radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Four Palestine Action protesters arrested after covering London arms firm HQ in paint

    Four protesters have been arrested after gluing themselves together and spraying paint on a building in central London.

    Palestine Action activists were blockading a Holborn building where Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems has its London headquarters.

    Footage showed the entrance of 77 Kingsway covered in red paint as the four demonstrators, their arms locked together in cylinder tubes, chanted: “Shut Elbit down”.

    Shut Elbit down!

    According to a press release from Palestine Action::

    Today’s action has taken place at 77 Kingsway, host to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms company. The company’s London headquarters were again targetted by Palestine Action activists, in the ongoing campaign to Shut Elbit Down. Four activists, two of whom are themselves Palestinian, have pulled the shutters on Elbit for the day after they secured themselves to the site entrance using a body lock-on, preventing worker-access. Marking the human cost of Elbit’s business, activists also doused the building in red paint, representing the blood of the Palestinians and other peoples killed by Elbit weaponry. The headquarters plays an important role in facilitating Elbit’s operations in Britain, and have been hit with direct action for the sixth time in two months.

    Elbit’s British operations take place across 3 RAF Sites, 4 factories and 2 headquarters, amounting to 9 sites. The company, notorious for its production of arms destined for Israel, also holds extensive contracts with the British military. Just this month it was revealed that Elbit have been contracted by the Royal Navy to aid in providing training technologies for the Dreadnought nuclear submarine program. It’s plain to see that Elbit hold a firm stake in the business of warfare whether in Britain or in Palestine, Elbit describing its weapons as ‘battle tested’ on Palestinians.

    Palestine Action protest
    Four protesters have been arrested after gluing themselves together outside 77 Kingsway (Lindsey Masters/PA)

    A spokesperson for the group stated:

    The century plus campaign of terror and settler-colonialism inflicted on Palestinians is today enabled by Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms company. For Palestine, the ongoing occupation is tantamount to a constant, bloody war. Drones crawl the skies, clouds of tear gas rain down, sprays of bullets are fired – ceaseless colonial violence backed by Elbit. We’ve struck at Elbit’s London headquarters yet again, because whilst the British-backed military occupation continues, so do we. No more hollow promises for Palestine, only this promise for Elbit: Our activists and supporters will work day and night until we’ve shut you down for good

    Elbit Systems was contacted for comment.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Witness casts doubt on police’s claim that Sheku Bayoh stamped on an officer

    A man who watched Sheku Bayoh being detained has told a hearing he did not think it was possible the 31-year-old could have stomped on a constable as described to the inquiry by police officers.

    Bayoh died in police custody after officers received calls from the public about a Black man acting “erratically” and carrying a knife in Kirkcaldy on 3 May 2015. He was hit with batons, and sprayed with CS gas before being restrained on the pavement by officers. His best friend previously told the inquiry that he was “murdered” by the police. Bayoh was pronounced dead in hospital after the incident on May 3 2015.

    Testimony from neighbour

    Kevin Nelson, who lived opposite where Bayoh was detained by officers in Kirkcaldy’s Hayfield Road, watched the arrest from his living room.

    PC Ashley Tomlinson has previously told the Edinburgh-based inquiry that Bayoh had punched PC Nicole Short, after which she fell on the ground, before “stomping on her back”.

    Angela Grahame QC, senior counsel to the inquiry, put to Nelson the image of Walker showing how he claimed the stomp happened.

    Sheku Bayoh inquiry
    Pc Ashley Tomlinson (centre) had told the inquiry that Mr Bayoh had stomped on Pc Nicole Short

    “Is it possible when his arms were raised and you saw him with his arms raised that he was stamping on the female officer?” the QC asked him.

    Nelson said:

    I don’t think it’s possible, no. She was down and had moved away from him, as soon as she was going down that’s when he changed course.

    Short, who no longer works at Police Scotland, previously told the inquiry that she was informed Bayoh had stamped on her head in the canteen following the incident.

    On Tuesday 31 May, Nelson described to the inquiry the moment he saw officers arrive at the scene just metres from his front door.

    He said he had seen Bayou walking how anyone would walk on a morning with bad weather. He said he wasn’t walking at a “pretty brisk pace, arms moving, not a swagger or a mission”, he told the inquiry.

    Nelson said he saw the Pava spray being deployed by officers.

    Seconds later he changed direction, he told the inquiry, and added he started “throwing punches”.

    “It was just wild swinging. Both arms were going,” he said. “It didn’t look like, I’m not a boxing expert, but it didn’t look in any controlled way.”

    Nelson said he saw Short being hit, and her starting to fall down. He then stopped swinging, the court was told, and looked as if he was trying to get away.

    “Then the policeman just grabbed him. Almost tackled him,” he said.  Nelson said he made his way from his window to his gate, which took between 12 and 15 seconds, and when he got out he saw a “mound of people on the pavement”.

    He described it as a “collapsed scrum” on top of Bayoh, and it looked like there were arms and legs everywhere.

    The inquiry, being held at Capital House in Edinburgh, continues.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Education secretary heckled by trans rights protesters

    Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi was heckled by LGBT+ protesters outside a talk he gave to a university’s Conservative Association.

    Members of Warwick University’s LGBT+ group, Warwick Pride, shouted “Tory scum” outside the talk on Friday, as well as waving flags and placards stating “Trans rights are human rights”.

    Trans rights are human rights

    In a statement issued by Warwick Pride before the talk, they referred to comments made by Zahawi regarding Kathleen Stock, a former lecturer at the University of Sussex who has been criticised for her views on trans rights and left the university following protests against her.

    The minister had said it was “unacceptable that a scholar of her calibre should be hounded out of university”.

    Warwick Pride said Stock is a “notorious transphobe”.

    The group added that Zahawi “plays a significant role in institutional transphobia as Education Secretary for the UK” in working alongside the Equality and Human Rights Commission to produce guidelines for how teachers should treat trans students.

    The minister has said parents should be “front and centre” in decisions regarding their trans children.

    Sunday Morning
    Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi has said parents should be ‘front and centre’ in decisions regarding their trans children (James Manning/PA)

    Warwick Pride said he “trivialises” the detrimental effects of outing LGBT+ young people to their parents, adding that he has used the “common transphobic dog-whistle ‘adult human female’.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Police strip searched yet another child while she was on her period. Enough is enough.

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

    A mother has spoken about how police strip searched her 15-year-old child, who later tried to kill herself. The teenager’s family is now bringing a civil case against the police.

    This comes just after Child Q’s harrowing experience of being strip searched by police. In fact, police have strip searched roughly 50 children a week over the last five years. The mother, who spoke to the BBC, shared details of her daughter’s traumatising experience from December 2020. This was the same month in which Child Q was strip searched.

    What happened this time?

    The BBC detailed that Olivia (name changed to protect identity) is mixed-race and autistic. Olivia’s mum said that:

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

    Olivia’s mum (who the BBC report calls Lisa – another pseudonym) warned the police over the phone that Olivia had been self-harming. Olivia handed over a small blade that she used to self-harm. Whilst changing her clothes, a sharpened stick fell from her clothes. It was another item she used to self-harm. But when the police noticed it, six officers handcuffed her and “forcibly stripped her”. They then carried out what the BBC called:

    an intimate search in the presence of male officers.

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

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

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

    History of abuse

    What happened to Olivia is enraging and terrifying. This is yet another example of shocking police behaviour. It is, however, also important to pay attention to the fact that Olivia is mixed-race and autistic. There have been many instances in which police have treated autistic people in a violently ableist manner.

    Earlier in May, a 12-year-old Black autistic boy was allegedly assaulted by a white woman. Antwon Forrest was left with a deep gash in his head. Avon and Somerset police initially told his family that they would take no further action. But the force have now classified the incident as a racist attack. And they’ve also apologised for their response to the case. They will be reviewing it, but their initial actions speak for themselves.

    Moreover, in 2020 a police officer dragged an autistic boy across the floor in a special-needs school in Liverpool. Incredibly, the officer was part of a “safer schools” unit. Christopher Cruise was convicted of assault; he retired before he could be sacked. The officer was fined and didn’t serve any time in prison. A relative of the boy who was assaulted said:

    He has autism and he struggles a lot. He is much younger in his head, more like a five-year-old.

    We are all absolutely furious. His days are hard enough already.

    Also in 2020, a parent came forward to say that police pointed a taser at their 12-year-old autistic son. The parent said that when a pair of shoes no longer fit her son, he became extremely distressed:

    He was an 11-year-old boy in autistic distress – overwhelmed, frightened, anxious and unable to regulate these feelings.

    When neighbours called the police due to the noise, the parent said that:

    Four police officers restrained my son and placed him in handcuffs. Having heightened sensitivity to touch, this increased my son’s discomfort to intolerable levels. Without freedom of movement, his primary mechanism of self-regulation – pacing and rocking – was restricted.

    While the police dragged her son away kicking and screaming, the boy yelled out:

    Help me Mummy, help me Mummy, I’m being kidnapped.

    There are almost certainly many other cases in which the police have abused autistic people.

    How can you reform this?

    The epidemic of police violence against Black people, disabled people, immigrants and other minorities shows that neurodiversity training isn’t enough. Training isn’t going to deal with the rot at the heart of British policing. The police are institutionally racist and ableist, and there’s no amount of training that will change that. As the Independent’s race correspondent Nadine White argued, Black children are under attack by police.

    The Metropolitan police have referred themselves to a police watchdog over the incident with Olivia. But as law magazine The Justice Gap reported:

    More than half of these searches were conducted by the Metropolitan Police and a disproportionate number of black and mixed-race children were subjected to this process.

    A police force which can strip search children and leave them traumatised is a police force that is beyond repair. Olivia’s experiences are haunting. A mixed-race child with autism was violently attacked by officers who outnumbered her. This is indefensible. But we know the usual suspects will try to defend such behaviour.

    We can’t rely on the police investigating themselves – we have to rely on each other. It’s now more important than ever to observe the police in public. Cop watching organisations are available to help people learn how to legally observe and document police behaviour. As for police violence behind closed doors, we must speak loudly and clearly that we will not let them keep hurting our children.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Colin Lloyd

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • French government tries to blame Liverpool fans for aggressive policing

    French police teargassed and pepper sprayed Liverpool fans before the Champions League final on Saturday 28 May. Fans waiting at turnstiles were pepper sprayed through the gates by the police. Some, including children, even had teargas used on them. The unrest caused a delay to the planned kick-off time.

    Predictably, French government officials and football organisers have tried to blame the fans for the actions of the police. Organiser UEFA (Union of European Football Associations)’s initial message to explain the delay was to say that fans were “arriving late”:

    French sports minister Amélie Oudéa-Castéra said:

    What we really have to bear in mind is that what happened, first of all, was this mass gathering of the British supporters of the Liverpool club, without tickets, or with counterfeit tickets.

    However, as one social media user pointed out, police propaganda wasn’t going to hold water here:

    First-hand accounts

    While singer Camila Cabello was singing and dancing in the stadium, fans outside were in distress. A couple of days later, we can see first-hand accounts from both fans and journalists as to what was really going on.

    Gary Lineker said the reaction from police was “unjustified”:

    Meanwhile, journalist Andy Kelly said:

    Some fans showed tickets through the gates:

    Journalist Simon Hughes shared details of the terrible organisation at the stadium entrance:

    Hughes also recounted information given by a UEFA official outside the stadium:

    Moreover, sports writer Oliver Holt said:

    Presenter Paul Machin also called out the lack of organisation:

    And Liverpool left-back Andy Robertson said the treatment of the fans was “disgraceful”:

    Hillsborough

    Of course, this is far from the first time that terrible organisation and aggressive policing has happened at a football match. Just last month, Liverpool commemorated the 33rd anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy, in which 97 fans died. As The Canary’s Joe Glenton wrote:

    The tragedy would come to symbolize Thatcher-era Britain – a byword for class war, corruption and gutter press lies.

    All of those who died that day were Liverpool fans. In the aftermath, the right-wing gutter press and other sections of the British establishment launched a war of slander and obfuscation against the city and its people.

    Disappointingly, some people took to social media to chastise Liverpool fans for the Hillsborough disaster. Eric Bocat highlighted this:

    The Athletic‘s Adam Crafton pointed out that bad organisation is becoming worryingly commonplace:

    In fact, just a couple of weeks ago at the Europa League Final in Seville, Rangers fans complained about policing around the stadium. Football Scotland reported:

    Rangers have revealed they are continuing to work with Frankfurt and supporters groups to get answers over the shocking organisation of the Europa League Final in Seville.

    Fans were left without water inside the stadium while there were also a lot of complaints about policing around the ground.

    French police

    Another thing that’s becoming worryingly commonplace is aggressive French policing. As advocacy organisation CAGE said:

    With the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) movement a few years ago, social sciences researcher Mathieu Rigouste made it clear that the violence of French police is not new – just more visible:

    The modern-day French police are shaped by the violence of their history – many of their methods of surveillance and repression found their way to the homeland from the repertoire of forces in charge of “indigenous north Africans” in former French colonies.

    We can never trust governments or police to tell the truth about the violence and mistreatment for which they’re responsible. It’s only from first-hand accounts and footage on social media that we can piece together the despicable actions of aggressive police forces. The treatment of the Liverpool fans this weekend was just the latest example of French police using colonial tactics to attack people.

    Featured image via screenshot YouTube/Sky Sports News

    By Maryam Jameela

  • Officials investigate reports of burning protected peat aka England’s ‘rainforests’

    Officials are investigating claims that peatland sites have been burned on grouse moors despite a ban. The sites have been described as England’s “national rainforests”.

    Environmental groups say that satellite monitoring and reports suggest dozens of fires were set as part of grouse moor management. This took place on protected deep-peat areas during the winter.

    The importance of peat

    The Environment Department (Defra) said it is now investigating the potential breaches of the heather and peat burning regulations. These were brought in to protect what the government described as the country’s national rainforest, and to help tackle climate change and nature loss.

    Grouse moor managers carry out the burning of heather on peatland during winter months to stimulate new growth of the plants. Red grouse can feed on the new growth, and managers say their methods do not harm the peat below.

    However, conservationists disagree. They say burning peatland destroys vegetation and erodes the carbon-storing peat. And it also reduces the peat’s ability to slow the flow of water and prevent flooding in the valleys below.

    The UK has 13% of the world’s blanket bog, which is unwooded habitat on deep peat. In a healthy state, this is an important store of carbon and a natural habitat for wildlife. But on the other hand, it produces carbon dioxide emissions when degraded.

    Unlicensed fires

    In May 2021, Defra brought in a ban on burning on blanket bog with deep peat – more than 40cm – in specially protected areas of England without a licence. The ban had exemptions for rocky or sloping ground.

    Officials said there was consensus that the burning of vegetation on blanket bog was damaging to peatland formation and the condition of the habitat. And it made it more difficult or impossible to restore the habitats to their natural state.

    An eight-month investigation by Unearthed, Greenpeace’s investigative team, used satellite monitoring and mapping data for protected areas and deep peat to assess the ban.

    It identified 251 fires set over the burning season. Of these, 51 took place without a licence in nature sites protected by conservation designations. These areas were also identified by government agency Natural England maps as deep peat – though that’s based on modelling and does not conclusively mean there is deep peat.

    Physical spot checks at a few estates found that while some landowners were taking care to only set fire to heather on areas where the peat is less than 40cm deep, others burned on the deep peat covered by the ban, the campaigners said.

    Separate data from campaign group Wild Moors showed there were 1,203 reported incidents of grouse moor burning on peatland, including 191 reports of suspected illegal burns in contravention of the ban.

    A balancing act

    Conservation group the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said it received 272 reports of fires over the last season. 79 of these took place on areas mapped as deep peat and designated sites.

    However, the Moorland Association, which represents grouse moor estates, said the investigation showed the overwhelming majority of controlled burns complied with the legislation. On-the-spot checks found only two incidents which may have been on deep peat – and the evidence was not conclusive.

    Amanda Anderson, director of the Moorland Association, said:

    We are confident that our members are compliant (and) are following best practice guidelines and we are in touch with Defra on this matter.

    It is important to note that the fire and rescue service in England supports controlled burning on moorland for the prevention of wildfire, the single most serious threat to the carbon store, as wildfire ignites the underlying peat.

    “Shot through with loopholes”

    A Defra spokesperson said:

    We are investigating potential breaches of the heather and peat burning regulations and cannot comment further while investigations are ongoing.

    The Government and Natural England continue to work with landowners to promote sustainable upland management practices, backed up by a record funding to protect and restore England’s iconic peat landscapes.

    Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK criticised the current ban. She said it is “shot through with loopholes”, poorly enforced and some landowners appear to be ignoring it. She added:

    Peatlands are the UK’s largest carbon store on land, help prevent floods and are home to rare plants, insects and birds.

    Why on Earth is the Government allowing them to be turned into charred wasteland for the private gain of a few?

    If ministers were ever serious about protecting this vital landscape, they should make sure this evidence is thoroughly investigated, peatland burning is comprehensively banned in law and extra funding is committed to guarantee enforcement.

    “We are in a nature and climate emergency”

    Dr Patrick Thompson, senior policy officer at RSPB UK, said:

    It’s clear from the evidence we have collected that the new peatland burning regulations in England are not working and that burning is still taking place at a massive scale on peatland vegetation and inside protected sites.

    We are in a nature and climate emergency. Intensive and damaging land management practices such as burning continue to harm and further threaten these vital carbon and nature-rich ecosystems.

    He called for a full ban and for grouse shoots to be licensed.

    Meanwhile Luke Steele, executive director of Wild Moors, said:

    By allowing grouse moor burning to continue in any capacity, the Government is not only permitting peatlands to be damaged, but also giving space for the existing rules, as shortcoming as they are, to be broken.

    Wild Moors is urging the Government to extinguish grouse moor fires once and for all by introducing a complete ban on burning peatlands.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Rail union leader ‘cannot see a way out from the strikes’

    A union leader has said he “cannot see a way out from the strikes” which could hit the rail sector from next month, adding that workers need a pay rise.

    Fair pay

    Members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union at Network Rail and 13 train operators overwhelmingly backed industrial action in a ballot over jobs and pay, threatening huge disruption. The union will have to give two weeks’ notice of strikes, which could start in mid-June.

    On whether a strike is inevitable, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch told Sky News’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday programme:

    I cannot see a way out from the strikes at the moment unless there is a breakthrough and the Government instructs these companies – which they are doing to change their line rather than harden their line – it is very, very likely there will be strike action and it will be very soon.

    Staff walkouts could lead to much of the rail network being closed. Union leaders will decide next week when to call strikes after workers overwhelmingly backed industrial action over jobs, pay, and conditions.

    On 24 May, transport minister baroness Vere said it was “very important that we try and prioritise rail freight wherever we can because it’s very important to supply chains”.

    Freight operators are holding discussions with Network Rail about the impact from strikes by its signallers. It’s possible that around 80% of services will be cut, with trains running for just part of the day and only on main lines.

    The government and rail firms have previously criticised the move, calling it “hugely disappointing and premature”, and warning the action could affect the rail industry’s recovery from the damage caused by coronavirus.

    Not “backing down”

    Lynch told Sky:

    There is no sign at the moment that anybody is backing down on their side of the table.

    He could not say the level of disruption union action may cause, but added:

    We will decide that if it happens. We want to make the strike action as effective as possible from our point of view.

    Our members are prepared to take effective strike action in pursuit of the settlement of this dispute.

    I have got no idea how long that will take and I can’t determine from here what the outcomes and side effects of that will be.

    By The Canary

  • Tory rebellion against Johnson grows as senior figure warns of electoral losses

    Discontent in the Conservative ranks is growing because MPs fear they may lose their seats over the Downing Street lockdown parties fallout, a former cabinet minister has said.

    Vanishing point

    Boris Johnson critic David Davis said his colleagues “see their own seats disappearing” as Tory popularity continues to languish in the wake of the Partygate saga. The comments come as Johnson faces mounting calls to resign following the publication of senior civil servant Sue Gray’s investigation into Covid rule-breaking in No 10 and Whitehall during the lockdowns in England.

    Former health minister Steve Brine was discovered to have added his name to the list of Tory MPs to have handed in letters of no confidence in the PM. Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tories, will be obliged to order a confidence vote if he receives 54 letters demanding one. Currently, 23 MPs have publicly stated that they no longer support Johnson.

    Brine said Gray’s report had not altered his view that it was “inevitable the Prime Minister would face a vote of confidence”. He added:

    All I can do as a backbencher is seek to trigger that process and (some time ago actually) I have done that.

    I have said throughout this sorry saga I cannot and will not defend the indefensible. Rule-makers cannot be law-breakers.

    Former health minister Steve Brine said he had submitted a no confidence letter 'some time ago'
    Steve Brine said he had submitted a no confidence letter ‘some time ago’ (UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor)

    The band of rebels increased on 27 May, with Bob Neill, Conservative chair of the Justice Select Committee, confirming he had submitted a letter of no confidence in Johnson’s leadership. Alicia Kearns, a member of the 2019 intake, accused the No 10 incumbent of “misleading” parliament with reassurances that coronavirus laws were upheld.

    Tories in trouble

    The warning by Davis of increasing mutiny comes after polling company YouGov produced new modelling suggesting the Conservatives would lose all but three of 88 “battleground” constituencies if a general election were held on 28 May, putting the government’s Commons majority in jeopardy. The predicted outcome would see Johnson’s own Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat “likely fall” into Labour hands and Red Wall seats such as Blyth Valley and Stoke-on-Trent North also revert back to Labour. Only Ashfield, Bassetlaw, and Dudley North would remain blue, according to YouGov.

    James Johnson, a former Downing Street pollster during Theresa May’s tenure, said the results could prove to be even worse than the model predicts. He said:

    Remember that MRP does not pick up tactical voting or local seat effects.

    Tactical voting helps Labour and the Lib Dems at the moment, so it’s highly likely that the current picture for the Conservatives is even worse than this polling indicates.

    “Go”

    Davis, a former Brexit secretary, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that potential Tory losses and the “distraction” of questions about the No 10 parties was focusing minds in terms of thinking about the party’s leadership. He implored Johnson to quit in January, telling him to “in the name of God, go”, and said he had not “changed my mind about that”.

    Asked whether discontent was spreading in the Tory party, Davis said:

    There is no doubt about that, for two reasons. Number one, frankly they see their own seats disappearing in many cases, they see themselves losing the next election on the back of this.

    Also, it has a bad effect on the country … it is a distraction on everything you do and it doesn’t help the reputation of the country.

    David Davis said he had not changed his mind after calling for Boris Johnson to resign as PM
    David Davis said he had not changed his mind after calling for Boris Johnson to resign as PM (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    Despite facing criticism over his partygate defence, Johnson chose to announce changes to the ministerial code this week in a move his rivals said watered-down punishments for ministers. An update said ministers will not automatically lose their jobs if they breach the standards code, and can instead apologise or possibly have their salary suspended instead.

    Chris Bryant, the chair of the Commons Standards Committee, told the Today programme the move demonstrated why an independent process was required when it came to judging possible ministerial wrongdoing.

    The Labour MP, who has recused himself from chairing the Privileges Committee investigation into whether Johnson misled parliament with his partygate reassurances, said the current system means “it still all lies in the Prime Minister’s hands and we know that the Prime Minister always finds himself innocent in the court of his own opinion”.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The cost-of-living support package: What it means for the UK

    By: Josie Clarke.

    See original post here.

    Chancellor Rishi Sunak has announced a series of payments to UK households struggling with the deepening cost-of-living crisis as he confirmed a temporary windfall tax on oil and gas giants.

    Here is what the package means for you.

    – Households will receive a non-repayable £400 energy grant

    – Households in England, Scotland and Wales will receive a £400 payment to help offset the soaring increase in energy bills from October.

    – All households with a domestic electricity connection will be automatically eligible for the grant.

    Bill payers will not need to contact their energy company as the grant will be automatically applied to every household bill in October.

    Direct debit and credit users will have the money credited to their account, while those with pre-payment meters will have the money applied to their meter or paid via a voucher.

    It replaces the £200 loan announced by the Chancellor earlier this year and will not need to be repaid.

    Around eight million of the lowest income households will receive £650

    Mr Sunak said the one-off cost-of-living payment for around eight million households on means-tested benefits will be sent direct to their bank accounts.

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will make the payment in two lump sums, the first from July, the second in autumn, with payments from HMRC for those on tax credits following shortly after.

    The payments will be sent straight to people’s bank accounts.

    Across all the support, almost all of the eight million most vulnerable households will in total receive at least £1,200, Mr Sunak said.

    What about pensioners?

    More than eight million pensioner households in receipt of winter fuel payments will be given an extra “pensioner cost-of-living payment” of £300.

    Combined with an additional discount on energy bills, pensioners are at least £500 better off following Thursday’s announcement. They could receive a total of £850 in support this year, assuming they qualified for the council tax rebate announced earlier in 2022.

    Mr Sunak stressed that pensioners were “disproportionately impacted” by higher energy costs due to being less likely to be able to top up their income through work, and faced higher energy costs from spending more time at home.

    Those on disability benefits will receive an extra £150 payment

    The six million people who receive non-means-tested disability benefits will be sent an extra one-off disability cost-of-living payment worth £150 from September.

    Mr Sunak said many within this group will also receive the £650 payment, taking their total cost of living help to £800.

    What do I need to do to make sure I get my payment?

    Mr Sunak said the payments will not require any additional form-filling and will be paid via existing account set-ups.

    The post The cost-of-living support package: What it means for the UK appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Windfall tax still leaves poorest families £300 worse-off

    The government has announced a windfall tax to ease the so-called cost of living crisis. Think tanks have praised the measures and claimed the government is intentionally supporting poorest families the most.

    But in reality, this is not the case at all. Because when you strip away the spin the fact is that the poorest families will still be £300 worse off this year. Moreover, it’s families with children who are getting the least support – and the government clearly knows this. So – its class war strikes again.

    Windfall tax measures

    Think tank the Resolution Foundation said chancellor Rishi Sunak’s plan for extra support for families 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.

    So, what does the Resolution Foundation think all this will mean for families? It says that:

    Of the £15 billion of new measures, almost double that announced earlier in the year, twice as much will go to households in the bottom half of the income distribution as the top half.

    It also noted that:

    The average gains from yesterday’s announcement are £823 across the poorest fifth of households, compared to £500 for the middle fifth of households, and £296 across the richest fifth

    So, you’d think this was good news. But the devil is in the detail – and actually, people will still be worse off this year.

    Leaving the poorest people with the least support

    The Resolution Foundation admitted that:

    the Chancellor has in effect offset 82 per cent of the anticipated rise in the household sector’s energy consumption, but this rises to 93 per cent for households in the bottom three income deciles [sic].

    Resolution Foundation Energy Bill Offset Graph

    But there’s more to this picture. As the Resolution Foundation’s graph above shows, the government is only making up for less than 80% of the poorest families energy price increases. And the think tank fails to say how much money this actually is.

    In reality, if the government’s total measures this year only cover 80% of the fuel bill increase for the poorest families, they’ll still be at least £300 worse off. Moreover, this is without including inflation (price rises) on everything else – like food prices going up by 10.6%.

    Hitting families and disabled people

    Overall, the government plan leaves the poorest families with barely any more support than the richest ones. The Resolution Foundation’s analysis shows this:

    Resolution Foundation Graph showing overall income gains by household

    Factoring-in tax rises shows that overall in 2022 the richest are losing the most income. But this does not detract from the fact the poorest households are still worse off. Moreover, the detail of the government’s announcements shows that some will be losing out even more than others. For example:

    • If you didn’t have a live claim or one in progress on 25 May 2022 then the government won’t give you the first part of the £650. In April 2022, over 160,000 households made new claims to Universal Credit – so that means if that figure is similar every month from 25 May, hundreds of thousands of people may lose out.
    • People on new-style Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) are not entitled to the payment unless they get Universal Credit too. It is not clear even from the government’s own data just how many people this will affect. The government has not included everyone claiming Carer’s Allowance, either.
    • The government previously took away the Warm Home Discount from chronically ill and disabled people. So, the £150 payment only makes up for that – it is not extra support.
    • The Household Support Fund is a postcode lottery. Local councils decide who to give the support to and in what form.

    The Resolution Foundations admits certain household groups will be barely supported at all. Specifically, these are families reliant on social security who have children. The think tank shows that the more kids you have, the less support you get. Three-child families will barely get 50% of the overall energy bill increase:

    A Resolution Foundation graph showing how much support families with different numbers of children will get

    However, back in the real world – just how will the windfall tax really help people?

    Windfall tax: *comment*

    Grassroots campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) Sheffield gave its reaction to the windfall tax. It told The Canary:

    Rishi Sunak abandoning people on new-style and contribution-based ESA in his performative optics package of so-called ‘help’ shows that disabled people are of no concern to him or the ideology he represents… The whole system is inherently set up to placate and silence dissent from people on working-age benefits like Universal Credit. They know that people are being forced to claim it. They’re running a parallel ‘benefits’ system for the working poor as per the Victorian Poor Laws and ‘the deserving and undeserving poor’. We’ve barely moved on from that period.

    Why have they done this? Who knows? They love divisive policies. A lot of Tory sympathisers will be looking at friends, neighbours and family on PIP who might claim slightly more in social security than they do. Those claimants might also be in low-paid work or have more savings than those people who are giving them the evil eye – who are getting jealous of them due to the lies they believe from media because they have even less of a fraction of sod all to live on. So, rather than fight and demand a ‘levelling up’ to come up to the same income as a government minister, the Tories know that their sympathisers in the working class will be happy for their friends, family and neighbours to receive even less.

    The lived reality of a windfall tax

    Moreover, the government has designed these one-off payments intentionally. It could have given the poorest families sustained support through an above-inflation social security increase. But instead the government is dropping in a lump-sum.

    So, people would need to put all the cash on their prepayment meters. Or, they could deposit it into a separate bank account just for utility bills. Because otherwise, the likelihood is the money will be sucked up into other costs. When you’re poor and poverty defines your existence, surviving each day is a challenge. This is without micro-managing your finances to the extent of depreciating fuel costs across many months. Also, the fact that families reliant on social security who have kids are getting the least means that the money will probably just be sucked-up into day-to-day ‘surviving’ expenses.

    But what about the energy companies in all this? As DPAC Sheffield told The Canary:

    In the meantime, the energy companies pay a ‘windfall tax’. It helps the government detract from the useless Sue Gray report (stealing another crap idea from Labour) to give ‘support’ that still leaves millions of us unable to pay our fuel bills. That money goes back into our fuel accounts to go back to the energy suppliers – who are killing the planet and who are being given tax breaks to expand oil and gas exploration. The circularity and insanity of capitalism and the monetary system is writ large.

    Class war

    Once again, the government will know that the windfall tax will support the poorest people the least. It will know that families on social security with children along with chronically ill and disabled people will be worse-hit. Yet it, and think tanks like the Resolution Foundation, are presenting the policies as “progressive” and “back on target”. In reality, it is little more than the government continuing its class war on the poorest in society.

    Featured image via The Canary and Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

  • Rory Stewart has centrist hearts fluttering again. So, here’s his voting record

    It’s happened again. Centrists heard a posh person speaking and immediately decided that person should be prime minister.

    And yet again their shout for PM is one Rory Stewart. Yes, the former Tory MP, ex-development secretary and deputy governor of an Iraqi province. That’s right, an arch-Tory and imperialist.

    Yes, that Rory Stewart. ‘Tory’ Rory whose voting record shows him to be to working class people what footballer Kurt Zouma is to cats. That is to say, quite vicious.

    It came after Stewart, who stepped down as an MP in 2019, criticized Boris Johnson over Partygate on GMB news. He tweeted the crux of argument here:

    The centrists are at it again

    Immediately and predictably, people with FBPE (Follow Back Pro Europe) in their bios and sundry other centrists decided Tory Rory was a shoe-in for the next PM – forgetting he is not an MP and so he can’t even run:

    Other social media users also overlooked the fact their favourite Tory literally can’t run for leader anyway. Which probably says something about the centrist grip on reality:

    Others went for the timeworn centrist trope of saying they weren’t a conservative but they were all for Rory. Backing Tories, of course, is absolutely not Tory behaviour:

    Others seem to have only recently discovered Tory Rory, despite the fact that centrists seem to fall in love with him every few months or so:

    One Twitter genius was absolutely convinced that the country would be vastly better if it was led by Stewart:

    A good little Tory

    Of course this ignores the fact that for a number of years, Rory Stewart was in office. He was literally an elected MP in government, and spent time leading the now-defunct Department for International Development.

    And he voted for some of the absolute worst Tory polices, like the good little Tory he is. Let’s take a look at Rory’s greatest hits during his time as an MP.

    Stewart voted strongly against public ownership of rail and buses; for tuition fees and against helping young people in training and further education; for harsher immigration policies and mass surveillance; for anti-trade union restrictions; and in favour of war and nuclear weapons.

    Interestingly, given his FBPE fanbase, he voted against EU integration and the right for EU citizens to stay in the UK. He virtually always voted against those on benefits, including those who are disabled or suffering from long-term illness.

    Stewart resisted an elected upper house, empowering local councils and proportional representation. He opposed laws to increase human rights and equality. And he opposed laws which would prevent climate change and for selling off publicly owned forests.

    It is bizarre that centrists, who pride themselves on being the ‘adults in the room’, still haven’t learned how to use a search engine. We can’t wait to see who they pick as their next favourite ‘nice’ Tory.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Foreign and Commonwealth Office, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY 2.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Ten boys are being locked up for offences they didn’t all commit

    On 17 May, ten boys appeared at Manchester Crown Court in a conspiracy case. They didn’t kill anyone. But the jury found four boys to be guilty of conspiracy to murder, and six to be guilty of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). As this was a conspiracy case, the prosecution didn’t need to convince the jury that violence had taken place, just that the boys had conspired to cause violence.

    One of the boys involved in this case caused GBH using a knife and a car while another was present. Both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cause GBH, but were found guilty of conspiracy to murder. The other eight boys were found guilty on conspiracy charges despite evidence that they were not involved in the incident.

    In a statement on the trial ahead of the verdict, Kids of Colour – a group that supports marginalised young people in Manchester – explained:

    There has been no murder. There has been harm committed by a small minority, which has been admitted to. There is no victim at the centre of this case. While we do not seek to minimise the harm caused, as defence teams have argued, there was no intention or agreement to murder, and that has been denied by all.

    Evidence used against the boys in court included text messages, song lyrics, and expressions of grief following the death of their childhood friend. This is a heartbreaking case in which marginalised young people who should have been met with support and safety have instead been traumatised, criminalised, and imprisoned by the state. They are due for sentencing on 30 June. Given the severity of these charges, they will likely face a long time behind bars.

    Guilty by association

    Manchester Evening News coverage of this case incorrectly framed the group of boys as a ‘gang’ which conspired to avenge their friend’s death. However, according to Kids of Colour founder Roxy Legane, this group of boys are connected by a Telegram group chat created following the death of their friend who they all ‘knew in different ways’. Some knew each other through a music group called M40, which Manchester Evening News has framed as a ‘gang’. Some were school friends or local acquaintances.

    Following the verdict, Legane told The Canary:

    The outcome of this trial, in which 10 black boys have been found guilty on conspiracy charges, is heart breaking. For the boys, for families, for friends, for all who knew these boys for who they are, and not what they’ve been constructed to be. Knowing four of the boys, myself and others who love and work with them, know full well they are not gang members: as all of these boys have stated throughout the trial.

    She added:

    But these boys have been found guilty by association. Their interests, emotions or friendships criminalised. And now they are in prison for violence they did not commit.

    Joint enterprise

    Although the boys were not tried under the controversial joint enterprise doctrine, it follows the same principle of guilt by association and reflects many joint enterprise cases. Joint enterprise enables a court to jointly convict individuals for something they didn’t all do if they were aware that it would take place.

    Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association (JENGba), a grassroots group fighting against the unjust doctrine explains:

    With help from the media, there is a shared incorrect narrative that the Joint Enterprise doctrine is about gangs, broken Britain and the ‘alleged’ feral youth that needs to be served justice.

    JENGba adds:

    This doctrine is a tool used by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to imprison people to mandatory life sentences for crimes committed by others. People can be wrongly charged and convicted when they have been within close proximity of a crime, have a random connection with the actual perpetrator or via text or mistaken phone call or they might not even have been at the scene of the crime.

    A 2016 Supreme Court case found that judges had wrongly interpreted the joint enterprise doctrine for 30 years. In spite of this landmark ruling, Manchester Crown Court convicted 11 Black and mixed-race children and young people of murder of manslaughter in 2017 after just one of them fatally stabbed Abdul Wahab Hafidah in a spontaneous attack. JENGba is campaigning for a public inquiry to review all joint enterprise cases in the wake of the 2016 judgement.

    This 2022 case reflects the discriminatory nature of guilty by association convictions. Working-class racialised young people bear the brunt of this flawed principle.

    Racist and unfounded ‘gang’ narratives

    Legane documented the entire trial. Following the verdict, she told The Canary:

    the prosecution have been smart here. Choosing conspiracy has meant that that is the offence, not the violence. For many, they manipulated moments of grief and social media connections to form a racist gang narrative, and widen their net of criminalisation. It cannot stand.

    This was one of the first cases to take place in Manchester’s new ‘super courtroom‘, a space specifically designed to host large-scale ‘gangs’ trials.

    A youth worker who witnessed the trial from the court’s public gallery told Kids of Colour:

    I question if it was ever possible for these boys to have a fair trial under conspiracy charges. I don’t believe they have had one – portrayed as a gang for listening to drill music and having nick names is ridiculous. Put black boys together on a stand and call them a gang – they don’t have a chance at disputing that narrative.

    According to Legane and other witnesses, the prosecution falsely constructed this group of young musicians, school friends and acquaintances as a criminal ‘gang’ throughout the trial. The reliance on drill rap lyrics, videos and the boys’ general interest in rap, drill, and grime music as evidence in court demonstrates that this case is an out-and-out war against working-class Black British culture.

    ‘The odds felt stacked against them’

    JENGba witnessed the trial. The group told Kids of Colour:

    We lost track of the amount of times these young people called themselves a music group and not a gang. Yet the accusation of them being a gang was repeated over and over again. These young people appear to have been on trial for their taste in music. For the words used as lyrics, emotional outbursts on Snapchat when they were clearly grieving the death of a friend.

    According to Legane, much of the ‘evidence’ used against the boys in court was weak, inaccurate, at times even laughable. For example, she states that during their attempt to frame the boys as a ‘criminal gang’, an officer misinterpreted the slang quoted in one boy’s text. One piece of evidence submitted was a photo of a supposed ‘opposing gang’ in nearby Rochdale. This turned out to be an image of a London-based music group with the capital’s skyscrapers in the background.

    Legane recounts that on one of the trial days, an officer mistook a message that one of the boys received about slain American rappers Notorious B.I.G and Tupac Shakur to be about Manchester gang members. The utter ridiculousness of slip ups like this may well have been lost on the judge, jury and prosecution of predominantly white, middle-class adults who decided the fate of these Black and brown boys.

    A University of Manchester academic who witnessed the trial noted:

    Watching the boys in court surrounded almost exclusively by white middle class men in wigs, the odds felt stacked against them, such were the visible power inequalities at play.

    Black boys can’t grieve

    Most of the boys involved in this case have been criminalised for simply expressing their pain and anguish following the traumatic death of their childhood friend. As Kids of Colour stated:

    most have done nothing, it is words being used against them, words framed as a desire for ‘revenge’.

    Expanding on this in a sensitive portrayal of the boys involved in the case, Legane said:

    If someone killed someone we knew, every single one of us would have immediate feelings of anger, and a want for harm. We would share these feelings with people, undoubtedly, maybe regretting them later. One person’s intentions with those feelings are not another person’s, even if those feelings occur in the same sphere (a key thing connecting boys here, being social media). But sadly, when it’s the racist framing of black young people as ‘gangs’, they are all the same.

    During the trial, Legane shared that “[t]his case sets a concerning precedent for the policing of grief”. Indeed, the prosecution used messages the boys sent in a group chat shortly after their friend’s death as evidence against them. This was the only evidence used against some of the boys who are now behind bars.

    Regarding a message that one of the boys sent following the death of his friend, Legane tweeted:

    he’s on trial for that moment of grief, because black boys aren’t allowed to grieve.

    Not an isolated case

    Writing a Kids of Colour blog post in May 2021, one of the boys involved in the case shared:

    The system has not only labelled me, which has led to a self-fulfilling prophecy, but made me feel as though it was set up to fail people like me.

    Indeed, the state criminalises young people like him by design. Research by Manchester Metropolitan University academics Patrick Williams and Becky Clarke found that Black people are overwhelmingly overrepresented in joint enterprise convictions. Further, they found that prosecutors had described 78.9% of racially minoritised people imprisoned under joint enterprise as gang members, compared to only 38.5% of white people.

    Meanwhile, police target working-class Black and brown boys and young men through stop and search, the gangs matrix and Knife Crime Prevention Orders. These are all rooted in racist, classist, and inaccurate ‘gangs’ narratives which seek to control and suppress marginalised young people.

    Missed opportunities

    Legane’s account of the trial highlights harrowing cases of systemic state neglect. For example, having been excluded from school and unable to find a job during the pandemic, one of the boys was pushed into homelessness. This extremely vulnerable young person was exploited by an adult to sell drugs so that he could feed himself and sleep with a roof over his head.

    At every turn, this boy should have been provided with the support and safety he needed. Instead, he was left to fend for himself and pushed further to the margins of society. In court, his exploitation was used as evidence of ‘gang’ membership. This is a clear and familiar example of how the UK’s school-to-prison pipeline works.

    According to Legane, the two boys who caused GBH in this case had already attempted to hurt someone at college. Instead of seeking routes to support and accountability, the college excluded them. This clearly represents a missed opportunity to prevent further harm from occurring.

    We need support systems, not punishment

    This case is so deeply unjust. While these boys will likely face years in prison for expressing their grief, the state and its institutions are emboldened in their deliberate neglect of vulnerable young people. The immediate reaction to this case should have been to surround them with love, care, and support. We should be seeing immediate investment in specialised youth services and safe spaces where young people can express and process their confusing thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

    Regarding the two boys who were involved in causing GBH – locking them up and throwing away the key is no route to justice or accountability. We will only see an end to the complex social issues that plague the lives of our young people through community-based restorative justice approaches that enable healing and growth. It is our collective responsibility to tackle youth violence at its root and to prevent further harm from occurring. Prisons and police do not and cannot facilitate this.

    The government’s draconian ‘tough on crime‘ approach coupled with its exacerbation of the cost of living crisis is set against the backdrop of a decade of cuts to social services. As a result, we will no doubt see more and more vulnerable, racialised and working-class people pushed into the criminal justice system.

    We must urgently work towards a society in which every child and young person is unconditionally nurtured and supported. We can achieve this through community-centred approaches, food and housing justice, a transformed education system, and real opportunities for young people to pursue their passions and talents.

    Now is the time to stand in solidarity with these boys and their loved ones, and raise our collective voice to say that we do not accept this indefensible mass conviction.

    Featured image via Tom Blackout/Unsplash 770 x 403px

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Sue Gray report tells us what we already know – this government hates working people

    On 25 May, senior civil servant Sue Gray’s long-awaited report on the Downing Street parties during the height of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic was published. The ‘Partygate’ report reveals the extent of the government’s law-breaking gatherings. Notably, it exposes the disrespect with which partygoers treated Downing Street’s low-wage workers.

    Led by Johnson, the government has fostered a culture that regards the lives of working people as totally insignificant and disposable. This is reflected in the examples of the poor treatment of low-paid Downing Street staff set out in the Gray report. This disregard for low-wage workers’ lives has had a devastating impact on poor and working people.

    Mistreating low-wage workers

    Some of the most infuriating details in the report include government aides’ and civil servants’ “unacceptable” treatment and expectations of cleaners and security staff. The report notes:

    multiple examples of a lack of respect and poor treatment of security and cleaning staff.

    The incidents included partygoers leaving red wine stains and sick for low-wage workers to clean up. In another instance, No. 10 aides mocked and “laughed at” a security guard who raised concerns that Downing Street parties were in breach of lockdown regulations.

    An insider said:

    I remember when a custodian tried to stop it all and he was just shaking his head in this party, being like, ‘This shouldn’t be happening.’ People made fun of him because he was so worked up that this party was happening and it shouldn’t be happening.

    Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana responded to these revelations, saying:

    No full sick pay

    The government’s disdain for working people goes far beyond snobbish behaviour and attitudes. It has devastating and far-reaching consequences for vulnerable workers.

    The government forced its own outsourced, low-paid cleaners, security guards and other low-wage staff to work through the pandemic, often without personal protective equipment or sick pay. This inhumane anti-worker model proved fatal for some.

    Ministry of Justice cleaner Emmanuel Gomes was one of the government’s low-paid, outsourced workers. Throughout lockdown, workers like Gomes were forced to risk their health working in an empty parliament while MPs worked from home. This continued in spite of union concerns that these workers were being put in “unnecessary danger”.

    Denied access to full sick pay, Gomes couldn’t afford to take sick leave. Gomes worked with suspected coronavirus symptoms for five days, and didn’t take time off to seek medical help. He died on 23 April.

    Remembering Gomez, independent media outlet Tortoise tweeted:

    Gomes was one of countless low-paid workers nationwide who – due to outsourcing, persistent employment and income insecurity, and unjust sick packages – were forced to continue working through the pandemic.

    The devastating case of Belly Mujinga springs to mind. Mujinga was a medically vulnerable public transport worker who died with Covid after a passenger allegedly spat and coughed at her.

    The government’s elitist, profit-driven socioeconomic model is responsible for deaths like these.

    The rich stay rich

    Following the publishing of the Gray report, chancellor Rishi Sunak announced plans for a support package to help some households with rising energy bills.

    Suggesting that this announcement is a bare-faced distraction tactic, political activist and commentator Femi Oluwole said:

    Lest we forget that through a decade of cuts, failure to cap fuel costs, and a general hatred for poor people – the Tories are responsible this crisis. 

    This announcement comes just days after the chancellor refused to help struggling families, saying that “the next few months will be tough”. This is the same man who the Sunday Times named as one of the richest people in the UK, with a shocking £730m fortune. This reflects the huge chasm between the lived realities of working people and that of those in power. 

    Reflecting on this, author Mikey Walsh tweeted:

    We can’t forget, we can’t forgive

    While low-income migrant workers were left with little choice but to work to death through the pandemic, toffee-nosed government aides laughed in their faces. The British public must not forgive or forget these grave injustices.

    We must demand respect for the rights and dignity of all working people. We can do this by wholeheartedly supporting the work of grassroots unions such as United Voices of the World that continue to demand better wages, sick pay, and protections for the UK’s most vulnerable low-wage workers.

    Featured image via Ugur Akdemir/Unsplash resized 770 x 403 px

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Who is Nadine Dorries?

    Culture secretary Nadine Dorries is currently in the news for trying to privatise Channel 4, but do you know about her ultra conservative views on abortion and marriage? Learn more in the latest episode of Meet The Tories.

    Video transcript

    There’s a lot to say about Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries…

    Like the fact she went on I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! – despite not informing her party or parliament that she’d be going on the show…Or the time she had to pay back over £3000 for wrongfully claiming expenses for family trips between London and her Bedfordshire constituency.

    But the truth is, even though her outrageous slip ups might prove entertaining at times…

    Nadine Dorris also has a darker side – and an agenda that has uncomfortably close ties to right-wing nationalist thought.

    As always, let’s start from the beginning.

    As a senior Tory, you might have expected grand beginnings, but Nadine Dorries was born on the 21 May 1957 to a working class family in Liverpool – growing up on a council estate. For a few years she worked as a nurse before setting up her own childcare business – which she later sold to private healthcare provider BUPA.

    It wasn’t until 2005 that her parliamentary career would get going after being elected to represent the safe Tory seat of Mid Bedfordshire. Her time as an

    MP quickly revealed Dorries to be a right-wing reactionary with deeply conservative beliefs. A 2008 Channel 4 dispatches documentary revealed how UK-based evangelical groups have close ties to Dorries. One such organisation is the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, which has lobbied the government for tighter controls on abortion and campaigned against marriage equality. The documentary shows Nadine meeting with representatives of the organisation to push aspects of their shared agenda.

    It should be noted that Dorries has consistently voted in parliament with a right-wing, Christian bias.

    In 2015, she voted against marriage equality. In 2014, she introduced bills to shorten the time limits for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks and in 2012 pushed for abstinence-only sex education classes for girls.

    An enthusiastic supporter of Brexit, Nadine was recently promoted to culture secretary by Boris Johnson – intensifying the Tories’ long-running culture war with Channel 4. Despite being funded by its own ad revenues and having the highest approval ratings of a TV station, the Tories felt its news coverage to be too critical, and are now using their majority to privatise it.

    Another example of a senior Tory working against the wishes of the public.

    With her fraudulent expenses claims, parliamentary votes against equal rights and disgraceful twitter outbursts against her political opponents, Dorries cemented herself as a self-serving conservative. She has railed against the poor and marginalised in tweets, yet is unable to follow parliamentary rules.

    Despite her humble beginnings, Nadine Dorris has proven time and time again that she is no friend to the working class.

     

    By Andrew Butler

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • This is exactly why barbaric indeterminate prison sentencing must go

    This article includes a discussion of mental health distress and suicidal ideation

    During a House of Lords prison sentencing debate on 15 November 2021, Lord Garnier said that the only thing a convicted defendant wants to hear upon sentencing is the number of years they’re going inside for. However, as Garnier also added, that number (tariff) has no relevance at all for someone handed an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP). Because, as the name suggests, an IPP effectively means you’re sentenced to life imprisonment – even if the crime committed was for something as trivial as stealing a phone or a bicycle.

    That’s the stark reality that director Jane Mingay’s new documentary on IPP sentencing reminds us of. Unintended Consequences sheds further light on the barbarity of a sentencing regime that, despite being scrapped ten years ago, continues to haunt thousands of people inside and outside of prison even today.

    “A disaster”

    As The Canary previously wrote, IPPs were introduced by Labour’s home secretary David Blunkett in 2005. Blunkett later described IPPs as “a disaster”. The justice secretary in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, Kenneth Clarke, abolished them in 2012. However, and most importantly for those affected by this inhumane system, the coalition government didn’t retrospectively apply their abolition.

    So, people who were already in prison under an IPP have remained within the criminal justice system ever since. They’ve no idea when, if at all, their time in the criminal justice system will come to an end.

    It’s never ending

    An IPP prisoner’s initial tariff coming to an end is no guarantee that they’ll be able to leave prison. Mingay’s documentary explains that before someone sentenced to an IPP can walk free, they must convince a parole board that they’re no longer a threat to the public. In order to convince the parole board of that, they must complete certain rehabilitative courses. However, completing these courses isn’t straightforward at all.

    While serving an IPP sentence, one man spent two years in a prison that didn’t provide these courses. According to Unintended Consequences, the absence of courses in prisons is not uncommon. In fact, one legal professional said it was a problem throughout the prison system.

    The absence of these courses therefore means that people stay in prison beyond their initial tariff. Even when they manage to get a conditional release, they could be recalled at any time – and that recall need not be because of a serious offence.

    But that’s not all. Even when an IPP prisoner manages to complete the courses, gets release approval from the parole board, and is not recalled to prison, they still have to wait ten years from their initial release date, before applying to have that tariff cancelled. One campaigner told The Canary that only a very small number of people have managed to successfully appeal their IPP. The vast majority continue to serve it either inside or out of prison.

    The effect on IPP prisoners

    Clara White is one of two relatives of an IPP prisoner who contributed to Mingay’s documentary. She told the story of her brother Thomas White. He got a two-year tariff for stealing a mobile phone on the street. However, almost 11 years later, he’s still inside. According to Clara, this will in all likelihood increase to at least 13 years. Alana Bell is the other relative. She explained what happened to her brother Wayne Bell. He stole a bike when he was 17. So far he’s served 16 years for that offence.

    Alana said that her brother’s mental health began to “deteriorate quite badly” when he went into his eighth year inside. Clara said she could hear her brother’s mental health deteriorate from his voice during their telephone conversations. She said his mental health is so bad today that he actually feels more comfortable in segregation. According to Clara, that’s because:

    he’d done that much time in segregation that it had become really hard to be around people

    Alana said that her brother is at the stage where he doesn’t believe what his family says and he won’t even speak to them on the phone. At one stage he’d ignored all contact from them for two years.

    This is inhumane

    The head of research at the Prison Reform Trust, Dr Kimmett Edgar, also contributed to Unintended Consequences. Edgar said that imposing solitary confinement on someone in a mental health crisis “is inhumane”. He said one IPP prisoner, who he believes speaks for many others, told him:

    I’m always walking on eggshells and there is no chance of me ever being free…until I’m dead. Whether that’s through natural causes or because I can’t cope with it.

    Then, once released into the outside community, some of these prisoners still don’t feel at ease. That’s because the threat of going back to “prison indefinitely” was “intensely anxious producing”.

    Edgar also noted that they’re at risk of exploitation from others inside prison. That’s because they can’t risk any form of confrontation. To do so could mean adding years to their sentence. This leaves them unable to properly defend themselves, and it allows others to take advantage of that situation.

    A vicious and traumatic circle

    Solicitor Shkar Kider added weight to Edgar’s contributions, saying:

    the psychological impact of a custodial sentence is significant on all prisoners. However, this is significantly greater for somebody on an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection.

    Tragically, another contributor to Mingay’s documentary said:

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

    In fact, according to campaign group UNGRIPP, 242 IPPs have died in prison, with 71 of these people taking their own lives. Consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr. Maganty gave evidence to a House of Commons justice committee in November 2021. He said that IPP prisoners enter prison:

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

    How much longer do we have to tolerate this barbarity?

    Despite government predictions that only around 900 people would receive an IPP, it turned out that over 8,711 people received one between 2005 and 2013. As of March 2022, there were 2,946 people in prison serving an IPP. 1,554 of these people have never walked free. 96% of these have gone over their initial tariff. A report published in November 2020 estimated that between 2020 and 2026, around 2,600 released IPPs will be recalled to prison. UNGRIPP reported that:

    There have been 4,747 releases from custody of people serving an IPP sentence since it began. But many were recalled, and some were released again, so this figure does not indicate the number of individuals released.

    From September until November 2021, a parliament justice committee held an inquiry into IPP sentencing. That inquiry examined:

    the operation and legacy of the sentence…with the aim of identifying possible legislative and policy solutions.

    The committee expected to publish its report into this inquiry by this spring, but we’re still waiting.

    Whatever the outcome of that report, campaigners want the government to retrospectively scrap this inhumane sentencing regime. This would allow people like the Whites and the Bells to begin undoing the damage done by Blunkett’s disaster IPP sentencing, and try to rebuild their lives.

    Featured image via – Photo by form PxHere

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson isn’t going to resign, no matter how nicely you ask

    Boris Johnson should resign. I think it. You think it. According to YouGov, the majority of the Great British public seem to think it. A look at Twitter suggests that lots of centrists – and even some Tories – think it too. And for once, those particular cohorts are right about something. How they must regret putting him in power in the first place.

    However, there is a difference between me and them: I, for one, am not labouring under the fantasy that calling politely for the PM to pack up and leave No. 10 is going to make it happen. Nor will petitions. And nor will polls.

    Vapid and performative

    But there is something to be learnt here. Sometimes a particular demand or view can tell you more about the people making it than it does about the issue it wants to address. And the weekly, vapid, vacuous, performative calls for Johnson to step down suggest a complete disengagement in thinking:

    The truth is this: if there ever was an age in which civility and honesty were the key ingredients in British politics (spoiler alert: this has never happened) then this is not it. So by all means tweet your tearful platitudes about the decay of ‘moral standards in public life’, but know that doing so tells on nobody but yourself:

    Johnson, like Thatcher, and Blair, and every other parliamentarian who ever lived (including the tiny collection of ‘nice’ ones in Labour), is in the business of power. That is to say, getting power, wielding it, and keeping it for as long as possible.

    There is precisely a snowball’s chance in hell that Johnson will pack up Carrie, the dog, and their pricey soft furnishings, and march out of No. 10 because affronted liberals on Twitter have demanded it.

    Territory of the comfortable

    The fact they continue to do so tells us something very important – that the way this country works has escaped them. Which in turn suggests they have no skin in the proverbial game.

    Those touched by austerity, by the hostile environment, those whose energy bills may be fatal, those who have been subject to brutal racist policing, those whose wages are frozen, and more besides do not labour under the notion that good manners will always win the day. That is the territory of the comfortable, a luxury reserved for people who are un-bloodied by the class war.

    By all means, tweet your resignation demands and rail against Boris Johnson as if he is not simply the logical product of a system you yourself would seem at ease with. But expect nothing, because even on the miniscule off-chance he leaves the office you handed him, there are many more like him waiting in the wings.

    Featured Image via Wikimedia Commons/David Sedlecky, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Campaigners warn guidance for rape trials could affect victims right to privacy

    Guidance for rape trial prosecutors could “dramatically reduce protection and rights to privacy” for victims and turn them away from “vital” therapy, campaigners have warned.

    The latest Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) advice would increase the “likelihood that rape victims’ private therapy notes will be accessed by prosecutors and used to discredit them in court, which will deter many women from seeking this life-changing and life-saving support”, according to the End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW), Rape Crisis England & Wales and the Centre for Women’s Justice.

    The CPS said the material should only be sought when relevant and the latest guidance “seeks to alleviate victim concerns that accessing counselling could damage the prosecution case”, adding they should not delay seeking therapy because of a criminal probe.

    Data protection

    Police and prosecutors are asked to give “very serious consideration as to whether requesting therapy notes represents a reasonable line of enquiry” in the case and they – as well as therapists – must comply with data protection laws, the CPS said, adding:

    Any requests for therapy notes must be specific and only sought when necessary. Any unfocused requests to browse patients’ files should be not be made.

    These notes will only be shared with the defence if they contain material capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the suspect.

    Changes to disclosure guidelines published by the Attorney General’s Office will “stop invasive and disproportionate requests for victims’ private information during criminal investigations”, it said, adding:

    To ensure that third-party material such as therapy notes and medical records are only sought where appropriate, proportionate, and balanced with the right to privacy, we have imposed a requirement for investigators or prosecutors to justify in writing why the material is being accessed before it is obtained.

    Siobhan Blake, CPS lead for rape and serious sexual assault prosecutions, said:

    The wellbeing of victims is paramount in every investigation. Survivors of sexual offences can seek the support they need and not worry their road to recovery will have an impact on court proceedings.

    Right to privacy

    Groups claimed the terminology is too broad and “will drastically lower the bar – advising that therapy notes should be secured if it is thought they may be relevant to the case”.

    The decision could “dramatically reduce protection and rights to privacy for survivors of rape and sexual violence”, the campaigners said, adding:

    Once a victim is aware that any disclosure they make in counselling could make its way into the criminal justice system, it is clear this will discourage them from having therapy or talking freely with a therapist.

    Rebecca Hitchen, head of policy and campaigns at the EVAW, described the move as a “serious intrusion into victims’ rights to privacy”.

    She said:

    At a time when rape convictions are the lowest on record, we are at a loss to understand why the CPS have opted for a more punitive approach to victims.

    Jayne Butler, chief executive of Rape Crisis England & Wales, said the organisation was “incredibly disappointed” the CPS had not made counselling and therapy notes “confidential for rape survivors”.

    She added:

    This decision means that once again, survivors are left to choose between seeking justice and seeking support, when they should absolutely have a right to both.

    Rape Crisis England and Wales tweeted:

    Kate Ellis, solicitor at the Centre for Women’s Justice, raised concerns that the disclosure guidelines were:

    too ambiguous and have the potential to confuse investigators as to the circumstances in which third party material requests are necessary.

    The Centre for Women’s Justice also tweeted:

    Featured image by Wikimedia Commons/Joe Gratz via CC0 1.0

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Bristol ‘riot’ trials highlight oppressiveness of police and criminal ‘justice’ system”

    On Monday 23 May, Matthew O’Neill was sentenced to 5 years in prison for his part in Bristol’s 21 March 2021 Kill the Bill uprising, after pleading guilty to riot and arson.

    The public gallery was packed with supporters during his sentencing.

    He was the second person to be sent to prison this month for the events of 21 March. 18 people have now been imprisoned since last year, for a total of over 63 years between them.

    Police clashed with protesters against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (policing bill) outside Bristol’s Bridewell Police station. The night ended with several police vehicles on fire and demonstrators breaching police lines to break through the windows of the station. The police brutally attacked the demonstrators, hitting them over the heads with batons and the edges of their riot shields.

    To read an account of the events of 21 March click here, and click here to read The Canary‘s prior coverage of the trials.

    Several juries have failed to convict for riot

    In the last few weeks, the state has been having an increasingly hard time persuading juries to convict defendants of riot as harrowing evidence of police violence comes out. Earlier this month, Kadeem Yarde was found not guilty of all charges, while juries in the cases of Indigo Bond and Joe Paxton were unable to decide on a verdict, and both will have to face a retrial next year.

    Yet another jury was unable to come to a decision about whether to convict a third defendant (whom we don’t have permission to name) last week, and instead found him guilty of the lesser – although still very serious – charge of violent disorder. He was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison.

    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has responded to these failures to convict for riot by moving the goalposts and trying to prosecute some defendants for lesser offences. On Monday 23 May, Fleur Moody – who had originally been charged with riot – pled guilty to the lesser offence of affray. Fleur’s case is the first time the CPS haven’t doggedly tried to pursue the charge of riot for kill the bill protestors.

    The Bristol ‘riot’ trials are set to continue until at least this Autumn, with retrials currently being scheduled for January 2023.

    Unlike the mainstream press, we won’t be lazily copying and pasting police press releases about those being sent down, or publishing details of their personal lives. We are not intimidated or ashamed to say that the people facing the wrath of the courts are our comrades. We are proud of them. The fight that they were a part of was started long before the events of March 21 2021, and it is still going on now. That fight is not just about the policing bill – the fight we are talking about is much broader than that. It is the ever present struggle of the people against power.

    At Bristol Crown Court this month, one of the defendants reminded us of just that.

    “This whole thing’s deeper than any of us”

    I was in the courtroom during Matthew O’Neil’s sentencing, sitting in the public gallery. The feeling of anger and rage around me was palpable.

    The balance of power in the courtroom was clearly weighted towards the prosecutor and the judge, in their ridiculous wigs and gowns. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) were backed up by several police officers, while the defendant was locked in a glass box.

    The truest things in any situation are often said by those with the least power, and that day was no different. As the judge listed the accusations against Matthew – of using force against officers and destroying police property on 21 March – he said:

    This whole thing’s deeper than any of us

    And isn’t that the truest thing of all about these trials? Those charged with the ‘riot’ are forced to explain their actions to the court in terms of a narrow legal definition of self-defence. That is to say that at any given moment when they used any force against the police, they did so to fend off an attack, or because they were in fear of an attack by the police.

    The CPS have argued consistently that the defendants were not consistently under attack by the police, and at some points they were taking the offensive.

    But – and let’s talk frankly – why shouldn’t we take the offensive when the police use force against our communities every day?

    The police take the offensive against our people all the time. They do that when they push ahead with punitive measures against some groups, but not against others. They do it when they use violence against working class people and communities of colour, while protecting those with money and power. And, when they donned their riot gear outside Bridewell they were ready to use that violence again.

    Is it really relevant who started it on 21 March, when the police started it long ago? They have been attacking us all our lives.

    “We didn’t start the fire, it was always burning”

    At demonstrations in support of the ‘riot’ defendants, supporters have displayed a police riot shield painted with the words “We didn’t start the fire, it was always burning”.

    That phrase encapsulates how wrong it is to see the events of 21 March as anything other than an uprising against the violence and oppression of the police.

    Just days before Bristol’s Kill the Bill demonstration, police used violence against women who had gathered to mourn Sarah Everard, who’d been brutally murdered by a serving police officer.

    1816 people have been killed in police custody – or following police contact – since 1990, and a disproportionate number of them were people of colour. According to Deborah Coles of Inquest:

    The disproportionality in the use of force against Black people adds to the irrefutable evidence of structural racism embedded in policing practices.

    In the days after the Bristol ‘riot’, we wrote:

    The siege of Bridewell was an act of resistance against the police violence which is felt daily by communities in the UK. Against the violence routinely faced by protesters. Against police harassment and police killings.

    In January, 24-year-old Mohamud Hassan died after being detained at Cardiff Bay police station, not so far away from Bridewell. Five weeks later, 29-year-old Mouayed Bashir also died in police custody, this time in Newport. Police violence is felt disproportionately by People of Colour in the UK. Non-white people are twice as likely to be shot dead by the police, and a Person of Colour is more than twice as likely to be killed in police custody.

    In the moments before the Bristol Kill the Bill protesters marched on Bridewell, one of the demonstrators made a speech over a megaphone, saying:

    There’s one reason why we’re here today, and that’s the encroachment of the police state into our lives…

    People then called on the crowd to march on Bridewell police station.

    An uprising in defence of GRT peoples’ existence

    One of the motivations for the 21 March uprising at Bridewell was the proposed new police powers to arrest people living in vehicles and confiscate their homes.

    As of this month, the repressive powers proposed in the policing bill have been agreed upon by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the bill has become an Act. This will herald a new wave of oppression and violence against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) people.

    A great many of those arrested after the 21 March Bristol ‘riot’ are from a Traveller background. Many of the defendants have said in evidence that they joined the protest because of the Bill’s proposed attack on GRT people, and a disproportionate amount of the defendants live in vehicles themselves, or have close friends who do.

    There is a long history of violent oppression of GRT people in the UK. For hundreds of years, simply being a Gypsy was an offence punishable by hanging in the UK.

    Fast forward to the 21st century, and oppressive attitudes towards GRT people are still endemic among the police. A 2018 Traveller Movement study reported that one officer had heard phrases to the effect of ‘the only good Gypsy is a dead Gypsy’ being used by a colleague, and that this kind of extremely defamatory language is not uncommon. A 2021 report found that GRT people were “over-policed”, and that GRT women made up 6% of the prison population, but only 0.1% of the general population.

    In 1985, a police pogrom against a convoy of Travellers who were on their way to Stonehenge resulted in 24 people being hospitalised and 537 Travellers being arrested. That event – dubbed ‘The Battle of the Beanfield’ – occurred during a mass movement against the Thatcher government’s Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJA), an act which brought in new police anti-trespass powers and created a new offence of ‘aggravated trespass’. ‘Aggravated trespass’ allows the police to arrest trespassers if they are disrupting ‘lawful business’. It can be used to repress GRT people and demonstrators. The 2022 PCSC Act builds on the repressive powers of the CJA, protecting the ‘rights’ of the wealthy and propertied by explicitly making it illegal to trespass on land with an intent to reside.

    It’s not surprising, then, that people with lived experience of the oppressive policing of travelling people chose to rise up against a Bill which represented a direct attack on their existence. Narrow legalistic definitions of self-defence don’t make much sense when viewed in that light.

    Matt fought back “bravely” “for himself and others around him”

    The Canary spoke to one of Matt’s supporters, who was there at the trial. He said:

    Matt is from a traveller background and is well used to being attacked by the system in so many ways. He’s had a life of it so far. In his case there was talk of how he “went overboard” in his response to the police violence. What he actually did was react against their brutality and bravely fight back for himself and others around him.

    With the very real threat posed to the travelling way of life, marginalised communities and the right to protest by this government and its authoritarian new laws, the anger felt by Matt and so many others is entirely legitimate.

    He said that – in the face of the state attack that the PCSC Act represents – we need more rage, not less:

    We really need more people to respond and resist with more rage, not less. Now is not the time for well mannered, ineffective protests or staying passive. We need to make their new laws unworkable.

    The state should expect more trouble like that seen when people in Bristol stood together and fought back on 21st March 2021. We will never accept more powers for an already paramilitarised, violent and racist police. They get impunity and praise in their courts while we get punishment and prison. We see in all the current trials just how stacked their so called justice is against us.

    There’s an old saying, “When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free”. Alongside that we could remember “If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.”

    Guilty pleas “should not detract from the police violence defendants face”

    The Network for Police Harassment (NETPOL) has released a statement about the case of Fleur Moody. It says:

    On Monday 23rd May, Fleur Moody pleaded guilty to affray at Bristol Crown Court.

    But – NETPOL maintains – Fleur’s guilty plea “should not detract from the police violence she faced in Bristol that night.”

    Fleur, like many others, wanted to act in solidarity with GRT people:

    Fleur, a vulnerable young woman, suffering from PTSD and complex mental health problems, attended the protest on 21st March in solidarity with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities whose way of life is criminalised by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act.

    The statement goes on to describe the appalling police violence that Fleur suffered at the hands of the police. According to NETPOL:

    Any actions that Fleur took that night pale in comparison with the violence she, and countless others, faced on the streets of Bristol.

    Fleur was knocked unconscious by police before being sprayed with CS gas. Harrowing footage shows Fleur screaming in pain, her hair covered in blood, after a fellow protester carried her into the police station for treatment. Police officers are seen standing by, doing nothing, as she loses consciousness again on the floor of the police station.

    NETPOL commented on the injustice of Fleur spending a year with a riot charge hanging over her head:

    Like other defendants, Fleur was charged with riot. She has spent over a year facing the prospect of up to ten years in prison for the crime of being beaten up by the police.

    Just a week before trial, the Crown Prosecution Service, presumably shaken by recent acquittals and hung juries, dropped the charge to the less serious offence of affray.

    A statement from Bristol Anti-Repression Campaign said:

    Guilty pleas should never be seen as an admission of guilt but rather a lack of belief that a fair trial could truly be had. The threat of a longer sentence [if defendants refuse to plead guilty] essentially blackmails people into accepting them

    We need to remember whose side we’re on

    The courts and the mainstream media want to depoliticise Bristol’s Kill the Bill uprising. When people are forced to defend themselves in court their deeply political actions are shoe-horned into a dangerously liberal framework. In the language of the courtroom, narrow legalistic definitions of things like self defence begin to take the place of what is right and what is wrong.

    We need to reject their framework and reclaim the narrative. One way to do that is to support all of the defendants, whether they plead guilty, or are found guilty or innocent.

    We need to see the 21 March for what it was: a battle fought by ordinary people against authoritarian state power. It is a battle that is still raging all around us.

    We need to organise ourselves to continue that fight, and to defend the rebels of Bridewell. You can donate to their crowdfunder here.

    Featured image via Shoal Collective / NETPOL (with permission)

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Here’s how we can stop the extraction of 42 million tonnes of coal in South Wales

    As news of the licence for a 42-million-tonne coal mine expansion in South Wales reached people at the end of January this year, one response on social media represented the local mood:

    [This is] a betrayal of #COP26, a betrayal of the people of Wales, the rest of the UK and the world. What chance now of keeping 1.5 alive?

    The Paris climate conference in 2015 agreed that we must limit global warming to 1.5°C if we’re to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Another person simply asked:

    How can this be?

    The Aberpergwm coal mine expansion was licensed on 25 January 2022 to extend operations until 2039. It’ll generate around 100 million tonnes of CO2 and up to 1.17 million tonnes of methane. So let’s look at how a massive coal expansion project got licensed so soon after COP26, and in spite of the Welsh and UK governments’ climate commitments.

    Understanding how the expansion was granted might help identify what needs to change to stop this expansion and several other coal mine applications from going ahead.

    The Welsh government

    Planning permission for the Aberpergwm coal mine expansion was granted in 2018. This was before the Welsh government adopted a strong policy position against further coal mining. Fast forward four years, and the coal mine finally got the licence it needs from the Coal Authority to extend mining. The Wales Act 2017 means this licence still isn’t valid until a Welsh government minister approves it. In other words, the government still has an opportunity to stop it.

    However, the current Welsh government claims it can’t apply the Wales Act to this licence. It says that it relates to a licence that started before the Wales Act came into force. So it’s a case of ‘we would if we could, but we can’t’. The Coal Authority, the UK’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), Richard Buxton Solicitors and barrister Estelle Dehon (QC) representing Coal Action Network (CAN) publicly refuted this claim. CAN intends to take the Welsh government to court over this disagreement.

    The UK government

    The Coal Authority, as part of the BEIS, is an industry regulator of coal mining across the UK. However, when asked how the Aberpergwm coal mine expansion fits with UK climate commitments, the UK government said the decision to stop the coal mine lies with the Welsh government. Moreover, when questioned on the mine expansion in the House of Commons in January this year, Jacob Rees-Mogg defended the expansion, saying:

    Net zero is by 2050. We are not at 2050 yet.

    Rees-Mogg added:

    We are going to need to have fossil fuels for the interim period and we are going to need coal for things like heritage railways and so on. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that we take some coal out of the ground. I cannot see why it is better to import it from abroad, rather than to get it from our own green and pleasant land.

    The UK government’s commitment to phase out coal by 2024 only relates to power generation, which isn’t where the majority of Aberpergwm’s coal is destined.

    For its part, the Coal Authority attempted to defend itself against widespread criticism by claiming that it’s only able to follow the 1994 Coal Industry Act. This means that it can’t legally refuse a mining application on climate change grounds even if it directly undermines related legally binding commitments. CAN’s legal team believes the Coal Authority can apply climate change as a reason to refuse a coal mining application. So, it’s preparing a judicial review of the Coal Authority’s decision. If CAN wins the case, it could create a critical new opportunity to throw out future coal mining applications as incompatible with the UK government’s climate commitments.

    Changes needed

    The coal companies proposing new mines and extensions at Glan Lash, in Whitehaven, and in Lochinvar are all watching this case closely. We can expect more applications should the Aberpergwm expansion be successful. This could create a new wave of coal mining in the UK, which would leave our climate commitments and international negotiations in tatters. Moreover, it would threaten local communities and cause further climate chaos. So how do we stop that happening?

    The Welsh and UK governments must issue an immediate moratorium against all forms of new coal mining. They could do so via a Ministerial Statement, which would prevent applications gaining planning permission. It’s essential that such a moratorium would be against coal mining for any purpose, given the volumes of greenhouse gas and methane it generates.

    A lot has changed since the Coal Industry Act of 1994. So, the powers that be need to update that Act so the Coal Authority’s role can become that of a caretaker of a concluding industry. And, it’s an industry that has left many hazards and blights across the UK landscape which still require remediation.

    We need to challenge the Welsh government and the Coal Authority’s controversial interpretations of the law, which allowed the Aberpergwm coal mine expansion to slip through. People can help make that possible by donating to CAN’s crowdfunder to cover the significant legal and court costs involved. If CAN wins, the precedent it will create may seal the fate of coal mining in the UK once and for all.

    Featured image via – Coal Action Network

    About the author:

    Daniel Therkelsen is a campaigner at Coal Action Network (@CoalActionUK), working alongside grassroots groups to end the mining and use of coal in the UK.

    By Daniel Therkelsen

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson’s new Downing Street colour scheme

    Sue Gray whitewash

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • As the RMT says it’s striking the right-wing media loses it

    RMT (Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) union members have voted for the biggest strike on the railways in over a quarter of a century. Predictably, the right-wing media and politicians have already got the knives out for the workers and their union.

    RMT versus the rich

    The strike, across nearly all train operators and Network Rail, is broad. The RMT wrote that:

    pay, no compulsory redundancies, and a guarantee there will be no detrimental changes to working practices.

    Network Rail has proposed cutting 2,500 safety critical maintenance jobs which… would make rail accidents more likely and lead to ‘trains flying off the tracks’.

    Almost as soon as the RMT proposed the strike ballot, the government acted. Grant Shapps was reportedly considering changing the law in response. He was looking at making it a legal requirement that a minimum number of railway staff have to work during strike action. RMT boss Mick Lynch accused Shapps of trying:

    to make effective strike action illegal on the railways

    Not that this stopped the RMT. It balloted its members on the action, and the results are now in.

    Everybody out

    The union wrote:

    71% of those balloted took part in the vote with 89% voting in favour of strike action and only 11% voting against.

    The union will now be demanding urgent talks with Network Rail and the 15 train operating companies that were balloted to find a negotiated settlement to the dispute over pay, jobs and safety.

    Already, the corporate media is losing its shit.

    Right-wing pushback against the RMT

    Sky News wrote (without saying who said it) that:

    Services could be reduced to around a fifth of the normal weekday timetable. It is also possible trains will only run for part of the day, such as from 7am to 7pm, and only on main lines.

    The Times decided to focus on RMT bosses earning a decent wage. Of course, Rupert Murdoch’s outlet didn’t frame it like that. It wrote:

    It has emerged that rail union bosses took home nearly £500,000 in pay and perks between them during the first year of the pandemic — including more than £4,000 in car benefits.

    Meanwhile, the Daily Mail took pleasure in reporting on Good Morning Britain (GMB) host Richard Madeley’s comments about the strike. It screamed:

    ‘You have your hands around the windpipe of the country’: Richard Madeley blasts militant union boss who’s holding UK hostage with threat of crippling summer rail strikes unless train drivers get 11% rise to average £59k salary

    TalkTV’s right-wing zealot Julia Hartley-Brewer waded into the debate in a way only she could:

    Back to the 70s

    Over at the Telegraph, it ran a hit piece reminiscent of a headline it published about former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The article’s headline originally was:

    The unions cannot grab back power like the 1970s

    Then, the Telegraph changed it to:

    This is the unions’ chance to seize control of Britain – and they’re taking it

    Its ‘chief city commentator’ (whatever the hell that job is), Ben Marlow, wrote that the RMT strike poses:

    a very real risk that the trade union movement reasserts its grip on Britain, in a throwback to the ruinous 1970s when militant bosses repeatedly brought it to a standstill.

    Of course, all this is entirely predictable. Whenever there’s a whiff of workers fighting to improve their lives under the corporate capitalist system, its gatekeepers in the right-wing media strike back. We can’t have power being taken away from the rich, after all.

    Featured image via TalkTV – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Women of colour ‘changing names, language, hair and clothes to fit in at work’

    Women of colour are changing their names, hair and clothes to fit in at work, according to research which found three-quarters have experienced racism.

    Institutional racism is common across all sectors and in all types of organisation, according to gender equality charity the Fawcett Society and race equality think tank the Runnymede Trust.

    Their report found that 61% of women of colour said they had changed their language, topics they discuss, hair, food they eat, or their name by “a great deal” or “quite a bit” to fit in at work.

    This compares with 44% of white women.

    Black African women were most likely to make changes, such as to their clothes (54%), language (50%), topics they discuss (46%), hairstyle (39%) and accent (29%).

    Largest survey to date

    The report, Broken Ladders, is based on a survey of 2,000 women of colour in UK workplaces, which the groups said is the largest representative survey of women of colour to date.

    It found that workplaces “are a constant negotiation between identities and inability to progress”, and women of colour face barriers “at all stages” from entering work to taking on leadership roles.

    Three-quarters said they had experienced racism at work, while more than a quarter (27%) had suffered racial slurs.

    Jemima Olchawksi, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said the results were “sickening”, adding:

    We just can’t accept this as a society.

    She also said:

    As well as being held back at work, women of colour are being forced to hide their identity in workplaces across the UK; things like changing their hairstyle or what they eat, just to try and conform.

    What a waste of those women’s time and energy – we need workplaces that respect and celebrate everyone’s individuality and allow women to focus on bringing their talents into the workforce.

    Given skills and labour shortages this is a waste of potential we can ill afford.

    Half of women of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage and 48% of women of black African heritage said they had been criticised for behaviours other colleagues got away with at work, compared with 29% of white British women.

    Some 39% of women of colour said their wellbeing had been impacted by a lack of progression, compared with 28% of white women.

    Women of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage (37%) and of Indian heritage (32%) were most likely to report a manager having blocked their progression at work, compared with 20% of white British women.

    “Double jeopardy”

    Dr Halima Begum, chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, said women of colour face a “double jeopardy”.

    She said:

    From school to the workplace, there are structural barriers standing between them and the opportunities they deserve.

    Our landmark research exists to support these women to thrive in their workplaces, and to challenge employers to harness the talents, skills and experiences of their employees, or risk losing them.

    The groups are calling on the Government to introduce mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for employers with at least 50 staff.

    It should also legislate to ban employers asking salary history questions and to require salaries to be published on job advertisements, they say.

    And they called on employers to implement anti-racism action plans with clear targets that are regularly evaluated, and undertake regular “stay interviews” (an alternative to exit interviews), giving women of colour opportunities to give feedback.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • West Midlands Ambulance Service could collapse, nursing director says

    A struggling ambulance trust could face a “Titanic moment” and collapse entirely this summer, its nursing director has said, as committee papers warn of an England-wide “catastrophic situation”.

    Mark Docherty, of West Midlands Ambulance Service, said patients were “dying every day” from avoidable causes created by ambulance delays and that he could not understand why NHS England and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) were “not all over” the issue.

    In an interview with the Health Service Journal (HSJ), Docherty said rising numbers of people were waiting in the back of ambulances for 24 hours before being admitted to hospital, and that serious incidents have quadrupled in the past year, largely due to severe delays.

    Unable to respond

    It comes as documents from a quality governance meeting at the trust in March showed another director warning that “deaths are happening which should not be happening” and, nationally, patients are being let down in a “catastrophic situation”.

    England-wide NHS data for March shows ambulance trusts across the country missing a raft of targets, including too-slow response times to the most urgent incidents.

    The document also noted more than 100 serious incidents recorded at West Midlands Ambulance Service relate to patient deaths where the service has been unable to respond because its ambulances are held outside hospitals.

    Docherty said the situation was now so serious that he is predicting the service will collapse in August:

    Around August 17 is the day I think it will all fail. I’ve been asked how I can be so specific, but that date is when a third of our resource (will be) lost to delays, and that will mean we just can’t respond.

    Mathematically it will be a bit like a Titanic moment.

    It will be a mathematical (certainty) that this thing is sinking, and it will be pretty much beyond the tipping point by then.

    He added:

    It would make me the happiest person in the world if everyone in the system proves to me that actually the ambulance service in the West Midlands isn’t going to fail on August 17, and I’ve got it completely wrong.

    Docherty told HSJ that hospital patients who are fit to leave need to be discharged as a priority in order to free up beds for those arriving by ambulance.

    He described the large number of medically fit patients occupying hospital beds as “criminal … when I’ve got teenagers dying on the street from things that are completely reversible”.

    Handover delays

    The nursing director said NHS England officials had downplayed tackling the problem of delayed discharge and questioned why the CQC had issued improvement notices about hospital corridor care, but not about handover delays.

    West Midlands Ambulance Service raised its risk rating for handover delays to 25 in October, the highest in its history.

    Docherty said:

    The 25 reflects that patients are dying every day that shouldn’t be dying every day.

    Their deaths are entirely predictable, and of a scale that means we need to be taking this really seriously.

    He added:

    All of the issues that we’re building for the future are huge. And I don’t know why the CQC are not all over this, I don’t know why NHS England is not all over this.

    Significant risk to patients

    An NHS spokesman said:

    The NHS has been working hard to reduce ambulance delays and £150 million of additional system funding has been allocated for ambulance service pressures in 2022-23.

    There is no doubt the NHS still faces pressures, and the latest figures are another reminder of the crucial importance of community and social care, in helping people in hospital leave when they are fit to do so, not just because it is better for them but because it helps free up precious NHS bed space.

    Victoria Vallance, CQC’s director of secondary and specialist healthcare, told HSJ the impact of “escalating pressure on the NHS is severe” with “unacceptably long delays for patients”.

    She added:

    There are very real concerns about the significant risk to patients and the impact on paramedics and hospital staff as they do all they can to deliver safe care under the most demanding circumstances, and we have highlighted these concerns in our public board meeting. We will continue to monitor services and use our regulatory powers where necessary.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Sheku Bayoh inquiry: family lawyer says they’re in this ‘for the long haul’

    Supporters of Sheku Bayoh’s family have taken the knee outside a public inquiry investigating his death in police custody.

    The group gathered outside the venue where the inquiry is taking place, as members of the 31-year-old’s family arrived to watch the proceedings.

    Sheku Bayoh’s mother, Aminata Bayoh, and his sister, Kadi Johnson, arrived on the morning of Tuesday 24 May to chants of “Black Lives Matter” and “No justice, no peace, no racist police” from around 50 protesters.

    The protesters had gathered outside Capital House in Edinburgh, where the inquiry is being held, before evidence was heard from the officers who restrained Sheku, including former PC Nicole Short.

    Sheku Bayoh inquiry
    Former PC Nicole Short (front, centre) arrives at Capital House in Edinburgh for the public inquiry into Sheku Bayoh’s death (Andrew Milligan/PA)

    ‘The struggle is not over’

    Present with the family was their lawyer, Aamer Anwar.

    Bayoh died in police custody after officers received calls from the public about a Black man acting “erratically” and carrying a knife in Kirkcaldy on 3 May 2015.

    The hearing got underway earlier this month, and Anwar has estimated that it could last two to three years.

    Speaking about Sheku’s family, Anwar said:

    They have been fighting for justice for some seven years now and this struggle is not over.

    ‘They asked for justice’

    The lawyer told supporters:

    When Sheku died in police custody seven years ago, he was a 31-year-old man, he was unarmed which we know is factually correct.

    He was walking down the street, police had been called to an incident after they received reports that a black man had been acting erratically and carrying a knife.

    When the police arrived, Sheku was unarmed.

    People talk about George Floyd. George Floyd had one police officer restraining him. People should know that up to seven police officers were involved in the restraint of Sheku Bayoh.

    His family at the time, didn’t ask for anything special. They asked for justice. Justice should be a right and not a privilege.

    Sheku Bayoh inquiry

    Sheku’s mother Aminata Bayoh has been attending the inquiry into the death of her son (Andrew Milligan/PA)

    Pleas for truth

    Anwar described Sheku’s family’s struggle to get justice:

    The family spoke some two weeks after Sheku died. They refused to speculate and they always said if Sheku broke the law then the police had a right to act, but any force used had to be reasonable, legitimate and proportionate.

    His family then began a campaign for justice. And some four years later, they were denied that justice by the Lord Advocate and they were told there would be no charges brought. Five years later that was confirmed when the Government announced the inquiry.

    The family are asking for this inquiry to be robust, to be impartial and to deliver the truth to this family because they know without truth, they will never get justice.

    Sheku Bayoh inquiry

    Protesters and supporters of the Bayoh family took the knee outside the inquiry venue (Andrew Milligan/PA)

    ‘His blackness was used as a weapon’

    He went on to compare Sheku to George Floyd, who was murdered by Minneapolis police in 2020:

    Our justice system in this country likes to talk about being colour blind. As far as Sheku Bayoh’s family is concerned, the colour of his skin, his blackness was used as a weapon. It was seen as a weapon. We are in now for the long haul. This inquiry is expected to last two to three years. Today is a critical day.

    If we march for George Floyd, if black lives actually matter in Scotland then it requires all those hundreds if not thousands of people who turned up for George Floyd.

    They have been fighting for justice for some seven years now and this struggle is not over.

    Sheku Bayoh inquiry
    Kadi Johnson (left) and Aminata Bayoh arrive with family lawyer Aamer Anwar (Andrew Milligan/PA)

    ‘Far too many deaths’

    Mrs Bayoh thanked the protesters for coming to show solidarity with the family ahead of the evidence being heard.

    Penny Gower, from Stand Up to Racism Edinburgh, said:

    We were so shocked at the death of Sheku Bayoh we got together with the family there and we set up Stand Up to Racism in Edinburgh seven years ago so we have been on a long journey and there have been far too many deaths and injuries on the streets of Edinburgh, which is not the image that the tourists see.

    What has been amazing throughout is the dignity of the family of Sheku Bayoh. They have picked the wrong family because they never gave up. They have stood up time and time again.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Grant Shapps lied on TV, but the corporate media failed to call it out

    Grant Shapps’ inevitable car crash on breakfast TV was as horrific as it was odious. Then, enter the Mirror to lay cover for the toxic transport secretary. The outlet glossed over Shapps’ blatant lying by calling it “bizarre”, while other outlets didn’t mention it at all.

    Partygate rumbles on

    PA reported on the ongoing partygate scandal amid ITV News publishing photos of one of the events. They show Boris Johnson raising a glass, surrounded by colleagues and wine bottles. It was at the leaving do for communications chief Lee Cain on 13 November 2020. The leaving do took place just days after the PM had ordered England’s second national lockdown. Downing Street has declined to defend the scenes ahead of the publication of Sue Gray’s inquiry. A No.10 source told PA that they expect Gray to publish the report on Wednesday 25 May.

    As PA noted, there were at least eight other people in the room. This was when the government had banned people from social mixing, other than to meet one person outside. The Met police have fined at least one individual for an event on that date. But they’re facing calls to explain why Johnson wasn’t fined over that event. This is despite the photos showing him, drink in hand, standing by a table strewn with food and wine bottles.

    Of course, if you’re Shapps then the explanation is easy – he claims Johnson didn’t know it was a party.

    Shapps: ‘clearly not partying’

    As Sky News reported, Shapps told it that:

    The question is, was he down there partying? No, clearly not – he’d gone by to say thanks and raise a glass to a colleague who was leaving.

    He also said:

    It looks to me like he goes down on his way out of the office and thanks the staff and raises a glass and doesn’t in his mind recognise that as a party.

    But Shapps went further. As the Mirror reported, he also claimed:

    I don’t think these things should have happened, but I think it’s probably worth recalling in context that throughout this period the Prime Minister himself had been extremely ill, had a close brush with coronavirus, he lost his mum during the period, he was dealing with the pandemic.

    The Mirror noted that Johnson’s mum died ten months later. So in other words, either Shapps got his dates muddled up, or he was lying.

    When is Shapps’ lie not a lie?

    Not that the Mirror could bring itself to say ‘Shapps lied’. It framed this blatant fib as “bizarre“. But at least it questioned his claim – however Manchester Evening News (MEN), the Guardian and Sky News (which Shapps was speaking to) all failed to even mention his lie about Johnson’s mother.

    The point being, the corporate media’s failure to state the obvious is part of the reason we’re in this mess in the first place. Its subservience to power and client journalism has always laid cover for the political class in the UK. Now, when the end result is an authoritarian, corporate fascist government which thinks it’s above the law, the corporate media still can’t tell the truth. They’ve made their bed, and one for the rest of us too, but they continue to lie in it the same way they always have.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube and additional reporting by PA

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Climate protest forces Shell to pause shareholder meeting

    Protesters forced oil giant Shell to pause its annual general meeting.

    Chairman Andrew Mackenzie asked police to clear the room at Central Hall in Westminster, central London. This was after members of the audience repeatedly interrupted him.

    The protesters stated that the oil company profits from carbon-emitting products which contribute to climate change.

    Shell AGM
    Demonstrators outside Central Hall in Westminster, where Shell was holding its annual general meeting (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

    ‘We will, we will stop you’

    “Shell must fall,” the demonstrators repeatedly chanted during the meeting.

    They sang “We will, we will stop you” to the tune of the Queen’s ‘We Will Rock You’ as Mackenzie looked on in silence.

    After some time, the chairman said:

    OK, thank you. I would like to carry on with the meeting if I may.

    He was, however, prevented from doing so by the protesters. Before being interrupted again, he managed to say:

    That was an interesting start to our annual general meeting. I have listened to you for 15 minutes, could you…

    I do not want to get to this, but if necessary I will ask you to leave the meeting so we can continue with the annual general meeting.

    Shell AGM
    Protesters accused Shell of profiting from carbon-emitting products that contribute to climate change (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

    Disruption

    A little later, Mackenzie said:

    I regret this deeply, but, because you refuse to stop, I have now asked for the police to come and allow us to restore order as part of this annual general meeting.

    The meeting was paused after around half an hour, as Mackenzie said police would need 20 minutes to clear the room.

    The protesters came from several different groups, including Money Rebellion, Extinction Rebellion, Christian Climate Action, Fossil Free London, Shell Must Fall and Stop Ecocide.

    They claimed that around 80 demonstrators were in the meeting hall.

    ‘Shell is standing in the way’

    Joanna Warrington, from Fossil Free London, said:

    We can tackle the climate crisis and the cost-of-living scandal, but Shell is standing in the way.

    It’s pushing ahead with reckless oil and gas projects that would take us far beyond safe climate limits, like the controversial Jackdaw gas field.

    As millions of people struggle to pay bills, Shell rakes in record profits by keeping energy prices high and paying zero tax on its UK oil and gas.

    This Government should be turbocharging investment in renewables and insulation, not handing whopping tax breaks to companies that burn our future for profit.”

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Multiple habitats need protecting to save bumblebees in the UK

    Multiple habitats need to be protected in order to save UK bumblebees, a decade-long study has found.

    Researchers used data on bumblebee numbers collected by the public. It provides the most detailed overview currently possible of what the insects need from a habitat.

    They found a wide range of differences between bumblebee species in terms of the types of habitat they’re associated with.

    Conservation concern

    The study suggests that reversing the loss of semi-natural areas could be the single most generally effective step in bumblebee conservation.

    One third of the UK’s 24 bumblebee species are listed as species of conservation concern. That’s because they’re being found in fewer places.

    According to researchers at the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, and the University of Edinburgh, a one-size-fits-all approach to bumblebee conservation won’t effectively protect all species.

    Therefore, conservation efforts need to be carefully tailored to particular species, they say.

    Dr Penelope Whitehorn, at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, who led the study, said:

    Our results suggest that reversing the loss of semi-natural areas such as wetlands may be the single most generally effective action for bumblebee conservation, while improving habitats in urban and arable areas could benefit particular rare species.

    As one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world it’s really important that we better protect our native species and habitats in the UK.

    The study identified the types of habitat that could be targeted for conversation.

    Bee stock
    A bumblebee sits on a Buddleia bush (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    Specific habitats

    The study found that arable areas – suitable for growing crops – were important for rare species like the large garden bumblebee, the largest species in the UK.

    And large areas of semi-natural land, like moorland, were important for a number of different species. These include moss and brown-banded carder bees and the bilberry bumblebee.

    The data for the study was provided by a long-running citizen science project. The researchers see this as essential for both collecting the data and engaging the public in conservation.

    Dr Whitehorn said:

    Our study highlights the value of citizen science for understanding bumblebees and their habitats. Citizen science also gives everyone a chance to contribute to protecting these species.

    Moreover, the research found that queens and males of several species were particularly associated with areas of scrub, bracken and herbs. This suggests that these habitats are good for nesting.

    Meanwhile worker bees were more commonly associated with hedges and lanes, suggesting these are good for providing food.

    Richard Comont, science manager at the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, said:

    Bumblebees need areas with lots of flowers available from March right through to September/October.

    Bees lose this vital resource when habitats are lost entirely because they’re either built on or changed into other environments or degraded through things like pesticide use.

    Citizen science

    The study was based on data from the Bumblebee Conservation Trust’s BeeWalk scheme. This is a citizen science project involving more than 500 volunteers across the UK. Volunteers carry out monthly monitoring walks, identifying and counting bumblebees.

    Researchers used a combination of this information and land cover data, climate data and detailed observer-collected habitat data to look at associations between 14 UK bumblebee species and types of habitat.

    Next, they hope to find out why different species are associated with different habitats. Doing so will help to create and preserve the right conditions for them.

    The British Ecological Society’s Journal of Applied Ecology published the findings.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The only thing we need less than a Jubilee celebration is a queen

    The Queen’s Jubilee celebrations are set to pop up next week. June is going to begin with a four-day bank holiday weekend, a pageant in London, and the promise (or threat?) of street parties across the country. A lemon trifle has been crowned the Platinum Pudding, beating out 5000 other desserts. You’d be forgiven for thinking the whole country’s gone mad.

    Unfortunately, it’s very British to have a mass event that celebrates a monarchy whilst most people suffer under Tory rule. A cost of living crisis is making life much more expensive for the poorest people, the Home Office is trying its best to restrict protest, the climate crisis is rapidly worsening, and to top it all off, politicians are mired in corruption.

    And it’s not like the royal family’s image is faring much better. The Queen’s son, Andrew, had his military titles and royal patronages stripped after sexual assault allegations. Meghan and Harry stepped aside from formal royal duties after telling Oprah about the racism Meghan faced. However, those scandals fit into the pattern of who the royal family is, and how desperately the monarchy needs to be abolished.

    Timing of the Jubilee

    In fact, it’s good timing for the royals – they can distract everybody with an extra-long bank holiday weekend and some readymade patriotism. Supermarkets eager to cash in are readily jumping on the idea of white people gathering under Union Jack bunting to eat terrible sandwiches and soggy trifle.

    But in reality, huge numbers of people are turning to food banks. The Trussell Trust says that, aside from the first year of the pandemic, they’ve had to give out 2.1 million food parcels for the first time ever. Meanwhile, charity Turn2Us found that since the government decided to take away the £20 Universal Credit uplift, 4 in 10 families on Universal Credit have become food insecure. That means they can’t afford to eat. And some food banks are even turning away donations of potatoes because people can’t afford the energy costs to cook those potatoes.

    Enter the royal family. Or, should I say, enter the taxpayer-funded royal family. Last year, the government gave the Queen £85.9m. The press teams of these parasites haven’t yet made clear how much taxpayer money the Jubilee celebrations will cost. We can be sure, however, that it’s going to be a huge amount of money that would be better spent on making sure people can feed their families and heat their homes.

    Who doesn’t want to celebrate?

    It may come as a surprise to some in Britain, but people aren’t particularly fond of the British Empire because of the devastation it caused across the world. At its peak – way back in 1922 – the British Empire covered a quarter of the Earth’s land surface. Britain invaded and pillaged so many foreign lands that 65 countries have had to fight for their independence from the British. Atrocities of empire include the Mau Mau uprising, in which thousands of Kenyan people were raped and tortured. The partition of India displaced 14-16 million people, and some estimates say that it killed 2 million. Winston Churchill famously starved 4 million Bengali people to death. During the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar, British soldiers fired continuously and without warning until they ran out of ammunition. They killed hundreds of people, and the British general who gave the order was celebrated as a hero.

    There are so many more atrocities that the British empire has committed. Britain has done nothing to reckon with its colonial past. Other countries make serious attempts to recognise and remember past wrongs, but empire is barely taught in British schools. In fact, a YouGov poll from 2016 found that 43% of British people thought the empire was a good thing. And 44% were even proud of Britain’s colonialism.

    But there’s a reason why the Union Jack is known at the butcher’s apron. The British empire has murdered, displaced, and tortured millions of people. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why people living in Britain who come from countries that the British empire ransacked might not be too eager to pick up a cucumber sandwich and sit down with Sally and George from across the street to celebrate the Jubilee.

    Test of belonging

    Even now, the Commonwealth includes 54 countries, with the Queen as their figurehead. But, she’s not just a figurehead – she’s a colonial figurehead. She is British colonialism, stolen gems and all. Colonialism is by no means over. So often, when the British empire is brought up, white people rush to say it wasn’t them who committed genocide, so why should they have to listen to angry people of colour banging on about colonialism?

    It’s because the Queen is the head of an institution which wouldn’t exist in its current form were it not for the British empire. Britain would not be the country that it is now without empire. The royals’ recent tour of the Caribbean had them come face to face with even more countries who want reparations and independence. The continued Windrush deportations show that Britain doesn’t just have a legacy of colonialism. It has a present built on colonialism, and if the elites get their way, a future that’s also colonial. See, for example, the money that Britain pumps into aiding Saudi Arabia with the bombing of Yemen or the ongoing scramble for oil and other resources in Africa.

    Why so mad?

    The reason British people get so mad when the Queen doesn’t receive adoration, and when people don’t want to see Union Jacks littered all over the place, is because national events like the Jubilee celebration are a test of belonging. They want everyone to join in the good time and unquestioningly raise a glass to the parasite in chief.

    That’s not going to happen though. It doesn’t matter if you tell us to go back home, or if you ask why we’re here if we hate it so much. Britain’s colonialism brought us here. And we’re happy to ignore a set of days that celebrates privileged people while others are sinking into poverty and hardship.

    It’s typically backwards of Britain to even have a monarchy. It’s unspeakably arrogant to expect everyone to be pleased about the Queen and her little party. And it doesn’t matter one bit if white British people are offended on behalf of their Queen. After all the terror the British empire has wrought, and continues to wreak – too bloody bad.

    Featured image via Youtube screenshot/The Royal Family Channel

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Year-long inquiry finds systemic racism in UK maternity care

    A year-long investigation into UK maternity care has found that Black, Asian and mixed ethnicity women experience “systemic racism”.

    The charity Birthrights said the findings included evidence of a lack of physical and psychological safety; experiences of being ignored and disbelieved; dehumanisation; coercion; and a lack of choice and consent.

    Inquiry chair Shaheen Rahman QC said the investigation was spurred on by the knowledge that Black women in the UK are four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth, and Asian and mixed race women twice as likely. She said:

    There is nothing ‘wrong’ with Black or Brown bodies that can explain away the disparities in maternal mortality rates, outcomes and experiences.

    What is required now is a determined focus on individualised, rights-respecting care.

    Evidence given to inquiry panel

    The inquiry panel heard evidence from over 300 people with lived and professional experience of racial injustice in maternity care.

    The panel heard from one woman who said a hospital doctor didn’t recognise jaundice in her Black baby and dismissed her concerns. She said:

    At the hospital the doctor admitted the reading was very high but insisted from the look of him there is nothing to suggest he was severely jaundiced, just a “slight” yellowing of his eyes.

    They did another reading and sent his bloods off, it was even higher than the last. My baby was immediately hospitalised for several weeks.

    The white staff did not recognise jaundice in a black baby.

    Moreover, other interviewees told the panel stories of hospital staff dismissing sepsis during birth and overlooking a life-threatening postnatal blood clot.

    In February, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) established the Maternity Disparities Taskforce to address racial inequalities in maternity care. A DHSC spokesperson told the BBC that the taskforce:

    will address factors linked to unacceptable disparities in quality of care, experiences and outcomes.

    ‘Disgraceful and completely unacceptable’

    Co-chair of the inquiry and founder of The Motherhood Group Sandra Igwe spoke to BBC News about the inquiry. She said that her own personal experiences, such as “not receiving pain relief”, inform her work:

    Meanwhile, law firm Leigh Day shared a quote from partner and inquiry panel member Olive Lewin:

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson promises cost-of-living help while doing nothing

    Boris Johnson insisted there would be further help to deal with the rising cost of living, but he was “not attracted” by the idea of new taxes. This was in response to calls for a windfall tax on oil and gas firms to support struggling households.

    The prime minister said the government would “put our arms round people”. But he declined to spell out what support might be offered, or when.

    Neglected ideas

    One idea which appears to have been rejected by the Treasury is a return of the £20-a-week increase in Universal Credit.

    The prime minister has faced pressure from MPs, including some Tories, to introduce a windfall tax. This would pay for new measures to help poorer households cope with rising food and energy bills.

    Boris Johnson visit to Kent
    Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a visit to St Mary Cray Primary Academy, in Orpington (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

    Johnson said:

    No option is off the table, let’s be absolutely clear about that.

    I’m not attracted, intrinsically, to new taxes.

    But as I have said throughout, we have got to do what we can, and we will, to look after people through the aftershocks of Covid, through the current pressures on energy prices that we are seeing post-Covid and with what’s going on in Russia and we are going to put our arms round people, just as we did during the pandemic.

    He said there was “more that we are going to do” but “you’ll just have to wait a little bit longer”.

    Last week, journalist Adam Bienkov said:

    No return for Universal Credit boost

    The £20 uplift in Universal Credit was introduced in the pandemic but withdrawn in October 2021. Its return has been seen as a way of targeting help at the poorest.

    But Treasury chief secretary Simon Clarke has ruled out the measure.

    He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

    On that question, we were always explicitly clear that was a temporary response to the pandemic.

    That is not going to return. The question is how we best now look at the next range of solutions to deal with the challenges we’re facing.

    The Treasury minister pointed instead to how chancellor Rishi Sunak has lowered the taper rate for Universal Credit, the rate at which benefits start to reduce as a claimant earns money. This has allowed the lowest earners to keep some more of their wages.

    Windfall tax

    Pressure for a windfall tax has come from Labour but also from some senior Tories. Although in a vote on 17 May, no Tory MPs voted in favour of the tax. As author Marcus Chown said:

    Conservative MP and former Treasury minister Jesse Norman told BBC Radio 4:

    A windfall tax justification in part rests on the widespread need that we are going to need to support people, and recognition of that.

    And we’re going to do that, I hope, quite comprehensively, because that’s what’s going to be needed.

    Speaking to LBC about the prospect of a windfall tax, Clarke said it remains an option if oil and gas companies do not invest in the future security of domestic energy supplies. He said:

    The sector is realising enormous profits at the moment…

    If those profits are not directed in a way which is productive for the real economy, then clearly all options are on the table.

    No rush!

    Clarke told ITV’s Good Morning Britain that the UK government is “not going to rush into action”. But he suggested support will be forthcoming given the “severity of the situation”.

    He told BBC Breakfast:

    Philosophically, I don’t want to be raising taxes but nor obviously can we ignore the fact that there is a very challenging situation in terms of the cost of energy at the moment that will likely worsen ahead of next winter, and the Government is going to need to take action to address that

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.