radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • DWP rules leave terminally ill people still not getting benefits like PIP quickly enough

    One of the cruellest parts of the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) rules has become the subject of a petition. It’s to do with benefits like Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and people who are dying.

    The petition is calling on the DWP to stop ‘penalising’ terminally ill people and give them the benefits they’re entitled to as soon as possible. However, the petition is also personal to the person who started it, because he is dying of bone cancer.

    Benefits like PIP and terminal illness

    Currently, the DWP will only fast-track terminally ill people’s benefits claims if a doctor says they have 12 months or less to live. And this is currently only for certain things like Universal Credit, not PIP. The DWP does this under so-called Special Rules. However, many people think this is not good enough. As the Canary previously reported:

    A study into terminal illness in 2015 found that while most patients died within a year of diagnosis, a small number (4.5%) lived longer. Even the government’s own review of the Special Rules showed that 12 months was not an agreed benchmark. For example, in Australia and New Zealand “terminally ill” is used for people who will die within two years. Closer to home, and in 2018, the Scottish government removed any time frame attached to social security for terminally ill people.

    So, campaigner Mark Hughes is taking action. He lives with terminal bone cancer and can no longer work, but he has struggled to get the benefits to which he was entitled. As Mark previously told cancer charity Marie Curie, the DWP caused him numerous problems when he tried to claim benefits. For example, Mark said:

    I had numerous letters from them over months with the same questions being asked over and over again. Sometimes, forms were sent by mistake – I was having to deal with all of this while still dealing with the news that I was terminally ill.

    The DWP stopped, then restarted, then stopped again Mark’s various benefits. All this left him realising just how broken the DWP’s systems are for terminally ill people. So Mark has taken to campaigning around the issues terminally ill people face when trying to access DWP benefits.

    DWP: not going far enough

    Mark has previously had some success. He and Marie Curie were involved in getting the government to change the rules for benefits and terminally ill people. Before, the DWP would only fast-track claims if the person had six months to live. After campaign groups, including Mark and Marie Curie, lobbied the government, the DWP changed the rule to 12 months. However, as the Canary reported at the time:

    terminally ill people, regardless of life expectancy, will experience severe mental and emotional distress.

    We noted at the time that Mark, in a previous petition that called for the DWP to fast-track anyone with a terminal illness, said that the 12-month rule still gives:

    unnecessary suffering to people who have been told they are going to die. As soon a person is diagnosed they should automatically be fast-tracked. Why must a time scale be placed?

    Terminal means terminal however long you have left to live.

    Unfortunately, the government dismissed Mark’s previous petition – and it didn’t reach the 100,000 signatures needed to prompt a parliamentary debate. Moreover, the DWP still hasn’t changed the criteria for all benefits either. It has currently put the 12-month rule in place for Universal Credit and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). However, the DWP has still not said when it will do the same for health-related benefits like PIP.

    So, even before the DWP has rolled out the previous amendment, Mark is once again campaigning to get the rules changed.

    ‘Terminal illness does not respect a calendar’

    Mark’s new petition states that:

    Dying people need fast-track access to welfare support but currently this only happens if doctors tell you that you have 12 months left to live. This isn’t good enough. A terminal illness doesn’t respect a calendar. A terminal illness means many like me have to give up work. But thousands will miss out on financial support because they have a prognosis of more than 12 months. The government says its compassionate but the restrictions helping dying people is the opposite to compassionate.

    You can sign the petition here.

    It seems perverse that the DWP hasn’t updated the 12-month rule for benefits like PIP – but also that it applied the 12-month rule overall in the first place. As Mark says, giving terminally ill people immediate access to benefits should be standard, regardless of life expectancy. By doing anything less than this, the DWP is penalising dying people – which is cruel in the extreme.

    Featured image via the Canary and Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A senior Tory has received a blue plaque for his commitment to filth

    Jacob Rees-Mogg has been ‘awarded’ a satirical blue plaque for his contribution towards Britain’s waterways. If you think his politics stinks more than the sewage which is now being regularly dumped into our rivers, you’d be correct:

    Blue-plaque wanker

    Protesters fighting against raw sewage have installed satirical blue plaques around Bristol, Bath, North East Somerset, and South Gloucestershire. Their aim is to highlight what they’ve described as the “shocking state of our waterways”. The people fighting the Tories’ befoulment of Britain under the Dirty Water Bristol banner include Extinction Rebellion, local health professionals, a group of cold water synchronised swimmers, and one very good dog:

    Their theatrical blue plaque unveiling took place in Conham River Park as part of a national day of action across the UK. Highlighting what the group describes as “the government’s continued failure to tighten environmental regulations and stop profit-grabbing water companies”, the plaque reads:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg / Luke Hall MP / The UK Government

    Voted to block a law

    requiring water companies

    to dump less raw sewage

    in our waterways and seas

    20.10.21

    The plaque references the 2021 vote when 267 Tory sewage-mongers voted down an amendment which would have required water companies to “demonstrate improvements in the sewage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharge”.  According to Extinction Rebellion Bristol, things are only going to get worse:

    The movement is attracting attention online:

    Among those interested are people wanting to install blue plaques of their own:

    Literal Tory filth

    Dirty Water Bristol spokesperson Daniel Juniper said:
    We’ve watched in horror as our rivers and seas have become open sewers since October 2021, when the government voted down a proposal to stop water companies pumping waste directly into our rivers and seas. They justified this by claiming that the proposal was too expensive. These plaques shine a light on the government’s failure to protect our waterways, the natural world, and all of us.
    Olympic gold medal canoeist and campaigner Etienne Stott said:
    It’s disgusting, literally, to think what’s being pumped into our rivers. The government and the water companies aren’t going to clean up unless ordinary people put pressure on them. Extinction Rebellion can’t do this alone. We need everyone who cares about our rivers and seas to stand up with us and speak out. Today is just the first part of a bigger campaign to protect nature and our waterways. More actions will be taking place over the coming months.

    The “human sewage” party

    According to Dirty Water Bristol’s press release:

    The government’s failure to properly tackle the issue of sewage pollution has been hugely controversial. Last summer over a hundred beaches were closed to the public after a series of sewage discharges by water companies left the sand and sea contaminated with human sewage.

    Meanwhile, only 14% of the UK’s rivers achieve “good” ecological status with pollution from agriculture, human sewage, roads, and single-used plastics creating a dangerous “chemical cocktail” in our waterways. In December, the Environment Agency announced it was pushing back targets to clean up England’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters from 2027 to 2063, prompting outcry.

    Dirty Water Bristol is looking for people to join them at their website. If you also stand in opposition to this literal manifestation of Tory filth, you should consider signing up.

    Featured image and additional images via Dirty Water Bristol

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • TUC criticises Tory government for ‘steamrolling’ anti-strike bill through parliament

    The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has accused Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government of keeping “MPs in the dark” over the scope of its new anti-strikes legislation. It comes as the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill returns to parliament on Monday 30 January for its third reading. If the bill becomes law, it will give ministers sweeping new powers to restrict the right to strike.

    TUC: workers vs the government

    According to a press release, the TUC:

    has launched a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to discover why the government published the Bill without a required impact assessment. Previous government advice – published in the Autumn – warned that minimum service levels in transport could poison industrial relations and lead to more frequent industrial action. Despite this warning, the Conservatives are now proposing to extend minimum service levels to a range of other sectors including – health, education, fire, border security and nuclear decommissioning.

    Earlier this month the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) – a government-appointed body – criticised ministers for failing to provide MPs with an impact assessment on its new Minimum Service Levels Bill.

    The RPC said:

    Government departments are expected to submit impact assessments to the RPC before the relevant bill is laid before Parliament and in time for the RPC to issue an opinion alongside the publication of the impact assessment.

    An impact assessment for this Bill has not yet been submitted for RPC scrutiny; nor has one been published despite the Bill being currently considered by Parliament.

    Far-reaching powers

    According to the TUC:

    If passed, the Minimum Service Levels Bill will mean that when workers democratically and lawfully vote to strike they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply. The TUC is calling on MPs of all parties to reject this spiteful legislation, which it says is “shortcutting” normal scrutiny procedures and being “steamrollered” through parliament without proper consultation and scrutiny.

    The bill gives ministers power to impose new minimum service levels through regulation. But consultations on how these regulations will work have not been published, and parliamentarians have been given few details on how minimum service levels are intended to operate.

    The organisation adds that the new law will “do nothing” to solve the current disputes across the public sector, and “only make matters worse”. It’s general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    The government is trying to keep MPs in the dark about the draconian nature of this Bill. But make no mistake – this legislation will give ministers sweeping new powers to restrict the right to strike.

    The government must not be allowed to duck scrutiny. This spiteful legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply. The Minimum Service Levels Bill is undemocratic, unworkable and almost certainly illegal. And crucially it will likely poison industrial relations and exacerbate disputes rather than help resolve them.

    It is shameful that parliamentarians are being forced to vote blindly on such far-reaching new laws. We urge MPs from all parties to vote against this nasty Bill.

    Nowak added:

    The government is investing far more time and energy in steamrollering this Bill through parliament than it is on resolving disputes. Instead of scheming up new ways to attack the right to strike, ministers should get pay rising across the economy – starting with a decent pay rise for public sector workers.

    The staffing crisis blighting our public services will only get worse if the Conservatives continue to hold down wages in our schools, hospitals and crucial services.

    Featured image via the Trades Union Congress – YouTube and the Telegraph – YouTube

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Enough Is Enough demo set to protest the Tories’ ‘historic attack on democratic rights’

    On the evening of Monday 30 January, trade unions, human rights groups and justice campaigners are joining forces to protest against what one union leader has called “a historic attack on democratic rights”. Given the increasing stakes, it could be another step towards the first UK general strike since 1926:

    Enough is Enough

    The protest is set to take place on the same day that two pieces of legislation come before parliament. Campaign group Enough is Enough said in a press release:

    The House of Commons will debate the Anti-Strike Bill, which aims to strip frontline workers of their right to strike; at the same time, the House of Lords will debate the Public Order Bill, which would severely limit the right to protest.

    Enough is Enough notes that the protest will take place at 6pm in Westminster – opposite Downing Street. Among others, it will feature the presence of the Campaign for Trade Union Freedom with the support of human rights organisation Liberty, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), the Communication Workers Union (CWU), the University and College Union (UCU), the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), and campaign group NHS Workers Say No. Enough is Enough also notes that the protest will feature:

    frontline workers speaking about their opposition to the new laws, passed just two years after they were applauded as pandemic ‘heroes’ in the same place. RMT General Secretary Mick Lynch and FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack will also take to the stage to oppose what they argue are attempts to make effective trade unionism illegal in Britain.

    Children’s author Michael Rosen, Liberty’s campaign officer Charlie Whelton and activists from the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign will be among a wide range of speakers condemning the latest attacks on workers’, civil and democratic rights.

    Key workers

    In the Enough is Enough press release, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said:

    Working people are the defenders of democratic rights and always have been. Ordinary people must have a right to make meaningful decisions in their workplace, their communities, and society. That wasn’t given to us. The right to strike and the right to protest are fundamental civil liberties. If we can’t resist these attacks, I fear for our future as a working class but also as citizens. We will live in a society where freedoms and rights are severely restricted.

    Lynch has won the support of many in the UK – in part due to his ability to calmly eviscerate his critics:

    He’s also criticised Keir Starmer’s lacklustre support – and often outright opposition – to the union movement:

    FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said:

    Any move to give bosses more powers to sack workers and sue unions for taking strike action in defence of jobs, wages and conditions will be fiercely resisted by the FBU.

    This is a historic attack on democratic rights. The Tories are clearly hell-bent on criminalising and victimising trade unions along with anyone who protests against their agenda. We need a mass movement of resistance to these authoritarian policies.

    Wrack recently spoke out against Nadhim Zahawi‘s dodgy tax affairs. Exactly one week after tweeting the following criticism of Zahawi, Wrack’s second demand was answered when PM Rishi Sunak caught up with public opinion and sacked his party chairman:

    Moreover, TV host and author Carol Vorderman noted how the worst of Zahawi’s behaviour effectively went unacknowledged in his sacking:

    Orgreave Truth and Justice campaigner Chris Peace, meanwhile, said:

    The government’s attempts to suppress dissent in the pursuit of power gives clear permission for the police to apply more aggressive tactics in managing protests. The Tories have started a ruthless war against our right to protest and our trade union rights.

    General strike next?

    On 11 November 2022, Canary writer Steve Topple asked:

    All of this begs the question: if so many unions are striking, why are they not taking coordinated action? That is, why aren’t unions organising a general strike? Hopefully they are, and we just don’t know it yet – coordinated union action would send the strongest message to the Tory Party that workers won’t tolerate their toxic governance any longer.

    This latest action isn’t a general strike. However, it does show that under the Enough is Enough banner, union action is becoming increasingly coordinated. With figures like Lynch calling for a general strike, such an event could realistically happen. It would be one which will no doubt leave the Tories regretting their anti-democratic plan to criminalise the workers’ movement:

    Featured image via Wikimedia – Steve Eason, cropped to 770×403 under licence CC-BY-SA-2.0

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Met Police ‘safer schools’ officer pleads guilty to child sex offences

    On Tuesday 24 January a serving officer with the Metropolitan Police plead guilty to several child sex offences at Wood Green Crown Court.

    PC Hussain Chehab – who has worked as a ‘safer schools officer – admitted several counts of sexual activity with a child. He also plead guilty to making indecent photographs of a child, and sexual communication with a child.

    His guilty plea comes on the heels of another Met Police officer pleading guilty to 29 sex offences, including 14 counts of rape. Armed police officer David Carrick’s attacks took place over an 18-year period.

    Back in 2021, Met Police officer Wayne Couzens – part of the same Met police armed unit as Carrick – pleaded guilty to the abduction, rape, and murder of Sarah Everard.

    Get all police officers out of our schools

    Many people responded on Twitter, pointing out that this is a wake up call to get cops out of our schools. According to the Runnymede Trust there are currently 979 officers posted in schools. The officers are largely posted in schools in poorer areas, and where there are higher numbers of Black students and people of colour.

    Artist-activist Marlon Kameka tweeted:

    The Black Kids Matter twitter account demanded an end to police in schools:

    Remember Child Q

    The Northern Police Monitoring Project, Kids of Colour, and the No Police in Schools Campaign have written an open letter in response to Chehab’s guilty plea. The letter is for Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester; the Greater Manchester Combined Authority; head teachers in Greater Manchester, “and anyone who supports the placement of police in schools”.

    They wrote:

    Learning today that a ‘safer schools officer’ has been charged with child sex offences is awful. We’re horrified that once again, police have been allowed to harm children.

    We’re sending solidarity and strength to the individuals and their families and loved ones as they try to work through their trauma.

    The authors of the letter are urging people not to forget Child Q –  a Black student who was strip searched by Met Police Officers at her school in Hackney in 2020. They also mention the heartbreaking case of an autistic boy assaulted by the police at his school in Merseyside in September 2001. They argued:

    This is another example of police officers deeply harming children. Many will remember the horrific news of Child Q being strip searched and then learning that this was one of thousands of strip searches by police officers. 3,939 (75%) of these children were from non-white backgrounds and 16 of them were aged between 10 and 12 years old. Others will remember how a school-based police officer assaulted an autistic 10-year-old pupil in Merseyside.

    The campaign groups pointed out that these cases may only be the tip of the iceberg, and more police violence in schools is likely going unreported. Meanwhile, plans are underway to hand more funding to the cops. They argue that the incidents they mentioned:

    are just some of the cases of harm that have been spoken about in the media, and each one alone shows that police officers have no place in our schools. Meanwhile, Andy Burnham is instead consulting right now on whether to raise council taxes to give more money to Greater Manchester Police.

    Our children need safety and support, not cops

    The campaigners have carried out a community survey on how they’d like education funding to be spent. The answer was on care, not cops:

    Our communities know that police are not the solution. In our report ‘Decriminalise the Classroom’, which surveyed 554 people from across Greater Manchester, we asked community members how they would like funding to be spent when it comes to education. The answer was youth workers, counsellors and more teachers. Children deserve safety and support, instead of being at risk of harm and criminalisation.

    They pointed out the real risk of harm that placing police in schools poses:

    Every day that Mayors and Head Teachers are happy for police to be in our schools, our children could be harmed and traumatised. We’re calling on you to protect children and young people by removing school-based, linked, or affiliated police officers immediately and instead use any council tax increases to fund education.

    Placing cops in schools is dangerous, racist, and classist

    Lets make no mistake about it, placing cops in schools is dangerous. Policing is inherently violent – it’s not about education or care. Incidents like the strip searching of Child Q at her school or the assault on an autistic boy in a place he should have been supported are terrible, but they are not a surprise. That’s how police act on our streets, why would they act any differently in our schools? Hussain Chehab – an officer who would have had direct contact with students and parents – admitting to child sex offences is just another example of why the cops shouldn’t be anywhere near young people.

    As the Runnymede Trust showed, police are disproportionately more likely to be in schools where there are a higher amount of students receiving free school meals. This corresponds with areas where poor, working class people, Black people, and other people of colour live. These communities are being singled out for more policing, and thus more violence.

    There are growing calls for an end to the placing of police officers in schools. These calls are coming from the communities who are most affected – it’s our job to amplify and support them.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Tadas Petrokas

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Regret takes hold in Brexit bastion

    Grays, a town near London, voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit. But three years after severing ties with the EU, some are feeling remorse as the country lurches from one crisis to another.

    42-year-old Maria Yvars, a counsellor in Grays, argued that she felt cheated by politicians:

    They didn’t give us the full facts… they told us things that were not true.

    I did vote Brexit, but I regret it.

    She added:

    Now, this country is like a ship without a captain.

    ‘Sunlit uplands’

    In the 2016 vote, 72.3% voted for Brexit in the Essex constituency of Thurrock, of which Grays is the largest town with around 75,000 people. That was the fourth highest pro-Brexit vote out of 382 voting areas in Britain that backed the split. Arch-eurosceptic Nigel Farage chose Thurrock as the backdrop to unveil his anti-EU manifesto for the general election of May 2015.

    The post-industrial area, which has taken in many migrants from eastern Europe, also includes Tilbury, one of the country’s main container ports. Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported from there in 2017, finding Brexiteers had little regret about their vote a year later. However, the departure only took full effect at the end of January 2020. Boris Johnson had promised “sunlit uplands” for Britain. Instead it got Covid, and now a cost-of-living crisis resulting from sky-high inflation.

    Thurrock Council, the local authority, effectively went bankrupt in December after a series of disastrous investments. In Grays’ pedestrianised town centre, one abandoned shop window reads “closed forever”. Like many other high streets in Britain, the shops left are dominated by discount retailers offering £1 items, charity stores, and bookmakers.

    ‘Ashamed’

    Support for Brexit across the nation has never been so low, according to a YouGov poll released in November. Fewer than a third of Britons believe it was a good decision, with one in five Brexiteers changing their minds, according to the poll. An NHS employee from Grays who wanted to remain in the EU said:

    What did the Brexiteers expect? We lost EU funding.

    Saving the NHS was a hallmark of Johnson’s Brexit campaign. Famously emblazoned on his red campaign bus was the message:

    We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund the NHS instead.

    Today, NHS workers – including, for the first time, nurses – have been striking in protest at government pay offers.

    Brexit means…?

    While the government attributes Britain’s economic malaise to the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, Brexit is increasingly being blamed for setting the country back after it cut off access to Europe’s single market across the Channel from Essex.

    A woman in her 50s who wished to remain anonymous said:

    Yes I voted for Brexit and I wish I hadn’t.

    She explained that most people she knows regret their Brexit vote, adding:

    Look at the country, it’s a disaster isn’t it?

    The UK is the only G7 economy that has not yet returned to its pre-pandemic size in gross domestic product. The UK government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that leaving the EU will reduce the size of the British economy by about 4% in the long run.

    Featured image by Unsplash/Rocco Dipoppa

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By The Canary

  • Trump to be allowed back on Facebook, announces Nick Clegg

    On 24 January, social media company Meta – formerly Facebook, Inc. – announced that it would soon reinstate Donald Trump’s accounts on Facebook and Instagram with “new guardrails”. He was banned two years ago over his involvement in the 2021 US Capitol insurrection.

    Facebook banned Trump a day after the January 6, 2021 uprising, when a mob of his supporters seeking to halt the certification of his election defeat to Joe Biden stormed the US Capitol in Washington. The former reality TV star had spent weeks falsely claiming that the presidential election was stolen from him. He was subsequently impeached for inciting the riot.

    Meta’s president of global affairs, none other than former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, stated that the company “will be reinstating Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in the coming weeks”. He added that the move would come with “new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses.”

    Going forward, Trump – who has already declared himself a 2024 presidential candidate – could be suspended for up to two years for each violation of platform policies, Clegg said.

    Overturning the ban

    In a letter asking for the ban to be overturned, Trump’s lawyer Scott Gast said last week that Meta had “dramatically distorted and inhibited the public discourse.”

    He asked for a meeting to discuss Trump’s “prompt reinstatement to the platform” of Facebook, where he had 34 million followers. Gast argued that Trump’s status as the leading contender for the Republican nomination in 2024 justified ending the ban.

    However, American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero pointed out that the reversal would likely be a double-edged sword:

    Like it or not, President Trump is one of the country’s leading political figures and the public has a strong interest in hearing his speech.

    Indeed, some of Trump’s most offensive social media posts ended up being critical evidence in lawsuits filed against him and his administration.

    The ACLU has filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump, according to Romero.

    Advocacy groups such as Media Matters for America, however, vehemently oppose allowing Trump to exploit Facebook’s social networking reach. President Angelo Carusone stated:

    Make no mistake — by allowing Donald Trump back on its platforms, Meta is refueling Trump’s misinformation and extremism engine.

    This not only will have an impact on Instagram and Facebook users, but it also presents intensified threats to civil society and an existential threat to United States democracy as a whole.

    Extremism engine

    A US congressional committee recommended in December that Trump be prosecuted for his role in the US Capitol assault.

    His Twitter account, which has 88 million followers, was also blocked after the riot. This left him communicating through Truth Social, where he has fewer than five million followers.

    Trump’s shock victory in 2016 was credited in part to his leverage of social media and his enormous digital reach.

    Andrew Selepak, a University of Florida professor specializing in social media, suggested that Facebook doesn’t want to go to war with Trump’s supporters in Congress, who are likely to protest if he were kept off the platform. Selepak tweeted:

    Trump needs the platform for fundraising and Facebook doesn’t want to be called before Congress.

    A group of Democrats in Congress last month urged Meta to extend the ban to keep “dangerous and unfounded election denial content off its platform.”

    New Twitter owner Elon Musk reinstated Trump’s account last November, days after Trump announced a fresh White House run. Trump has yet to post on Twitter.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/CBC News The National

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse (AFP)

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Scotland just became the first UK nation to effectively end fox hunting

    The Scottish government has passed the Hunting With Dogs (Scotland) Act. It’s a new anti-hunting law that seeks to fix the mistakes of existing legislation. So, for the first time anywhere in the UK it looks like it may end hunting, particularly fox hunting, as we know it.

    The end of hunting?

    On 24 January, MSPs voted on and passed the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill. The bill replaces the existing Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 with new legislation that explicitly seeks to:

    close loopholes… that have allowed the practice of illegal hunting to continue.

    Its passage comes more than six years after the Lord Bonomy review described the Protection of Wild Mammals Act as “unduly complicated” and stated that it led to illegal hunting continuing. The bill passed with 90 MSPs voting in favour and 30 against. Unsurprisingly, only Tories voted against it:

    The law will affect 10 fox hunts and one mink hunt based in Scotland. It will also affect hunts from elsewhere that travel to Scotland for joint meets. There is no word yet on when the legislation will come into force.

    Landmark victory

    The new law’s primary intention is to end hunting with packs of hounds, which is fundamental to traditional forms of hunting with these dogs. Instead, it places a limit of two hounds in most circumstances. The other key legislation in the bill is that it outlaws so-called ‘trail hunting’ completely. Trail hunting has taken root as a smokescreen for illegal hunting across England and Wales due to loopholes in those nations’ hunting legislation, the Hunting Act.

    Scotland’s environment minister Màiri McAllan, who also submitted the bill, said:

    This Bill represents a significant step forward in protecting Scotland’s wildlife from the cruel and senseless practice of illegal hunting.

    I am pleased that the Parliament has agreed on a new law which will close the door on the illegal chasing and killing of mammals once and for all.

    Hunt saboteurs also celebrated the news. Glasgow Hunt Sabs described the law as a “landmark victory”, while Scottish Borders Hunt Sabs said “common sense” prevailed. Meanwhile, the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA), which represents groups across the UK and internationally, described the moment as “historic”.

    Other Scottish wildlife organisations also welcomed the news. The League Against Cruel Sports Scotland said in a press release that the passing of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill is a “landmark moment”. OneKind echoed this comment, while the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) said the news was “fantastic”.

    Not everybody was happy with the outcome, of course. Jake Swindells of the Scottish Countryside Alliance, which functions as a lobby group for the hunting industry in Scotland, said the new law is “unjustified and unnecessary”.

    Concerns and conclusions

    As various organisations have highlighted, the new law creates an exception to the two-dog limit through a licensing scheme. Glasgow Hunt Sabs pointed out that this 14-day license is available once every six months, which would make it difficult to exploit. However, the two-dog limit itself, while contrary to traditional hunting with hounds, also doesn’t necessarily mean hunting can’t continue. Staghound packs in the southwest of England regularly use pairs of hounds in relay to chase and hunt deer. OneKind also highlighted the inclusion of a falconry exemption, enabling up to two dogs to flush an animal to a bird of prey. Some hunts in England exploit this loophole in the Hunting Act to continue hunting, although the two-dog limit will make this more difficult for Scottish hunts.

    However, as the chair of the HSA pointed out, if hunts do try and exploit the new law, sabs will still try to stop them:

    The passage of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill is an important moment. Traditional hunting with hounds as it has been practiced for hundreds of years will finish. Only time will reveal exactly how exactly the law plays out in the fields. However, it now places pressure on Westminster to follow suit and tie up myriad loopholes in the Hunting Act, including outlawing the sham of trail hunting.

    Featured image via the Scottish Parliament/YouTube screengrab

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Hundreds of asylum-seeking children are going missing from Home Office hotels

    Hundreds of child asylum seekers have been kidnapped from Home Office hotels, according to an investigation from the Observer. The Home Office had been warned by police that many of the children arrived without parents or guardians, and so were at risk from criminal networks. A whistleblower told the Observer:

    Children are literally being picked up from outside the building, disappearing and not being found. They’re being taken from the street by traffickers.

    The whistleblower also alleged that children have been trafficked from “a similar hotel run by the Home Office in Hythe, Kent”, estimating that 10% of its children disappear each week.

    When the story was first reported, it was thought that 136 children were missing from a Brighton hotel run by the Home Office. Now, Home Office minister Simon Murray has admitted that around 200 children are missing from hotels housing asylum seekers.

    Who’s responsible?

    When asked to comment on the allegations, Brighton and Hove city council directed the Observer’s investigators to the police. Sussex police, in turn, said that enquiries should go to the Home Office. The Home Office said:

    Local authorities have a statutory duty to protect all children, regardless of where they go missing from.

    Evidently, neither central government, local government, nor police forces are willing to take responsibility for this.

    Anti-trafficking social worker Lauren Starkey summed up the situation:

    Asylum seekers are housed in Home Office hotels while they wait to be processed. And, in fact, Labour MP for Hove Peter Kyle recounted an incident where children were at risk:

    Just last year Sussex Police pursued a car that had collected two children from outside this hotel.

    When they managed to get the car to safety they released two child migrants and they arrested one of the members who was driving it – who was a gang leader who was there to coerce the children into crime.

    Outrage

    A number of people took to social media to express their outrage. Unseen, a modern slavery charity, quoted the former commissioner of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commission calling for Home Office hotels to be abolished:

    Human rights charity Detention Action had to reiterate that children must be protected:

    Researcher Furaha Asani said:

    Nottingham East MP Nadia Whittome joined calls for an investigation:

    MP for Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas had some robust questions on how the Home Office even operates these hotels:

    Home Office failings

    It shouldn’t even be possible for one asylum-seeking child to go missing from Home Office custody. The fact that hundreds of children have gone missing, potentially to child traffickers, is a national travesty. It’s typical that the Home Office, local council, and Sussex police are passing the buck amongst themselves.

    Let’s be clear: these unaccompanied children have come to seek refuge in the UK. They have gone missing whilst in Home Office custody. They’re at risk of trafficking and being groomed into modern slavery. We must ask why this been allowed to happen?

    The Home Office has abandoned its duty of care to these children. In an increasingly hostile environment, asylum-seeking children are not safe here. These children have gone missing because they’re asylum seekers – they’re seen as disposable to traffickers and to the government. That alone has to be the biggest breach of our responsibility as a supposedly democratic and free society.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/The Independent

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • People in Bristol block the bailiffs from evicting a disabled man

    On 12 January, the ACORN Community Union successfully stopped an eviction in Bristol. Union members managed to physically block the bailiffs from entering a tenants’ home.

    Acorn tweeted:

    ACORN responded after housing association Sanctuary Housing called bailiffs on a disabled tenant over rent arrears.

    Luckily, the tenant – whose name is Adam – was a member of the union and called up his comrades, who were able to arrive before the bailiffs did.

    ACORN wrote:

    Our members turned up before the bailiff did and blocked the corridor to Adam’s flat. County court bailiffs are not authorised to use any force, which means that a group of us locking arms in front of a fellow member’s door can be enough to stop an eviction happening, and buy a member more time. In this case, the bailiff turned up, took one look, and called off the operation.

    Collective strength

    The union’s action has bought Adam valuable time. According to ACORN:

    This bought Adam more time, safe in his flat. It meant so much to him to see members pile in to stand with him. We win when we stand together!

    The Bristol branch tweeted that:

    There’s no better feeling than joining together with your community and using collective strength to fight for what’s right, and win

    People are struggling across the UK, as average rents increased last year by over 11%. People typically now spend almost half of their income on rent – so it’s no surprise people are struggling.

    As more and more people are facing eviction, we need to come together and organise with people in our community.

    ACORN are training people up in defending their members against evictions, so that successes like the one in Bristol can be repeated. Click here to find out where your local branch is.

    Featured image via Acorn Bristol (with permission), cropped to 770×403

    By Tom Anderson

  • Twitter sued over ‘unpaid rent’ on London office

    Twitter’s British landlord said today that it is taking the social media platform to court for not paying rent on its Central London offices.

    The Crown Estate (CE), a company that manages land and property belonging to the monarchy, said it has launched legal action at the High Court for rental arrears on an office space close to Piccadilly Circus. A representative said that it had contacted Twitter previously, and is currently in discussions with the company.

    The CE owns more than 2.6 million square feet (241,550 square metres) of office space in Central London, and its commercial income goes to the Treasury. The king receives an annual allowance of 15% of its profits called the Sovereign Grant.

    The signs are down…

    Twitter’s London office is in a complex on Air Street called Air W1. The Daily Telegraph reported that Twitter’s signs and logos have been removed. However, a member of staff said the company was still present there. Twitter UK began using this office in 2014, according to Companies House, which gives this as its registered address.

    The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that the landlord of Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters has also sued the company for allegedly failing to pay almost $6.8m in rent for December and January.

    … And nobody’s home

    Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, bought Twitter for $44bn (£35bn) in October last year. He sacked half of the staff and reportedly stopped paying rent for office space, having taken on massive debt to buy the company.

    CNBC reported that:

    • Internal records show that Twitter has shed about 80% of its employees since Elon Musk took over and headcount is hovering around 1,300 working employees today.
    • With fewer than 550 full-time engineers now, one former Twitter engineer says the remaining team will be spread thin, and will likely have a hard time maintaining the service while adding new features.

    The massive lay-offs place particular stress on workers who are on visas in the US. They have been faced with a choice to endure increasingly stressful work conditions or lose their visas.

    David Gray Widder, a researcher of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, said of the subject:

    I really feel bad for the people who are aghast at the way Musk has been managing the company but perhaps feel unable to raise their concerns, because they’ve seen what has happened when people do that before—they get unceremoniously fired… Or feel like if they did raise their concerns, they might be let go and they have reasons why they can’t afford to have that happen. They have a mortgage to pay, kids to feed, dependents with health care needs that they need to keep their insurance or a visa status to protect them. These are all examples of ways in which software engineers, despite being powerful in the scheme of work, generally still might be in a difficult situation.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured Image via Wikimedia Commons/Ministério Das Comunicações, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Armed police conduct ‘largest ever’ operation against fox hunters

    Armed officers from Kent Police executed warrants on properties across the county on 18 January in conjunction with the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). All of the houses were connected to terriermen from the East Kent with West Street Hunt. The raids came just days after saboteurs filmed the hunt’s hounds killing a fox.

    ‘Nothing prepared me for the brutality in fox hunting’

    On 14 January, West Kent Hunt Saboteurs published a video showing members of its group wading into a pack of hounds and recovering the body of a fox. A saboteur lifts the body and shows the fox has been disembowelled. The footage clearly shows an intestine hanging out.

    Carly Ahlen, who filmed the video, said:

    Working in wildlife rescue, I see a lot of tragic accidents and injuries, but nothing could of prepared me for the brutality involved in fox hunting.

    [The fox] was still alive as the hounds pulled her intestines out. This isn’t a fast nip to the neck and a fast death, she died due to profound trauma by multiple dog bites.

    The incident occurred while the West Kent Hunt Saboteurs were at a meet of the East Kent with West Street Hunt near Westmarsh. The group said that earlier the same day, huntsman Matthew Vater had ridden into its members with his horse. Footage it published on Facebook shows a saboteur trying to back away as a rider repeatedly attempts to knock into them with his horse.

    Just a few days later, on 18 January, the sab group was back out with the same hunt when it posted:

    BREAKING NEWS – EAST KENT HUNT TERRIER MEN HOUSE RAIDED BY THE RSPCA & ARMED POLICE

    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.

    It turned out that the West Kent Hunt Saboteurs’ post was the first public news of what is likely the biggest anti-hunting operation carried out by police to date.

    Armed raids across the country

    On 20 January, local paper KentOnline reported that police, in conjunction with the RSPCA, had arrested four men for alleged wildlife and animal welfare offences. The arrests took place following raids on homes in Canterbury and near Folkestone during the morning of 18 January. In addition to the arrests, police also recovered a total of ten terriers and lurchers. The dogs were then placed into care with the RSPCA. KentOnline quoted an RSPCA spokesperson saying Kent Police also seized “other supporting evidence”.

    Then, on 22 January, ITV News reported that the raids in Kent were, in fact, not the only warrants police had executed on 18 January:

    a series of dawn raids have been simultaneously conducted by police and RSPCA officers across the country, both at hunt kennels and homes belonging to those who use dogs for hunting.

    Led by the animal welfare charity and supported by police from Kent, Norfolk, Sussex and Thames Valley, six men have been questioned by police and 22 dogs seized and removed from where they had been living.

    ITV News understands that those questioned by police are suspected to be involved in terrier work for fox hunts.

    The article described the co-ordinated raids as the “largest ever criminal investigation in the UK associated with fox hunting”. And, crucially, it said that the “other supporting evidence” previously mentioned by the RSPCA included mobile phones.

    The mobile phone

    On 6 December 2022, Ollie Finnegan pleaded guilty to illegal hunting at Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court. Police originally arrested Finnegan, at the time huntsman for the Quorn Hunt, on 7 January 2022 during a joint meet with the Ledbury Hunt. Following his arrest, Gloucestershire Police seized Finnegan’s mobile phone.

    As anti-hunting organisation Protect the Wild detailed, police found a trove of damning messages on the phone. These included messages sent on the same day that he was arrested stating that he’d “found a brace” of foxes, with one going to ground. Further messages dating back up to two years before his arrest contained further evidence of illegal hunting. Protect the Wild pointed out that the messages:

    show clearly what hunt staff will openly brag about when they think they’re having a private conversation.

    Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court fined Finnegan £656 following his guilty plea.

    What made Finnegan’s case unique is that it’s the first time phone messages led to a conviction of a huntsman under the Hunting Act. And it may have opened the floodgates for legal cases against hunts.

    ‘Evidence storage devices’

    The seizure of similar devices by Kent and other police on 18 January is a significant move against hunting. The investigation has only just opened, so we don’t yet know what if anything police will find on the phones. However, as reporter Rupert Evelyn (who wrote the ITV News article on the England-wide raids on terriermen) said, mobile phones:

    have proved to be very effective evidence storage devices.

    After hounds from the East Kent with West Street Hunt allegedly killed a fox on 14 January, West Kent Hunt Saboteurs suggested that terriermen may have played a role. As Protect the Wild reported, the sab group said the hunt’s terriermen were near the hounds as they attacked the fox. That is despite the terriermen having been absent for much of the day. The sab group suggested the terriermen may have released a ‘bagged fox’, which is literally when members of a hunt release a fox from a bag for the sake of hunting.

    Police raids couldn’t have come at a worse time for the East Kent with West Street Hunt. West Kent Hunt Saboteurs said on 22 January that:

    We can’t wait to learn what was on their phones!

    And neither can we at the Canary.

    Featured image via West Kent Hunt Saboteurs

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Dartmoor ruling is the wake-up call we all needed

    More than 3,000 people marched on Dartmoor on Saturday 21 January in a show of defiance against a high court ruling which ended the right to wild camp on the moor. People travelled from all over the country to join one of the largest land rights protests in recent history.

    Dartmoor had been the only location where wild camping was still legal in England. A case brought by hedge fund manager Alexander Darwall, who owns land on Dartmoor, overturned this right. Darwall deployed private security guards to surround the entrances of his home as protesters marched past. The crowd continued up onto Stall Moor, an area of Dartmoor owned by Darwall himself.

    Igniting a spark

    The ruling has done exactly what Darwall won’t have wanted it to do: it has sparked outrage across the country over land rights, and is likely to be a catalyst for an even bigger movement to come.

    Kim Turner travelled all the way from Brighton to join the march. She is part of Landscapes of Freedom, a group which takes action to fight for our right to roam. She told The Canary:

    Dartmoor called and we answered. This was the physical embodiment of our collective love for Dartmoor, for hiking, for being in nature & of course, for our right to wild camp. Contrary to the age-worn, neo-feudal arguments of wealthy landowners, we are the folk who love the land. We respect it. We marvel at it, in it. Nature nurtures.

    And continued:

    Our shared response to this modern enclosure flowed up onto Stall Moor, where our hearts beat as one in the biggest land rights protest most of us have witnessed.

    Adding insult to injury

    After the high court ruling, a ‘compromise’ was reached between Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) and the moor’s landowners. Under the new agreement, the DNPA will pay the landowners to open up parts of their estates for wild camping, transferring funds needed elsewhere into the hands of millionaires. Landowners can take away their permission at any time, and the amount of land we will have access to will be much smaller.

    For those of us who believe it is a most basic right to be able to roam freely and wild camp, this new deal adds insult to injury. The entitlement of Darwall and his cronies is breathtaking; they think nothing of forcing us to seek their permission to camp on the land, and they expect us to bow to their demands.

    The Canary spoke to Sam, a local from Exeter, who joined the protest. Sam regularly wild camps on Dartmoor. He said:

    For me, to be able to camp in the wild, in nothing but nature only a short distance from where I live, is priceless. And I’ll continue to do so because I won’t let greed try and take this right away from me, us.

    Indeed, the day after the protest, Sam took his tent and wild camped on the moor:

    Dartmoor wild camping
    Many of us will continue to wild camp on Dartmoor, despite the ruling. Photo courtesy of Sam.

     

    A class issue

    The Dartmoor ruling is, of course, an attack on those of us who are working class, who are looked upon with disgust if we have the audacity to leave our urban areas and enjoy time in nature. We saw this contempt for us during the Covid lockdowns of 2020, when travel was restricted and we came to Dartmoor to wild camp. Instead of being made to feel welcome, we were demonised by those with more money, as well as by the mainstream media. News about tents being left on the moor made national headlines. DNPA itself contributed to this demonisation by temporarily banning wild camping.

    In May 2022, I wrote:

    Instead of appreciating that the pandemic was an exceptional period in history, and instead of posing the obvious question as to why there aren’t more spots where we can freely camp to take pressure off Dartmoor, the DNPA began a consultation on new by-laws that would restrict public camping for good.

    This nationwide demonisation of outsiders littering our beautiful moorland does, of course, play right into the land-owning elite’s hands. It suits them to portray us as incapable of looking after nature. If enough people believe that, then they won’t have to truly consider giving us the right to roam our countryside.

    Jo, a local from Torbay, also argued that this is very much a class issue. She joined the 3,000-strong march, and told the Canary:

    At a time when everything is being privatised, people in working class towns are unable to access good mental health support or care. Access to nature is, then, vital for good mental health. We have been forced out of not just the housing market, but also our home towns because of second homes and richer people moving into the area. We’re not going to be forced off our land as well.

    Dartmoor protest

    The start of a greater movement

    Despite its terrible implications for our access to land in England, the Dartmoor ruling is the wake-up call that many people needed. Jo said:

    This case has brought the unfairness of land ownership to the attention of a wider range of people. More and more people are becoming aware of how little we’re able to access the countryside, and we’re not just going to stop at getting the right to camp on Dartmoor back.

    A series of mass–trespasses in 2021 and 2022, organised by both the Right to Roam campaign and Landscapes of Freedom, previously contributed to a growing collective consciousness. The trespasses drew attention to the fact that we only have the right to roam on 8% of England’s land. 92% is out-of-bounds to the public, and you’ll be trespassing if you even set foot on it.

    These trespasses mobilised roughly 300 people at a time, and the Dartmoor ruling has enraged thousands more, spurring them to make their voices heard. Indeed, the numbers marching on Dartmoor at the weekend were more than that of the famous 1932 mass-trespass on Kinder Scout.

    Sam said:

    This is just the start of a bigger movement. I’m seeing people getting involved, not just marching, but talking about Dartmoor, sharing posts about it on social media. Before this I wouldn’t have known that they had any interest. This shows just how much people care.

    Kim said:

    This has become a catalyst for the flourishing Right to Roam movement. This is just the beginning and we will not stop til our rights are reclaimed.

    So, in his contempt for the masses, Darwall might have unwittingly unleashed the biggest land rights movement this generation has ever seen.

    Featured images via Eliza Egret

    By Eliza Egret

  • Daily Mail attacks benefits Britain with one of its biggest manipulations of facts yet

    Right-wing shitrag the Daily Mail is back to attacking benefits again. It’s been screeching about “something for nothing Britain”, as a report by a shady think tank based at 55 Tufton Street claims that over half of households get more in benefits than they pay in tax. However, it takes around five minutes to debunk this nonsense – especially considering the Daily Mail is actually attacking part of its core audience in the process.

    Daily Mail: screaming about benefits again

    The Daily Mail‘s front page on Monday 23 January screamed:

    SHOCKING RISE OF ‘SOMETHING FOR NOTHING BRITAIN’

    The article claimed that:

    For the first time, more than half of households – 36 million people – get more from the Government than they pay in tax, according to a study by Civitas. But this definition includes the amount individuals receive from ‘benefits in kind’, such as use of the NHS and state education.

    This is up from 24 million, or two-fifths of households, when Tony Blair was in power at the turn of the millennium.

    Further to this, the Daily Mail went on the attack against several groups of people. It singled out:

    the poorest fifth of households [which] receive £17,600 more on average in welfare and non-financial benefits from the State than they pay in tax.

    The article also went after the:

    1.9 million over 50s receiving out of work benefits in May 2022 – a rise of 300,000 compared to pre-pandemic levels.

    So, clearly benefits scroungers and cheats, and lazy older people, are causing all the UK’s problems, right? No, it’s obviously wrong.

    Some dubious figures from Civitas

    The think tank Civitas produced the report. A brief glance at it shows why the Daily Mail claims the poorest fifth of people get more in benefits than they pay in tax. This is because the Civitas report says they get the most “benefits in kind”, such as the NHS and education. However, this group gets less in actual DWP benefits than the second poorest fifth of people:

    Daily Mail Civitas Benefits report one

    So, what are these “benefits in kind” that the Daily Mail and Civitas object to poor people getting so much of? Well, the report gets its data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Its figures show that actually, the poorest fifth of people don’t get as much of some benefits in kind as the richest. For example, they get the most from state education (obviously because they can’t afford to pay private fees). Then, everyone gets similar in terms of the NHS – except the richest, who get less probably because a lot of their healthcare is private. However, rich people are also getting state bungs like subsidised rail travel. Moreover, the poorest people actually get the second-smallest amount in adult social care:

    ONS figures about benefits in kind

    Demonstrable nonsense?

    The Daily Mail also stated that Civitas alleges that the richest people are also bearing the “cost of the nation’s massive reliance on the State”. Again, this is demonstrable nonsense. The richest fifth of people pay what they should in ‘direct taxes‘ (income tax, national insurance, etc). However, when you look at ‘indirect taxes’ like VAT, the poorest fifth of people pay vastly more than the richest, with effective tax rates of 19.49% for the poorest versus 6.35% for the richest. Also, the Civitas report is forced to admit that the effective direct tax rate for Council Tax is highest for the poorest people:

    Daily Mail Civitas report into benefits image two

     

    What the Daily Mail claims is a “shocking rise in something for nothing Britain” isn’t as straightforward as it makes out. Moreover, aside from the pseudo-analysis, there are simple explanations as to why people now get more in the Daily Mail‘s so-called “benefits” than they pay in tax. For example:

    So, the Daily Mail‘s coverage is utterly manipulative. However, if we take a brief look at Civitas, it’s easy to work out why its research is so dire.

    55 Tufton Street’s tentacles

    The think tank is based out of 55 Tufton Street. Yes, this is the same address that also hosts the dodgy Institute of Economic Affairs. In 2022, openDemocracy gave Civitas its worst rating for transparency of funding. This hasn’t changed since 2017, when DeSmog wrote that:

    Transparify gave Civitas a “highly opaque” zero-star rating this year, having previously been in the two-star category. This was mainly due to its funding information being out of date.

    Civitas has previously published work by John Constable, who is now on the academic advisory board of climate science denying think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

    Civitas started its life as part of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), becoming an independent think tank in 2000. The IEA‘s founder, Antony Fisher, was part of the Mont Pelerin Society, founded by economist Freidrich von Hayek in 1947 to promote libertarian free market ideas.

    Civitas pushing the idea that the state spending – including social security, and public service ‘in-kind benefits’ – was too high is unsurprising, given its free market credentials. Then, the Daily Mail pushed this without question, even attacking part of its core reader-base: right-wing pensioners.

    Cut, cut and cut again

    To top off the Daily Mail‘s ‘something for nothing’ lie, it quotes former DWP boss and architect of Universal Credit Iain Duncan Smith as saying:

    Lockdown changed the psyche of the British people.

    For all those years, we told them you can’t get something for nothing, and all of sudden they did. The British public thought the Government could do it all – even pay their salaries and they don’t have to work.

    In reality, successive governments have cut real-terms public spending and slashed people’s social security, while wages have barely gone up at all. The Daily Mail is simply laying cover for years of Tory decimation of public services – and likely signalling more of the same to come. The British people don’t expect something for nothing – many of them are literally struggling to survive under our toxic, corporate capitalist system.

    Featured image via R4vi – Wikimedia, cropped to 770×403 under licence CC BY-SA 2.0 and Neil Henderson – screengrab/Twitter

    By Steve Topple

  • UK government is likely overreaching in Section 35 intervention

    On 17 January, the UK government released the list of its stated reasons for using veto powers against the Scottish parliament. The unprecedented move blocked the new Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill, which would otherwise remove requirements for gender dysphoria diagnosis in order to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

    The choice to activate the Section 35 powers was voted in by 318 Westminster MPs to 71, with all but 11 Labour MPs abstaining. This is the first time the provisions it sets out have ever been exercised in the history of Scotland’s devolution. At a time when the union between Scotland and the rest of the UK has rarely been more fraught, the veto is likely to be taken as an unacceptable overreach from London.

    Holyrood is free to mount a legal challenge against the use of Section 35. First minister Nicola Sturgeon has already indicated that she intends to do so:

    What I can say in general is that we will absolutely, robustly and rigorously and with a very, very, very high degree of confidence, defend the legislation.

    Here, the Canary presents part one of a breakdown of Westminster’s reasoning behind the use of the never-before-exercised powers.  This comes against a backdrop of increasingly vehement transphobia from across the British government – and the very makeup of the United Kingdom could be at stake.

    Section 35: a veto

    Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act essentially functions as a veto power for the Scottish secretary – currently Alister Jack:

    The power is exercised through a negative statutory instrument presented to the UK Parliament, which would provide a legal instruction to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament not to present a bill to the King for Royal Assent. This would mean that although the Scottish Parliament has passed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, it would not become law.

    The powers are intended as a “matter of last resort”. The conditions for their use are quite exacting:

    Section 35 can be used in two different situations, where the Scottish Secretary has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a Holyrood bill:

    • would be incompatible with the UK’s international obligations or not in the interests of national defence

    or

    • would modify the law on reserved matters in such a way as to have an “adverse effect” on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters.

    Here, the phrasing “reasonable grounds to believe” is important. It does not have to be the case that the veto is a proportionate reaction from Westminster, for example. Instead, it only matters that the Scottish secretary has good reason to believe there would be adverse effects from passing the GRR Bill to king’s assent. This is called ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’.

    Application to reserved matters

    The UK government’s policy paper on its use of Section 35 is arranged into four sections. The first is a statement of the effects of the GRR Bill itself, and the three subsequent sections group together the reasons for the use of the powers. The first of these clusters of reasons pertains to the Bills possible effect on reserved matters.

    A reserved matter is an aspect of law which can only be decided by the UK government as a whole. These usually have an international scope, or affect the UK itself as a whole. They contrast with devolved matters, which Scottish parliament is free to determine. The most obvious example of a reserved matter that self-ID in Scotland might impact upon is equal opportunities law.

    The GRR Bill itself states plainly that it does not affect the 2010 Equality Act (EA), which is the mainstay of our equal opportunities provisions. However, the UK policy document seeks to circumvent this statement by pointing to impacted laws which would in turn affect the 2010 Act. It argued that the Bill “modifies the 2004 Act” (i.e. the Gender Recognition Act, GRA), and therefore:

    The reserved matter to which that law applies is (at least primarily) “equal opportunities”.

    And further:

    The modified law (the 2004 Act) applies to the reserved matter (equal opportunities) through its inter-relationship with the Equality Act 2010 (the 2010 Act).

    Westminster stated that the EA 2010 was “carefully drafted” in light of the fact that the GRA changes one’s legal sex “for all purposes”. As such, the GRR Bill would alter the “careful balance” of the limits of the GRA.

    Different GRC regimes across the UK

    The next section of the policy document works from the assumption that a Scottish Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) would not be legally recognised in the rest of the UK. This is based on the fact that it is beyond the legislative competence of Scottish parliament to require that the GRCs issued under its own requirements are recognised in the rest of the UK.

    Westminster argued that:

    It is highly problematic both in principle and practically for a citizen of the UK to have a different gender, and legal sex (including for the purposes of the 2010 Act), depending upon where they happen to be within the UK, and which system of law applies to them. 

    It could, however, be pointed out that the UK has previously had matters of equal opportunity that are recognised unequally between different member countries.

    For example, same-sex marriage was legalised in the UK in 2014, whereas it only became legally recognised in the North of Ireland in 2020. Before that point, it was possible for a gay couple to be married in London, only for their marriage not to be considered valid in Derry, for example.

    Sex-segregated spaces

    The policy document also argued that single-sex clubs or associations might be jeopardised. It contended that it would be problematic that:

    a UK wide, single-sex club or association could have different membership in different parts of the UK

    This, however, may neglect the fact that the EA already makes exceptions for the exclusion of GRC holders from sex-segregated spaces. The 2010 Act:

    provisions for sex-segregated services, competitive sports and occupational requirements allow for the exclusion of people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, where their exclusion can be objectively justified. Anyone holding a GRC would be protected by the characteristic of gender reassignment, but this is not reliant on having a GRC.

    With this exemption already in place, where justified, the UK government may struggle to build an argument from the need to protect sex-segregation.

    To be continued

    So, we’ve now examined the potential impact on broader equality law, seen an example of the previous existence of differing status across borders, and considered sex-segregated spaces. It is potentially possible that Westminster is mistaken in its reasoning for the use of Section 35. This would in turn be proof of the UK government’s overreach, with potentially disastrous consequences for the union. It also adds to the growing list of openly trans-hostile actions taken by the UK government.

    Part two of this analysis will deal with the remainder of the policy document. This features the potential impact on IT infrastructure, taxes and pensions; further impacts on the EA, such as for equal pay; and any new issues arising.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Matthew Ross, licensed under Public Domain use, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • UK plan to rip up thousands of laws gets green light in House of Commons

    The Conservative government’s bill that could rip up thousands of retained EU laws passed its latest reading in the House of Commons on 18 January. If successful, the legislation would put power in the hands of ministers to do away with thousands of regulations and safeguards related to the environment and more.

    Repeal bill passes to next stage

    The retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill passed its report and third reading stages in the Commons. The legislation promises to sunset any retained EU laws that the government chooses not to preserve by the end of 2023.

    There are at least hundreds – if not thousands – of environmental regulations among the retained EU laws that are at risk. The legislation could affect standards in a number of other areas too, such as workers rights and food safety.

    In all, the bill risks the sunsetting of around 4,000 laws by the end of 2023, according to the Guardian, unless ministers actively choose to preserve them.

    Some MPs proposed amendments to the bill, in order to empower parliament to scrutinise the repeals and safeguard key legislation. These were “comfortably defeated”, Politico reported.

    297 MPs voted for the bill and 238 against during the session on 18 January. That means it passed and is now in the hands of the House of Lords.

    A costly, dangerous and undemocratic plan

    As the Canary reported, the Wildlife and Countryside Link recently released analysis that indicated the repeal of environment-related laws could ultimately cost the UK around £82bn over 30 years. Link is a coalition of environmental organisations from across England.

    The £82bn price tag relates to damage that the removal or weakening of regulations in four environmental areas could lead to, namely air quality, water pollution, chemical regulations and protection of wildlife habitats. Its CEO Dr Richard Benwell warned:

    Prevention of air and water pollution, protection of precious wildlife and habitats, precautions against hazardous chemical use – they are all put at risk by the Retained EU Law Bill. If long-standing protection for nature is removed or weakened, the economic consequences could run into the billions.

    Labour MP Stella Creasy, who proposed the amendment on parliamentary scrutiny of the repeals, also told the Guardian that:

    The consequences of accidentally deleting laws that affect people’s lives are huge. This bill represents a massive opportunity for a cock up, as a minister will hit the delete button on something they wouldn’t realise they have deleted.

    Some Conservative MPs have raised concerns over the legislation too, including former Brexit secretary David Davis. Green MP Caroline Lucas, meanwhile, shared her thoughts on social media after the commons vote. She described the legislation as “reckless, costly & anti-democratic”.

    Some members of the lords will undoubtedly raise similar concerns as it passes through various stages in that house. The date of the first lords debate is yet to be decided.

    Featured image via Hartmut Schmidt Heidelberg / Wikimedia, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Four Met police officers under investigation for strip-searching a child

    This article includes a recounting of self-harm and discussion of suicide.

    The police watchdog is investigating four Met police officers who strip-searched a 15-year-old dual heritage autistic girl. The incident happened in the same month that cops also forcibly strip-searched Child Q. However, these two incidents are characteristic of the Met police’s institutionalised abuse of its power.

    Met police: more abuse of children

    BBC News previously reported on the case of Olivia (her name has been changed) after police strip-searched her in Kennington in December 2020. As it wrote, her mother Lisa (again, her name has been changed) described:

    Olivia had been out with some friends when they had an argument with two boys, who called the police and alleged they were the victims of an attempted knife-point robbery. She was searched by police at the scene and nothing was discovered. Olivia and her friends were then arrested.

    At the time, Lisa was isolating with Covid-19, but says she spoke to the police on the phone and told them about her daughter’s autism and learning difficulties, and warned them she had been self-harming.

    Her mum says Olivia handed over a small blade used for self-harming to police. Then, after spending more than 20 hours in custody, she was told she could have a shower.

    A sharpened stick – also used for self-harming – fell from her clothing as she changed. Lisa says it was at that point six officers handcuffed Olivia, forcibly stripped her and carried out an intimate search in the presence of male officers.

    As the Canary‘s Maryam Jameela previously wrote, the police’s violation of Olivia happened in the same month that officers’ forcibly strip-searched Child Q. She noted that:

    It bears repeating that Olivia is a vulnerable child who was in a distressed state. Why the police thought it acceptable to seize her and strip search her is beyond comprehension. Olivia’s mum also said that:

    “Olivia was actually on her period at the time too. And they cut off her underwear in front of these grown male officers. She was absolutely distraught”.

    In the time since she was strip searched, Olivia has continued to self-harm and has also attempted suicide.

    Now, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating the Met police.

    IOPC investigating

    BBC News reported that the IOPC told it:

    We can confirm that four Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officers have been served misconduct notices as part of our ongoing investigation,” the spokesperson said.

    A police sergeant and three police constables have been served notices in relation to the arrest and detention of the child, who was strip-searched by MPS officers.

    However, the IOPC also noted:

    The serving of misconduct notices does not necessarily mean disciplinary proceedings will follow. Due to the sensitivities surrounding this matter, we cannot provide any further information at this time.”

    The Met: broken beyond repair

    Jameela wrote how police forces, notably the Met police, have an institutionalised problem with the abuse of, and prejudice against, autistic people. Then, she noted how the police are also institutionally racist, too. Magazine the Justice Gap noted that between 2017-2021 police have strip searched approximately 50 children a week. It also noted that the BBC said:

    two-thirds of children who had been strip searched by the Met over the past three years were from ethnically diverse backgrounds… 78 girls were strip-searched in London police stations last year – 32 were black or mixed race.

    All this comes as former Met police officer David Carrick admitted to dozens of rapes and sexual assaults – underscoring that that the force is also institutionally misogynistic and violent against women. As Jameela previously wrote:

    We can’t rely on the police investigating themselves – we have to rely on each other. It’s now more important than ever to observe the police in public.

    With forces like the Met broken beyond repair the calls for government defunding of the police will likely grow louder. However, it would be easy to forget that actually, police forces are operating how the state intends them to – with structural violence, and institutional racism and misogyny all crucial for the functioning of the corporate capitalist system. It’s all to easy to forget this, and the actual horror of police abuses of power, when their crimes are institutionalised to such an extent. For the survivors of police violence, there is no forgetting, though – therefore, nor must anyone else.

    Featured image via Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona – Unsplash

    By Steve Topple

  • The DWP could face a second inquest into a benefit claimant’s death

    Content warning – this article contains discussion around suicide and suicidal ideation 

    The mother of a benefit claimant who took her own life after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) stopped her money may yet get more answers over her daughter’s death. This is because the Court of Appeal has given her the chance to challenge another court’s decision not to hold a second inquest into her passing. This further DWP court case means that more may come to light about the department’s role in what happened. People will be holding a vigil outside the court on the day the appeal starts.

    Jodey Whiting: failed by the DWP

    The Canary has documented what happened to Jodey Whiting and her mother Joy Dove’s fight for justice. Jodey was 42 when she took her own life on 21 February 2017. This happened after the DWP stopped her benefits – giving her her last payment three days before she died. It’s actions were despite Jodey being chronically ill and disabled – at times physically having restricted mobility and also living with severe psychological distress, to the point of having suicidal ideations.

    Previously, an independent government body ruled the DWP had failed Jodey repeatedly – especially in terms of safeguarding. However, all it did was force the DWP to pay compensation to Jodey’s family. No-one has ever examined the department’s role in her death properly – not even the coroner in Jodey’s first inquest.

    So, her mother Joy has been fighting for the truth ever since. She’s represented by Leigh Day solicitors. Three years ago, the Canary reported that Leigh Day noted in Jodey’s case that the DWP made repeated failings. It:

    • Failed to arrange a home visit for Whiting for her Work Capability Assessment (WCA). Instead, it arranged an appointment at an assessment centre. This was despite Whiting’s request for an assessment at home because she “rarely left the house due to her health”.
    • Did not take into consideration Whiting making it aware that she lived with “suicidal thoughts a lot of the time and could not cope with work or looking for work”.
    • Stopped Whiting’s Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) payments after she did not attend the WCA.
    • Did not complete a Mandatory Reconsideration of its decision to stop Whiting’s ESA until after her death.

    At the time, Joy had written to the government asking for a new inquest into Jodey’s death – specifically to look at the DWP’s actions. Her case then ended up in the High Court.

    Challenging the system

    In September 2021, three High Court judges ruled against a second inquest into Jodey’s death. They claimed this would “not be in the pubic interest” – saying the DWP’s role in her death was ‘speculative’. So, Joy challenged the High Court and appealed its decision. It refused to hear it – so she went to the Court of Appeal. It, however, granted Joy an appeal – and the court will now hear it on Tuesday 31 January. Campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) will be taking action. It said in a statement:

    DPAC will be in solidarity with Joy Dove, mother of Jodey Whiting, for a silent vigil outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the morning of the first day of the appeal against the Court’s ruling against a second inquest into Jodey’s death.

    Join us from 9.15 – 10am on Tuesday 31st January outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

    Please wear dark clothes and bring a white flower. Please do not bring campaign banners at Joy’s request. We will have some photos of Jodey to hold.

    As Disability News Service (DNS) reported, Joy said she imagined that Jodey “has a big smile on her face”, knowing that the DWP may be nearer to facing justice over her death. If the Court of Appeal grants a second inquest, it may also serve as the beginnings of justice for the countless other people who have died on the watch of a department which was supposedly there to support them. Moreover, it’s another DWP court case to add to a growing list of them – with each one serving as another exposé of its failings.

    Featured image via StevovoB – pixabay and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A Tory MP tried to use one of his staff to make a point about living standards and it fell flat

    Tory MP Lee Anderson is not known as the sharpest tool in the box. But his latest hot take on wages and the cost of living must be a classic in the genre. Anderson tried to use a member of his staff to highlight how personal money management, rather than grim economic reality, was the key issue today.

    He appeared to be following up on his support of the rather bizarre claim that nurses who use foodbanks should budget better.

    His initial tweet featured his employee, Katy. Anderson listed her financials because, he said, her circumstances made his point “pretty well”:

    But Twitter was not entirely in agreement. Before long, Anderson’s grandiose tweet was being mimicked using dogs, frogs, and fantasy characters. The backlash included the suggestion that Tory staffers were not generally salt-of-the-earth, working-class people:

    There was also a play on The Muppet Christmas Carol, on account of Anderson’s Scrooge-like pronouncements:

    Nourish thy steed

    Someone even made a parody about an elf who could afford to nourish his steed through careful budgeting:

    A science-fiction android found its way into the discourse. One supposes she must save quite a bit on food bills by not having to eat:

    And someone’s dog also made an appearance. Laddie, a single labrador from Glasgow, has managed to find free rent. One imagines this is in return for being a Very Good Boy. He’s found no need to use a foodbank so far:

    Buffoonery

    Anderson’s latest rant is no surprise. He is an arch-Tory whose favourite pastimes include blogging negatively about travellers. What he embodies is the true Nasty Party spirit. For such people, the UK’s grim economic reality always boils down to blaming the victims of capitalism for their own situation.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/David Woolfall, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY 3.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Fury as only 11 Labour MPs vote to block Section 35 trigger

    On Tuesday 17 January, the UK parliament held its vote on whether to use Section 35 powers to block Scotland’s new self-ID legislation. The motion to use the unprecedented veto passed by 318 to 71.

    What is Section 35?

    In essence, the never-before-used Section 35 is a veto power for the Scottish secretary of state:

    The power is exercised through a negative statutory instrument presented to the UK Parliament, which would provide a legal instruction to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament not to present a bill to the King for Royal Assent. This would mean that although the Scottish Parliament has passed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, it would not become law.

    The veto has been called a “matter of last resort”. The criteria for its use are exacting:

    Section 35 can be used in two different situations, where the Scottish Secretary has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a Holyrood bill:

    • would be incompatible with the UK’s international obligations or not in the interests of national defence

    or

    • would modify the law on reserved matters in such a way as to have an “adverse effect” on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters.

    The Gender Recognition Reform Bill (GRR) would make it easier for trans people north of the border to acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). Whilst a GRC is not a requirement for a trans person to live their day-to-day life, it does affect things like updating birth certificates and getting married.

    Labour abstains

    Whilst nobody was surprised that the increasingly anti-LGBTQ+ Tory party voted overwhelmingly to use Section 35, they weren’t the focus of the ire on social media. Instead, commenters were shocked that just 11 Labour MPs voted to oppose the motion:

    Scottish Greens councillor Anthony Caroll called out the cowardice of Keir Starmer’s Labour when it comes to trans issues:

    Have some Pride

    People were also quick to point out the hypocrisy of the fact that Labour MPs, including Starmer himself, marched in last year’s Pride parades. They were happy to turn up for the photo opportunity, and notably absent when the trans community needed a show of solidarity.

    Some commenters made it clear that Labour wouldn’t be welcome at a march again:

    And others echoed the sentiment with a little less decorum:

    Where were you?

    The conversation quickly turned to some questions around the notable absence of familiar names. There were suggestions that some MPs had been paired:

    Pairing is an arrangement between two MPs of opposing parties to not vote in a particular division. This enables an MP to be absent without affecting the result of the vote as they effectively cancel each other out.

    This was apparently the case for Jeremy Corbyn:

    Angela Eagle also offered a note on her absence:

    However, she did sign a cross-party letter warning the government against their current hostility towards trans people:

    The letter itself began:

    This move, although one we appreciate has not been taken lightly, will bring with it significant ramifications of a social, legal and political nature. We are deeply concerned that the government’s course of action risks further politicising the very real struggles of the trans community and placing their identities and lives at the centre of a constitutional crisis.

    Meanwhile, on the other side of the trenches, nobody was shocked at Rosie Duffield’s performance in the debate:

    There were even calls for her to defect and have done with it:

    On the fence

    This vote was the latest entry in the logbook of Starmer’s well-documented Tory-lite centrism:

    Under Starmer, the Labour party have ceased to function as representatives for working classes, unions, or marginalised people in any real way. Through his inaction, Starmer has allowed the Tories to use powers that threaten the union of the UK, almost completely unopposed by our nominal ‘opposition party’. All this, just to prevent what is ultimately a minor legislative change affecting less than 0.5% of the population.

    Featured image via Youtube screenshot/Sky News

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP refuses to publish “secret benefit death reviews”

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is challenging an independent media outlet over its request for the department to release “secret benefit deaths reviews“. To do this, the DWP is also taking on an independent government body. It’s little wonder the department is trying to suppress the reports and their recommendations. This is because they are likely to expose the DWP’s systemic failings and negligence towards benefit claimants.

    DWP: benefits death reviews

    As the Canary previously reported, for several years John Pring at Disability News Service (DNS) has been investigating DWP internal process reviews (IPRs). They are:

    local DWP investigations which take place when a claimant takes their own life. They also happen when a vulnerable claimant complains to the DWP.

    The department started them in 2012 – but it never publishes the results or the recommendations. As the Canary previously wrote, the DWP has:

    even admitted to destroying some of the reports. And while it has launched a Serious Case Review panel to monitor them, so far it has done little.

    So, Pring has been trying to force the DWP to release some of the IPRs since 2020, but with personal details redacted. He wants it to publish the recommendations made in the reviews. However, Pring has repeatedly hit a brick wall with the department.

    John Pring: forcing the department’s hand?

    As Pring wrote for DNS, he wants the DWP to release:

    secret reports completed between April 2019 and September 2020

    However, the department has repeatedly refused to release this info, ever since Pring first tried to obtain it in September 2020. He even took the case to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which deals with public bodies like the DWP and what they do with things like freedom of information (FOI) requests. The ICO ruled in October 2022 that the DWP has to release the information. As Pring previously wrote, the ICO:

    found that DWP breached the Freedom of Information Act by blocking documents which would have showed recommendations made by its own civil servants to improve safety and reduce the number of suicides and other deaths.

    A catalogue of failings

    It’s not the first time Pring has taken on the DWP over its secret benefit death reviews. He challenged it back in 2016 over 49 reports it was refusing to release – and won. Then, he won again and again. As Pring wrote, the 2016 reports:

    showed that at least 13 reports had explicitly raised concerns about the way that “vulnerable” benefit claimants were being treated by DWP.

    Another review obtained by DNS, in 2018, helped show how DWP had been forced to soften the “threatening” tone of the agreement that universal credit claimants must sign to receive their benefits.

    And in December 2020, another freedom of information request allowed DNS to show that DWP staff had had to be repeatedly reminded what to do when claimants said they may take their own lives, following reviews into as many as six suicides.

    Those reviews suggested that a series of suicides between 2014 and 2019 were linked to the failure of DWP staff to follow basic rules that had been introduced in 2009.

    Predictably, the DWP refused to give Pring comment over his latest challenge to it. However, as the Canary previously reported, deaths documented in IPRs may just be the tip of the iceberg anyway:

    between 2011 and 2018 alone nearly 35,000 DWP claimants died. They died either waiting for the DWP to sort their claims or after it said they were well enough to work or start moving towards work. To put this into context, in one month during that time period, it would mean over 700 people could have died on the DWP’s watch. Also, in 2018 alone there were at least 750 (if not more) people who took their own lives…

    Pring says that a tribunal will hear the DWP’s appeal of the ICO decision later this year. Moreover, the news comes weeks after DNS revealed that the DWP had wasted £66m on a programme it created to reduce the number of benefit claimants taking their own lives. Clearly, the department is doing little to change the idea that it has something to hide over benefit claimants’ deaths.

    Featured image via Max Pixel and Wikimedia Commons/UK Government 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • An account of gender dysphoria diagnosis – and why we should leave it behind

    The Gender Recognition Reform Bill passed in the Scottish parliament last month by an incredible 86 votes to 39, with cross-party support. Now, however, the UK government is moving to use Section 35 powers to block the legislation, which would otherwise de-medicalise the process of changing the gender on one’s birth certificate.

    During the debate, the Times was quick to point out that a majority of the Scottish public think that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) should still require an official gender dysphoria diagnosis. It evidenced this claim using its own specially commissioned YouGov poll.

    This is an issue for two reasons. First, a dysphoria diagnosis isn’t strictly required under the current UK system already, provided that one has had gender-affirming surgery and meets certain criteria.

    Second, it’s easy for the 1000-or-so people surveyed to say that a dysphoria diagnosis should be required. However, they likely have absolutely no clue as to what that entails. I want to talk about what the diagnosis involved for me, because it shook my faith in a large swath of the medical profession.

    In sharing my experience, I want to demonstrate why this regressive process should not be the main criterion in my government recognising my gender.

    Spiralling wait times

    I received my diagnosis two years ago, after having come out to the world at large around eight years ago, give or take. I was no more trans before or after the diagnosis. Nobody has any right or business telling me whether or not I’m trans. Dysphoria is not what makes me trans.

    But that’s not what I want to talk about. I’d waited for my diagnosis until my dysphoria hit its most intense peak, and I couldn’t stand it anymore. I didn’t want a diagnosis. The general public knew, my family and friends knew, and I knew that I was trans. I needed hormone replacement therapy (HRT), but we do not have informed consent in this country. So, I needed a diagnosis first.

    The waiting times to be seen on by a gender specialist from the NHS have been spiralling out of control for a long time. They were in the 3-4 year ballpark back then, which I wouldn’t have gotten through, so I went private. That was around £1,500 I didn’t have, to be told something I already knew.

    For the diagnosis, I saw a psychiatrist. He started off with some fairly innocuous questions. How long have I known I am trans? How have I been feeling? How have people reacted? Fine.

    I went in prepared for it to be a miserable experience. I’d have to recount the increasing feeling of alienation from myself that I was experiencing to a stranger. Before the first appointment, I rehearsed the whole thing in my head; I cried because I’d never put it all in plain English to myself before.

    Are you sure you aren’t a pervert?

    Then, he said that he believed some trans people can just be afraid of growing up, that they want to remain like children. He asked me if I wanted to be a child forever. At the time, I was in my late 20s. I’d just completed my PhD. Why he would ask this is beyond me. And, I must admit, it was a piece of bigotry that I’d never even encountered before.

    Next, he asked how old I was when I first wore a dress. He asked if wearing a dress aroused me, and whether I put on women’s underwear to masturbate. He told me to describe how I have sex, and if I perform anal sex. He asked if the thought of being a woman aroused me. We didn’t move on until I answered each question in detail.

    These questions were intrusive and violating. What’s more, they’re based on the theory that trans women are autogynophilic fetishists:

    Autogynephilia is a paraphilic model that states that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals who are not exclusively attracted toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as a woman. The assertion that transsexual women are sexually motivated in their transitions challenges the standard model of transsexualism – that is, that transsexuals have a gender identity that is distinct from their sexual orientation and incongruent with their physical sex.

    This typology of transness is severely out of date. Subsequent research has disproven the theory conclusively. In fact, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) removed any mention of the term from its consensus guidelines in 2001.

    However, my psychiatrist sat there asking question after question that was clearly rooted in this stigmatising model. I’ve rarely been more insulted in my life. I came seeking help and understanding. Instead, I was asked repeatedly if I was sure I wasn’t a pervert. Transness inflects my gender identity, but the majority of the questions focused on my sexuality and sexual practices.

    Not alone

    The thing is, I still desperately needed the diagnosis. Trans people are placed in positions of powerlessness by our healthcare systems, which we cannot fight back against without being denied care.

    My experience here is not an outlier. Most of my friends have similar, if not identical, stories. Some of them have lasting trauma from their experiences of diagnosis. Others have been denied healthcare for questioning the way they are being spoken to.

    Trans healthcare in the UK is deeply broken. It is broken because it has been broken on purpose. It was broken by people who have made it their business to place themselves in positions of power over a vulnerable minority.

    The time that led up to me seeking HRT was, for so many reasons, the bleakest period of my life. It was made far, far worse by the process of dysphoria diagnosis. I know that this is true for others too, and often far worse.

    A miniscule dignity

    For the majority of trans people in the UK, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria like mine is a requirement to obtain a GRC. This is one of the criteria that the UK government is trying desperately to keep in place for the gender recognition process in Scotland.

    A GRC doesn’t actually do much. However, I would need one in order to stand up in front of my family and friends on my wedding day, in a dress that my mother has sewn for me, and have the officiant call me anything other than a ‘husband’.

    A GRC would do one thing for me. It would change the words, spoken and written, at my wedding and my funeral. This is a minuscule dignity, and still there are people fighting tooth and nail to deny it.

    If, after reading this, you’ve learned something new about the process of dysphoria diagnosis, I wouldn’t blame you. These things are at best not exactly well published, and at worst deliberately obscured by those who would have you believe that the process is too easy.

    On the other hand, if you still believe that a diagnosis of dysphoria should be a requirement of receiving a GRC, I don’t know what to say to you. However, I pray the politicians championing your cause are defeated as swiftly as possible.

     Featured image via Unsplash/Joel Naren

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK plan to rip up EU environmental laws could cost billions, analysis shows

    The Conservative government’s plan to rip up thousands of retained EU laws could ultimately cost the UK billions, new analysis suggests. According to the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the price tag for doing away with a swathe of environmental laws in the retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill could amount to £82bn over 30 years. The findings come as MPs debated the controversial bill again in parliament on 18 January.

    A huge price tag

    A coalition of dozens of environmental organisations from across England called Link has been pushing back. It engaged the Economics for the Environment Consultancy (eftec) to conduct the analysis and published its findings in a report titled What price deregulation? on 18 January.

    The analysis highlights the economic expense that the retained EU law bill could cause. The bill is currently making its way through parliament. It promises to sunset any retained EU laws that the government chooses not to preserve by the end of 2023. There are at least hundreds – if not thousands – of environmental regulations among the retained EU laws that are at risk.

    The eye-watering £82bn price tag relates to damage that the removal or weakening of regulations in four environmental areas could lead to, Link explained. These are air quality, water pollution, chemical regulations and protection of wildlife habitats.

    For example, losing Water Framework Directive standards could cause damage to lakes, rivers and coastal waters. Using official estimates on the economic worth of healthy freshwaters, eftec calculated that losing these standards would cost up to £20.6bn over three decades in England. The coalition’s CEO Dr Richard Benwell said:

    Prevention of air and water pollution, protection of precious wildlife and habitats, precautions against hazardous chemical use – they are all put at risk by the Retained EU Law Bill. If long-standing protection for nature is removed or weakened, the economic consequences could run into the billions.

    People and wildlife at risk

    Link’s report went beyond the economic costs of the bill. It also investigated the “environmental and social impacts” the deregulation could have. In other words, the analysis highlighted what danger the bill poses to people, wildlife and the wider natural environment they all depend on.

    It pointed out, for instance, that numerous species, such as salmon, otters, bats, puffins and kingfishers, could be at risk from the elimination or weakening of water, habitats and species regulations.

    With current freshwater pollution already a cause for concern in England and elsewhere in the UK, along with air quality, the removal of retained EU regulations that relate to these areas has worrying implications for people’s health too. The government characterises air pollution as “the largest environmental risk to public health” in the UK, which kills tens of thousands of people each year.

    Hugh Knowles, co-executive director at Link coalition member Friends of the Earth, warned:

    Government plans to delete or entirely rewrite thousands of laws that protect people and the environment are a double blow for the communities already hardest hit by the cost of living crisis and existing environmental decline.

    Many of the same people facing these issues remain at a disproportionate risk of the harmful health impacts associated with breathing in dirty air – and will be for years to come – not to mention the erosion of workers’ rights and consumer safety standards

    PM unmoved by criticism

    The Royal Society of the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is also a Link member. Ahead of the bill’s debate in parliament on 18 December, it called on people to demand that their MPs back various amendments to the bill:

    The RSPB said that proposed amendments variously provide parliament with a say on what regulations to scrap or retain and offer safeguards that could ensure key legislation remains, among other things.

    The prime minister Rishi Sunak appears unmoved by criticism of the bill. In comments ahead of the debate, his spokesperson said work was already underway to remove the “burdensome” regulations and “capitalize on our regulatory freedoms”. Sunak believes that removing the regulations will “drive growth and improve people’s everyday lives”, the spokesperson’s comments indicated.

    The Link analysis, however, suggests that, far from improving the lives of people in the country, these ‘regulatory freedoms’ will come at a very high cost, both in economic and environmental terms.

    Featured image via Guardian News / YouTube

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • “Don’t say ‘queer’” is the new dogwhistle from the Guardian

    On 13 January, the Guardian published a letter from a reader titled “Please don’t use the Q-word”. The “Q-word”, of course, is ‘queer’. The letter, and the Guardian’s choice to publish it, is part of an increasing volume of calls to leave the word behind. However, the motivations for doing so are not what they appear.

    Census reaction

    The letter itself was a reaction to an earlier Guardian article on the newly released data from the 2021 census. The last census was a landmark occurrence because of the fact that, for the first time, it collected accurate population data on the LGBTQ+ population of the entire UK.

    Karl Lockwood, the letter’s author, took the opportunity to point out that:

    Your report… tells us that of the 1.5 million people who declared themselves non-heterosexual, only 15,000 referred to themselves as “queer”.

    This, in itself, somewhat misunderstands the data given by the census. In response to the question “Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?”, the original article revealed that:

    One hundred and twelve thousand people described themselves as pansexual, 28,000 as asexual, and 15,000 as queer.

    Note that this is by no means a question about whether someone is comfortable referring to themselves as ‘queer’. Rather, it’s about what “best describes” the respondent’s sexuality. So, the 15,000 are not the only people who refer to themselves as queer. Instead, they’re the people who use “queer” because it captures their sexuality more accurately than ‘gay or lesbian’, ‘bisexual’, ‘pansexual’, or ‘asexual’.

    ‘Queer’ is generally used as an umbrella term for any identity that isn’t cisgender or heterosexual. This means that it includes gay, bi, and ace sexualities, as well as trans and non-binary identities. However, it also works brilliantly as a sexuality descriptor for people who aren’t heterosexual, but who aren’t better served by other, more specific labels. It is these people who were numbered amongst the 15,000 in the census data, not those who might describe themselves as queer because they are gay or bi.

    Queer as folk

    The letter published in the Guardian went on to say:

    I suspect that many of the others, like me, consider the term to be insulting and derogatory, and certainly not “reclaimed”. I am a gay man of 66 years with many friends and acquaintances, and know no one who would refer to themselves as queer. It would seem a small minority of activists has encouraged the media to use the word without considering its offensiveness to many people.

    Unfortunately, it seems that Mr Lockwood has spent a lot of his 66 years as a gay man with his head in the sand. ‘Queer’ is not a recent invention. Its use in the modern sense can be seen in a manifesto given out by ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) members in the 1990 New York Pride parade. It read:

    Being queer means leading a different sort of life. It’s not about the mainstream, profit-margins, patriotism, patriarchy or being assimilated. It’s not about executive directors, privilege and elitism. It’s about being on the margins, defining ourselves; it’s about gender-f— and secrets, what’s beneath the belt and deep inside the heart; it’s about the night. Being queer is “grass roots” because we know that everyone of us, every body, every c—, every heart and a– and d— is a world of pleasure waiting to be explored. Everyone of us is a world of infinite possibility.

    Queerness, here, was an act of reclamation from a world that hated and feared the LGBTQ+ community. It was anti-assimilationist, refusing the politics of trying to fade into and accommodate heterosexual and cisgender expectations. Moreover, it explicitly drew together marginalised sexualities and marginalised genders (“gender-f—“).

    The G-word

    It’s fair and true that ‘queer’ can leave a sour taste in some people’s mouths. It was (and sometimes still is) used as an insult with a great deal of venom behind it. I’d never want to use it in the specific context of someone who didn’t choose it, as with any other reclaimed slur. For example, I’d never refer to Mr Lockwood as queer.

    However, ‘queer’ was never a slur for me, or most of my generation as far as I’ve heard. The go-to playground insult used on me was ‘gay’, by a wide margin. It was a refrain of edgy comedy shows like South Park. It was everywhere, and applied even outside of contexts relating to sexuality – ‘that’s gay’ was synonymous with ‘I don’t like it’.

    However, I’m fully capable of recognising that it would be ridiculous of me to ask that people don’t say ‘gay’. It’s a liberatory word. People have found a home in it. ‘Gay’ is even becoming an umbrella term in the same manner as queer, spilling out beyond its narrow meaning to embrace more marginal definitions.

    I’d expect that people who suffered the use of ‘queer’ as a pejorative would extend the same courtesy to people who exalt in it. Certainly, it’s use is ubiquitous in mainstream society – shows like Queer Eye have seen to that, without widespread revolt. Hell, even the Simpsons joked about successful the reclamation of ‘queer’ in 1997.

    Dogwhistles blaring

    I can’t speak to the motivations of Mr Lockwood when he asked that people don’t say ‘queer’. However, I can take a damn good guess as to why the Guardian chose to publish the letter. The recent backlash against ‘queer’ is form of dogwhistle transphobia – it sends its message to the right listener, but frames it in an innocuous way. The Guardian itself is well-known for its frequent and open transphobia, at least in the UK.

    There is a growing reactionary movement within (or outside of, as the case may be) the gay community. Groups such as LGB Alliance are seeking to divorce non-hetero sexualities from non-cis genders as a campaign focus, to transphobic ends. Similar motivations lie behind the frequent trending of #LGBwithouttheT on Twitter.

    This blatant transphobia, along with the sidelining of other marginalised queer identities such as asexuality, forgets two very important things. First, the fates of queer sexualities and genders are already one. They were entwined in the early days of queer liberation, and they remain so to this day.

    Nobody who has shouted abuse at me on a street has ever stopped to check if my gender non-conforming presentation is because I’m gay or because I’m trans. I doubt severely that they’d care for the answer. In the immortal words of Laura Jane Grace, “They just see a faggot”. There isn’t a hair between homophobia and transphobia – it’s all the same recycled bigotry.

    Second, and as ever, we are stronger when we stand united. ‘Queer’ is under attack precisely because it acknowledges that we are one community, with shared experiences and oppressions. We would all do well to remember that.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Author Unknown, licensed under the public domain, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Public approval for strikers continues as nurses begin two days of industrial action

    Nurses’ strikes are taking place across England today, 18 January, following the government’s ongoing refusal to discuss pay. A second day of strikes will also take place on 19 January. And, a recent poll shows the public support for such action isn’t waning.

    The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) accused the government of failing to negotiate seriously on improving their pay deal for the current year. The union said it is campaigning for the pay rise “to help tackle chronic staff shortages”. It said in September 2022 that more than 40,000 nurses had stopped working for the NHS in the previous year.

    Before joining a picket line in central London, nurse Anna Swift said:

    We take strike action with a heavy heavy heart but a clear mind about what we want to achieve.

    It’s time to take some action to say we need better pay, we need better conditions.

    A majority of the public still support the nurses’ strikes

    As it perpetuates industrial action through its refusal to enter negotiations, the government has also claimed strikes are the reason for a failing NHS. Health secretary Steve Barclay said the strikes will have an “inevitable” strike action will “impact on patients”, and continued:

    Patients will understandably be worried by the prospect of further strike action by nurses.

    He said two days of strikes by nurses in England and Wales in December led to the cancellation of 30,000 elective procedures and outpatient appointments. But Pat Cullen, head of the RCN, said nurses are “the voice of the patient” and has repeatedly urged the government to negotiate over pay to retain beleaguered staff and attract new recruits.

    Furthermore, polls continue to show widespread support for strikers, including those from the RCN. A YouGov poll published on Tuesday suggested 63% supported their strike despite disruption to NHS services. Meanwhile, an Opinium poll for the Guardian showed 57% support, versus 33% that opposed the action.

    The government could end these strikes – if it wanted to

    Matthew Taylor, head of the NHS Confederation, which represents state health care providers in England and Wales, on Wednesday urged ministers to renew pay talks with trade unions. He said:

    Our message to the government is to give the NHS a fighting chance and do all you can to bring an end to this damaging dispute.

    The NHS Confederation estimated this week’s nursing strikes could cause 4,500 cancelled operations and 25,000 cancelled outpatient appointments. However, Cullen pointed out once again that the government has the power to end the strikes:

    My olive branch to governments – asking them to meet me halfway and begin negotiations – is still there. They should grab it.

    If the government continues refusing to enter negotiations then the RCN will hold further strikes on 6 and 7 February. The union has said the current series of strikes is at the “highest intensity” in its history.

    The UN does not suport the Tories’ anti-strike bill

    Meanwhile, workers in other sectors of the NHS also have upcoming strikes planned. GMB, which represents ambulance workers, is also expected to announce that it will resume strike action. It tweeted on 17 January that “government silence on pay gives… no option but to strike”. These looming strikes are taking place against the looming backdrop of an ‘anti-strike’ bill that the Tories are pushing through parliament. The bill will legislate a minimum service level during during strikes, requiring some union members to scab or else face dismissal. However, BBC News reported on 18 January that a UN labour body has criticised the UK government over the way it has promoted its bill.

    Both prime minister Rishi Sunak and business secretary Grant Shapps have suggested the bill is supported by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). But when asked about it by BBC News, the ILO’s director general, Gilbert Houngbo, said he was “very worried about workers having to accept situations” due to the threat of sackings.

    Featured image via Channel 4 News/YouTube screenshot

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK to include trans people in conversion therapy ban

    On Tuesday 18 November, the UK government promised to include transgender people in draft legislation banning conversion therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity.

    The U-turn move was welcomed by gay lawmakers and LGBTQ+ groups. It comes after the government has long stalled on passing such legislation and sought to exclude transgender people.

    Already under threat

    Culture minister Michelle Donelan said she will publish a draft bill banning conversion therapy in England and Wales soon. Although she failed to specify a date, she stated that it:

    will protect everyone, including those targeted on the basis of their sexuality, or being transgender.

    However, she added the proviso that the legislation should not prevent parents or clinicians having “legitimate conversations” about “gender-related distress” among children or young adults.

    This ambivalence was reflected by the notably anti-LGBTQ+ equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch. The Telegraph was quick to report that:

    The equalities minister is to write to all Tory MPs to insist that a ban on trans conversion therapy must not criminalise parents, as a backlash against the plans grew.

    In a highly unusual move, it is understood that Kemi Badenoch intends to set out her concerns over the proposed legislation, announced in the Commons on Tuesday.

    She will warn that legitimate conversations between parents and trans children must not be outlawed and that freedom of religion must be protected.

    A long-awaited ban

    The announcement came as the UK government is using its powers to block a bill passed in the Scottish parliament that makes it easier for people to self-identify as transgender. Some commentators have suggested that the announcement was an attempt to deflect attention.

    Conversion therapy is an umbrella term for interventions to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. There have long been calls to ban the practice. In fact, it was outlawed by the UK’s main associations of psychologists and psychiatrists in 2015 as “unethical and potentially harmful”.

    Activists welcomed the government announcement while saying it was long overdue. Stonewall, for instance, commented that:

    We have faced almost five years of delays and broken promises. The UK Gov must publish the Bill and an imminent timetable ASAP.

    The UK government presented a bill in 2021 that proposed a jail term of up to five years for those who carry out conversion therapies on minors. However, it did not penalise adults deemed to have freely consented.

    U-turn and turn again

    In March last year, the government said it had dropped plans for a ban. It then swiftly reversed course and promised to implement a version of the draft law.

    As the Canary reported in April of the same year:

    In the latest of a long run of U-turns, the government backtracked on promises about conversion therapy. In 2018, Theresa May promised to abolish conversion therapy – as did Boris Johnson later on. However, last week, Johnson performed a characteristic U-turn and set the government on course to ban conversion therapy for gay people, but not for trans people.

    In May, the government said it would bring forward a ban. This came in response to an online petition specifically about the inclusion of transgender people.

    For now, it remains to be seen how the ban will be applied if – as Badenoch seems set to request – it does not criminalise parents who attempt to put their children through conversion therapy.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Denin Lawley

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Confidential review reveals police were long aware of a spycop’s sexual abuse of activists

    In 2022, the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) announced that its hearings will not resume until spring 2024. Meanwhile, a confidential document has revealed that as far back as 2011 police were fully aware of questionable covert operations, including the sexual assault of political activists.

    Early warnings

    A partially redacted 2011 confidential review by the now-defunct Serious Organised Crime Agency has been seen by the Canary. The review’s focus was on the activities of undercover police officer (UCO) Mark Kennedy. It revealed how, for example, a supervisor had to remind Kennedy about the threat “posed by intimate relationships”:

    From media reporting it would appear evident that Kennedy engaged in relationships with at least two female activists. When considering the risks associated with long-term infiltration, the development of personal relationships must always be considered as a significant threat. This was clearly recognised by at least one operational head who instructed that the cover officer remind KENNEDY in relation to the threat posed by intimate relationships when authorising a female to stay at his address for two weeks.

    Moreover, the review revealed that Kennedy admitted to forming “intimate relationships”:

    Whilst deployed undercover, KENNEDY admits to having had two intimate relationships. There were also claims that KENNEDY used sex to infiltrate activist groups whilst deployed. A woman named [ACTIVIST] came forward and claimed she had had sex with KENNEDY multiple times. 

    Sexual assault

    Kate Wilson is one such activist. She was spied on by undercover police officers (UCOs), including Mark Kennedy, who formed an intimate relationship with her. You can read what happened to Wilson in her own words here. She also explained what happened to her in a video.

    Wilson subsequently sought a ruling from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) on what happened. The Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance reported on the IPT’s proceedings, noting:

    Two important reports relied on by both sides [defence and prosecution] came from the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). Both examined the Mark Kennedy scandal in its immediate aftermath; SOCA in 2011, though it remained private

    Kennedy and other UCOs were able to form relationships with activists by adopting false identities, such as those of dead children.

    In her claim to the IPT, Wilson named several undercover officers.

    IPT ruling

    In October 2021, the IPT ruled in Wilson’s favour. In January 2022, it was reported that the IPT ordered the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan Police to pay just under £230k, including legal costs, to Wilson. This was for breach of her human rights.

    Regarding the role of Kennedy, the IPT ruled:

    (ii) MK’s sexual relationship with the Claimant was conducted with the knowledge of his principal “cover officer”;

    (iii) MK’s deployment manager, who had the rank of Detective Chief Inspector, knew or turned a blind eye to the sexual relationship;

    (iv) Other senior officers of the rank of Detective Chief Inspector or above who had operational and managerial responsibility within the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (“NPOIU”) for MK’s deployment either knew of the relationship, chose not to know of its existence, or were incompetent and negligent in not following up on the clear and obvious signs that MK had formed a close personal relationship with the Claimant which might be sexual in nature; [Emphasis added]

    As reported by Police Spies Out Of Lives, the IPT further stressed that:

    the sexual relationship Ms Wilson was deceived into by Mark Kennedy was conducted with the knowledge of his principal cover officer, and that his deployment manager, and other senior officers of Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) level and above knew (or chose not to know) about the sexual relationship, concluding that the National Public Order Policing Unit’s approach to its officers having sex while undercover was one of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

    In September 2018, the Canary revealed the names of Kennedy’s supervisors, as derived from leaked police files. Other supervisors/senior officers were previously named.

    Sexual exploitation rife

    As well as Wilson, Kennedy (whose cover name was Mark Stone) exploited other women as part of his police work. They included ‘Lisa Jones’ over six years, Kate (‘Lily’) over two years, ‘Naomi’, and Sarah Hampton.

    As reported by the Canary:

    over 30 women were deceived into having relationships with undercover police officers. These spies also fathered, then abandoned, children with some of the women

    An apology was issued by the Met to seven other women activists who were also abused. The Met Police subsequently conceded that relationship abuse by undercover officers equated to “torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

    This short video includes testimony from some of the victims. It also names some of the spycops, along with their aliases and faces:

    Other SOCA cover-ups

    The bulk of the SOCA review was about Operation Pegasus. That operation saw Kennedy participate in actions by environmental protesters. 29 of these protesters were convicted of various offences in 2009 after they had blocked a train carrying coal heading for the Drax power station in North Yorkshire. However, it took another three years after the SOCA review for Kennedy’s true role in the operation to be revealed, resulting in the overturning of all convictions.

    The SOCA review also, albeit briefly, referred to some of Kennedy’s overseas operations. A full list of these operations was subsequently published by Powerbase.

    Kennedy’s French operations included infiltrating a group of environmental activists. The activists – dubbed Tarnac 9 (after the village where they lived) – were arrested. However, charges – including terrorism for four of the defendants – were subsequently dropped once further proof of Kennedy’s role was revealed (by this author). The Canary also published the names of Kennedy’s authorising officers in the French operation via an unredacted extract from confidential files.

    Institutional sexism

    Given the subsequent revelations from women targeted and investigations by independent media, the SOCA review is perhaps more notable more for what it didn’t say.

    Meanwhile, the UCO scandal is ongoing, as the Canary‘s Eliza Egret pointed out:

    Despite the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry, and despite Wilson’s tribunal, the state passed the sinister Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act in 2021. The act legalises the criminal activities of undercover officers and agents working for the police, MI5, and other state agencies.

    Director of the Centre for Women’s Justice Harriet Wistrich, who was a witness and Wilson’s lawyer in the early stages of the IPT case, commented:

    This excoriating judgement could not have come at a more significant moment when we hear the details of the horrendous murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met police officer who used deceit with the opportunities of his job to entrap her.

    In July 2018, 85 non-state core participants to the UCPI, including Wilson, issued a list of demands including:

    Full disclosure of all names – both cover and real – of officers from the disgraced political police units, accompanied by contemporaneous photographs

    Justice will only be fully served when those demands are met, along with the release of the names of those supervisors who oversaw or knew about the abuse.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons, cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Sunak wants to make the Public Order Bill even worse – it’s time to fight back

    Yesterday, prime minister Rishi Sunak announced that he intended to add new amendments to the Public Order Bill, one of the government’s latest legislative affronts against the people.

    The Bill is already a vicious attack on everyone’s freedom to take to the streets in protest. It targets several of the direct-action tactics used by UK social movements. These include laws against campaigners locking-on or going equipped to lock-on.

    The new legislation also aims to criminalise tunelling, a tactic which has often been used effectively by ecological movements, and seeks to increase police stop and search powers. It also proposes new Serious Disruption Prevention Orders. These orders would include forcing people to wear electronic tags to stop them from protesting. Police can impose these orders even when the person concerned has not been convicted of a crime.

    New amendments

    Sunak proposed the following new additions to the Bill. His statement says:

    police will not need to wait for disruption to take place and can shut protests down before chaos erupts

    This amendment would further empower the police to preemptively shut down protests and arrest participants. In fact, the police already have plenty of powers to do this. For example, Section 14 of the existing Public Order Act allows cops to impose conditions and make arrests if they believe a protest “may result in serious public disorder”. But Sunak is hoping to give the police even more preemptive powers by broadening “the legal definition of ‘serious disruption’”.

    Sunak also said that his amendments would mean that:

    • police will not need to treat a series of protests by the same group as standalone incidents but will be able to consider their total impact
    • police will be able to consider long-running campaigns designed to cause repeat disruption over a period of days or weeks

    As someone who was part of a ten-year-long struggle – which involved weekly protests – to shut down my local weapons factory, I can tell you for a fact that the police already treat ongoing protest campaigns very differently to standalone protests. The police are there to back up the powerful. They will try to stamp out any sustained, effective resistance from below. During those ten years my comrades and I were beaten up repeatedly, arrested, imprisoned, dubbed ‘domestic extremists’. We were followed by uniformed officers when going about our daily business, slapped with civil injunctions, spied on by undercover cops, and repeatedly stopped under the Terrorism Act.

    These police powers already exist, but Sunak wants to strengthen them. It’s up to us to resist.

    Response

    Emily Apple of the Network for Police Monitoring remarked that the government’s press release was vague, and didn’t contain the actual proposed legal amendments to the Bill:

    Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, said that the Public Order Bill was more extreme than many counter-terror powers:

    Kevin Smith, head of media for the New Economy Organisers Network (NEON), noted that the Public Order Bill is being pushed through at the same time as the Tories are proposing anti-strike legislation:

    Tired, predictable bullshit

    Despite all this, Sunak said in a statement on 16 January:

    The right to protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy

    The commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service echoed his bullshit:

    It is clearly understood that everybody has the right to protest

    On top of this, chief constable Harrington said:

    “Policing is not anti-protest, but there is a difference between protest and criminal activism

    These kind of statements from the government and police are written from a familiar template. They affirm their supposed commitment to the ‘right to protest’ while bringing in more and more legislation to take away people’s freedoms.

    In 2013, in an article for Corporate Watch analysing the legislative attacks on our freedoms by successive Labour and Tory governments, I wrote:

    The British government, like all liberal ‘democracies’, frequently proclaims itself a defender of freedom of expression and assembly. However, this is usually accompanied by the words ‘rule of law’… this provides a get-out clause, enabling governments to justify the repression of the same political freedoms they claim to defend. Since this ‘rule of law’ is created and developed by governments and the judicial system, it ensures governments can devise new ways with which to repress those who threaten state and corporate interests in response to changing circumstances and changing patterns of dissent. In this way the ‘rule of law’ serves to protect capitalist interests, in the name of public order, security and democracy.

    We need to remind them that the streets are ours

    Sunak claims that the new amendments are aimed at preventing disruption to “the lives of the ordinary public”, but this is part of a tired old trope that we have been hearing all our lives. Don’t buy his bullshit. The Public Order Bill and its amendments are part of a state-orchestrated attack on people’s ability to act for change. They’re part of the same authoritarian strategy as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, and the recent legislative attacks on striking workers.

    We need to reaffirm that it’s our communities who control the streets, not the government or the cops. Generations of struggling people before us have had to do the same, from the rebels of the Brixton uprising of 1981 who rose up against the police’s racist stop and search powers, to the striking miners, whose struggle unfolded against the backdrop of increasing anti-union legislation. To the coalition of radicals who reclaimed the streets in the 90s, in the face of an earlier Criminal Justice Bill.

    Fast forward to 2011, and people rose up in many cities across the UK after police murdered Mark Duggan – yet another Black man killed by the state. And to 2021, when protesters battled the cops outside Bristol’s Bridewell Police Station, just weeks after the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer – and as the government was pushing through yet another law designed to take away our freedoms.

    Its 2023, and the state is busy mounting fresh attack on us. It’s up to us to remind them of our strength and our power, and that the streets are ours.

    Featured image via Eliza Egret

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Teachers join the wave of strike action after an ‘overwhelming’ 90% yes vote

    Industrial action looks set to intensify after Britain’s largest teaching union announced walkouts over pay. Meanwhile, the government is seeking to limit strikes with a controversial bill.

    The National Education Union (NEU) said its members “voted overwhelmingly” to strike on 1 February, with more than 90% voting yes. Its demands call for an above-inflation pay rise to meet soaring prices and energy bills. Following the day of national strike action at the start of February, the union will also hold a series of more-regional strikes over six other days in February and March.

    The NEU said strikes will impact each school for up to four days. It will affect state school teachers in England and Wales, support staff in Wales, and sixth-form teachers in England.

    The NEU’s leaders will meet with education minister Gillian Keegan on 18 January.

    The government wants to take away the capacity to strike

    It is press release, the NEU said the vote to strike came despite the government’s “restrictive thresholds” on industrial action. However, the government is set to tighten these even further with the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill. The bill requires a percentage of union members to continue working during strikes, thereby defeating the point of strikes entirely, as the Canary previously noted. The bill also covers strikes in the public sector – including teachers.

    Business minister Grant Shapps claimed on 16 January that the bill is needed because strikes across multiple sectors are “putting people’s lives and livelihood at risk”. However, the Guardian reported on 14 January that polls show a majority of the public still back strikes, even in the emergency services.

    Underfunding schools is already impacting children

    Trotting out similar copy-paste rhetoric, Keegan said the NEU’s decision to strike is “deeply disappointing to parents”. She also said the strikes will “have an impact on children”. However, as the NEU pointed out in its press release, the current situation is already having an impact on children.

    The joint general secretaries for the NEU, Dr Mary Bousted and Kevin Courtney, said:

    The Government must know there is going to have to be a correction on teacher pay. They must realise that school support staff need a pay rise.

    If they do not, then the consequences are clear for parents and children. The lack of dedicated maths teachers, for example, means that 1 in 8 pupils are having work set and assessed by people who are not qualified in the teaching of maths. Anyone who values education should support us in this dispute because that is what we are standing up for. It is not us who should turn a blind eye to the consequences of Government policy on schools and colleges.

    The union also made it clear that it doesn’t want to carry out the proposed strike days. The joint general secretaries said the NEU will enter negotiations “at any time, any place”, but current working conditions for teachers and support staff “cannot go on”.

    Meanwhile, members of the Educational Institute of Scotland union began 16 days of rolling strikes on 16 January. These will continue until 6 February.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via National Education Union/YouTube

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Campaigners say the government’s single-use plastic ban is a ‘false solution’

    Westminster will introduce a ban on most single-use plastic items from October. The government said it has made this move in order to limit the “devastating impacts” such items have on the environment. However, environmental group Greenpeace said the plans aren’t far-reaching enough.

    The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said the ban will cover plates, cutlery, single-use trays, and certain types of polystyrene cups and food containers. However, it also said that the ban will not apply to supermarket ready meals, as these will be included in the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme. It will also only apply to England, as environmental policy is a devolved issue. Scotland and Wales already have similar legislation.

    Plastic is destroying our world

    Single-use plastics are a major environmental problem from the beginning to the end of their lifecycle. As the Canary previously reported, plastics are manufactured through intensive fossil fuel use, and generate greenhouse gases throughout their life. Once finished with, they become a major culprit in a number of environment crises, including plunging biodiversity and ocean toxicity.

    The UK government banned plastic straws in October 2020, and increased the charge for a plastic bag to 10p in May 2021. However, environmental groups have criticised these plans for being too slow in the face of fast-moving environmental breakdown. Friends of the Earth described the laws as a “dangerously slow-moving”, “piecemeal approach” to the plastics crisis.

    “Like reaching for a mop instead of turning off the tap”

    Environment secretary Thérèse Coffey claimed the ban represents “vital work to protect the environment for future generations”. However, Greenpeace dismissed the plans as a “false solution”. Megan Randles, political campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said:

    Whilst it’s welcome that the government’s finally banned certain items, we’re dealing with a plastic flood, and this is like reaching for a mop instead of turning off the tap.

    It’s time to stop pandering to industry lobbyists; stop promoting false solutions; and stop dumping our plastic waste in countries that have done the least to cause the climate crisis.

    The UN Environment Program (UNEP) said in November 2021 that banning single-use plastic isn’t a long-term solution. Claudia Giacovelli, programme officer of the UNEP Life Cycle Unit, said:

    It is the single-use nature of products that is the most problematic for the planet, more so than the material that they’re made of.

    Campaigners have broadly welcomed the single-use plastic ban. However, it’s also clear that unless it is accompanied with economic, cultural, and lifestyle changes, the government is just pushing the problem behind the sofa. This means we must end the capitalist reliance on throw-and-go items, whatever material they’re made from.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Hippox, licensed under Creative Commons Zero – CC0

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.