radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • The jailing of a woman for her abortion exposes the misogyny at the heart of modern state surveillance

    On 12 June, a judge sentenced a 44-year old woman to 28 months in prison for aborting a ‘late-term’ pregnancy. The woman, a mother-of-three, allegedly received abortion pills through the “pills by post” scheme introduced during the first coronavirus (Covid-19) lockdown in 2020. 

    Abortion: criminalised under an archaic act

    The legal case for the prosecution was possible because the woman pleaded guilty to an offence under the Offences against the Person Act (OAPA). This is an archaic piece of legislation from 1861 which is supposed to ‘protect children in-utero’ by making abortion a criminal offence if a woman:

    with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing”. 

    In the UK, abortion is only legal up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, coronavirus changed this.

    People who were pregnant could receive a remote consultation with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). The woman followed this process to obtain the pills. Prosecutors say that she ‘misled’ the BPAS by suggesting she was earlier than 10-weeks pregnant. They alleged she ‘believed’ she was closer to 28-weeks. However, much of this claim seems to come from internet searches made on Google.

    Google searches as evidence

    In the sentencing remarks, the judge – Justice Pepperall – said:

    Messages found on your phone indicate that you had known of your pregnancy for about three months on 1 February 2020. By mid-February, you were conducting internet searches on ways to induce a miscarriage. By the end of February, you were searching for abortion services. Your search on 25 February indicated that you then believed that you were 23 weeks pregnant. Your internet searches continued sporadically through March and April 2020. On 24 April, you searched “I need to have an abortion but I’m past 24 weeks.”

    The assertion that the evidence of searches on Google proves her dishonesty reveals the thorny overlap between data privacy rights and abortion rights – the right to privacy and the right to choose. 

    Searches for health information online, regarding abortions or any other health-related matter for that instance, have no business being admissible evidence in law. However, conglomerate tech companies have normalised the collection and storing of data, along with web trackers and targeted ads. So, the economic underpinning of companies like Google results in fresh surveillance opportunities for law enforcement. 

    The burden of proof

    In the US, we can see this intersection more recently in the overturning of Roe V Wade.

    US law enforcement can subpoena data collected by period apps. Then, they can use that data as ‘evidence’ of a terminated pregnancy because of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe, along with states’ subsequent criminalisation of abortion. The issue here is with Google searches being considered indicative of knowing exactly how far along someone is.

    I use Google to search for all kinds of things. I have often searched “how to know if you are pregnant” or “what to do if your period is 7-days late.” If I was pregnant at the time, this doesn’t prove that I know exactly how many weeks along I am. Nevertheless, it seems as though the woman’s search history influenced the sentencing.

    Pepperall went on to say:

    On 9 May, you took mifepristone. That same day you conducted internet searches suggesting that you were 28 weeks pregnant.

    What we search, click, and share online is not private. We make use of private companies to manage our personal lives. However, because of this we have no protections when it comes to online privacy, law enforcement, and in this case the criminalisation of abortion.

    Legalising misogyny via state surveillance

    You may think that the government is not legally allowed to track private citizens. However, there are legislative provisions under the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act that do in fact enable it to do so. Liberty, the UK’s largest civil society organisation, noted that this:

    Act grants [the government] wide-ranging powers to scoop up and store all of our emails, texts, calls, location data and internet history. They can also hack into our phones and computers and create large ‘personal datasets’ on us – all without needing to suspect us of any criminal wrongdoing.

    Our online lives are not separate from our offline lives. Women and other marginalised genders already suffer from the chilling effect that online harassment and abuse causes. This readily results in them choosing not to participate in social media.

    The criminalisation of abortion, and the use of search histories as surveillance, set a disturbing precedent for safe access to abortion for British citizens – and feed directly into misogynistic attempts to silence and control women. 

    Featured image via Mikayla Mallek on Unsplash

    By temi lasade-anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The jailing of a woman for her abortion exposes the misogyny at the heart of modern state surveillance

    On 12 June, a judge sentenced a 44-year old woman to 28 months in prison for aborting a ‘late-term’ pregnancy. The woman, a mother-of-three, allegedly received abortion pills through the “pills by post” scheme introduced during the first coronavirus (Covid-19) lockdown in 2020. 

    Abortion: criminalised under an archaic act

    The legal case for the prosecution was possible because the woman pleaded guilty to an offence under the Offences against the Person Act (OAPA). This is an archaic piece of legislation from 1861 which is supposed to ‘protect children in-utero’ by making abortion a criminal offence if a woman:

    with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing”. 

    In the UK, abortion is only legal up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, coronavirus changed this.

    People who were pregnant could receive a remote consultation with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). The woman followed this process to obtain the pills. Prosecutors say that she ‘misled’ the BPAS by suggesting she was earlier than 10-weeks pregnant. They alleged she ‘believed’ she was closer to 28-weeks. However, much of this claim seems to come from internet searches made on Google.

    Google searches as evidence

    In the sentencing remarks, the judge – Justice Pepperall – said:

    Messages found on your phone indicate that you had known of your pregnancy for about three months on 1 February 2020. By mid-February, you were conducting internet searches on ways to induce a miscarriage. By the end of February, you were searching for abortion services. Your search on 25 February indicated that you then believed that you were 23 weeks pregnant. Your internet searches continued sporadically through March and April 2020. On 24 April, you searched “I need to have an abortion but I’m past 24 weeks.”

    The assertion that the evidence of searches on Google proves her dishonesty reveals the thorny overlap between data privacy rights and abortion rights – the right to privacy and the right to choose. 

    Searches for health information online, regarding abortions or any other health-related matter for that instance, have no business being admissible evidence in law. However, conglomerate tech companies have normalised the collection and storing of data, along with web trackers and targeted ads. So, the economic underpinning of companies like Google results in fresh surveillance opportunities for law enforcement. 

    The burden of proof

    In the US, we can see this intersection more recently in the overturning of Roe V Wade.

    US law enforcement can subpoena data collected by period apps. Then, they can use that data as ‘evidence’ of a terminated pregnancy because of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe, along with states’ subsequent criminalisation of abortion. The issue here is with Google searches being considered indicative of knowing exactly how far along someone is.

    I use Google to search for all kinds of things. I have often searched “how to know if you are pregnant” or “what to do if your period is 7-days late.” If I was pregnant at the time, this doesn’t prove that I know exactly how many weeks along I am. Nevertheless, it seems as though the woman’s search history influenced the sentencing.

    Pepperall went on to say:

    On 9 May, you took mifepristone. That same day you conducted internet searches suggesting that you were 28 weeks pregnant.

    What we search, click, and share online is not private. We make use of private companies to manage our personal lives. However, because of this we have no protections when it comes to online privacy, law enforcement, and in this case the criminalisation of abortion.

    Legalising misogyny via state surveillance

    You may think that the government is not legally allowed to track private citizens. However, there are legislative provisions under the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act that do in fact enable it to do so. Liberty, the UK’s largest civil society organisation, noted that this:

    Act grants [the government] wide-ranging powers to scoop up and store all of our emails, texts, calls, location data and internet history. They can also hack into our phones and computers and create large ‘personal datasets’ on us – all without needing to suspect us of any criminal wrongdoing.

    Our online lives are not separate from our offline lives. Women and other marginalised genders already suffer from the chilling effect that online harassment and abuse causes. This readily results in them choosing not to participate in social media.

    The criminalisation of abortion, and the use of search histories as surveillance, set a disturbing precedent for safe access to abortion for British citizens – and feed directly into misogynistic attempts to silence and control women. 

    Featured image via Mikayla Mallek on Unsplash

    By temi lasade-anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Jury acquits protester who defended himself with a captured police riot shield

    A jury in Bristol found Kill the Bill protester Michael Truesdale not guilty on Monday 12 June. The majority verdict found Michael innocent of charges of affray and violent disorder.

    Avon and Somerset Police arrested Michael after the 21 March 2021 uprising against police violence outside Bristol’s Bridewell police station. They accused him of using a captured police riot shield against officers. Michael always maintained that he was acting in self defence.

    Judge Ambrose instructed the jury last week that if they found he was acting to defend himself or others then they should find Michael not guilty of both offences. After more than four hours of deliberations, the jury found that he was, indeed, acting in self defence. Michael was acquitted.

    Michael explained, in evidence last week, why he attended the 21 March protest. He said that the demonstration was:

    in relation to the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill [now an Act]. We were there to protest against police powers and police practice, and the murder of Sarah Everard.

    Sarah was murdered by serving police officer Wayne Couzens on 3 March 2021.

    Michael said in evidence that the protest was arguably the most important he’d ever attended, and that the negative effects of the PCSC Act would last the for the rest of his life.

    More than two years of struggle

    Michael wrote a statement on the day of his acquittal. In it, he explained the emotional impact of waiting two years for trial.

    Michael was first arrested a month after the 21 March 2021 protest, and was initially charged with the more serious charge of riot. He wrote:

    That’s it. Not guilty. Over two years I have had to wait for my trial to take place, enduring the anxiety of a possible long prison sentence, watching as one after another the criminal justice system punished fellow protesters for standing up for our rights and each other. I’m finally free from prosecution but what justice have we really had? For me this is far from over.

    Bristol Crown Court has sentenced a total of 35 Kill the Bill protesters to over 110 years in prison between them. Several people are still awaiting trial.

    Last week, the jury heard how police deployed horses against the crowd and struck protesters with their riot shields and batons. Several police witnesses spoke about how, during the evening, the crowd’s ‘mood shifted’. Michael wrote scathingly:

    On the stand, police have regularly described a ‘mood shift’ outside Bridewell after the initial March. They conveniently forget the many unprovoked attacks on protesters over those hours leading up to that apparent shift. The moods changing because you’re hitting people, you idiots! And the more and more people who became direct victims of unprovoked police violence, or who witnessed those acts, the more upset the crowd became.

    ‘Proud’

    Michael explained that, when he saw the police violence against the crowd, he felt he had to intervene:

    I watched with dismay as police lashed out at innocent protesters and I felt I had to intervene to protect people. At first just using my body defensively, but at some point I got hold of a police riot shield and with that I was able to keep the cops back and protect people from their strikes much more effectively. As well as improper baton strikes, the police were using a really violent technique called shield blading against people who were just standing there.

    He further recalled the fact that many people in the crowd were injured or hospitalised.

    Michael also explained, in his own words, how he ended up on trial. He said that he remains proud of what he did:

    It sounds pretty crazy, but I was weirdly calm, and I never went too far. I never tried to harm a police officer, even though all cops are bastards and they were trying to harm us. That’s the way I was brought up, to be non violent, but never to turn a blind eye to the violence of others. I never thought I would actually have to do something like this, but in hindsight it is the proudest moment in my life. I have always felt I have strong principles but it is only when you are challenged that you find out how much you really mean them.

    The police ‘have shown no remorse’

    In his statement, Michael made the point that the police were working under the assumption that protest was illegal under Covid-19 legislation on 21 March. Last week, the court heard evidence that this had been their belief, and that, in fact, the police had been wrong in their interpretation of the law.

    Michael described how the threat of long sentences forced many of the other protesters to plead guilty. He said that this has served to strengthen the police narrative of what happened at Bridewell, and in the ensuing weeks of protest. Michael wrote:

    Under the pressure of even more serious prison sentences and the long drawn out process that wears people down, many have pled guilty to have it over and done with. That is the mission of Avon & Somerset police. To wear us down into submission, and get the guilty [pleas]. To paint a picture of violent protesters that has no bearing with reality.

    This they hope will keep burying the truth; being that during three protests in Bristol over one week in March 2021, Avon & Somerset police made protesting illegal, and then brutally attacked innocent people. They have shown no remorse, offered no apology, not even a hint they could share some blame. Instead, they have spent millions of pounds of public money and wasted vast resources to cover up their abuses, and it is the young passionate people who stood up for the right to protest, and stood up for each other, that are paying for their lies and abuse.

    Michael also reminded us that the police violence did not stop on 21 March. He described witnessing the violent attack on a Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) community demonstration on Tuesday 23 March 2021:

    Lets not forget that this police abuse did not end that night at Bridewell. Immediately, we were demonised by the national and local media. They printed lies from Avon and Somerset police without question, about punctured lungs and broken bones that didn’t exist. Then the police attacked a peaceful small protest on College Green in what has been described by political pundits across the board as ‘revenge policing’.
    Michael said that he watched as police beat protesters, and tore down a memorial for Sarah Everard.
    ‘Escalating police violence’
    He went on to describe another protest outside Bridewell on 26 March 2021. Michael said that police made another unprovoked attack on a crowd of people. He wrote:

    Protesters gathered to protest outside Bridewell once again, in defiance of the escalating police violence and threats. The more violent the police were, the more the protesters felt the need to protest about it. At that protest, there was a real strong sense of wanting to keep things totally peaceful even if the police tried to rile us. People did not want a repeat of the first protest. Everyone was working together to maintain that despite serious violence from the police. The most common chant was ‘peaceful protest’ and everyone was sitting down to show no threat to officers.

    Then they set dogs and horses on us and the previously sitting crowds were forced to flee in panic. I’ll never forget the looks in the eyes of the dogs’ handlers, even wilder than the dogs.

    Michael continued:
    We had nowhere to go. It was a huge crowd and we were being chased down the road next [to] Primark towards the Bear Pit with railings on both sides. It was a large crowd and people were running in fear but there was still people in front of you and nowhere to go. I could feel the dog breathing on my leg and at one point it’s teeth pinged on my trouser leg, and I was just able to pull my leg away before I could be bit.

    ‘Support the brave people imprisoned’

    Michael made the point that the charges of riot, affray, and violent disorder could just as easily be levelled against the cops. He also called for an end to the riot trials, which he termed a ‘witch hunt’:

    It is high time that Avon & Somerset Police and the CPS conclude this witch hunt and allow the city of Bristol to move on from the trauma of their violence. Either subject the police to the same scrutiny as the public, or call an end to Operation Harley and reconsider the sentences handed to protesters so far.

    Until then we will continue to support each other through this horror and we will keep standing up for what is right.

    Finally, Michael called for people to support those in prison by donating to the Anarchist Black Cross crowdfunder:

    If you are able, please donate to Bristol Anarchist Black Cross fund to support the brave people who have been imprisoned after standing up for democracy and each other.
    You can read the Canary‘s account of the trial, and Michael’s evidence, here.
    Featured image via Shoal Collective

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Will the Renters Reform Bill do anything to help the UK’s rental market – and tenants?

    The Renters Reform Bill was introduced to Parliament last month. It will bring some long-overdue reform to England’s housing laws, and protections for tenants. For example, the bill will put an end to Section 21 no-fault evictions, as well as blanket bans on pets in rental properties. It will also:

    • End fixed-term tenancies.
    • Introduce an ombudsman for tenant-landlord disputes.
    • Create a Property Portal that landlords must register properties on – providing tenants with greater transparency. 

    The reforms have been a long time in the making. They were first proposed in 2019 by the then-prime minister Theresa May. Campaigners and housing charities like Shelter and Generation Rent have welcomed the bill. However, it also attracted criticism from landlords, with many industry bodies warning it will cause uncertainty within the market.

    The Renters Reform Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. However, it does not address many of the core issues affecting the rental market. For example, there are no provisions to address rental affordability. The bill also broadens the definition of ‘antisocial behaviour’ required for eviction. This could make it more difficult for renters to challenge unfair evictions. 

    The UK’s rental crisis

    The cost of living crisis means many households are facing rising energy bills and food costs. When combined with increasingly steep rent hikes and a nationwide housing shortage, there is little respite for tenants who are struggling to meet these costs.

    Not only are new tenants paying more, but new data shows that many existing tenants are experiencing rent increases mid-tenancy. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said that half (50.6%) of the households it surveyed had experienced a rent increase since February 2022. This was up from 36% in the previous year.

    Meanwhile, Section 21 gives landlords the power to evict tenants at the end of the period specified in their rental agreement with only two months’ notice. They do not have to provide a reason. This means that once a fixed-term tenancy switches to a rolling one, tenants face the possibility of being evicted through no fault of their own. 

    Section 21 also has the potential to be misused by landlords for retaliatory evictions. This is where landlords evict tenants after they’ve requested repair work or complained about the property’s condition. 

    In the four years since Theresa May first promised to end no-fault evictions, almost 65,000 households in the UK have faced homelessness after receiving a Section 21 notice. In 2022, the number of Section 21 evictions by bailiffs rose by a staggering 143%.

    What does the Renters Reform Bill mean for tenants?

    The bill’s abolition of Section 21 evictions would mean tenants no longer have to fear landlords evicting them on short notice. Of course, this is provided they comply with the terms of their rental contract. However, the bill in its current form contains several loopholes. Landlords could exploit these in the absence of Section 21. 

    For instance, the bill adds new grounds under which landlords can serve Section 8 notices. These relate to breaches of the tenancy agreement. On top of the existing grounds for serving Section 8 notices, the new grounds include the landlord:

    • Selling the property.
    • Moving in a family member.
    • Selling social housing as part of the Rent to Buy scheme. 

    It also introduces a three-month waiting period for landlords re-letting a property after evicting tenants on the basis that they want to sell or move in. In theory, a landlord with no mortgage repayments to make could issue a Section 8 notice on these grounds. They could then wait three months and put the property back on the market with minimal financial loss.

    The bill also broadens the definition of ‘antisocial behaviour’ from behaviour “likely to cause” a nuisance or annoyance to “behaviours ‘capable of causing’ a nuisance or annoyance”. Landlords could interpret this definition loosely, and there’s little protection for tenants facing false allegations. 

    Addressing rental affordability: the Renters Reform Bill is lacking

    Rent prices in the UK are rising at their fastest rate in 14 years, and the market is showing no signs of slowing down. The Renters Reform Bill contains no provisions to curb this rise.

    A shortage of available housing means that the demand for rental properties is higher than the supply available. Therefore, landlords can afford to charge higher prices. And, according to Zoopla, the supply of rental properties is likely to stay static in 2023.

    So, rent prices have become increasingly unaffordable for a large percentage of the population. Yet the government has resisted calls to introduce rent controls. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has approved a rent cap of 3%, meaning that landlords in Scotland cannot increase rents mid-tenancy by more than 3%. However, landlords can apply for larger increases of up to 6% if they wish. 

    Bristol City Council has been looking at how rent controls are implemented in other cities in an attempt to address the city’s increasingly unaffordable rental market. There, prices are rising faster than the national average, elevating Bristol to the UK’s third most expensive city to rent in. Although local councils do not currently have the ability to introduce rent controls, Bristol Council is preparing to ask Westminster for extra powers to do this. 

    The future for renters’ rights in the UK

    The Renters Reform Bill had its first reading in Parliament on 17 May. It’s currently awaiting its second reading. There are still many stages before it becomes law. Plus, there will likely be amendments and changes to the wording along the way. 

    Given the reaction from landlords and reports of concerned MPs – who are landlords themselves – there is a danger that this potentially game-changing legislation could be watered down without sufficient public scrutiny or pressure. If the bill passes through parliament in its current form, it will provide tenants with much-needed security and greater protection against eviction. 

    Even then, there are still major structural issues in the UK’s rental market that the bill does not fully address. Ideally, this bill would be the beginning of a fairer, more transparent system that provides tenants with the security and protection they need to settle down in communities without fearing unfair evictions. Whether that will be the case or not remains to be seen. 

    Featured image via Ethan Wilkinson on Unsplash

    By Anita Senaratna

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As things heat up in Brighton, university students and staff refuse to back down

    It has been an eventful few weeks for staff and students at Brighton University. The senior management team is insisting on steamrolling 140 redundancies through to save £18m. This is despite students, staff, community groups, academics, and trade unions informing them en masse of the dire consequences these cuts to staffing will have on education.

    The cuts will have repercussions beyond students and faculty at Brighton University. We’re already seeing other university’s senior management teams tabling redundancies. However, students and staff at Brighton have refused to back down. 

    Rallying for Brighton University

    On Saturday 10 June, the University and College Union (UCU) organised a protest and rally. We began our march at the Level, then proceeded through the Laines up to the train station:

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    We then marched through the city centre:

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    The rally finished at Victoria Gardens:

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    UCU chose this location as it is right outside Grand Parade campus – where an open day was taking place. Conveniently, management had removed all the information about the open day from the university website.

    From the estimated 500 people who attended, we had UCU members from as far as Liverpool come down to Brighton:

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    We were also joined by local groups such as Devil’s Dyke Network and Brighton and Hove Green Party. Unite, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, and Unison also sent us messages of solidarity and support. 

    However, while things at the university things continue to deteriorate, similar situations are also emerging elsewhere.

    Hammering the arts, again

    Since last writing for the Canary, the British and Irish Modern Music Institute (BIMM) in Brighton has also announced a wave of redundancies. Management claims this is due to a ‘restructure in the workforce’. What is interesting about this case is that in 2020, private equity investment firm Immediate Capital Group brought BIMM. Now, management won’t let unions operate there; even if staff unionised, BIMM would not recognise them.

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    Staff at BIMM are also being denied the right to collectively organise for better working conditions and job security. Stories are now circulating that management is forcing staff to reapply for their own jobs.

    Beyond Brighton, the University of East Anglia has announced that 113 staff members are set to lose their jobs in order to make £45m in savings. At the University of Kent, vice chancellor (VC) Karen Cox has ripped up the guarantee that there would be no compulsory redundancies from the arts and humanities department. Management has now placed 52 academics formally ‘at risk’ of compulsory redundancy.

    Senior management at war with students and staff

    Back in Brighton, our fight against these brutal cuts has brought out the worst in the senior management team.

    As I previously reported, security has been hostile and intimidating, which is completely unacceptable in the place where we work and study. Additionally, senior management sought out an injunction against the occupiers of the VC’s office. However, things did not go as management had planned.

    Not only was the case adjourned until 9 June but the biggest threat the university threw at the occupiers was removed when the judge placed an arrest block on the case. Unfortunately, as Steve Topple previously reported in the Canary, the occupation ended on 4 June due to a suspiciously timed fire alarm which meant the occupiers had to evacuate the building.

    A ‘command-and-control approach’

    Senior management has also decided to dock 100% of pay for lecturers participating in the national marking and assessment boycott. These actions are callous. They also make visible management’s disdain for those who work tirelessly to make Brighton University the incredible place it is. One lecturer who wishes to remain anonymous told me:

    Brighton University is its staff and students; it is not the buildings, and its certainly not the university’s executive board. These board members, and the university’s senior management, don’t really care about education. They think managing a university is like managing a factory, the staff and students are cogs in a machine to turn out widgets called degrees.

    This is why these senior managers, especially since Debra Humphris has been VC, are obsessed with a command-and-control approach to every aspect the university. In essence, everyone’s job – whether administrator, tutor, lecturer, or even Dean of school – is simply to do as their told and keep quiet. But it should be obvious that this approach undermines the agency of staff and schools, which necessarily undermines education.

    There are many reasons to charge the university’s management with incompetence (financial, strategic, managerial). But at its heart, their failure lies on the fact that they don’t understand that a university is fundamentally a community of scholars. Our university needs new management now, but its future depends on empowering and building an academic community.

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    Post-graduate researchers refuse to teach

    A key point of contention for many students is that when the initial announcement for mass redundancies occurred, we were assured that ‘student impact would be minimised’. This begs the question of how this could be the case if we lose 110 valued academic staff? These concerns are especially acute for the humanities department, which is on course to lose almost half its faculty.

    What is worrying is that university management has not told us any concrete details as to how they intend to minimise this disruption to education. We believe that the university will rely on post-graduate researchers (PGRs) as a cheap source of labour to clean up the mess that they have left from their poor decision-making. Hence, a collective of PGRs, including myself, have pledged not to teach next year.

    This is a decision that none of us took lightly. Many of us take on teaching to supplement our research stipends. This is because the cost of living crisis is stretching these even further. Additionally, teaching opportunities are integral to our professional development. However, we refuse to be complicit in the destruction of our academic home.

    Management’s ‘vandalism’

    Wanda Canton, a PGR at Brighton University told me:

    I love teaching, and I rely on it to supplement my PhD stipend which is around 50% of less than the average UK national wage. PhD teachers have much lower wages at Brighton and short, module-specific contracts, often asked to step in at the last minute while delivering the same teaching and marking work as other colleagues.

    We believe they will rely on PhD researchers who are on low incomes and developing their professional portfolios to fill in for the mass redundancies of teachers. But the people they are making redundant are our supervisors, our colleagues, and our friends.

    We do not want any part in such vandalism against the staff community, and we are certainly not prepared to operate as cheap substitutes, especially as we have been in our own dispute with the university over attempts to reduce our already low pay even further. We are an exploited staff group, but we know our value of our threatened colleagues with whom we stand in solidarity.

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    Brighton University: we are still continuing to fight

    There has been no shortage of action from everybody affected in opposing these redundancies – as 10 June’s demo showed:

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    Moreover, in a confidence vote 94% of respondents stated they have no confidence in Humphris or senior management:

    Brighton University Stop the Redundancies March

    Meanwhile, Brighton Students Union has committed itself to silence on this issue. However, its Sussex counterpart has been an incredible source of solidarity. Not only did they throw a party to help us fundraise, but they delivered an incredible speech at the latest rally. It highlighted the absence of our own student union.

    A tweet from @brightonexiles, I believe, perfectly encapsulates the sentiment we’ve witnessed:

    The campaign against redundancies is energetic, creative, and mass: with students, workers, artists and supporters all over the world. The best management has been able to do so far is set off a fire alarm and… [stop advertising] an open day. Which would you trust more with [Brighton University’s] future?

    Everyone involved in this dispute at Brighton has been deeply moved by the displays of solidarity from across the UK and internationally. This campaign has brought out the best in creativity, resilience, compassion and determination from students and staff. It is these characteristics that make Brighton University the special place that it is.

    Featured image and additional images via Kamal Badhey – check out www.kamalbadhey.com or Insta @kamal_badhey

    By Kathryn Zacharek

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Support for trans-inclusive policies in the UK among the lowest in the world, according to Ipsos poll

    Recent international research says that the UK ranks amongst the lowest in the world in terms of support for gender-affirming care, and trans people living according to their gender. That’s according to market research company Ipsos’ 2023 Pride Survey.

    Between 17 February and 3 March 2023, Ipsos interviewed a total of 22,514 adults in 30 different countries. These included countries on every continent, although Africa was notably under-represented. The sample from the UK was large enough to be considered representative of the general population.

    This comes shortly after the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association’s most recent ranking showed that the UK had plummeted to 17th place in terms of its friendliness towards queer people.

    Discrimination

    The Ipsos survey reported that:

    Support for pro-transgender measures varies by age, gender, and especially by country. It tends to be higher among younger adults and women. It is generally highest in Thailand, Southern Europe, and Latin America, and lowest in South Korea, Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and the United States.

    In general, the UK respondents’ support for pro-trans measures was among the lowest in the countries surveyed.

    Regarding perceptions of anti-trans discrimination, 64% of Brits believe that trans people face a fair-to-great amount of discrimination in our society. This is compared to the 19% who disagree. Notably, this comes during a time of rapidly rising transphobic hate crimes.

    We can consider this alongside another question. It asked whether trans people should be protected from discrimination in “employment, housing, and access to businesses such as restaurants and stores”.

    Here, Britain avoided ranking in the lowest group. 77% of respondents believed that trans people should receive protections. However, somewhat stunningly, 15% seemed to think that discrimination against trans people should be permitted.

    It should be noted that, even before the current wave of anti-trans panic, one in three UK employers said that they would be less likely to hire a trans person. A 2018 survey said that 43% of employers were unsure that they would hire a trans person at all.

    Britain ranked among the lowest in terms of support for the inclusion of gender markers other than ‘male’ and ‘female’ on passports and official documents. 47% of Brits were in support, placing the UK in the company of Poland and Romania. However, the agreement still outnumbered the 38% who disagreed with the measure.

    UK respondents were at a dead tie for support on trans people using gendered facilities like toilets that correspond to their gender identity. 40% were in favour, and 40% were opposed. This put only the US below Britain, and South Korea three places above it.

    Healthcare

    Likewise, just 36% of Brits agreed that:

    Health insurance systems should cover the costs of gender transition no differently than the costs of other medical procedures.

    This was compared to 48% – almost one in every two people – who disagreed.

    So, 64% of the UK believes that trans people face discrimination, but 48% believe that trans people should be discriminated against directly in terms of their receipt of healthcare. Fantastic. And, all of this is before we come to the hot-button issue of trans healthcare for minors.

    The survey posed the question:

    With parental consent, transgender teenagers should be allowed to receive gender-affirming care (e.g., counseling and hormone replacement treatment).

    47% of UK respondents agreed. By contrast, 35% disagreed, and 18% were unsure. Whilst the agreement vastly outweighed the disagreement, we should bear two things in mind.

    First, we ranked above only Hungary and the US. In the latter, extreme-right politicians are currently whipping up moral panic and enacting sweeping bans on puberty blockers.

    Second, this question wasn’t about just surgery, hormone therapy, or even puberty blockers. It explicitly included counselling. As such, 35% of the UK is apparently opposed to trans youth even talking to a therapist who might agree that they are trans.

    Media influence

    If you want to know how we got into this mess, look no further than the UK’s relentlessly transphobic corporate media. The Guardian chose to report on the Ipsos survey using the headline:

    Less than half in Britain back gender-affirming care for trans teenagers

    Britain also ranks low in 30-country poll on support for access to public facilities matching gender identity

    This is, at best, deeply disingenuous. To a casual reader, it would sound as though the majority of the public is in opposition because it conveniently omits the fact that 18% were unsure. Crucially, it also completely glazes over the fact that the supporters outnumber their opponents by 12%.

    In turn, this relentless trans-hostility is playing directly into the hands of queerphobes across the board. For example, the survey also showed that support for gay marriage has fallen in Britain. It dropped by 4% since just 2021. Now, support stands at 64% in favour. This is mirrored by the fact that homophobic hate crimes have increased every year in England and Wales from 2016 to 2021.

    This current atmosphere of hatred may well have started with trans people. However, it will not stop with them by any means. Even well-established rights like gay marriage hang in the balance. For now, the UK – miserable little country that it is – has fitting bedfellows in Hungary and the US.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Ted Eytan, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Support for trans-inclusive policies in the UK among the lowest in the world, according to Ipsos poll

    Recent international research says that the UK ranks amongst the lowest in the world in terms of support for gender-affirming care, and trans people living according to their gender. That’s according to market research company Ipsos’ 2023 Pride Survey.

    Between 17 February and 3 March 2023, Ipsos interviewed a total of 22,514 adults in 30 different countries. These included countries on every continent, although Africa was notably under-represented. The sample from the UK was large enough to be considered representative of the general population.

    This comes shortly after the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association’s most recent ranking showed that the UK had plummeted to 17th place in terms of its friendliness towards queer people.

    Discrimination

    The Ipsos survey reported that:

    Support for pro-transgender measures varies by age, gender, and especially by country. It tends to be higher among younger adults and women. It is generally highest in Thailand, Southern Europe, and Latin America, and lowest in South Korea, Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and the United States.

    In general, the UK respondents’ support for pro-trans measures was among the lowest in the countries surveyed.

    Regarding perceptions of anti-trans discrimination, 64% of Brits believe that trans people face a fair-to-great amount of discrimination in our society. This is compared to the 19% who disagree. Notably, this comes during a time of rapidly rising transphobic hate crimes.

    We can consider this alongside another question. It asked whether trans people should be protected from discrimination in “employment, housing, and access to businesses such as restaurants and stores”.

    Here, Britain avoided ranking in the lowest group. 77% of respondents believed that trans people should receive protections. However, somewhat stunningly, 15% seemed to think that discrimination against trans people should be permitted.

    It should be noted that, even before the current wave of anti-trans panic, one in three UK employers said that they would be less likely to hire a trans person. A 2018 survey said that 43% of employers were unsure that they would hire a trans person at all.

    Britain ranked among the lowest in terms of support for the inclusion of gender markers other than ‘male’ and ‘female’ on passports and official documents. 47% of Brits were in support, placing the UK in the company of Poland and Romania. However, the agreement still outnumbered the 38% who disagreed with the measure.

    UK respondents were at a dead tie for support on trans people using gendered facilities like toilets that correspond to their gender identity. 40% were in favour, and 40% were opposed. This put only the US below Britain, and South Korea three places above it.

    Healthcare

    Likewise, just 36% of Brits agreed that:

    Health insurance systems should cover the costs of gender transition no differently than the costs of other medical procedures.

    This was compared to 48% – almost one in every two people – who disagreed.

    So, 64% of the UK believes that trans people face discrimination, but 48% believe that trans people should be discriminated against directly in terms of their receipt of healthcare. Fantastic. And, all of this is before we come to the hot-button issue of trans healthcare for minors.

    The survey posed the question:

    With parental consent, transgender teenagers should be allowed to receive gender-affirming care (e.g., counseling and hormone replacement treatment).

    47% of UK respondents agreed. By contrast, 35% disagreed, and 18% were unsure. Whilst the agreement vastly outweighed the disagreement, we should bear two things in mind.

    First, we ranked above only Hungary and the US. In the latter, extreme-right politicians are currently whipping up moral panic and enacting sweeping bans on puberty blockers.

    Second, this question wasn’t about just surgery, hormone therapy, or even puberty blockers. It explicitly included counselling. As such, 35% of the UK is apparently opposed to trans youth even talking to a therapist who might agree that they are trans.

    Media influence

    If you want to know how we got into this mess, look no further than the UK’s relentlessly transphobic corporate media. The Guardian chose to report on the Ipsos survey using the headline:

    Less than half in Britain back gender-affirming care for trans teenagers

    Britain also ranks low in 30-country poll on support for access to public facilities matching gender identity

    This is, at best, deeply disingenuous. To a casual reader, it would sound as though the majority of the public is in opposition because it conveniently omits the fact that 18% were unsure. Crucially, it also completely glazes over the fact that the supporters outnumber their opponents by 12%.

    In turn, this relentless trans-hostility is playing directly into the hands of queerphobes across the board. For example, the survey also showed that support for gay marriage has fallen in Britain. It dropped by 4% since just 2021. Now, support stands at 64% in favour. This is mirrored by the fact that homophobic hate crimes have increased every year in England and Wales from 2016 to 2021.

    This current atmosphere of hatred may well have started with trans people. However, it will not stop with them by any means. Even well-established rights like gay marriage hang in the balance. For now, the UK – miserable little country that it is – has fitting bedfellows in Hungary and the US.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Ted Eytan, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Laura Kuenssberg watches aghast as Alan Cumming fingers the ‘black hole of British politics’

    With Keir Starmer recently describing his Labour Party as “the real conservatives”, you’d be forgiven for saying there’s no choice for your average anti-Tory voter. So, Scottish actor Alan Cumming has described this lack of representation as the “black hole of British politics”.

    He made the comment during Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg – one of the many black holes of British journalism – as the host watched on with a somewhat bemused expression:

    Cumming: clowns to the right of me, clowns to the slightly further right

    Cumming’s comments struck a chord with folks who feel like they have no political representation:

    Some pointed out that there is a left-wing party. However, they failed to note that our non-democratic voting system (one which Starmer wants to maintain), essentially means we live in a two-party state:

    Others noted how well Cumming came across on Kuenssberg – especially in relation to the other guests:

    Said company was former Tory leader Michael Howard. He said during Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg that the Conservative Party is:

    most successful political party in the world.

    Sometimes journalist Isabel Oakeshott took issue with the comment, arguing that it was “extraordinarily arrogant” when “you look at the state our country is in right now”. She’s smart enough to understand Howard misses the point, obviously – barely smart enough, but still.

    The country isn’t in a state because some Tory technocrat pulled the wrong political lever. It’s in a state because successive Tory governments have pursued a political programme which aggressively transfers wealth upwards from poor people to barely-working billionaires. Given that, it would make sense to vote for anyone else but the Conservative Party, surely?

    Well, about that…

    ‘Conservative-light’

    To be fair to Starmer, when he said that Labour are the “real conservatives”, what he literally meant was that Labour is the party which will conserve stuff. The full quote read:

    Labour are the real conservatives… Somebody has got to stand up for the things that make this country great and it isn’t going to be the Tories.

    To be less fair to him (but considerably more fair to reality), Starmer is a politician. Both he and his team understand exactly how it’s going to be interpreted when he goes out and says that “Labour are the real conservatives”. Besides that, the man’s big-C Conservative actions speak far louder than his conservative words.

    Starmer has abandoned many of the left-leaning pledges which won him the leadership. According to Big Issue, he has – ironically – failed to conserve the following pledges:

    • Scrapping tuition fees.
    • Increasing income tax for the top 5% of earners.
    • Nationalisation of public services.
    • Freedom of movement.

    This inability to conserve good ideas shows no signs of ceasing either. Labour has now ‘postponed’ its £28bn green jobs and industry plan. Presumably, having an environment isn’t something which “makes this country great”? You should also bear in mind that this is something that Labour is dropping while it’s enjoying an obscenely large poll-lead. So, just imagine what Starmer will feel comfortable dropping when he’s in power.

    ‘Great’ Britain. Ahem.

    Getting back to the “real conservatives” quote, how is Starmer defining ‘standing up for the things that make this country great’?

    The list of things which make Britain exceptional isn’t very long, and as the Tories aren’t currently waging a war against fish and chips, you’ve got to assume he’s talking about the NHS – the only other good thing we have. So, do Starmer and his shadow health secretary Wes Streeting have a plan for the NHS? You bet they do.

    It’s one which involves more privatisation. Is that standing up for the NHS? Or is it like saying, ‘OK, Mr Pig, we’re going to allow the wolf to get his foot in the door, but we can assure you he won’t go any further than that’? To be fair, that comparison is 30 years out of date – as at this point Mr Pig is half-eaten, and our political leaders are inviting American vultures to pick over the bones.

    Another thing to note is that Starmer isn’t just emulating the Conservatives; his leaflets arguably take an imperial measure of inspiration from the knuckle-dragging nationalism of UKIP – especially that purple colouring (a hue which notably tarnishes Labour’s socialist red with the Tories’ royal blue):

    Right-light

    So why don’t we have a Labour Party that prioritises things like – umm – progressing the rights of organised labour? Outlets like the BBC are dedicated to realising ‘balance’ in their political reporting after all. So, presumably, that means they’d treat a left-wing politician as fairly as a right-wing one, and that they wouldn’t seek to ridicule them with phrases like – oh, I don’t know – ‘broadband communism‘ or ‘nationalising sausages‘.

    On an unrelated note, big shout out to Jeremy Corbyn who’s celebrating 40 years of kicking against the pricks:

    Featured image via BBC iPlayer/Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg – screengrab

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • TUC links ‘dismal’ Tory policies to the coronavirus carnage that hit insecure workers

    The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has urged the Covid-19 Inquiry to “examine how ‘unchecked growth’ of insecure work left millions vulnerable to the virus”. It follows new analysis from the trade unions body, which shows that the number of people trapped in insecure work “grew by a fifth in the decade preceding the pandemic”. The TUC said that 500,000 more people were in this kind of employment by the end of the decade. Plus, it claims insecure workers were “twice as likely to die” from coronavirus (Covid-19) during the pandemic.

    The TUC is arguing that despite their insecure working conditions, these workers also had to “shoulder” the most risk in terms of contracting coronavirus.

    TUC: insecure work has grown

    The TUC’s new analysis shows that:

    In 2011, the numbers in insecure work were 3.2 million. By the end of the decade, the numbers were 3.7 million.

    This growth is disproportionate compared to the growth of the labour market in this period (the proportion of those in insecure work grew from 10.7% to 11.2%).

    Insecure work in this analysis refers to agency, casual, and seasonal labour that doesn’t include fixed-term contracts. It also includes self-employed work that brings in less than 66% of median earnings.

    Previous TUC analysis – conducted during the pandemic – showed that “those in insecure occupations faced mortality rates which were twice as high as those in more secure jobs”. It also found that, for coronavirus, the:

    male mortality rate in insecure occupations was 51 per 100,000 people aged 20-64, compared to 24 per 100,000 people in less insecure occupations.

    At the same time, the:

    female mortality rate in insecure occupations was 25 per 100,000 people, compared to 13 per 100,000 in less insecure occupations.

    ‘Shouldering’ the risk

    In a press release, the TUC argued that:

    workers in insecure jobs were forced to shoulder more risk of infection during this pandemic, while facing the “triple whammy” of a lack of sick pay, fewer rights and endemic low pay.

    TUC polling from 2022 showed that three in four (76%) in insecure jobs get the “miserly” statutory sick pay, or nothing, when off sick.

    Insecure workers are markedly less likely to benefit from the full range of employment rights that permanent, more secure workers are entitled to, including vital safeguards such as unfair dismissal and redundancy protections.

    Sectors such as care, leisure, and the elementary occupations have high rates of insecure work – compared to managerial, professional and admin sectors which have some of the lowest.

    Those in insecure occupations largely continued to work outside the home during the pandemic – and many were key workers.

    It claims a government study suggested that care home agency workers “unwittingly” spread coronavirus through care homes. These people were often on zero-hours contracts. Moreover, the TUC says the study also showed that one in nine workers were classed as insecure during the pandemic.

    It further noted that women, and Black, Brown, and disabled workers were more likely to be in such work. The TUC also pointed to its own research which showed Black and Brown women are “twice as likely to be on zero-hours contracts as white men”.

    It also highlighted Tory failures, saying:

    the government’s record on workers’ rights has been dismal.

    Instead of “getting a grip of insecure work” as it grew from 2010 onwards, the Conservative government “let it flourish on their watch”.

    This was despite government promises to boost employment rights.

    The Taylor Review reported on 11 July 2017, promising “good work for all”. However, the following years have seen few of the review’s proposals implemented.

    And since the pandemic, ministers have failed to learn lessons – instead repeating the same mistakes.

    Ministers ditched the long-promised employment bill – and they are now backsliding on promised protections for workers from sexual harassment, as well as attacking workers’ right to strike.

    ‘Unchecked growth on insecure work’

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    The Covid public inquiry must look at how the unchecked growth of insecure work left millions vulnerable to the pandemic.

    Ministers let insecure work flourish on their watch – instead of clamping down on the worst employment practices.

    That failure had devastating – and even fatal – consequences for workers.

    Those in insecure work faced markedly higher Covid infections and death rates. And they were hit by a triple whammy of endemic low pay, few workplace rights and low or no sick pay.

    Lots of them were the key workers we all applauded – like care workers, delivery drivers and coronavirus testing staff.

    For years ministers promised working people improved rights and protections. But they repeatedly failed to deliver.

    It’s time for the government to learn the lessons of the pandemic and stamp out the scourge of insecure work for good.

    On the topic of the Conservative government refusing to hand over unredacted evidence to the inquiry, Nowak added:

    Ministers seem more interested in playing political games than learning lessons from the pandemic.

    It’s time they fully cooperated with the inquiry and stopped dragging their feet.

    Featured image via Unsplash

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The remote Scottish community of Knoydart unites to oppose construction of environmentally-damaging 4G masts

    The Knoydart peninsula is nestled on the west coast of the highlands of Scotland. It forms part of the ‘Rough Bounds’ – an extraordinarily remote and mountainous section of countryside in West Inverness-shire. No roads connect it to the main body of Scotland. Rather, it can be accessed via boat or a 16-mile walk. Because of this, it is also known as “Britain’s last wilderness”.

    However, this last wilderness is under a new threat. The government has proposed to install a network of 4G masts to cover the peninsula.  But the plans are being met with fierce defiance from the tight-knit local community.

    The Shared Rural Network

    The project – called the Shared Rural Network (SRN) – aims to hit 90% mobile coverage in Scotland by 2025. It will run a bill of some £1bn, which the government plans to split with the country’s four largest mobile network providers. The catch is that this could necessitate a swathe of 4G mast sites.

    The local community has owned most of the peninsula since 1999. The Knoydart Foundation oversees the area and its wildlife on their behalf. Finlay Greig, one of the Foundation’s rangers, said:

    The Knoydart Foundation was contacted by Gateley/Hamer earlier this year and we accompanied them during an on-the-ground survey of potential sites in March.

    What was instantly striking was the scale of the project and the sites being discussed for potential masts. It was difficult to see any possible benefit for the community.

    Gateley/Hamer is a consultancy that advertises services specialising in the management of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs). CPOs allow the government to obtain land without the owner’s consent, usually on the grounds of serving the greater public.

    Following the survey visit, the locals learned that the project was pursuing 11 locations for mast installations. No fewer than three were on community-owned land.

    Huge costs, little gain

    The SRN’s website claims that it will provide coverage for 16,000km of roads and 280,000 premises. Further, it also indicates a range of potential benefits for these areas, such as reducing health, economic and social inequalities.

    However, the sites which have been explored on Knoydart would play only a tiny part in this. It has a population hovering around just 130 people in total, and some 26km of roads.

    One of the sites – identified as a potential hub for the network – is located near the village of Inverie. However, the others are in remote, unpopulated glens. Because of this, there is no infrastructure nearby to support the 4G masts.

    In turn, this has led to strong speculation that they would need to be constructed and maintained using helicopters and fossil fuel generators that could devastate the environment.

    Forester Grant Holroyd stated that:

    There’s no justification for mobile coverage in the proposed areas where people don’t live.

    I think this is a totally unjustified waste of money and a gross unnecessary contribution to carbon emissions.

    These structures will require regular maintenance. For example, if they have diesel generators they will need to be refuelled every 500 hours and these masts will need to be maintained by helicopter which is an outrageous source of carbon emissions.

    Already served, thank you

    On top of all this, the recent Scottish 4G Infill programme already installed a 4G mast on the peninsula. It grants EE mobile coverage to most of the area where signal was previously unavailable, and boosts emergency services coverage.

    A community consultation of the Knoydart residents regarding the proposals for the SRN masts received 104 responses. The opposition to the plans was unanimous.

    Stephanie Harris, a manager of the community-owned pub The Old Forge, said:

    I have been involved in many community engagement activities over the years, and the level of response we received for this consultation was the highest and most unified I have seen from our community.

    Our community has stated very clearly that we do not want or need more masts, and that position must be respected.

    It would be an outrage if contractors were to pursue legal action.

    The Knoydart Foundation wrote to the Scottish and UK governments, informing them of the locals’ position. It stressed that they would not support building any masts on community-owned land.

    Stephanie added that:

    We have consulted with our community and the opinion is clear – over 100 residents signed a declaration against these proposals and this must be taken seriously by the Government and mobile network operators.

    Our declaration summarises all the reasons we think this project is ludicrous, but for me there is the overarching issue of this being imposed on us, and we’re just supposed to accept it.

    Moving forward, we welcome constructive dialogue with those implementing SRN, and will do what we need to to make sure that our voices are heard.”

    Knoydart: a community united

    Over a hundred members of the Knoydart community joined together to sign a declaration of the reasons behind their opposition. The list stated that the scheme:

    • will not provide any additional benefit to the inhabited areas of the peninsula, now that the S4G Infill mast at Loch Bhraomisaig is operational.
    • is disproportionate in terms of population and landscape.
    • is a wasteful use of public funds.
    • will have a hugely negative impact on the environment and aesthetics of Knoydart’s National Scenic Area and Wild Land Area.
    • will likely become defunct in a short period of time, due to technology advancements.
    • is not necessary to improve safety in the remote areas of the peninsula, and actually has the potential to increase unsafe roaming and accidents.
    • conflicts with the net-zero aspirations of our community and government, requiring extensive use of carbon fuels for construction and operating remote equipment.
    • conflicts with one the Unique Selling Points of the peninsula – “remoteness” – and has the potential to harm our vital tourism economy.

    When the BBC approached the UK Government for comment, a spokesperson stated that:

    Reliable connectivity is fundamental to making sure all the UK can access the growth and opportunity offered by a digital economy. Delivering this, the Shared Rural Network (SRN) programme tackles the digital divide across the UK – including all of the most remote parts of Scotland – by providing high-speed 4G connections for the first time, supporting the economy while also opening up access to key services like 999 calls.

    The location of sites is determined by operators to ensure they are able to reach their coverage objectives, and they will continue to work closely with local communities and planning authorities to ensure new masts go through the proper planning process, and are considerate to areas of natural beauty.

    The situation regarding the construction of the 4G masts is far from resolved. However, the locals look set to put up a fight before any further construction threatens their remote wilderness home.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ Subarite, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, resized to 1910 * 1000.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Palestinian youth group claim victory over Israel ‘normalisation group’ in Manchester

    A youth-led Palestine group has claimed victory after working with a Manchester secondary school to stop hosting a “normalisation group” for pro-Israel politics.

    ‘False narrative’ on Israel’s occupation of Palestine

    The Youth Front for Palestine (YFFP) celebrated its ‘victory’ on 7 June. It said Loreto High School in Chorlton had “committed to never hosting Solutions Not Sides (SNS) or any other normalisation group ever again”:

    SNS is a registered charity that says it facilitates “dialogue” on the “diverse narratives on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its resolution”. However, YFFP said in a press release that SNS is:

    an Israeli-State linked group that aims to spread the false narrative of a ‘two-sided conflict’.

    The charity primarily delivers workshops in secondary schools but also provides training for teachers and community leaders. It started in 2010 as a project by OneVoice Europe, which Palestinian voices have previously called out for shilling for Israel.

    SNS separated from OneVoice in 2019. However, the charity’s rhetoric seems to continue OneVoice’s stance on Israel. Journalist Ben White outlined how the charity’s materials create a false impression of two equal sides in conflict with each other.

    This was also the basis of YFFP’s effort to deplatform SNS. In YFFP’s campaign petition, it said that the charity:

    falsely presents the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people as a mere “conflict” in which “both sides” are guilty of wrongdoing.

    For SNS, the basic right of Palestinians to self-determination in their historic homeland is a matter for debate.

    YFFP said this process of “normalisation… attempts to justify and confuse the reality of the Zionist state”.

    Fourth successful campaign

    YFFP said Loreto High School hosted SNS in February. Following this, it launched a campaign that culminated in a meeting with the school’s headteacher. It was this meeting that led to the school’s commitment not to invite SNS or other ‘normalisation groups’ for Israel in the future.

    A spokesperson for the group subsequently said that the victory at Loreto High School showed that:

    day by day it is becoming more clear that people all over the world are ready to fight for a liberated Palestine.

    This victory is the fourth for the group. Previous successes include helping to stop the Manchester leg of normalisation group Friends of Roots UK (FoRUK) nationwide tour.

    Featured image via Youth Front for Palestine

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Two sides of one coin: UK slammed for child migrant and military child recruitment policies

    UN child rights experts have slammed the UK for its anti-child policies. A committee met in Geneva to discuss the state of child rights in the UK. Experts were particularly critical of military recruitment policy and migration in the UK.

    But there’s a bigger story there too, only grasped at in the UN findings. The treatment of children across military recruitment but also as refugees are deeply connected. When it comes to the demands of global power, kids don’t stand a chance.

    UN criticism

    The UN report noted:

    …with concern reports of advertising of and marketing for military service aimed at children and the overrepresentation of socioeconomically disadvantaged children in the armed forces.

    The experts urged to UK to take two measures. Firstly:

    Consider raising the minimum age of voluntary recruitment into the armed forces to 18 years.

    And secondly:

    Prohibit all forms of advertising and marketing for military service targeted at children, in particular at schools and targeting children belonging to ethnic minority groups and socioeconomically disadvantaged children.

    Optimistic calls, because all the evidence suggests the UK is determined to keep recruiting minors – malleable as they are – into the ranks.

    Recruiting kids

    The UK currently accepts 16-year-olds into the military. And it seems determined to keep doing it. This is in spite of a vast body of evidence that doing so benefits neither the child nor the military.

    Organisations like Forces Watch have compiled substantial bodies of evidence and argument on this issue. And, the Before You Sign Up website details how opaque and dishonest military recruiters are.

    Reports like The Last Ambush examine the mental health impacts of service, not least on the very young. Another report, The First Ambush, unpacks the grimy reality of military training and its outcomes.

    The overwhelming evidence here is that military recruiting brutalises young people and diminishes their prospects. But, the institution and government don’t seem to care.

    Migrants rights

    The committee was just as withering about the Tory’s racist Illegal Migration Bill. They said they had noted:

    The potential impact of the Illegal Migration Bill on children, which includes a ban on the right to claim asylum, allows for the prolonged detention and removal of children, creates barriers for acquiring nationality, and lacks a consideration of the principle of the best interests of the child.

    The committee urged the government to:

    …amend the Illegal Migration Bill to repeal all draft provisions that would have the effect of violating children’s rights.

    They also said the government should “bring the Bill in line with the State party’s obligations under international human rights law” as well as a number of other measures.

    Two sides of a coin

    The committee is absolutely correct that the UK government has failed in its commitment to children. What sits slightly outside the scope of their report is the correlation between the two.

    The two best-represented nationalities for migrants and refugees coming into Europe are Afghanistan and Syria. The UK recently bombed both countries, and they are both historically affected by British ‘influence’ – by which we mean violence. Iraq features prominently. Needless to say, Bangladesh and Pakistan are up there too.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, the wars featured massive military occupations. Thousands of ground troops, many of whom had been so-called ‘boy soldiers’, cycled through these warzones.

    They come back to the kind of outcomes described in the reports above. Meanwhile, many children and young people from those places have suffered war and loss before undertaking a long, arduous journey. And that journey into Europe, which was never welcoming to refugees in the first place, seems to be getting even more febrile by the day.

    Indifferent power

    The lesson is this: for consecutive British governments, children do not matter. At least not working-class kids from council estates in the UK or children displaced from the war zones that British administrations themselves have created around the world.

    All this is worth bearing in mind when we talk about anything from migration to welfare. As a veteran myself, few things anger me quite as much as that well-worn, far-right slogan about favouring ex-military personnel over refugees. Because the truth is the people who say things like that couldn’t give a toss about either. And that is nowhere more evident than in the UN’s latest report.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Ggia, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Home Office secretly funding Turkish border forces to stop migrants

    The UK government is secretly funding Turkey’s border forces to keep migrants out. A freedom of information (FOI) request revealed that it has handed £3m to the Turkish government to stop refugees from entering Europe.

    The FOI request by the Guardian detailed that the Home Office has diverted money to Turkish security forces to stem the flow of desperate refugees and migrants. This included practical training and material support. The money was taken from a fund meant for overseas development.

    The £3m figure is for the last year. But, the report suggests that the payments have been steadily increasing since 2019. The Guardian reported:

    The funding was diverted from the official development assistance (ODA) budget and delivered through Home Office International Operations, part of the department’s Intelligence Directorate.

    The UK also gifted security equipment, including nine vehicles to Turkey. This is despite, as the Guardian pointed out, Turkey’s track record of using violent force including live rounds against migrants.

    Refugee plight ignored

    Human rights lawyer Mahmut Kaçan told the paper that the UN overlooked Turkish brutality against refugees. And he said donor countries were responsible too:

    The UNHCR never criticises or mentions what Turkey is doing at the border. They are complicit in the deaths of these people, as are the EU and other countries that are giving money to Turkey for border security.

    And an anonymous Home Office source explained how the process of funding worked:

    We offer our expertise and provide officials [locally] with evidence, showing the routes we think illegal migrants or gangs are operating along… It’ll probably be along the lines of: ‘This is a route smugglers and illegal migrants use to get to the UK, we need to do more to stop it.’

    The source added:

    The Turkish government will then respond by saying: ‘This is what we need to be able to do that’, and then we fund it, basically.

    Accountability?

    The same source said that accountability wasn’t high on the agenda for the UK government:

    We don’t tend to hold local forces to account with any targets but certainly if we say: ‘We need to bolster X area of border security’, Turkey might respond by saying they need Y in order to boost border officer numbers and we’ll help them to do that.

    A spokesperson for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants said the revelation exposed the British government’s real attitudes:

    This government has shown that it will break international law to prevent people from exercising the fundamental human right to seek safety.

    The UK government has been caught out again. Whether on the English Channel or at the Turkish border, it is absolutely committed to putting the boot into some of the most desperate people on earth. And, as ever, the unwitting taxpayer is funding it.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Amada44, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Oxfam caves to pressure and deletes Pride video containing the supposed likeness of JK Rowling

    Oxfam has come under fire on Twitter for a short animation it posted as part of its #ProtectThePride campaign. Critics claimed that a red-eyed, snarling figure wearing a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) badge resembled author J.K. Rowling. In recent years, Rowling has become increasingly known for her anti-trans opinions.

    Oxfam’s video

    Oxfam quickly took down the video and issued a statement of apology. However, the charity denied that the likeness was intentional.

    As Pink News reported:

    Created by Falana Films, a Bangalore-based, women-led studio, the minute-long cartoon looked at the various ways queer people are denied basic human rights, as well as the means by which people can protect and champion safety for LGBTQ+ communities.

    The video became the source of criticism for showing a character wearing a TERF badge alongside two other characters, meant to represent the hate groups that attack LGBTQ+ communities online and offline.

    Cue the inevitable pile-on from the various transphobic corners of Twitter. We’ll leave aside for a moment the irony of seeing a demonic redhead cartoon character growling at an LGBT group and immediately assuming that it must be Rowling.

    Sure enough, Oxfam quickly caved to the pressure. It first posted that it had taken the video down:

    Then, the charity also shared an edited version of the video. It removed references to TERFs as a hate group, along with the supposed likeness of Rowling. This came with a lengthy apology:

    Oxfam’s statement accompanying the new video read:

    Oxfam believes that all people should be able to make decisions which affect their lives, enjoy their rights and live a life free of discrimination and violence, including people from LGBTQIA+ communities.

    In efforts to make an important point about the real harm caused by transphobia, we made a mistake.

    We have therefore edited the video to remove the term TERF and we are sorry for the offence it caused. There was no intention by Oxfam or the film-makers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person or people.

    We fully support both an individual’s rights to hold their philosophical beliefs and a person’s right to have their identity respected, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics.

    Rowling and the TERFs

    The thing is, though, it’s somewhat difficult to ascertain the transphobic crowd’s motivation in objecting to the video. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the figure in the video was Rowling.

    There are problems with the ‘TERF’ label, to be sure. There’s very little that’s radical about the idea of excluding trans people. Many mainstream politicians share it – Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, and Kemi Badenoch amongst them – along with some distinctly anti-feminist figures and a whole bunch of literal Nazis.

    That aside, ‘TERF’ is a label that Rowling has very much associated herself with. For example, she posted a lengthy diatribe on her website. When she shared the same post on Twitter she did so by calling it ‘TERF wars‘. Likewise, she posted a tweet wishing people a “Merry Terfmas”.

    If the objection is that Rowling isn’t opposed to trans people and their rights, that doesn’t hold much water either. Her lengthy diatribe mentioned above included “five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism”. She famously likened the trans rights movement to the death eaters, the villains from her own book, calling it a “powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement”. And, she flat-out ignored trans men’s existence in her rant on the use of the phrase “people who menstruate”.

    Of course, Rowling did insist that she isn’t transphobic, and would “march with [trans people] if [they] were discriminated against on the basis of being trans”. However, during a time of rising transphobic hate crime, such support hasn’t been forthcoming.

    #OxfamHatesWomen

    Now, despite taking down the video, the hashtag ‘Oxfam hates women’ has gained a flood of transphobic support on Twitter. Except, it isn’t women that Oxfam depicted in a negative light, is it? It’s transphobes, who are not synonymous with women. In fact, on average, women are far more likely to be trans inclusive than men.

    Oxfam’s capitulation is as predictable as it is disappointing. We are already seeing brands quietly walking back their support for queer causes as transphobic and homophobic hatred mounts.

    Charities, brands, and all public-facing organisations must learn one thing very rapidly. Support for LGBTQ+ people no longer comes for free. The slings and arrows aimed at trans people will also be levelled at their allies – now, we will see who stands firm, and who quietly walks away.

    Featured image via screenshot Twitter/OxfamInternational

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Bristol Kill the Bill protester tells court how he used captured police riot shield to defend himself

    A Kill the Bill protester has been on trial in Bristol Crown Court this week. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is accusing Michael Truesdale of using a captured police riot shield during Bristol’s uprising against police violence in 2021.

    Judges at Bristol Crown Court have now sentenced 35 people to prison for the Kill the Bill demonstration outside Bridewell Police Station. They have received over 110 years between them.

    Michael has denied the charges against him, and is defending himself in front of a jury this week.

    Excessive, indiscriminate police violence

    The police’s body-worn cameras captured Michael on film. In the video, he was standing with the shield in what he called “a defensive stance” and using it to push back officers in riot gear. The CPS says that this amounts to violent disorder, a charge carrying a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

    Michael argued that he was acting in self-defence, and in the defence of others. He told the court that he only had the shield for a few minutes, and he was using it:

    to defend other people from shield strikes, from baton strikes, from PAVA [incapacitant] spray – and in the process defend[ing] myself

    Michael said that the police used:

    excessive violent behaviour towards protesters, indiscriminately.

    Michael told the court that he had also seen police striking protesters with bladed shield strikes, and that this is why he needed to act to defend himself. Bladed shield strikes are where a police officer uses the edge of a riot shield to hit somebody.

    Protesting ‘against police powers and police practice’

    Michael explained to the court why he attended the Kill the Bill protest in March 2021. He said that the protest was:

    in relation to the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill [now an Act]. We were there to protest against police powers and police practice, and the murder of Sarah Everard.

    Everard was murdered by serving police officer Wayne Couzens on 3 March 2021.

    Michael said that one of the reasons he had gone was because of the attack on protest. He said:

    There was a lot of concern among anyone who takes part in protest about this. Noisy protests could be shut down

    He continued:

    if you did protest it would entail very close cooperation with the police otherwise it wouldn’t happen. I was really concerned as protest is the only way we have really to make our voices heard.

    Michael said that some of his friends had been brutalised by the police at a vigil for Sarah Everard the previous week. Officers even arrested another of his friends for taking part in the memorial on Clapham Common.

    Michael told the court that police had banned a Bristol vigil for Sarah, planned in the same period as the Clapham Common event, under Covid-19 regulations.

    Protecting others

    Michael joined the Kill the Bill march from College Green on 21 March 2021. He initially hung back when the confrontation started outside Bridewell Police Station. He watched with concern as police on horseback entered the crowd and the confrontation escalated.

    Owen Greenhall, Michael’s defence barrister, showed footage of one of the mounted officers using an overarm baton strike against protesters. This is despite the police’s own guidance clearly stating that batons should not be aimed towards the head.

    The footage also showed police officers repeatedly hitting a woman with a baton

    Later on, Michael said that he felt he needed to intervene when he saw the police attacking another woman. Footage shows officers shoving a woman in red to the floor. She got up and tried to climb a traffic-light pole to escape. Michael said he stepped in to help her, holding an arm out. He said that he was trying keep the police away from her.

    Michael told the court:

    I saw her being pushed over, another officer rugby tackled her. I saw them bashing her with shields, batons and all sorts.

    I could see her being hit with batons, she was climbing the pole, she gave me her water bottle – I was pushing against the pole with one arm, and using the other arm to keep them off her.

    He said:

    It felt at any time the police could charge.

    Shortly afterwards, Michael said that someone in the crowd handed him a police riot shield. He said he used it to defend himself and others, as the police were pushing forward and there was nowhere for the protesters to go.

    According to Michael, the scariest point of the evening was when he was shoved to the floor by a line of riot police who were pushing forward. He said:

    I was forced to one knee by the weight of the police officer and the officers behind him.

    My concerns were that I had seen a lot of bladed strikes being used against people – seeing the shield in that position it seemed it was going to make a bladed strike.

    Michael said he put his hand on the officer’s shield and pulled himself up off the floor.

    Shortly afterward, the police sprayed Michael in the face with PAVA spray, and he was forced to leave the crowd and receive first aid.

    Kill the Bill protest ‘the most important I’ve attended’

    Greenhall, defending Michael, asked why he didn’t leave earlier, when the police violence started. Michael said:

    Whilst it would have been convenient for me to leave, and I would have got less hurt, I wouldn’t have defended those people – when faced with people attacking its important for me to defend them. Its irrelevant that it’s police officers attacking.

    He continued:

    I think it was a very important protest, arguably the most important I’ve attended. The Bill would erode our democracy and have negative effects on us throughout our lives. It was important to stay and stand up for the right to protest.

    The jury are now listening to closing speeches from the defence and the prosecution. They are expected to begin deliberating on a verdict on Friday 9 June.

    People in Bristol are raising funds for those already sentenced. Click here to find out how to write to the people in prison, or donate to their crowdfunder here. 

    Featured image via Shoal Collective

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Sneering presenters got schooled by Mick Lynch… again

    Mick Lynch thrashes Britain’s rubbish posho TV interviewers so often you’d think they’d give up. But they haven’t. So, he’s had to do it again. The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) Union leader spent another morning making the reality-detached sneering hacks look like fools over current strikes. And as always, we’re here for it.

    First up, Lynch took on two morning TV hacks who seemed to be trying to argue that it was somehow the RMT’s fault that railway operators had been gouging money out of taxpayer subsidies:

    Needless to say, Lynch ran rings around him. So, the presenter handed over to a colleague who made a nebulous point about how badly British Rail had been nationalised. She said:

    …the last time that the train companies were nationalised they were appalling, absolutely appalling.

    Lynch was taking no prisoners, accusing the commentator of repeating a cliché she’d picked up somewhere. And then he explained the nuances and details of British Rail funding:

    Under British Rail the last year of British Rail operations it was subsidised for £1bn. Under the private sector, as you’ve just pointed out, it’s now subsidised for £16bn.

    Cliché-riddled presenters 0, Mick Lynch 1. This is the enduring pattern of his interactions with this sort of chancer.

    ‘Dimwitted journalists’

    Lynch continues to be a hugely popular figure. Partly this is because he is a great debater, and a rare one on mainstream media in that he isn’t a smug posh git. But there’s a strong sense that what normal people really enjoy is seeing him put the boot into pompous presenters:

    There is virtually nobody like Lynch in the media these days. And that is another reason he garners such support for RMT workers:

    Another Twitter user said he took particular joy from Lynch’s pugilistic performances. And he’s right, there’s nothing quite like seeing a cocky right-wing presenter reduced to a quivering wreck by the RMT general secretary:

    Meanwhile, someone else made an entire video of Mick Lynch as the Thunderbirds villain The Hood – during an earlier wave of strikes, Piers Morgan made a bizarre argument about Mick Lynch having the fictional character as his profile picture:

    Confidence and power

    It must be very hard for privileged presenters to understand why the tough-looking Londoner can run rings around them. These people are used to sneering at, and lording over, normal people.

    But many working class people get it. Lynch is a figure who gives confidence to his workers. And what he tells us is important. There’s nothing that rich presenters and smug Tories can do that we can’t do better. It’s almost like we don’t need them at all – and that’s what really rattles them.

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

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • England to trial a basic income scheme for the first time

    England is about to pilot a basic income scheme for the first time. Thirty people will receive £1600 a month for two years. The trial, which will take place in central Jarrow and East Finchley, seeks to find out what effects this will have on the lives of the participants.

    Will Stronge, director of research from thinktank Autonomy, said:

    All the evidence shows that it would directly alleviate poverty and boost millions of people’s wellbeing: the potential benefits are just too large to ignore.

    Indeed, this seems like an interesting and positive scheme to tackle the hardship millions of people face in this country. However, unsurprisingly, debates within the corporate media have included baseless criticism and personal attacks.

    Contradictory criticism

    Good Morning Britain invited Will Stronge to debate UBI with former Apprentice winner and millionaire Michelle Dewberry. The debate quickly moved on from the pilot scheme to what a basic income would look like at the national level.

    Dewberry accused Stronge and the pilot scheme of being the “height of delusion”. She also claimed UBI would “set this country up to fail”, with the whole idea being unaffordable.

    The Economic Times claimed that “Free money makes people lazy” in its headline, citing Finland as an example. However, this was contradicted in the article itself:

    “On the basis of an analysis of register data on an annual level, we can say that during the first year of the experiment the recipients of a basic income were no better or worse than the control group at finding employment in the open labor market,” said Ohto Kanninen, Research Coordinator at the Labour Institute for Economic Research.

    The recipients did however report “less stress symptoms as well as less as difficulties to concentrate and less health problems than the control group…

    The opposite of the headline’s claim, then – plus a net benefit. So, if the critics of UBI were sincere in looking for ways to help ordinary people, surely they wouldn’t be so quick to shut down these ideas. But that’s not how the corporate media operates, is it?

    Finland’s Basic Income

    In the Finnish case, two thousand people received €560 (£490) per month for two years in Finland’s nationwide basic income. The scheme was rolled out by Kela and The Social Insurance Institution of Finland.

    Professor Helena Blomberg-Kroll from Helsinki University, who led the study, said that:

    Some people said the basic income had zero effect on their productivity, as there were still no jobs in the area they were trained for…

    But others said that with the basic income they were prepared to take low-paying jobs they would otherwise have avoided.

    More importantly, the basic income scheme had a massive effect on participants’ wellbeing:

    Average life satisfaction among the treatment group was 7.3 out of 10, compared with 6.8 in the control group—a very large increase.

    What’s more, people found that they experienced better health, and lower levels of depression and loneliness.

    Other similar schemes have also been trialled in the US, Canada, Brazil, Namibia and India.

    Potential flaws

    Of course, basic income concepts are not without their potential flaws. Despite the possibility to drastically improve the lives of many people, there’s a huge possible downfall we should be mindful of – it could well play into capitalist hands.

    Basic income has been endorsed from not only some on the left, but on the right too. Right-wing thinktank the Adam Smith Institute have shown support for the policy.

    So, why exactly would the political right support a state wage? Many on the right constantly attack welfare and those who are on Universal Credit. They argue that recipients are living off other people’s money without having to work themselves.

    However, the existence of a basic income could give consensus to mass privatisation. The right could argue that we would have no need for public services which are free at the point of use when citizens could use UBI to pick and choose between such services.

    In turn, this is why some argue that universal basic services – where housing, health, education, transport and food are guaranteed free at the point of use – are a better idea.

    A celebration of ideas

    In a time of rising inequality and automation, universal basic income schemes attempt to truly tackle the great crises we face. They also give us a chance to discuss the nature of the way we all work.

    We should be looking at ways for all our lives to improve, to strive for a better balance between work and leisure. Why shouldn’t we work less? Why shouldn’t we have the space to pursue our passions, to spend more time with loved ones?

    Instead, we spend most of our lives in work, which for many is menial, insecure, and damaging to our mental and physical health.

    The trials and the discussions around basic income schemes should therefore be welcomed, and could radically transform the lives of millions for the better. However, we should remain watchful that a scheme which genuinely tries to do good does not play straight into the hands of capitalism and privatisation.

    Featured image via Flikr/Generation Grundeinkommen, CC BY 2.0, resized to 1910*1000

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Odds are the Boris Johnson WhatsApp messages are exactly what you think they are

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Guardian has “Mr Bean moment” with Atkinson electric vehicle article

    The Guardian has had a Mr Bean moment over electric cars on 3 June. British actor and petrolhead Rowan Atkinson penned an article for the outlet opining that he felt “duped” by the environmental call for electric vehicles (EVs). Instead, Atkinson defended petrol cars and argued for a shift to nascent hydrogen and synthetic fuel technologies.

    He has since been rightfully dragged on Twitter for a number of factual errors and long-debunked claims about the industry. Crucially however, he entirely missed the point about the legitimate issues with an en-masse global fleet transition to EVs.

    The Guardian’s EV misinformation machine

    On 3 June, the Guardian published an opinion piece by Atkinson titled I love electric vehicles – and was an early adopter. But increasingly I feel duped. In it, Atkinson laid out his arguments for why the electric vehicle is not “the environmental panacea it is claimed to be”.

    However, a number of climate, energy, and car specialists have pulled him up on his facts and sources. Deputy and senior policy editor for Carbon Brief Simon Evans, for example, linked to a factcheck thread he’d previously posted on EVs:

    The thread referenced Carbon Brief’s research rebuttal to media misinformation on the life-cycle emissions of EVs versus petrol engines. In particular, its research debunked Atkinson’s claim that retaining old polluting petrol engines would be better for the environment since they had “paid their environmental dues”.

    Carbon Brief instead showed that:

    In the UK in 2019, the lifetime emissions per kilometre of driving a Nissan Leaf EV were about three times lower than for the average conventional car, even before accounting for the falling carbon intensity of electricity generation during the car’s lifetime.

    Furthermore, Evans explained that after four years, a new EV car will have paid off its carbon debt. Conversely, a conventional petroleum car would continue to produce emissions after this point:

    Eindhoven University of Technology’s Auke Hoekstra issued a scathing analysis of Atkinson’s claims. Notably, he highlighted that Atkinson relied on a disproven right-wing study to make his points:

    Public transport is the real solution

    Hoekstra also pointed out how the Guardian’s process had failed its editorial remit:

    In short, the Guardian had published false and misleading information, without basic fact-checking. Of course, the right-wing media also seized the opportunity to amplify Atkinson’s argument against EVs. Both the Daily Mail and the Telegraph reported on his piece.

    Naturally, this brought out the right-wing climate deniers in droves. Richard Wellings, who co-authored a pro-motorist and road-building report for the opaque right-wing thinktank Policy Exchange, weighed in. On Atkinson’s article, he said that:

    Ironically, this was exactly the point that Atkinson was missing. Wellings’s non-sequitur conspiracy aside, to meet climate targets countries will indeed need to move away from individual car ownership.

    A 2020 study in the journal Nature found that in the US, full electrification of the car fleet would not be enough to meet climate targets. In fact, the sector would blow through the carbon emissions which scientists have budgeted for the sector, in order to prevent 2C or more of global warming. Instead, it argued that the US government should invest in affordable and accessible mass public transport.

    Likewise, the progressive thinktank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has stated that shifting to EVs in the UK would fall short of what is needed. It stated that:

    the current approach to decarbonising transport in the UK could see a 28 per cent increase in car in use by 2050, and an 11 per cent increase in car traffic.

    Even a professed car-lover and expert decried Atkinson’s polemic. Car journalist Hazel Southwell argued that EVs are not the future – public transport is:

    The social justice case against EVs

    Moreover, transport policies are an issue of both climate and social justice. Sustainable transport and EV journalist Ginny Buckley pointed out that EVs reduce air pollution:

    Echoing this, the UK’s independent Committee on Climate Change stated that:

    A full shift to EVs by 2050 will have one of the highest impacts particularly on reducing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC)27, responsible for asthma, inflammation and other lung problems.

    Therefore, a shift to EVs could reduce the UK’s dire air pollution, which causes respiratory health problems and premature deaths.

    However, Southwell also raised the issue with the tyre particulates that EVs would continue to produce:

    The IPPR has also highlighted that:

    Over 90 per cent of the highest income households own at least one car (and over 20 per cent own three or more) while only a third of households in the bottom 10 per cent by income own a car. People on lower incomes would benefit much more from an improved public transport system

    In other words, governments prioritising a shift to EVs while failing to improve and expand public transport networks will disadvantage marginalised poor and working class communities most.

    Critical minerals which harm Global South communities

    There are valid critiques of EVs, but Atkinson’s pseudo-scientific article did not make them. Climate crisis analyst and communicator Ketan Joshi suggested that articles like Atkinson’s are detracting from these important criticisms:

    For instance, his Guardian article failed to raise a key issue with EVs. Specifically, there are huge impacts in the mining of the minerals that car manufacturers use to produce them.

    The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) has linked ‘transition’ minerals to multiple allegations of human rights abuse. It defines transition minerals as six critical materials that manufacturers use for renewable energy technologies. This includes minerals for battery and other components to produce EVs.

    As I previously wrote on the Centre’s findings in a report on the Andean region:

    the transition will rely on expanding extractive industries that destroy the environment and harm people in the Global South. Electric vehicle solutions entrench colonialist and exploitative resource drain from Global South countries. In addition, far from addressing the racial capitalist inequalities of the climate crisis, their production exacerbates these injustices.

    A separate BHRRC report from 9 May revealed that mines in the Philippines and Indonesia had affected the health of nearby communities. Through water and air pollution, as well as damage to the environment, the mining operations impacted the food security and respiratory health of local residents. Both mines produce minerals for large EV battery manufacturers such as Panasonic, Tesla, and Toyota.

    Private car ownership harms marginalised communities everywhere

    Moreover, as countries around the world scale up production to meet their net zero targets, this compounds the risk of harm to communities in the Global South.

    The IEA has calculated that the electric car industry alone could require 30 times its current use of lithium and cobalt by 2040 to meet climate goals. To supply these minerals, mining companies would therefore need to expand their operations on a gargantuan scale.

    A BHRRC report on mining operations for transition minerals in the Andean region argued that:

    without due attention to human rights, such an expansion risks repeating a centuries-long model of harmful extractivism and exploitation of Indigenous and peasant communities in Latin America, driving a new form of “green colonialism”

    Atkinson’s argument is riddled full with factual potholes. At best, his article in the Guardian is a misleading and irresponsible piece of opinion journalism. However, at worst, it plays right into the hands of the fossil fuel and polluting automobile industries hell-bent on delaying meaningful climate action.

    Meanwhile, a transport vision that maintains private car ownership will harm working-class and marginalised communities the world over. Atkinson is right about one thing, though. EVs are not an “environmental panacea” – but neither is any solution where cars rule the world.

    Feature image via Mr Bean/YouTube screenshot.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Some oddly-timed fire alarms have ended the student occupation at Brighton University

    University of Brighton bosses are planning to make 140 staff redundant, but workers and students alike haven’t been taking it lying down. They’ve organised protests and rallies. 11 students have also occupied parts of the uni. However, that action came to an abrupt end on Sunday 4 June – in rather suspicious circumstances.

    Brighton University: cuts, cuts, and more cuts

    As PhD researcher at Brighton University Kathryn Zacharek has documented for the Canary, the institution is a mess. Bosses are closing parts of it, while spending massive amounts of money elsewhere – and now, they’re planning on laying off staff. As Zacharek previously noted, the university:

    intends to make 110 academics and 30 professional staff redundant, all in a bid to save almost £18m

    Bosses are asking people to take voluntary redundancy first, before forcing people out. Now, in recent developments, Zacharek wrote that:

    the university has announced it will close the Brighton Centre for Contemporary Arts (BCCA) due to alleged financial pressures.

    Bosses say these pressures include the government freezing regulated tuition fees, and inflation. However, people are finding it difficult to believe this, when the uni has spaffed £17m on buying out the Virgin Active lease of sports facilities on one of the campuses.

    So, people have been taking action.

    Students are not having it

    As Zacharek previously wrote:

    On 25 May, [11 students] occupied the VC’s office on the 8th floor of the Cockcroft building. They said they will occupy the building indefinitely until management meet their only demand – that no redundancies take place.

    However, university bosses acted quickly:

    In response, the university threatened legal action against the students occupying the VC’s office. However, rather than communicating with the students directly, university management decided to serve the students with a solicitor’s letter. It stated that the university had reported the occupiers’ conduct to the police, and:

    “intends to pursue disciplinary action under the student disciplinary process”.

    Undeterred, Brighton University students carried on with their occupation – albeit in horrid circumstances. Students said in a press release that:

    During the protest, the students faced alleged homophobic and verbal abuse from employees of the university, as well as being flooded by raw sewage. When cleaning supplies were dropped off at the building by supporters, the students say they ‘were forced to wait 12 hours for security to give us the supplies’ and had other items such as ‘bedding, books, notebooks, stationary… stolen from our supply drops’.

    One student trying to drop off food to the protestors was told by security that they had it ‘written in front of [them] in clear writing that no food be delivered to the 8th floor’, and added that the protestors could ‘eat when they leave’.

    However, the occupation came to an abrupt end on 4 May.

    A random fire alarm ends the occupation

    Brighton University students said in a statement that:

    we were eating when we heard an alarm go off repeating:

    ‘Attention please we are investigating an alarm in another part of the building, please listen for further announcements’.

    A few minutes later, the alarm started saying:

    ‘Attention please, attention please, a fire has been reported in the building, please leave immediately through the nearest exit, do not use the lifts’.

    Due to the fire risk we left the building as quickly as possible. We were outraged to find that security at both doors not only failed to alert us, but had left immediately, again showing a massive lack of care from the employees of the university. Furthermore, security confused us as to the whereabouts of the nearest fire exit, and left without notifying us or even opening the fire doors.

    Unfortunately, given the poor treatment by security and university staff throughout the occupation, we are not surprised that we were abandoned during such a dangerous situation.

    So, the students had little choice but to end the occupation – and due to a very conveniently timed fire alarm, at that.

    Brighton University Students said in a statement that:

    We are extremely sad to have left the occupation early and against our will. We were fully prepared to stay until our demand was met. Our morale and motivation is still high and we know that the pressure on the university management will continue to build after this occupation.

    Brighton: ‘The campaign will not end here’

    Staff and students are adamant the fight will continue. You can sign a petition calling on bosses to stop the redundancies here. There’s also going to be a rally on Saturday 10 June:

    Students said in a statement:

    Its clear from this that the University management is not interested in engaging with us in a constructive way. It is clear to us that this poor treatment from security is down to orders from management.

    For a University that has stated their hands are financially tied we are shocked at the ease at which they are spending their supposedly limited funds on expensive court hearings, legal actions, and additional outsourced security. All this instead of engaging in a proper dialogue with us.

    We are certain that this is not the last of Brighton University’s failures to protect staff and students, and we will continue to struggle under the University system. We are incredibly grateful for the support we have received, the solidarity shown from lectures, including those from other Universities, has been immense… The campaign will not end here.

    The situation at Brighton is a microcosm of the wider chaos in the higher education system in the UK. Successive governments and universities have turned the system into a privatised, for-profit venture – at the expense of staff and students.

    Until this capitalist agenda is rolled back, institutions like the University of Brighton will continue to erode the fundamental principles of higher education – and, as ever, it will be staff and students who suffer.

    Featured image via Kathryn Zacharek 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Judge refuses fresh evidence in Assange appeal, but there are at least two Get Out Of Jail cards

    On 8 June, high court judge Jonathan Swift announced that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s appeal against extradition to the US has failed. Swift’s rulings are here and here.

    The rulings came just days after it was revealed that new evidence had been withheld by police in Spain. That evidence appears to further demonstrate the political nature of the Assange prosecution.

    Meanwhile, Swift has given Assange’s lawyers until Tuesday 13 June to submit another appeal. However, he made it clear that any appeal should not include a submission of fresh evidence. Nevertheless, it would be remiss not to explore this new evidence.

    The surveillance

    Spanish security firm UC Global conducted surveillance of Assange and his visitors inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London over several years:

    According to a former employee of the firm, “American friends” requested the surveillance. UC Global even arranged for the surveillance to be streamed to the US.

    Newly revealed evidence

    The new evidence was revealed during the ongoing investigation in a Madrid court of UC Global head David Morales. As a result, Assange accused Morales of violating his privacy. This fresh evidence consists of files marked on an external hard drive as “CIA,” “Embassy”, and “Videos”.

    WikiLeaks journalist Kristinn Hrafnsson published a screenshot of the files:

    The connection between Morales and US intelligence was first brought to the attention of the London court by Assange’s defence lawyer Gareth Peirce.

    How the new evidence was discovered

    Assange’s lawyers were active in exposing the missing UC Global surveillance files.

    Spanish news outlet El Pais explained:

    The discovery of these new clues about the CIA’s spying on the cyberactivist — who remains imprisoned in a London jail — is no accident. Assange’s lawyers found problems when downloading the records uploaded to the cloud.

    They managed to get Judge Santiago Pedraz — who is overseeing the case — to authorize a second copy of the material seized by the agents.

    Failure to disclose evidence

    Spanish police had failed to disclose the new evidence to the Madrid court. Its concealment is directly relevant to the Assange extradition proceedings.

    Regarding the non-disclosure of evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) clearly states:

    A failure by the prosecutor or the police to comply with their respective obligations… may result in a defence application to stay proceedings as an abuse of process, the exclusion of material evidence or a successful appeal.

    Two famous cases of non-disclosure in the UK resulted in the quashing of convictions and the accused set free.

    One saw the collapse of the Ratcliffe and Drax trials of environmental activists and their convictions quashed. Both trials showed the CPS withheld evidence that undercover officer Mark Kennedy was pivotal to the actions.

    In another case, four people known as the ‘Guildford Four’, accused of bombing a pub, had their convictions quashed too. That was after defence lawyers – including Peirce, who represents Assange – revealed that police had withheld evidence of their innocence.

    Surveillance breaches confidentiality

    CIA spy-craft could be regarded as par for the course.

    But that’s not necessarily true in this case. In September 2019 the Canary reported that the surveillance on the Ecuadorian Embassy involved monitoring of meetings between the Wikileaks founder and his lawyers. The lawyers included Melynda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson, and Baltasar Garzón.

    Indeed, the Madrid court was told that Morales:

    had received explicit requests for information, which stated on several occasions that these requests came from the US, in the form of a list of targets which were communicated via email, telephone and verbally. The security personnel deployed in the embassy were instructed to pay special attention to these targets. Among them, special attention had to be given to Mr. Assange’s lawyers.

    Thus the newly revealed evidence could throw more light on these breaches of client-lawyer confidentiality. Such breaches would normally see a case voided.

    It’s not over yet

    Given Swift’s rulings, any appeal submitted on Tuesday will likely be about points of law.

    However, as his wife Stella Assange pointed out, there’s a possibility that Swift’s rulings could be bypassed:

    Assange’s ‘get out of jail’ cards?

    There are at least two more Get Out Of Jail options available to Assange’s legal team. For example, an earlier appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is yet to conclude. It’s possible the ECHR could issue an injunction to delay the extradition until it can examine the case further.

    Should that option fail, Assange lawyer Jennifer Robinson has argued for a political solution. One suggestion is that the US and Australia agree on a deal that takes into account the time served by Assange in Belmarsh prison.

    Matters may be coming to a head.

    Featured image via YouTube – Zabby

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • NUJ throws Kit Klarenberg under the bus after his detention by cops

    The UK’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has withdrawn a statement in support of Grayzone journalist Kit Klarenberg. It came after counter-terrorism police detained him at Luton airport on 17 May.

    Kit Klarenberg detained at Luton airport

    The Grayzone is a controversial US-based media outlet which focuses on US and UK foreign policy, from a non-Western perspective. Some people have accused it of pushing propaganda for authoritarian states like Russia and Syria. However, Grayzone would say it is anti-US imperialism. On Klarenberg’s detention, it reported:

    As soon as journalist Kit Klarenberg landed in his home country of Britain on May 17, 2023, six anonymous plainclothes counter-terror officers detained him. They quickly escorted him to a back room, where they grilled him for over five hours about his reporting for this outlet. They also inquired about his personal opinion on everything from the current British political leadership to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    At one point, Klarenberg’s interrogators demanded to know whether The Grayzone had a special arrangement with Russia’s Federal Security Bureau (FSB) to publish hacked material.

    During Klarenberg’s detention, police seized the journalist’s electronic devices and SD cards, fingerprinted him, took DNA swabs, and photographed him intensively. They threatened to arrest him if he did not comply.

    The detention order the cops gave to Klarenberg was standard. It reads that the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act (2019) allows counter-terror police to detain people if they suspect they are “a person who is or has been engaged in hostile activity”.

    Grayzone seems to think this was the case with Klarenberg. It cited his reporting on things like:

    how a cabal of Tory national security hardliners violated the Official Secrets Act to exploit Brexit and install Boris Johnson as prime minister. In October 2022, he earned international headlines with his exposé of British plans to bomb the Kerch Bridge connecting Crimea to the Russian Federation. Then came his report on the CIA’s recruitment of two 9/11 hijackers this April, a viral sensation that generated massive social media attention.

    As the Morning Star reported, Klarenberg said that cops:

    asked which publications I wrote for, and I told them I wrote for many… Their overwhelming, if not exclusive, interest was in The Grayzone.

    The NUJ: sorry, what?

    After his detention, the NUJ initially came out in support of Klarenberg. It put a statement on its website on Friday 2 June saying the union expressed “grave concern” over police detention of him. NUJ assistant general secretary Séamus Dooley said in the statement that:

    The detention of Kit Klarenberg and line of questioning pursued by officers is of huge concern to the NUJ. Journalists have the right to protect sources and the seizure of Kit’s personal material in this manner under counter terrorism law, leaves many questions unanswered.

    The apparent targeting of a journalist risks creating a chilling effect on others reporting on stories in the public interest and many will be aware that it follows the recent arrest of publisher Ernest M, also under counter-terrorism legislation by British police in April. Journalists will no doubt be astounded by actions of the police and rightly expect information on reasons behind Kit’s detention.

    However, not long after the NUJ released the statement, it took it down again:

    Klarenberg further said on Twitter that:

    Both the online entry and an accompanying tweet of @NUJOfficial’s “grave concern” about my detention under counter-terror powers have been deleted. But it remains extant on their president’s Twitter timeline. How could/why should any journalist trust them after this capitulation?

    Other people on Twitter were angry with the NUJ. Grayzone journalists Aaron Maté and Max Blumenthal shared their fury:

    Other people expressed solidarity:

    The Canary asked the NUJ for comment. We specifically wanted to know why it had withdrawn its statement in support of Klarenberg. It had not responded at the time of publication.

    Klarenberg’s situation has echoes of UK cops arresting French publishing manager Ernest Moret in April. He works for left-wing publisher Editions La Fabrique. The Guardian reported at the time that:

    He was arrested, after six hours of questioning, for alleged obstruction in refusing to disclose the passcodes to his phone and computer.

    It noted that Moret was:

    “interrogated for several hours and asked some very disturbing questions”, said the publishers, including about his view on pension reform in France, as well as his opinion on the French government and president Emmanuel Macron.

    As of 2pm on Monday 5 June, the Guardian had failed to report on police detaining Klarenberg. Moreover, the NUJ statement in support of Moret is still online. So, it seems in the corporate media and the NUJ, there’s one rule for some journalists being harassed by cops, and a different one for others. Of course, as writer RD Hale highlighted in Council Estate Media, there’s a massive problem with this. Hale asked :

    Hands up everyone who only wants to see journalism the government likes? No one? Okay, then we all see the problem here.

    Detaining journalists: a slippery slope

    Of course, the cops detaining Klarenberg is mild compared to how other countries treat their journalists. As Reporters Without Borders (RSF) wrote:

    At least 1,059 journalists have been murdered in the past ten years, and 387 were arbitrarily detained at the end of 2020, according to RSF. The rate of impunity for crimes of violence against journalists is still around 90%. Threats and hate speech against journalists are flourishing online, as well as disinformation. And women journalists are being targeted both as journalists and as women.

    Moreover, it’s often non-Western countries where journalists’ lives are most at risk. As UNESCO wrote:

    Latin America and the Caribbean was the deadliest for journalists in 2022 with 44 killings, over half of all of those killed worldwide. Asia and the Pacific registered 16 killings, while 11 were killed in Eastern Europe.

    So, a white, male journalist being detained for a few hours in Luton airport is very mild in comparison.

    However, the situation in the UK is relative. Our state claims we have a free press – and condemns other, non-Western countries which don’t. Yet here it is actively targeting journalists – and trying to legislate to do so, as well. The NUJ’s apparent backpedalling on its support for a journalist is a major concern, too.

    Agreement with the political outlook of Klarenberg’s journalism or the Grayzone more broadly is less important than solidarity against the state’s authoritarianism.

    For a country that claims to be a democracy (and likes pushing its version of democracy onto other countries), the UK is not – and never has been – any such thing. It is quickly turning more authoritarian by the day – and Klarenberg’s detention signals a slippery slope the UK is heading down.

    Featured image via Not The Andrew Marr Show – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Government unprepared for long term affects of coronavirus, suggest studies

    With no regular government reports regarding the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, you could be forgiven for thinking it’s okay to lower your guard. However, that could be a mistake. This is because, as studies show, the long-term effects of the disease can be devastating. And Britain might be sliding into a chronic illness timebomb.

    Coronavirus and cardiovascular disease

    Take cardiovascular disease, for example.

    In March, the British Heart Foundation (BHF) published an article on how coronavirus can affect the heart. The BHF referred to a study published in Cardiovascular Research. It found that compared to uninfected people those infected were:

    around 40% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and five times more likely to die during the 18 months afterwards. People who had experienced severe infection were at even higher risk.

    The study added that those people in the infected group “were also at higher risk of stroke and atrial fibrillation in the short-term, but not the long-term”.

    It went on to explain how, for example, the lack of oxygen and nutrients that coronavirus-infected people experience can result in heart damage. It can also cause both inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) and heart lining (pericarditis). Further, it can affect the lungs – leading to pneumonia.

    Covid and neurological disorders

    Coronavirus can also affect neurological and related disorders.

    In August 2022, an article published in the Lancet examined links between coronavirus and neurological diseases and disorders. It found that:

    most outcomes had HRs [hazard ratios] significantly greater than 1 after 6 months (with the exception of encephalitis; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root, and plexus disorder; and parkinsonism)… By contrast, risks of cognitive deficit (known as brain fog), dementia, psychotic disorders, and epilepsy or seizures were still increased at the end of the 2-year follow-up period.

    The study also reported there were risks for children who had coronavirus, such as:

    cognitive deficit, insomnia, intracranial haemorrhage, ischaemic stroke, nerve, nerve root, and plexus disorders, psychotic disorders, and epilepsy or seizures.

    It added:

    A sizeable proportion of older adults who received a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis, in either cohort, subsequently died, especially those diagnosed with dementia or epilepsy or seizures.

    The study concluded with a stark warning to health systems:

    The fact that neurological and psychiatric outcomes were similar during the delta and omicron waves indicates that the burden on the health-care system might continue even with variants that are less severe in other respects.

    Health systems need to prepare

    In March 2022, John Hopkins University published a Q&A session with Ziyad Al-Aly. He is the director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center and head of research and education service at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

    The session highlighted that:

    anyone infected with COVID is at higher risk for heart issues – including clots, inflammation, and arrhythmias.

    Al-Aly argued that so-called long Covid can:

    give you fatigue and brain fog and result in new-onset diabetes, kidney problems, and heart problems.

    He also warned:

    On a government level, I think we definitely need to be prepared for this. We cannot move on from the pandemic and disregard its long-term consequences. Arguably the long-term consequences are going to be even more profound and stick with us and scar a lot of people around us for generations.

    However, in the UK any preparations to deal with long Covid could be exacerbated by a haemorrhaging of clinicians:

    Coronavirus vigilance

    In the UK coronavirus-related neurological disorders or heart-related illnesses will undoubtedly increase the pressure on a vastly underfunded health system.

    Since May 2022 there has been a noticeable absence of government updates on coronavirus and the vaccination programme. Nor does it help that there are no more free test kits available, thus discriminating against poor people.

    Where new variants are identified, people will need to be informed. The booster programme also needs to be made more widely available. Currently, it’s only available to people age 75 and older, or those with a weakened immune system. There are further restrictions from July. The government says:

    After 30 June 2023, you can no longer book a COVID-19 vaccine online…After this date, you will only be able to get a vaccination if you are at increased risk from COVID-19, and in most cases, you will have to wait until the autumn.

    Lack of or delayed treatment of long Covid disorders could see an increase in chronic illnesses, or early death.

    Only with a far better-funded NHS can the adverse effects of coronavirus be mitigated in both the short- and longer-term.

    Featured image via Pixabay cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Mick Lynch is back schooling journalists as the RMT goes on strike

    Mick Lynch is back at it. The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union leader has attacked the government as rail workers go on strike. Lynch accused the government of wasting millions on a ‘futile war’ with the unions.

    Lynch wrote a withering letter to the government over their conduct:

    There is further strike action on the railways on Friday because workers, passengers and taxpayers are being asked to pay the price for the government’s disastrous mismanagement of the economy and public transport.

    As ever, he joined picketing workers on the frontline:

    Tory chaos

    In his letter to the government, Lynch put the blame firmly on the Tories:

    Rather than deliver a plan to improve public transport and the economy, we have seen three Prime Ministers preside over a year of chaos since the first strike action in June 2022.

    He also pointed out that in other nations in the union, there had been less antagonism. Mainly because the English Tories were viciously anti-worker:

    In contrast, there is no strike action on railways controlled by the Scottish and Welsh governments because these governments have adopted a fair and less ideological approach to industrial relations.

    Elsewhere, Lynch ran rings around an interviewer with typical style:

    Futile war

    The Tories have been waging a futile war against workers, Lynch said. And the cost was being borne by the taxpayer:

    Instead of working to end the dispute, amidst a cost-of-living crisis it appears to have no idea how to tackle, the UK government has spent the last year squandering billions of pounds on a futile war against the rail unions, all in the name of delivering reforms that passengers do not want.

    Lynch even put a figure on it:

    The cumulative cost of this disastrous strategy is now estimated at £5 billion.

    And the RMT leader spelt it out in another press interview. If it wasn’t for the Tories’ anti-worker views, the issue could be settled in days:

    Workers’ success

    Speaking at a picket at London’s Euston Station, Lynch said the workers had enjoyed a lot of success against the bosses:

    We’ve pushed them [rail bosses] back on all the stuff they wanted to do – they wanted to make thousands of our people redundant, they wanted to shut every booking office in Britain, restructure our engineering workers, [and] cut the catering service.

    However, he added:

    What we haven’t got is a pay deal, we haven’t got any guarantees on our members’ futures, but we have stopped them doing the worst aspects of their proposals and their ideas.

    And in another media interview as the strikes launched, the union leader made a fool of a presenter who suggested an app could do the job of rail workers:

    Once again, Lynch and the RMT are leading the way for working people. With the Labour Party more concerned with flopping about uselessly and draping itself in the Union Jack, it’s down to organised workers to fight for what they need.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Endim8, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tories dropped crucial animal welfare legislation to protect their hunting mates

    The Conservative Party dropped the Kept Animals Bill on 25 May. It had bundled together a range of measures that would have had a small but meaningful impact on the welfare of captive creatures, with campaigners saying it was a “definitive step” towards the “values of a nation of animal lovers”. Yet the Tories dropped it to protect their friends in the hunting industry.

    Abandoned to avoid ‘uncomfortable debates’

    The Kept Animals Bill was first brought to Parliament in June 2021. It contained a number of measures that animal rights campaigners had long demanded. These included an end to live exports of farmed animals, restrictions on “illegal puppy imports” to crack down on puppy smuggling, and prohibitions on the keeping of primates as pets.

    Animal rights activists have led a particularly long and bitter campaign against live exports. The practice sees livestock traders transport animals hundreds, or thousands, of miles in cramped lorries. The campaign reached a peak in 1995 when activists laid siege to the port of Brightlingsea in Essex. The nine-month period was later dubbed the Battle of Brightlingsea. However, the campaign continues to this day.

    While the Kept Animals Bill had reached its third (and final) stage, the government appeared to have stalled its progress. MPs even questioned its status on the morning it was dropped, with secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs Thérèse Coffey ambiguously replying that “an announcement on the progress of the Bill” would come “very soon”.

    That afternoon, minister Mark Spencer then announced that the government was dropping the bill. He laid the reason at the feet of Labour, saying:

    The Bill risks being extended far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto and the action plan. In particular, Labour is clearly determined to play political games by widening the Bill’s scope.

    As BBC News reported, Humane Society International UK (HSI/UK) revealed that the Tories were concerned about hunting. The animal welfare charity said the government dropped the bill because it doesn’t want “uncomfortable debates” on “polarising issues such as hunting with dogs”.

    However, BBC News also reported that Labour said it had no plans to add anti-hunting amendments to the Kept Animals Bill.

    Kept Animals Bill: it shows why direct action is necessary

    In an article for anti-hunting organisation Protect the Wild, this writer shared how the original draft of Spencer’s announcement – written by Coffey – mentioned the alleged threat of anti-hunting amendments. The fact that Spencer omitted any mention at all of hunting is itself suspicious.

    Whatever the reason, the government has ditched measures that could have raised the baseline for non-human animals in this country. And it has done this to protect its fox, hare, and deer hunting mates.

    HSI/UK told the Canary that:

    Vital protections for dogs, calves, sheep, primates and other animals have been sacrificed today at the government’s altar of self-serving political convenience. We’ll of course back delivery of these commitments as Private Members Bills, but this is a high risk strategy, and indicative of the low priority the government now evidently places on animal welfare.

    Meanwhile, animal rights direct action group Animal Rising told the Canary:

    The dropping of the Kept Animals Bill is yet another example of why we cannot trust this government to act responsibly or morally. Whilst not enough of an improvement on its own, the Bill would’ve marked a definitive step towards legislation that truly reflects the values of a nation of animal lovers.

    The promise-breaking of [prime minister] Rishi Sunak shows, once more, why nonviolent direct action is necessary to bring about a national conversation about our relationship with animals and nature; clearly, those in power are unable – or unwilling – to have that conversation unprovoked.

    Mask off moments

    Boris Johnson’s government originally drafted the Kept Animals Bill as part of its so-called ‘action plan for animal welfare’. It published the paper in May 2021. In an attempt to generate a sense of post-Brexit freedom, its announcement claimed the plan would “reinforce [the UK’s] position as a global champion of animal rights”.

    However, as the Canary reported, this claim was already in tatters just 18 months later. Tracy Keeling wrote in February that:

    it appears that the ruling Conservative Party wasn’t particularly united behind the revolution. Due to this, a number of the plans were put on pause by early 2022. Many of them still hang in the balance.

    The end of the Kept Animals Bill is yet another example of the Tories abandoning any pretence about their care for non-human animals.

    Spencer claimed the government would unbundle the bill’s various measures and push them through as single-issue legislation. As HSI/UK said, this likely means through private members’ bills (PMBs). However, as the Electoral Reform Society recently pointed out, PMBs’ rates of success are low. And it seems it was done to protect the vile ongoing abuse of wildlife.

    The Kept Animals Bill was already nearing completion. Sending all of these measures back to square one is yet another Tory act of callous disregard for all life.

    Featured image via Animal Equality UK/YouTube

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Australia’s ‘de facto’ SAS war crimes trial has lessons for the UK

    A famous SAS soldier has lost a multi-million defamation trial in Australia. Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith was found not to have been defamed over media claims of murder in Afghanistan. The case has been referred to as a ‘proxy’ war crimes trial.

    Australian cases of this kind tell a story about the wars. And, for that matter, about the responses of the occupying nations. Australia has had major inquiries and cases have reached the courts. Meanwhile, the UK chose to legislate to protect past and future war criminals.

    Hero soldier?

    For decades, Western soldiers have been lionised by governments and the press to stave off criticism of wars like Afghanistan. This is nowhere truer than the Special Forces. Political expediency meant that elite troops were overused in Afghanistan and Iraq. Partly because their deaths were not as politically loaded as regular forces.

    Australian SAS soldier Roberts-Smith is an example of this. The Australian SAS, like its British and American counterparts went rogue. In each case, they started to act like unaccountable gangs.

    When accused of involvement in war crimes, this hero of the Australian right-wing sued for defamation. He just lost his case on most of the allegations made. Over a year long case, the court heard how the SAS was a factional, rogue force, riven by internal rivalry. This allegedly included ‘blooding’. This is a practice where new recruits were made to extrajudicially kill captives to prove themselves.

    One of the allegations included an incident in 2012 when Roberts-Smith was said to have kicked a prisoner off a cliff before another SAS soldier shot the prisoner. Another allegation was that he killed an old man found hiding in a compound. The man’s prosthetic leg was then turned into a macabre drinking vessel at the regimental bar.

    While the former corporal can’t be jailed for the findings in a civil defamation case, they are very damaging. He may well have to pay out millions in damages to the newspapers in question. The Guardian reported:

    The onus of proof in the defamation case rested with the newspapers, who were required to prove to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities” that the allegations they had published were true.

    The newspapers appear to have won this time.

    UK parallels

    British SAS troops are also accused of war crimes in Afghanistan. An inquiry into these is finally underway. Yet the UK government has gone to great lengths to make sure UK war crimes cases never come to court. It has even tried to rewrite the law to protect itself from accountability.

    The Overseas Operations Act, as the Canary has argued, makes war crimes much harder to bring to court. It is at once an establishment stitch-up, and a betrayal of the UK troops it claims to protect.

    Not satisfied with this, the Tories are now pursuing a separate bill for the north of Ireland. Again, this would prevent victims of British and paramilitary violence from getting justice. This includes the families of British soldiers.

    Ultimately, the cult of the elite warrior which developed during the so-called ‘war on terror’ has collapsed. Far from being superhuman heroes, special forces units have shown themselves to be entirely fallible.

    And, as anyone with half a brain would expect of military units with a death cult ethos, they are perfectly capable of descending into complete savagery.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/OR-6 Chris Moore, cropped to 1910 x 1000.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • NATO has recruited the politically inane but the truth is much more complex

    The thing about NATO is that it’s only possible to support it uncritically if you’ve never been anywhere near it. And sadly for me, I have. I find myself back here again, well over a year after writing this piece on why picking a side from NATO or Russia is a mug’s game for big babies.

    Let’s be clear, being critical of NATO isn’t to accept the arguments of the Twitter conspiracists who flood the Canary’s mentions each time we criticise one of their faux-anti-imperialist favourites. Yes, that would be the ‘Gaddafi/Assad/Putin/Insert Authoritarian was actually just misunderstood’ crowd. Rather, it’s a call for a serious analysis of what NATO is and what it does. I extend the same call in regard to Putin’s Russia.

    In truth, the pro- and anti-NATO camps are united in a key aspect of their politics: fervent anti-intellectualism. For them, politics seems to be a sort of real-world game of Warhammer or Dungeons and Dragons. In their minds, they push pieces around a tabletop battlefield. There’s lots of partisan emotion, as if they’re supporting a football team. It involves little by way of even-handed analysis. 

    Tantrums

    I can’t imagine formulating a political identity around an indifferent military alliance, or around a version of anti-imperialism which exists only in my own head. It would be hard not to look at all this and feel a bit sad for them, if they weren’t such vacuous arseholes.

    On numerous occasions, I’ve seen even mild critiques of NATO attacked. On two occasions in person, I’ve had grown adults melt down when it’s been suggested they exercise reason over emotion in the context of Ukraine. But unthinking fanboying and fangirling doesn’t cut it for me. You see, I’m not a centrist, liberal, or a social democrat. I’m not that easily taken in. And I know NATO’s record in Afghanistan and Libya, and it’s Cold War era dalliances with fascism.

    Nor do I have a hard-on for a fantasised anti-imperialist version of the Soviet Union. I’d hope my politics are a bit more sophisticated than cosplaying Uncle Joe Stalin down the pub with my two clammy mates or, God forbid, on Twitter to a large audience. Please, all of you, bear in mind that your poor mum might see this stuff.

    This is because I’m on the anarchist end of politics. I distrust all states and their military alliances. I ended up in these positions precisely because I took part in the NATO mission in Afghanistan. So if you expect me to morph into some kind of NATO-shagger over Ukraine, you’re set for a rude awakening.

    Recruited

    Many people have been pulled into uncritical support for NATO on the basis of emotion. And that’s understandable. The constant images and stories which have emerged from Ukraine are shocking. There’s no doubt Russia is the aggressor, just as the US and UK were in Iraq. But emotion alone doesn’t cut it. If you subtract rationale and reason from your analysis what you have left is good-old fashioned war fever.

    Of course, people are pulled into NATO fandom for slightly different reasons. Most prominently, the brand of simpering centrists who made up the FBPE (Follow Back, Pro EU) cohort on Twitter. For them, solidarity starts and ends at adding the Ukraine flag next to the EU one in their bio.

    It’s not for nothing I accuse them of mistaking NATO for  ‘FBPE with Guns’, though in fairness it could just as easily be ‘Eurovision fans with F-16s’. In the end though, these are low-calibre people with low calibre politics. Anyone to the left of Tony Blair should hold themselves to a higher standard.

    For my part, I’ll continue to view NATO with critical eye born out of hard experience. But keep on vacuously stanning your team, by all means.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/US Gov, cropped to 1900 x 1000.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The DWP’s latest Universal Credit change is yet more nonsense, and will still leave people worse off

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is changing how much money it pays to some parents and guardians of children under Universal Credit. It’s increasing one of the allowances within the controversial benefit. However, even with the rise the DWP is still leaving those who are reliant on childcare hundreds of pounds a month short.

    Universal Credit: another increase in payments

    BBC News reported that the DWP will be rolling out a change to the amount it pays in childcare costs to parents/guardians. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced it in his Spring Budget. Until now, the department has paid £646 a month, per kid, towards childcare costs under Universal Credit. Now, as BBC News wrote:

    The government will allow parents on the benefit to claim back £951 for childcare costs for one and £1,630 for two or more children – a 47% increase.

    DWP secretary of state Mel Stride has trumpeted about the news – feeding into his department’s false narrative about how too many people are economically inactive. This means people who don’t work, and aren’t looking for work. Stride said:

    These changes will help thousands of parents progress their career without compromising the quality of the care that their children receive.

    By helping more parents to re-enter and progress in work, we will be able to cut inactivity and help grow the economy.

    Of course, as the Canary previously reported, the DWP’s push to get economically inactive people into work is nonsense – not least because there aren’t enough jobs in the first place. However, even if you ignore this, Universal Credit’s increase in childcare costs payments is still nonsense.

    DWP: mo money, mo nonsense

    The cost of childcare is huge:

    • For full-time childcare, the average cost is £285 a week.
    • For part-time, it’s £148 a week.

    The DWP’s £951 maximum for one child is per Universal Credit assessment period. That’s usually a calendar month – running from the same date one month to the next. So, on that basis the department would pay, at the most, £219 a week.

    This is £66, or 23%, short of the average costs. Meanwhile, in 2022 parents were already paying out up to two-thirds of their wages on childcare.

    So, Stride’s claim of the DWP ‘helping parents re-enter’ work is based on parents effectively being worse off in work. Plus, as Green Party work and welfare spokesperson professor Catherine Rowett pointed out:

    Much like the benefit increases in April, the DWP’s Universal Credit childcare costs rise don’t actually reflect the reality of real life. It can claim it’s a rise all it wants – but the department is still leaving people who are reliant on the benefit in dire straits.

    Featured image via the Guardian – YouTube, Paisley Scotland – Flickr, resized under licence CC BY 2.0, and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Bibby Stockholm is about to sail to Dorset to imprison 500 refugees – join the protest to stop it

    Residents of Cornwall are urgently asking for people to join a protest on the evening of Wednesday 31 May. They are gathering to demonstrate against the Bibby Stockholm, a floating barge which is to detain 500 male asylum seekers. The barge is currently docked for a refit in Falmouth. However, it is due to make its way to Portland port in Dorset on Wednesday night, where it will, effectively, become an offshore prison.

    Imprisoned and traumatised by the British state

    Cornwall Resists, which is a network of grassroots anti-fascist groups in the county, said:

    The Bibby is the first of its kind to be refurbished here, but it won’t be the last. The boat represents the hostile, fascist and illegal approach the Conservative party is taking towards vulnerable people, who have risked everything to flee war and persecution only to be imprisoned and retraumatised by the state.

    We will not allow this to happen. We will gather to remember migrants who have died making their way to safety, and Rachid Abdelsalam, who died on board the Bibby Stockholm.

    Indeed, Rachid Abdelsalam suffered heart failure and died onboard the barge in 2008, when it was used by the Dutch government to lock up those seeking asylum. Detainees onboard had warned the prison guards of Rachid’s deteriorating health, but the guards only opened his cell door two hours after he had died.

    The Dutch government only took the barge out of service after a Dutch media investigation uncovered horrors onboard, including rape, fire safety failings, and abuse by prison staff.

    This wasn’t the only death on Dutch prison barges. Diabetic Ahmad Mahmud El Sabah also died on another Rotterdam detention barge after he suffered from an infection of the liver.

    None of this has phased Suella Braverman. In fact, the Home Office plans to hire a second barge, which would imprison four times as many people.

    Community outrage over the Bibby Stockholm

    Cornwall Resists said of the Bibby Stockholm:

    We have seen a huge swell of community outrage and resistance to this human rights atrocity. It’s been incredible to see so many groups come together to show resistance to the Bibby Stockholm and to definitively prove that Cornwall Resists border violence!

    The group continued:

    On Wednesday we will take our place in protest of the use of this boat – and others like it. We must continue to show our collective power in action against the Bibby Stockholm. We must come together as a community in our last chance to show the full force of our resistance, and the strength of our community. We will gather in solidarity with refugees, migrants, asylum seekers and all people who are victims of state oppression. We will give voices to those unable to voice their struggle, we will show the true nature of our communities and we will continue to build on this coalition of amazing organisations fighting for what is right.

    See you on the streets.

    Join the protest

    To join the protest, head to the Bar Road carpark in Falmouth at 5pm on 31 May. Or if you have access to a boat, you can meet fellow protesters on the water.

    Cornwall Resists says that it is preparing to “stay the course“. It advises people to bring warm layers, as well as:

    banners, candles, blankets, camping chairs, warm layers, noise making devices, your friends and family, flask of hot tea and a picnic.

    We can not quietly sit back while the racist Tory government treats Brown and Black people – who have come to the UK in hope of safety and stability – with complete contempt. Together we must continue to resist the Bibby Stockholm, as well as all racist policies of the Tory government.

    Featured image via Cornwall Resists

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Royal Mail saga just got its biggest dollop of irony yet

    Royal Mail‘s collapse as a functioning company has continued apace in recent weeks. Not least among this has been its financial results showing huge losses. Then, there’s the ongoing dispute with the Communication Workers Union (CWU). However, the latest twist in this saga, involving Evri, is all a bit ironic – given what Royal Mail bosses have been trying to do to the company.

    Royal Mail: a sorry state of affairs

    As the Canary previously reported, Royal Mail is in a right state. It made a £1bn operating loss in the 52 weeks from March 2022 to 26 March 2023. As we wrote at the time, this level of losses shows:

    bosses’ management of the company was a shambles. This won’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s been following the dispute between the CWU and Royal Mail. The company has lurched from self-induced crisis to self-induced crisis.

    From its (now former) CEO Simon Thompson lying to a parliamentary committee, to him and his cronies threatening to declare Royal Mail insolvent if the CWU didn’t bow down to their demands, the past 12 months at the company have been a farce.

    Moreover, the dispute between the CWU and its members, and Royal Mail, has underscored all of this. It’s been ongoing for nearly a year. During this time the company has repeatedly made insulting offers to its workers. At one point, Royal Mail wanted to introduce what the CWU called “Uber-style owner drivers”. This led the union’s general secretary Dave Ward to comment:

    Posties are in the fight of their lives against the Uberisation of Royal Mail and the destruction of their conditions.

    Now, in a bizarre twist of irony it seems bosses can’t even compete with gig economy companies – because Amazon just signed a deal with Evri to do some of Royal Mail’s work for it.

    The CWU was right (again)

    As the Telegraph reported, Amazon has given Evri (which used to be called Hermes) a contract. It’s for “seller fulfilled Prime” deliveries. The Telegraph noted this is where:

    businesses offer Prime services such as next day delivery, but store stock themselves rather than Amazon doing it.

    Royal Mail, as well as DPD, are currently running this service for Amazon. However, Evri performed so well in a trial that the company decided to give it a contract, too. Amazon claims that this is to give shoppers more options. However, the news comes amid a backdrop of the regulator investigating Royal Mail for not delivering letters on time. So, it’s likely Amazon’s not confident about the company’s ability to do its job.

    Moreover, it’s not the first time Royal Mail has lost out to Evri. In 2022, the Post Office scrapped its deal with it, and signed one with Evri instead. Plus, all this comes as shareholders get restless, with a major one calling on Royal Mail to “adapt” or face the consequences.

    Not even competing with notorious Evri

    It’s preposterous that Royal Mail, in its bid to refocus its business to parcel delivery like gig economy companies, cannot even compete with them. Moreover, it’s damning that a once-hallowed public service is so grossly mismanaged that it can be out-smarted by Evri – a company known for its appalling working conditions.

    Of course, in this chaos it is the workers that lose out. Currently, the CWU has paused a ballot for its members on the offer Royal Mail gave them in the ongoing dispute. According to the CWU, this is because bosses haven’t improved working conditions at the company.

    But maybe this is all part of Royal Mail’s master “Uberisation” plan: trash the company and the brand, fail to deliver anything on time, and treat your workers like shit. That is, after all, Evri’s work ethos – and maybe Royal Mail is following suit. Given the carnage of the past twelve months, anything is possible.

    Featured image via Lionel Allorge – Wikimedia, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY-SA 3.0, and Evri – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.