radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • We now know the DWP is still not properly increasing Universal Credit in April

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will be increasing benefits by 10.1% in April. These include payments like Universal Credit. However, there’s a major problem. In fact, people’s money won’t really be going up enough to cover the cost of rising prices. So, people reliant on benefits are going to be worse off than before the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.

    On Universal Credit? Here come the cuts

    Think tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has crunched some numbers. It’s worked out how much April’s benefits increase is actually worth when you factor in price rises (inflation). This is called “real terms”. The chaos with inflation has hit the poorest people the hardest:

    Figure 3. Inflation by income decile, January 2023

    The IFS says that benefit claimants won’t actually be seeing an increase in April, overall. In reality, the DWP will be taking people’s benefits back up to the rate they were at in April 2022.

    That is, if you’re on Universal Credit, your money will only be worth what it was a year ago. This is because everything is now more expensive. Moreover, you’ll still be worse off than before the pandemic. Look at the difference between “2019Q2” and “2023Q2” in the graph below:

    Figure 12. Average real benefit entitlement, excluding housing element, for out-of-work claimants of working age
    The dotted line includes the impact of the energy grants and cost of living payments that were paid out during 2022–23 and are set to be paid out in 2023–24. Yellow dots mark April, which is the usual time at which annual benefits uprating occurs.

     

    Crucially, the IFS says DWP benefits rates won’t get back to pre-pandemic levels until April 2025. So, claimants will constantly be worse off until then. Meanwhile, the government is handing out more cost of living payments this year. It’s starting with £301 to some families this spring.

    However, the IFS says that for some people, these payments do not make up for benefits not rising in line with inflation. This includes families with three or more kids and some disabled people. So, in short, these families’ £301 payments aren’t actually worth £301.

    Sadly, this was all very predictable.

    DWP: benefits are not worth the paper they’re written on

    As the Canary wrote in November 2022 when the government announced its benefits increases, another think tank – the Resolution Foundation – warned that people would still be worse off. However, it actually underestimated the scale of the problem. It said people’s money in April 2023 would worth what it was in April 2021, back before inflation was out of control. So, the situation is now worse than that. Couple the DWP’s below inflation rise in April with its increased crackdown on non-working claimants, and you have a perfect storm of willful neglect from the department – and misery for people at the bottom of society.

    Featured image via Birmingham Live – YouTube, Paisley Scotland – Flickr, resized under license CC BY 2.0, and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Food shortages hit UK as Brexiters and Remainers argue over who’s to blame

    Food shortages have hit the UK, allegedly due to the impacts of Brexit. Remainers seem almost gleeful that they’ve been proven right. Equally, however, those who still support leaving the EU are in a state of denial.

    The shortages seem to be due to a mix of weather issues, fuel, and several other factors – including Brexit. All this comes as Aldi, Asda, and Morrisons announced they were rationing vegetables.

    Empty shelves

    Various outlets tweeted images of empty supermarket shelves, including the Jeremy Vine show:

    CNN reporter Ika Ferrer Gotić also got in on the act, putting the shortfall squarely down to Brexit:

    Farage to blame?

    EU Flag Twitter seemed to be quite enthused about something new to have a go at Nigel Farage about – and fair play to them really:

    Broadcaster Jemma Forte shared a report from Ukraine which claimed that it was easier to get tomatoes in the war-ravaged country than in the UK:

    Another Twitter user reminded us how the warnings about Brexit which had largely been downplayed have repeatedly proven true:

    And a WW2 museum in Liverpool jokingly (probably) urged visitors not to eat the plastic from its displays:

    Brexit denials

    Naturally some of the more fanatical Brexiters opted to blame the news on some sort of woke vegetable conspiracy. Shockingly for everyone, one of these was right-wing Twitter silly person Darren Grimes:

    Meanwhile, agriculture minister Thérèse Coffey took to the House of Commons and, with typical dynamism, urged people to engage with the mighty British turnip:

    A lot of people would be eating turnips right now rather than thinking necessarily about aspects of lettuce and tomatoes and similar, but I’m conscious that consumers want a year-round choice and that is what our supermarkets, food producers and growers around the world try to satisfy.

    Though precisely which aspects of lettuce she meant remains unclear. Possibly the metaphysical; who can say?

    Rise of the planet of the Megaherons

    However, first prize must go to Twitter satirist TechnicallyRon. Ron conjured a vision we can all get behind: of Britain as a tomato-less wasteland in which gigantic mutant heron carries away our children:

    And I don’t know about you, but if the other option is listening to EU Flag Twitter and Darren Grimes shriek at each other on Twitter, I’ll take a lonely death in the sodden trenches of the coming Turnip Wars every time.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/David Smith, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY 2.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Shamima Begum losing her appeal proves the UK has conditional citizenship

    Shamima Begum has lost her latest legal battle to reverse the decision that stripped her of her British citizenship. The ruling from Judge Robert Jay of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) means that she can’t return to the UK from her current home in a refugee camp in northern Syria.

    Shamima was 15 when Islamic State (IS) groomed her to leave her East London home for Syria. This was in 2015. While she was there, the group forced her to marry an IS fighter. She had three children, who have all since died. In February 2019, her legal team said the UK government left her stateless. This was after the then-home secretary Sajid Javid revoked her British citizenship. He claimed this was on ‘national security grounds’ after she was found in the Syrian camp.

    A UK tribunal ruled in 2020 that she was not stateless. It claimed this was because she was “a citizen of Bangladesh by descent” at the time the decision was made. This was due to her mother being Bangladeshi. Javid revoked Shamima’s citizenship despite the fact she had never been to Bangladesh. Under the Bangladeshi “blood line” law, nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21. This is triggered unless they make efforts to retain it. Shamima has not done this, and was aged 19 when the decision was made.

    Shamima Begum’s ‘shades of grey’

    When rejecting her appeal, Jay said:

    under our constitutional settlement these sensitive issues are for the secretary of state to evaluate and not for the commission.

    However, he said there was “considerable force” in Begum’s arguments. Jay also noted that Javid’s conclusion that she had travelled voluntarily to Syria “is as stark as it is unsympathetic”.

    Jay continued:

    Further, there is some merit in the argument that those advising the secretary of state see this as a black and white issue, when many would say that there are shades of grey.

    This presumably refers to Shamima’s account that IS groomed, raped, and abused her. Given that she was 15 when the group trafficked her, she clearly could not consent to any sexual contact. It is evidently the UK government’s position that Shamima was – and remains – a security threat who joined IS and cannot be allowed into the UK. Instead it appears that the “shades of grey” Jay refers to are a sickening euphemism for the abuse and trafficking of a young girl.

    Indeed, lawyer Samantha Knights, representing Shamima, told the SIAC hearing last November that her client had been “influenced” along with her friends by a “determined and effective” IS group “propaganda machine”. She said in written evidence there was “overwhelming” evidence Shamima had been:

    recruited, transported, transferred, harboured and received in Syria for the purposes of ‘sexual exploitation’ and ‘marriage’ to an adult male.

    Gareth Peirce and Daniel Furner, lawyers representing Shamima, said the ruling meant:

    there is now no protection for a British child trafficked out of the UK.

    They confirmed that “every possible avenue to challenge this decision will be urgently pursued”. Shamima can now appeal the decision by the SIAC in the Court of Appeal.

    Reactions to the stripping of citizenship

    Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director Steve Valdez-Symonds said:

    The power to banish a citizen like this simply shouldn’t exist in the modern world.

    Shamima Begum had lived all her life in the UK right up to the point she was lured to Syria as an impressionable 15-year-old.

    Activist and writer Ilyas Nagdee said:

    Co-editor of Red Pepper Magazine Amardeep Dhillon said:

    Academic Gurminder Bhambra pointed out the cost to all of us:

    Grassroots organisers CAGE questioned the government’s claims about security threats:

    Dr Zubaida Haque explained that the decision is likely to have severe implications for British citizens with lineage from other countries:

    MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy also emphasised the two-tier citizenship system:

    Conditional citizenship

    Shamima has been here many times. Each time her legal battles are covered by the mainstream media, racists come crawling out of the woodwork. They deny she was ever trafficked or abused. They use her as an example of the threat of ‘Islamist extremism.’ It’s not at all surprising that the government are doggedly opposing her attempts to avoid statelessness. These are the same people who’ve enacted the Nationality and Borders Act which enshrines the ability to strip people of their citizenship into law.

    Shamima’s treatment at the hands of a hostile government and a craven media says absolutely everything about what kind of country the UK is. This is a place where a child who was trafficked, raped, and abused, whose three children all died, can be left stateless and shoved towards a country she has never known, simply because of where her parents come from. This is what it’s like to not be white in Britain. It doesn’t matter who you are, who you know, how integrated you become, or anything like that. If you’re a person of colour, and Muslim on top of that, your citizenship can and will be stripped away from you.

    Two years ago, when the Canary last covered Shamima’s citizenship battle, we concluded:

    Conditional citizenship for some is conditional citizenship for all.

    Being considered a person with full rights is for some, but not all. This rotting society is only as good as its most vulnerable people. What does that make the UK? A country that has unending sympathy and generosity of spirit for whiteness in all its guises, and a vicious disdain for brown people. To be brown and Muslim in the UK is to feel, on many levels, how much your life and death mean absolutely nothing.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/BBC News

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Maryam Jameela

  • SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes nosedives her own campaign by revealing she’s against gay marriage

    Controversy deepened in the race to succeed Scotland‘s first minister Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) amid uproar over a top contender’s conservative views on gay marriage. The leadership race was ignited after Sturgeon announced her resignation on 15 February. It came after more than eight years as head of the SNP and as Scotland’s first minister.

    It is the SNP’s first full leadership battle since 2004, as Sturgeon was elected unopposed in 2014. Nominations close on Friday, and the party will announce its new leader on 27 March. All three candidates have vowed to reinvigorate Sturgeon’s push to win Scottish independence.

    However, finance secretary Kate Forbes, a rising star in the SNP, is a devout member of the evangelical Free Church of Scotland. The church opposes gay and trans rights, abortion, and sex outside marriage.

    Hours after announcing her candidacy on 21 February, the 32-year-old Forbes revealed that she would have voted against same-sex marriage, had she been a member of the Scottish Parliament when the reform passed in 2014. She defended the stance as a matter of personal conscience. However, it puts Forbes strongly out of line with the SNP’s centre-left base. As a result, four high-profile supporters immediately withdrew their backing.

    Public backlash

    Many people took to Twitter to share their views on Forbes, including one SNP activist who described Forbes’ views as “abhorrent”:

    While Benjamin Cohen, head of PinkNews, asked Forbes why should would have “voted against” his and his husband’s marriage:

    Despite mounting backlash on social media, Forbes insisted her campaign was “absolutely not over”. She told BBC radio:

    I think the public are longing for politicians to answer straight questions with straight answers, and that’s certainly what I’ve tried to do in the media yesterday [Monday 21 February].

    Keep digging, Forbes

    That wasn’t everything, though. Another leadership candidate, former minister Ash Regan, stated her opposition to Scotland’s gender self-identification legislation. And Forbes waded in on this issue, too. Although the finance minister missed the vote in December due to maternity leave, she said she would have quit Sturgeon’s cabinet rather than support the measure.

    Activist group Bristol Leading Against Transphobia spoke out on two of three SNP leadership candidates holding anti-trans views:

    Forbes also explained her religious disapproval of pre-marital sex:

    In terms of my faith, my faith would say that sex is for marriage and that’s the approach that I would practise.

    But it doesn’t fuss me, it doesn’t put me up nor down. The choices that other people make is (up to them).

    Meanwhile, journalist Conor Matchett highlighted one of Forbes’ most extreme stances – her defence of conversion therapy:

    And Forbes’ chances were further troubled late on 21 February after Politico revealed Tory MP Kemi Badenoch backed Forbes’ position:

    Badenoch is the minister for women and equality. But, as the Canary has repeatedly highlighted, she is also a notorious homophobe and transphobe.

    The controversy engulfing Forbes is a boost to the rival leadership campaign of health and social care secretary Humza Yousaf. Yousaf, who is Muslim and backed by allies of Sturgeon, told the BBC that he would “always fight for the equal rights of others” and would not legislate based on his own faith.

    However, Yousaf has his own political problems. They stem from mounting issues in Scottish healthcare under his watch, and from hate crimes legislation passed when he was justice secretary that right-wingers saw as an attack on ‘free speech’.

    Featured image via Scottish Government/Flickr, resized to 770*403

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rest In Peace, Brianna Ghey: trans teen receives outpouring of love in the form of vigils and tributes

    On 11 February, 16-year-old transgender girl Brianna Ghey was found with fatal stab wounds in Culcheth Linear Park in Warrington. Two 15-year-olds have appeared in Liverpool Crown Court, charged with her murder. Since the attack, the transgender community and its allies up and down the UK have joined together in acts of remembrance and grief.

    Vigils

    Memorial gatherings were held across the country over the past week. Mourners draped in rainbow and trans flags laid flowers and lit candles in expressions of grief and anger. Queer radio stations including Gaydio, Hits Radio Pride, Pride Radio, Gorgeous Radio, Glitterbeam Radio, Trans Radio UK and Juice 1038 held a minute’s silence at 11am on Friday 17 February.

    On the same day, a vigil was held by candlelight on Culcheth Village Green, near the site of the attack. The local choir sang ‘Somewhere Over the Rainbow’. The next day, a similar event in nearby Warrington was attended by hundreds of mourners. Charlotte Nichols, Labour MP for Warrington North, said:

    Brianna Ghey’s murder has left our community reeling and I cannot begin to imagine the agony that her family, her friends and all her loved ones are feeling right now – no parent should ever have to bury a child.

    She also stated that:

    Trans lives matter and trans young people should have the fundamental rights to dignity and safety that should be universal human rights.

    Grassroots organisation Manchester Trans Rise Up organised the city’s vigil on 15 February. It saw a touching turnout of over 2000 attendees.  Group representative Dennis Queen said:

    People have organised the vigil tonight to remember Brianna, to show solidarity with her family and also to give people a chance to come together and support each other.

    And most of all, to show trans young people that they are not alone, and that lots of us support them. I think it’s hopeful to see that so many people are on side with us as trans people, and on side with this lovely young woman who has had her life cut short, but at the same time it’s frightening for everyone as well.

    As if in evidence of this fact, a vigil in Birmingham’s gay village on 17 February was disrupted by shouted, hate-filled abuse – a stark reminder that we cannot even be allowed to mourn in peace.

    Sisterhood

    These acts of collective mourning are not merely gestures. The transgender community in the UK is relatively small, but we are close-knit. Particularly for those of us outside big cities, online spaces often form essential hubs for us to meet other people like ourselves and feel less isolated.

    VICE ran an interview with some of Brianna’s trans friends from the online community. 16-year-old Channah, from Cornwall, shared that:

    We’re both trans women from small villages, so our support network is all internet-based, and people don’t understand how big that network is. We all know and support each other.

    Jade, 19, from West Yorkshire, named Brianna a “fellow trans sister”. Trans people often name each other ‘sister’, or ‘brother’, or ‘sibling’. This small marker of solidarity recognizes our shared struggles and the families that we find in them. Jade also stated that:

    I, and her community, will make sure she is remembered as the strong trans woman she was.

    Several of the individuals interviewed also said that Brianna had helped them navigate their medical care. Tiana, 16, from Nottingham, mentioned that:

    Brianna would constantly look out for the girls in the chat. She helped me find ways to access medical care for my transition safely. She would always make sure that we were in good hands.

    Transgender healthcare is often complex, daunting, and scarcely available, particularly for young people. Moreover, it can also be actively hostile and traumatising.

    A 16-year-old girl should not have had to help her friends access their medical treatment, but this is a sad fact of being trans in the UK. This is the job of our healthcare system and our government, but they are failing in it. Instead, we help one another – which means that the community feels its losses all the more keenly.

    Rising violence

    Brianna’s death comes against a backdrop of increasing violence against queer individuals across Europe and elsewhere. A report released on 20 February by ILGA-Europe (the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) found that:

    2022 was the most violent year for LGBTI people across the region [Europe and Central Asia] in the past decade, both through planned, ferocious attacks and through suicides in the wake of rising and widespread hate speech from politicians, religious leaders, right-wing organisations and media pundits.

    The report also went on to highlight that “antipathy for LGBTI people has been driven and then exploited for political gain”. This cynical hate speech from politicians, campaigners, and the media has meant that:

    attacks on LGBTI people with a conscious and deliberate will to kill and injure have increased to unprecedented levels, including two terror attacks outside LGBTI bars in Norway and Slovakia, which combined killed four people and maimed 22.

    The last year has been a frightening time to be transgender, and LGBT+ more broadly. Our politicians and media seem intent on ensuring that this will remain the case in the coming years too. We should not have to suffer injury or die in increasing numbers before our lives are seen as worthwhile to protect.

    Flowers for Brianna

    I’d like to echo a sentiment I’ve seen in several trans spaces over the past fortnight. One of the more beautiful moments in a trans woman’s life is the first time she receives flowers. This is rare before transition, and it marks a moment of acceptance and recognition. Brianna’s death was three days before Valentine’s Day. She should have received her flowers in life. Instead, flowers were laid in vigils across the country in remembrance of her death.

    Featured image via ARTUR WIDAK/NurPhoto via Agence France-Presse, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • MPs to debate limiting the shooting of an endangered bird for kicks

    MPs are due to debate limiting the shooting season for an imperilled bird on 27 February. Non-profit campaign group Wild Justice started a parliamentary petition calling for the change, which surpassed the 100,000 signatures needed for a debate.

    As the organisation has pointed out, even hunting groups are effectively in support of a limited season. The difference being that, unsurprisingly, they think it should be up to shooters – not regulators – to ultimately decide.

    Woodcock declines

    The woodcock is a wild wading bird that is in decline. The resident breeding population of the species in Britain has faced dramatic drops in recent years. Between 2003 and 2013, survey results indicated a 29% decline in breeding pairs.

    As Wild Justice’s Chris Packham noted when the petition was circulating, it is a red-listed bird. This means it is a species of conservation concern.

    Under current rules, Woodcock become a target for hunters from 1 October each year. Shooters gun down around 160,000 woodcocks between October and January annually, despite their declining status. Wild Justice has argued that, given the species’ demise, there is a case for halting all woodcock shooting. However, it has proposed a modest measure that would be simple and quick to implement.

    It is calling for the government to restrict the shooting season for the species to two months, starting on 1 December. Migrating woodcock from elsewhere swell the UK’s numbers of the species in the winter. So limiting the season would, as Wild Justice has highlighted, lessen hunting pressure on resident populations:

    Previously, DEFRA (The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) has signalled that it is open to reviewing the protections from shooting for some target birds, including species like woodcock.

    Wild Justice is urging people to contact their MPs ahead of the debate on 27 February to ensure that the scale of public support for the measure is understood by all relevant policymakers.

    Trust shooters to show restraint?

    The shooting industry has other ideas, though.

    As Wild Justice has highlighted, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) has advised shooters not to kill woodcock until late November, in areas where a resident population exists. Another pro-shooting organisation, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), advises shooters not to kill woodcock before 1 December, in line with what Wild Justice is calling for.

    But both BASC and GWCT oppose further statutory limits to killing woodcock, preferring such limitations on a voluntary basis. This is ostensibly because they say they don’t want shooters to be prohibited from killing migratory birds they come across before December.

    In other words, the industry is calling for a ‘trust us’ approach from policymakers, where shooters are entrusted to discriminate between migratory and resident birds – who look the same – and show restraint by only killing the former.

    A precautionary approach to protect woodcock

    As the GWCT has acknowledged, studies into the impact of shooting on woodcock are non-existent at present. Moreover, the organisation itself has noted that it “cannot rule out” shooting as a contributory factor to the species’ decline.

    All things considered, more precaution would be advisable. By calling for a change to the shooting season for this imperilled wading bird, Wild Justice – and the over 100,000 people who signed the parliamentary petition – are demanding such a precautionary approach from policymakers.

    Featured image via Craig Nash / Flickr, cropped to 770×403, licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Omagh bombing inquiry announced decades after intelligence failures revealed

    In August 1998 a bomb exploded in the North of Ireland town of Omagh. The blast injured hundreds and killed 29. One of those killed was a pregnant woman carrying twins.

    In February 2023 the BBC reported that an independent statutory inquiry will examine:

    • The handling and sharing of intelligence
    • The use of mobile phone analysis
    • Whether there was advance knowledge or reasonable means of knowledge of the bomb
    • Whether disruption operations could or should have been mounted, which may have helped prevent the Real IRA attack

    State failed to prevent bombing

    In his statement to Parliament about the forthcoming inquiry, secretary of state for Northern Ireland Chris Heaton-Harris MP admitted that:

    the Northern Ireland High Court found in October 2021 that plausible arguments could be made that the State had failed to comply with its obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to take reasonable steps to prevent the bombing.

    However, the inquiry may need not look far for information. A 2001 Police Ombudsman’s report seems to provide many of the answers, particularly regarding events that led to the bombing. Indeed, there’s evidence that far from ensuring the bombing failed, the police and intelligence services were more concerned with protecting their own agents.

    The lead-up to the bombing

    According to the Ombudsman’s report, 11 days prior to the bombing the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) received an anonymous phone call at the Omagh police station. The caller warned of an attack that would take place on 15 August. The informant named two individuals and gave a nickname for a third. Special Branch were informed, though they failed to pass the information on to the sub-divisional commander in Omagh.

    Three days prior to the bombing the RUC received further information from “a ‘reliable’ informant known as Kevin Fulton”. Fulton informed his handler, a Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officer, of suspicious activity by two individuals – ‘A’ and ‘B’ – connected with the Real IRA.

    The report added:

    While the bomb car was being moved into position in Omagh on 15 August 1998, a 59 second telephone call was made from ‘A’s’ mobile telephone to one of those individuals who have been identified by the Omagh Bomb Investigation Team as responsible for the Omagh Bomb.

    Fulton’s handler passed this information on to Special Branch, though the latter denied receiving it. However, the report stated that:

    The Police Ombudsman’s Office is satisfied that the intelligence was given to Special Branch. The fact that Special Branch states that it never received these documents represents, at the very least, a very serious breakdown in communication.

    Let the bomb go through

    It was also claimed in the Ombudsman’s report that Republic of Ireland Garda officer John White passed on intelligence about the imminent bombing to senior officer Dermot Jennings. That intelligence came from White’s informant Paddy Dixon. According to White, Jennings said they should let the bomb go through so that the the Real IRA would not become suspicious of Dixon.

    The BBC went on to claim that Government Communications Headquarters monitored the phone conversations between the bombers on the day the bombing took place.

    The sub-divisional commander in Omagh subsequently made it clear that had he been fully informed of the anonymous tip-offs leading up to 15 August, he would have set up vehicle checks on roads to the town.

    Web of collusion and spies

    The Police Ombudsman’s report said that Fulton “was granted “participating informant” status by the Assistant Chief Constable Crime”. That meant that as part of his cover he was authorised to participate in criminal activity so as to prevent a serious crime. The report also made it clear that Fulton was financially well rewarded for his work. However, Special Branch reportedly considered him an “intelligence nuisance”.

    According to the late journalist Henry McDonald, Fulton’s real name is Peter Keeley. Irish republican publication AnPhoblacht states Fulton was a member of the Force Research Unit, a British Army covert ops squadron. In 2001, the Belfast Telegraph referred to a “secret dossier of evidence” provided by FRU member Ian Hurst (aka Martin Ingram). Hurst claimed in the dossier that around half of all IRA top men worked for British intelligence. He added there was a “web of collusion and spies”.

    In 2004 the Guardian reported that the anonymous caller who warned the RUC that the Real IRA was planning to launch an attack on Omagh was suspected to be a Special Branch officer. However, there appears to be no further updates on that claim.

    Responsibility for bombing claimed

    According to the Irish News, the following took place on the day of the bombing:

    • At 2pm a red Vauxhall Cavalier was driven into Market Street then parked outside a clothes shop.
    • 30 minutes later, Ulster Television (UTV) received a warning: “There’s a bomb, courthouse, Omagh, main street, 500lb, explosion 30 minutes.” A Real IRA codeword was given.
    • Two minutes after that, a similar warning was given to the Samaritans.
    • At 2.35pm, another warning was phoned to UTV.
    • The courthouse was at the top of High Street. However, the bomb car was parked 500 yards away on Market Street. The police then blocked off High Street, leaving pedestrians and shop owners to head to where the bomb car was parked.
    • At 3.10pm, the bomb exploded.

    Three days later, the Real IRA admitted responsibility.

    The aftermath of the bombing

    The following is a summary of attempts to see justice done:

    • In January 2002, Colm Murphy was found guilty of conspiring to cause the Omagh bombing. Murphy was sentenced to 14 years, but won an appeal when it was revealed the Gardaí (Irish Republic police) had falsified interview notes.
    • In 2003 Michael McKevitt was found guilty of being a member of an illegal organisation and directing terrorism.
    • In 2007 Sean Hoey was cleared on murder charges arising from the Omagh bombing, after it was shown that the prosecution evidence was “inadequate”.
    • In June 2009, a civil trial ruled that Colm Murphy, Liam Campbell, Michael McKevitt, and Seamus Daly were responsible for the bombing. They were ordered to pay damages to 12 relatives of the victims. Murphy and Daly successfully appealed, and at a subsequent retrial the case against Daly was dropped.

    The man referred to by the anonymous caller as “A” was later named under parliamentary privilege by Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP Jeffrey Donaldson. He is Patrick Joseph Blair. Fulton claimed “he met Blair shortly before the Omagh attack, covered in dust and smelling of bomb-making chemicals”. Blair denied he was involved in the bombing.

    Intelligence questions remain unanswered

    No one has been jailed in connection with the Omagh bombing. The upcoming inquiry needs to address why that is so – e.g., whether the protection of double agents took precedence above all else?

    Indeed, the precise role of the police, Special Branch and FRU in the bombing is yet to be fully revealed. The survivors of the bombing and the relatives of those killed deserve to know the full story.

    Featured image via Wikimedia / Kenneth Allen cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP is targeting Universal Credit claimants in yet another benefits crackdown

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is cracking down even further on non-working people reliant on benefits. The department has increased its use of sanctions, it is trialling a new scheme under Universal Credit to force claimants back to work, and is now planning to coerce doctors into not signing people’s sick notes.

    DWP: more forced work programmes on Universal Credit

    As the Canary previously reported, there’s been an increase in the number of economically inactive people since the start of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. These are people who are not working and not looking for work. Many of these people are chronically ill and/or disabled. However, since then the DWP has started making plans to force some of these people into work. Now it’s also beginning to target people who are claiming benefits but looking for work. For example, as the Times reported, the DWP is trialling a new scheme under Universal Credit. It’s for benefit claimants who have been out of work for three months or more. The Times noted that:

    Ministers are piloting plans for universal credit claimants to attend a two-week programme of daily face-to-face appointments at local jobcentres to help them prepare to return to work.

    Those who repeatedly refuse to attend could lose their entire standard allowance, worth £334.91 a month, for as long as three months.

    The DWP forcing claimants to do work-related schemes – and then sanctioning them if they don’t – has happened before. The department was doing this in the previous decade with schemes like Mandatory Work Activity. In 2012, it was forced to stop sanctioning people who refused to cooperate in the government’s work-experience scheme after outcry from charities.

    Increased sanctions again

    Byline Times reported on Monday 20 February that the DWP had been sanctioning more older people on Universal Credit. It noted that:

    35,608 sanctions were imposed on Universal Credit claimants aged 50 and over between January and October 2022 – 28,061 on claimants in their 50s and 7,547 on those in their 60s.

    What Byline Times failed to mention was that this fits with new DWP policy. As the Canary previously reported, the department is now specifically focused on forcing over-50s back into work. Again, this ties into the number of economically inactive people – as a lot of this group are in that age bracket.

    However, the most concerning move from the DWP is its plans to stop GPs issuing sick notes for claimants.

    The beginning of the end of sick notes?

    The Telegraph reported that chancellor Jeremy Hunt is set to announce DWP-related measures in his Spring Budget. These reportedly include:

    a new approach to how GPs decide whether people are too sick to work.

    Doctors would be encouraged to focus on recommending ways people with long-term illnesses can continue to work with support rather than using sick notes to authorise them to drop out of the labour market entirely.

    The DWP is using the reasoning that work is good for people’s mental health. So, GPs would tell sick people claiming things like Universal Credit to keep working. The Telegraph backed this up with a comment from a think tank boss endorsing this. However, as the Canary has previously written, many professionals have debunked the claim that work equals good mental and/or physical health as nonsense. It partly originates from a DWP policy document – not actual research.

    However, the DWP attempting to invade primary care settings and coerce GPs to do its dirty work for it is not new. In 2017, the department made changes which meant sick notes were no longer enough evidence for people to claim benefits. Then, in 2018 it also attempted to stop GPs signing people off sick. The DWP sent letters to claimants’ GPs after it decided they were fit for work, which stated:

    In the course of any further consultations with [your patient] we hope you will also encourage [them] in [their] efforts to return to, or start, work.

    Moreover, this new drive over sick notes will come after the DWP is already planning further co-working with the NHS. It wants to get mental health professionals to encourage people on disability benefits to go and see DWP work coaches as part of their treatment.

    Universal Credit: the digital workhouse

    Of course, all of these DWP actions are entirely predictable. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the then-Labour government specifically targeted sick and disabled people via the DWP. As the Canary previously wrote:

    The Labour government’s thinking was that because of the recession, it should “increase the pace” of welfare reform, because sick and disabled people “should not fall out of touch with the world of work”. But, as the Guardian noted in 2008, some people might have considered the move a “cynical cost-cutting exercise”.

    So, fast-forward to 2023 and another economic crisis means another DWP crackdown on claimants. It is all too easy for governments to target people reliant on benefits: years of the ‘scrounger‘ narrative, driven by politicians and the media, have already sold this to the public.

    However, this strategy is barely grounded in reliable evidence. For example, experts have previously shown that sanctions do not result in people getting jobs. Moreover, as author Kit Yates pointed out on Twitter, a lot of people are off sick with long Covid. When people are too unwell to work, how is not giving them a sick note going to change that?

    A UN special rapporteur previously called Universal Credit a “digital workhouse”.  Now, with another drive by the DWP to force everyone possible into some sort of work – and leave the rest utterly precarious – that assertion will only get stronger.

    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.

  • EU-based unions accuse Tories of ‘dragging UK further away from democratic norms’

    Trade unions from several European countries have called out the UK government. According to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), these organisations “representing more than 20 million workers warn the Strikes Bill will drag UK further away from democratic norms”. It comes as the Tories’ Anti-Strikes Bill looks set to drastically shift the balance of power between employers and workers.

    The UK: an outlier in Europe

    The TUC said in a press release:

    As the Strikes Bill begins its journey through the House of Lords next week, a joint statement by the general secretaries of nine European trade unions wholly rejects the government’s claims that the legislation would bring the UK into line with Europe.

    Ministers have repeatedly named France, Italy and Spain as countries they are supposed to be emulating through the legislation. But the major unions in these countries strongly dispute these claims.

    In the joint statement condemning the Strikes Bill, the European unions say that the UK is already an outlier in Europe and has the most draconian anti-union laws in the democratic world.

    The European unions warn that more restrictions on the right to strike will “only drag the UK further away from democratic norms, risk violating international law, and tarnish its international reputation.”

    The TUC added that French, German, Italian, and Spanish organisations have highlighted the marked differences in laws governing unions and workers in disputes in their countries. It said:

    the fundamental right to strike is protected by constitutional and other means in all other advanced European democracies.

    Unlike workers in the UK, workers in Spain, Italy, France and Germany enjoy the protection of national sectoral collective bargaining agreements setting minimum standards on workers’ rights for whole industries.

    These agreements are underpinned by the freedom to take strike action without disproportionate restrictions.

    Union victories

    Of particular concern to the European unions are the UK government’s plans to threaten workers with the sack when they have voted to take part in a legitimate ballot for industrial action. War on Want recently published an article highlighting the victories that unions have won for workers, and the list includes:

    • Better terms and conditions.
    • More holiday.
    • Higher wages.
    • Equal opportunities and protection against discrimination.
    • Better parental leave.
    • Security and stability.
    • Health and safety.
    • Legal support.

    Staffing crises and public sector pay

    The European unions have argued that the UK government should be prioritising a decent pay rise for public sector workers to fix the staffing crisis across public services. The TUC, meanwhile, has accused the government of investing more time and energy in steamrolling its bill through parliament than on resolving disputes. It adds that ministers have failed to engage in good faith on public sector pay, and moreover:

    The UK union body adds that the real threat to public safety is the chronic staffing crisis which blights our NHS and emergency services – and means patients can’t get the quality of care they need.

    Recent TUC research found that 1 in 3 public sector workers are actively considering quitting their jobs – with poor pay the most popular reason cited for staff wanting to quit.

    The Tories are attacking the right to strike

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    The right to strike is a fundamental freedom – but the Conservative government is attacking it in broad daylight. No one should face the sack for trying to win a better deal at work. This legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they could be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.

    The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) represents unions across the EU. Its general secretary Esther Lynch said:

    The claim that restricting the right to strike would bring the UK into line with ‘European norms’ would be laughable if its consequences for democracy and working people weren’t so grave. The UK’s draconian restrictions on the right to strike are part of an antagonistic approach to industrial relations which has produced the biggest social conflict in a generation.

    It stands in stark contrast to the system of social dialogue between unions, employers and government which is the norm in the countries picked by UK government and across Europe. If the UK government genuinely wants to bring its industrial relations into line with European norms, they would support sectoral collective bargaining for all workers and regularly sit down for negotiations with union representatives.

    The right to strike is a basic part of a democratic society and the more restrictions that are placed in the way of workers seeking to exercise that right, the further the UK will find itself from democratic norms.

    The best way to avoid strikes is genuine negotiation and not draconian legislation.

    Solidarity with UK workers

    The below is the European unions’ statement in full, given to the TUC:

    We, the undersigned, representing millions of workers in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, reject the claim by the UK government that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill brings the UK into line with ‘European norms.’ The fundamental right to strike is protected by constitutional and other means in all other advanced European democracies. The UK, which has the most draconian anti-union laws in the democratic world, is already an outlier in this regard.

    More restrictions on the right to strike only drag the UK further away from democratic norms, risk violating international law, and tarnish its international reputation. We endorse the ETUC statement which makes it clear that these proposed anti-strike laws put the UK even further outside the democratic mainstream.

    Negotiation, sectoral bargaining, and social partnership are always the best way of resolving a dispute. In the framework of the UK industrial relations’ system, imposed Minimum Service Levels would aggravate and prolong disputes. We are particularly concerned that workers will be required to work under threat of dismissal when they have voted to take part in a legitimate ballot for industrial action.

    Unlike workers in the UK, workers in Spain, Italy, France and Germany enjoy the protection of national sectoral collective bargaining agreements setting minimum standards on workers’ rights for whole industries. These agreements are underpinned by the freedom to take strike action without disproportionate restrictions.

    We note that in the UK, workers in rescue services already voluntarily provide protection to the public through ‘life and limb’ cover. Before resorting to attacks on the right to strike, the UK government should offer public service workers a decent pay rise and fill the thousands of vacancies in services like the NHS.

    We send our solidarity to workers in the UK taking action to defend not only their jobs, pay, and conditions in this escalating cost of living crisis, but their fundamental right to strike.

    Union signatories

    Germany:

    DGB

    Spain:

    CCOO

    UGT

    France:

    CFDT

    CGT

    FO

    Italy:

    CGIL

    CSL

    UIL

    Featured image via rawpixel (Public Domain)

    By The Canary

  • The UCU cancelling strikes has thrown up questions about the union

    On Friday 17 February, the University and College Union (UCU) dramatically called off strikes less than 96 hours before they were due to happen. The trade union‘s members reacted – some happy, some not.

    However, the move does throw up bigger questions about UCU’s decision to stop industrial action and focus on negotiating with bosses. Moreover, it also raises questions about how good for workers the results of the negotiations will be – given that the results of the 2018 dispute actually led to the current row over pensions.

    UCU: strikes on, strikes off

    The Canary has been documenting the UCU’s actions over recent months. Tens of thousands of staff at around 150 universities have been taking industrial action. The strikes have been over:

    • Bosses cutting workers’ real-terms pay by around 25% since 2009.
    • Pension managers and bosses slashing worker pensions by around 35%.
    • Precarious working contracts, bad conditions and pay discrimination.

    UCU members were set to walk out again on 21, 22, 23, 27 and 28 February, and 1 and 2 March. However, late on Friday 17 February, the union announced it had “paused” those strikes. UCU general secretary Jo Grady said in a video message that this was due to “significant progress” in talks over pay and pensions with university bosses. She further said the pause in strikes was to:

    enable us to hold intensive negotiations with the aim of delivering a final agreement

    There was already some movement from bosses over pensions. Also on 17 February (timed with the UCU strike pause announcement), bosses said that pensions might be able to go back to previous (pre-2022) levels. That is, bosses may scrap the 35% cut. It’s worth noting, though, that this does nothing for those workers who found themselves £240,000 worse off between 2011 and 2019, due to pension changes then.

    The union was adamant that the reballot for further action needs to be won to make sure the UCU gets the right result in negotiations. This reballot starts on Wednesday 22 February. However, predictably, UCU bosses calling off strikes late on a Friday – when they were due to start the following Tuesday – unleashed a torrent of shit on the union and Grady from some quarters. So, let the chaos commence.

    Carnage

    On Twitter, some people were supportive of the UCU’s decision:

    However, many other people were not happy:

    The blog the University Worker, which is on the website Notes From Below, perhaps summed the situation up best. It released an article titled:

    Let us be crystal clear: this is shit

    It picked apart each of the claims made by the UCU and Grady over where the negotiations were at and highlighted issues with all of them. For example, the UCU claimed on Twitter that it had got a “commitment” from bosses to “end all involuntary zero hours contracts”. What this actually meant was that the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) was consulting with its boss-members on this. So, as the University Worker summed up:

    • This takes the massive risk of suspending strike action for 2 weeks (7 days of strike action) on the assumption that UCEA is going to compel member institutions to agree to its recommendation.
    • If UCEA now knows that paltry allusions to consulting their members on single issues can diminish the length of industrial action, they will continue to do this over every issue in the dispute.

    Meanwhile, the UCU confirmed that its members would still be working to contract (action short of strikes, ASOS). That is, they shouldn’t spend the weekend of 18-19 February prepping lessons that would now be taking place because the strikes are cancelled:

    However, back in the real world, some members still had criticisms:

    Vote ‘yes’ in the reballot

    The bigger point, though, is democracy – or the lack of it – in the UCU bosses’ decision. As the University Worker pointed out:

    We voted to go on strike, we worked to get other members to vote to pass the thresholds, we organised picket lines, we raised money, and we built connections with other disputes that are ongoing. Now we’re being told we have to stop.

    However, as is the case with any major trade union, change can only be won when members stick together. As the University Worker summed up, UCU members must:

    Make sure the reballot is a success. Calling out the problems with the negotiations and the strategy can only be solved if we’re in the position to take more action.

    So, what is clear is that UCU members need to vote ‘yes’ to more strike action in the reballot – even if they’re not happy with their union. However, this whole episode has thrown up bigger questions about UCU bosses.

    UCU: an ugly aftermath?

    This tactic of calling off strikes was previously called out by Grady in 2018, when she wasn’t general secretary. Now, she seems to have changed her mind. Interestingly, the agreement reached during 2018’s dispute over pensions was to create a “joint committee of experts to evaluate pensions”. Sadly, it was this committee which then recommended slashing 35% off workers’ pensions. Not exactly a good result by the UCU in 2018, then, was it? Therefore, it doesn’t bode well for this round of negotiations.

    The UCU’s cancelling of strikes comes at a time when other unions are escalating their actions. The Communication Workers Union (CWU), Royal College of Nursing (RCN) and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) are all increasing their defence of their workers via strikes. The UCU’s decision therefore seems disjointed from the rest of the trade union movement. This is at a time when the Tories’ anti-strike bill is threatening every worker in the UK. So national trade unions should be working in sync.

    Moreover, the aftertaste of UCU bosses subverting democracy via cancelling the strikes may linger. That a union can take such a drastic top-down decision is not uncommon, but it’s certainly of concern that it was done at the last minute and imposed, rather then voted on by union reps.

    The hierarchical structure of the UCU needs to be seriously reviewed – given the union’s claims of representing its members and having the support of students. It remains to be seen what the outcome of these latest union talks with bosses will be. However, what the future of the UCU may look like is currently even less clear.

    Featured image via the UCU – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • XR Bristol protest calls for ‘fair travel, not air travel’

    Environmental activists from Extinction Rebellion (XR) have once again stopped the Airport Flyer shuttle service in Bristol. In part, they’re protesting the reduction in public transport like buses which don’t support the carbon-intensive air industry. It goes further than that, however, as the XR Youth Bristol (XRYB) activists also have a list of demands:

    XR: “fair travel not air travel”

    The protest follows similar actions covered by the Canary on Saturday 5 November and Saturday 5 December:

    XRYB announced the latest protest in a press release:

    At 12:30pm today, youth environmental activists blocked an Airport Flyer bus on Bedminster Parade on its way to the City Centre, after the airport was given permission to expand by the High Court at the end of last month.

    Activists from Extinction Rebellion Youth Bristol (XRYB) blocked the bus’ path by standing around it with banners (including one reading ‘Fair Travel not Air Travel’) as it attempted to leave the stop in Bedminster.

    According to XRYB activists, no passengers on the bus were at risk of missing flights as it was returning from the airport to the City Centre.

    Back in November, the action took place days before the High Court heard arguments on Bristol Airport’s expansion. The Canary reported at the time:

    On 8 and 9 November, the High Court hears arguments on the expansion of Bristol Airport. XRYB points out that the expansion will significantly increase the quantity of carbon dioxide and equivalent greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year. XR Youth previously held a ‘die-in’ protest inside the airport terminal in March.

    Fair buses

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

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

    The idea has recently received public support from several prominent figures, including Bristol South MP Karin Smyth and Green Party co-leader and councillor Carla Denyer.

    According to XRYB:

    FirstBus recently announced the cancellation of nearly 1,500 bus services a week across Bristol, continuing until at least April. This follows on from plans to cut up to 18 bus routes across the West of England … whilst also increasing the frequency of Airport Flyer buses from Bristol from every 20 to every 12 minutes.

    Free bus travel

    XRYB’s demands to the West of England Combined Authority and its constituent local authorities are:

    Free buses: Free bus travel within the West of England (including North Somerset) for all those under the age of 25, all students, and all apprentices.

    Fair buses: A consultation and public forum is run to identify improvements to bus routes that would best serve communities.

    XR Youth spokesperson Torin Menzies said:

    We need to revolutionise our public transport, including vastly improving the state of the West of England’s frankly awful bus network. Sadly, FirstBus are more interested in serving the potentially expanding Bristol Airport instead of our local communities, cutting bus routes across the region whilst increasing the Airport Flyer service.

    Bristol Airport expansion will increase flights and emissions at a time of climate emergency, as well as worsening air quality, and FirstBus are actively supporting these plans. What we need is fair travel, not air travel.

    XRYB’s movement for free buses has also seen them placing temporary messages near bus stops:

    Featured image via and additional images via James Ward

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Bosses and politicians are acting like cornered rats as three unions go on the offensive

    Trade unions are showing no signs of backing down in the face of bosses’ refusal to treat workers fairly. Three of the UK’s biggest unions (the CWU, RCN and RMT) have all announced either further strikes, or ballots indicating them. However, the capitalist goons and politicians running the show are all behaving like cornered rats – showing that these industrial disputes are far from over.

    CWU: at war with Royal Mail

    First up, and the Communication Workers Union (CWU) announced the result of its latest ballot of members against Royal Mail. The union said in a press release that workers:

    have voted by 95.9% on a 77.3% turnout to take further strike action. Despite the intensity of the dispute and employees retiring or leaving the company, turnout rose from the two previous ballots (which were 77% and 72.2% respectively). This makes this vote the biggest mandate for strike action since the implementation of the 2016 Trade Union Act.

    New CWU strikes will be on top of 18 days of previous ones. However, Royal Mail bosses have already behaved appallingly – trying to intimidate staff, lying to parliamentary committees, and using legal technicalities to stop some strike action. So, somewhat predictably Royal Mail has already gone on the attack.

    A company “source” told Sky News that Royal Mail:

    was “bleeding” cash and could not afford to raise its “best and final” wage offer beyond the £400m collective hike that was on the table.

    They argued that the business was losing customer confidence because of the continuing dispute and risked becoming increasingly uncompetitive as it already paid its staff up to 40% more than cheaper rivals.

    “Fewer customers means a smaller business and means we need fewer people”, the source said.

    Clearly Royal Mail is not going to negotiate with the union further. So, expect workers to be out on strike again very soon.

    RCN: at war with Tories

    Next, and the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has confirmed more dates for strike action. Nurses will be walking-out in an escalation on previous strikes. The RCN said that:

    Following months of inaction from the UK government, RCN members in England will strike around the clock for 48 hours in March, with no wide-ranging derogations in place and increased strike benefit payments available to striking members.

    The strikes will, it says:

    run without pause for 48 hours from the morning of Wednesday 1 March to the morning of Friday 3 March with every single member in England, where there is a mandate to strike, being called to withdraw their labour.

    The RCN’s last round of strikes excluded some nurses, like A&E ones, from the action. This time that’s not happening, with the RCN saying that:

    We are working directly to ensure that these services are reduced to an absolute minimum. It is always the employer’s responsibility to ensure life-preserving services, so we expect life-preserving care to be provided by members of the wider workforce and other clinical professions.

    It’s of little wonder the union has upped the ante – because the Tory health secretary is essentially AWOL. RCN general secretary Pat Cullen told the BBC Steve Barclay had not met with her for a month:

    I’m deeply disappointed that I go back every moment of the day to the 320,000 nurses who took part in this ballot for strike action and say to them that I have no news for them.

    Of course, Barclay is all too quick to talk to the media – peddling the usual anti-NHS strike trope about ‘patients being at risk’. Clearly the Tories are hoping that by doing nothing the RCN will just go away – which is highly unlikely.

    RMT union: at war with the rail companies and the Tories

    Finally, and the National Union of Rail, Transport and Maritime Workers (RMT) has also announced more strike dates – here, because of both bosses and government inaction. Workers across 14 rail companies will be walking out on 16, 18 and 30 March, and 1 April. Plus, the RMT has called strike action across Network Rail on 16-17 March – and its putting in place overtime bans on certain days. The union said that a previous offer from train companies:

    did not meet the needs of members on pay, job security or working conditions.

    The union’s general secretary Mick Lynch went further, placing the blame directly at the government’s door:

    The government can settle this dispute easily by unshackling the rail companies.

    However, its stubborn refusal to do so will now mean more strike action across the railway network and a very disruptive overtime ban.

    Ministers cannot continue to sit on their hands hoping this dispute will go away as our members are fully prepared to fight tooth and nail for a negotiated settlement in the months ahead.

    The cronies at the Rail Delivery Group, which represents the train companies, showed that they’re clearly not willing to compromise – despite these organisations making hundreds of millions in profits – with one company dishing out half a billion to shareholders. A spokesperson told Sky News, without irony:

    This latest round of strikes is totally unjustified and will be an inconvenience to our customers, and cost our people more money at a time they can least afford it.

    Tory transport minister Richard Holden was no better – effectively calling on workers to scab against their union:

    I hope the RMT members put pressure on the union executive to say that they don’t want to keep going like this.

    So, much like the CWU and RCN, it seems RMT action will continue indefinitely.

    Unions: not backing down

    Some of this strike action is confined to England – specifically the RCN. In other nations like Scotland and Wales, governments have been more open to negotiations. Unions have called some strikes off while they consider pay offers. Of course, the RMT strike doesn’t directly affect train services in Scotland – because it’s operator is government-controlled. So, once again the Westminster Tory government is at the heart of why unions are striking – and given it’s authoritarian, anti-worker agenda, this means 2023 will probably be filled with industrial action across the board.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube, the RMT – screengrab, the RCN – screengrab and the CWU – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Brianna Ghey’s murder has exposed sick corporate media opportunism after it peddled years of anti-trans hate

    Brianna Ghey’s murder, allegedly at the hands of two other young people, has shocked many and left trans, and wider LGBTQ+ communities, scared and angry. Two teenagers, both aged 15, allegedly murdered her on Saturday 11 February in Cheshire. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has charged them both with murder and they’ll stand trial in July.

    Brianna’s friends have been amplifying the fact that Brianna was a trans girl. However, initially police said they had no evidence it was a hate crime – to the concern of many – but they then changed this to say they were exploring all lines of inquiry. Friends of Brianna have also alleged that bullies targeted her for years prior to her murder, because she was trans. This hatred is endemic in wider society.

    In recent years, the corporate media and government have helped whip-up a baseless storm around transgender people. Now, even in the wake of Brianna’s murder some outlets have continued to publish anti-trans content in line with a consistent agenda. Moreover, other media organisations suddenly seem opportunistically concerned about trans rights – after doing everything in their power to feed the anti-trans frenzy.

    Corporate media: continuing transphobic agendas

    In recent years, much of the corporate media has been stoking the moral panic around trans people. Dr Gina Gwenffrewi from the University of Edinburgh noted in a study that:

    The explosion in the number of stories about trans issues since the late 2010s, published by a UK legacy media largely devoid of trans voices and related specialist knowledge, has seen coverage deemed “aggressive and damaging” against transgender people. Such trans testimonies, registering their distress at the negativity of the coverage by the UK legacy media, are supported by the findings of a number of international bodies such as the Council of Europe (2021) and ILGA Europe (2021) which claim the UK’s legacy media has been contributing to the demonization of the country’s transgender community.

    The murder of Brianna has only emphasised this – with much of the corporate media either poorly reporting on her, or being openly transphobic. For example, at first, many outlets failed to say Brianna was trans – although some sites updated their articles later. The Trans Journalists Association guidance does state that media outlets shouldn’t “identify someone as trans unless it’s relevant”.

    However, in this instance it was clear at the time that Brianna’s murder may well be related to her being trans. So, the corporate media should have said she was. Meanwhile, despite Brianna’s murder, outlets like the Telegraph continued to publish anti-trans content – running an article on 14 February targeting NHS treatment centre the Tavistock clinic. It, as well as the Independent, covered trans-exclusionist JK Rowling appearing on a podcast to defend her transphobic views – again, just days after Brianna was killed.

    Moreover, some outlets showed no compassion or respect for Brianna at all.

    The Times: deadnaming Brianna

    As the Trans Safety Network tweeted, the Times changed its article to put Brianna’s deadname in. This is fundamentally wrong, hurtful, and disrespectful of Brianna. As the Trans Journalists Association noted around the demeaning and violent reporting of deadnames:

    A trans person’s given or former name that they no longer use, also often referred to as a “given name” or “legal name.” There’s never a reason to publish someone’s deadname in a story.

    Clearly, the Times knew this – as it then changed the article again, removing Brianna’s deadname. As one Twitter user summed up:

    Even in a tragic, horrifying death, trans people don’t get afforded the dignity of being known as who they were

    This was a choice by the Times, clearly aimed at devaluing Brianna’s life b/c she’s trans. This is the attitude & the hate these outlets want to stir. Utterly shameful.

    The Times has been one of the most transphobic media outlets in the UK recently. As Gwenffrewi noted in terms of the outlet’s coverage of Stonewall (which was under attack for its support for trans people):

    [Rupert] Murdoch media empire’s broadsheet Times / Sunday Times between 2020-2022 produced approximately 178 stories in which Stonewall was featured, with 47 of those being centred on how Stonewall’s actions – indeed, its existence – are damaging to UK society.

    Meanwhile, other areas of the media showed breathtaking hypocrisy in their reporting on Brianna’s murder.

    Tabloid hypocrisy and the Guardian

    The Daily Mail and the Sun ran two articles each on the bullying other children subjected Brianna to. However, both outlets have previously promoted transphobic content. For example, the Sun ran an offensive headline about a trans couple’s marriage. It also published a grotesque frontpage back in 2017 about Drag Queen Story Time. The article discussed “men in women’s clothing… teaching kids as young as two” about LGBTQ+ issues”. Similarly, the Daily Mail has repeatedly published anti-trans content – from manipulated stories about trans health issues to defending transphobes. Therefore, these outlets suddenly showing concern over Brianna’s murder was opportunistic and disingenuous.

    So, what of the Guardian? It has extensively reported on Brianna’s murder. However, it too has repeatedly published anti-trans content. For example, take the Guardian‘s stance on Stonewall. Gwenffrewi noted in the study that:

    Between 2020 and 2022, and in contrast to the rest of the progressive legacy media, the Guardian has with increasing consistency begun to emulate the frame used by the Times / Sunday Times to portray the UK’s largest LGBT+ charity as a negative force in society. Without replicating the frequency of negative stories, it does maintain the negative framing and key themes of delegitimisation.

    One example was a Guardian report on Stonewall featuring comment from transphobic writers Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel. As Gwenffrewi noted, the article failed to frame the two as:

    trans-exclusionists referenced in the article, whose history of crude and delegitimising condemnations of trans identity goes unmentioned.

    Instead, as Gwenffrewi wrote, the Guardian:

    attributes aggressiveness to the marginalized minority and its advocates, against the depiction of calm and responsible good intentions for experienced and derogatory exponents of anti-trans activism.

    Does the media shoulder the blame for trans hate?

    So, it’s clear that there are transphobic agendas at play among much of the media. This then has real-world effects. For example, the day after the two teenagers allegedly murdered Brianna, neo-Nazi group Patriotic Alternative targeted a drag queen story time event at the Tate. So, as Gwenffrewi wrote:

    this can be blamed on the elitist composition of the UK legacy media, and its ideological commitment to protecting the status quo. Through an absence of diversity and specialised knowledge, particularly in relation to the reporting on marginalised identities, the result is that those who shape the narrative about trans people are not trans themselves, but instead those who through their ignorance contribute to their marginalisation.

    Yet why do the same media then offer-up sympathetic stories for Brianna?

    These outlets are using Brianna’s murder to capitalise on, via clicks and advertising, the very moral panic they helped foment. It’s unfathomable given their previous coverage that they are concerned that Brianna may have been murdered because she was trans. Nor do these outlets have sympathy for her. It’s more likely that the corporate media are opportunistically using the public furore about trans people, exploiting Brianna’s horrific killing, and cynically squeezing every last drop of coverage they can – simply for revenue.

    A mirror onto the state – but one that enables it, too

    As if that weren’t horrifying enough, there’s more going on here. The media is also painting the anti-trans hate people showed towards Brianna during her life as somehow exceptional – when in reality, that very same media has helped dehumanise trans people to the extent that hate crime has rocketed. Moreover, media outlets’ feigning of care for Brianna ring hollow when juxtaposed with their own coverage of trans communities. The government and state are the drivers of policy for trans communities. However, it’s the media whose self-appointed task it is to sell the discrimination and hate to society at large, and normalise the dehumanisation. Put simply, the media has normalised transphobia to such a degree that their faux concern at Brianna’s killing is shameful and sickening. However much they would like to protest to the contrary, their reporting has brought us here.

    The UK media is toxic for trans people, as it is for all of the communities the system marginalises. However, it merely serves as a mirror onto the state and those in power – also responsible for anti-trans hatred. Brianna’s horrific murder against this backdrop has shown that the corporate media has done, and continues to, play its part in the despicable transphobia that killed her.

    Featured image via the The Mirror – YouTube screenshot

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Newly discovered archives recount brutal career of a colonial mercenary

    Content warning: graphic discussion of violent prisoner abuse

    Testimony uncovered by Declassified UK recorded the violent career of a colonial mercenary. Tape recordings and newspaper reports revealed, in his own words, the life of captain Thomas Stanley Baxendale as he policed the British Empire’s colonies. The material described the beating of civilians and the torture of captives. It also included details of Baxendale stripping, shaving, beating, and stabbing one prisoner in the throat with a bayonet.

    Baxendale’s career was long, varied, and brutal. He served as a colonial policeman and contract officer – a colonial mercenary – in Palestine, Kenya, Cyprus, and Oman among others.

    The testimony was discovered on old audio cassettes in the Imperial War Museum, and further details were found in newspapers from the period.

    Teargassed

    In one section of Baxendale’s account, he recounts using tear gas and force on a crowd in Cyprus in 1955. Declassified UK reported:

    “I opened up with tear gas and that was adequate,” he reflected, referring to an incident in the Cypriot capital Nicosia. “I didn’t have to open fire but I would have done.” His conduct made the front page of the Daily Express, which said he “saved the day”.

    Referring to his time as a policeman in Palestine on one tape, Baxendale said he supported the use of arbitrary courts:

    “It  would be a good idea to use military courts in Northern Ireland,” he commented to the museum’s interviewer, referring to the IRA. “You probably have to delete that.”

    Force fed

    After Palestine, Baxendale served in Eritrea and Libya before going to Kenya, where Mau Mau insurgents fought the British. He expressed an enthusiasm for force-feeding prisoners:

    Baxendale was prepared to “put a tube down their throat” and force feed Kenyatta and his comrades if they went on hunger strike, a move which was averted.

    Kenya was the scene of widespread prisoner abuse. Former prisoners and their families have brought cases against the British state in the years since.

    After a few years away from colonial policing in the 1960s, Baxendale arrived in Oman where the British-allied Sultan was facing a nationalist rebellion. Now with the rank of captain, his roles included interrogations:

    “Sometimes they’d be quite straightforward but nine times out of ten they weren’t,” he said with a laugh, in one of his last remarks to the tape recorder.

    Stabbed in the throat

    Medical reports from the period seen by Declassified UK suggested Baxendale may have been mentally ill during some of his worst actions. This included the alleged torture of a captured Oman nationalist named Mohammed al-Adid. After what were long periods of often-violent interrogation, during which Baxendale may have been drunk, the captain:

    then “suddenly jumped up shouting at the prisoner” and stabbed al-Adid in the throat with a bayonet. The wound was an inch deep, puncturing his windpipe. One witness “looked up and saw a trickle of blood coming from the prisoner’s throat.” Baxendale supposedly said “I am sorry…I did not mean to do that.”

    Baxendale appeared to have been charged and subject to a court martial. Even though it found him guilty, Baxendale did not serve jail time. By April 1966, he was back in the UK. Declassified UK reported that it could not contact Baxendale, and that he may have died given the passage of time.

    Nevertheless, this is another chilling story of Britain’s legacy of torture and violence during the brutal period of decolonisation.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/unknown British Army official photographer, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Governments and police colluded with private agencies to blacklist activists, report confirms

    An Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) report, published 23 January 2023, has confirmed UK governments colluded with a private blacklisting agency and an intelligence-gathering agency.

    The blacklisting agency is the Economic League (EL), which operated from 1919 until it went into liquidation in 1993 (this author played a key role in the EL’s demise). Businesses subscribed to the EL to access its files. Individuals were blacklisted if they were considered ‘subversive’ or a trade union activist.

    The intelligence-gathering agency that focused on trade union militancy is the Industrial Research & Information Service (IRIS). In the early 1960s, IRIS received £40,000 from the Macmillan-led Conservative government. Ford and Shell also provided funds. That money helped to recruit undercover intelligence-gatherers to infiltrate trade unions. IRIS operated into the 1990s.

    UCPI: government and undercover police colluded with blacklisters

    The UCPI report included the admission that government and undercover police colluded with IRIS and the EL. It stated:

    The records suggest that subversion in industry was the principal concern of Government. There was a wish to “…close the gap between knowledge about subversion and action to counter it”. In this connection there are references within the documents to IRIS Ltd. and the Economic League. It seems from the documents that government was aware of these entities, used them to further its agenda, encouraged their activities and considered them useful.

    The report added how the Prime Minister’s office advised two industrialists to:

    seek the help of the Economic League or Industrial Research and Information Service Limited (IRIS).

    League Watch co-founder Mike Hughes told the Canary:

    After forty years of studying the history of the Economic League I had given up hope of seeing this sort of conclusive evidence that the League was engaging not just with front line domestic security services, but were 100% integral to “counter subversion” policies at the very highest levels of government. And those were the governments of Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, and Thatcher.

    In 2020 Unite the Union told the UCPI that trade unionists were spied on “for four decades”. Unite specifically referred to the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a Special Branch unit that specialised in undercover operations. It cannot be ruled out that SDS intelligence may have been leaked to “organisations which used them for blacklisting purposes”, says the UCPI report. However, the report does not elaborate further on this.

    IRIS as “anti-communist creation”

    Hughes pointed out that IRIS was an “anti-communist creation of trades-unionists and Labour party members”. For example, IRIS directors included the heads of the Iron & Steel Trades Confederation and the Amalgamated Engineers Union.

    IRIS appointed industrialists as trustees. They included construction magnate and former National Coal Board chair Lord McAlpine; and former chair of the National Coal Board Lord Robens.

    One example of IRIS at work concerned the picketing in 1972 of firms in the Shrewsbury area. That was in support of a nationwide construction workers’ strike. 24 pickets were arrested, six of whom were convicted of a number of offences and three imprisoned. 

    In February 2021, the Canary reported an appeal court hearing by 14 of the pickets. The court heard that IRIS provided background information to an anti-union documentary, Red Under The Bed. It included footage of the picketing. There was also evidence that prime minister Edward Heath played a part in the production of the documentary. The documentary was aired by ITV as the prosecution closed its case. During the judge’s summing up it was broadcast a second time. 

    But justice prevailed. On 23 March 2021 the appeal court ruled that the pickets’ convictions were quashed.

    Thousands of workers blacklisted

    Conservative politicians and industrialists created the EL. At least 40,000 workers were blacklisted over several decades. It’s known that around 700 companies subscribed to the EL.

    In Spies At Work, Hughes pointed out:

    The Economic League’s blacklisting overlapped with the state’s domestic intelligence services… We know, definitely that in the years before the Second World War the League supplied and received information from Special Branch and Naval Intelligence and that during the General Strike it was reporting to the Prime Minister.

    Michael Noar, EL director general 1986-89, admitted:

    of course, the police and Special Branch are interested in some of the things we are interested in. They follow the activities of these groups in much the same way as we do and therefore they do get in touch with us from time to time and talk to us and say ‘were you at this demonstration or that’.

    Jack Winder, who worked for the EL, told a parliamentary inquiry that he had meetings with Special Branch for “general chit-chat”. The 2016 Reuben report into blacklisting also confirmed that the EL was in contact with Special Branch.

    Here is an example of an EL file (supplied by the author):

    The threat of blacklisting

    Thankfully, the EL and IRIS – as well as the EL’s cut-down successor, the Consulting Association – are now history. However, we should never ignore that history. Today, as when the EL and IRIS were active, anti trade union sentiment is largely driven by the government. The proposed anti-strike bill seeks to curtail strike action and could force strikers to work during industrial action. None of this is possible, of course, without mainstream corporate media doing what they can to denigrate striking workers. 

    If there’s one lesson we can take from the emerging information about the EL it’s that workers face stiff opposition in a fight for our rights. Whilst methods and technology may change, British governments have a demonstrably long history of trying to suppress union activity. It’s more important than ever that workers continue their commitment to achieving better pay and conditions for all. 

    Thus the class war continues – and we should prepare to meet every threat.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Reel News

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Starmer’s latest comments over Corbyn are even more proof Labour is finished

    Keir Starmer has torched the Labour Party in one fell swoop – telling socialists to eff-off while barring former leader Jeremy Corbyn from standing as a candidate at the next general election. Of course, this shouldn’t come as any surprise. However, is it now time to just shut up about Labour and move on?

    Starmer: blah blah blah

    Starmer was speaking after the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) lifted the Labour Party out of the special measures it had placed on it regarding antisemitism. As Sky News reported, the EHRC:

    had been scrutinising the party since ruling it was responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination more than two years ago.

    But the watchdog has said that, under Sir Keir’s leadership, the party has improved its complaints and training procedures to protect current and future party members.

    The Labour leader, writing in the right-wing Times, said:

    under my leadership there will be zero tolerance of antisemitism, racism, or discrimination of any kind.

    An interesting statement, given that Starmer’s team has expelled or investigated dozens of Jewish members – most recently forcing an 85-year-old holocaust survivor to quit the party:

    Starmer’s comments are also interesting given his stance on some issues. For example, he has shown racism over refugees and foreign-born workers – saying about the latter and immigration that:

    our common goal must be to help the British economy off its immigration dependency. To start investing more in training up workers who are already here.

    Meanwhile, his policies have been echoing the Tories – like his support for the electronic tagging of more refugees. Plus, Starmer has repeatedly chosen to ignore Islamophobia:

    One example of this was his lack of support for Labour MP Zarah Sultana when people were sending her Islamophobic abuse.

    Clearly, though, those issues aren’t a priority with the EHRC.

    Socialists out, racists in

    Starmer gave a clear indication that socialists are no longer welcome in Labour – saying that the “door was open” for them to leave:

    One socialist in particular will not be returning:

    Starmer’s refusal to allow Corbyn to stand is predictable – but also downright hypocritical and dishonest:

    As the Canary‘s Joe Glenton previously wrote:

    The reason Keir Starmer… [is] so desperate to slander Corbyn is because they fear and hate the ordinary working people who identify with the reformist program he put forward during his time as leader. Sadly, these capitalist goons are what the public is left with in the Labour Party, now – and Corbyn is well out of this toxic mess.

    What’s Corbyn to do, then? As of 12pm on Wednesday 15 February he hadn’t commented on Starmer’s actions. However, people were calling for him to form a new party:

    So, where is Labour heading now?

    Shut up about Labour?

    Starmer wrote in the Times that:

    The Labour Party I lead is patriotic. It is a party of public service, not protest. It is a party of equality, justice and fairness; one that proudly puts the needs of working people above any fringe interest.

    This rhetoric is predictable – given Starmer has thrown protesters to the wolves, refused to sanction transphobic MPs and ignored the Forde Report’s recommendations over racism in his party. Of course, this was all apparent back in 2021. As the Canary wrote at the time, in Labour:

    The left wing is being systematically and permanently destroyed. Starmer and Co have plotted a course back towards the corporate, capitalist status quo. So is now, finally, the time for anyone with socialist tendencies to leave the party and put their efforts into a more worthwhile project? The answer may well be a resounding ‘yes’.

    Now, Starmer has given his clearest indication yet that Labour is no longer anything remotely left wing – in fact, it is little more than a racist, discriminatory Tory-esque husk. The time of supporting these right-wing charlatans is well and truly over. It’s probably time to stop talking about them as well. However, the public is now faced with no choice from its two main political parties. So, we need to look to trade unions, grassroots community groups and each other to affect change. Whether Corbyn will feature in this on a national level remains to be seen.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Love in action: Animal Rebellion and XR carry out climate protests for Valentine’s Day

    Vegan activists blocked a road near Westminster on 14 February with a Valentine’s-themed protest. At the same time, climate activists carried out a Valentine’s Day protest at Luton Airport.

    Activists from the group Animal Rebellion lit flares as they sat at a table with a candelabra and champagne flutes on Westminster Bridge in central London. One wore a mask with the face of prime minister Rishi Sunak, in a protest against government subsidies for animal farming and fishing. At the same time, other activists sat on the road with placards.

    The group tweeted:

    Where is the love in a food system contributing to climate destruction and ecological collapse?

    It called for a “plant-based future” instead.

    Police said they arrested five activists for blocking the road and a sixth person for assaulting a protester.

    The activist group posted a video showing several men roughly pulling away the protesters and dragging them along the ground as a crowd watched and drivers honked horns. Meanwhile, a police officer grappled with a man after he pulled one protester to the side of the road.

    Further protests

    Animal Rebellion began as a sister organisation to Extinction Rebellion (XR) climate campaigners. It has freed laboratory test dogs, occupied dairy delivery depots, and blockaded the UK plant for McDonald’s burger patties.

    On the same day as the Animal Rebellion protest, XR activists blocked entrances to private jet terminals at Luton Airport. In a press release, the group said it had:

    blockaded the entrances to Luton Airport’s Harrods Aviation and Signature private jet terminals to demand the government take urgent action to ban private jets, tax frequent flyers and make wealthy polluters pay

    XR said the action came as part of the wider Make Them Pay campaign. The initiative, led by XR, Scientist Rebellion, and Stay Grounded, also led people to disrupt a private jet conference in Brussels on 14 February.

    Featured image via Animal Rebellion/Twitter

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Glen Black

  • Coalition demands politicians take a ‘clear stand’ against attacks on asylum seekers

    Nearly 200 charities on 14 February urged the UK’s political leaders to “take a clear stand” against attacks on asylum seekers. It came days after an anti-immigrant protest descended into violent disorder. The open letter was co-ordinated by coalition campaign Together With Refugees and signed by 180 charities. It condemned the “horrifying” scenes on 10 February outside the Suites Hotel in Knowsley, near Liverpool.

    The open letter described the events outside Suites Hotel as “horrifying”, and went on to say:

    With the high risk of more premeditated extremist attacks around the country, leaders of all parties must now take a clear stand and condemn any further violence against those who come here to find safety.

    The letter also urged political leaders to “set out the action they will take to prevent” further attacks.

    Rhetoric against asylum seekers comes from the top

    People have criticised home secretary Suella Braverman for her inflammatory rhetoric over immigration and asylum seekers. In particular, many have criticised her description of the growing number of refugees crossing the Channel. Opponents accuse her of demonising asylum seekers and fuelling hostility towards people seeking sanctuary.

    A Home Office spokesperson noted that Braverman had condemned the “appalling scenes outside the hotel and violence toward police officers” seen outside Suites Hotel.

    However, Braverman’s actual response to the riots in Knowsley wasn’t such a ‘clear stand’ against what happened. After highlighting a tweet by the home secretary in which she said that the “alleged behaviour of some asylum seekers is never an excuse for violence“, the Canary‘s Steve Topple wrote:

    There are no grounds for Braverman’s claim about refugees’ “behaviour” in Knowsley – except right-wing lies on social media.

    Braverman essentially covered for the far-right by victim-blaming refugees

    Many others made similar points, too

    As the Canary noted, the police and BBC News also repeated similar rhetoric in their response to the riot.

    No safe haven

    Clashes broke out in Knowsley when racist troublemakers disrupted a pro-refugee gathering outside the Suites Hotel on 10 February. The building was housing asylum seekers. The far-right group Patriotic Alternative had protested outside the hotel earlier in February, but it denied organising the latest rally.

    The open letter called attention to failures of the Home Office and the UK’s asylum system, which have served to place asylum seekers at greater risk. It said the lives of asylum seekers:

    are in limbo as they wait, sometimes for years, for a decision on their asylum claim.  And it is clear that these massive delays are directly leading to the use of hotels for people seeking asylum – a completely inappropriate form of accommodation and a glaring confirmation that the system is broken.

    Featured image via Together With Refugees/YouTube

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Trespass is a vital tactic if we want to save our forests

    It’s easy to get despondent when the news is filled with stories about ecological destruction, biodiversity loss, and climate change. But campaigners received fantastic news on 9 February, when they learned that they had scored a crucial victory over big business.

    Center Parcs has announced that it has pulled out of plans to build a new resort on the site of Oldhouse Warren, in the ancient Worth Forest in Sussex. The announcement has come after concerted pressure, including mass trespass by both campaign groups and the public.

    Center Parcs’ attempted destruction of a precious forest

    Landscapes of Freedom (LOF) and Save Oldhouse Warren (SOW) are two local groups who worked hard to score this victory. LOF’s Kim Turner told the Canary:

    What an incredible, surprising, energising victory this is for nature, giving hope to others fighting against the corporate destruction of our diminishing wildlife habitats.

    LOF, along with the Right to Roam campaign, organised a 300 people-strong mass trespass in September 2022 to protest the development plans. The successful campaign has prevented Center Parcs from building 900 lodges, a plaza, a ‘sub-tropical swimming paradise’, a spa, restaurants, shops, roads, and carparks on precious forest.

    Center Parcs stated that it would not be able to “meet targets to improve biodiversity at the site”. In fact, it would have destroyed 553 acres of this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The are is filled with veteran beeches and gnarly oak trees, and a forest that’s home to both rare and ground-nesting birds.

    Turner told the Canary:

    It is laughable that Center Parcs frame the decision as their concern for biodiversity that led them to pull out, which begs the question: why did they ever think ancient woodland was appropriate? They, and the landowners, had no doubt taken note of the growing support for local campaign group Protect Oldhouse Warren, the solid work of the nature NGOs, the opposition of local councillors, and of course, our 300-strong mass trespass to highlight the issue, pictured on the front page of the Telegraph.

    An ‘iconic victory’ for mass trespass

    LOF is adamant that trespass was a vital tactic for it to be able stop Center Parcs in its tracks. The group said “it is a huge victory for the trespassing tactic”, adding:

    Most of the forest is forbidden to public access and only by trespass were our campaigners and wildlife surveyors able to introduce people to the forest and survey its rare and precious wildlife.

    On September 24th this culminated in our 300 strong mass trespass in Oldhouse Warren.

    Turner went on to tell the Canary:

    It is an iconic victory for mass trespassing and how it can effect change. We do it for the love of the land and in this case, our love for this woodland.

    The Canary joined the mass trespass, which was attended by people from all over the country. It became quickly apparent to all of us that, for as long as 92% of England’s land remains out of bounds to the general public, fenced off with barbed wire and private property signs, trespass is the only tool at our disposal to protect the land. Otherwise, how else will we ever know what needs saving? We already know that rich landowners often have little regard for nature. Instead, they want to put profit or their own pleasures above conserving the land.

    worth forest trespass

    Tear the fences down

    Although Oldhouse Warren is now safe from bulldozers, it still remains illegal to walk among its ancient trees. So, activists will continue to campaign for our right to roam on the land. LOF said:

    Now our task is to work to restore Worth Forest to its past glory and to make it a place in which people can be with nature as of right, and in ways that do not damage its wildlife.

    Turner told the Canary:

    The work to protect Oldhouse Warren is not finished with this result. It begins. It must have greater protections, as part of Worth Forest, much like those Ashdown Forest has. Its value needs recognising, its boundaries opened to the public. The surveying work of our team has already revealed incredible rarities, hundreds of veteran trees, stunning displays of funghi, rich birdlife, and the bryophytes of the rainforest remnants. Yet it is thought of by locals as merely ‘a tree farm’ because they do not have access to see what is there but merely peer from a fenced in footpath. Tear those down.

    Right to roam

    The campaign to protect this forest is also part of the greater right to roam movement, which is growing fast in England. This is thanks largely to a series of mass–trespasses, such as the one on Oldhouse Warren, in 2021 and 2022. Both the Right to Roam campaign and Landscapes of Freedom organised these mass-trespasses.

    A recent ruling banning wild camping on Dartmoor provided an even greater wake-up call to people: that we have barely any access to what little nature there is left in England, let alone any say over how it should be used or protected.

    Turner said:

    Our longing for what we have lost in access to openness, to nature, to magical woodlands is bursting forth in the revitalised right to roam movement in the last two years, excitingly highlighted by the huge outpouring of 3000-strong at the recent Dartmoor protest.

    She continued:

    Landscapes of Freedom calls for a right to roam after the Scottish model, not the incremental gains proposed by Labour or even the Countryside and Rights of Way Amendment Bill put forward by Green MP Caroline Lucas, which asks for access to woodland and rivers. No, not just this: there’s areas in the country that don’t have woodland, which have hills and meadows. Let us wander in our land. Be bold, demand a full and free right to roam. This is the time.

    Indeed, the right to roam movement has gained unstoppable momentum. Despite the odds being stacked against us, we can – and will – win our rights back to walk, camp, forage and protect our land.

    Featured image and additional images via Eliza Egret

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • More proof if you needed it that NHS nurses and the RCN are right to be striking

    As the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) moves towards a 48-hour strike, new figures reveal what the union calls an “exodus” of young nurses from the NHS. The news is hardly surprising, though, given the RCN strikes have partly been over nurses’ appalling pay.

    Nurses: everybody out – again…?

    After strikes on 6 and 7 February, the RCN has now warned the Tory government that it’s moving to get nurses to walk out for a full 48 hours. This would include previously protected NHS areas, like A&E. As Nursing Notes wrote:

    The move by the union is designed to break the deadlock and prevent months of disruption.

    Previous strikes were over pay and conditions. As the Canary previously reported:

    In 2010, the coalition government froze public sector pay for two years, then imposed a 1% fixed increase. This year, the Tories have capped NHS pay rises at 4% for most staff, while inflation is over 10%. The end result is that since 2010, the Tories have cut around £4,300 from nurses’ real-terms pay.

    Now, a new report shows the direct impact of the government’s real-terms pay cuts – and it adds weight to nurses’ arguments over strikes.

    RCN: an “exodus” of staff

    The RCN has released its Valuing Nursing in the UK – Staffing for Safe and Effective Care report. The union said in a press release that the analysis looks at:

    the issues contributing to the poor retention of nursing staff, the reasons why they’re leaving, and calls for immediate action from the UK governments.

    The union said:

    The report shows that between 2018 and 2022, nearly 43,000 people aged 21 to 50 left the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register. It also finds the number of people leaving the NMC register increased by 9% from 2020-21 on the previous year and increased by a further 3% in 2022.

    In the report, the RCN blames what it calls the “exodus” of nurses on years of government underfunding. This includes over a decade of real-terms pay cuts. The report highlights that nurses leaving are often younger ones, and the RCN is calling for an immediate, substantial pay rise for nursing staff. The report also looks at other reasons for nurses leaving the NHS. The union said these included:

    • Insufficient staffing to ensure patient safety.
    • Harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
    • A lack of career progression.
    • Unsafe working conditions.

    A ‘crisis unfolding before our eyes’

    RCN general secretary and chief executive Pat Cullen said:

    It’s deeply worrying that nurses aren’t just choosing to retire early but are quitting the NHS and the profession entirely, when they’re only a few years into their career.

    These findings speak volumes about the dire state that ministers have allowed nursing to fall into through years of underfunding and neglect. At the same time, recent… figures highlight that we aren’t only losing a record number of experienced nurses from the NHS, we’re also going to have less joining the profession. This can only mean even more vacancies in the future.

    Cullen continued:

    Negligence towards addressing vacancies is having a devastating impact on patient care and is why our members took to picket lines in England again last week. Ministers cannot blame the pandemic and other winter pressures for the crisis unfolding before our eyes – this has been a long time in the making yet the government has consistently ignored clear signs. They must offer fair pay rises to help stop the exodus.

    It’s interesting that the RCN has warned the Tories of a 48-hour walk out at the same time as releasing its report – hitting the government with a double whammy, if you like. So now nurses must wait and see what the Tories do. However, what is clear is that the situation NHS staff are in has been unsustainable for a long time. Whether the Tories act or not remains to be seen.

    Featured image via Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona – Unsplash 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour, Tories, cops and the BBC united in promoting fascist, anti-refugee rhetoric

    After the fascist attack against refugees in Knowsley, Liverpool, you’d expect our toxic home secretary Suella Braverman to play down the fact that it appeared to be intentionally organised by the far-right. Of course, Braverman also isn’t about to acknowledge that she herself enabled the attack.

    Unfortunately, Labour and the BBC did similar – meaning that refugees are once again being demonised, while the establishment appeases racists and fascism.

    Tories, cops and the BBC: propping-up fascists in Knowsley

    First, Braverman tweeted that:

    There are no grounds for Braverman’s claim about refugees’ “behaviour” in Knowsley – except right-wing lies on social media. The Independent reported that chief constable of Merseyside police Serena Kennedy said people had been circulating “rumours and misinformation” on social media about the refugees at the Knowsley hotel. She went further, saying:

    Following inquiries, a man in his 20s was arrested on Thursday in another part of the country on suspicion of a public order offence.

    A file was submitted to the CPS and on their advice he was released with no further action.

    That doesn’t let Kennedy off the hook, though. She previously did the same as Braverman – blaming refugees while intentionally playing down the fact that this was clearly an organised, fascist attack. As the website DuckSoap noted, the BBC did the same, too. DuckSoap wrote that:

    In its authorless report the day after (11th February) BBC began by making sure readers were not informed who were the wrongdoers. The sentences below (second and third in the report) were designed to make it ambiguous regarding which group set the van on fire and threw missiles.

    “A police van was set on fire after a rally against refugees and a counter-protest by pro-migrant groups took place near the Suites Hotel, Knowsley. Police said missiles were thrown at officers but there were no injuries.”

    So, Braverman essentially covered for the far-right by victim-blaming refugees, and the cops did similar. Then the BBC tied the whole, fascist-appeasing mess up with a bow. Not that any of this should be a surprise, given Braverman’s use of racist, far-right language, the BBC‘s historical right-wing coverage of refugees, and the cops being, well, cops.

    So, what does Labour do in the face of far-right violence and Tory far-right incitement followed by appeasement? It doubles down on the racist, anti-refugee rhetoric.

    Labour: more of the same

    Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper couldn’t bring herself to show solidarity with the refugees the fascists targeted in Knowsley. Instead, she pointed to social media – not even mentioning Braverman and the Tories’ own far-right rhetoric:

    Also, Cooper missed out another group of culprits in British society’s continuing racism towards refugees: the corporate media:

    Plus, as people were pointing out, Cooper and her wing of the party have a history of playing into far-right language about refugees. Then, enter deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner to prove that she, too, is willing to sell out in the hope of getting racists and the far-right to vote for her party.

    On Good Morning Britain (GMB) on Monday 13 February, Rayner said she agreed with Keir Starmer that the state should tag some asylum seekers – albeit she dressed it up with some sympathetic-sounding platitudes about “supporting” refugees:

    As the Canary previously reported, the Home Office can currently electronically tag refugees, anyway – because Labour introduced the law in 2004. However, the Tories want to expand this law’s use.

    Refugees are welcome here. Fascists aren’t.

    So, exactly who is standing with refugees? As always, it’s down to communities and groups. For example, anti-fascists are organising ahead of a far-right mobilisation in Cornwall:

    Meanwhile, Care4Calais has been back to Knowsley. The group said in a report that:

    The mood was muted. People were naturally disturbed. The most common things we heard were “We just want to be safe” “we haven’t done anything wrong” and “Please, can you help us move to another town?” The saddest thing I heard was a man from Afganistan who said “I wasn’t safe in my country and I’m not safe here.”

    However, as the group also noted:

    But underlying it all they are trapped in that hotel. They can’t leave. They can’t go to the shop to buy a snack or cigarettes. So many told us they can’t sleep.

    The situation is overwhelmingly sad. Every person in that hotel has had to leave their homes and their loved ones behind because of situations that they cannot control and did not ask for. No one does that by choice. We met people from Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Iraq – these are some of the most dangerous places in the world. Their homes have been bombed, villages ransacked. Their children have been persecuted. Some have been horribly tortured. They came here to ask for our help, believing the UK to be a place of sanctuary. And they have been met with hostility and fear.

    This is the reality for refugees coming to the UK. Meanwhile, if it walks like a fascist and talks like a fascist – then, it’s probably a fascist, as the organisers of the Knowsley attack clearly were. To say otherwise, while negatively framing refugees, is doing nothing more than appeasing the far-right in the UK.

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Lee Anderson’s support of the death penalty is from the National Front’s playbook

    Lee Anderson MP has given an interview to right-wing rag the Spectator in which he called for the reinstatement of capital punishment. Only days later, PM Rishi Sunak saw fit to elevate him to the rank of deputy chair of the Conservative Party.

    When asked if he would support the return of the death penalty, Anderson answered “Yes”, stating:

    Nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed. You know that, don’t you? 100% success rate.

    Sunak was immediately forced to state “that’s not my view, that’s not the Government’s view” in response to Anderson’s comment, but Anderson was by no means alone. iNews reported that Brendan Clarke-Smith and two other anonymous MPs leapt to Anderson’s defence. Clarke-Smith went so far as to say “I am one of those people” who supports capital punishment. Whilst it may appear that calls for capital punishment are an extreme position to take, Anderson’s views have deep roots in the history of Britain.

    National Front

    Britain’s far right element have included that National Front, a fringe party formed in 1967 by the combination of the League of Empire Loyalists, the British National Party, and the Racial Preservation Society – followed later by the neo-Nazi Greater Britain Movement.

    In 1970, the National Front put out one of its most infamous campaign posters. Along with the urging to “Put Britons First” and “Vote National Front”, it stated six policies. These were:

    STOP immigration
    REJECT common market
    RESTORE capital punishment
    MAKE Britain great again
    SCRAP overseas aid
    REBUILD our armed forces

    Horrifyingly, each of these positions can be found in Tory policy or supported by individual Tory MPs right now.

    Common market

    Enter, Brexit. The Tories – and the National Front, for that matter – have already seen their win here. Former PM Boris Johnson backed a hardline Brexit trade deal which he called “a turning point in the life of our nation”. Britain crashed out of the EU’s single market with little planning or preparation.

    Since then, we’ve seen life in Britain follow a steady decline. As our own Joe Glenton summarised: 

    Brexit has caused a food price hike of nearly £6bn in the last two years, according to new research. The study by the London School of Economics (LSE) states that the rise in prices is due to increased red tape. That’s somewhat of an irony given Brexit was often touted as a way to reduce bureaucracy and added costs.

    Along with that, the public has borne witness to a disastrous ‘Festival of Brexit’, chaos in fuel pricing, and shortages of basic necessities. Even the former strongholds of Brexit Britain are experiencing crushing regret for their choices. And, sure enough, the Tories have ticked another fascist policy off of the National Front’s list. We’re now watching in real time exactly how ‘great’ an isolationist Britain can truly be.

    In fact, the phrase “make Britain great again” reared its head when Boris Johnson vowed to make the UK the “the greatest place on earth”. As Nadine El-Enany explained in Open Democracy:

    Britain’s imperialism of recent decades has been masked in the language of humanitarian intervention, international trade and European cooperation. The Brexit era has created renewed purchase for the idea of the next British empire.

    After all, what’s fascism without colonialism?

    Immigration

    The Tory attitude to immigration is vile, as it always has been – especially rhetoric around “pushing back” small boat crossings. Take the home secretary, Suella Braverman, as an example. As the Canary’s Sophia Purdy-Moore reported at the time:

    In October, Braverman proudly told Tory Party Conference attendees that it is her ‘dream‘ and ‘obsession’ to see a flight traffic asylum seekers to offshore detention sites in Rwanda. This scheme comes alongside the inhumane and discriminatory Nationality and Borders Bill, which seeks to criminalise vulnerable people seeking refuge in the UK.

    The planned Rwanda flights faced repeated protests and legal challenges due to their “‘shopping list’ of potential illegality” and stark inhumanity. Braverman failed to see them carried through because of the collapse of the then-government under Liz Truss.

    Less aid, more arms

    The Tory Party’s rule has also seen dramatic reductions in overseas aid, just as the National Front demanded 50 years ago. A statement from the House of Lords last year explained that: 

    In 2021 (the latest figures available), the UK’s ODA spend was £11,423mn, a decrease of £3,054mn (21.1%) on 2020. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) explained that this decrease was “driven by the government’s decision to reduce ODA from 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to 0.5% in 2021”.

    ‘ODA’ here refers to official development assistance. Its main objective is “the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries”. Spending on ODA has taken a sharp downturn in recent years, both in terms of raw cash and gross national income (GNI):

    Figure 1: UK aid spend since 1970 - ODA GNI ratio

    Meanwhile, the opposite is true for Britain’s military budget. Last year’s defence spending received an “increase of £3.6 billion from the previous year, which when adjusted for inflation is an 8.9% increase”. This was mirrored in the Ministry of Defence’s rise in the rankings of government payouts, becoming the “fifth highest spending area of UK government during 2021/22, up from sixth position in 2020/21.”

    On top of this, Tory MP Tobias Ellwood has lamented the “decline in our global security architecture” whilst making grand plans to deepen conflict with Russia – all accompanied by the background noise of sabre rattling from the government.

    The respectable face

    It seems increasingly clear that Britain’s problem wasn’t with the policies of the National Front themselves. After all, we’ve repeatedly voted Tories into government who echo all of their main talking points from 50 years ago.

    The public doesn’t like its fascism in jackboots or wearing a shaven head. Instead, the horrors should come from the mouths of Eton alums with expensive suits and clipped accents.

    With Conservatives like these, who even needs fascists any more?

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ David Woolfall, CC BY 3.0, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Police body’s fox hunting crime lead admits illegal killing is prolific in UK

    A video recently emerged that appeared to show blatant fox hunting taking place. In the footage, people dug foxes out of their den with the apparent intent to have nearby hounds hunt them.

    The individuals pictured in the video are allegedly part of Wiltshire’s Avon Dale hunt. According to ITV‘s correspondent Rupert Evelyn, arrests are coming thick and fast in relation to the incident:

    In the wake of the footage, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s (NPCC) lead on fox hunting crime, spoke out on social media. Matt Longman described the deliberate killing of a fox with hounds as illegal, wrong, and “prolific in the UK”.

    Fox hunting illegality is prolific

    After the video emerged, Longman said he got many requests for comments on it. So comment he did, on social media. The chief superintendent for Plymouth tweeted:

    Evelyn, himself a prolific reporter on fox hunting, said that the officer’s admission is notable:

    This is because hunts consistently claim that they don’t deliberately kill foxes anymore. Since the Hunting Act 2004 outlawed the practice, they claim that they are continuing their tradition, i.e. dragging hounds around the countryside as a human gang on horseback, without intentional bloodshed. Most hunts insist they lay artificial scent trails for hounds to follow, aka trail hunting.

    So, for the NPCC’s lead on fox hunting crime to describe illegal hunting as “prolific” is quite something.

    Not one bad apple, but many

    The admission isn’t, however, news to hunt saboteurs. Week in, week out, they report on what they say happens in the proverbial (and literal) field. They regularly allege the targeting and killing of wildlife by hunts.

    Following the launch of a police investigation into the recent fox hunting footage, and Avon Dale hunt’s expulsion from the British Hound Sports Association, the Hunt Saboteurs Association tweeted:

    The association also wrote about the incident and the presence of so-called terriermen in the footage. As the Canary‘s Glen Black has previously explained:

    Terriermen are people that join hunts with the task of digging out a fox if they ‘go to ground’, i.e., hide in a hole. As the Crown Prosecution Service itself makes clear, there is “no real role for terriermen” in legal forms of hunting.

    Typically, these people force terriers into fox holes to flush the wild mammals out, hence the name. In its post on the incident, the Hunt Saboteurs Association said:

    The truth is, this incident is far from exceptional and shows the part that ‘terrier work’ plays in a hunting day. Many hunts have and will continue to do similar when they think they aren’t being watched.

    Strengthen the ban

    Undoubtedly, hunt saboteurs and all people who care about wildlife are hoping that justice will be served in this instance.

    But with a hunting ban full of loopholes and exemptions that are ripe for abuse, true justice won’t be served until national authorities strengthen the ban. Scotland has recently passed a new law that goes a long way towards fixing the flaws in the current legislation. Regardless of the presence of many hunt-loving politicians in the UK parliament, Westminster has no legitimate excuse for not following suit.

    Featured image via Julian Dowse / Fox near Bushey Wood, near Southorpe/ Wikimedia, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Prevent review slammed by experts after controversial inquiry head praises scheme

    Sir William Shawcross’s review of the Prevent counter-extremism scheme has finally been released. Barring a few minor adjustments, Shawcross, who was a terrible pick to lead the review, seems to think it is in working order. However, it has to be said that not everyone seems to agree.

    The review’s executive summary talks up Prevent’s “noble motive”. Shawcross claims:

    The government should be proud of Prevent’s positive impact in this regard.

    He rejects the charges levelled at the scheme for years, that it is draconian and prejudiced:

    The caricature of Prevent as an authoritarian and thinly veiled means of persecuting British Muslims is not only untrue, it is an insult to all those in the Prevent network doing such diligent work to stop individuals from being radicalised into terrorism.

    The review also claims there is:

    a concerted campaign by some, including a number of Islamist groups, to undermine and delegitimise Prevent through the spread of disinformation, misinformation and half-truths.

    No legitimacy

    Among the review’s critics was Amnesty international. The charity’s UK racial justice director Ilyas Nagdee said:

    This review is riddled with biased thinking, errors, and plain anti-Muslim prejudice – frankly, the review has no legitimacy.

    Nagdee added:

    William Shawcross’ history of bigoted comments on Muslims and Islam should have precluded his involvement in this ill-starred review in the first place.

    While the Child Rights International Network (CRIN) said the review “doubled down” on the worst parts of Prevent:

    Prevent Watch pointed out that the review failed to account for the harm that Prevent does against children:

    Sidelining the far-right

    One of the review’s key claims was that more attention was due to Islamic extremism than to far-right threats:

    Islamist extremism represents the primary terrorist threat to this country – consistently accounting for the majority of terrorist attack plots both carried out and thwarted by the intelligence services.

    The civil liberties organisation Open Rights Group did not agree, warning that the review “dismisses” the real and dangerous threat of far-right extremism:

    And the Guardian‘s Sunder Katwala wrote that far from improving Prevent, the Shawcross review:

    is already reheating and repolarising the debate around Prevent, engaging in a stale tug-of-war about which threats from extremism really matter.

    More of the same

    Everything seems to be wrong with this review. It does nothing to alleviate the targeting of Muslims – if anything it promises to focus even more narrowly on the community. Even the selection of Shawcross – who is seen as an antagonistic figure to many in the debate – calls into question what manner of outcome were expected.

    Add to that the reduced focus on far-right extremism and the review sends a message to a vulnerable, marginalised, and maligned community that it is they, not the violent far-right, who are an enemy within.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Tony Hisgett, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY 2.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Students occupy university buildings in solidarity with the UCU while protesting their own dire conditions

    Students are occupying buildings at several universities. They’ve been holed up supporting the University and College Union (UCU) strike action – defying the student-versus-striker narrative some of the media is pushing. However, students have also had it with university bosses more broadly – and aren’t messing around with their actions.

    Students occupying campus

    The group University of Manchester (UoM) Rent Strike has been occupying three campus buildings since 8 February:

    One of the highlights was students occupying the bosses’ offices – including one of a dame on £260,000 a year, no less – and then locking security out:

    It’s little wonder Manchester’s students are furious. University bosses increased rent in halls by up to £450 for the 2022 academic year. Meanwhile, the university itself is making over £119m a year – while doubling its financial surplus since 2020.

    The UoM Rent Strike group told the Canary:

    We have erected barricades with furniture and blocked every entrance to the building to ensure security cannot gain access without physical force:

    A barricaded door at the UoM rent strike occupation

    Security are currently [as of 11pm on Thursday 9 February] trying to smash down barricades to gain entrance to the building.

    However, the occupation is currently going very well and the barricades of John Owens have been holding up. However security have been actively physically intimidating supporters of the occupation outside of the building. We plan on holding the building for as long as physically possible, but various actions will continue indefinitely until the university negotiates with us

    Over in Sheffield, it was a similar story on 9 February – with Sheffield Action Group (SHAG) occupying the main event hall at the city’s university:

    Students occupying universities like this one in Sheffield in support of the UCU strike - a photo of protesters setting of smoke flares and holding banners while people look on

    The group told the Canary:

    The occupation was a method to support the ongoing UCU strikes and reinforce the picket lines against an event that was scheduled to take place. The conference, run by HESPA [Higher Education Strategic Planners Association], would have crossed a picket line to discuss future strategy for higher education while excluding the very people who represent the best of HE: the committed lecturers and staff currently on strike to protect their livelihoods and ensure their ability to deliver the best education possible.

    The university must support their students and staff – especially during the cost of living crisis – but instead they’re hosting events behind picket lines that serve to promote their image and maintain their hierarchy within the sector. Students stand in solidarity with striking staff because our fight is the same: a demarketised, liberated, and exploitation free university that harms nothing but profit.

    So, while both groups are protesting their own issues – they’re also supporting the staff who have been striking.

    The media versus the UCU

    Of course, the corporate media – like the BBC and C4 News – has tried its best to push the narrative that the UCU strikes are pissing students off:

    The media trying divide and conquer tactics is nothing new. Just as they have with rail strikes and previous UCU strikes, the media keeps trying to focus on people who don’t support strikes. Yet, research from the 2019 election and from 2020 shows the majority of students tend to be left wing. Therefore, it’s likely a large proportion of students do support the UCU actions.

    End the marketisation of universities

    The overall point with both the UCU strikes and the student occupations is that university education in the UK is a privatised, marketised shambles. Bosses have cut workers’ pay by around 25% since 2009. They also want to slash workers‘ pensions by 35% too – all while making staff work in dire conditions. Meanwhile, student accommodation is in crisis – again, thanks to privatisation, as well as rogue landlords and the government getting UK students into £20bn of debt every single year. Plus, you have the ongoing legal action by over 80,000 students against universities charging them full fees at the height of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.

    To counter the crony-capitalist horror show that’s engulfing the UK’s university system, it’s vital that students and staff stick together. Both groups are at the sharp end of this race to the bottom. Moreover, there are generations of young people waiting in the wings, hoping to get an education fit for the 21st century.

    Currently, the UK university system is barely providing anything it claims to. Ludicrously-paid university management are leaving staff underpaid and precarious, and students underserved and overcharged. Therefore, the collapse of universities is yet another manufactured crisis – like the cost of living one. The system sees bosses and companies hoarding wealth at the top, forcing unions and students to fight for scraps at the bottom. So, the fightback must continue.

    Featured image via Sheffield Action Group and additional images by the University of Manchester Rent Strike and Sheffield Action Group 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Community members protest outside school where a Black girl was violently attacked

    Shocking video footage of three white girls brutally attacking a Black schoolgirl went viral this week. The attack took place outside Thomas Knyvett College, a secondary school in Surrey, on Monday 6 February. It has since stirred up concerns, particularly within Black communities, over anti-Blackness and racism in schools.

    The Independent reported that police have arrested five people so far in relation to the incident, including an adult man and woman and three minors.

    Protest

    Understandably, the video has caused anger and prompted protests from Black communities. People gathered outside the school on 8 February to show solidarity and demand accountability:

    Melissa Sigodo, reporter for the Mirror, shared:

    According to the Independent, around 200 people attended the protest, which was organised by community activist Raspect from the grassroots collective Forever Family.

    Raspect said at the protest:

    We’ve seen the video. These situations that our children are facing … they’re not going to face it alone. We’re letting the little girl know that we’re proud of you! You’re a warrior, you had five hyenas trying to bite at your ankles and you’re a lioness that stood up!

    […] Us standing here today sends a ripple effect, to every person in and outside of this community, about what happens when you try to oppress the children. That’s why we’re here.

    Condemnation and calls to action

    The horrifying video has prompted widespread condemnation online. Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said:

    Meanwhile, British rapper Dave demanded that the school sacks staff members who were complicit in the attack. He included a still from the video showing adults standing by instead of intervening to stop the assault:

    On 8 February, the school put out a statement calling the attack an “isolated incident”. However, people have slammed this response as inadequate and have demanded that principal Richard Beeson is sacked:

    Moreover, the school’s statement referred to the assault as a “violent altercation”. But as Independent journo Nadine White said:

    Public sentiment certainly doesn’t appear to be in Beeson’s favour, since a petition demanding the police question him has been signed by over 78,000 people:

    Anti-Blackness

    Of course, this racist attack has renewed concerns over racism in schools more broadly – and anti-Blackness in particular. As journalist Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff shared:

    Moreover, reports circulated on Twitter suggesting the attackers have Irish Traveller heritage, which added a layer of complexity to the issue:

    But while some (white) people used this to dismiss the incident as ‘minority on minority crime’, Black people have long been calling out anti-Blackness among non-Black ethnic minorities.

    That the perpetrators of such a vicious attack belong to a persecuted – albeit white – minority has little bearing on the trauma, both individual and collective, this incident has caused:

    One Twitter user summed up the reality of Black people not receiving as much as they give in terms of solidarity from other oppressed communities:

    Black Lives Matter

    MP Janet Daby reportedly raised the Thomas Knyvett incident in parliament on 9 February:

    But this issue, of course, goes far deeper than the practices of any one school or institution.

    ‘Black Lives Matter‘ has been, in some instances tokenistically, recognised by white institutions in the UK from around 2020, following the police killing of George Floyd. However, this is yet to be backed up with real, tangible solidarity from non-Black people.

    Simply saying or tweeting ‘Black Lives Matter’ isn’t good enough. If the video of a lone Black girl getting violently piled on by three white girls, as people look on, tells us anything, it’s that those who might otherwise claim to oppose racism and anti-Blackness need to step up when it counts.

    This applies to white people as much as it does to non-Black racial or ethnic minorities. The conversation we need to have is much broader than bullying or racism in schools. It’s about recognising and calling out the anti-Blackness that is endemic in our society, and then actively working to put an end to it.

    Featured image via UnSplash – Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona, cropped to 770 x 403 pixels

    By Afroze Fatima Zaidi

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Activist investors sue Shell bosses over climate risks

    British energy giant Shell has been hit with a new lawsuit over climate change. Activist investors are accusing the company’s leadership of mismanaging risks. Corporations have faced a growing number of climate-related lawsuits in recent years as they come under pressure to step up efforts to curb global warming.

    Shell was already ordered by a Dutch court in 2021 to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by the end of the decade after it was sued by environmental groups. This time, ClientEarth, a minor Shell shareholder, has filed a lawsuit in the High Court of England and Wales against Shell bosses:
    for failing to manage the material and foreseeable risks posed to the company by climate change.
    Shell, which reported recorded annual profits last week, denies the allegations.

    Breach of legal duties

    Client Earth said in a statement that the group’s current plan:

    will tie the company to projects and investments that are likely to become unprofitable as the world cleans up its energy systems.

    That puts the company’s long-term commercial viability at risk, and also threatens efforts to protect the planet, further increasing the risk to the company.

    ClientEarth alleges the Shell board “breached legal duties” by “failing to adopt and implement an energy transition strategy that aligns with the Paris Agreement”. Under the landmark 2015 Paris deal, nations pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by the middle of the century. This is an attempt to limit the average temperature increase to 1.5C.

    ClientEarth said its legal action had the support of institutional investors holding more than 12 million shares. Meanwhile, Shell stressed such investors were not claimants but had instead sent ClientEarth letters of support.

    Greenwashing

    Shell is facing criticism over its net-zero plans from the wider environmental lobby. They accuse it of “greenwashing“, or marketing a company as overly climate-friendly. Earlier this month, according to non-profit Global Witness, Shell had “misleadingly” exaggerated its spending on renewable energy:

    The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been urged to act over Shell’s most recent annual report in which it stated 12% of its capital expenditure was funneled into a division called Renewables and Energy Solutions in 2021.

    Global Witness allege that:

    just 1.5% of Shell’s capital expenditure has been used to develop genuine renewables, such as wind and solar, with much of the rest of the division’s resources devoted to gas, which is a fossil fuel.

    Increasingly, massive profits from energy companies are being met with ire on social media. Greenpeace UK didn’t have much patience for Shell’s massive profits:

    Wildlife presenter and conservationist Chris Packham was horrified at how climate inaction would be remembered:

    Activist Howard Beckett expressed disgust at Shell’s profits:

    Anti-privatisation campaign group We Own It compared Britain’s failings to France, where energy prices are capped:

    Likewise, MP Zarah Sultana rightly pointed out how manufactured the cost of living crisis is:

    Manufactured crises

    The energy sector as a whole has faced growing calls to step up efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. Furthermore, the wider world is scrambling to acheive a net-zero emissions economy by 2050. In spite of that, British oil giant BP on Tuesday 7 February reduced its target for cutting carbon emissions after reporting that its underlying profit had more than doubled last year to $27.7bn.

    As larger and larger profits roll in for energy companies, it’s becoming even more clear that the government doesn’t care about people struggling to heat their homes. Instead, it wants big business to flourish, so the rich get richer, and the poor stay poor. There’s more than enough wealth to go around, but the grim logic of capitalism means that ‘crises’ are actually just the system working as it’s supposed to.

    Featured image by Unsplash/Justus Menke

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Latest rapist cop David Carrick given 36 life sentences for 71 sexual offences

    Content warning – this article mentions details of physical and sexual abuse

    A UK judge on Tuesday sentenced a former policeman to life in jail. David Carrick was given a minimum term of 30 years for dozens of rapes and sexual assaults, as reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). This is the latest case to shame London’s Metropolitan Police force.

    Judge Bobbie Cheema-Grubb handed Carrick 36 life sentences for a “monstrous” string of 71 sexual offences against 12 women. She said Carrick, whose crimes included 48 rapes, represented a “grave danger to women” which would “last indefinitely”. Carrick was a long-serving officer with the Met, and will serve three decades behind bars before he can be considered for parole.

    Cheema-Grubb said Carrick had “brazenly raped and sexually assaulted” his victims, believing himself to be “untouchable” due to his position, which afforded him “exceptional powers to coerce and control”. Only a sentence of life imprisonment could reflect “the gravity” of his crimes, she said.

    Abuse of power

    Anger and distrust towards the police has mounted since the murder of Sarah Everard. Former police officer Wayne Couzens was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in jail for Everard’s murder. Carrick and Couzens served in the same armed unit protecting MPs and foreign diplomats. The Canary’s Sophia Purdy-Moore explained how Couzens used his status as a police officer to trick Everard:

    The court heard that Couzens – who was a serving Met Police officer at the time – handcuffed and falsely arrested Everard on 3 March in Clapham. Couzens showed Everard his warrant card before restraining her. Someone witnessed the off-duty officer handcuffing Everard and leading her to his car. They assumed that the young woman “must have done something wrong”.

    Since the crimes of Carrick and Couzens were uncovered, a string of other cases involving police officers have also come to light. In fact, just as Carrick was being sentenced, the Met announced that another serving officer had been charged with rape and assault. In the latest case, police constable Hussain Chehab admitted to “four counts of sexual activity with a girl aged 13 to 15, three counts of making indecent photographs of a child, and sexual communication with a child”. A court was told that Chehab had even served as a school liaison officer during his time on the force.

    The force admitted that, on average, two to three officers faced criminal charges in court every week. On Monday, prosecutor Tom Little told Southwark Crown Court in South London that Carrick used his police officer status to initially reassure women and begin relationships. He then subjected them to “a catalogue of violent and brutal sexual offences”. The officer often humiliated the women, including locking them naked in a small cupboard, urinating on them, and whipping them.

    Carrick doesn’t fall far from the tree

    The police had records of multiple complaints and allegations involving Carrick’s behaviour. However, he never faced a disciplinary hearing. The Met only sacked him last month after he pleaded guilty in court. The force has since apologised for failing to act on the prior allegations levelled against Carrick. Met commissioner Mark Rowley on Tuesday described Carrick’s crimes as “unspeakably evil” and admitted:

    He should not have been a police officer.

    We weren’t rigorous enough in our approach and as a result we missed opportunities to identify the warning signs over decades.

    Last month, campaigners dumped a basket of 1,071 rotten apples outside the force’s headquarters. The number was a symbol of how many officers the Met says have been or are being investigated over allegations of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. Ruth Davison – head of the domestic abuse charity Refuge, which organised the protest – told AFP:

    We’ve been told time and time again that it’s just one bad apple here and there, but this is actually a fundamental problem right across policing. It has to be called out now because women’s lives are at risk.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Channel 4 News

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Church of England Synod debates proposals to bless same-sex civil marriages and partnerships

    The Church of England will today debate plans enabling priests to offer blessings to same-sex couples. However, there are deep divisions within Anglicanism over the issue in Britain and beyond.

    The Church’s elected governing body, the General Synod, meets two or three times a year. Today, hundreds of its members will discuss and vote on the proposals unveiled last month by bishops.

    There will be no change to rules banning Anglican priests from officiating at weddings of same-sex couples. However, under the proposals, they could offer “God’s blessing” for civil marriages and partnerships in a church.

    ‘Hostile and homophobic’

    In an open letter, bishops also issued an unprecedented apology directly to LGBTQ people last month for the sometimes “hostile and homophobic response” they have faced in parishes.

    The steps follow nearly six years of internal debate. However, they have sparked criticism from both those who support and oppose same-sex marriage, as global fractures within Anglicanism surface.

    Jayne Ozanne, a Synod member and LGBTQ campaigner, issued a stinging condemnation of the belated apology. She told Agence France-Presse (AFP):

    We’ve had years of apologies from our bishops but no action.

    It’s like an abusive relationship where someone keeps hitting you and then says ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry’.

    Until the discrimination and the abuse stop, we don’t want to hear more empty words. We need action first.

    Conservative opposition

    The conservative Church of England Evangelical Council has railed against the reforms.

    It says they will create “further division and broken fellowship” within the Church, and “a greater tearing of the fabric of the worldwide Anglican Communion”. It said in a statement last month:

    We believe that the responsibility of the Church of England is to serve the nation by proclaiming the gospel, not by compromising with prevailing culture

    The Church of England has been under political pressure to reform its approach to same-sex marriage ever since it became legal in England in 2013.

    Although dozens of other countries have legalised same-sex unions, homosexuality remains banned in many parts of the world. This includes countries with predominantly conservative interpretations of Anglicanism in sub-Saharan Africa.

    ‘Passionately held differences’

    A rift has emerged between Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and some of these Anglican churches, which often support tougher curbs on the LGBTQ community rather than liberalising existing doctrine.

    “We have deep and passionately held differences,” Welby conceded Monday as he opened the four-day Synod:

    But let us not fall into caricaturing those among us who don’t agree with us as being those who are trying to construct their lives away from God. The evidence is far from that.

    Welby went on to warn that:

    too many people, especially around sexuality, have heard the words of rejection that human tongues create.

    Although the plans to be debated do not change Church of England law, and so do not require formal Synod approval, members will vote on a motion of support and amendments put forward. A rejection of the proposals could make it practically impossible for them to proceed.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ The Archbisop of Canterbury, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license, resized to 770*403

    Additional reporting via AFP

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • New government departments are ‘re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic’ amid multiple crises

    Prime minister Rishi Sunak vowed to cut sky-high energy bills on 7 February as he reshuffled the cabinet. Sunak created four new departments in his first cabinet overhaul since become prime minster in October 2022. It was played as a bid to salvage the Conservatives’ chances in the upcoming May local elections.

    The new ministries are:

    • The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
    • The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
    • The Department for Business and Trade
    • The Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The final department is, of course, just a rebranding of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. And this superficial change reflects the nature of Sunak’s decisions as purely cosmetic changes.

    Policy and underinvestment are preventing real action

    The surge in energy bills has fuelled a cost-of-living crisis for many in the UK. It’s also been crucial in motivating a series of public-sector strikes by nurses, ambulance drivers, train workers, and others.

    Whilst creating the new departments, Sunak sought to blame the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the prices. He said that events over the past year showed the danger “when we’re reliant on imported energy from hostile countries”. Then, he went on to claim the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will “reduce people’s energy bills”.

    However, as the Canary reported on 7 February, wholesale gas prices have steadily dropped since August 2022. Current prices result from the increase in the energy price guarantee (EPG), which is a government-set limit on what companies can charge customers for each unit of energy used. The EPG is set to rise again in April, amid soaring energy company profits.

    Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s director of policy, said the new department would prove as “helpful as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”. He then went on point out that:

    It’s government policy and underinvestment that is holding back real action on the climate and energy crises, not the departments or ministers in place.

    Musical chairs

    The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will be headed by Grant Shapps, who was formerly business and energy secretary. Shapps’ old business department is being merged with the international trade ministry to form the Department for Business and Trade.

    Sunak has installed notorious social regressive Kemi Badenoch at its head. Unfortunately, the new brief hasn’t taken away Badenoch’s responsibilities as minister for Women and Equalities.

    Sunak also launched a new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, switching former culture secretary Michelle Donelan into that role. The PM has previously spoken of his mission to drive scientific discovery and turn Britain into a new Silicon Valley. But scientific lobby groups said the government must first prioritise restoring UK membership of the European Union’s Horizon programme for joint research, which ended with Brexit.

    With Donelan leaving her role as culture secretary, Sunak promoted Lucy Frazer to lead the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Frazer previously made headlines for making a tasteless remark about enslaving people from Scotland in 2015.

    One particularly dire appointment is that of Lee Anderson as deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. Anderson has a history of offensive remarks, including attacks on people using food banks, and on the England football team for taking the knee before games in a show of anti-racism.

    Charades

    Many people have seen through the ongoing game of charades that is cabinet appointments. One solar panel company highlighted how departments are rarely led by people with expertise in the field:

    Meanwhile, a renewables expert at the University of Reading pointed out that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has a “distinct lack” of focus on renewable resources:

    Meanwhile, reporter Lewis Goodall highlighted the fact that the new departments are essentially similar to previous government departments that were abolished:

    Sinking ship

    Against this backdrop, Parr’s comment that Sunak’s reshuffle is little more than rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship rings true. With the local elections coming up in May, and Tory popularity continuing to nosedive, Sunak’s new departments seem like an attempt to paint over the cracks while he fluffs his own ego. As millions of people across the UK struggle with daily survival, and with climate breakdown continuing to loom over all of us, a lick of paint simply isn’t enough.

    Featured image via Number 10/Flickr

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.