enough. Support on social media was forthcoming. Campaign group Keep Our NHS Public said:

    Doctor-led campaign organisation Every Doctor also urged more support:

    One doctor showed his support for colleagues:

    NHS trauma and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Roshana Mehdian pointed out the real terms pay cut consultants have had:

    ‘Derisory’

    As Dr. Mehdian points out, consultants are calling for a “credible pay offer” after years of below-inflation rises have eroded their pay.

    The BMA says take-home pay has fallen by 35% since 2008. The consultants, who earn annual salaries of around £88,000-£119,000, have already announced a second round of strikes for August 24-25.

    The Nuffield Trust provided data just last year which shows context for how poorly paid consultants are. Since 2010, pay has fallen in real terms for most NHS professions:

     

     

    Rishi Sunak has told the doctors to call off their stoppages, and warned that the government will no longer negotiate on higher salaries. However, the BMA called the government’s offer “derisory” and urged members to join their nearest picket line.

    BMA consultants’ committee chair Vishal Sharma said consultants were “angry and at rock bottom”, blaming the government. He continued:

    The government has had seven months to work with us to take our concerns seriously, to listen to us and to find a way to avoid industrial action.

    Ministers have done absolutely nothing to stop this action taking place.

    Sign of the times

    Of course, the consultants strike follows months of disruption as other health staff have also walked out. Junior doctors staged an unprecedented five-day stoppage earlier this month over pay and staff retention, their third walkout since April. Nurses and ambulance staff have also taken strike action, eventually accepting a 5% pay rise in May.

    Transport workers are due to strike at the same time as the consultants with staff at 14 train operators walking out on Thursday, Saturday and on July 29. They will be joined on Sunday and on July 25-28 by London Underground staff.

    Sunak is facing strike after strike from profession after profession. Does he really expect us to believe that the government is right to underpay working people? It’s the same story for workers across sectors – they’re being screwed over by the government and their respective managements. Thank goodness for trade unions who can push back against the government’s lies and fight for better pay and conditions.

    Featured image by Unsplash/Luke Jones

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The EU has backed down after a row about what the Falkland Islands/Las Malvinas are called. The remote South Atlantic archipelago is populated by British loyalists, but is claimed by Argentina. The two countries fought a brief, brutal war over the islands in 1982.

    The argument developed after Brussels supported an Argentinian motion at a summit between the EU and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). Indeed, even 41 years after losing the actual war, Argentina declared a victory.

    Naturally, the British railed against the decision, calling on the EU to clarify its positions.

    Brexit bonus

    However, the EU swiftly suggested the issue is an outcome of Brexit while acknowledging “the Argentines have spun it in a certain way”:

    This was agreed by 27 member states and the Celac countries.

    They added:

    The UK is not part of the EU. They are upset by the use of the word Malvinas. If they were in the EU perhaps they would have pushed back against it.

    According to the Guardian, the declaration in question reads:

    Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of Celac’s historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.

    Malvinas Mood

    The UK maintains that the islands are British, a position which hinges off the loyalty of the entire population to the UK.

    PM Rishi Sunak blasted the EU’s decision. A spokesperson told Sky News:

    To be clear, the Falkland Islands are British, that was the choice of the islanders themselves

    However, by this time the EU seemed to have backed down on the issue. An EU official said the bloc’s positions had not changed. Sunak’s spokesperson noted:

    The EU has rightly now clarified that their position on the Falklands has not changed after their regrettable choice of words.

    It was also pointed out that in a 2013 referendum “99.8% of islanders voted to be part of the UK family”. Sunak’s spokesperson said this position was established in law and the UN charter:

    On and on

    Rows over who actually should have the islands flare up fairly regularly. And deep bitterness over the 1982 war remains. After all, 255 British and 649 Argentinians died in the conflict, which saw highly trained British troops fight it out with mostly Argentinian conscripts.

    If or how the conflict will ever be truly resolved is unclear, but the UK remains committed to holding on to the islands. Ultimately, the enduring loyalty of the residents to Britain seems no more likely to wane than Argentina’s ambitions.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Alex Petrenko, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY-SA 3.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Ukraine highlights the need for nuclear weapons and affirms the ‘western way of war’, a new report claims. This report comes as the Tories announced a £6bn hike in nuclear warhead spending over the next six years.

    But, critics are not having it. Anti-war leaders said the decision was counter to peace and social justice, and would not deliver security or stability in any meaningful sense.

    This announcement of the report was made by defence secretary Ben Wallace, who is due to retire. But a brief look at the rogue’s gallery of Tories touted to replace him bodes poorly for real peace and stability.

    Contested world

    A new command paper outlines the UK view on war and nuclear weapons. Titled “Defence’s response to a more contested and volatile world”, the paper claims:

    The war in Ukraine highlights the importance of the credibility of our capabilities, both conventional and nuclear, on the earth or in space or cyberspace, to deter threats against us. It affirms the modern western way of warfare…

    However, it also indicated that the Tories would spend an extra £6bn over six years on the UK’s so-called nuclear deterrent. Outlining the command paper in parliament on 18 July, Wallace said Ukraine had taught new lessons to the West:

    As Defence Secretary it is important to import the lessons learned from the conflict to our own forces. While I wish such lessons were generated in a different way, the conflict has become an incubator of new ways of war.

    Crumbling services

    However, critics of UK militarism were having none of it. They expressed shock that once again the magic money tree had turned up billions for war, while the country is crumbling. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’s (CND’s) Kate Hudson pointed to collapsing services here at home. She said the new hike would deny:

    crumbling public services vital funds while spending billions of pounds on maintaining and investing in these weapons of mass destruction.

    She added:

    A week ago, the Prime Minister was announcing a below-inflation pay rise for public-sector workers, insisting it was their best and final offer.

    Now, the Defence Secretary is finding billions of pounds of new money for nuclear weapons seemingly without any pushback.

    Hospitals not nuclear weapons

    Stop the War Coalition’s Lindsey German said it was typical of the current Tory regime to deny wages while splashing vast amounts on war. She added that the increase “does nothing to make the world a safer space”.

    German called for real security for the population:

    If we want security it should start with a decent housing, health and education spending – not weapons of mass destruction.

    Wallace has also announced he will retire ahead of the next cabinet reshuffle. Favourites to replace him include foreign secretary James Cleverly, security minister Tom Tugendhat, and Commons leader Penny Mordaunt.

    What unites them is that they have all, like Wallace, spent time in military uniform: Tugendhat and Cleverly as army officers and Mordaunt with a brief stint as a naval reservist.

    This increasing militarisation of democracy should concern us all. It’s true, ex-military MPs might have insights into service life. But the lesson of the recent batch of veterans-turned-politicians is that if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    And in a contested, nuclear weapon-filled world, that mindset carries its own dangers.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/bodgerbrooks, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY 2.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The government is allowing train operators to close the majority of ticket offices on the rail network. There has been widespread outrage over the decision – not least the impact on chronically ill and disabled people. However, now the government and the four publicly-owned train operators are facing a legal challenge over the consultation process.

    Ticket office closures: the thin end of the wedge for disabled people

    As the Canary has been documenting, the Tories began planning to allow train operators to close ticket offices in 2022. However, in recent weeks transport secretary Mark Harper has pressed ‘go’ on the scheme. We only knew this originally thanks to rail passenger group the Association of British Commuters (ABC).

    The government had to sign the plan off, as there are regulations governing ticket offices. Of course, the arguments from the Tories and the companies include that only 12% of people buy tickets at offices. They have also launched a public consultation, where people can have their say.

    But trade unions, politicians, and chronically ill and disabled people are furious about the plans – and it’s clear why people are angry. As the Canary previously reported, 23% of disabled people are internet non-users. Ticket vending machines are often inaccessible. Plus, wheelchair users can only get their 50% discount on tickets from an office. Overall, the rail network is generally still not fully accessible as well. All this makes for a perfect storm for chronically ill and disabled people.

    Meanwhile, train operators are claiming that ticket office closures won’t affect accessibility – as they’ll redeploy staff across stations. However, this is literally not true.

    As the ABC has now revealed, two train operators are going to make 94 stations unstaffed under the plans. This would mean that West Midlands Trains would have a total of 137 unstaffed stations (94% of its network), and East Midlands Railway would have 90 (87% of its network). It is currently unclear what the situation is across the rest of the country.

    Yet despite this, the government is only doing a 21-day consultation – which closes to the public on Wednesday 26 July.

    So, with all this in mind two disabled people are taking legal action against the government and the four publicly-owned train operators.

    Breaching equality and accessibility laws?

    Sarah Leadbetter is registered blind, and Doug Paulley is a wheelchair user. Law firm Leigh Day is representing them. Essentially the two say that the consultation is inaccessible, and so discriminates against disabled people – and, in turn, is unlawful. They say this is because:

    • It should have been carried out when the proposals are still at formative stage. However, the decision to close ticket offices appears to have already been taken given statutory redundancy notices have already been issued to staff.
    • There are multiple, serious flaws with the consultation related to accessibility which mean disabled people will not be able to understand the impact of the proposals or provide a meaningful response.
    • The time period of 21 days falls far short of what is required to properly consider and respond to these complex and far-reaching proposals; even more so for disabled people given the accessibility issues described above.
    • The… [government and train operators] have failed to take any steps to avoid or reduce this disadvantage such as extending the consultation period, providing readily accessible alternative formats and proactively consulting with organisations representing disabled people.
    • Proposals have been on the table for a significant period of time: there is no reason why the short consultation period could not be extended, and the process adjusted in the manner set out above to ensure it is accessible to all members of the public.
    • The consultation process does not eliminate discrimination or advance equality of opportunity for disabled people for the reasons set out above.

    On the point of accessibility of the consultation, the ABC has clearly laid out the flaws. It noted:

    There are no paper copies available at stations (in standard, large-print or easy-read format), and most operators have failed to offer audio, Braille or British Sign Language versions of the consultation.

    Operators have made no attempt to reach out to non-internet users, or current non-users of rail. They have also ignored the need to reach out to rail users outside their local area (for whom stations would be a destination, not a point of origin). The short 21-day time period is a key accessibility issue, while the lack of a quantified national overview implies that any Equality Impact Assessments produced by train operators are likely to breach the public sector equality duty held by the DfT [Department for Transport].

    Leigh Day has sent the government and four train operators a Letter Before Action. However, Paulley and Leadbetter are not the only ones taking legal action.

    Mayors making moves

    As the Guardian reported:

    Five metro mayors, led by Greater Manchester’s Andy Burnham, said the “rushed” public consultation on the changes was not following due process and that the closures would affect thousands of jobs and “erode trust” in the railway.

    Like Paulley and Leadbetter, Burnham and his colleagues are arguing the government is carrying out the consultation unlawfully. He said:

    Section 29 of the Railways Act 2005 sets out a very clear and detailed process which must be followed if a train operating company proposes to close a station or any part of a station. That process has simply not been followed in this instance. It requires a 12-week consultation.

    A “fait accompli”

    Paulley said in a statement:

    The presence of dependable rail staff is incredibly important for disabled people, including me, who use our often inaccessible railways. The cuts are a fait accompli being pushed through the motions of this sham consultation, with its disingenuous claims and failure to give disabled people the information we need to respond properly. It is appalling that such an important topic is being handled in this manner and the process must be stopped.

    Leadbetter said:

    People like me, with visual impairments, rely on ticket offices and their staff to help us when we’re travelling and their closure will be a huge blow. To hold a consultation that fails to properly hear the views of those who need assistance the most is woefully inadequate. The government should scrap this unfair process and come up one that gives rail passengers with disabilities an equal say.

    Meanwhile, the independent rail regulator the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has also intervened. It has told train operators that they have until Friday 21 July to prove they are compliant with accessibility regulations:

    Ticket office closures: an “outrageous” situation

    Overall, as the ABC summed up to the Canary:

    Doug Paulley and Sarah Leadbetter are doing millions of people a great public service, and it is outrageous that disabled activists have had to undertake this case while stakeholders and regulators stay silent. We are very glad to see that this latest legal action aims directly at the government, who everyone knows are the ones really pulling the strings.

    The government has clearly allowed the train operators to rush through the proposals – with chronically ill and disabled people either being the usual afterthought – or they simply don’t care. Either way, it appears that the ticket office closure plans may already be running out of track before they’ve even begun.

    Featured image via El Pollock – Wikimedia, resized to 770×403 pixels under licence CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Latitude Festival announced Barclaycard as its headline sponsor this year. A quick browse of its website shows the company’s name splattered everywhere. However, some artists due to perform at the festival are not having it – and have cancelled their appearances. This is because Barclays itself is a serial abuser of people and planet – not least, indirectly supporting apartheid Israel in its violent colonialism against the Palestinian people.

    Barclays: propping up apartheid Israel

    Barclays is a prominent funder of arms companies which profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestine. As the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) said in a press release:

    Research published by Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Campaign Against Arms Trade, and War on Want last year has identified that Barclays holds over £1 billion in shares and provides over £3 billion in loans and underwriting to 9 companies whose weapons, components, and military technology have been used in Israel’s armed violence against Palestinians. This year, over 200 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in military invasions, assassinations and bombing campaigns. Barclays has faced ongoing protests over these financial ties, with campaigners calling on the bank to ‘Stop Banking on Apartheid’.

    Moreover, since 2015 Barclays has financed more than $150 billion in fossil fuel extraction, making it the largest such financier in Europe. A range of climate justice groups have called on the bank to immediately end these ties.

    The Canary has documented Barclays many crimes against people and planet. From its support for fracking, to oil pipelines, via investing in union-busting companies, and the not-small matter of its former boss’s ties to child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein – Barclays is one of the most notorious corporations on the planet.

    However, Latitude Festival has seen fit to get Barclays to be its main sponsor. Other corporate partners this year include union-busting and deforestation-supporting Starbucks; palm oil ecocide-enablers Pepsi, and likely tax avoiders Bacardi.

    So, the How To Catch A Pig (HTCAP) collective has taken the decision to withdraw from the festival.

    How To Catch A Pig

    HTCAP is an artists, activists, and organisers collective, fronted by Liv Wynter. They are a trans and working class grassroots organiser and performer based in London. They create live art, sometimes alone but more often with bands and collectives. Wynter’s sellout night, HTCAP, is a celebration of creatives who also organise against the state with a focus on queer and trans performers.

    They spent 2022 touring stadiums with Queer House Party, playing Secret Garden Party, Boomtown, Wilderness, Latitude, and Sziget – and being banned from the Southbank Centre. They are currently in residence at the Museum of Homelessness.

    The collective holds nights across the country, focusing on political and social art, spoken word, and music. For example, in their current work with the Museum of Homelessness, they’ve organised a workshop for “riotstarters” on 28 July. Latitude would have been an important gig for HTCAP. However, it, and the 20 artists involved, have now pulled out due to Barclays’ involvement.

    Latitude: the moral compass appears to have malfunctioned

    Wynter said:

    HTCAP is a collective of activists and organisers as well as artists, and we are sad and angry that Latitude has decided to partner with Barclays for the next 5 years. We encourage all artists who are able to, to reconsider playing Latitude, and to commit to not working with Barclays, who finance major arms companies and fossil fuel companies and projects who invest in Israeli apartheid. As creatives we cannot be turn a blind eye to how our industry is used to legitimise and disguise these issues – we must speak up, speak out, and boycott!

    Director of PSC Ben Jamal said:

    We welcome the principled stance of artists withdrawing from Latitude over Barclays sponsorship of the festival. This adds to the body of pressure being applied to Barclays to end its support for Israel’s apartheid regime, and its financing of the climate crisis.

    Allegedly, Latitude used to have a reputation for, to quote the website Music Gateway:

    its commitment to the environment and sustainability. They launched initiatives, such as the Love Thy Planet campaign, to promote eco-friendly practices and raise awareness about environmental issues.

    You could say it was also always a bit left wing – not afraid to feature political and social artists (like HTCAP). However, the festival is actually run by US events monolith Live Nation’s UK arm. Little wonder, then, that Barclays is actually centre stage.

    So, clearly, money talks – and Latitude’s organisers happily teaming up with Barclays, as well as the rest of the corporates on its partner roster, says a lot their own moral compass – or distinct lack of it.

    Featured image via Latitude Festival – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The now-notorious Bibby Stockholm – a barge intended to detain 500 refugees – is moored at its final destination in Dorset. There, it has seen protests from people opposed to its presence (for right-wing reasons), but also those opposed to the racism and persecution it represents. However, before it landed in Portland Port on Tuesday 18 July, it was in Cornwall – where protests were continuous. Now, the group behind many of the demos has reflected on the significance of its actions.

    Cornwall: resisting the Bibby Stockholm

    Cornwall Resists is a network of grassroots anti-fascist groups in the county. As the Canary has documented, it has been prominent in resisting both the far-right’s and the state’s racist abuse of refugees in Cornwall. More recently, it countered the far-right when racists targeted a hotel housing refugees in Newquay.

    But the group was also central to resisting the Bibby Stockholm, and the racist Tory policies it represents, while it was docked in Falmouth for a refit.

    As the Canary previously reported, the Home Office is planning to forcibly detain around 500 male refugees on the Bibby Stockholm. This is despite Dutch authorities’ alleged human rights abuses aboard the vessel when its government used it to detain refugees in the 2000s. The UK government’s plans have also prompted outrage from groups like Amnesty International.

    So, Cornwall Resists carried out numerous actions. These included:

    Overall, the multiple actions against the barge and the Tories’ policies involved around 20 groups. Actions included public meetings, mass leafleting all around Falmouth, and outreach exercises to get the wider public on board.

    Sadly, it wasn’t enough to delay, or prevent, the Bibby Stockholm’s departure on Monday 17 July.

    ‘This is not the end of our fight’

    Cornwall Resists said in a statement:

    We are are gutted the Bibby Stockholm left Falmouth without opposition. We are devastated that it is now in Portland where it’ll imprison over 500 asylum seekers in accommodation the size of parking spaces. Our hearts break for every single person who has made traumatic journeys to seek sanctuary on our shores only to be met with this government’s hostile environment policies.

    However, our hearts are full of rage at everyone who is complicit in racist border violence, from companies such as A&P who refitted the Bibby, to the arms companies that profit from weapons that devastate people’s homelands, causing so much death and destruction and forcing people to flee.

    The Bibby may be gone, but our rage will not subside.

    It may be gone, but this is not the end of our fight.

    The Bibby may be gone – but we will continue our resistance.

    Cornwall Resists also noted the Tories’ purchase of yet more barges to detain refugees on. It said:

    If this government thinks it can bring another prison ship to be refitted in Falmouth, we will make them regret that decision. We stand ready to support anti-fascists in Portland, taking a stand against the Bibby and against the far-right. There is no unity, as some groups suggest, with racists who oppose the barge.

    The Bibby is just one manifestation of the hostile environment. We stand against racists. We stand with refugees. And we stand with our anti-fascist comrades.

    Cornwall: vive la révolution!

    The group may not have stopped the Bibby Stockholm; however, as it noted:

    Cornwall Resists is about so much more than one prison ship. We will always do whatever it takes to oppose fascists and border violence, but we also want to work in and with our community to create change. We want to build an autonomous anti-capitalist Kernow; a Kernow that is run for us, the people who live here, not second home owners and rich tourists.

    We are sick of not being able to afford to live in our communities and we are sick of only being offered precarious seasonal work servicing the needs of those who treat Cornwall as a playground for the rich. And we are sick of wealthy developers profiting from our lands and devastating our beautiful landscape.

    What we’re seeing in Cornwall is a flourishing, anti-fascist and anti-capitalist movement – as well as one of growing self-determination. Cornwall Resists should be proud of its actions. It will be interesting, and encouraging, to see what the group does next.

    Featured image via Cornwall Resists

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The independent prisons’ inspector has slammed a young offenders institution for its treatment of children under its care – including disabled ones. The lengthy report on Cookham Wood has identified multiple failings, with the boss of the inspectorate telling the government it has to act. However, the situation poses bigger questions about the UK’s prison system – as this is hardly an isolated incident.

    Sky News reported that:

    Hundreds of homemade weapons were found at a young offender institution “rife” with violence, according to a damning report.

    Cookham Wood facility in Rochester, Kent, was put into emergency measures after prison inspectors uncovered “appalling” conditions during an April visit.

    BBC News, the Evening Standard, the Independent, and the Sun all ran with the violence angle. However, what all of them failed to mention was that over a third of the children were disabled or neurodiverse, nearly a fifth were refugees or asylum seekers, and nearly two-thirds had been through the care system.

    Cookham Wood: failing on all counts

    Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) said in a statement that [ED: press release]:

    Cookham Wood held only 77 boys at the time of inspection, whose care was being overseen by around 360 staff, including 24 senior leaders.

    That means there are over four staff members per child. Yet staggeringly, despite this HMIP found outcomes for children were:

    • poor for safety
    • not sufficiently good for care
    • poor for purposeful activity
    • not sufficiently good for resettlement.

    Despite the Youth Custody Service appointing a new governor in February, this is a stagnation, or on one measure a worsening, in conditions since HMIP last inspected Cookham Wood:

    Cookham Wood inspection outcomes

    The report described that:

    • Staff kept 90% of children apart from other ones.
    • Staff had found more than 200 weapons in the months leading up to the inspection.
    • Living units were dirty.
    • Equipment was broken.

    ‘Hardly any meaningful human interaction’

    HMIP said in a statement that:

    Rather than engaging in conflict resolution, leaders had introduced extensive instructions on which boys were known to be in conflict and needed to be kept apart from each other…This undermined the provision of any meaningful regime, with access to education and other activities determined by which children could safely mix, rather than their individual needs or abilities.

    Despite this, levels of violence remained high and some boys spent days on end languishing in their cells in response to incidents. During that time, most had hardly any meaningful human interaction. Other children were separated for their own protection, and inspectors met two boys who had been subjected to solitary confinement for more than 100 days because staff could not guarantee their safety.

    In the report, HMIP logged even more damning findings. For example, it found:

    • There had been 34 instances of self-harm in the previous six months – with two children each carrying out 10 of these incidents.
    • 64% of children had been verbally abused by others; 35% subject to physical abuse.
    • Children put in isolation had received, on average, less than three minutes of education per day.
    • “56% of children had been verbally abused by staff, 37% had been threatened or intimidated, and 29% said they had been physically assaulted”.
    • 41% of children were locked in their cells on school days, with only a 30 minute break to get food and go outside.
    • Staff had cancelled 24% of all family visits for the children in the 12 months before HMIP visited.

    But it’s the experience of marginalised children which is particularly damning.

    Marginalised kids: hit hardest at Cookham Wood

    Of Cookham Wood’s population, 21% were adults at the time of HMIP’s inspection. Moreover:

    • 58% of children were on remand – that is, they had not been convicted of a crime, and might never be.
    • 61% of children were from Black, Brown, or other minority ethnic backgrounds.
    • 37% of children were disabled, learning disabled, or neurodiverse.
    • 65% had been through the care system.
    • 10% were from the Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller (GRT) community.

    For the latter, their experience was much worse. The HMIP report said:

    Only 17% [of disabled children] compared with 55% of other children said it was normally quiet enough to relax or sleep at night and just 22% compared with 66% that they usually spent more than two hours out of their cells on weekdays. These children would have had a range of learning disabilities or neurodiverse conditions and their poorer perceptions needed to be understood and addressed.

    Then, Cookham Wood was also detaining what HMIP called 15 “foreign national children” – likely to be refugees or asylum seekers. The report said:

    Services for these children had deteriorated since the previous inspection. Home Office immigration enforcement staff no longer visited for immigration surgeries, though this was mitigated in part by quarterly visits from the immigration prison team… Children with no family in the UK could have a free five-minute phone call each month and one child was using this opportunity.

    However, the report failed to spell out the fact that 15 refugee or asylum-seeking children equated to just under 20% of the total number being detained.

    The report, though, identified the polar opposite of the state of Cookham Wood.

    Blame the bosses, not the kids

    The Cedar unit is a 17-bed resettlement block, which is separate from Cookham Wood’s main building. HMIP said in its report:

    The one area of strength at the establishment was Cedar unit (the resettlement/release on temporary licence unit). The unit had benefited from consistent leadership from a custodial manager with a clear vision who worked effectively with leaders in the resettlement team to implement an innovative approach to release on temporary licence for education, work and promoting family ties. Cedar unit was an oasis of calm and effective behaviour management in comparison to the rest of the establishment, and for the eight children living on the unit, it provided a potential opportunity to change their lives for the better.

    It beggars belief that one part of Cookham Wood can be so different from another. However, HMIP clearly identified what the problem was: the bosses:

    The newly appointed governor had been in post for about six weeks and he indicated to us that he was aware of the problems in the establishment. The leadership team, however, lacked cohesion and had failed to drive up standards. In this context we were also surprised to be told that since the governor had been appointed, no senior leader from the Youth Custody Service had visited to make their own assessment of the establishment’s evident failings.

    It noted:

    Many staff were open about how little confidence they had in leaders and managers. We were informed of some staffing shortfalls, but also that around 360 staff were currently employed at Cookham Wood. This included 24 senior leaders. In addition, there were several more working for partners in health care, education, and other areas.

    Abolition is the only answer

    HMIP concluded that:

    The fact that such rich a resource was delivering such an unacceptable service to just 77 children indicated that much of it was being wasted, underused or needed reorganising to improve outcomes at the site.

    The boss of HMIP Charlie Taylor said:

    These findings would be deeply troubling in any prison, but given that Cookham Wood holds children, they were completely unacceptable. As a result, I had no choice but to write to the secretary of state immediately after the inspection and invoke the urgent notification process.

    The other problem with Cookham Wood is that its appalling conditions and treatment of people are hardly isolated in the prison estate. As the Canary reported, HMIP recently described conditions at Eastwood Park women’s and young offenders’ prison in Bristol as “terrible” and “wholly unsuitable”. At least four people have died at the prison in the past year.

    As Tom Anderson wrote:

    it is not just one rotten prison, or a few violent officers… The problem is the whole carceral system, which is hardwired to dehumanise and brutalise the people it imprisons.

    Of course, the problem is bigger than that – it is our entire criminal justice system which is broken. When somewhere like Cookham Wood can detain children – many of them marginalised and vulnerable – in such appalling conditions, it’s a damning indictment of the prison system.

    But perhaps the bigger question is, how have we, as a society, reached a point where the state is so readily imprisoning children, anyway?

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As the Canary has repeatedly written, the idea of so-called rampant ‘benefit fraud’ is a right-wing myth. It’s partly based on literal guesswork from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Now, a parliamentary committee has cottoned onto this fact – and is forcing the DWP to be subject to an inquiry. Crucially, the committee wants to hear from people directly affected by the department’s mendacious agenda around benefit fraud.

    DWP: under the spotlight in parliament

    The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has launched an inquiry into the DWP which will look at benefit fraud and error in 2022-23. Specifically, PAC will investigate the department’s:

    performance during that period, on job support programmes to help the recovery from the pandemic, and whether the record on fraud and error in benefit delivery has improved.

    Spoiler alert: PAC doesn’t think the DWP’s record on benefit fraud and error has improved. In November 2022, it published a scathing report on the issue. PAC said:

    DWP maintains that current fraud levels are still due to COVID-19 but is unable to say when levels of fraud and error will fall. It has repeatedly claimed that there is increasing propensity to fraud in society in general since the pandemic but is unable to point to convincing evidence why this should lead to increasing losses to the taxpayer.

    This lack of “convincing evidence” is probably because the DWP has none.

    Benefit fraud: all smoke and mirrors

    As the Canary previously reported, half a billion pounds of “low suspicion” fraud in 2020/21 that the DWP claimed was fraud was based on its assumptions. Moreover, what the DWP calls “high suspicion” fraud was also based on no evidence. So, again the DWP reported potentially billions of pounds of fraud here, without evidence.

    Overall, the actual figure of real fraud compared to what the DWP assumes is fraud (but may often not be) is likely a lot lower than the £8.3bn it publicly declared.

    PAC has realised this, too. It said the DWP:

    assumes that all claims from Universal Credit claimants who choose “not to engage” with DWP’s fraud and error measurement exercises are fraudulent but admits that it has no statistically significant information to support this view.

    However, the committee also recognises that this isn’t the only problem with the DWP’s approach to benefit fraud and error. It noted:

    At the other end of the problem, benefits underpayments can lead to severe hardship. The Department estimates that 237,000 pensioners have been underpaid a total of £1.46 billion in State Pension, with underpayments going back as far as 1985. Work to rectify this is behind schedule and “efforts to correct the systemic underpayment of State Pension are too slow to meaningfully put things right”, and “will be too little, too late for many affected pensioners”.

    Of course, the DWP also systemically underpays both working-age and health and disability-related benefit claimants. Its accounts show that in 2022-23, it underpaid claimants £3.3bn of the money they were entitled to, including:

    • £680m of Universal Credit.
    • £900m of Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
    • £670m of State Pension.

    Of the £3.3bn, £1.2bn was the DWP’s fault, and the rest was (it claimed) due to “claimant error”.

    A long-overdue inquiry

    All this means that an inquiry into the DWP’s claims around benefit fraud and error is long overdue. Overall, PAC said:

    The Committee remains unconvinced that DWP’s systems overall are “adequate to detect further underpayments before they build up into major issues in future”.

    The committee also wants people to get involved. Guidelines state that people who have lived experience of the benefits system can submit evidence. You can do that here, and the deadline is Monday 24 August.

    The push to tackle ‘benefit fraud’ has been one of the most toxic political agendas of recent years. It’s played into ‘scrounger’ narratives which have allowed successive governments to cut benefits – to the point where the UN accused them of “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s rights. So, PAC’s inquiry into this area of the DWP cannot come soon enough.

    Featured image via VideoBlogg Productions/the Canary, and Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Later this week, the ruling U.K. Conservative Party faces three by-elections for parliamentary seats left vacant by resignations. One of them is disgraced ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s west London seat; another is an ultra-safe Conservative seat in northern England; and the third is a safe Conservative seat in the south of the country. If the polls are to be believed, the party is in danger of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Many countries around the world recognise their citizens’ access to a healthy environment as a constitutional right. Moreover, both the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council declared such access a human right in 2022. The UK is, however, a laggard on this subject. It initially opposed the UN’s efforts to recognise a healthy environment as a right. But a new campaign by a coalition of nature-focused groups is putting the issue firmly on the UK agenda – with the backing of the public.

    Nature 2030

    The Wildlife and Countryside Link – known colloquially as Link – leads the coalition, which comprises of over 70 charities including the Wildlife Trusts, Wild Justice, and Born Free. The coalition is calling on all policymakers, no matter what side of the political aisle they sit on, to commit to a five-point plan to restore nature by 2030.

    The necessary measures include doubling funding for wildlife-friendly farming, such as agroecology. They also include the large-scale creation of green jobs via a National Nature Service and rapid ramping up of the restoration and creation of nature sites by 2030. Moreover, the plan provides for making polluters pay for the environmental damage they cause. And it calls for a new law that protects people’s right to clean water, clean air, and access to nature.

    Pointing to the next general election in the UK which is due by January 2025, Link CEO Richard Benwell said:

    Next year, the environment will be a major election battleground. Like rivals in an Attenborough film, politicians will be vying to be seen to be greener. But vague promises to be nice to nature simply won’t suffice.

    Green Party MP Caroline Lucas also commented:

    Our natural world is in a state of emergency – with wildlife populations plummeting, polluted air threatening human health, and toxic sewage pumping into our waterways. Warm words alone won’t reverse nature’s rapid decline – it’s time for action.

    The public agree it’s time for action

    The coalition sought views from the public on its plan, in a poll carried out by YouGov. The research suggests overwhelming support for the proposed measures, with approval ranging between 68% and 83%.

    Those surveyed were most strongly in favour of forcing polluters to pay for cleaning up the environmental mess they make. This measure received 83% support, which is unsurprising amid a national scandal over the widespread pollution of waterways by water companies. These firms have failed to properly invest in the services they’re tasked with providing, yet have paid out billions in dividends to shareholders.

    The coalition’s call for a new law protecting the right to a healthy environment also received significant backing. 75% of people polled supported this measure. This points to a wide gap between the British public and policymakers.

    Initially, the UK opposed the UN Human Rights Council’s efforts to secure recognition of a healthy environment as a right. But then it ultimately voted for a similar resolution at the body’s General Assembly. As the UN explained, however, the UK’s support was not without reservation, as its representative expressed that:

    There is no international consensus on the legal basis for the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and the United Kingdom does not consider it has yet emerged as a customary right.

    The General Assembly resolution isn’t legally binding. Nonetheless, it can serve to encourage states to enshrine the right in national laws. This is exactly what the Link-led coalition is demanding. Doing so would empower people to hold the government to account over failures to provide a healthy environment, protecting both people and the rest of nature.

    Nature in serious decline

    As the coalition points out, time is of the absolute essence for wildlife in the UK. It is one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. Over one in seven of its wild native species face extinction, according to WWF. This includes a quarter of its non-human mammal species and half of its butterflies. Meanwhile, wild bird numbers have been in freefall for decades – and face newer dire threats like avian flu, which is decimating some populations.

    Moreover, the coalition says that the government’s current targets for species abundance, namely its commitments regarding helping species to bounce back, are inadequate.

    One of these targets is to improve biodiversity by 10% by 2042, from a 2030 baseline. Another aims to ensure that “the decline in the abundance of species has been halted” by 2030. The success of this target will be determined by assessing abundance in 2030 against the year earlier. In other words, although the legally-binding targets do aim for species abundance to be higher in 2042 than it is now, the targets appear to leave lots of room for further declines of wildlife in the coming years.

    In its Nature 2030 campaign and five-point restoration plan, the coalition is calling on politicians from all parties to go much further – and it appears that the public wholeheartedly agree that they should.

    Featured image via Stephen McKay / geograph, cropped to 1910×1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.