Category: UK

  • This article includes a mention of suicide and self-harm

    A woman with a freedom of speech badge on her bag pleads with the cops to arrest us. She doesn’t like the fact that we’re standing in front of her bigoted banner. She doesn’t like the fact that we don’t agree with her. Freedom of speech is, apparently, a very limited right if you’re from the far-right Patriotic Alternative.

    Drag Queen Story Hour is taking place at my local library. It isn’t an event that should need an anti-fascist presence. It should just be kids going to enjoy stories in a library. It’s a bit of a no brainer. I spoke to a friend last week, and we were both incredulous that we’d got to this point in the culture wars – that this is where battle lines were being drawn – over reading stories to kids at libraries.

    I wasn’t really expecting Patriotic Alternative (PA) to turn up in my home town. I was planning to walk down to my local library for an hour and then go home. But after seeing their hate five minutes from my house, we decided we couldn’t abandon the rest of Cornwall and so a group of us spent three days travelling around libraries to ensure we were providing an alternative to their vile rhetoric.

    Fascism on our streets

    PA is a fascist group. Let’s call it what it is. It’s a group that promotes “indigenous rights” for white people. Its website proudly carries posts proclaiming “migrants not welcome” and its stated aim is to:

    raise awareness of issues such as the demographic decline of native Britons in the United Kingdom, the environmental impact of mass immigration and the indoctrination and political bias taking place in British schools.

    Time and again the police tell us that they want to facilitate both sides, that everyone has a right to express their views, that they are neutral. But that says it all. Staying neutral in the face of fascism is not an option. It puts everyone at risk.

    The group in Cornwall pretends not to be associated with PA. But they hand out the group’s leaflets and are happy standing next to people who actually say they are fascists. One man does a Sieg Heil and is ignored by the cops and his fellow protesters. They say they’re intimidated and harassed by us. They call us “Antifa” as if it’s an insult. I tell them I’m proud to be anti-fascist. They say they feel threatened. And they do seem to have a thoroughly miserable time as we dance round them with our colourful flags and block their hateful banners.

    Promoting love and inclusivity

    Aida H Dee is reading stories to kids. These are stories that give children a positive alternative and that stand up to bullying. He also wants to ensure children receive a positive message about being part of the LGBTQI+ community. This is important. Because as the Drag Queen Story Hour website states:

    • 65% of LGBT+ secondary school pupils experience homophobic bullying at school

    • 97% of LGBT+ pupils report regularly hearing homophobic language in school

    • 80% of LGBT+ pupils have NOT been taught about safe sex in relation to same-sex relationships

    • More than 80% of trans young people have self-harmed, as have 60% of lesbian, gay and bi young people who aren’t trans.

    • Just under 50% of young trans people have attempted to take their own life, and 20% of lesbian, gay and bi students who aren’t trans have done the same.

    Drag Queen Story Hour is attempting to change this in the best possible way:

    If you are introduced to something new in a positive way, you will react in a positive way. We want to do the same for anybody who is different in the UK.

    The children at the libraries certainly agree. They roar with laughter, and both the kids and parents are full of smiles and praise when they leave. Aida H Dee is doing an amazing thing, and is, at times, paying a terrible price for doing it.

    Moments of joy and beauty in dark times

    While it’s sad that we had to come out on the streets to counter the hate, there were moments of joy and beauty that will stick with me forever:

    And whether it was the security guard who after the first event decided to volunteer his time and go for 36 hours without sleep to help, the amazing library staff, locals chasing fascists off the streets, or the parents who were so happy to see us there, there were many moments of joy and lightness in these horrid times.

    As a statement from the local group who were at the libraries says:

    Communities across Cornwall made it clear that this hate does not represent us. We are both from the LGBTQ+ community and stand in solidarity with the LGBQT+ community. Cornwall has said it loud and clear – we are anti-fascist and proud.

    The chants of “Cornwall is anti-fascist” on the streets of Launceston as the last of the haters skulked away on Wednesday still ring in my ears. There is no place for hate in Cornwall and those that tried to perpetrate this message were firmly told they were not welcome here. And while this is just one battle in a much bigger fight, it’s a battle we definitely won, and I’m so proud of my community for its response.

    Featured image via Twitter screen grab and author’s own

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Bank of England (BoE) has caused carnage in recent days. In a double tap for millions of people, it first raised interest rates and then said the UK was facing a recession. However, its thinking has just been exposed as bullshit. One economic expert has called the BoE out for ‘deliberately’ causing suffering to countless people. And they also showed that the BoE’s decisions were ultimately to protect the rich.

    Economic chaos

    As BBC News reported, the BoE has:

    • Raised interest rates to 1.75%. This is the amount we’re all charged for borrowing money.
    • Said inflation (the amount the cost of everything we buy increases by) will hit 13%.
    • Has forecast the UK will be in a recession. This is where a country’s economy shrinks, meaning people lose their jobs, have less money to spend, and businesses go bust.

    BoE boss Andrew Bailey told the BBC that:

    I know that… [people who are struggling] will feel, ‘Well, why have you raised interest rates today, doesn’t that make it worse from that perspective in terms of consumption?’, I’m afraid my answer to that is, it doesn’t because I’m afraid the alternative is even worse in terms of persistent inflation.

    As The Canary reported, the rich, white people at the BoE are meant to have all this under control. It’s their job to keep inflation low. But they hadn’t been doing this – and now we’re in this mess. Plus, in May it was widely reported that if the BoE put up interest rates this would cause a recession. One ex-official said the bank would do it on purpose. And it now has.

    So, one economic expert has laid into the BoE for its actions.

    BoE: monetary batshittery

    Richard Murphy is a chartered accountant but also a campaigner. He has often been critical of capitalist economics. Now, he’s written two long Twitter threads about the BoE’s announcements. One outlines why its decision is so batshit. Murphy says that the BoE is increasing inflation to try and stop people spending money. He thinks the BoE is doing this to try and reduce inflation – because the less money people have, the less stuff they buy. But crucially, Murphy says this is nonsense. Because, as he points out, it:

    assumes that UK households have too much money to spend… But this is nonsense. 20% of all UK households are already struggling to pay bills and many more will soon.

    He says all that will happen is:

    • People won’t be able to pay bills like energy and debts.
    • They will get into more debt.
    • Companies won’t be able to get the debt back from them (because they have no money to pay it with).
    • This will cause a banking crisis worse than 2008.

    ‘Callous’

    But Murphy also believes the BoE knows all this – and is happy to let it happen.

    He says that the only people who the interest rate/inflation/recession clusterfuck won’t affect is the richest 10%. For the rest of us, he believes that it will be chaos. Murphy also thinks the BoE knows this – saying its action show “indifference” and “callousness”. He says:

    it will succeed in making life very much harder for up to 90% of the population, and for a significant part of those people nigh on impossible. What I want to wish is that this is not its aim. But I can’t think that. I think this is deliberate.

    And it’s the fact that the BoE is doing this knowing people will suffer that sickens me. They actually want that suffering to happen because they think that is required if they are to indicate their intention to eliminate inflation, even though they have no clue how to do so.

    BoE: causing civil unrest? Hopefully.

    But Murphy also offers a glimmer of hope – maybe without even realising it. He says:

    The biggest civil unrest in decades is likely this autumn.

    Little wonder really. Because when the BoE intentionally make political policy decisions that protect the rich at the expense of the rest of us – then what have we got left to lose? Resistance to this class war is vital – and it should start right now.

    Featured image via Diliff – Wikimedia, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY-SA 3.0

    By Steve Topple

  • Campaign group Don’t Pay UK has hit the headlines recently. It’s gaining momentum for its action against the so-called ‘cost of living crisis’: specifically, soaring energy bills. And one tweet from it sums up the situation millions are facing. But will the campaign actually work? And is it inclusive of everyone?

    Don’t Pay UK: the “state of Britain”

    Don’t Pay UK is trying to organise a mass non-payment of energy bills. It says on its website that:

    we are demanding a reduction of energy bills to an affordable level. Our leverage is that we will gather a million people to pledge not to pay if the government goes ahead with another massive hike on October 1st.

    Don’t Pay UK’s action comes as the government and corporations continue to allow energy prices to spiral out of control. Analysts now say that the price cap could hit over £3,600 by January 2023. This is a 158% increase since October 2021, when the cap was £1,400. This could leave around 30% of all households in the UK in fuel poverty. On Tuesday 2 August, Don’t Pay UK summed the situation up well on Twitter. It shared an email from a supporter to their energy supplier. The person said that the cost of energy meant their “3 children won’t eat regular meals”:

    As the person who sent the email noted, energy companies are raking it in. Five of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies saw combined profits of £50bn in the first half of the year.

    So, Don’t Pay UK is determined to take action to stop the price rises. But will it make a difference – firstly to the poorest people, and secondly in the long term?

    Poorest people: no choice but to pay

    Don’t Pay UK’s campaign is specifically aimed at people who pay their energy bill via direct debit. As its website says:

    There are many different ways to support the strike if you’re on a pre-payment meter, but you won’t be able to join the non-payment strike itself. If you don’t pay while on a pre-payment meter, you’ll be disconnected once your credit runs out – so we won’t be asking people on a pre-payment meter to withhold payment.

    The problem is that it’s the poorest families in the UK who have prepayment meters. Government data released in 2020 showed that for prepayment meters:

    • Social housing residents are more likely to have them.
    • The majority (52.5%) of families where the main person didn’t work have them.
    • 38.9% of lone-parent households have them.

    These people cannot protest by not paying – because they would simply have no energy. As someone pointed out on Twitter:

    Don’t Pay UK replied by saying:

    About 4.5 million on pre-payment meters, paying higher tariffs and in real danger of “self-disconnection” if they can’t top up. They can help support the campaign because if it wins, we all win.

    Moreover, for poorer people who do pay their energy bills by direct debit, there could be further problems. Not paying could negatively impact their credit score.

    “Serious trouble”

    So, long-term, what is it that Don’t Pay UK want to “win”?

    The campaign states on its website that it hopes to:

    put energy companies in serious trouble… We want to bring them to the table and force them to end this crisis.

    It makes a comparison to another non-payment action:

    One example would be in the resistance to the Poll Tax: more than 17 million people refused to pay and it became impossible for the Thatcher government to successfully implement the policy.

    But as with every campaign on a specific issue, the challenge is whether it will make a lasting difference in the long term. One example is Don’t Pay UK’s citing of the anti-Poll Tax movement. While direct action and non-payment worked initially, the UK has been left with the Council Tax system. As the Resolution Foundation think tank summed up, this is now as “regressive” as the Poll Tax would have been anyway.

    Nationalise now

    Don’t Pay UK, while excluding the poorest people, is a worthwhile show of public defiance in the face of the corporate capitalist system. But it is only a short-term solution to an entrenched problem. Negotiating with corporate monoliths will only end in compromise or a quick-fix. Long term, and as a minimum, nationalised energy would be the first step in ensuring that the chaos millions of people are facing never happens again.

    Featured image via Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

  • People in Bristol are planning to demonstrate on Saturday 6 August, calling for charges to be dropped against those who rose up last year against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. The protesters are also demanding freedom for those already imprisoned.

    The march starts at St Peter’s Church in Bristol’s Castle Park at 2pm.

     

    The Network for Police Monitoring tweeted:

    Last year, at least 82 people were arrested following a months of protests in Bristol against the draconian policing bill.

    The bill became law earlier this year, and will have a dramatic impact on public demonstrations, as well as criminalising the lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and increasing the length of time some people spend in prison.

    Over 50 people were charged with riot – the most serious public order charge in English law – after a confrontation between police and protesters on 21 March 2021 outside Bristol’s Bridewell Police station. By the end of the evening, police cars had been set on fire and the police station windows had been caved in.

    The uprising outside Bridewell came just weeks after the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Metropolitan police officer.

    Prisoners have been handed sentences of up to 14 years

    Those charged with riot face up to ten years in prison. According to Bristol Anti-Repression Campaign:

    So far, 20 people have been sentenced to prison time for their role in Bristol’s 21st March 2021 uprising against police violence, that began outside Bridewell Police station. Five more people will be sentenced this summer, and at least 20 people are still awaiting trial. Two others have been found not guilty of riot.

    Most of the sentences have been for between three and six years, but Ryan Roberts was given a massive 14 year prison sentence last year. We are full of anger at the government which is enacting laws to take away our freedom, and at the police who use violence to brutalise those who speak out.

    ‘The police are the enemy of the people’

    A leaflet for the coalition of groups organising the demonstration reads:

    For the past years we have watched friends and loved ones get taken into the criminal injustice system, locked for years behind walls of steel, stone and barbed wire. For what? for fighting, for resisting. For saying no. For not accepting the police beating their friends, or strangers, with shields and batons. For not accepting the state continuing to increase its power over already the most marginalised people. For refusing to allow the police to break our demonstration. “Who’s Streets?” – no really, Who’s are they? Or for simply fighting back on no other principle than that the police are the enemy of the people, the long arm of systematic racism, poverty and inequality.

    The organisers are clear that they support everybody who has faced charges, no matter what they did to resist the police:

    Some did very little, some did a lot. Some did nothing more than refuse to leave their friends whilst the police beat them.

    All should be free!

    Free the prisoners, drop the charges

    The callout finishes with a demand to free the prisoners, and to organise to end the repression against the Kill the Bill defendants:

    By standing with the prisoners and defendants we show that we are on the side of resistance, not repression. On the side of the people, not the state.

    It is time to organise, Lets come together on the 6th August in support of those that fought against the state and its fascist legislation.

    Featured image via Screenshot/YouTube

    By Tom Anderson

  • british breakfast

    4 Mins Read

    In its flagship report on the state of the U.K.’s food system, The Food Foundation reveals struggles across the country in the wake of Brexit, covid, and the ongoing impact of climate change.

    “The Broken Plate” report from the Food Foundation reveals a broken post-Brexit food system across the U.K., with the poorest 20 percent of U.K. households needing to spend 47 percent of their disposable income just to meet the costs of the government-recommended diet.

    The findings

    “The way our food system has evolved over time has made unhealthy and environmentally unsustainable foods the norm, causing unprecedented levels of obesity and diet-related disease, and making food production and consumption major drivers of climate change,” reads the report.

    “But the food system can continue to evolve and can be reorientated to support diets that are healthy for us and the planet. Government, businesses, city leaders and investors have the power to make these changes happen.”

    The report builds on the 2021 National Food Strategy for England, which identified four key areas where dietary shifts are urgently needed: increased consumption of fiber-rich fruits and vegetables, decreased consumption of meat, high fat foods, salt, and sugar.

    HIgh tea
    British high tea Photo by Jelleke Vanooteghem on Unsplash

    The Food Foundation says increasing affordability availability, and appeal of healthy and climate-friendly foods needs to become a priority across the U.K.

    Healthy foods are nearly three times as expensive per calorie than unhealthy options, the report notes, and sustainable options, such as nondairy milk, cost 60 percent more than conventional counterparts.

    The disparity is further compounded by rising food prices; according to the report, food prices rose by 8.6 percent in the 12 months leading up to May 2022, with inflation at 9.1 percent. Food prices are expected to keep rising as a result of war in Ukraine, ongoing covid outbreaks, Brexit, and global warming’s impact on the food system.

    According to the Food Foundation, the U.K. government introduced a £20 weekly ‘uplift’ to the Universal Credit program. That led to a drop in food insecurity rates until the uplift was removed last fall. A one-time £650 one-off payment was made to those in receipt of benefits in May, as well as a £400 per
    household payment to support with energy bills, but the report says more strategic plans are needed to move the U.K. toward sustained healthy food for all.

    Low income, low-quality diets

    “People are often quick to unfairly blame themselves for making the ‘wrong’ choices without taking into account that the system is set against them choosing the healthy option,” reads the report. “People on low incomes have lower quality diets, higher rates of diet-related disease and higher levels of food insecurity—an issue that has been greatly exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis.

    “Many of the barriers to healthy diets are greater for people on lower incomes and the food system exacerbates these inequalities. Shifting the drivers of dietary choice in favour of healthier foods has the potential to reduce these barriers and make healthy and sustainable diets the default and the easiest for everyone—including those on a low income.”

    fish and chips
    Photo by Davey Gravy on Unsplash

    The report also highlights wage issues for food system workers; 22 percent of food industry workers earn the National Minimum Wage or below. Compared to the economy as a whole, it’s nearly three times the average.

    “The metrics in this report tell a grim story: healthy and sustainable foods are rarely the most affordable, accessible or advertised foods, and in many cases the situation is deteriorating not improving,” the report concludes.

    “But this is solvable. The public health crisis arising from obesity and diet-related disease and the contribution of the food system to the climate crisis are both entirely preventable. There are countless examples of people in the food system doing amazing work and showing that a better food system is achievable.”

    The findings come as a recent review found a plant-based diet is the healthiest for both humans and the planet. That research analyzed findings from more than 40 studies.

    “There are increasingly strong reasons to move away from industrial animal agriculture for the good of the environment, animals, our personal health, and public health,” the researchers wrote. “Plant-based animal product alternatives (PB-APAs) represent a highly feasible way to reduce animal product consumption, since they address the core consumer decision drivers of taste, price, and convenience.”

    The post How Brexit, Climate Change, and Covid Helped Break the U.K.’s Food System appeared first on Green Queen.

  • The England women’s team has won the European championships at Wembley. It’s the first time the national team has won a major tournament, and celebrations have kicked off around the country.

    People on social media have been celebrating the historic win. The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) said there was record attendance for the match:

    Sports reporter Beth Fisher pointed out, along with many others, that women used to be banned from playing football:

    There were many tweets shared like the one below on what this victory means for women and girls:

    In the post-match commentary, however, presenters Ian Wright and Alex Scott made some important points.

    Funding

    Ian Wright gave some pre-emptive advice to brands and politicians now taking a sudden interest in women’s football when they haven’t previously supported it:

    Wright said that the game needed “continuous support” in order to grow.

    Research from the British Library states that women have been playing football in England since the late 18th century. Back in 1921, the Football Association (FA) banned women’s football in an effort to make sure the sport did not threaten the men’s game.

    Since then, it’s been a case of the massive underfunding of what should be a grassroots sport. According to the Association for Physical Exercise, only 63% of schools offer football to girls. Ian Wright picked up on this too – when England reached the semi-final, he said “we’ve got to make sure [girls] are able to play”:

    Plenty of people noticed, and praised, his words:

    Wright’s fellow presenter, Alex Scott, also made impassioned pleas:

    While Dr Charlotte Lydia Riley said:

    Another twitter user said:

    Where are the Black Lionesses?

    England won the Euros not because of the system, but in spite of it. Women’s football has not been supported as it should have been by the government, or even the FA and UEFA themselves. Now that it’s proven to be a popular success, it’s a good time to learn lessons for the future.

    Moreover, the whiteness of this England team is plain to see for everybody. There have been prominent Black women involved in the England women’s team in the past. Hope Powell was the national coach, Alex Scott herself played for England and Arsenal, Eni Aluko had an excellent career as a footballer, and Mary Philip was the first Black woman to captain England. Campaign group Women in Football noted that Emma Clarke was the first recorded Black female football player, and that was in the 1890s.

    However, in the current England squad, Football365 noted:

    In the current England women’s squad there are just three players of black or mixed heritage – Nikita Parris, Demi Stokes and Jess Carter.

    Just last month, former footballer Anita Asante made similar comments about this England team:

    Set-up of elite women’s football in England needs to change – and saying so is not a criticism of this squad or manager.

    What’s next for women’s football?

    Asante identified that this is a problem which can’t be solved overnight. It’s about infrastructure. Wright and Scott are correct to call out the government, brands, and other sponsors – they’ve ignored women’s football until now. This England team has shown them that this is no longer acceptable.

    As Asante said:

    Young girls who cannot see anyone who looks like they do lack heroines to emulate – and that matters.

    Young girls will have had a joyous time last night watching people who look like them win a major championship. However, if we’re going to demand change in the sport, we need to demand change for everybody. Young Black girls deserve to see people who look like them at all levels of football. Black women have long had their history in this sport undermined. It’s time to dig up and unsettle that history, so we can build a foundation that includes all types of women.

    Featured image via screenshot – YouTube/BBC Sport

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 14 July, the Department for Education (DfE) published new guidance on strip searching children in schools. This follows the safeguarding review on the strip search of schoolgirl Child Q, which urged the department to revise its guidance for schools.

    The new guidance urges school staff to advocate for pupils and to consider their mental and physical wellbeing when thinking about calling the police. But its allowance of strip searches on school grounds undermines its purported goal of keeping children safe.

    We must demand an end to the police’s use of this degrading and humiliating practice, especially against children. Ultimately, we need to seek safe and supportive ways to deal with the issues that impact children’s lives.

    Child Q

    In March, a safeguarding review revealed that two Metropolitan Police officers conducted a strip search against a Black schoolgirl, known as Child Q, while she was on her period. The search took place on school grounds with her teachers’ knowledge but without an appropriate adult present.

    Police stripped the child and forced her to expose her “intimate body parts”. They made the child remove her sanitary pad, and didn’t let her wash before returning to an exam.

    Teachers and police subjected Child Q to this dehumanising treatment because school staff wrongly suspected her of carrying cannabis. The safeguarding review concluded that “Child Q should never have been strip searched”.

    Speaking to the devastating impact of her experience, Child Q told the safeguarding review panel:

    I don’t know if I’m going to feel normal again… But I do know this can’t happen to anyone, ever again.

    In May, it was revealed that Met police also strip searched a 15-year-old mixed-race Black girl. This girl, known as Olivia, was also on her period at the time. Olivia attempted to take her own life following this traumatic incident.

    The police watchdog is investigating 10 other cases of officers strip searching children.

    These are not isolated incidents

    In February, a freedom of information (FoI) request by researcher Tom Kemp revealed that the Metropolitan Police’s use of strip search was on the rise.

    The researcher found that Black people were overrepresented in those targeted with strip search. Kemp also noted a concerning number of children included in these figures.

    And in July, an FoI request by LBC found that from 2019 to 2021, police strip searched 799 minors who were not in custody. They were between the ages of 10 and 17.

    The figures reveal extreme racial disproportionality in officers’ use of the degrading tactic. Over half of the children strip searched during this period were Black. 75% – amounting to 607 children – were from racially minoritised backgrounds. Only one in five were white.

    As was the case for Child Q, police conducted most of these searches due to suspected criminalised drug offences. Officers took no further action in just under half of these cases. This reflects the harmful and ineffective nature of racist ‘gangs’ and ‘county lines’ policing, which racially minoritised young people bear the brunt of.

    New ‘safeguarding’ guidance

    The DfE’s newly published guidance on searching, screening and confiscation for schools comes after the Child Q safeguarding review urged the department to revise its guidance.

    But the new guidance creates an alarming narrative that in some cases, it’s ok for police to strip search a child.

    Garden Court Chambers barrister Michael Etienne told The Canary:

    the guidance presumes that the use of strip searches is something that should even be allowed in schools.

    The barrister raised concerns that the guidance sets out vague recommendations for school staff. For example, the guidance states that staff should “advocate for pupil wellbeing”. But it offers no guidance on how teachers can actually enact this.

    Etienne told The Canary::

    Once the police have been called and arrive at the school gates, the guidance puts teachers in the passive position of merely “advocating” for the safety of the pupil but offers no explanation for what that means.

    The barrister was keen to note that head teachers have statutory powers to refuse entry to the police and can order officers to leave school grounds. This vital information is not included in the DfE’s guidance.

    ‘Criminal justice responses to issues of child safety’

    Etienne added that the guidance does little to clarify the difference between a strip search (the removal of outer clothing) and an intimate search (the exposure and/or inspection of intimate parts of the body). 

    He said:

    That is particularly important given that some of what is reported to have happened to Child Q is likely to amount to an intimate search.

    The guidance also fails to mention the adultification bias – the racist perception and treatment of Black children as adults. Adultification played a key role in Child Q’s devastating case.

    Highlighting the need for cultural and structural transformation to ensure that what happened to Child Q doesn’t happen again, Etienne said:

    Overall, the guidance will do nothing to change the culture of deference between schools and police officers. Teachers are essentially cast as observers. That is typical of the culture that enabled the strip search of Child Q.

    He concluded:

    The DfE’s response is rushed, superficial and still stubbornly rooted in a dependence on criminal justice responses to issues of child safety.

    Strip search can never be safe

    In the wake of Child Q’s humiliating experience, a coalition of groups working to end strip search emerged.

    The End Strip Search coalition, which includes 4FRONT, Kids of Colour and No More Exclusions, asserts that the practice can never be safe. It states:

    Even when ‘safeguards’ are in place, like parents being notified or an appropriate adult acting as a witness, the strip search experience is still one of trauma. A child is always traumatised, whether protocol is followed or not.

    It adds:

    Nothing a child could hide in their body is worth them being sexually assaulted. Whether something is found or not, a child is harmed in a way that has deep ramifications for their mental health, and their future. There is no justification.

    Indeed, there are no circumstances in which a child can be protected from harm while being strip searched – or even threatened with strip search – by police. With this in mind, the allowance of strip searches in schools in the DfE’s new guidance undermines the very concept of child safeguarding.

    How you can help

    We must call for an immediate end to the traumatic and dehumanising practice of strip search, particularly against children. Those looking to join the campaign can sign up for updates on actions, events and opportunities to get involved via the End Strip Search website.

    In the meantime, it is vital that adults are prepared to limit children’s contact with police, and to fiercely advocate for children during police interactions when they happen.

    Teachers – don’t invite police onto school grounds. Police are not equipped to prevent harm or to deal with the complex social issues that impact children’s lives. Their job is to criminalise.

    For the rest of us, this means resisting the presence of police in schools and intervening in every police stop we witness on the streets. It means withdrawing consent from all forms of policing. And it means demanding funding for specialist services that support vulnerable children and young people.

    More broadly, we must create a culture in which we keenly listen to children’s experiences of policing – and believe them. It’s time we start treating children with respect, not suspicion.

    Featured image via John Hale/Unsplash resized 770 x 403 px

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

  • Tory leadership candidate Rishi Sunak is behind Liz Truss according to a poll of party members. Whoever becomes party leader, given the reactionary policies already in place, the next Tory government will likely be no less extremist than that of Margaret Thatcher.

    Criminalising industrial action

    Thatcher’s defining moment was the crushing of the miners’ union. She achieved this with the support of scabs and the acquiescence of moderate trade unions and the Trade Unions Congress. But if Truss has her way, such tactics may be rendered redundant, for she seeks to make strikes virtually ineffective.

    Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union general secretary Mick Lynch says Truss:

    is proposing to make effective trade unionism illegal in Britain and to rob working people of a key democratic right. If these proposals become law, there will be the biggest resistance mounted by the entire trade union movement, rivalling the General Strike of 1926, the Suffragettes and Chartism.

    Specifically, Truss plans to bring in minimum service levels on critical infrastructure during strikes. In other words, the government will facilitate scab action, just as Thatcher did with the Nottinghamshire miners.

    Of course, the Tory government has already changed the law so that businesses can more easily hire scab labour to undermine strike action:

    Truss also wants to impose other restrictions, such as increasing the minimum notice period for strike action from two to four weeks.

    Lynch describes Truss as a “right-wing fundamentalist” who seeks to make “effective industrial action illegal”. And he adds that she also wants a “low paid, cowed workforce”. This amounts to the “oppression of working people”:

    More Rwandas

    Moreover, Truss is prepared if needed to have the UK leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR is not affiliated with the EU but was set up by the UK and other countries to protect citizens against injustices by governments and other powerful institutions.

    Presumably, Truss hopes that exiting the ECHR will make it easier for the UK to flout international laws and agreements when deporting refugees. And she has made it clear she seeks to broker deals similar to the Rwanda agreement with other countries, with Sunak having said similar.

    Bonfire of rights

    Truss is backed by the secretive European Research Group, responsible for the hard-line approach on Brexit which the Johnson government adopted. Her policies on EU trade are largely about the destruction of ‘EU laws’ – i.e. getting rid of hard-won employment rights and environmental protection. Indeed, Truss intends to get rid of all EU regulations by the end of 2023. This is likely to result in more trade friction and delays at the ports.

    Sunak’s view on EU regulations is not too different to Truss’s. But while his policy on the Northern Ireland Protocol is more measured, Truss intends to amend the Protocol. This is despite the fact it could jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement and therefore provoke civil unrest.

    Also, such a move will likely further alienate the EU, risking an all-out trade war. That could mean even higher prices.

    More lies

    At a BBC televised debate, Sunak and Truss were asked if Brexit is one of the main causes of the huge queues at Dover and Folkestone. The queues of traffic have been going on for months, but have worsened as holidaymakers head for the continent. There are warnings the queues could continue for much of the summer.

    Both leadership candidates gave an unequivocal “No” in answer to that question. That is a demonstrable lie, on par with the many falsehoods uttered by Boris Johnson. Sunak was, and Truss is, a Cabinet minister with the Johnson government, which told the public there would be no chaos at the ports as a result of Brexit. But the reality is far different.

    The government planned for no-deal Brexit chaos via Operation Yellowhammer:

    Yellowhammer covered the possibility of massive vehicle and passenger disruption at Britain’s ports. It also examined a range of anticipated problems, such as food shortages, price rises, and consequences to loss of EU citizenship. Many of these problems arose despite a Brexit deal, and they still persist.

    It’s understood that the Tory government refused to double the number of passport checking booths. Also, after promising £33 million for necessary upgrades of the ports to meet demands post-Brexit, it only provided £33,000.

    The Independent’s travel expert Simon Calder explained exactly why the queues at the ports are entirely down to Brexit. He said:

    Leaving the EU makes it much harder to leave the UK. And that’s because we asked, we voted, we negotiated – or at least the government did on our behalf – to have a European Union external frontier in Kent, at the port of Dover, before you get on the ferry to go to Calais and Dunkirk, and at the Euro Tunnel terminal at Folkestone.

    Thatcherites

    The next UK prime minister will be decided by around 160,000 Tory Party members. 56% of these reside in London and the South East. 58% are over the age of 50. And, perhaps worst of all, 80% are defined as middle class. Moreover, Sunak and Truss openly claim to be Thatcherites.

    Sunak wants to delay any tax cuts until, he says, the economy has revived, though he’s not spelled out what kind of cuts. He was responsible for the increase in National Insurance contributions and cut the £20-a-week increase to Universal Credit. Sunak is also filthy rich.

    Meanwhile Truss wants to abolish a planned rise in corporation tax for businesses, although she’s also promised to reverse the hike in national insurance. She additionally intends to suspend the “green levy”, which is that part of energy bills used to pay for social and green projects.

    Class war

    Whoever wins the leadership contest, it’s clear that the financial burdens faced by millions of workers will persist if not worsen. According to the Big Issue:

    As many as 16 million people in the UK could be officially classed as living in poverty by 2023. Around 14.5 million people were in poverty before the pandemic, the government estimates. That’s one in every four or five people.

    The latest analysis by the Resolution Foundation predicts that 1.3 million more people will be plunged into absolute poverty by 2023. Including the 700,000 who fell into poverty during the pandemic, that’s around 16.5 million people.

    As for any industrial action in essential industries, a Tory government wouldn’t have the slightest qualms crushing it with the sort of violent tactics used during the 1984/85 miners’ strike.

    But if those actions escalated into a general strike, such violent tactics could be seen as unviable. Especially if striking rail workers were joined by striking nurses or teachers, complemented by protests on the streets over the ongoing cost of living crisis.

    For we are facing outright class war. And we either resist or go under.

    Featured image via Flick / Paige cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

  • The fallout from the Forde Report is still rumbling on, but there aren’t many outlets that have bothered to cover its findings. Indeed, sociologist Tom Mills put together some figures on how little traction the report has gained in the mainstream media:

    Middle East Eye said of the conclusions of the report:

    Damning report says antisemitism was treated as a ‘factional weapon’ by both supporters and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn in senior party positions.

    However, the Labour Muslim Network also found that the report points to “institutional Islamophobia within the Labour party”.

    All of this comes just as a new survey from advocacy organisation CAGE looks at yet another facet of Islamophobia. We’ll get to that in a moment, but first it’s worth looking to the people of colour who’ve had to take the lead, once again, on calling out Islamophobia.

    Kick in the teeth

    Labour MP Kate Osamor said:

    MP Nadia Whittome also called for the Labour leadership to respond:

    Journalist Rachel Shabi said:

    Media Diversified‘s Samantha Asumadu organised a Twitter space to discuss the findings of the Forde report, and called for more people to listen:

    The Canary’s own Afroze Zaidi was a speaker at this event, and shared her thoughts:

    Clearly, there is a strong feeling that Labour has not addressed its Islamophobia and racism problems in any meaningful way.

    Solidarity

    Islamophobia is rampant and rife throughout Britain, not just in the Labour party. A new survey from CAGE shows just how bad things have become. The survey recieved 532 responses from parents, students, and teachers. They asked how involved schools were with support for people in Ukraine.

    The survey found that:

    • 96% of respondents confirmed “proactive engagement” on the Ukraine issue, such as donation appeals or mentions in newsletters.
    • 62% of respondents said schools had fundraised or hosted donation drives for Ukraine.
    • 17% of respondents said that children were encouraged to wear the colours of the Ukraine flag to school, or to have the flag on school property.

    Shockingly, CAGE found that in some cases “schools were also raising funds for military gear”.

    In its analysis, CAGE stated:

    The figures lie in stark comparison to the treatment of Palestine last year, where our cases – as well as those of other advocacy organisations and countless anecdotes – indicated that pupils (and staff) were treated punitively for attempting to express solidarity.

    Last year, textbooks on Palestine and Israel were pulled from schools by the government. In February of this year, the Department for Education (DfE) told schools to present a “balanced” view of what it called the Israel-Palestine “conflict.” There have been multiple instances where children have been punished for wearing Palestinian flags or excluded for showing support for Palestine, with teachers also enforcing objections to mentions of Palestine.

    As Al-Araby reported, the DfE also said this about Black Lives Matter (BLM):

    It says those teaching about particular activist groups such as certain organisations linked with the “Black Lives Matter movement… should be aware that this may cover partisan political views” – those which are outside the “basic shared principle that racism is unacceptable”.

    What’s the pattern here, then?

    Racism

    There’s a reason that support for Ukraine is seen as politically neutral. It’s because white people’s bodies are seen as neutral. Palestine and BLM are singled out because Black and brown bodies are always seen as political, no matter how people behave or what their political views are.

    The head of research at CAGE, Azfar Shafi, said:

    Despite the sharp differences, the research uncovered some notable convergences in the way that the government approached the questions of Palestine and Ukraine in school. Whether under the banner of countering ‘extremism’, preventing ‘antisemitism’ or tackling ‘disinformation’, there has been a concerted effort to stage-manage the terms of political discussion in school, including through the use of security thinktanks, to firmly align with British foreign policy interests.

    The response to the Forde report from mainstream media – or rather, the lack of a response – shows that neither institutions like the Labour party nor politics at large are interested in meaningfully tacking anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or anti-Blackness. CAGE’s report is invaluable in showing that children are used as political tools. If it’s okay for children to support Ukraine, why isn’t it okay for children to support Palestine or BLM?

    Children are being weaponised in this culture war, which is being waged across the political spectrum. With all of this, whether it’s the lack of response to the Forde report, or how children in schools are treated, one thing is clear – this is white supremacy in action.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Latrach Med Jamil and Unsplash/Nati Melnychuk

    By Maryam Jameela

  • A story with seriously incorrect info about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefit rate rises went viral. It was thanks to the Mirror and its owner, Reach PLC. Now, people in desperate need of more money may think the DWP will increase their income just before Christmas. But this is simply false.

    DWP: fake news?

    On Sunday 24 July, the Mirror ran a story on the DWP upping social security rates. But just over a day later, it changed the article. The internet archive site Wayback Machine has not archived the original story. But The Canary saved a copy. The Mirror article originally stated:

    Universal Credit: Benefits review could mean bumper Christmas payment.

    Inflation is already at a 40-year high but the DWP have said they will not review benefit payments until November, when Universal Credit recipients could get a big Christmas bonus.

    Just to cement the idea that claimants will get a rise at the end of the year, the article then stated:

    If payments rise in line with inflation, top-rate benefit claimants could see an extra £50 in their bank each month, just in time for Christmas.

    False info

    This is literally not true. As The Canary first reported on 20 July, and then the Mirror seemingly piggybacked off, the DWP is reviewing social security rates in November. But this will be for the increases due in April 2023.

    After this journalist prodded the Mirror on Twitter about its mistake, it updated the article just before midnight on 25 July. It last changed the article early on 27 July. The piece now makes clear that the November review is for social security increases in April 2023.

    A viral DWP story

    But the problem is, Reach already circulated the thrust of the original article around its local titles. The piece is on sites like the Liverpool Echo and the network of so-called “Live” sites – for example Yorkshire, Lancs and Kent Live. Versions of the story stated the false “bumper Christmas payment” line, and:

    Below are some projections of potential benefit increases, that Universal Credit claimants could see this November

    As of 10am on Wednesday 27 July, the articles didn’t say that the DWP would not actually up social security rates until April 2023.

    The Canary asked the Mirror for comment. But it had not responded at the time of publication.

    DWP: manufacturing consent

    Of course, mistakes happen. The trainee news reporter behind the story, William Morgan, made a huge mistake. Then, the Mirror editors didn’t bother to fact-check it. They corrected the mistake when they realised.

    However, this is not the first time the Mirror has misrepresented a DWP story. It recently claimed the department was holding a “secret inquiry” into the deaths of claimants – when this was not factually correct. Also, the DWP feeds off corporate media either parroting its narrative or not digging into issues properly. It allows it to manufacture consent for policies which harm the poorest people.

    But the Mirror‘s mistake is not the biggest problem. It’s the fact that Reach let the story go out on its local news sites and that at the time of writing, it still hasn’t been corrected.

    Reach: ‘poor people? who gives a shit?’

    It’s bad enough that countless claimants will have read the original, false, article. It’s worse that many of them will have believed they may be getting more money during these awful times. But it’s utterly negligent that Reach is still letting the article stay up on its other sites after the Mirror changed the story.

    The problem is, it’s what can happen when corporate media journalists report on issues that probably don’t affect them. Any journalist with lived experience of the social security system would know the DWP’s November review is for rate rises the following April. Clearly, that’s unlikely to be any Reach/Mirror journalists. Meanwhile, its incompetence got the hopes up of countless people living precariously on the edge of disaster – all for nothing.

    Not that Reach seems to give a shit.

    Featured image via The Canary, Wikimedia and the Mirror – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Eco-defenders in Somerset are occupying an ancient oak, to save it from a National Highways road expansion.

    The Queen Camel oak near Sparkbrook is being threatened by plans to build a new slip road off the A303.

    Indra Donfrancesco – the deputy mayor of Glastonbury, and one of the people who have occupied the area to protect the tree – recorded this video explaining her motivations:

    According to Indra:

    This tree behind me is in the way of this works happening. So that’s why we’re here, that’s why we’ve made camp, we’re up the trees. We’ve got tree hammocks up there, and we will be here until either Highways England or the contractors see sense, and […] know that this tree is not coming down.

    The campaigners say:

    We are occupying to highlight that the Gov is spending 6.1 billion on road projects which will increase carbon emissions whilst a 78% cut in emissions by 2035 is written into law.

    The tree-sitters told us that a court failed to protect the tree last week, but they were planning to appeal to the High Court.

    “We cannot afford to lose one more tree”

    Indra told The Canary:

    I have been camping underneath the Queen Camel oak this past week, and campaigning to keep it safe from a slip-road. I’m here because there are too many trees that are disappearing in the world. In our country we have the worst canopy cover in Europe. We are in a climate emergency, we cannot afford one more tree. This is a healthy 450-year-old plus oak tree

    I am here to give voice to this tree, to tell its story of why it is more important to us than a road. In this time of climate emergency we cannot afford to lose one more tree

    Julian Hight submitted a complaint to National Highways which points out that the Queen Camel oak was recorded on the first ever Ordinance Survey maps, made 100-150 years ago, but the tree is thought to be much older than that. This makes the Queen Camel oak a ‘veteran tree’.

    Hight wrote:

    veteran oak in particular, provide more habitat that any other native tree, supporting over 2,300 different species, 320 of them are found nowhere else. veteran trees are biodiversity hotspots.

    Calls to protect biodiversity

    Supporters on Twitter called for the ancient oak to be spared:

    “We all need to make a last stand for nature”

    Conservationist and TV presenter Chris Packham also joined the calls to save the tree:

    Another of the tree-sitters – who preferred to remain anonymous – told The Canary:

    I’m one of the activists who have been living up this tree for nearly two weeks now. We’ve made four different nests out of netting with pop-up tents on them, we’ve got a solar panel for charging, and we’ve been spending some really glorious nights looking at the stars from the top of an oak tree, it’s nice. There’s bats in it, evidence that squirrels were here but obviously they’ve moved out due to the construction. There’s owls here and lots of buzzards that nest in trees like this, as well as kestrels and sparrowhawks. There’s loads and loads of wildlife living off this massive veteran tree, and we just think that it really needs saving.

    “A huge loss of biodiversity”

    National Highways has previously estimated that the oak is 400-450 years old, but maintains that it is not subject to a protection order. We contacted the organisation to ask if it intended to change its plans in order to save the ancient tree. A spokesperson replied:

    We respect the right to protest and will work with police and all relevant authorities, and those protesting, to ensure everyone is safe.

    We take our environmental responsibilities very seriously and are one of the largest tree planting organisations in the UK, with plans to plant an extra 3 million trees by 2030. We only cut back or fell trees where it is essential to keep people safe, protect the environment or where it is necessary to allow us to improve journeys.

    Where we plan to remove old trees on the A303 Sparkford scheme, we have made sure to investigate other possibilities to see if we can avoid removal. Sadly, that was not possible on this occasion. We continue to work with ecologists and other specialists to make sure our environmental mitigations are as thorough and beneficial as possible.

    But as the tree-sitter highlighted:

    The council and the Highways England – who bought this land 30 years ago – always swore that they’d protect it to the farmer who they bought the land off of. Recently they have changed their tact and said that it needs to come down because its going to be on a piece of banking between the main A303 expansion and a sliproad, which is a private road to a private school – which already has perfectly good access to the existing Sparkford roundabout.

    So we just feel that it doesn’t need to come down, it’s a huge loss of biodiversity. So we’re here to do what we can to protect it.

    The Queen Camel campaigners have vowed to protect the oak. They are raising funds for camp equipment, and towards an injunction to prevent the felling of the tree. You can support them by donating to their crowdfunder.

    Featured image via the tree-sitters, with their permission

    By Tom Anderson

  • The spring and summer of 2022 have been seasons of discontent in the United Kingdom. Not only was Prime Minister Boris Johnson toppled after a cascade of all-too-public scandals eroded confidence in his government, but the economy has also been hit by a slew of major industrial actions.

    A series of rolling strikes have brought the country’s rail network and London’s underground rail system to a standstill on several days over the past months, with the prospect of more strikes through August. Ten thousand underground system workers struck over efforts by Transport for London, the body that oversees the city’s transport, to cut more than 500 jobs and to “review” the pensions package negotiated by the unions. Railway workers are striking over pay: The union claims railway companies froze pay several years ago, and in the current round of negotiations they are proposing small increases that don’t even begin to match the near-10 percent inflation the U.K. economy is currently experiencing. They are also striking over efforts by owners to cut the number of maintenance crews on the lines.

    Strikes aren’t limited to the transit sector. Pay increases in most industries are failing to come close to cost of living increases: The Office of National Statistics reports that this year real wages have declined by 2.8 percent, the largest such decline since records on this began being kept 21 years ago. As a result, unions have gotten more assertive. Moreover, while the public’s support for striking workers is uneven, sympathies have shifted towards the unions in recent months, and large numbers of Brits polled do support strike actions — if not across the board, then by workers in particular industries, such as firefighters, nurses and doctors.

    The National Health Service, Britain’s beleaguered publicly funded health care system, is facing the threat of strikes, but not only by nurses. Doctors are dismayed by a new contract that would force them to offer primary care appointments to patients on evenings and weekends, presumably as a way to clear backlogs in access to care built up during the pandemic.

    Firefighters are also threatening to walk off the job, as are teachers, civil servants, postal workers, telecommunications engineers and even some lawyers. Arguably not since the late 1970s have so many sectors of the U.K. economy faced industrial action simultaneously.

    The Conservative government is as hostile to trade union rights as the GOP in the United States, viewing these strikes as something akin to an existential threat. The U.K. transport secretary has attempted to discredit the striking railway workers by claiming they are being led by “Marxists.”

    Nearly 40 years ago, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used the miners’ strike as a way to break the most militant of Britain’s unions and usher in neoliberalism. Today, the government has rushed through legislation essentially greenlighting the hiring of scab workers, via temp agencies, to fill labor shortfalls created by workers going on strike.

    Seven years ago, the Conservative Party tried to enact a similar reform. But the change ran into a barrage of criticism from the Regulatory Policy Committee, a governmental watchdog agency that looks at the credibility of proposed legislation, which concluded that the benefits to employers would actually be negligible, not least because of the difficulty of finding large numbers of skilled temp workers to stand in at short notice for strikers. Ultimately, because of the committee’s findings, and its damning conclusion that the proposal wouldn’t actually save employers any money, the law change wasn’t enacted.

    Now, with the country mired in industrial strife, and with the government in shambles, the outgoing Johnson and his colleagues have decided that the time is right to resurrect this scab-labor charter.

    The law, which kicked in on July 21, allows businesses to rapidly access pools of temporary workers from employment agencies to, in the words of the government press release on the change, “plug essential positions.” This undoes nearly 50 years of labor law in the U.K., since unions pressured a beleaguered Conservative government in 1973 to ban the practice of temp hires being used as strikebreakers; since then, it has been against the law in the U.K. for employment agencies from farming out workers to break strikes. The law was updated in 2003, but essentially remained as it had been since the 1970s.

    The new legislation, which was rushed through parliament in the last weeks of the session, after members of parliament dispatched Johnson but before they went on their summer recess, also quadruples the penalties that courts can assess against unions deemed to be involved in illegal strikes, raising the fine from £250,000 to £1 million.

    The language of the law change is unambiguous in its anti-union ambitions. It states that:

    The Government is committed to ensuring strikes only happen as the result of a clear, democratic decision and commits to tackling the disproportionate impact of strikes on important public services. In addition, there are sectors in which industrial action has a wider impact on members of the public that is disproportionate and unfair. Strikes can prevent people from getting to work and prevent businesses from managing their workforces effectively.

    In other words, if a strike is actually effective, and thus inconveniences people — which is literally the aim of such actions — it becomes illegitimate and ought to be broken.

    The bill continued that, “Once this instrument comes into force, employment businesses will be permitted to supply temporary workers (agency workers) to employers facing industrial action. The workers supplied by employment businesses will be permitted to perform the work normally carried out by those workers taking part in industrial action.”

    This is a fiercely anti-union position, and in response UNISON, the largest union in the country, has already announced that it plans to take the government to court to try to block the new law from taking effect. Yet, despite the ominous timbre of the new law, it’s not at all clear that, ultimately, it will end up being anything much more than right-wing, populist symbolism.

    Like the U.S., Britain is facing huge labor shortages (there are more than 1.3 million job vacancies at the moment), a crisis that has been worsened by Brexit having led to hundreds of thousands of workers from the continent leaving the U.K. and returning to European Union countries. Given this, the idea that temp agencies could quickly provide thousands of skilled firefighters, teachers, nurses or train drivers at short notice is little more than a fiction. But it’s a convenient fantasy for a Conservative Party mired in a messy leadership contest in which the candidates have vied with each other to prove their hardline, Thatcherite credentials. The party and its standard-bearers are desperate to prove to the Conservatives’ political base that it is only they who are able to get “tough” on workers whose strike actions are causing inconveniences to Brits right at the start of the summer holiday season.

    This isn’t a serious industrial policy, nor is it even an effective anti-union policy. Rather, it’s the floundering and the posturing of a party increasingly at the mercy of events beyond its control. It won’t end Britain’s summer of discontent. It probably won’t make much of a difference to the Conservative Party’s downward spiral in public opinion polls. It certainly won’t solve the underlying problem that soaring inflation is rapidly corroding the real wages of workers in the U.K., thus triggering a huge upswing in the number of strikes. But it might allow the new leaders of the party to at least pretend that they’re wielding a sharp sword against political and economic menaces that, seemingly, are now lurking around every corner.

    Meanwhile, Britain’s unions are embracing more militant strike tactics than they have since the Thatcher years, and much of the public is supporting them despite the inconveniences that result. Far from weakening Britain’s union movement, the new laws regarding temp workers seem likely to harden union stances and trigger even more strike action over the coming months.

  • A Guardian commissioning editor has been accused of ‘defaming’ independent outlet Novara Media and one of its staff. In a series of tweets, the editor made baseless antisemitism slurs against Novara – and even attacked one of its Jewish team members.

    Guardianista defames Novara

    Siam Goorwich is a commissioning editor for Guardian Labs. This is the paid-partnership/branded content part of the Guardian‘s output. Goorwich currently has her Twitter account locked. Despite this, Novara Media has discovered that she tweeted some deeply unpleasant things about it back in March 2022.

    As Novara co-founder Aaron Bastani tweeted:

     

    But there was more from Goorwich. As Another Angry Voice tweeted:

    Novara commissioning editor and reporter Rivkah Brown accused Goorwich of tweeting “defamatory” content:

    As of 2pm on Tuesday 26 July, Novara has not said if the Guardian has responded to Brown’s complaint.

    The Forde Report

    It’s likely that Goorwich’s comment stems from her stance on Jeremy Corbyn. She wrote for both Grazia and Metro about her unhappiness with his leadership of Labour. For Metro, she wrote:

    don’t you think it’s terrifying that in Britain in 2018, Jews feel that they can’t vote for a major political party because they believe there’s overwhelming evidence that the party’s leader is an anti-Semite? I certainly do.

    Left-wing sites like Novara were supportive of Corbyn – and therefore, got caught up in these accusations too. But as we now know from the Forde Report, allegations like this about Corbyn and his leadership team are untrue. As Justin Schlosberg wrote for Novara:

    For all the nuanced language of the long-awaited Forde report, there is one key finding that lays bare a carefully constructed lie. It was a lie that implicated not just the right of the Labour party but a great swathe of Britain’s political and media class. And it was a lie that underpinned much of the dominant narrative leading up to, during and since Labour’s disastrous performance in the 2019 general election.

    Schlosberg points out that:

    This lie was not that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn had a real and serious problem with antisemitism. The Forde Report is right to call out those on the left who sought to deny or downplay the existence of anti-Jewish prejudice within the party.

    But crucially:

    The Forde report is equally clear that the antisemitism issue was indeed weaponised by Corbyn’s ideological opponents.

    Perpetuating the “lie”

    Schlosberg continued by describing this actual “lie”:

    In order to fatally undermine the Corbyn project, it had to be shown that Corbyn himself, or at least his office, was somehow complicit in the problem: that the leadership was the problem.

    The Forde Report explicitly proves this was not the case. Yet, by attacking Novara, Goorwich was part of perpetuating this lie by continuing to implicate independent media outlets like Novara. As Brown said, this is potentially defamatory – and Novara would be right to take further action.

    Featured image via Aaron Bastani – screengrab, Wikimedia and Wikipedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has published plans to cut bills by nationalising energy suppliers. It’s a proposal which will likely prove popular with voters. Unfortunately, however, it’s unlikely to find much support from the leadership of either of the two main political parties.

    The private energy scam

    According to a press release from TUC:

    • Energy retail company bailouts have so far cost £2.7 billion, while taking the Big Five energy retail firms into public ownership would cost just £2.85 billion
    • Ofgem expected to announce energy cap increase to at least £3,200 next month
    • “It’s time to lift the burden of failed privatisation off families”, says TUC

    Public ownership of energy retail companies would reduce bills, speed up energy efficiency improvements to UK homes, and cut carbon emissions faster, according to a new TUC report published today (Monday).

    The union’s ‘Affordable Energy Plan’ aims to keep bills down through the following measures:

    • Ending shareholder dividends, making more money available to cut bills
    • Unlocking incentives to make homes energy efficient
    • Enabling pricing structures with much lower costs for basic energy needs

    TUC notes that it’s publishing the plan ahead of an announcement expected from Ofgem in August “of a new increase to the energy price cap”.  This increase:

    is expected to bring average bills to more than £3,200 – a rise of over 150% in just one year.

    According to Martin Lewis, that all-time high may not even be the end of it:

    Privatisation has ‘failed’

    TUC stated that:

    Since June 2021, the UK government has spent £2.7 billion bailing out 28 energy companies that collapsed after putting short-term profits ahead of long-term stability – companies like Bulb and Avro Energy.

    Ministers have also had to allocate £12 billion to directly cut the cost of household bills.

    However, the TUC says that if energy firms had already been in public ownership, bills could have been kept down without such a high cost to the public purse.

    In France, where national provider EDF is currently 84% publicly owned, household energy bills rose by just 4% this year. The French government as the main EDF shareholder was able to instruct the firm to cut profits to keep prices down. The TUC says if energy retail was publicly owned, the UK would be able to take a similar approach.

    People have noted what the nature of EDF means for UK customers:

    ‘The long-term burden of privatisation’

    Looking at the broader perspective, TUC said:

    Even before the current energy price crisis, families were already paying the price of privatisation through higher bills to fund private profits.

    Research by Common Wealth shows that UK energy retailers paid shareholders more than £23 billion in the last 10 years. And most of these dividends went overseas to large foreign shareholders.

    A publicly owned energy provider could have used this wasted cash to reduce bills and bring forward energy efficiency measures to make family homes cheaper to heat and power.

    But the TUC says that privatisation has held back energy efficiency home improvements. Energy companies are incentivised to sell more energy to make profits for shareholders – not to invest to cut energy use.

    On the ‘affordability’ of nationalisation, they added:

    … nationalising the Big Five energy retail companies (British Gas, E.ON, EDF, Scottish Power and Ovo), would cost £2.85 billion.

    By contrast, the government has already spent £2.7 billion over the past year bailing out failed private energy firms, including £2.2 billion for just one firm alone – Bulb.

    Taking these five companies into public ownership would move more than 70% of households out of the failed private energy retail system.

    And it would cost only around a quarter of what ministers will spend this year protecting families from the soaring prices charged by private energy retailers.

    They also said:

    Publicly owned energy companies would have a strong incentive, and the capacity, to roll out energy efficiency improvements to all UK homes, significantly reducing bills.

    And they will have the power to set energy prices aimed at affordability for customers, rather than maximising profits for shareholders.

    The TUC plan sets out how a publicly-owned energy retail system could deliver a social pricing structure that lets everyone afford the energy they need to cook, clean, and stay warm all year round, while those with extravagant energy use pay more per unit.

    Under the TUC’s plan, every household would receive a free band of energy to cover basic lighting, heating, hot water and cooking. And bills for low-income families would be capped at 5% of typical household income.

    Professor Prem Sikka wrote about the potentials of nationalisation for Left Foot Forward:

    ‘Energy firms rinsed us’

    TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said:

    Families should be able to afford their basic energy needs.

    But energy firms rinsed us for private profit in the good times, then doubled our bills when the going got tough. That’s why bills are soaring now.

    It is time to lift the burden of failed privatisation off families. No more shareholder pay-outs. No more fat cat bonuses. No more take-the money-and run-companies that collapse overnight. Just fair prices from an energy company owned by us all and run for our benefit.

    O’Grady added:

    Everyone should have enough affordable energy to cook, clean and keep their home warm.

    But anyone heating a private swimming pool should expect to pay a higher rate for their luxury lifestyle.

    O’Grady has also been speaking about how increased energy bills will be particularly hard to bear for wage-poor Britons:

    Ordinary people have already been struggling as a result of the cost of living crisis, also called the Tories’ class war. The government needs to take immediate, concrete action to address the astronomical rise in bills. Because if it doesn’t, the consequences are likely to be devastating.

    Featured image via stevepb / Pixabay, under Pixabay license, resized to 770px x 403px

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Back in October 2021, one of the UK’s most renowned fox hunters was found guilty of encouraging others to hunt animals illegally. Mark Hankinson, former director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, was prosecuted after internal hunting webinars were leaked to the public.

    Hankinson was caught on film saying that trail hunting was used as a smokescreen “to portray to the people watching that you’re going about legitimate business”. Trail hunting is the laying of an artificial trail for hounds to follow instead of them chasing a real fox. It was brought in after hunting with dogs was made illegal in 2005.

    However, on 20 July, Hankinson’s conviction was overturned after he won an appeal in Southwark Crown Court. The judge ruled that Hankinson’s words “are capable of more than one interpretation”.

    The verdict is particularly worrying for all those who don’t want to see foxes and other mammals ripped to pieces by Britain’s rich people in the name of ‘sport’. Since the hunting ban came into force, there has been ample gruesome footage, as well as eyewitness reports, of hunts breaking the law by murdering foxes, deer, hare and mink. For years, hunt saboteurs and campaigners have tried to force big landowners like the National Trust to take action against this illegal hunting. But it was only after Hankinson was found guilty that they were forced to ban the bloodsport from their land.

    Considering the judgement

    To its credit, the National Trust has put out a statement saying that it won’t reconsider its ban on trail hunting. The organisation said:

    There were many contributing factors in our decision to no longer issue trail hunting activities on National Trust land, including the appropriate use of charitable funds, the risk of reputational harm to the Trust and the result of the recent members’ resolution vote on this matter at our October 2021 Annual General Meeting.

    We will not be reviewing our position on trail hunting as a result of this appeal.

    However, other landowners were not so committal in their stance, saying they needed to review the judgement. Forestry England told The Canary:

    [Trail hunting] will remain suspended until our board decides on its future in forests we care for.

    Meanwhile, Natural Resources Wales told us:

    Until we have had an opportunity to consider the appeal judgement, we will not be able to comment.

    Dead foxes? What dead foxes?

    Perhaps most concerning is the response of United Utilities. It said:

    We would need reassurances from the hunts on how they will comply with licences and the law. Until this is complete, trail hunting remains suspended on our land.

    Of course, hunts are going to reassure United Utilities that they are acting within the law. They never admit that they are killing foxes, even when caught red-handed. They continue to gaslight the public in the hope that we think that all the dead foxes we have seen in footage are actually a figment of our imagination.

    A statement from the governing body of hunting exemplifies this gaslighting. Following Hankinson’s appeal, The Hunting Office said:

    the process was initiated by extreme activists for the purposes of political gain and has been a waste of valuable police and CPS resources.

    It continued:

    Hunts endure many spurious allegations of illegal activity and therefore not only have to operate within the law but also must openly demonstrate that they are doing so.

    But we know – and of course they know, too – that these are not just “spurious allegations”. On top of the countless videos of foxes being mauled by hunting hounds, there’s also ample evidence of hunt supporters beating up animal rights activists on the ground. And as if this weren’t enough, there are incidents of hunt staff feeding live fox cubs to hounds, a hunter who repeatedly stabbed a fox with a pitchfork, hunts that murder their own hounds, and hunts that murder people’s pets.

    There are currently at least 13 members of hunts, and two land owners, who are being prosecuted under the Hunting Act for illegally hunting a wild mammal with dogs.

    It is essential that landowners look at the big picture when they discuss whether to uphold their trail hunting bans. The evidence of the gruesomeness of hunting is staring them right in the face. And they will have blood on their hands if they allow hunts back onto their land.

    Featured image via Cheshire Against Blood Sports

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson has admitted that on 28 April 2018 he met with former KGB (Russian spy agency) officer Alexander Lebedev. It was at an Italian villa owned by Alexander’s son Evgeny Lebedev. Johnson was foreign secretary at the time. Controversially, he “dumped” his Met police protection officers prior to flying out to the meeting. Similar was the case with another meeting there in 2016.

    Johnson reportedly met several times with Lebedev senior when mayor of London. Those meetings have been known about for some three years, as revealed by OpenDemocracy and the Guardian.

    The political context to the meetings saw the lead up to the June 2016 EU referendum and the aftermath when Brexit policy was formulated. The catastrophic consequences of the referendum result are still being realised today.

    Johnson “compromised”

    With regard to Johnson’s April 2018 meeting with the Lebedevs, according to investigative journalist John Sweeney it and other meetings were nothing less than sex parties:

    At his palazzo, there’s a fancy-dress box and guests have to pick what they are going to wear blind which is why one of very famous party-goer ended up a gimp in a gimp suit. A butt-plug with a Vladimir Putin face on it has been spotted. Beautiful men and women are at hand, at beck and call. Katie Price, Jim Cusick reported, hit the champagne a little too heavily and got her tits out for then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. There is, of course, no suggestion that Johnson wore the gimp suit or, indeed, the Vladimir Putin butt-plug and no suggestion whatsoever that he wore both at the same time.

    A “former MI6 officer” – probably Christopher Steele, going by his previous statements – told Sweeney:

    If Boris goes to the Lebedevs’ palazzo in Italy and shags someone, there’s got to be a sporting chance that someone’s filming it… Imagine if Putin was knocking off a woman in a place in Moscow owned by a British businessman, then, in my old job, I would be on to that immediately, I would be all over it like a bad rash.

    Adding:

    Boris Johnson is compromised. No one believes he went to the palazzo just to sip orange juice.

    Calls for inquiry

    Following Johnson’s admission to meetings with Alexander Lebedev, the matter was raised in parliament.

    Labour MP Yvette Cooper stated that Johnson went straight to the April 2018 party in Italy from a NATO meeting on Russia. She added how in May 2022 the Canadian government had sanctioned Lebedev senior for having “directly enabled Vladimir Putin’s senseless war in Ukraine and bear responsibility for the pain and suffering of the people of Ukraine”.

    Labour MP Holly Lynch asked questions about Johnson’s meetings with Alexander Lebedev, but was “fobbed off”:

    Russian interference

    It doesn’t stop at Johnson either. Because there are a number of examples of Russia-linked oligarchs’ possible influence on Tory politicians.

    In December 2020, The Canary published details of leaked testimony provided in 2016 to the Home Affairs Select Committee. It showed that members of parliament and the upper chamber hired firms to advise oligarchs on how to avoid scrutiny for alleged money laundering.

    Similar testimony was provided to the Intelligence & Security Committee (ISC) in 2018. The ISC’s Russia Report remained unpublished until July 2020 on orders from Johnson. But it was noticeable for what it left out. For example, it only briefly mentioned the money laundering or the donations from oligarchs to UK politicians.

    Meanwhile, SNP MP and ISC member Stewart Hosie claims the Conservative government has “actively avoided looking for evidence” that Russia interfered in the EU referendum:

    More Tories compromised

    So it’s not just Johnson who’s compromised via connections with Russia-linked oligarchs.

    In October 2020, The Canary referred to leaked files that showed Russian oligarch and Putin ally Suleyman Kerimov had donated millions of pounds to major Tory donor Lubov Chernukhin’s husband. Chernukhin is a banker and the wife of Putin’s former deputy finance minister.

    The Canary further reported that Alexander Temerko, the former chief of a Russian arms company, made 69 donations to Tory MPs and Conservative Party central office. The total he donated from February 2012 to March 2019 came to nearly £700k. Temerko was also linked to a 2018 ‘coup’ within the Tory party that sought to oust then-prime minister Theresa May. The attempt was reportedly led by members of the European Research Group, which promoted a hard, no-deal Brexit.

    Moreover, Alexander Knaster, a former CEO of Russia’s Alfa Bank, made eight donations mostly to Conservative Party central office, totalling £455k. And Lev Mikheev, who allegedly “made his money managing the funds of wealthy Putin allies”, made 15 donations to the Conservative Party totalling £212k.

    Poverty and chaos

    The relationship between Johnson and the Lebedevs has been described as far worse a scandal than the “sex, lies and spies” of the Profumo affair. That eventually saw the collapse of the Macmillan-led Conservative government.

    Johnson’s resignation was ostensibly caused by inaction regarding the sexual misconduct of a Tory MP. In reality, he was brought down by a power struggle – the results of which will be of nil benefit to the British people apart from maybe the well off.

    Meanwhile, Johnson and his cronies have succeeded in ensuring the UK is left rife with poverty and facing an ever-increasing Brexit-related chaos.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Conservative government’s mass killing of badgers will be the subject of an upcoming hearing in the Court of Appeal. The court is due to review a 2021 High Court verdict on whether officials have breached their own laws with the policy.

    The hearing follows a recent call for a moratorium and independent investigation into the cull from numerous veterinary professionals.

    The forever cull

    Since 2013, the government has licensed the killing of over 175,000 badgers in England. It’s expected that tens of thousands more will die this year. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) insists the killing is necessary to tackle bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cows, along with other measures. But the most comprehensive study of the cull to date found that it hasn’t meaningfully assisted in lowering bTB rates. Rather, it indicated that the other measures, such as increased testing of cows and controls on their movement, are driving gradual declines in bTB.

    Defra has challenged the study’s findings, insisting that badger killing is responsible for the bTB falls. It later admitted to using “incorrect calculations” in its rebuttal, which the study’s authors assert proves their findings. Defra insists its “overall argument” stands.

    Conservation ecologist Tom Langton is a co-author of the study. He has also been engaged in legal action against the government over its plans for changes to the cull moving forward. These changes are outlined in the government’s Next Steps strategy, which it revealed in 2020.

    In effect, the plan is to continue widespread badger killing until 2026. At that point, the government will introduce a targeted cull policy with no end date. Langton says this represents an “expansion of the policy”, whereby “100% of badgers” could be targeted in smaller designated cull areas.

    Not the season for concern

    The ecologist believes the government is breaching its duties under the 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act with the strategy. The act commits the government to “have regard… to the purpose of conserving biodiversity” when “exercising its functions”.

    Alongside being an existential issue for badgers in particular, the cull has wider implications for biodiversity. That’s because living beings don’t exist in a vacuum. The removal of badgers can, for example, provide space for other predators to move into an area. This, in turn, can affect the ground-nesting birds or hedgehogs in that vicinity. As such, one of Langton’s co-authors on the study, veterinarian and Prion Group director Iain McGill, previously explained to The Canary that killing badgers is:

    a very stupid thing to do if you’re trying to conserve biodiversity. It’s just a crass hooliganism. It’s environmental hooliganism.

    Langton’s case against the government effectively puts that apparent hooliganism on trial.

    The High Court previously issued a judgment in the case in August 2021. The ruling favoured the government even though it found that officials didn’t have regard for biodiversity. Justice Griffiths essentially concluded that the government didn’t need to consider biodiversity in the Next Steps strategy because there was no new evidence to examine at the time. He noted:

    Biodiversity had been considered at multiple points before Next Steps, and the evidence was inconclusive.

    Moreover, he argued that even if it had considered biodiversity, the resulting policy would probably be the same, again because of the lack of new evidence.

    A test of the government’s mettle

    Existing evidence, however, shows that the only thing the government knows for sure about the ecological impact of the cull is that it doesn’t know enough. As Justice Griffiths highlighted, it was “inconclusive”. Prior studies and examinations such as the 2018 Godfray Review have called for further study of the impact of removing badgers due to their key role in ecosystems.

    So Langton is challenging the verdict in the Court of Appeal on 26 July. The ecologist spoke to The Canary ahead of the hearing. He argued that the case is about more than the massive loss of life badgers have suffered, the wastage of public money, and the deception of farmers. He said it concerns how officials “treat their duty” to prioritise the recovery of “our badly damaged environment” in an “open, coherent and comprehensive way”.

    Highlighting that widespread environmental degradation ultimately threatens humans too, and the urgent need for fresh thinking, Langton warned:

    If the [government] can treat the biodiversity duty, that underpins human survival, in this casual way, then the new Environment Act (2021) will equally have no teeth.

    Moratorium now

    Langton, McGill, and fellow study author Mark Jones, who’s Born Free’s head of policy and a veterinarian, joined with a number of others on 20 July to send an open letter to the government. The bulk of its signatories are veterinary and wildlife professionals.

    The letter cited the study’s findings and raised other issues with the cull, such as the cruel method of execution. It also noted that the government doesn’t test slaughtered badgers to determine if they have bTB, which is effectively why officials say they are targeting the badgers. The letter concluded:

    As we enter the 10th consecutive year of licenced badger culling without any conclusive evidence for its efficacy in controlling disease and unresolved humaneness concerns, we urge you to place an immediate moratorium on any further culling licences, pending a thorough independent and transparent review of the policy.

    More at stake than bTB

    Responding to the letter, a Defra spokesperson criticised the study, asserting that “national statistics are showing that our bovine TB eradication strategy is working”. They continued:

    As a result of the progress made, we are now able to move on to the next phase of the long-term eradication strategy, including setting out steps to expand badger vaccination alongside improved cattle testing and a potential cattle vaccine. We have always been clear we don’t want to continue the current badger cull longer than absolutely necessary.

    This strategy involves more mass badger killing in the short-term and forever killing in the long-term. And it’ll have currently unknown implications for biodiversity and the health of ecosystems, which “underpins human survival”, as Langton pointed out.

    In short, there’s lots more to consider than the eradication of bTB in cows. The government’s apparent failure to recognise that, and to heed its related duties, is alarming to say the least.

    Featured image via Mike Prince / Wikimedia, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • This article includes discussion of self-harm and self-inflicted death

    A report published by User Voice has found that the treatment of people imprisoned during the coronavirus (Covid-19) lockdown amounted to the UN’s definition of torture. User Voice is a charity led by formerly incarcerated people.

    Harrowing testimonies published in the report reflect just how inhumane the prison system is, and how much power the state has to violate the rights of imprisoned people.

    Inhumane conditions

    User Voice and researchers from Queen’s University Belfast conducted the study. It involved over 1,400 surveys of imprisoned people across 9 prisons in England and Wales.

    85% of the people surveyed reported being locked in their cells for 23 hours per day during lockdown. According to the UN’s definition, solitary confinement is being locked in a cell for more than 22 hours per day. The UN states that 15 days of solitary confinement in a row is “torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment”.

    The UN prohibits this cruel treatment of imprisoned people. But the User Voice report shows that people across the justice system endured, and continue to endure, even longer solitary confinement than that.

    Many reported being denied access to showers and gym facilities for days on end. Others highlighted that during lockdown they suffered the erosion of access to healthcare, opportunities to practice religion, and rehabilitation programmes including education.

    Meanwhile, nearly 60% of surveyed prisoners had no family visits throughout lockdown, including those with children.

    Summarising the dehumanising experience of imprisonment, one survey respondent said:

    The prison as an institution does not care about us inmates, they just throw us behind the door and treat us like animals.

    Mental health crisis

    Unsurprisingly, these inhumane conditions had a devastating impact on imprisoned people’s mental wellbeing during the pandemic.

    A young respondent held in a youth offending institute said:

    Just not getting out your cell makes you want to scream, innit, makes you feel so depressed every day.

    Instead of investing in systems to urgently support these victims of state-sanctioned torture, prisons cut access to mental health services. Indeed, three in five survey respondents noted that they had “worse” or “much worse” access to mental health support during lockdown.

    The study suggests that levels of depression among imprisoned people are almost 5 times higher than the general population. And half of respondents reported symptoms anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

    Before the pandemic, the charity INQUEST raised concerns about the rapidly increasing rates of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths in prisons. INQUEST works to support victims of state violence. Despite warnings to improve conditions, the government refused to act.

    2021 saw a 28% increase in the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison custody. 69% of all deaths of 18- to 39-year-olds in prisons during this period were self-inflicted. This is the tragic result of the state leaving those behind bars to languish in inhumane conditions.

    Citing lockdown conditions as a reason for the rise in self-inflicted deaths in prisons, one person behind bars explained:

    I know there has been at least 7 suicides in the last 14 months in this jail alone. Since April, there’s been at least 3 deaths, 2 have hung themselves… it’s only since April. That’s increased since Covid.

    Compassion, not punishment

    Rather than prioritising support and rehabilitation services for those behind bars, the government is pressing ahead with plans to further expand the prison estate. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) previously committed to £4bn to create 20,000 more prison places. Then in June, it committed a further £500m towards creating 2,600 more prison places. The state’s so-called “next generation of prisons” include greenwashed ‘sustainably built’ prisons and ‘secure schools‘ to imprison children.

    Building more human cages, whatever their guise, won’t improve conditions for the people held in those dehumanising institutions. It will simply create more places to funnel vulnerable and marginalised people into the system.

    Imprisoned people’s experiences of lockdown totally contradict the state’s claims that prisons play a rehabilitative function in society. As one imprisoned person said:

    Their idea of rehabilitating is locking us up in cells and forgetting about us.

    Prisons don’t keep us safe. They are literal sites of torture, where members of our communities are removed from their families, held captive, and traumatised. This does nothing to address the causes of social harm. Social harm is rooted in poverty and other inequalities which the government has entrenched through years of austerity and punitive policies.

    After creating new laws that target marginalised communities, and exacerbating the cost of living crisis, the state will have no trouble filling its new prison places.

    Imprisoned people remain one of the most marginalised groups in society. Those of us on the outside must urgently listen to and amplify their experiences. We must advocate for those behind bars – and demand an end to the expansion of the inhumane prison industry.

    Featured image via Jonny Gios/Unsplash resized 770 x 403 px

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

  • Police monitoring groups have been busy keeping their local communities safe. On 10 July, Hackney Copwatch and Tottenham Copwatch showed up to Trans Pride. And on 14 July, the Copwatch Network took part in Mad Pride. Meanwhile, new groups are gearing up to challenge state violence in their areas.

    Trans liberation

    On 10 July, Hackney Copwatch and Tottenham Copwatch marched at Trans Pride:

    As Tottenham Copwatch suggest, our collective freedom from police and state violence necessitates trans freedom from this and all forms of violence. The state and its institutions are inherently transphobic.

    As LGBTQ+ prisoners’ rights group the Bent Bars Project highlights, trans people – especially those who are people of colour, disabled, homeless, and/or sex workers – are at extreme risk of policing and criminalisation. As extremely vulnerable and marginalised communities, they bear the brunt of state violence.

    The state detains trans and gender nonconforming people in prisons according to binary gender categories imposed at birth. Here, they are frequently subjected to violence, held in isolation, and denied access to basic healthcare. It is a basic right for trans people to be able to access gender affirming healthcare.

    Trans liberation doesn’t mean the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) opening a new prison unit to detain trans people. It means no trans people in prison, because it means no prisons.

    Mad Pride

    On 14 July, copwatching groups joined Mad Pride, an event run by the Campaign for Psych Abolition. The aim of the event is to resist the state’s stigmatisation, policing and detention of people with mental health issues.

    As explained in the campaign’s Twitter graphic, the state continues to use the 1983 Mental Health Act to police and criminalise people experiencing mental ill health:

    Mental health services are contributing to the traumatisation and criminalisation of those in need of support. As the graphic states, police have the power to detain members of the public who appear to be experiencing mental ill health by sectioning them against their will. When sectioned, the state has the power to force detainees take medication without consent. Patients who resist risk further violence and criminalisation.

    Casework and monitoring by INQUEST – a charity that works to support victims of state violence – shows that people with mental health issues are overrepresented in the number of deaths following the use of force. This was Olaseni Lewis’ fate. Lewis tragically died while held in a mental health hospital in 2010 after 11 police officers restrained him. The inquest into the fatal incident concluded that officers’ “excessive, unreasonable, unnecessary and disproportionate” use of force contributed to the 23-year-old’s death. This treatment is rooted in ableist perceptions of people with mental health issues as ‘dangers to society’.

    Alternatives to policing

    Coming up, Liverpool’s Bizziewatch will be hosting an open meeting to discuss alternatives to policing on 27 July:

    Spaces where we are able to imagine abolitionist alternatives are essential to the creation of a world without police, prisons, immigration detention, surveillance, and all other forms of the carceral system.

    It isn’t about having all the answers, but understanding that we can and must develop new ways of living that ensure everyone’s wellbeing and safety. This includes investment in the essential services that communities need to survive and thrive, such as health, education, and housing, rather than police and prisons.

    Freedom for everybody

    Noting the annual uptick in policing over the summer months, the Copwatching Network shared this helpful information on how to intervene in a police stop:

    New police monitoring groups are popping up in the face of state violence and surveillance. Barnet Copwatch is a brand new group, and is welcoming members. And Camden Anti-Raids is gearing up to challenge immigration raids in the local area. According to the Copwatch Network, Brighton will soon have its own police monitoring group.

    There’s no better time to join your local copwatching group. If there isn’t one currently operating in your area, find out how to set up a police monitoring group using Netpol’s practical guide. In order to resist state violence in all its forms, it’s vital that we build community power. The state and its actors don’t keep us or our communities safe, but collectively we can.

    Featured image via Karollyne Hubert/Unsplash 

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Conservative party has recently passed legislation to stop travellers from staying in unauthorised encampments. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC Act) contains new measures that makes it a criminal offence if you’re “residing on land without consent in or near a vehicle” and “likely to cause serious damage or serious disruption”, or if you’re likely to cause “significant distress”.

    In 2019, Lancashire county council voted to sell the Leighton Traveller Site in Preston, one of the authorised sites created for them in the late 1980s. In the event the new landlord evicted the residents the PCSC Act would make it harder for them to find a place to stay.

    Local activists who observed these developments lobbied Preston city council to buy the site and run it as a co-operative. The campaign they started led to the city council buying the site in March 2022, enabling the residents to stay and have more of a say in how the site is run. 

    Lobbying the council

    John Gavin is a resident and warden at the Traveller site. He predicted that the county council’s decision to sell the site would leave the families living there homeless. Gavin and two of the activists who linked up with him have spoken to The Canary.  

    Gavin described his and other residents’ initial efforts to reach local politicians:

    The county councillors didn’t care. We petitioned every councillor in Preston, Liberal, Conservative, Green party. The only ones that got back to us were Mathew Brown (Council Leader at Preston City Council) and the Labour councillors.

    He retold the story of his initial meeting with local activists soon before the county council reached its decision:

    About a week before it I was thinking who we can contact now to get our point across, and I was there for about an hour just thinking. Then my wife said someone just knocked on the door.

    Dave Crawshaw was one of the Preston Labour party members at the door who had heard about the case. Crawshaw told The Canary about the county council selling the site and the action he subsequently took:

    I was present at the Lancashire County Council Cabinet meeting in September 2019 when the decision was made and was very shocked at the almost total lack of debate on the subject. The whole issue was done and dusted in about 5 minutes, and no one spoke out against the proposal … Within a few weeks we asked Preston councillors to adopt the site.

    New ownership model

    Crawshaw explained the co-operative model that the Council would use after it bought the site in March 2022:

    It is called Leighton St Travellers Ltd so it is a company, but its articles of association are set up as a co-operative. So, for example, all the residents are entitled to be members of the co-operative and one of the directors is elected from the residents, so the residents have a voice and a say that they never had before … It would be more correct to say that Preston CC is our landlord although the rent is a nominal £1 per annum. 

    The residents pay rent as they did before, but the difference is that, instead of going to the council, the rent goes to the co-operative who are liable for maintenance of the site and buildings and for paying all the utility bills, insurance, council tax etc. We will not get any subsidy from the council. 

    In addition to maintenance being funded this way, the city council this June has applied to the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ (DLUHC) Traveller Site Fund. The estimated cost of the entire project is £337,220.  

    County council response

    Lancashire county council has responded to some of the assertions made in this article:

    The decision was taken to seek new owners for the Leighton Street site as the county council has no statutory responsibility to provide sites for travellers, however it has always been our intention to include a covenant in any sale or transfer that the site must be retained for use by the travelling community.

    The response to the public consultation about the future of the site made clear that many residents would prefer the site to be kept in public ownership and we are pleased to have come to an agreement with Preston City Council over its transfer, which will secure use of the site for current and future residents.

    The activists The Canary talked to predicted the county council would sell the site to other travellers. But they also mentioned those who expressed an interest would likely want to evict the current residents.

    Grassroots campaigning

    Meanwhile, John Gavin praised businesses, the university, and unions for the role they played in lobbying the city council:

    They got onto the councillors, they were sending emails, telephone calls, letters… Everyone said the Labour councillors contacted them back. But the Liberal and Conservative councillors didn’t acknowledge us.

    Mick Darlington – a Unite Executive Member who helped Gavin co-ordinate with the council – said: 

    In my opinion Preston Council differs from the vast majority of other councils because they have a genuine socialist agenda, where the people they represent are always put before political or financial gain.

    The local Unite branch also paid for a computer for the sites’ residents to use for the running of the cooperative. 

    Contrasts with other councils’ approaches

    In the increasingly anti-Traveller environment, the Labour Party’s actions in local politics have not always followed Preston’s example. Labour shadow equalities minister Charlotte Nichols distributed leaflets for local elections in April 2021 promising to “deal with traveller incursions”.  

    Labour-led councils like Southampton have also taken a confrontational approach. This May, a Labour councillor called in armed police to prevent travellers from camping at a site.  

    The approach taken by the Preston Labour party, however, has convinced John Gavin to support them:

    I would not be interested in any party but the Labour party and I have not voted in years… I have a completely different opinion now because of the Preston Labour party.

    This campaign is notable due to activists in Preston observing developments in politics and being aware of the impacts on the community. The close relationship between Labour members, unions, and community organisations enabled councillors to quickly implement a solution. This in turn has enabled Preston to stand out in an environment where Travellers are subject to prejudice from the government, sections of the Labour Party, and other local authorities.

    Featured image via Preston Labour- YouTube

    By Richard Spence

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • New Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi is mega rich – just like the old one – and like his predecessor there are some serious questions around his taxes, investments and links to big business. Another top Tory serving the interests of the already rich while further impoverishing the poor.


    Video transcript

    Now it’s the turn of top Tory Nadhim Zahawi to be put under the microscope and examined. You may have heard a lot about him recently – he became the new chancellor hours after the former chancellor Rishi Sunak AND Health Secretary Sajid Javid both resigned in unison.

    He’s been a staunch supporter of Boris Johnson, right until the bitter end, and recently launched his own unsuccessful bid to be PM. Like many other Tories, his dodgy tax affairs have also been brought to light – calling into question his suitability to hold high office in the first place.

    But what’s his background? And how did he eventually rise to become one of the most senior Conservative members today?

    Nahdhim was born in Baghdad, Iraq to a wealthy family in 1967. His father was a businessman and director of an investment company. He was educated early on at expensive fee-paying schools – including Ibstock Palace school, which today charges between 17 and 22 thousand pounds in annual fees. Zahawi later went on to study at University College London, obtaining a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering.

    After setting up the polling company YouGov – yes, THAT YouGov – Nahdhim tried his hand at politics.

    After holding a position as a Conservative councillor for Putney from 1997 to 2006 – it wasn’t until 2010 that he would become an MP – representing the Tory seat of Stratford Upon Avon. But it’s Zahawi’s business dealings as an MP that raise the most questions and controversy.

    Let’s start with his extensive property portfolio.

    It’s been reported that Zahawi and his wife own up to £100m worth of property internationally, with £25m worth in London alone. This, of course, has led to questions surrounding conflicts of interest in his role as an MP as well as a landlord. In 2016, he was one of the Tory MP Landlords to reject a bill from Labour that would have required all commercial properties to be fit for human habitation. During the expenses scandal, it was revealed that he had charged the taxpayer to heat the horse stables in one of his homes.

    But his conflicts of interest aren’t just limited to property.

    Among one of Zahawi’s many corporate roles was his stint as chief strategy officer for Gulf Keystone Petroleum – for which he got paid over £20,000 a month. In this role, he also served on the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on  Kurdistan Region in Iraq- which received secretarial support from the Gulf Keystone Petroleum company he was working for.

    In addition to all this,  there have been questions about Zahawi’s tax in relation to a Gibraltar-based investment company – Balshore investment – owned by his father. It was reported that in 2018, Balshore sold £26m worth of YouGov shares to an undisclosed person. In the same year, a property company controlled by Zahawi and his wife received an unsecured £26m loan from an undisclosed source – which they used to buy up several properties across the capital.

    From his many conflicts of interests to his stomach churning endorsements of Johnson, Zahawi encapsulates the very essence of greed and profit at the expense of the public that Tory ministers are now infamous for.

    By Andrew Butler

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has made a damning admission about the cost of living payments – revealing a new statistic about who is entitled to them.

    DWP cost of living payments

    As The Canary has been reporting, the DWP has been rolling out cost of living payments since 14 July. It is giving eligible claimants a payment of “£650 paid in two lump sums of £326 and £324“. The DWP began paying around eight million people the first sum from 14 July. It said on Thursday 21 July it had made around 7.2m payments already.

    Now, in the DWP’s update on 21 July it revealed that:

    around 23% of families in the UK will be eligible for the first lump sum of the means-tested benefit Cost of Living payment.

    This figure is significant because it is much higher than the government’s estimates on the number of people in poverty. The most recent official government figures for 2020/21 say that:

    Around one in six people in the UK are in relative low income before housing costs (BHC), rising to around one in five once we account for housing costs (AHC).

    In other words, the headline poverty rate with housing costs is 20%. So, the DWP is effectively saying that 23% of households are so poor that they need emergency help – far higher than the official poverty rate.

    Countless people missing out

    Then, as The Canary previously revealed, the DWP will give some claimants nothing.

    First, it won’t be giving cost of living payments to 1.5 million social security claimants. These include:

    • 433,000 Housing Benefit claimants
    • 523,000 Carer’s Allowance claimants
    • 568,000 PIP/DLA claimants

    Then, it may not be paying it to around 800,000 Universal Credit claimants too. Also, The Canary could not calculate how many Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants wouldn’t get cost of living payments.

    DWP: admitting people are screwed

    It shames the government that this money is needed to stop people either falling further into poverty, or into poverty in the first place, all because our economy is so broken. But it also shows the disaster that is unfolding for the poorest people. When one in four families in the UK need government help to survive, the situation is catastrophic.

    Featured image via VideoBlogg Productions – The Canary and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

  • The record-breaking high temperatures in the UK are part an escalating climate emergency. Curtis Daly explains why those denying this are part of a death cult that is bankrolled by corporations and fuelled by parts of the media.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has announced when it will next review benefit levels. It will be deciding on the increase for claimants that will take affect in April 2023. But, the date it has set is not soon enough. And, moreover, the DWP could do something now if it wanted.

    DWP annual benefits review

    The DWP revealed the time of the review in response to a question. Lib Dem MP Wendy Chamberlain asked the department:

    what factors her [Coffey’s] Department will take into account when it next makes an assessment of the potential merits uprating of benefits; and whether the energy price cap will be taken into account when making that assessment.

    DWP minister David Rutley said that his boss Thérèse Coffey:

    is required to undertake an annual statutory review of benefits and pensions. She uses the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) in the year to September to measure inflation and average weekly earnings for the period May to July to measure earnings. The Office for National Statistics publish these figures in October.

    [She] must increase certain benefits by at least the increase in prices or earnings. If she considers it appropriate, having regard to the national economic situation and any other matters which she considers relevant, she may increase others by such a percentage(s) as she thinks fit.

    Her review will commence in the autumn and her decisions will be announced to Parliament in November in the normal way.

    So, what does this mean in reality for social security claimants?

    Chaos for DWP claimants

    On the face of it, if Coffey is basing her November decision on September’s inflation, then the increase in social security rates may be larger than usual. This is because the Bank of England says inflation will continue to rise this year. It may even hit 10%. However, while this may seem like an improvement for social security claimants, this is not actually the case.

    Think tank the Resolution Foundation previously said that the poorest people would see falls in income in the majority of years until 2026/27. As The Canary previously reported, with an 8.3% inflation rate April’s social security increases were going to mean a real-terms cut to people’s money. This would have taken rates to their lowest level since the mid-1980s. Now, with inflation actually standing at 9.4%, the situation for millions of people will be even worse.

    In practice, even a 10% rise in social security rates in 2023 would barely make up for the real-terms cut in 2022. On top of this, the DWP has made claimants suffer years of benefit freezes. So, Coffey merely following procedure would still leave claimants in a disastrous situation.

    Failing to act

    Of course, the DWP can do what it wants with social security rates. As The Canary previously reported, Coffey could change the controversial benefit cap whenever she wanted. Moreover, as we saw with the £20 Universal Credit uplift during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Coffey can do the same for all social security – but she chooses not to.

    The poorest people are already in a dire position. The DWP saying that it will review social security rates in November will not improve things. Only a realistic assessment of the situation followed by an immediate increase in the rate will avoid further disaster.

    Featured image via The Canary and Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • West Midlands Police has announced that it is the first UK force to livestream body-worn camera footage. This is recorded by police on the ground, and viewed by officers in an operations room. The quality of the footage is said to be so good that the officer viewing it remotely will be able to see better than police at the scene. The force said:

    From today, the latest body worn camera live streaming technology will be switched on, making us the first force in the country to use it and allowing officers to remotely view another officer’s body cam.

    The police stated that it has already trialled the software at protests:

     We’ve used it at policing operations such as football matches and protests, and during pursuits with traffic officers.

    It also said that it had consulted the public on the use of the bodycams, and that most people questioned were happy to be livestreamed:

    We have carried out extensive consultation and over 90 per cent of people told us they strongly agreed with us being able to use this new function.

    Of course, the police didn’t state who exactly the people it consulted were. It is doubtful that they spoke to the members of the public that they were trialling the surveillance on: those attending protests and football matches. When The Canary contacted West Midlands Police, asking which protests the technology had been used on, the force refused to give a specific answer.

    Protest is not an invitation for surveillance

    As the Network for Police Monitoring has pointed out, “choosing to take part in a protest is not an invitation to surveillance”. When we take to the streets, we don’t automatically consent to our every move being tracked, and we don’t consent to police officers filming our items of clothing, the people we are talking to, or the conversations we’re having.

    This new technology could mean that the police are breaching Article 8 of the Human Rights Act: the right to respect for a private life. But, of course, there are a number of ways that the state can get around this. Authorities can interfere with your right to respect for privacy in order to:

    protect national security
    protect public safety
    protect the economy
    protect health or morals
    prevent disorder or crime, or
    protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

    The state, will, of course, argue that such intrusive surveillance of a protest is needed to protect national security (even if they’re actually trying to protect their own power). Even while it tracks your every move, the state will say that it is only protecting the public. And in a society where capitalism is the religion, it will argue that it needs to track you in order to protect the economy.

    It remains to be seen how the police will utilise the livestream footage. Will police in an operations room, for example, instruct officers at a protest to film, follow or arrest certain individuals that it deems troublemakers? The answer is, most likely, yes. Together with increasingly powerful facial recognition technology, the chances of being able to attend a demonstration anonymously are becoming a thing of the past.

    Years of state surveillance

    Police surveillance at protests is, of course, nothing new in the UK. Police Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT), armed with their video cameras, have been a regular fixture at demonstrations for decades. Fifteen years ago, protesters began to organise collectively, trying to prevent officers from filming them. Known as Fitwatch, people on the ground used homemade banners to actively block police cameras. Back in 2010, Canary editor Emily Apple wrote in the Guardian:

    Fitwatch was formed three years ago as a street-level response to intimidation and harassment from the forward intelligence teams (Fits), with tactics ranging from blocking cameras to printing numbers, names and photographs of known police officers on our blog, and offering advice to demonstrators about staying safe in protest situations.

    Fitwatch’s tactics were effective, which, of course, made them targets for repression and arrest.The Metropolitan Police even succeeded in getting Fitwatch’s website – temporarily – shut down for perverting the course of justice. In fact, the tactics were so successful that a report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in 2021 lamented the fact that FIT tactics are not regularly used “because [some forces] fear that this might increase confrontation with protesters”.

    The report further stated that:

    Guidance from the Royal College of Policing advises commanders that their use may have a ‘significant impact on the public’s perception of police and their legitimacy’.

    On top of this surveillance, people have been – and likely still are – covertly spied upon by police or corporate infiltrators posing as activists. Hundreds, if not thousands, of activists and campaigners have been spied upon by the British police over the years. An inquiry into undercover policing is ongoing, with more than 200 participants who were spied upon taking part in the inquiry. If that wasn’t enough, more than 30 women now know that they were deceived into relationships with undercover police officers. Despite the ongoing inquiry into undercover policing, the government has passed the sinister Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act, which has legalised all activity of undercover police officers.

    No, the police won’t use their own footage to hold themselves accountable

    You might be forgiven for thinking that the police’s livestreamed footage might actually be a good thing. After all, it could be used to catch police officers committing their all-too-frequent acts of violence, and they could then be held accountable.

    This is, of course, wishful thinking. West Midlands Police has stated that

    at this stage [the technology] will not be used for any independent scrutiny around use of force or stop and search.

    In other words, the police will use their new surveillance technology (paid for with public money, of course) to keep their eagle eye on you and me, but they will still be unaccountable for the Black men and boys that they continually harass during stop and searches. And they’ll continue to be unaccountable for murdering people.

    The technology is yet to be rolled out nationwide. It remains to be seen how it will be used in court cases, or whether defence barristers will be allowed to demand records of what happens between police on the ground and the officers instructing them in operations rooms.

    However, the experiences of the Fitwatch campaign also show that we can effectively take action on the streets to challenge police surveillance, and that such campaigns can have an impact on how policing strategies are enforced. It’s therefore vital that we all take steps to resist surveillance and to keep each other safe.

    Featured image via West Midlands Police / Flickr, Creative Commons 2.0, resized to 770 x 403 px. 

     

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) just admitted that it has not bothered to check if there is a serious flaw with Universal Credit. It has previously denied that the social security payment causes increased crime – contrary to a recent study. But now, the department has admitted it’s not even bothered to look itself to see if there is a link.

    DWP: ignoring a huge Universal Credit issue

    On 13 July, Labour MP Chi Onwurah asked the DWP:

    whether… [it] has made an assessment of the potential relationship between the rollout of Universal Credit and increasing trends in the level of crime.

    DWP minister David Rutley answered on Monday 18 July. He said:

    No such assessment has been made.

    But we know that there is a link between Universal Credit and rising crime rates – a study looked into this, and the results were damning.

    In June 2022, researchers Matteo Tiratelli, Ben Bradford, and Julia Yesberg looked into how crime rates had changed since the DWP rolled out Universal Credit. This was the first proper piece of published research on the topic. They looked at the issue on a local level, tracking what effect an increase in Universal Credit claimants had on local crime rates. They did this between January 2013 and June 2018 using monthly data – and they found a direct link.

    Groundbreaking DWP research

    In short, Tiratelli, Bradford and Yesberg found that the longer a local area had Universal Credit, the larger the increase in the crime rate was.

    Universal Credit and crime rate graph

    Universal Credit and crime rate graph two and three

    DWP policy = increased crime

    Then, what the researchers also did was predict what might have happened after 2018. They said that the data:

    suggests that the full implementation of UC would nearly double the total crime rate in a given area (see models 7 and 8). As UC has yet to fully replace the legacy social security system anywhere in the United Kingdom, this obviously represents an extrapolation outside of the range of our data. But for each ten-percentage point increase in the ratio of UC to legacy claimants, our models predict an additional 0.4–0.5 total crimes per 1,000 people per month.

    Crucially, the researchers also noted that:

    By 2018, there were 14 people claiming UC per 1,000 in each… [local area], while the crime rate had risen by 2.2 additional crimes per 1,000 people since 2013. Our models suggests that the introduction of UC might have accounted for 18 per cent of that increase.

    However, despite this groundbreaking evidence, the DWP has not even bothered to look into it.

    Fingers in ears

    The DWP previously told the Mirror:

    There is no evidence Universal Credit causes crime. The report’s authors themselves acknowledge it is impossible to prove the cause of criminal behaviour from a single, observational study.

    In his answer to Onwurah, Rutley repeated what the DWP also told the Mirror, saying:

    Universal Credit provides a strong financial safety net: it is more generous overall than the old system and makes it easier for people to claim support they are entitled to.

    But the study researchers disagreed.

    “Breaking point”

    Tiratelli told the Independent:

    You can see it: when particular places institute Universal Credit, the change happens afterwards. And the length of time that different places have been under the Universal Credit system, those places have seen higher crime rates than others.

    The effects seem to be quite broad: it’s not just about survival crime where people are pushed to breaking point because of poverty and they resort to property crime to supplement their income.

    It also seems to be the strain, stress in general this big restriction on how generous the social security system is has led to people becoming stressed in all different areas of their life.

    The DWP saying there isn’t an issue is a major issue in itself. Other studies have shown that delaying or removing social security from people increases the chances they’ll commit crime. Of course, the DWP and the government couldn’t possibly admit that years of social security cuts coupled with the disastrous roll-out of Universal Credit has left people with no choice but to turn to crime. So, better to just pretend the issue doesn’t exist.

    Featured image via the Guardian – YouTube, Paisley Scotland – Flickr, cropped to 250×83 under licence CC BY 2.0, and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The High Court issued a damning judgement on the government’s handling of coronavirus (Covid-19) in care homes on 27 April 2022. It concluded that decisions made by disgraced former minister Matt Hancock and Public Health England (PHE) were both irrational and unlawful.

    Hancock often seems to be defensive of his role as health secretary during the pandemic. He’s arguably proud even, in his claims of acting with honesty and integrity, doing everything he could to save lives and putting a “protective ring” around care homes. But for all his assertions of his own performance, when you even scratch the surface of the evidence, his performance was disastrous.

    Hancock’s guidance

    Policies issued in March and April 2020 failed to take into account the risk of asymptomatic transmission to care home residents. This occurs when a person shows no symptoms of the disease but can still infect others around them.

    The government policies and guidance issued for care home staff in March 2020 did not protect residents from infection. In fact, they did the opposite. The judgement shows that at the time, guidance said carers did not need personal protective equipment (PPE):

    if neither the worker nor the individual receiving care had symptoms.

    However, this was a requirement for healthcare staff working in other health settings. Testing, isolation, or use of PPE was not required, even for new residents.

    There was no guidance given on restricting the amount of visitors or contractors. Agency staff were actively encouraged to work in more than one home. This would increase the chance of an asymptomatic carer spreading the virus between sites.

    Statements

    Hancock was health secretary at the time of the crisis. He had overall responsibility for the NHS, social care policy and PHE. When asked about the court’s judgement, he told ITN News:

    I wish that the knowledge about asymptomatic transmission had been…I’d known it earlier because then we have better outcomes.

    Maybe they were hoping nobody would read the judgement? How can they claim to be unaware, given the sheer extent of uncontested evidence in the report?

    So, either the evidence is false or their claims of ignorance are.

    The issue isn’t that asymptomatic transmission was “known” as a scientific fact. It’s rather that it was known to be happening and was therefore a risk. It was noted by SAGE as early as January. The study published in March suggested up to half of all transmissions were asymptomatic. Yet, the guidance issued to care homes in April made no mention of this risk.

    The lawyer and writer David Allen made the following point about Hancock’s statement:

    The switch midway through that sentence is interesting – he seems to go from wanting to say that knowledge about asymptomatic transmission had not been known earlier to carefully stating that he personally did not know.

    Uncle Reg

    A policy requiring testing for all patients transferred from hospital to care homes was introduced on 15 Apr 2020. Tragically, for many thousands of elderly people, this was too little and far too late.

    There were 25,615 excess deaths of care home residents in England and Wales during the first wave of the pandemic. If it helps to visualise that, the London 02 arena has a maximum capacity of 20,000.

    My uncle was one of them.

    He died on 20 April 2020, in a care home, of coronavirus, alone. His name was Reg Griffiths – or to give him his official title, major R. Griffiths MBE TD. He worked as a civil servant, rising through the ranks to a senior position. He did his national service and then joined the territorial army in his spare time. Awarded an MBE and Territorial Decoration, a more loyal servant of the state you could not get. Yet, when he was at his most vulnerable, that state he had served so faithfully all his life utterly failed him.

    Judicial review

    Dr Cathy Gardiner and Fay Harris fought to challenge the government’s handling of the crisis by judicial review. This is a court process where judges decide if a public body has acted lawfully. Gardiner’s father was Michael Gibson. He died in a care home on 3 April 2020. The death certificate stated probable coronavirus as he was not tested. Harris’s father, Donald Harris, a former Royal Marine died of coronavirus on 1 May 2020.

    Gardiner wrote about her father’s passing on her Crowd Justice webpage, saying that she:

    could not hold his hand and give him a smile near the end.

    I am extremely angry that an ill-thought out policy has caused me, and thousands of others, so much anguish. I knew that losing my father would be tough, losing him in these circumstances is truly devastating.

    The evidence submitted for the judgement is extensive and thorough. The report lists events from 31 December 2019 through to 1 May 2020. It shows what happened each day and what information was available. It references many academic papers, study results, and articles. There are extracts from meeting minutes, reports, and papers from the three groups of experts providing scientific advice to the government. These were: the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) and the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG).

    As early as 28 January, minutes from a SAGE meeting stated:

    there is limited evidence of asymptomatic transmission, but early indications imply some is occurring.

    SAGE minutes on 4 February recorded:

    Asymptomatic transmission cannot be ruled out and transmission from mildly symptomatic individuals is likely.

    The results of a study on 8 March stated:

    Strong and effective countermeasures should be implemented to prevent or mitigate asymptomatic transmission during the incubation period in populations at high risk.

    Given this scale of evidence, the decision to release untested patients to care homes is staggering. It was not even considered as a risk to care home residents. The government placed the most vulnerable population at the highest risk. This was at a time when the government advised the general public not to meet in groups, to wear masks, and to socially distance.

    PHE and cronyism

    BBC News reported Hancock’s spokesperson went on to release a further statement noting that the case:

    comprehensively clears ministers of any wrongdoing and finds Mr Hancock acted reasonably on all counts. The court also found that Public Health England failed to tell ministers what they knew about asymptomatic transmission.

    Hancock’s attempt to blame PHE for not telling him about asymptomatic transmission is utterly ridiculous. PHE was an executive agency of the Department for Health and Social Care and reported to him. It seems a cynical ploy to make a now disbanded department take the flack for his own shocking response to the coronavirus crisis. In August 2020, Hancock announced that he was scrapping PHE. He was replacing it with a new agency, the National Institute for Health Protection. There was widespread criticism of the move at the time as reported in the Guardian. The British Medical Journal reported that:

    …healthcare leaders said that the agency [PHE], which formed in 2013, was being scapegoated by ministers who were ultimately responsible for the country’s response to covid-19.

    In the same article Chaand Nagpaul of the British Medical Association (BMA) said:

    We must absolutely not allow PHE and its staff to shoulder the blame for wider failings and government decisions.

    It did seem a very peculiar move to abolish a public health body in the middle of a pandemic. In keeping with the Tory penchant for cronyism, Hancock handed control of the new agency to his friend Dido Harding. Consequently, there was an outcry over the appointment as reported by the Mirror. Harding’s husband, Tory MP John Penrose, was paradoxically Johnson’s “anti-corruption champion” at the time. Penrose sits on the advisory board of 1828, a right-wing think tank that calls for the replacement of the NHS with an insurance system.

    Subsequently, in February 2022, the Good Law Project reported Hancock was found to have acted unlawfully (again) in his appointment of Harding. The Mirror reported a spokesman for Hancock saying:

    the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety.

    Is it me, or is there a pattern emerging here? 

    A public inquiry versus preparedness

    The government dithered and delayed before finally consenting to a public inquiry into their mishandling of the pandemic. The public hearings are due to start in 2023. Quite some dithering and delaying, that.

    The website states the inquiry is:

    set up to examine the UK’s preparedness and response to the Covid-19 pandemic and to learn lessons for the future.

    To examine preparedness they may want to consider a 2020 report from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIFPA). Entitled How fit were public services for coronavirus?, it reveals the shocking state of adult social care (care homes). The report analyses the level of resilience and preparedness in public services leading up to the 2020 pandemic. As shown in the graphics, the picture for care homes looks particularly bleak. Adult social care received the lowest fitness rating in all areas. Notably, it ranked performance of care homes going into the crisis as “much worse than in 2010″:

    Care homes fitness rating

    This is a direct consequence of years of Tory neglect and under-investment.

    No consequence

    Unfortunately, a public inquiry can’t determine criminal or civil liability. So nobody will be held accountable for the unlawful decisions that led to this unqualified disaster.

    Hancock said he had thrown a “protective ring” around care homes. In reality, his decisions contributed towards a pile of corpses too big to fit inside a stadium.

    Jason Coppel, the lawyer who brought the judicial review, said the failure to protect the care home population represented:

    one of the most egregious and devastating policy failures in the modern era

    In my opinion, Hancock’s a criminal and a liability whatever the toothless inquiry decides.

    Losing my uncle to coronavirus was awful – made all the worse because none of his family were able to be with him in his final days. It didn’t have to be this way, but for the incompetence and inability of a Tory weasel promoted far beyond his capabilities. 

    My condolences to all who’ve lost loved ones.

    Featured image via Good Morning Britain – YouTube

    By Andrew Melhuish

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Content warning: suicide (graphic), self-harm, imprisonment, transphobia, child abuse.

    On Saturday 9 July – the day of London’s Trans Pride – a trans man named Taylor took his own life at HMP Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire.

    Taylor slit his own throat to put an end to an indeterminate prison sentence that had already lasted over 14 years. He was one of the thousands of people still suffering in UK prisons after being given an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP). Sadly, Taylor is reportedly the second prisoner to take their own life at Eastwood Park in recent weeks.

    At least 242 IPP prisoners have died in prison, with at least 72 of them (including Taylor) taking their own lives.

    On the evening of 10 July, an angry protest took place outside HMP Eastwood Park. Demonstrators accused the prison of being responsible for Taylor’s death. Loved ones gave speeches outside, and prisoners inside the walls joined in with the chants. One eyewitness said that at one point it seemed like the whole prison was chanting Taylor’s name in unison with the demonstration outside.

    Beaten by officers

    A statement and call to action written by his close friends claims that, in the months running up to his death, prison officers had beaten Taylor and punished him for kissing another prisoner.

    During Taylor’s time in prison, his friends said he had received transphobic abuse from both prisoners and officers. They also said that one officer had deliberately and persistently “deadnamed” Taylor. Moreover, his intimate relationships with women prisoners had been pathologised and discouraged. And he had been deliberately separated from the people that he loved.

    The authors of the statement spoke about who Taylor was and what he had been through:

    Taylor was a trans prisoner trapped in the UK prison system for over 14 years. He was an IPP prisoner, who had served 10 years longer in prison than his original sentence. He was a beloved friend to anarchist comrades who met him in prison. He had ACAB [all cops are bastards] on his knuckles and an anti-authoritarian spirit and a deep love for animals. He was a working class ‘old school’ prisoner who knew which side he was on. He hated the system with every ounce of his being.

    Taylor’s friends spoke about his organising inside prison with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and against cruel IPP sentences like the one he was serving:

    Taylor was one of the first prisoner members of the IWW via the Incarcerated Workers Organising Committee (IWOC) that was founded in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland in 2015. He was also active with Smash IPP, contributing to the newsletter and encouraging other IPP prisoners to join the group.

    ‘A life sentence for minor crimes’

    IPP prisoners are given a ‘tariff’ for the crime they’re being sentenced for, but once that tariff is served they are not automatically released. Their freedom is in the hands of the parole board. This makes IPP sentences equivalent to a life sentence, but they have largely been handed out for minor crimes.

    Taylor’s friends call the IPP sentence a death sentence:

    It is effectively a life sentence for minor crimes. After huge public pressure, IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, but not retrospectively, which means there are still more than 3500 people in prison with no release date. The uncertainty is a living hell. This sentence led to the UK having one of the highest rates of prisoner suicide in the world. 

    One contributor to a recent documentary about IPP prisoners, called Unintended Consequences, said:

    the miserable reality of people on IPP sentences is there’s a very good chance that they will kill themselves. If you’re a prisoner you’re twice as likely to kill yourself as a member of the general population. If you’re an IPP prisoner you’re twice again as likely to kill yourself.

    ‘For Taylor, the IPP was a death sentence’

    As The Canary’s Peadar O’Cearnaigh previously reported, a House of Commons justice committee was held in November 2021. Consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr Maganty gave evidence that IPP prisoners enter prison:

    not severely mentally ill. But as the years have gone by, increasingly what we’re finding is they are becoming mentally ill. Their clinical presentation is increasingly akin to those who’ve been wrongfully convicted.

    In Taylor’s case, his friends say that his mental health went massively downhill, due to the uncertainty whether he would ever be released:

    For Taylor, the IPP was a death sentence. He was given 4 years for burglary but served 14 years before he died. The long-term imprisonment with no end-date totally destroyed Taylor’s mental health. He attempted suicide multiple times, including slitting his own throat and taking an overdose that led him to being in a coma twice. It eventually killed him.

    Made to jump through hoops

    In order to secure his release, Taylor had to try and satisfy the parole board. When he failed to do that, his mental health spiralled downwards. And his increasing distress was weaponised against him to keep him locked up. According to Taylor’s friends:

    At each board hearing, new ‘hoops’ can be created that the prisoner will need to then jump through. For example, a prisoner might do everything the Parole Board directs and then two years later at the next hearing, the Parole Board might say “you still need to address X behaviour and therefore do X course.” This leads to a continual process of imprisonment where goal posts are repeatedly moved. The uncertainty, frustration and lack of power leads to prisoner behaviour deteriorating, whether that is increased drug use, self-harm or kicking off in protest.

    This behaviour then becomes the justification for their continuing imprisonment, because that person is not ‘safe’ for the community or has not ‘addressed their offending behaviour’. The cycle continues.

    Taylor’s friends say that he was kept in prison because he was suicidal, but it was his imprisonment that was making him want to die:

    We have 14 years of catalogued evidence of impossible parole hearings and prison failings. Taylors suicidality was the reason he was kept in prison, yet his suicidality was caused by prison. There is only so much one human can take. Death became the only option for Taylor as all legal doors to freedom closed again and again.

    A lifetime of being pathologised

    Taylor had given his friends permission to publish some of the details of his life.

    They write that, growing up, “Taylor was subject to years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse”. This started “an intense pattern of trauma” which “has followed him forever”. He was adopted by his grandparents, but those who abused him were still in his life.

    Taylor first raised his feelings about his assigned gender with his doctor as a teenager. The doctor responded by branding him “unstable”. According to his friends:

    Taylor always knew he was a man. He went to a local doctor as a young teenager and expressed his feelings and issues with his assigned gender. The doctor pathologised Taylor as ‘unstable’ and denied any access to hormones or any surgery. This was over 30 years ago and access to hormones online or other support groups was nigh on impossible. Before prison, Taylor had never met another trans person.

    Taylor’s friends describe the events that led up to his IPP sentence:

    The combination of childhood abuse and gender dysphoria led to drug and alcohol abuse, as well as a long-term pattern of self-harm. Taylor became an addict, and as a working class person with no financial means, “crime” was the only option to sustain his habit. This led Taylor to a very self-destructive life, including many abusive relationships and actions that he deeply regretted. Taylor accessed many mental health services, however, none of them affirmed Taylor’s gender identity or needs and he was repeatedly pathologised, hospitalised and imprisoned.

    In the judges’ summing up of his case whereby he was given an IPP sentence, he recognised it was Taylor’s ‘gender issues’ that led to his imprisonment. 

    While Taylor was in prison, his grandparents died. His friends say that he was never able to properly process this grief.

    Transphobic abuse in prison

    As a prisoner, Taylor was abused by prisoners and prison officers alike:

    Taylor experienced transphobic abuse in prison from officers and other prisoners. Once he was attacked by a girl on his wing in a courtyard. Thankfully, our Taylor was a fighter and defended himself. He spat back on her and said “here’s some of my gender fluid”.

    Officers throughout his sentence would target him with insults, deadnaming and repeated misgendering.

    Taylor’s friends said that one officer at Eastwood Park would deliberately deadname Taylor in the hope of provoking him into a reaction which would jeopardise his parole.

    When he was admitted to hospital after a suicide attempt, Taylor was given access to a psychiatrist. But the psychiatric ‘care’ he received further reinforced negativity about Taylor’s gender identity and sexuality:

    During sessions, Taylor was repeatedly dehumanised and encouraged to see himself as a woman. They said that relationships were a core part of his ‘offending behaviour’ and discouraged him from being with women or in relationships at all. During this intense time of vulnerability, Taylor believed the only way to ever be released from prison was to pretend to be a woman and to not have romantic relationships with women.

    But Taylor later recognised this abusive psychiatric pathologisation of his identity for what it was:

    Fortunately, once he had left the hospital and stopped having sessions he realised what a horrific transphobic act of institutional violence this was. One that trans people worldwide have experienced, pathologised by psychiatric authorities.

    He was “blown away” by the support and care he received from the trans community worldwide. And he eventually managed to procure a binder for his chest, despite the prison’s “best efforts”.

    His friends wrote:

    He would speak with excitement about getting top surgery when he was out and running around half-naked on the beach and swimming in the sea. Now he will never have the chance.

    Relationships deemed a ‘risk factor’

    Taylor’s attraction to women was also discouraged within the prison system and was allegedly deemed a “risk factor” by the parole board. His friends say that the prison service forcibly separated him from many people he loved, including one long term partner.

    Taylor’s friends say that:

    Should Taylor have obtained parole at his next hearing, one condition was that he refrained from all romantic and intimate relationships. His own lawyer said he would need to comply, although we all known that closeness to other humans is a deeply necessary part of survival. We often spoke with Taylor about how the state was acting like an abusive controlling partner. He felt powerless to challenge it.

    According to his friends, in the week before his death Taylor received a punishment from the prison authorities for kissing one of the women on his wing.

    Violence

    Taylor was getting close to being released. He had been granted Release on Temporary License (ROTL) for a few hours at a time. But his friends say that his freedom was once again sabotaged by prison officers. They wrote:

    On the 20th May, Taylor was in Cabot Circus in Bristol, when the Officer responsible for supervising him abandoned him. Taylor tried to find her, but he was unable to. He had no phone or way of finding her despite looking continuously around the city. Taylor managed to report it to the prison. Instead of taking responsibility for losing Taylor, the officer who escorted Taylor into Bristol lied and claimed he went missing for a number of hours on purpose.

    Taylor became angry and pushed over a plant in reception. Prison Officers then attacked him. They kicked the shit into him and dragged him to a new cell with none of his belongings. We saw Taylor days after and could see bruises all over him. Taylor was awaiting surgery for a hernia and being ‘bent up’ by officers was a life-threatening act of violence.

    We put this, and all of the other allegations in this article, to the Ministry of Justice. A prison services spokesperson said:

    An HMP Eastwood Park prisoner died on 9 July and our thoughts are with their loved ones at this time. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman has been informed, as is routine for all deaths in custody. We cannot comment further while their investigation is ongoing.

    ‘Where is your rage?’

    Taylor’s friends conclude their statement by asking their comrades “where is your rage?” against the system that killed Taylor, and calling on them to take action to abolish it. They wrote:

    Taylor’s death could have been prevented. If there was more support, more resistance. If our movements were a fucking threat. If prison authorities feared us and our calls to action. We need to fight like hell for the living. We need to fight like hell for those still inside.

    They say that Taylor was refused support because he was not deemed a political prisoner:

    Some anarchist websites would not share our action alerts or calls for support because Taylor was not a ‘political prisoner’. Even though an understanding of class and gender oppression is a core of anarchism.

    Taylor’s friends point out that “every single incarcerated person is a political prisoner”.

    Their call demands militant action:

    Revolutionary abolitionists in the so-called United States would risk death to liberate people from slave plantations. They started the Underground Railroad to free their families and comrades. Where is the direct action to free our friends from cages? Where is the rage when they die inside? How do we push our movements beyond canvassing for fucking jeremy corbyn????

    Abolition means revolution. It means destroying the state. It means direct action. It means putting the war into class war. 

    ‘They will face no repercussions. Unless we make them.’

    Their statements concludes with these heartbreaking words:

    Pools of Taylor’s blood covered his cell where he died alone. His blood covered the hands of HMP and they will face no repercussions. Unless we make them.

    We call for rage everywhere. Remember Taylor. Fight with everything you have for those still in prison. No more empty slogans, this is a life and death struggle.

    Featured image via Taylor’s friends (with permission)

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) has shown The Canary a training guide retrieved via a freedom of information (FOI) request. The document shows how the College of Policing goes about training police liaison officers (PLOs). Many people will have seen PLOs at protests, wearing their blue vests and often trying to chat to protesters.

    Copwatching groups often warn that protesters shouldn’t speak to PLOs. Now, with the benefit of this FOI response, we can take a closer look at just why that is.

    What are police liaison officers supposed to do?

    Green & Black Cross, an organisation that trains legal observers, defines the role of PLOs as follows:

    Police Liaison Officers (PLOs) are police officers sent to gather intelligence and spread unhelpful messages on protests. They are sometimes tasked with telling protesters information that can later be used to prosecute them.

    PLOs try to portray themselves as friendly people associated with the police who want to chat with protesters. However, it’s important to remember that PLOs gather information that can be used to prosecute people.

    Netpol’s access to the PLO training manual can give us an important insight into how PLOs are trained and what their objectives are. The training guide explains to PLOs that police officers have a duty to balance the right to assemble against the right to go about daily life:

    A balance has to be struck, a compromise found that will accommodate the exercise of the right to protest within a framework of public order which enables ordinary citizens, who are not protesting to go about their business and pleasure without obstruction or inconvenience.

    The right to assemble has become more contentious now that the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act has been passed. Human rights organisation Liberty has said that the act “limits the freedom to protest“. And the Criminal Justice Alliance has warned that it will “deepen racial inequality.“. Whilst a balance has to be struck, it is very clear that the police are incapable of doing so.

    Core values

    The document goes on to state that:

    The key value is that policing in the UK is by consent, and its core values should be:

    • tolerant and winning the consent of the public
    • approachable
    • impartial
    • accountable
    • use minimal force

    Now, this refers to the general approach of policing in the UK. But when police officers took pictures with the bodies of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, was that “winning the consent of the public?” When serving police officer Wayne Couzens murdered Sarah Everard, was that the police being “approachable”? When the Metropolitan Police continue to have a remarkable number of failings, is that being “accountable”? When police strip searched a child, was that them using “minimal force”?

    There are so many incidents to choose from to show that the police cannot be trusted. The claims of their core values have no bearing on the reality of how they treat people.

    As Green & Black Cross’ above comments show, this same suspicion can be turned on PLOs, who are also police officers. The specific roles of PLOs are said to be mediation, initiation, negotiation, communication, and sensing. Each of these tasks is geared towards reducing an escalation from either protesters or the police. Indeed, the document says:

    By explaining to the demonstrators in detail why certain conditions for a demonstration have been made, and what might happen if they are broken, it might be possible for the demonstrators to accept the imposed restrictions and thereby decrease the risk of a confrontation.

    While the police need to strategise as they attempt to control protests, that is not the concern of protesters. In fact, Green & Black Cross – along with copwatching groups – warn against speaking to PLOs:

    There is no legal requirement to listen to them. We recommend people ignore them, walk away if approached and never take pieces of paper from PLOs.

    PLOs are still normal police officers, who have powers of arrest and who will testify against you in court.

    The FOI response shows that PLOs are trained to be seen as mediators and communicators, but that’s far from the truth.

    ‘Community policing’

    Interestingly, the training guide explains how they have had to come up with new methods for what they call “intelligence gathering” for PLOs:

    The use of Facebook especially to organise events months in advance and Twitter to run the event on a live time basis is commonplace. Gone are the days where we as police could focus on the activities of the protester using our traditional methods of intelligence gathering, as closed messaging is now utilised by groups.

    They conclude that:

    Social media is really an untapped source of intelligence capability.

    Dialogue is an essential part of the function of PLOs. The reason why copwatching groups so strongly advocate for not talking to the police becomes even clearer when we consider this part of the training manual:

    As PLTs will often have had long term contact with protest groups, they will be better able to interpret the mood and conduct of the group than someone who is unfamiliar with the group. Similarly, they can interpret and explain the actions of the police to organisers in an attempt to prevent negative responses from the protest crowd.

    Protesters are there to rally around a cause. Whilst they must obey the law, the right to assembly is a fundamental part of a functioning democracy. PLOs are able to go about their jobs, just as protesters are able to ignore them in order to avoid aiding their work.

    Undercover policing?

    Communication with protesters is fundamental to the very existence of PLOs. Their whole role, as shown above, focuses on getting protesters to give them information which they can relay to commanders who oversee policing at protests.

    The guidance says that:

    Others [protesters] may make it extremely difficult to contact them. First approaches to groups can take a variety of forms. This can include phone calls, items on websites, use of social media, leafleting etc. It is recognised that communication with some groups will be harder than others, however PLTs should adapt their communication methods to best suit the group they are engaging.

    It’s worth noting that, as is their right, some of this FOI response is redacted, particularly around discussion of plain clothes PLOs. This means that whilst they have shared some parts of the manual with us, not all parts are available.

    PLOs are there to aid fellow police officers, not protesters. The manual also states:

    The danger of officers being perceived to be working covertly should be borne in mind whenever PLTs wear plain clothes.

    The friendliness of PLOs can’t be taken at face value. Given that PLOs are able to wear plain clothes, and given that intelligence gathering is part of their job, this should cause even more wariness in protesters.

    Legal observers

    It’s undeniable that PLOs make an effort to appear friendly to protesters in order to gather information. Another group that are often present as supporters are legal observers. The Canary has previously explained the importance of legal observers. Back in May, we said:

    Legal observers are trained to independently monitor police behaviour at protests, and to give support to protestors. In the current climate, policing is becoming more aggressive. This includes restrictions on protestors, increased police powers that are proven to target minorities, and the use of excessive force.

    However, this document from the College of Policing takes quite a different view of legal observers. They say:

    During demonstrations a number of persons will wear tabards denoting ‘Legal Observer’. These are individuals who will gather evidence against Police officers, often to be seen with cameras or taking copious notes. They may also continually challenge officers on what powers/legislation are being utilised.

    If it’s acceptable for PLOs to gather information at protests, why would this wording in the FOI about legal observers be so hostile?

    They go on to say:

    They are not generally legally qualified and they are not impartial.

    This is a twisting of the truth. Legal observers do receive training. They don’t attend protests as protesters, but as independent observers who inform protesters of their rights and monitor police activity. If police forces are so supportive of PLOs, why would they object to legal observers?

    PLOs aren’t friends

    It’s nothing new for protesters to be distrustful of PLOs. What this FOI response from the College of Policing does show, however, is that protesters’ suspicions about PLOs have been true. PLOs are there to infiltrate protests and gain intelligence. Their goal is not to assist protesters in knowing their rights but to present a more palatable face of policing. They exist to help their superiors manage protests.

    With the draconian PCSC Act coming into force, it’s more important than ever that protesters know their rights, volunteer to be legal observers, and stand firm against efforts from the police to restrict the freedom to protest.

    The College of Policing had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

    Featured image by Flickr/The Network for Police Monitoring – via CC by SA 2.0, resized to 770×403 

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.