radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Rwanda plan shows the UK only cares about white refugees

    Despite human rights concerns, it looks like flights to send refugees to Rwanda are set to go ahead. There’s been much discussion, including here at The Canary, about the legality of the plans – and as is so often the case with the courts, just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean that it’s also morally correct.

    Opposition to the Rwanda scheme has, rightly, focused on the lives it will ruin. Human rights charities, activists, and campaigners have spoken up. And it’s difficult to get away from one thing: this is about race.

    Let’s take a look at the ethnicities of the people who might be on the flight. The BBC reported on 13 June that, after legal challenges, a list of an estimated 37 people has been whittled down to 11. The report says that the charity Care4Calais suspects that the legal action:

    leaves 11 people still set to fly on Tuesday, including four Iranians, two Iraqis, two Albanians and one Syrian.

    That number at the time of publication is now seven. However, what is clear is that the treatment of Black and brown refugees is very different to that of white refugees.

    Comparison

    Half a glance at the UK’s response to Ukrainian refugees tells us a lot. First off, let’s get the obvious out of the way. The conflict in Ukraine has been horrific. There have been possible war crimes, millions of displaced Ukrainians, and the usual war profiteering. Ukrainians need full solidarity from the rest of the international community.

    The thing is, though, all kinds of support has been rushing forward. And it’s happened in a way that is very different to how the UK normally treats refugees.

    Economically, culturally, and socially, Ukraine has received the kind of support that must leave refugees from other countries in disbelief.

    The UK has excluded some Russian banks from its financial system. The European Union has banned all imports of oil from Russia that arrive by sea. The US has made it harder for Russia to repay its international loans. These economic sanctions punish Russia and make it difficult for Russia to function.

    Cultural support can be difficult to pin down, but this is not so for Ukrainian refugees. People have been putting up the Ukrainian flag in their windows. In fact, the Ukrainian flag has popped up at food stalls, in schools, all over the place. People want to show their solidarity with Ukraine, and it’s effective.

    Just this month, the Welsh men’s football team beat Ukraine to reach the World Cup. Wales’ manager Robert Page said before the game that he knew:

    most of the world want Ukraine to get through.

    Ukraine won Eurovision, and this was seen as a sign of international solidarity. As The Canary’s Eliza Egret said at the time, this flew in the face of the fact that in 2018 Israel won, and then later hosted, Eurovision. There was no such solidarity for Palestinians then – but there was solidarity for apartheid Israel.

    People have even opened up their homes to Ukrainian refugees. It’s undeniably a generous thing to do.

    Limits

    But that generosity has a limit, apparently. How many times has the government sponsored such a generous scheme for people from Yemen? Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? I’ll save you the trouble of checking: none. None of the information from the Home Office or from charities challenging the deportation flights to Rwanda has mentioned any Ukrainian refugees. The deportation to Rwanda is for people who arrive in the UK outside of sanctioned means. Of course, that wouldn’t be Ukrainians, because the government has made sure to provide them with the structure they need to arrive in the UK safely.

    Meanwhile, Black and brown refugees are at risk of being sent to Rwanda because of white supremacy. And no, white supremacy isn’t just white people running around in Ku Klux Klan hoods and burning crosses. It’s also when existing structures make the survival of white people easier. That survival often comes at the cost of others.

    Wherever a refugee comes from – whether it’s Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, or Afghanistan – they should have safety and support. The support for Ukrainian refugees has happened in a wholehearted way. Where’s that heart for everybody else?

    It’s almost as though people in the UK don’t value and respect the lives of Black and brown people. They merely tolerate us. They don’t value us as human beings; they see us as cockroaches to keep out of the way. Ukrainian people are considered as a whole – their culture, their traditions, their communities. Black and brown people don’t get that luxury. This is because white people only consider fellow white people to have inalienable rights.

    Most refugees coming to the UK face the prospect of drowning in the English Channel or, now, being shipped off to Rwanda.

    It’s an absolute disgrace that the UK clearly has the willingness to support and house refugees – but only if they’re white.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Karollyne Hubert

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • JCB’s racist hypocrisy allows it to continue tearing down homes in Palestine

    In March 2022, British bulldozer company JCB announced that it was suspending its business in Russia. It said that it had “paused all operations, including the export of machines and spare parts” to the country.

    Now, you might think that JCB deserves congratulations for taking a stance against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, JCB’s boycott of Russia only highlights the company’s racist hypocrisy even whilst it shows this apparent empathy.

    Ethnic cleansing

    You see, for many years, campaigners have been asking JCB to do exactly the same thing for the people of Palestine, and stop supplying Israel with JCB bulldozers.

    Every year, Israeli occupation forces demolish hundreds of Palestinian homes and workplaces in the West Bank. On a daily basis, families have to gather up all of their life’s belongings and then watch as their house is torn apart by bulldozers. Children are left homeless and traumatised, having witnessed the Israeli forces’ brutality at such a vulnerable age.

    The demolition of Palestinian property is illegal under international law. But Israel’s ally governments around the world sit back and, for the most part, say nothing. The Israeli state assumes that it is untouchable in its quest to ethnically cleanse the West Bank of Palestinian people. And so it brazenly continues to bulldoze home after home, year after year.

    Making hundreds homeless in 2021

    Of course, in order to bulldoze homes, Israel needs bulldozers. One of its main suppliers is JCB. Of the major international companies supplying bulldozer or crane equipment to the Israeli occupation effort, JCB rates as one of the most complicit in Israeli war crimes.

    For the past four years, my research cooperative – Shoal Collective – has been gathering photographic evidence of every West Bank demolition in which JCB machines have been involved. Our latest statistics show that JCB backhoe loaders destroyed at least 214 structures, including 87 homes, in the West Bank in 2021. This is higher than the figure from the previous year.

    In 2021, demolitions using JCB machines directly affected 2,333 Palestinian people, and made at least 330 people homeless. JCB bulldozers tore down the homes of at least 170 children. The machines displaced more people, and made more children homeless, than in 2020.

    On top of this, JCB machines destroyed almost 4,000 trees in the West Bank in 2021.

    Digging up bodies

    In Palestine, even the dead aren’t safe from displacement. While doing our research, we found video and photographic evidence of JCB machines exhuming graves at the al-Yusufiya cemetery in Jerusalem. In late 2021, Israeli authorities, with help from Israeli forces, dug up Palestinian graves to make way for a biblically themed national park.

    At the time, footage of Palestinian mother Ola Nababta circulated on social media – she was crying as soldiers tore her from her son’s grave. A JCB backhoe loader dug up the cemetery behind her. We found evidence of JCB machines digging up the cemetery on 5 September and 26 October 2021.

    Racist hypocrisy

    Now, imagine the worldwide outrage if journalists had filmed Russian forces using JCB machines to dig up Ukrainian graves. The whole world would have demanded that the British company was held accountable. However, as we’ve seen time and time again, Palestinian lives are not deemed worthy of empathy.

    If we take a quick look at who owns JCB, it’s unsurprising that its business decisions stink of hypocrisy. JCB is a private UK company. Its owners are the affluent Bamford family, who feature on the Sunday Times Rich List with a net worth of £4.32bn. The Bamfords have donated millions to the Conservatives. Anthony Bamford is a Conservative life peer and sits under his title in the House of Lords.

    It is in keeping with their affluent Tory friends that the Bamfords cry their crocodile tears for the white people of Ukraine while trampling over the lives of brown Palestinians.

    Arrogance

    Moreover, it shows an arrogance on JCB’s part that despite international criticism, it continues to supply equipment to Israel. On 12 November 2021, the National Contact Point (NCP), a UK government body, found that JCB was in breach of its human rights responsibilities. The ruling followed a case that Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights brought to the NCP.

    On top of this, in November 2021, Amnesty International published a report giving examples of JCB demolitions in Palestine. The NGO stated that:

    JCB’s sole agent in Israel has contracts for the maintenance of JCB’s equipment with Israel’s Ministry of Defence, including for the type of bulldozer known to have been used in the extensive and ongoing demolition of Palestinian properties and the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land which are illegal under international law.

    Amnesty was finally stating what Palestinian activists and international grassroots campaigners have been arguing for years. However, even a report from the world’s most renowned human rights NGO seems to have made no difference to JCB’s stance.

    So, it’s down to all of us to hold JCB to account. It must answer for every child that its bulldozers make homeless and for every village whose water supply its machines destroy. Our empathy needs to extend to everyone facing the brunt of western imperialism, not just those that our government deems worthy.

    Featured image of a demolition in the South Hebron Hills, August 2021, via BT’selem / screenshot, resized to 770 x 403 px.

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Peckham solidarity forces immigration officers to abandon raid

    The people of Peckham came together over the weekend to push back against an immigration raid. Over the course of an afternoon, the crowd swelled from a handful of people to hundreds. Immigration forces and police were there to take away a man for “immigration offences“. He was being held in a van.

    However, after Lewisham Anti-Raids tweeted for support, people came to help:

    People were able to spread the word online:

    Some people sat down and laid down their bikes:

    Members of the public have previously been able to halt immigration raids by getting in the way of police vans and officers. In May 2021, people in Glasgow gathered to stop Border Force officials from taking men away. And this year, in May, another crowd in Edinburgh forced immigration officers to back off when they were trying to detain residents.

    It’s a real testament to people power:

    Police violence

    However, none of this is to say that everything went smoothly in Peckham. Plenty of people on the ground shared disturbing footage of aggressive police.

    In one video, screams ring out as police try to push through people:

    And one person observed how we can use our bodies for resistance:

    Another added that while filming cops is essential, it’s not the only thing to do:

    After all, if this is how the police behave when they know they’re being filmed, what else could they be up to when cameras aren’t pointed at them?

    “Shame on you!”

    As the police gave up and started to leave Peckham, people cheered and chanted “shame on you”:

    There were also chants of “don’t come back to Peckham”:

    Moreover, it’s important to remember:

    Community solidarity isn’t sitting around with neighbours to celebrate an undemocratic coloniser like the Queen. It’s taking care of neighbours by resisting police violence. It’s responding to calls for aid. It’s coming together to protect people from racist immigration policies.

    Peckham, just like Glasgow and Edinburgh, showed everyone how it’s done.

    Featured image via screenshot – The Mirror/YouTube

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Families of Ballymurphy massacre victims settle civil cases against Ministry of Defence

    The families of nine people killed in the Ballymurphy massacre had brought Civil cases against the Ministry of Defence. The cases have now been settled with undisclosed damages to be paid.

    British soldiers killed 11 people in Ballymurphy in west Belfast in 1971. The event is known as the Ballymurphy Massacre.

    At the High Court in Belfast, justice Richard Humphreys said that the settlement represented the “end of a very long process” for the families. He was told in court that the cases had been settled by consent.

    Ballymurphy massacre

    The amounts paid out in each case were not disclosed in court but the judge ordered the MoD to pay legal costs.

    A statement from the families said they had secured “significant payment in damages” to the families of Fr Hugh Mullan, Frank Quinn, Joan Connolly, Noel Phillips, Joseph Murphy, Daniel Teggart, Edward Doherty, Joseph Corr and John Laverty.

    Ballymurphy court case
    Families of those killed at Ballymurphy in 1971 (Liam McBurney/PA)

     

    In 2021, a fresh inquest concluded that the British Army killed 10 people at Ballymurphy and that they were all innocent victims.

    Prime minister Boris Johnson issued an apology to the families in the House of Commons for the series of shootings. They took place over three days and came in the wake of the introduction of internment in Northern Ireland.

    The massacre is only one incident in a long list of atrocities carried out by the UK during the Troubles in Ireland:

    “All victims deserve justice”

    Natasha Butler, a family member of one of the victims, had said in May:

    A statement from the families said:

    The conclusion of this case comes just over a year since the coroner Justice Siobhan Keegan found our loved ones entirely innocent.

    The coroner found the British army responsible for deaths of our loved ones, however as we speak the Ministry of Defence haven’t come forward with an apology.

    We have proven that current legal routes open to all victims of our troubled past do work despite the claims of Brandon Lewis and Boris Johnston to the contrary.

    All victims deserve justice and full access to the courts.

    A compensation claim from the family of the 10th person who died at Ballymurphy, and a number of people who were injured, are still progressing through the courts.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Julian Assange extradition rulings could be annulled, say legal sources

    UK home office minister Priti Patel is expected to rule any day on whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to the US to face espionage related charges. But legal sources now say that surveillance of Assange’s lawyers may see the extradition case thrown out.

    Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the UK government illegally spied on one of Assange’s lawyers.

    Extradition case in doubt

    The Canary has previously listed a number of defence concerns that could be raised in court. These include Spain-based firm UC Global’s surveillance of Assange’s lawyers in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

    The Canary reported that meetings between Assange and some of his lawyers – including Melinda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson, and Baltasar Garzón – were monitored. Surveillance also included the logging of visitors such as Gareth Peirce – another of Assange’s lawyers – as well as a seven-hour session between Assange and his legal team on 19 June 2016.

    This video includes examples of surveillance undertaken:

    Robinson subsequently commented that the surveillance was “a huge and a serious breach of [Assange’s] right to a defence and a serious breach of [Assange’s] fair trial rights”. Indeed, client-lawyer confidentiality remains a cornerstone of the English legal system.

    In this respect, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson commented:

    The case should be thrown out immediately. Not only is it illegal on the face of the [extradition] treaty, the U.S. has conducted illegal operations against Assange and his lawyers, which are the subject of a major investigation in Spain.

    Evidence was presented in a Spanish court at the trial of David Morales, UC Global CEO, that surveillance which UC Global gathered was allegedly provided to a contact with links to US intelligence.

    The Canary also reported that during the extradition proceedings in London, the defence referred to “Witness #2”, a whistleblower who worked for UC Global. And according to Shadowproof, Witness #2 revealed that:

    data was collected and uploaded daily to a remote server. That information was accessed by U.S. intelligence. Original recordings, including sound, were collected from several microphones every 14 days.

    The Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe, representing over one million lawyers, has issued a letter to UK home secretary Priti Patel. The Council points out that the surveillance on Assange and his visitors equated to a serious breach of client-lawyer confidentiality, as well as other concerns:

    Indeed, the law in England on client-lawyer confidentiality is clear, as indicated by this 2018 judgement in the Court of Appeal.

    Annulment

    Now legal sources have told El Pais that the surveillance UC Global undertook may lead to the extradition against Assange being annulled. The newspaper reports that:

    Proving that US intelligence services learned about Assange’s defense strategy by spying on his lawyers could annul the extradition by questioning the illegal methods used by the US to get Assange tried there, according to legal sources.

    El Pais adds:

    It could be argued that the [extradition] process was flawed because the right of defense was violated by the country requesting the extradition.

    The Spanish judge requested in 2020 the opportunity to interview Assange via video conference, but UK authorities haven’t cooperated. Indeed, it’s claimed that those authorities have actively blocked this request.

    Meanwhile, the UK government has admitted liability for illegal surveillance conducted on Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson:

    The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in Robinson’s case could provide further argument that the extradition case against Assange be annulled.

    Security organisation backs Assange

    On 7 June, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) published a press release regarding Assange. It quoted OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Teresa Ribeiro, saying:

    I call on the UK Home Secretary Priti Patel not to extradite Julian Assange. The public interest of several of the publications by WikiLeaks should be taken into account, as it contributed to important investigative reports and news reporting. It is essential to consider the impact on freedom of expression and media freedom if he is extradited and convicted. The fact that someone who disclosed material of public interest might face a long prison sentence could have a grave and lasting stifling impact on investigative journalism.

    The OSCE includes 57 participating states, covering North America, Europe, and Asia.

    Back in May, the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights Dunja Mijatović requested Patel not to proceed with Assange’s extradition. In a letter to Patel, Mijatović stated:

    it is my view that the indictment by the United States against Mr Assange raises important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including information that exposes human rights violations.

    A bill introduced by Patel, if enacted, has the potential to criminalise the kind of activities Mijatović referred to in her letter. That bill would make it difficult, if not impossible, for a WikiLeaks type organisation to publish documents considered by UK authorities to ‘benefit’ foreign powers.

    Pressure increases in Australia

    Meanwhile in Australia, pressure is increasing on newly-elected Labor prime minister Anthony Albanese to act on earlier statements that Assange should be freed. For example, in December 2021 Albanese stated:

    I’ve said for some time that enough is enough … He has paid a big price for the publication of that information already and I do not see what purpose is served by the ongoing pursuit of Mr Assange.

    In an interview on Australia’s 60 Minutes programme, Federal independent MP Andrew Wilkie make it clear why he supports Assange:

    Wilkie commented:

    this is about an Australian journalist publicising hard evidence of US war crimes’ of the US being deeply embarrassed and wanting to get even, and the Australian government happy to go along with the ride because they believe their relationship with Washington is more important than the welfare of Australian citizens and the fundamental right of Australian citizens to justice.

    Julian Hill, an Australian Federal Labor MP, made his position clear too:

    Barrister Greg Barns SC, adviser to the Australian Assange campaign, told The Canary:

    The continued prosecution of Mr Assange is an affront to the vast majority of Australians. Australians clearly want a government that will stand up for journalistic freedom, for whistleblowers, and the human rights of all Australians such as Mr Assange.

    The former government’s claim that Australia is not a party to his extradition is no longer an acceptable excuse for inaction. We are confident that the new government understands all the concerns we are raising. Whether it be the legal precedent set by extradition, or the extreme time Julian has spent in maximum security without conviction, we are hopeful of swift action soon.

    What next?

    According to Assange Defense, Assange’s lawyers have submitted an application to:

    appeal the extradition order to the High Court again, this time on the other substantive issues from the original Magistrates’ ruling that were not discussed at the previous appeal. These issues include a politicized prosecution, the threat the charges pose to the First Amendment, and the likelihood Assange would face a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia.

    With interventions from Ribeiro and Mijatović, and the Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe, the pressure on Patel to release Assange is growing. And in Australia, prime minister Albanese should now prove his integrity and add his intervention too. And if all else fails, Assange’s lawyers can always consider taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

    Meanwhile even if Patel recommends that extradition proceeds, rulings in the extradition case could be annulled based on the latest evidence from the Spanish courts.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Open Government Licence version 1.0 / Cancillería del Ecuador cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Union challenging government’s ‘appalling’ Rwanda policy hopeful it can stop first flight

    A union challenging the government’s controversial policy of deporting people to Rwanda said it hopes it can win an appeal to stop the first flight taking off this week.

    “Appalling”

    A High Court ruling on 10 June paved the way for a flight to the east African country to go ahead on 14 June. But an appeal against that decision is due to be heard on 13 June. The immigration policy has come in for criticism from various groups. And there are reports that the Prince of Wales privately described the move to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as “appalling”.

    The boss of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) said the “legality of these proposals” must be tested. But he added that there’s also a need to debate “the morality and lack of humanity that the Government is demonstrating” with its approach. The PCS represents more than 80% of Border Force staff.

    Up to 130 people have been notified they could be removed. And on 10 June, the court in London heard that 31 people were due on the first flight. The Home Office is also planning to schedule more flights this year. Alongside the PCS, lawyers brought the first claim against the policy on behalf of asylum seekers. Groups including Care4Calais and Detention Action are also challenging the policy on behalf of everyone affected.

    On 10 June, justice Jonathan Swift ruled against granting a temporary block to the policy until a full hearing next month. But he granted the claimants permission to appeal against his decision, suggesting Court of Appeal judges would hear the case on 13 June.

    Respect

    PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka told Sky’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday programme:

    We hope we win tomorrow in the Court of Appeal to stop the flight (on Tuesday). But, of course, the legality of these proposals will only be tested out at the full court hearing in July.

    We’re absolutely confident that in July, in line with what the UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency) said very graphically in court, we believe these proposals will be found to be unlawful.

    He said home secretary Priti Patel would not ask civil servants to carry out the policy before its legality had been tested in court if she “had any respect, not just for the desperate people who come to this country, but for the workers she employs”.

    Meanwhile Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis defended the government’s policy. He said it aims to “break” the “business model” of people smugglers. Asked if he was personally comfortable with the policy, he told the same programme: “Yes, I am, actually”.

    The policy has drawn criticism from people including Labour MP Richard Burgon:

    Professor Tanja Bueltmann said:

    And members of the clergy have also voiced their concern:

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Unions slam proposal to let agency workers cover for striking staff

    Unions have reacted with anger to planned legal changes to allow agency workers to fill in for striking staff. They’ve branded the government as “desperate to distract from its numerous failings”.

    The government devised the plan in response to rail strikes later in June because of disputes over pay, jobs, pensions and conditions.

    The move would involve reversing a restriction which prevents employers from hiring agency workers to cover for striking staff. And it would apply to all sectors, according to the Sunday Telegraph.

    ‘Red meat to rebellious back benchers’

    TUC deputy general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    This Government is desperate to distract from its numerous failings by picking a fight with unions.

    Allowing agency staff to replace striking workers would undermine the right to strike and be extremely reckless.

    Bringing in less qualified and experienced staff to deliver important services would create genuine safety risks for the public and for the workforce.

    Using agency workers to try and break strikes would put these workers in an appalling situation, worsen disputes and poison industrial relations.

    Some may not realise until it is too late that they are being asked to break a strike.

    Having repeatedly promised a high-wage economy, ministers now seem determined to reduce workers’ bargaining power and to make it harder for working people to win fair pay and conditions.

    Let’s call this out for what it is. The PM is throwing red meat to his rebellious backbenchers to try and shore up his position.

    Making industrial action illegal

    Transport secretary Grant Shapps told the Sunday Telegraph that any legal intervention would not affect “this particular set of strikes” in June. But should the action continue, then “further measures certainly would come in during this particular dispute, if it can’t be resolved”.

    Meanwhile the government does have the power to facilitate a resolution to the dispute, by not undermining the strikes and facilitating negotiations between transport companies and unions.

    Writing in the Sun on Sunday 12 June, Shapps said the government could also ban workers from working overtime to make back pay lost during industrial action.

    In May, he had told the Sunday Telegraph that ministers were looking at drawing up laws which would make industrial action illegal unless a certain number of staff are working.

    ‘The most restrictive anti-democratic trade union laws’

    Meanwhile, Rail, Maritime and Transport union general secretary Mick Lynch said:

    Grant Shapps needs to stop smearing the RMT and unshackle the rail operating companies so they can come to a negotiated settlement that can end this dispute.

    Railway workers voted overwhelmingly for strike action in defence of their jobs and for a pay rise that deals with the rising cost of living.

    It is insulting to them to suggest they do not understand the issues that affect their daily lives or cannot make a democratic decision by themselves.

    We already have the most restrictive anti-democratic trade union laws in western Europe and if the Government attempts to reduce our rights further, the RMT along with the rest of the trade union movement will mount the fiercest resistance possible.

     

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Ambulance workers stage demo over increasing pressures as call-outs surge

    Ambulance calls in England have increased by around six million in the past decade, according to new research.

    Pressure rising

    The GMB union said there were 7.9 million call-outs in the 2009/10 financial year, rising to 14 million in 2021/22. Ambulance workers are staging a demonstration on 12 June outside the GMB’s annual congress in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, to highlight the pressures they’re facing. The union said more than 1,000 ambulance workers have left their jobs since 2018 to seek a better work-life balance, more pay, or to take early retirement.

    GMB national officer Rachel Harrison, said:

    Ambulance workers have faced more than a decade of cuts while demand has almost doubled. It’s no wonder they are leaving in droves while the service itself is teetering on the brink of collapse.

    The explosion in demand is due to savage cuts to essential services since 2010. GMB members tell us the pressures they face are the worst they have ever experienced. Our members face unbelievable stress and even abuse while they do their best to administer care and save lives. We need urgent investment across the health and care services, otherwise we risk an unprecedented crisis.

    GMB general secretary Gary Smith shared the following update on Twitter:

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Lack of justice since Grenfell fire ‘torture’ for community five years on

    A man whose uncle died in the Grenfell Tower fire has described the lack of justice in the five years since the tragedy as “torture” and said it has prevented him being able to grieve.

    Karim Mussilhy said he has not been able to sit down and come to terms with what happened to his uncle, Hesham Rahman, on the night of June 14 2017.

    The 36-year-old said he never would have imagined being in this situation, five years on from the tower-block blaze, and said he feels the fight “gets harder and harder the longer it goes on”.

    Another Grenfell could happen tomorrow

    In an interview with the PA news agency to mark the fifth anniversary of the tragedy in west London, he said:

    This is torture, we are being tortured. We can’t move on. We can’t grieve.

    We can’t rebuild, as much as we’re trying to.

    Mussilhy, a father-of-two who is part of the Grenfell United campaign group, warned that “Grenfell Two” will happen if things stay the same.

    He continued:

    It’s been incredibly frustrating that we’re still having to do the things that we’re doing today in order to get some changes.

    And if you really look at it, if you look at sort of the big picture and the grand scheme of things, what has actually changed in five years

    He said:

    Can another Grenfell happen tomorrow? Yes, it can.

    And if it does, are people safe? No, they’re not.

    Do our firefighters have the right equipment and training to save people? No, they don’t.

    What have we done? What have we learned since Grenfell?

    Despite the frustration, Mussilhy said survivors, the bereaved, and members of the community are determined not to allow their campaign to “just be kicked into the long grass”.

    He added:

    We’re quite resilient and we’re quite relentless, so we will keep going, we will keep pushing, we will keep fighting until some element of positivity comes out of this and there’s some accountability.

    “We don’t have justice”

    Other members of the community said they feel dehumanised and cannot fully heal until there is justice.

    Samia Badani, 47, who lives in Bramley House near the tower, said:

    Five years on, we don’t want to wish what happened in this community to any community in any part of this country or the world.

    That was sheer devastation and how do you grow out of devastation? We don’t have closure, we don’t have justice and we don’t have change.

    And we are not asking for much – we’re just asking to be treated as human beings.

    Badani said the community needs to “make sense of what happened” to be able to heal and recover.

    But she added:

    It is hard to make sense of something so horrible unless you hold people accountable.

    Government grovelling

    Speaking in the House of Commons on Thursday, Communities Secretary Michael Gove apologised for the Government’s response over the last five years.

    He said:

    Again, I want to apologise to the bereaved, to relatives and survivors for the fact that the Government over the last five years has sometimes been too slow in acting… sometimes we have behaved in a way which has been insensitive.

    A spokesman for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said the tragedy must “never be allowed to happen again” and its thoughts are with the bereaved, survivors and the community.

    He said:

    So far 45 of the UK’s biggest housebuilders have signed our developer pledge and will contribute £5 billion to fix their unsafe buildings.

    We expect them to work swiftly so people feel safe in their homes, and we will be carefully scrutinising their progress.

    The Building Safety Act brings forward the biggest improvements in building safety for a generation, giving more rights and protections for residents than ever before.

    “It is shameful”

    London Fire Commissioner Andy Roe said:

    Five years on, it is shameful that we are still seeing designs for buildings that we do not think are safe.

    We have repeatedly called for urgent culture change in the building and construction industry when it comes to fire safety in residential buildings and the lack of change so far is unacceptable.

    We all owe it to the bereaved families, the survivors and the residents – whose lives have been torn apart by what happened that night – to continue to learn, change and improve.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Tories have now wasted nearly £100bn during the pandemic

    Corporate media has been awash with the story of Rishi Sunak wasting £11bn by making a basic accounting error. But this is only part of the Tories’ financial incompetence. If you add up all their other mistakes, then Sunak and the government have actually flushed at least £93bn down the toilet during the pandemic.

    Sunak: basic errors

    The Guardian reported on Sunak ‘wasting £11bn’ of public money. This happened because he signed-off on the government paying too much interest on public debt. As it reported:

    The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said the losses were the result of the chancellor’s failure to insure against interest rate rises on £900bn of reserves created through the quantitative easing (QE) programme.

    In layman’s terms, Sunak didn’t bother to make sure that if interest rates went up, the public wasn’t paying that higher rate on our debt. He could have put measures in place to protect against this – but didn’t. The NIESR accused Sunak of creating an “enormous bill for the public, and that:

    Such a lost opportunity is an unnecessary cost to the public finances at a very difficult time

    Of course, Tories flushing money down the toilet is nothing new. Because Sunak’s latest error comes on top of billions of pounds more waste.

    Tories: catastrophic waste

    First, you have the loans the government gave businesses during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. These included the:

    • Coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS), known as furlough.
    • Bounce back loan scheme (BBLS) for small companies.
    • Coronavirus business interruption loan scheme (CBILS) for medium-sized companies.

    A parliamentary committee said that between these, fraud and error may have lost the public £15.7bn. This was a central estimate, with the figure possibly ranging from £12.4bn and £20.1bn. Plus, the government will be writing-off another £21bn on these loans. This is because people and companies can’t afford to pay them back.

    If you factor in the issue of PPE that was useless, then the government has wasted another £9bn – including £4bn worth of PPE which it is literally going to burn. And if you include the failed Test and Trace scheme, which parliament’s spending watchdog said failed to meet “its main objective”, that’s another £37bn.

    Nearly £100bn gone

    Overall, all this combines to mean the Tories have wasted at least £93.7bn since the pandemic began. This staggering level of financial mismanagement is the equivalent of:

    Or alternatively, the government could have given every person in the UK around £1,400 each – nearly double the support it’s providing to many people during the so-called ‘cost of living crisis’.

    Of course, the Tories couldn’t possibly be caught helping those in need. So, instead we’re left with a government whose wilful negligence has wasted nearly £100bn – while the rest of us struggle to survive.

    Unbelievable.

    Featured image via screenshot/ITV News – YouTube 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Residents call for funding after ‘falling through cracks’ over cladding relief

    Residents of buildings that have “fallen through the cracks” in relation to funding for the removal of dangerous cladding have called on the Government to pay for all of their costs.

    A Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spokesperson said:

    We are bringing forward the most far-reaching legal protections ever for leaseholders on building safety.

    We have created new powers in the Building Safety Act that can force developers and building owners to compensate leaseholders for money already paid out for fire safety measures such as fire alarms.

    The Act also overrides agreements that seek to get round the measures we have put in place to protect qualifying leaseholders from future cladding costs.

    However, some people have already lost out.

    Removal of cladding

    Ritu Saha, a 47-year-old university administrator, purchased the leasehold of a one-and-a-half bedroom flat in the Northpoint development in Bromley at the end of 2015.

    In November 2017 the residents of her building were told that Northpoint was covered in the same aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding as Grenfell Tower.

    They were residents of one of the first buildings in the country to receive the news that they would need to remove the cladding.

    She said:

    And as a result of that, we basically became the people that fell through the cracks.

    Due to the cladding, they were told by the London Fire Brigade (LFB) that they would need to put in a waking watch, hiring external fire wardens to patrol their building.

    She said:

    The 57 people in our building have spent at least £650,000-£700,000 on fire wardens alone, which we will never get back.

    That is money that we have paid two external fire wardens.

    However, paying for the watch quickly burnt through the building’s savings and, facing mounting costs in the hundreds of thousands, Ms Saha and other residents took it upon themselves to patrol the building 24/7.

    She said:

    We did patrols ourselves to keep the costs down. So for example, I worked full-time so I would come home at 6.30pm in the evening and from seven o’clock in the evening till midnight.

    I would have to crawl the building myself. And I did this for months.

    The LFB also told them to put in a new £120,000 fire alarm system, she said, which they finally had installed in June 2019 after fundraising for it.

    However, because they installed the alarm before fire alarms funding was announced they have so far been unable to claim the cost back from the Waking Watch Relief Fund.

    She said that as well as the money, they had also paid a toll in their mental and physical health:

    The years of our lives that the two or three people in our building who volunteered as fire wardens have lost doing this, and the strain on our mental and physical health as a result, is not something that can be measured in money terms – but that is also something that we will never get back.

    In total, Ms Saha calculates that she has lost out on “a minimum of £15,000” in unremunerated costs as a result of the cladding scandal.

    She called on the Government to use the money it will receive from developers involved in the cladding scandal to refund all of the costs incurred by the residents of buildings impacted by it.

    Thousands lost

    Nathan Prescott, a 45-year-old aviation industry worker from Liverpool, has also faced thousands in unrecovered costs due to the cladding on his building.

    He lives in the Skyline Central 1 building in Manchester, which was covered in high pressure laminate (HPL) cladding, a type unrelated to the cladding used in Grenfell but which is also covered by the Building Safety Fund.

    Nathan Prescott in front of the Skyline Central 1 building (Nathan Prescott)

    The 18-storey building has 121 apartments in total.

    However, because the residents agreed to begin the removal of the cladding before the fund was announced, they have been denied access to it.

    They also paid for a waking watch for three years, at a cost of approximately £2,000 per year per apartment.

    Prescott said their costs were further increased when they fell at the first hurdle of bringing a judicial review case against the Government over its decision to disallow the residents from applying to the fund.

    He calculates his unrecovered costs at about £30,000, with others in his building out of pocket by up to £40,000.

    Prescott added that the Government could pay for it with a windfall tax on the profits made by companies involved in the removal of cladding or that have benefited from the cladding scandal.

    He said:

    I’d like to see the Government maybe put a windfall tax on those people, so that the money can be diverted towards the lease holders, such as myself and all the other people who’ve been stung with these horrible, horrible amounts of debt.

    By The Canary

  • Government plan to burn £4bn of PPE ‘costly to environment and Treasury’

    Government plans to burn £4 billion of unusable personal protective equipment (PPE) to generate power have been criticised by MPs as potentially costly – both financially and to the environment.

    The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) lost 75% of the £12 billion it spent on PPE in the first year of the coronavirus pandemic to inflated prices and faulty kit.

    This included £4 billion worth which could not be used because it did not meet NHS standards.

    MPs also raised concerns about “inappropriate”, unauthorised payoffs made by health bodies to staff, warning that more of these are likely to happen amid the large-scale restructuring of the NHS.

    During the pandemic, three clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) paid special severance payments without the required approval from the Treasury, the committee said.

    Wasting public money

    PAC chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said the DHSC has done little to “put its house in order” after wasting “huge amounts” of public money.

    The Labour MP said:

    The story of PPE purchasing is perhaps the most shameful episode in the UK Government response to the pandemic.

    Hillier continued:

    At the start of the pandemic health service and social care staff were left to risk their own and their families’ lives due to the lack of basic PPE.

    In a desperate bid to catch up, the Government splurged huge amounts of money, paying obscenely inflated prices and payments to middlemen in a chaotic rush, during which they chucked out even the most cursory due diligence.

    This has left us with massive public contracts now under investigation by the National Crime Agency or in dispute because of allegations of modern slavery in the supply chain.

    Hillier added:

    Add to that a series of inappropriate, unauthorised severance payoffs made by clinical commissioning groups in the first year of the pandemic and the impression given falls even further from what we expect.

    The DHSC singularly failed to manage this crisis, despite years of clear and known risk of a pandemic, and the challenges facing it now are vast, from getting the NHS back on its feet to preparing for the next major crisis.

    There are, frankly, too few signs that it is putting its house in order or knows how to.

    Galling

    The PAC has urged the DHSC to clarify its plan to dispose of unusable and excess PPE, including predicted costs to the Treasury and to the environment.

    Chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), Pat Cullen, said the burning of PPE is a “galling” reminder that the DHSC’s approach to procurement may also have cost nurses’ lives.

    She said:

    Our members will find this galling.

    It is a painful reminder of the worst of the pandemic – inadequate or wasteful PPE.

    Sending billions of pounds up in smoke when NHS and care services are struggling will be hard for them to comprehend.

    Cullen also said:

    If this money had been used more wisely and decent quality PPE bought in the first place, then nurses’ lives might have been saved.

    It will be critical, if we are to truly learn the lessons, for the forthcoming public inquiry to pin down causes and to say clearly where mistakes were made so they are never repeated.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Who is Boris Johnson?

    Behind Boris Johnson’s bumbling posh boy persona lies a nasty, ultra-privileged, self-serving, power-hungry political operative who will cling to power no matter the cost to us all.

    Video transcript

    By now, you know that Boris Johnson is a proven liar. Tory MPs may have decided to keep him in the top job, but in this video we want to show the main reasons why he is utterly unqualified to be prime minister, or to hold any kind of authority.

    Born in New York in 1964 – yes, New York – Johnson’s family was a wealthy and privileged one. He attended Eton with David Cameron and went on to study at – you guessed it – Oxford University. At Oxford, he joined the all-male bullingdon club. Reports say Johnson was a central member at a time when group members would get extremely drunk, trash places and throw bottles in the streets to scare and intimidate people. They also referred to certain people as ‘plebs’.

    Fast forward a few years and Johnson landed himself a job as an editor at The Times, courtesy of family connections – but it didn’t last very long, as he was found out for inventing a quote from his godfather. Remember this part – this won’t be the first time he’s sacked from a position for lying.

    After securing a job at the Daily Telegraph, a leaked phone call between Johnson and his friend Darius Guppy was revealed –  with Johnson supplying the address of a Journalist Guppy wanted to beat up.

    There’s also a lot to say about his actual writing style as a journalist – he once wrote about Africans as ‘flag-waiving picanninies’, and described gay men as ‘tank top bum boys’.

    In the late 90s, he was offered the editorship of the Spectator on the condition he didn’t run as an MP – spoiler, he did anyway. But it was his appearance on the flagship BBC show, Have I got News For You, which would catapult him into the eyes of the general public. It also helped get him elected as Conservative MP for Henley in 2001, where he spent his time voting for the war in Iraq, speaking out against what he called the ‘appalling’ ‘teaching of homosexuality in schools’, whilst also finding the time to write articles blaming Hillsborough on ‘drunken fans’ 

    By 2004, Johnson was in the news again, this time being sacked by then-Conservative Leader Michael Howard for lying to the party about an extra-marital affair.

    Johnson was eventually able to move on from the scandal and fail upwards into the position of Mayor Of London in 2008. It was a disaster. A total of £43m of public money was put into Johnson’s Garden Bridge vanity project. Questions were also raised about his office’s allocation of a £100,000 grant to US business woman Jennifer Arcuri – who he was having an affair with at the time.

    Oh, and the whole Brexit thing – turns out he’s not such a firm believer in leave, more that he thought it could boost his political career. We know this because he wrote two articles before the referendum – one remain and one leave.

    Since taking power in 2019 he’s overseen some of the largest government contracts – which were very conveniently awarded to donors of the Conservative Party. He also found time to have illegal parties during lockdown – trashing the very rules that he and his cabinet put in place. And when he and his chancellor were fined for it, he didn’t resign, and continued to cling on to power.

    While millions suffered due to the cost of living crisis, Johnson sat on his hands and provided little relief, until relenting to pressure for a windfall tax on energy companies – which he conveniently announced the day after the Sue Gray report was released. Throughout his tenure, Johnson has repeatedly insulted and taken the British public for fools. From Oxford Bullingdon member to prime minister, Johnson’s life is a story of how wealth, privilege and connections can put you in the highest positions of power – no matter how incompetent, devious, dishonest or idiotic you are. 

    By Andrew Butler

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Outcry forces prison to delete tweet demanding inmates receive post via Moonpig and Funky Pigeon

    HMP The Mount, a prison in Hertfordshire, tweeted (and later deleted) a post about how prisoners receive post from family and friends. While the tweet was up, it read:

    IMPORTANT NOTICE: Incoming Prisoner Mail. From Monday 20th June, The Mount will only accept cards from Funky Pigeon & Moon Pig, and photographs from Freeprints. Any sent directly from family/friends will be put in stored property.

    Moonpig and Funky Pigeon are both online card companies. Users can design their own cards and have them sent to people – for a fee.

    As this screenshot from Moonpig shows, a standard card costs £3.69 each, plus delivery costs:

    This compares to just 0.68p for a second class stamp:

    Moonpig even told The Big Issue that nobody had consulted them on this apparent new business venture:

    We can confirm that Moonpig has had no involvement with the decision made by HMP The Mount, and all actions in relation to this matter are solely representative of the prison’s own safety precautions.

    Obviously, the prison must have a great reason for doing this. Right?

    Aiming for a monopoly?

    Social media users immediately tore their ridiculous decision to shreds.

    One user made sure to include a screenshot of their deleted tweet:

    Writer Jendella Benson showed why the decision was so cruel:

    Dr. Annabel Sowemimo pointed to the potential for money changing hands:

    It’s unclear who exactly Sowemimo was referring to, but the founder of Moonpig, Nick Jenkins, has donated huge sums to the Tories. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that Jenkins donated a whopping £102,000 to the Conservative party. Jenkins sold the company in 2011 for £42 million.

    Why delete?

    The tweet only lasted a matter of hours, which begs the question – why did HMP The Mount delete it? On the same day, it tweeted about updating the system that allows visitors to book to see prisoners.

    People didn’t fall for that distraction though, and had plenty of concerns:

    There hasn’t been any more word from the prison’s Twitter account. The Canary reached out to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and asked:

    • if it was official MoJ policy, or only specific to HMP The Mount;
    • if they had any comment on the criticism from social media users that this makes it extremely difficult for families to stay in touch with prisoners.

    A Prison Service spokesperson said:

    As part of our zero tolerance approach to drugs, handwritten greeting cards sent to HMP The Mount are currently photocopied and then given to prisoners to intercept attempts to smuggle illicit contraband.

    The Prison Service also confirmed that there has been no change in policy for how prisoners receive mail.

    It seems like quite a leap for The Mount to try to control drugs coming into the prison by forcing anyone who wants to contact prisoners to do so via services that need to be paid for. If they’re already photocopying incoming post, do they just want to reduce the workload of prison officers? Why involve the likes of Moonpig at all?

    More than likely, it’s exactly the kind of pointless cruelty we can expect from prison services. As far as they’re concerned, it’s probably a win-win situation if they further isolate prisoners and charge people for what little contact they do have.

    Business as usual.

    Featured image by Wikimedia Commons/Nonie – resized to 770×403 via CC 2.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Things you want more than 60% confidence in

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Government under pressure to cut fuel duty again as tank of petrol reaches £100

    Pressure is building on the Government to cut fuel duty again after the average cost of filling a typical family car with petrol exceeded £100.

    The AA declared “enough is enough” while the RAC said it was “a truly dark day” for drivers.

    Figures from data firm Experian show the average price of a litre of petrol at UK forecourts reached a record 182.3p on Wednesday.

    That means the average cost of filling a 55-litre family car is £100.27.

    The average price of a litre of diesel on Wednesday was 188.1p.

    Fuel price stabiliser

    AA president Edmund King demanded a 10p per litre cut in fuel duty.

    He also called for a fuel price stabiliser to lower duty when pump prices rise, and increase it when prices drop.

    He said:

    Enough is enough. The Government must act urgently to reduce the record fuel prices which are crippling the lives of those on lower incomes, rural areas and businesses.

    A fuel price stabiliser is a fair means for the Treasury to help regulate the pump price, but alongside this they need to bring in more fuel price transparency to stop the daily rip-offs at the pumps.

    The £100 tank is not sustainable with the general cost-of-living crisis, so the underlying issues need to be addressed urgently.

    RAC fuel spokesman Simon Williams said:

    It’s a truly dark day today for drivers with petrol now crossing the thoroughly depressing threshold of £100 a tank.

    He claimed many motorists are hoping for further financial support as the 5p duty cut implemented in March “looks paltry” because wholesale petrol costs have increased by five times that amount since then.

    He added:

    A further duty cut or a temporary reduction in VAT would go a long way towards helping drivers, especially those on lower incomes who have no choice other than to drive.

    (PA Graphics)
    (PA Graphics)

    Answering questions from journalists in Blackpool, Johnson said:

    We made a cut already… the biggest cut ever in fuel duty.

    What I want to see is those cuts in taxation not just swallowed up in one gulp, without touching the gullet of the fuel companies, I want to see those cuts having an impact on the pumps.

    And we are watching very closely to see what happens

    Downing Street indicated on Wednesday that fuel retailers failing to pass on the 5p duty cut could be named and shamed.

    Many forecourts are already selling petrol and diesel above £2 per litre.

    Price comparison website PetrolPrices said around 50 sites on UK motorways or major A roads are charging 202.9p per litre.

    The RAC tweeted:

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Priti Patel’s latest bill declares war on journalists, publishers and whistleblowers

    The National Security Bill, introduced by home secretary Priti Patel and formerly known as the Counter State Threats Bill, aims to update existing espionage laws. The bill has been several years in the making, and is currently going through the committee stage in Parliament. It’s based partly on recommendations in a 2020 Law Commission report titled ‘Protection of Official Data‘.

    If enacted, the bill could see whistleblowers, journalists, and publishers jailed for life.

    Complex and flawed bill

    The bill says that if a person is convicted of obtaining, copying, recording or retaining “protected information”, or “discloses or provides access to protected information” that is “prejudicial to the safety or interests” of the UK, they could face life imprisonment.

    There is a clause in the legislation stating that a foreign power needs to benefit from the action. However, the wording is ambiguous and open to interpretation. While it states that a person must have the “intent” to carry out the action to benefit a foreign power, it also states that the “person must know or reasonably ought to know that the conduct has that relationship to a foreign power”.

    The clause also states that it’s not necessary to identify the foreign power that benefits for prosecution.

    In other words, if a classified document is published by, say, a blogger on the internet for all to see, and that document – in part or whole – assists an unspecified foreign power, it is possible that they could be arrested for this offence. It’s unclear whether anyone who links to that document can also be prosecuted.

    The bill further adds that such an offence applies “whether the person’s conduct takes place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere”. So should that blogger leak something that’s then published by, say, the New York Times, all parties involved could be subject to prosecution in the UK courts. That’s despite the enormous practical challenges involved.

    Early warnings

    There were warnings about the proposed legislation as far back as 2017.

    In that year, the Law Commission published a consultation paper on the proposed legislative changes. Open Rights Group (ORG) responded by arguing that the rationale behind the proposed legislative changes was the publication of leaked documents by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and other documents by WikiLeaks.

    Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell wrote in the Register:

    If the proposed law had been in force in 2013, the Cabinet Office could have thrown [Guardian editor Alan] Rusbridger in prison simply for handling copies of documents Edward Snowden passed to his reporters.

    Campbell also noted that:

    Sentences would apply even if – like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning – the leaker was not British, or in Britain, or was intent on acting in the public interest.

    Moreover, a July 2021 tweet from veteran BBC journalist John Simpson argued that the new legislation would reclassify journalists as spies:

    Legal challenge of necessity

    There are several legal arguments that ought to be available to the defence in any prosecution resulting from the proposed legislation.

    Firstly, there’s the doctrine of necessity. In 2017, as part of the bill’s consultation process, a House of Commons (HoC) briefing document was published on possible changes to the Official Secrets Acts.

    The document referred to the Katharine Gun case, observing that:

    the legal doctrine of necessity was a main aspect of the defence Katherine Gun’s lawyers would have offered, if the Crown Prosecution Service had not withdrawn the case against her.

    The document explained that necessity is:

    a common law doctrine, defined as pressure of circumstances compelling one to commit an illegal act.

    And that it is:

    available when a defendant committed an otherwise criminal act to avoid an imminent peril of danger to life or serious injury.

    The HoC document also referred to a statement from the director of prosecutions, Ken McDonald. He made it clear that Gun could not be convicted because there was no way of disproving the defence of necessity.

    Furthermore, Gun’s lawyer threatened to “use disclosure to put the legal basis of the war itself on trial”. Indeed, the day after the trial collapsed, the Guardian stated it had learned:

    that a key plank of the defence presented to the prosecutors shortly before they decided to abandon the case was new evidence that the legality of the war had been questioned by the Foreign Office.
    It is contained in a document seen by the Guardian. Sensitive passages are blacked out, but one passage says: “The defence believes that the advice given by the Foreign Office Legal Adviser expressed serious doubts about the legality (in international law) of committing British troops in the absence of a second [UN] resolution.”
    Significantly, when Special Branch asked Gun why she leaked the memo, given that she worked for the British government, she famously replied:

    No, I work for the British people. I do not gather intelligence so the government can lie to the British people.

    Other legal challenges

    Another legal argument is that of intent, whereby leaking or publishing a leak is shown to be for the general good.

    However, the bill states:

    It is immaterial whether the person’s intention relates to, or the person’s conduct is in preparation for, specific acts to which this section applies, or acts to which this section applies in general.

    A third legal argument is that of public interest, whereby the data leaked is shown to be of importance to the public, overriding all other considerations.

    In an article in the Guardian, Campbell and author Duncan Campbell (two persons with the same name) further explained the importance of public interest in the context of the proposed changes in legislation. They argued that:

    the new laws would, if passed, ensnare journalists and sources whose job is reporting “unauthorised disclosures” that are in the public interest.

    They added:

    Journalists and sources should not be convicted if it was in the public interest for the information disclosed to be known by recipients.

    It remains to be seen if either the public interest defence, or that of intent, can be applied in practice to the proposed legislation.

    War on media

    The proposed legislation threatens life imprisonment for anyone disclosing UK state or government-held data that may be of benefit to an unspecified foreign power. Consequently, no news outlet would be able to re-publish newly published material, say by WikiLeaks, which is of global interest without fear of court action. The legislation would restrict what UK government or state leaks can be published by the media.

    Likewise, while Secure Drop provides anonymity to whistleblowers, under the proposed legislation such facilities would be considered crime scenes, in that the proposed legislation intends to outlaw recipients of leaks of a certain nature.

    If enacted, the proposed legislation would clearly impinge on press freedom and create a climate of uncertainty as to what can or cannot be published.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Richard Townshend via CC 3.0, cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Fire union chief not hopeful Grenfell inquiry will lead to change

    A firefighters’ leader has voiced frustration at the progress of the Grenfell Tower inquiry and said he is not hopeful that it will lead to significant change.

    Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), has been asking to give evidence to the inquiry on behalf of the firefighters and control staff he represents but has only been allowed to submit statements.

    He raised questions about the inquiry’s commitment to justice for the victims after government ministers were questioned for a few days compared with the weeks involving individual firefighters and control staff. He said:

    Individual firefighters and control staff did not put cladding on Grenfell Tower – politicians created the regulatory system that allowed it.

    Fifth anniversary

    In an interview with the PA news agency to mark the fifth anniversary of the fire, Wrack said little fundamentally has changed despite the inquiry:

    It has been a machinery for kicking the can down the road in some ways. We, and a lot of the local community, are still shocked at the fact that there have been no prosecutions.

    Wrack said the inquiry had exposed failings and confirmed the FBU’s many warnings about job cuts and deregulation, which it believes have fragmented and weakened structures for overseeing safety in housing and construction, as well as the fire service:

    We have ended up with a completely failed system for the testing of materials, coupled with cuts in fire safety teams.

    He said the argument for deregulation is that standards and regulations are an impediment to business, hence the frequent announcement of a drive to cut “red tape”.

    He continued:

    This political agenda created a weak and fragmented building safety regime with an ever greater role for the private sector.

    Public sector agencies, including the fire and rescue service and local authority building control, were attacked, weakened and undermined by cuts.

    Mr Wrack said no-one is learning lessons from fires in the UK:

    We actually still have buildings with the same cladding as Grenfell, which has not been removed.

    The process of removing dangerous cladding has been painfully slow.

    Cuts

    Mr Wrack said 11,000 jobs have been cut from the fire service over the past decade, so the workload of firefighters is “immense”.

    The union said it has tried to explain that many of the failings exposed by Grenfell reflect concerns it has raised with government ministers and within the fire and rescue service for decades, which have been “largely ignored”.

    Wrack voiced frustration at the focus by the media and others on the early stages of the inquiry when firefighters gave evidence, while political decisions the union believes allowed Grenfell to be turned into a death trap have not received as much attention.

    He said:

    I am not hopeful about the outcome of the inquiry – that significant change will emerge from it. It would mean a major political change in direction on public building policy.

    We will continue to try to make sure that blame for the Grenfell Tower tragedy is apportioned to those who are truly responsible, and not the firefighters who gave their all, often risking their own lives, trying to save residents who were trapped in their homes.

    It comes as the FBU hit out at the Government for abandoning a key recommendation from the first phase of the inquiry.

    This advised the Government to place a legal obligation on building owners to outline Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for residents in the event of a fire.

    But, in a consultation document published last month, the Government said it believed the cost of adopting the PEEPs policy would not be “proportionate” and that it would not be “practical” or “safe” to implement.

    In a letter to Lord Stephen Greenhalgh, minister for building safety and fire, earlier this week, Mr Wrack said the move is a “negative, backward step” and he stands with campaigners calling for the Government to reconsider.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson: Dead man walking?

    Boris Johnson scrapped through a vote among Tory MPs but his political future is far from certain. Curtis Daly argues that, with no effective political opposition, his fate is irrelevant. As always the real power rest with us, the people. Time to rise up and use it!

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The RMT strike is on and the public must support it

    The rail strike is officially on, across three days in June. Naturally, the right-wing backlash against the strike is also on. However, with over 50,000 workers set to walk out, there’s very little the naysayers can do.

    Rail chaos

    As The Canary previously reported, Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) union members have voted for the biggest strike in over 25 years. It’s over pay, conditions, rail companies’ threats of compulsory redundancies, and working practices. The backdrop to this is the rail industry cutting services in the wake of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Plus, Network Rail is cutting 2,500 safety-critical jobs.

    So, the RMT isn’t having it. It balloted its members over strike action. 71% of them took part, and 89% voted for strike action. At the time, transport secretary Grant Shapps threatened to change the law to try and stop the strike. Then, the right-wing media fell into line – attacking the RMT, its members, and the strike. But none of this has deterred the union.

    Everybody out

    The RMT announced on Tuesday 7 June that the strike would go ahead across three days. These will be 21, 23 and 25 June. As it wrote, the strike is:

    due to the inability of the rail employers to come to a negotiated settlement with RMT.

    Network Rail and the train operating companies have subjected their staff to multiyear pay freezes and plan to cut thousands of jobs which will make the railways unsafe.

    Despite intense talks with the rail bosses, RMT has not been able to secure a pay proposal nor a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies.

    The right-wing media has once again launched ridiculous attacks on the RMT. For example, the Daily Mail front page on Wednesday 8 June screamed:

    HARD-LEFT RAIL UNION STRIKE TO PARALYSE BRITAIN

    Public ownership

    Of course, the public still seem to back publicly-owned rail. A recent opinion poll showed that 60% of the public support public ownership of the railways. This comes off the back of rail users having already had enough of the privatised network. Transport Focus reported on passenger satisfaction before the pandemic, in January 2019:

    Passenger satisfaction with rail services has fallen to a 10-year low. In the latest survey, overall satisfaction with rail services was 79 per cent, the lowest level since 2008, with more than one in five passengers (21 per cent) not satisfied.

    While the government has had to take back control of several privately-run rail franchises, it’s unlikely it will ever fully nationalise the network. So, if politicians won’t listen to the public, our best bet to improve services is to support the industrial action of those who work on the railways.

    Featured image via the RMT

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Priti Patel’s Rwanda plan faces multiple legal challenges

    Priti Patel’s planed date for sending refugees to Rwanda is creeping closer. The Home Office has said people will be sent to Rwanda from 14 June. Under the plan, the Home Office will send people who aren’t granted asylum in the UK to Rwanda for processing and relocation.

    As The Canary previously reported:

    Campaigners, rights groups, and politicians have called the plans “ill-conceived, inhumane and evil.”

    However, protests and legal challenges stand in the way of the government’s plans. Before we take a look at those, though, there have been a few recent developments.

    Opposition

    The deportation plan has already been delayed. It was supposed to go ahead in May, but the government blamed legal challenges for the setback. In fact, Priti Patel mentioned “specialist lawyers” and Boris Johnson blamed “liberal lawyers” as the reasons behind the delay. The chair of the Bar Council, Mark Fenhalls QC, said:

    Attacks on men and women for simply doing their jobs are irresponsible and undermine the rule of law.

    The UN Refugee Council’s assistant high commissioner for protection, Gillian Triggs, said that the plans avoid international obligations that are:

    contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention.

    The challenges from lawyers come as people who face the threat of deportation to Rwanda have been on hunger strike. The Guardian reported:

    At least 17 people from Syria, Egypt and Sudan, who are being held at the Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport, began the protest when they were told they would be sent to Rwanda on 14 June as part of a controversial new scheme.

    Incredibly, the Guardian also claimed to have seen a letter which tells the hunger strikers that if they don’t eat they’ll be deported sooner. The letter read:

    Your refusal of food and/or fluids will not necessarily lead to your removal directions being deferred. In the interests of your health and safety we may prioritise your removal from detention and the UK.

    Meanwhile, the BBC saw a letter of deportation notice which told the asylum seeker they could not appeal the decision.

    Importantly, immigration lawyer Steven Galliver-Andrew said:

    The law which allows the government to do this doesn’t appear to come into force until the 28th of June 2022.

    What they are doing can and will be challenged – and they know and expect that.

    It remains to be seen if the latest deadline will be one the government can stick to.

    Legal challenges

    However, this isn’t to say that the government can simply wait until 28 June and then carry on with its deportation plan. There are a number of legal challenges that are looking to stop them altogether.

    Charity Freedom from Torture is preparing to bring a legal challenge against the plans to send people to Rwanda. Its crowdfunder for legal costs says:

    Treating people who are seeking safety from torture and war as if they’re a problem to be got rid of is not only deeply immoral, but likely unlawful.

    The charity sent a letter to the Home Office explaining why it was looking into legal action. The charity’s solicitor Carolin Ott said:

    Our client further considers the policy constitutes a breach of the Home Secretary’s duty not to induce breaches of human rights by her agents and is unlawful because it is contrary to the Refugee Convention.

    A policy which raises such a ‘shopping list’ of potential illegality and poses such a risk to individuals should plainly not be enforced until its lawfulness has been properly tested.

    Meanwhile, campaigners from Detention Action has teamed up with charity Care4Calais and the Public and Commercial Services Union. The union represents Home Office staff who would have to carry out the proposed plan. They’ve also sent a pre-action letter to the government warning them about an incoming legal challenge. They say they’re challenging:

    the Home Secretary’s failure to disclose the criteria dictating which people seeking asylum will be transferred by force to East Africa and which will remain in the UK.

    Law firm InstaLaw has also launched its own legal challenge, which the Guardian reports:

    states that the home secretary’s proposals run contrary to international law and the UN refugee convention, as well as breaching British data protection law.

    Protest

    While the legal challenges are happening, there’s also a protest planned. There’s going to be a protest at the Rwanda High Commission in London on Wednesday 8 June from 4pm to 7pm. Movement for Justice are calling for people to join them and make their support for asylum seekers clear:

    The government’s deportation plans have received widespread opposition from lawyers, human rights activists, and everyday people who can see these plans for what they are: inhumane and illegal.

    Featured image via screenshot/Guardian News

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Black man dies after repeated tasering from police led him to jump into the Thames

    The Metropolitan Police tasered a Black man several times on Chelsea Bridge Road in London. As they advanced on him, the man fled and jumped into the river Thames. He was rescued from the river by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The man is as yet unnamed. As usual, people have to rely on civilian recordings of the incident to see what actually happened.

    Operation Withdraw Consent shared the footage a bystander recorded:

    The police have said they received reports that the man was holding a screwdriver. As the video shows, he is clearly in some distress.

    As the police taser him, he falls to the ground screaming in pain. He yells something at the two officers advancing on him. They then tase him again and the man rolls on the ground, twitching. This happens yet another time. The man then runs over a barrier at the side. As the officers pursue him, he jumps over the railing and into the Thames.

    Reporting

    We can trust neither the mainstream media nor the police to accurately report what happened.

    The police said that after their officers tasered the man he:

    subsequently entered the river.

    A number of outlets also used similar euphemisms. The Independent said the man “fell”:

     

    The BBC also said the man fell:

     

    Sky News made it sound as though the man simply fell into the Thames and was then pulled out:

     

    By saying that the man “fell” into the river, the media are neatly following the narrative the police set out. There’s a huge difference between saying that the man was involved in an incident with tasers and “entered” the river, and saying that he jumped into the river after being repeatedly tasered.

    Outrage

    Many people on social media discussed these awful policing tactics. Others also noticed the terrible reporting:

    Commentator Michael Morgan said:

    Meanwhile Deborah Coles, director of charity INQUEST which monitors state-related deaths, said:

    And outgoing Goldsmiths student union president Sara Bafo said we must withdraw power from the police:

    Moreover, journalist Lorraine King explained how Black people are more likely to be tasered for longer than white people:

    Anti-Blackness

    Figures from the Home Office a year ago show:

    Black people were four times more likely to have force used against them by Met police officers than white people, and five times more likely to have Taser-like devices used against them by the force.

    As King said above, Black people are also more likely to be tased for longer. A report from the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that Black people are more likely to have a taser fired at them for longer than 5 seconds. They also said:

    In the majority of cases involving either allegations of discrimination or common stereotypes and assumptions, there was evidence that the individual concerned had mental health concerns or a learning disability. This supports findings by others that the intersectionality of race and mental health can increase the risk of higher levels of use of force.

    If the media reports the police’s actions in a passive or sanitised way, it only enables them to continue to be violent towards Black people. This man did not “fall” into the river. He died trying to escape police violence.

    Just last month, Operation Withdraw Consent said:

    We want our communities to be given the power to respond to the 80 per cent of non-criminal incidents that the police respond to – as we believe that a community response, rooted in resolution and meeting individual needs, would have better outcomes.

    We must withdraw our consent from aggressive policing. And in order to do that, we need to be able to understand and call out journalism that’s in service to the police and not the public.

    Featured image via Twitter/screenshot – Operation Withdraw Consent

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Sleaze, partygate and falling polls spur no-confidence vote on Boris Johnson

    Boris Johnson will face a vote of confidence by Tory MPs on the evening of Monday 6 June. It comes as discontent over No 10’s lockdown-busting parties and the direction of Johnson’s leadership reached a tipping point.

    Graham Brady, chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee, informed Johnson on Sunday 5 June that he’d face the vote. Brady confirmed he had received the 54 letters from Conservative MPs needed to trigger the ballot.

    The vote – by secret ballot – will take place at Westminster on Monday between 6pm and 8pm. And the count will take place immediately afterwards.

    In order to oust the prime minister, the rebels will need 180 MPs. Although Johnson’s allies have made clear that he’s determined to fight to stay on.

    Johnson will address the 1922 Committee on Monday as he battles to save his premiership.

    Discontent

    A steady stream of Tory MPs called publicly for the prime minister to stand down in the wake of Sue Gray’s report into breaches of coronavirus (Covid-19) regulations in No 10 and Whitehall. Many MPs have referred explicitly to partygate and the prime minister’s own behaviour when calling for a confidence vote.

    But there have also been questions from Downing Street standards chief Christopher Geidt over the refurbishment of Johnson’s flat at Number 10 and, later, the response to the Gray report, along with criticism from the public of Conservative MPs’ second jobs.

    The discontent goes far wider. In an indication of the anger from the Tory benches, former minister Jesse Norman published a scathing letter on 6 June. He addressed the letter to the prime minister, withdrawing his support. Norman had previously been a long-standing supporter of Johnson.

    He said the Gray report showed Johnson “presided over a culture of casual law-breaking at 10 Downing Street”. And he added that for Johnson to describe himself “as ‘vindicated’ by the report is grotesque”.

    Policies and popularity

    As Norman’s letter made clear, policy issues have also played a role in bringing some MPs to call for Johnson’s resignation.

    Norman’s criticism of Johnson included the “ugly” policy of sending asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda, the “unnecessary and provocative” privatisation of Channel 4, the ban on noisy protests which “no genuinely Conservative government” should have introduced, proposals to tear up the Northern Ireland Protocol, and the lack of a “sense of mission” in his administration.

    Warning that Johnson continuing in office would be “potentially catastrophic for this country”, Norman said:

    You are simply seeking to campaign, to keep changing the subject and to created political and cultural dividing lines mainly for your advantage, at a time when the economy is struggling, inflation is soaring and growth is anaemic at best.

    And there’s been criticism from hardliners as well, primarily over tax.

    Meanwhile, several backbenchers have reportedly been frustrated by an apparent lack of direction, demonstrated by repeated U-turns on policy.

    These include the imposition of the windfall tax, the row over sewage discharges into lakes and rivers towards the end of 2021, excluding trans people from a ban on conversion therapy, reforming the planning system, cutting foreign aid to 0.5% of national income, and scrapping the pensions triple lock.

    POLITICS Johnson
    (PA Graphics)

    Finally, there are the electoral implications of Johnson’s continued leadership.

    A recent YouGov poll forecast more than 80 Conservative losses in “battleground” seats. Among them was Johnson’s own constituency. This may lead some MPs to conclude that the best chance of saving their jobs is to get rid of Johnson.

    By The Canary

  • Boris Johnson could face no-confidence vote as poll signals Tory defeat in Wakefield

    Boris Johnson could reportedly face a crunch vote on his premiership. It comes as new polling predicted the Conservatives risk being pummelled in a key electoral contest.

    Following Partygate, is the party over?

    Wakefield will go to the polls on 23 June to elect a new MP. And a survey of voters has suggested the Tories could lose the by-election by as much as 20 points. It indicates that revelations about Downing Street lockdown-busting parties have hit the party’s popularity in a battleground seat. The prime minister secured his landslide 2019 majority off the back of scalps in the so-called Red Wall. Meanwhile traditional Labour-supporting areas in the North of England, the Midlands and Wales switched their support to the Tories.

    The Wakefield constituency polling was reported in the Sunday Times. And it’s likely to make for anxious reading for Tory campaigners. Polling company JL Partners put Labour on 48 points compared with 28 points for the Conservatives. That’s a 19 point slip on the winning Tory performance two-and-a-half years ago.

    James Johnson is co-founder of JL Partners and a former Downing Street pollster during Theresa May’s tenure. He said the so-called partygate saga looked to have damaged the Tory reputation among Red Wall voters.

    The polling expert said the top reason swing voters in the West Yorkshire seat gave for preferring Labour was because “Boris Johnson tried to cover up partygate, and lied to the public”. They’re voting for a candidate to succeed former Tory incumbent Imran Ahmad Khan after he was found guilty of sexually assaulting a boy.

    The PM’s days may be numbered

    According to the company, 60% of those interviewed for the survey taken online between 13-22 May had a negative opinion of the PM. James Johnson tweeted:

    The main hesitations about voting Conservative: trust, Boris, and a sense the Tories are out of touch and only care about the rich.

    All signs are that partygate has crystallised historic concerns about the Tories and turned the people of Wakefield decidedly against them.

    The survey could pile more pressure on the PM, who faces a second test in the Tiverton and Honiton by-election on the same day as Wakefield.

    The poll findings come amid reports the threshold for a no-confidence vote might have been reached. And there are suggestions a leadership test could be coming as soon as 8 June. The Sunday Times reported that as many as 67 Tory MPs have submitted letters to the 1922 committee. If correct, it would cross the threshold for a no-confidence vote, which was 54 letters. The rebels would need 180 voters to remove the PM from power during the secret poll.

    By The Canary

  • The Home Office may be trying to deport unaccompanied children to Rwanda

    The Home Office is allegedly trying to deport unaccompanied minors to Rwanda.

    Charities claim there’s a “worrying pattern” of the government classing asylum seekers younger than 18 as adults.

    The refugee charity Care4Calais is currently engaged in an age dispute with the Home Office over two teenage boys. The Home Office has issued the boys notices of removal.

    The boys say they’re 16. But the Home Office – after undertaking age assessments – claim they’re 23 and 26 respectively.

    Children classed as adults

    In a statement, charity Care4Calais pledged to use its lawyers to challenge the notices. It said:

    One (of the) 16-year-old (boys) saw his brother killed in front of him when his village was raided in Sudan. He escaped and went back later to find the whole village gone.

    Anti-trafficking charity Love146 UK similarly expressed alarm over the government’s age assessment system for asylum seekers.

    Campaigns manager Daniel Sohege told the Guardian the charity is seeing children “as young as 14 being incorrectly age-assessed as 23”.

    He added:

    The number of children we have seen who have just had 1999 put down as their date of birth when they are clearly under 18 is highly concerning, and putting young people at risk.

    Lauren Starkey, a social worker for the charity, told the newspaper:

    It is not within the realm of possibility that anyone, especially someone trained in child protection, could look at the children we have seen and believe they are in their 20s.

    Disregard for human rights and rule of law

    The PA news agency has asked the Home Office for comment over the charities’ remarks.

    The Home Office claims it won’t remove any person from the UK if it’s “unsafe or inappropriate” to do so. And it denied that unaccompanied minors will be among those sent to Rwanda as part of the government’s potentially illegal scheme to process migrants offshore.

    Earlier this week, Home Secretary Priti Patel said she’s “absolutely determined” that the UK will send migrants to Rwanda. That’s despite the prospect of legal challenges from human rights groups.

    The Home Office has begun formally notifying migrants of their removal to Rwanda. And the first deportation flight is expected to depart on 14 June.

    The government described the move as the “final administrative step” in its partnership with the east African nation. It will see the government permanently shipping off people it deems to have entered the UK ‘illegally’.

    A group of people thought to be migrants being brought in to Dover, Kent
    Nearly 10,000 refugees have arrived in the UK so far this year after crossing the English Channel in small boats (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    Effective deportation

    Court action from human rights groups could hold up removals. But Patel said she is “resolute” about delivering the scheme “for the British public”. She also claims that “it’s exactly what the British people want.”

    Patel described the deportation policy as a “the first of its kind”. However, a similar policy in Australia has seen many human rights abuses and billions in costs.

    The policy will see asylum seekers deemed to have entered the UK by illegal means sent to Rwanda. Their asylum claims will be processed for residence in Rwanda, not the UK. If successful, they will be granted asylum or given refugee status in the country.

    Those with failed bids will face deportation to the home countries from which they fled.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Jubilee is a reflection of all that’s wrong in Britain

    Not everyone is in celebratory mood this weekend. Curtis Daly explains why he is opposed to the monarchy.

    By Curtis Daly

  • Platinum Jubilee – The Great British distraction

    With millions suffering through crippling price rises and hundreds of thousands of homeless households, the Jubilee is an unwelcome and costly attempt to distract us from the class war being waged by the Tories.

    Video transcript

    We’ve been hearing about it a lot in the news recently…

    Reports have shown the celebrations are costing tens of millions of pounds. But with many struggling to pay bills and put food on the table, we’re asking: what should our country really be focused on right now?

    Millions of people are facing extreme and sudden increases in their energy, food and general living costs and the Tories have provided little relief, with the poorest families still £300 worse off this year.

    This is made all the more revolting when tens of millions are spent on the celebration of an already wealthy monarch instead of people who could desperately do with support.

    Every year the royal family are given a Sovereign Grant from the taxpayer, and last year they got over 85 million pounds – all the while, those claiming social security are chastised in right wing media as ‘lazy’ and ‘undeserving’.

    Since the Tories came to power in 2010, councils across England have seen their budgets cut in line with the Tories ‘shrinking of the state’. This has meant shared community amenities like libraries, youth centres, and schools have been cut down, or taken away entirely.

    While councils have had to prove their ‘cost efficiency’ and endlessly shrink their budgets, it’s written into law that even if profits from the Crown’s properties fall, the royal family don’t lose out and receive the same amount of money as the last year.

    The queen and royal family are known for their multiple residences, including Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyrood Palace, Balmoral Castle and multiple properties littered across Central London. Yet whilst the Windsors are spoilt for choice on where to spend their days, the number of rough sleepers has more than doubled since 2010 and an estimated 227,000 families and individuals are homeless.

    So while the parties go on and the wealthy royals celebrate decades of being on the throne, just remember, these celebrations are a distraction. A distraction meant to hide the fact that unearned privilege and class segregation still runs rampant in British society.

    By Andrew Butler

  • How many dead bears does it take to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee?

    Queen Elizabeth I used to enjoy the ‘sport’ of bear-baiting. That’s the grizzly practice of people setting a pack of dogs on an incapacitated bear to see who makes it out alive.

    Thankfully, bear-baiting is a thing of the UK’s distant past. But bears – dead ones – will very much be present at Elizabeth II’s upcoming Jubilee celebrations. That’s because, according to PETA, each and every ceremonial bearskin hat that the UK’s army guards wear requires the taking of a bear’s life. And if the rehearsal was anything to go by, there will be lots of dead-bear-headed guards at the ceremony.

    It doesn’t actually take any dead bears to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee though. Here’s why.

    Time to move on

    The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been under pressure for a while to ditch the hats. Campaigners, including Born Free, have urged the department to end their use. So have some 75 MPs, who signed an early day motion calling on the MoD to recognise that the use of real fur:

    is not in line with the UK Government’s commitment to have and promote the highest standards of animal welfare

    Most recently, an assembly of wildlife photographers, such as Springwatch’s Megan McCubbin and president of We Animals Media Jo-Anne McArthur, have joined with PETA to pressure the government to drop the fur. In a letter to officials, reported on by Digital Camera World, they said:

    As wildlife photographers who have spent our lives documenting the beauty and fragility of the natural world, we are acutely aware of the need to protect – not pillage – the living planet, which includes the animals we share it with.

    The perfect alternative

    PETA has even worked together with a faux furrier called ECOPEL to develop an alternative for the ministry. Along with the designer Stella McCartney, they have come up with a product that Born Free says is “visually indistinguishable from the real thing.” Under MoD tests, the alternative also performed as well as the version made of bears, PETA asserts. Moreover, ECOPEL has offered to provide an unlimited amount of these free to the MoD up to 2030.

    However, the MoD has refused. In particular, the defence secretary Ben Wallace has opposed the move.

    According to the Blackpool Gazette, Wallace has been challenging efforts to switch to a cruelty-free alternative since 2006, when a fellow MP first floated the idea.

    An unethical choice

    The MoD has suggested that the caps are made from bears that die in state-sanctioned culls in Canada. But as PETA and Born Free have pointed out, this is somewhat misleading. Yes, the Canadian state sanctions bear killing. But it’s not generally by the state, it’s by trophy hunters.

    The UK government claims to be committed to banning the import of trophies from hunting. And an army spokesperson insisted to the Gazette that:

    Bears are never hunted to order for use by the MoD.

    But whether the bears are ‘hunted to order’ or not, they are still hunted. And the fact that trophy hunters are able to make a tidy profit from selling the skins of the bears they kill can only incentivise more bloodshed.

    Canada isn’t exempt from the ethical issues that surround black bear hunting in places like the US, such as the killing of mothers. As the Georgia Straight reported in 2015, it has also faced questions of the accuracy of its bear population figures, and the sustainability of its hunting quotas. In short, just because UK guards are wearing dead bears from Canada on their heads, it doesn’t make it ethical or sustainable.

    With a free supply of alternative caps on offer, it doesn’t need to take any dead bears to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee or ceremonially dress the army for other purposes.

    The fact that this upcoming celebration will feature so many of them is nothing more than gruesome and unethical.

    Featured image via Ed Dunens / Flickr, cropped to 700×403, licensed under CC BY 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Tiny nation puts ‘Great’ Britain to shame with heroic ocean protection plan

    The small island nation of Niue aims to protect 100% of the ocean it has jurisdiction over, according to the Guardian. Its plan to do so contrasts sharply with the UK’s ocean-focused efforts. As the same publication recently pointed out, the UK is failing to safeguard even its already designated ‘protected’ areas.

    In short, Britain is not so ‘great’ when it comes to ocean protection. It’s lagging far behind teeny nations like Niue, despite having far more resources at its disposal.

    Leading by example

    Coastal nations have territorial rights over a certain amount of the ocean surrounding them, beyond their territorial waters. This is known as an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Guardian reported on 30 May that Niue has introduced a plan to protect 100% of its EEZ.

    The plan, which has been in force since April, involves the creation of a “multiple-use” marine park. The country has zoned different parts of the park for specific purposes. It’s banned fishing in some zones, allowed small-scale fishing and recreation activities in others, and has a set area for commercial fishing. There’s also a “conservation zone” that boats can pass through but not dally in.

    As Mongabay highlighted, the Cook Islands passed an Act in 2017 that laid out a similar 100% protection plan for its waters.

    Setting a bad example

    Compare Niue’s efforts with the UK. According to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, an advisory body, the country has designated 36% of its offshore waters as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). But analysis shared with the Guardian suggests that these are little more than ‘paper parks’, meaning protected in name but not in practice.

    Global Fishing Watch and Oceana provided the analysis to the Guardian. They found that bottom trawling and dredging is taking place in over 90% of the UK’s offshore MPAs. Bottom trawling is a highly destructive form of fishing favoured by big commercial vessels – supertrawlers – that involves dragging weighed nets across the seabed.

    The data showed that in 2021, “fishing with bottom-towed gear” took place in no less than 58 of the 64 offshore MPAs designated as “benthic”. As the Guardian explained, these MPAs are specifically meant to “protect species that live on the seabed”.

    Responding to the findings, a Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) spokesperson listed the fishing-related changes since Brexit. These include an upcoming ban on trawling in four MPAs; possible management changes in 13 other MPAs; a seafood fund to promote “innovation and sustainability”; consultation on a joint fisheries statement; and the “landmark Fisheries Act 2020”.

    There’s the way but not the will

    Of the upcoming trawling ban, Greenpeace’s Will McCallum said:

    It’s taken two years [since Brexit] for the government to introduce trawling bans on four MPAs. The whole thing is taking too long and at the end, you have a ban on a single gear type – bottom-towed gear. But, in theory, a supertrawler could go straight though it.

    Greenpeace has regularly fought against the government’s permissive attitude towards destructive fishing. In 2020 and 2021, for example, it dropped boulders into some MPAs to literally stop bottom trawlers in their tracks. The government’s Marine Management Organisation (MMO) responded by taking Greenpeace to court, a case it has since dropped.

    That reaction is unsurprising in light of the Conservatives’ resistance to strengthening fishing laws. In 2020, Conservative MPs successfully defeated proposed amendments to the Fisheries Bill, the precursor to the aforementioned ‘landmark’ Act. These amendments were to keep fishing quotas within sustainable limits based on scientific advice and to ban supertrawlers in MPAs.

    In short, the government appears to lack the will to take meaningful action to protect the ocean, despite being well equipped to do so. As Greenpeace has highlighted, the MMO issues licences to bottom trawlers and has the power to:

    exclude specific fishing methods from specific areas, or even exclude boats entirely.

    The right idea

    Niue has the opposite problem. It appears to have the will to comprehensively protect the surrounding ocean, but lacks the means to do so entirely independently. It is a small island nation that is self-governing and, like the Cook Islands, maintains ‘free association‘ with New Zealand. As such, it’s reliant on neighbours, like other islands and New Zealand, to help police its waters. Global Fishing Watch also assists with monitoring of the marine park through satellite surveillance.

    Niue and other island nations clearly aren’t short of the right ideas though. Over-fishing is one of the top threats to the ocean, of which there are many. Stringently protecting the ocean from it is essential.

    Featured image via Pia Andrews / Flickr, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Labour just out-Toried the Tories on the windfall tax

    The Labour Party has just managed to out-Tory the Tories over the so-called cost of living crisis. It has called for the government’s spending to be independently checked. And in doing so, Keir Starmer’s party has just exposed itself as an absolute nonsense.

    Windfall tax = little support

    As The Canary previously reported, the government has announced a windfall tax to pay for measures to ease the cost of living crisis. Think tank the Resolution Foundation noted that parts of this included:

    • Payments of £650, made over two lump-sum grants, to over 8 million households on means-tested benefits;
    • An additional £300 on top of the usual Winter Fuel Payment this winter, going to all pensioner households;
    • An additional £150 to around 6 million people who receive a disability benefit;
    • Doubling the discount on all households’ electricity bills due this autumn to £400, and:
    • An additional £500 million for the Household Support Fund from October 2022.

    It said this was on top of:

    • A £200 rebate on electricity bills, due to take effect this autumn, and a £150 Council Tax rebate for households in Bands A to D, both announced in February 2022, and:
    • An increase in the National Insurance threshold from £9,880 to £12,570 in July and a 5p cut to Fuel Duty rates announced in the Spring Statement.

    But in reality, none of this makes up for the huge increases in energy bills and massive rise in overall inflation. For example, The Canary calculated that the poorest families will still be around £300 a year worse off. Plus, support for chronically ill and disabled people, and families with children who are reliant on social security, is still dire.

    Not that Labour seemed to notice any of this.

    Labour: not happy for the wrong reasons

    Firstly, the party was pleased with the government’s plan. As the Guardian reported, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Pat McFadden said Labour “welcomes these announcements”. But at the same time it wants the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to analyse the government’s plan. The Guardian reported that McFadden:

    said that, although the sums were “of the order of magnitude that would normally be announced within a budget”, the UK’s tax and spend watchdog should “provide authoritative and independent economic and fiscal projections”.

    Labour wanting the OBR to check the government’s figures may be in part due to some people claiming the windfall tax could make inflation even worse. But in reality, all Labour has done is make the Tories look better.

    What a mess

    A windfall tax this year was originally Labour’s idea – which the government then improved on; win number one for the Tories. Now, by effectively questioning the economic sense of the Tories’ plans, Labour has headed further to the right-wing. It has also given the Tories an immediate stick to beat it with – because they’ll be able to claim that Labour’s not on the side of ordinary people.

    Moreover, Labour’s actions seem typical of the centre-right of the party’s obsession with appearing economically credible. But all it is achieving is appearing completely out-of-touch. Labour could have come at the windfall tax by saying it’s not good enough. If it was concerned about inflation, it could have argued that it’s the Bank of England’s job to control this. Instead, it’s veered to the right wing and now left itself exposed to Tory criticism.

    At a time when people’s lives are in freefall, Labour should be at least resembling a robust opposition. Instead, it’s an absolute mess.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple