Category: UK

  • A Tory police and crime commissioner who pledged to crack down on speeding has been caught breaking a 30mph limit five times within a 12-week period.

    The PCC for Nottinghamshire Police, Caroline Henry, admitted the offences, including two committed on consecutive days, at a previous hearing in February at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.

    “Very sorry, embarrassed and ashamed”

    Magistrates were told Henry, who is the wife of Broxtowe MP Darren Henry, had written a letter to the court saying she was “very sorry, embarrassed and ashamed”.

    Her defence solicitor Noel Philo said the letter was written on “advice I did not give”.

    Caroline Henry
    Caroline Henry admitted the offences, including two committed on consecutive days (Jacob King/PA)

    Henry, who was elected to the post in May 2021, was caught speeding in a blue Mercedes and a silver Lexus with a personalised number plate in 30mph zones at four locations in Nottingham in March, May and June last year.

    Court documents relating to the charges she has admitted show Henry was caught speeding twice near a primary school in Daybrook, Nottingham, as well as roads in Chilwell, Beeston and the city’s A610.

    Speed cameras clocked the PCC’s speed as high as 40mph in a 30mph zone, with other excess speeds recorded at 35mph and 38mph.

    The offences took place on March 17 and 18, May 2 and 27, and June 8 last year.

    Double standards

    On her official PCC website, Henry listed ensuring an “effective and efficient” police response to speeding as one of her priorities.

    She campaigned for election using the slogan “Make Notts Safe” and promised to “reduce crime with action, not words”.

    The case was adjourned until July 19 where Henry is expected to argue two of the five offences were due to “emergencies”, with one being when she was “very concerned for one of her children”.

    Henry did not respond to questions over whether she would resign from her position.

    In a written statement issued after the hearing, Henry said:

    For technical legal reasons, the court has constituted that they cannot deal with the case today.

    I cannot comment on the ongoing case. I will be explaining the context of this matter in due course.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Canary is no fan of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party. But we’re even less of a fan of the Daily Mail. So, when it a) uses doctored photos which a Tory minister defends, and b) doorsteps a 14-year-old child, enough really is enough. Because there’s clearly no barrel-bottom the right-wing shitrag won’t scrape.

    Daily Mail: doctoring the house

    First, the Daily Mail was still droning on about Starmer’s alleged lockdown party. It ran an ‘update’ on the story on Monday 1 May, saying that Tory MPs were ‘demanding’ evidence that the event was actually just a food break during work. The story is quite obviously an attempt by the Tories and the Daily Mail to distract from the government’s own partygate scandal. But as one Twitter user noted:

    Not very bright members of the Tory party incapable of separating needing to eat after working late whilst staying in a hotel that doesn’t serve food, and ignoring rules imposed on everyone else – many times.

    In the piece, the Daily Mail used a photo of Keir Starmer eating a curry – clearly to get clicks. But the photo was actually of Starmer with the late Labour MP Frank Dobson – who died in 2019:

     

    Not that culture secretary Nadine Dorries cared – the minister who has oversight of the press. She shared the Daily Mail story. Dorries even defended it doctoring the Starmer/Dobson picture, because, she claimed, it was a “stock” image:

    But as former Daily Mail sub-editor William Bevan said:

    That’s not a stock photo. No one on a paper would call that a stock photo. A stock photo is something else. Her grip of editorial process is about as impressive as her knowledge of UK television.

    Even the Daily Mail seemed to know the picture wasn’t a “stock” photo. Because it didn’t label it as such in the article until sometime on Tuesday 2 May. In the original copy of the story, it was just marked as this:

    A snapshot of the Daily Mail article on Labour's lockdown party

    But this wasn’t the end of the Daily Mail‘s shitshow.

    Door-stepping, Daily Mail style

    Labour MP Mary Kelly Foy said that the Daily Mail doorstepped the 14-year-old child of one of her staff. This was likely in relation to the Labour lockdown party story – given that the Daily Mail has named her in it. She tweeted that:

    The reporter asked for information about their parents, without an adult present, and only revealed their identity afterwards. This behaviour is despicable and a clear breach of journalistic ethics.

    Foy has written to the Daily Mail editor as well as “other outlets”. But we all need to take more action than that.

    When a right-wing tabloid continues to act with zero professional standards, the UK corporate media is broken. The Daily Mail making up shit and harassing members of the public is not a new low for it, but its action sum up its MO. The UK needs change, and that starts with supporting independent media.

    Featured image via Woodley Wonder Works – Flickr, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY 2.0, and Kerry-Anne Mendoza 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Climate activists have blockaded an oil terminal to call for an end to new oil and gas projects and to demand funding for green alternatives.

    Just Stop Oil said its supporters blocked access to the Nustar Clydebank facility in West Dunbartonshire by climbing on top of tankers and locking on to the entrance at around 4am on Tuesday 3 May:

    Others entered the oil terminal, where 12 protesters are sitting on pipes and three are on the silos to halt operations.

    The activists said they are taking action in support of their demand that the UK government ends new oil and gas projects in the UK.

    Activists
    The activists staged a blockade of the entrance (Just Stop Oil/PA)

    It is the first action its kind in Scotland since the Just Stop Oil coalition began blockading fuel terminals south of the border on 1April, which has seen more than 1,000 arrests.

    Neil Rothnie, a retired offshore oil and gas worker from Glasgow, said:

    North Sea oil and gas does not offer energy security. The North Sea oil and gas industry has one priority and it is not the climate crisis. It’s not the future of North Sea oil and gas workers.

    And it’s certainly not whether the poor can stay warm. If the Government was serious about a just transition, we would be seeing it here in Scotland.

    Where are the turbine factories in Scotland? Where are the yards building platforms for offshore wind? Where are the projects to properly insulate our houses? When will we get free public transport?”

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A Ukrainian blacklist claims to source some of its intelligence from Britain’s MI5. And it even includes a file on former Pink Floyd musician Roger Waters. The aims of the blacklist appear to be the suppression and elimination of voices critical of the Ukrainian government.

    Meanwhile, there are those on the radical left – anarchists – who are fighting as partisans or alongside government forces, determined to crush the Russian invaders.

    ‘Peacemaker’ blacklist

    The Orwellian-sounding Peacemaker/Myrotvorets database is a blacklist reportedly organised in 2014. This was after a meeting between a former member of Ukraine’s security service Sluzhba Bespeky Ukrayiny (SBU) and Ukrainian politician George Tuka.

    According to a 2019 Al Jazeera article, the database contained more than 130,000 persons, including Russian military and pro-Russia separatists. The Mirror believes the total number of names on the blacklist is now around 187,000.

    Al Jazeera reported in 2019 that the database also included “4,000 international journalists accredited by separatist authorities”. And it currently includes a link to a list of more than 600 Russian FSB (successor to KGB) officers “involved in the criminal activities of the aggressor country in Europe”.

    British musician on blacklist

    Peacemaker also includes a file on former Pink Floyd musician Roger Waters. An English translation of that file shows Waters is accused of:

    Anti-Ukrainian propaganda. An attempt on the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Participation in attempts to legalize the annexation of Crimea by Russia.

    It also includes a zip file with a list of websites that purport to back up these allegations. And the source of the Waters file is given as ‘SBU’.

    Former Swiss strategic intelligence member Jacques Baud claims the Peacemaker database is used as a means of harassing or eliminating those in favour of a deal with Russia:

    In the Ukraine, with the blessing of the Western countries, those who are in favor of a negotiation have been eliminated. This is the case of Denis Kireyev, one of the Ukrainian negotiators, assassinated on March 5 by the Ukrainian secret service (SBU) because he was too favorable to Russia and was considered a traitor. The same fate befell Dmitry Demyanenko, former deputy head of the SBU’s main directorate for Kiev and its region, who was assassinated on March 10 because he was too favorable to an agreement with Russia—he was shot by the Mirotvorets (“Peacemaker”) militia.

    Clampdown on the left

    Meanwhile, an article by Max Blumenthal and Esha Krishnaswamy in the Grayzone claims that Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky has “outlawed his opposition, ordered his rivals’ arrest, and presided over the disappearance and assassination of dissidents across the country”.

    They add:

    In a March 19 executive order, Zelensky invoked martial law to ban 11 opposition parties. The outlawed parties consisted of the entire left-wing, socialist or anti-NATO spectrum in Ukraine. They included the For Life Party, the Left Opposition, the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, the Socialist Party of Ukraine, Union of Left Forces, Socialists, the Party of Shariy, Ours, State, Opposition Bloc and the Volodymyr Saldo Bloc.

    One blogger referred to in the article provides a list of those who “fell foul of the Ukrainian government and its policies”. The article also includes numerous accounts of alleged torture carried out by Ukrainian military against Russians and pro-Russians.

    From the frontline

    There’s also another side to this conflict.

    Le Monde Libertaire interviewed a member of the mainly Ukrainian anti-authoritarian Resistance Committee regarding what’s happening in Ukraine since the Russian invasion. The anonymous interviewee – we will call her ‘Yulia’ – explains that anarchists and anti-fascists have joined with units of the Territorial Defence Forces (TDF). And they are mostly active in the Kyiv region and Kharkiv.

    Yulia adds:

    While we had always opposed the Ukrainian state, we understand that Russian autocracy is much worse. If the Russian army occupied Ukraine, there would be absolutely no political freedom, activists would be imprisoned or killed.

    As for Putin, she adds:

    [He] himself had said many times before that his favourite philosopher was Ivan Ilyin – a far-right thinker exiled by the Bolsheviks, who later supported the Italian Fascists and German Nazis as they rose to power , who had also repeatedly spoken out against the Ukrainians as a threat to Russia. Not to mention Putin’s ties and financial support to various far-right parties and Western politicians – like Marine le Pen, Eric Zemmour in France, Victor Orban in Hungary,

    Yulia also  provides an excellent insight into how anarchists and left libertarians are organising with government forces. She adds how the TDF have “defended some cities against Russian regular troops and became partisans”. However, ” in other cases they fight alongside the army”.

    It’s all about survival:

    While some might argue that anarchists should have no cooperation with the state military, for all Ukrainian anarchists it is clear that this is a battle for our survival. The Russian army has already committed numerous war crimes against Ukrainian civilians, including the indiscriminate destruction of cities, the bombing of hospitals, the execution of men of conscription age, as well as mass arrests of pro activists- Ukrainians in various cities under occupation. If Russia won, such crimes would continue throughout Ukraine. This is why all Ukrainian anarchists decided to resist Russian aggression – like those anarchists who joined the Free French Army to fight against German Nazism.

    Daily reports on the fight by the libertarian left against the Russian aggressors are provided by Operation Solidarity and published by Le Monde Libertaire.

    What is it good for?

    War inevitably results in atrocities and war crimes. And in Ukraine, it’s important to question the ultimate aim and scope of the Peacemaker blacklist, particularly if Baud’s claim that Peacemaker’s militia carried out an assassination is correct.

    War also sees the often inevitable crackdown on those critical of the government line. We see that in Russia, with the banning of independent news media and blocking of social media. But, as pointed out in the article by Blumenthal and Krishnaswamy, it appears to be happening in Ukraine too, with the clampdown on opposition. The authors also point out that the Ukrainian government has combined all TV news channels into a single channel, which can be a form of censorship.

    In any war, independent journalism has an important role to play to report on all of these aspects. Even if, for some readers, that makes for uncomfortable reading.

    Featured image via screenshot

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A Scottish minister has written to the UK government urging it to do more to avoid a widespread strike by rail workers.

    Members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union are being balloted for strikes over jobs, pay and working conditions. Meanwhile the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA) is also threatening action.

    Scottish transport minister Jenny Gilruth has urged the government to ensure a swift settlement is reached.

    In the letter to transport secretary Grant Shapps, Gilruth called for the UK government to do more to resolve the dispute. And she warned that it could “significantly affect” operations in Scotland, despite the Scottish government having no say in the negotiations.

    Jenny Gilruth
    Jenny Gilruth said the dispute is ‘not of the Scottish Government’s making’ (PA)

    ‘Political petrol on the fire’

    RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said:

    The Government is throwing political petrol on the fire regarding this dispute.

    The changes they seek to impose on railway workers would not be acceptable to any trade union worth their salt and they represent a fundamental danger to passenger safety.

    The Scottish Government recognise that the way you deal with disputes is by negotiation, not by imposing changes that will leave thousands out of work and tens of thousands more facing real terms cuts in living standards.

    Ministers must put aside their ideological bias against trade unions like the RMT and negotiate in good faith.

    Frustration

    Gilruth wrote:

    It is hugely disappointing that the UK Government appears not to be doing more to resolve this dispute to avoid industrial action.

    At a time when both governments are trying to encourage the public back to rail, industrial action at this time would be extremely detrimental and, of course, would adversely impact on operations in Scotland and Scottish Network Rail employees.

    This dispute is not of the Scottish Government’s making; it is frustrating that, as with other Network Rail matters which are reserved, we have no say, no locus and no influence here, yet rail services and employees here in Scotland will be affected.

    ‘Common-sense reassurances’

    TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes said:

    The Scottish Government’s commitment to no compulsory redundancies in Network Rail in Scotland is welcome and Westminster must follow suit.

    It’s clear that at a time when everyone within our industry should be focused on getting people back on to our railways, Tory ministers seem hellbent on provoking a dispute.

    Grant Shapps and his Tory cronies are preventing train operators in England and publicly owned Network Rail from giving our members the common-sense reassurances they seek on job security, terms and conditions, and pay.

    Sadly, industrial action is very much on the cards if the Tory Government doesn’t think again. Having acted heroically in keeping our country moving during the worst phases of the Covid pandemic, our members deserve nothing less.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A former Conservative minister warned a newly elected Scottish MP which “predatory” men to avoid in parliament. It comes after Tory backbencher Neil Parish resigned after admitting that he had been watching pornography in the Commons on multiple ocassions.

    “Horrific, toxic culture”

    Anum Qaisar was elected SNP MP for Airdrie and Shotts in May 2021. After her election, she was told by opposition MPs which men to avoid in Parliament. She told Sky News that a former Conservative minister approached her at a parliamentary event after noticing she was uncomfortable with a male politician being “too cavalier”.

    She said:

    Despite the fact we have this horrific, toxic culture in Westminster, it’s women looking after women. Since I joined Parliament, I’ve been taken aside by female MPs to warn me about some male MPs who say ‘Actually, Anum, you’re probably better off staying away from X, Y and Z’.

    In my situation, I was at a parliamentary event and a certain male MP made a beeline for me. I started to feel really uncomfortable because he was being far too over-cavalier.

    It was actually a Conservative MP – a former minister – who took me aside and said ‘Look, it seems like you feel uncomfortable. Do you want to stay with me? You’re probably best just to stay away from that person’.

    Her comments follow the resignation of Parish, who confessed to watching pornography in the UK Parliament. The Tiverton and Honiton MP – having actually confessed to watching pornography in Parliament twice – told reporters it was a “moment of madness” which he will have to live with for the rest of his life.

    Neil Parish allegations
    Tory MP Neil Parish resigned after admitting watching pornography in the Commons (Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA)

    He said:

    The situation was that, funnily enough, it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it a bit, which I shouldn’t have done.

    But my crime – biggest crime – is that on another occasion I went in a second time.

    Parliamentary perversion

    The news emerged after two female colleagues said they had seen Parish looking at the explicit content while sitting near them in the Commons. He was suspended from the Conservative Party on 29 April, before announcing that he would be stepping down as an MP over the criticism.

    Qaisar, a former secondary school teacher, said it should not be up to women to bring forward change on issues like misogyny and harassment. She said:

    Why is the responsibility being put on women? Far too often it is women who are told ‘Don’t wear skirts’. It’s women who are told ‘Be careful with what you wear’. We need a culture change where men are held responsible for their own actions.

    Local government elections
    First minister Nicola Sturgeon said there is a ‘massive’ culture problem in Parliament which needs to be dealt with (Michal Wachucik/PA)

    She added that there is a culture in Westminster where the men accused of these actions only quit when they are threatened with being thrown out of Parliament.

    In Westminster, we have this culture where we have late-night votes, a high-pressure environment and numerous bars in the Parliamentary estate.

    All those factors can enable men, usually those elected or in high office, to become predatory.

    As 15 male MPs have been referred to a parliamentary watchdog over misconduct allegations, first minister Nicola Sturgeon said there is a “massive” culture problem which needs to be dealt with. She told Sophy Ridge on Sky News on Sunday that she has been in politics so long that she has become inured to the issues but said she sympathises with younger politicians.

    She said:

    It’s been really difficult to get women to come forward and stand for election because there is a sense that politics and public life is not a safe space for women anymore, and we need to do about that because we’re going to rue the day if we continue down this path and women just don’t see the ability to come forward and be active in politics.

    Sturgeon also addressed harassment allegations against SNP MP Patrick Grady, saying she will not “shy away” from taking action depending on the outcome of an investigation.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Britain has always hated bullies. China must do what Britain says. Russia squandered a chance to reform when the Soviet Union ended. Yes, Liz Truss has given another major foreign policy speech and it’s an absolute masterclass of the Liz Truss speech form.

    Her address took place at the Lord Mayor’s 2022 Easter Banquet on 27 April. And not even the complexities of actual real-world history and politics were going to hold her back. We examine some of her major clangers here.

    The Free World?

    Truss’ schtick is a ‘free world’ composed of like-minded democratic nations. In one passage she describes a ‘network of liberty’. In this analysis, capitalism equals freedom. For example:

    Free trade and free markets are the most powerful engine of human progress. We will always champion economic freedom.

    Elsewhere Truss goes even further, equating capitalism with peace and security itself:

    So let’s work together. Let’s forge deeper bonds. Let’s be better traders, investors, and partners than the aggressors.

    There are any number of reasons this is wrong. For example, Truss herself is part of a government which is trying to privatise critical media, ban protest and extend authoritarian police powers and ship asylum seekers to a dictatorship.

    It’s even less convincing in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia is, of course, itself a capitalist country – contrary to the fantasies of the New Cold Warriors like Truss.

    Naughty China

    Truss also takes aim at China. Membership of the global capitalist economy, she insists, must be earned. Beijing, Truss said, “has not condemned Russian aggression or its war crimes”:

    But China is not impervious. By talking about the rise of China as inevitable we are doing China’s work for it. In fact, their rise isn’t inevitable. They will not continue to rise if they don’t play by the rules.

    China, she went on, “needs trade with the G7”:

    We represent half of the global economy. And we have choices. We have shown with Russia the kind of choices we’re prepared to make when international rules are violated. And we’ve shown that we’re prepared to prioritise security and respect for sovereignty over short-term economic gain. Not least because we know that the cost of not acting is higher.

    The first, and most obvious, issue here is that the second largest economy on Earth may not actually care what Liz Truss thinks. More broadly, it is no simple matter to compel the Chinese state. Especially if you are the UK, whose economy is deeply intertwined with that of China.

    In fact, Truss’s predecessor Dominic Raab pointed out only last year in a defence and security review:

    It would not be feasible to go into some old, outdated, cold war with China

    In this light, Truss’s comments look like fairly empty rhetoric.

    Britain hates bullies?

    But Truss made an even more outlandish claim in her speech in the section on Ukraine and Russia:

    Britain has always stood up to bullies.

    This definitely needs to be unpacked. The hard part is where to begin. The obvious choice is Britain’s now-departed global empire built on invasion, slavery, exploitation, famine, and violence. Sadly, we don’t have time to write an entire book, so let’s turn to recent recent events.

    We could talk about Iraq, where the UK threw its lot in with an illegal US invasion. The results? A million deaths, according to some figures, as well as the rise of ISIS.

    Or Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, where a resurgent Taliban recently ejected the US-led occupation. A country teetering on the edge of famine while our chief ally, the US, has doled out the country’s stolen wealth to the 9/11 families.

    Or maybe Libya, where the UK took part in a war which saw the country disintegrate into chaos. Where rival fighters are still squaring off as they vie to fill the 11-year-old power vacuum.

    Not exactly the conduct of a nation which opposes bullies on the international stage.

    Little Britain

    It’s hard to see what Truss is trying to achieve, given that many of her major arguments can be easily dismissed. Maybe she’s playing to the Tory base of people who believe they died in both world wars despite being born long after they’d ended. Or maybe this is just posturing to deflect from the Tories’ internal crises, such as Partygate.

    Perhaps most terrifyingly of all, Truss might actually believe that the likes of Russia and China actually shape their policies based on what she has to say about global affairs.

    We cannot know. But what we can say is that if a British government wants a more peaceful and secure world, where international laws are respected, it needs to look a lot closer to home than Beijing.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Russian MOD, cropped to 770 x 403 via Creative Commons 4.0

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Exclusions from primary school should be banned by 2026, a new report has said.

    The report, from former children’s commissioner Anne Longfield, also argues schools should not be able to receive a “good” or “outstanding” grade from Ofsted without hitting new targets on including vulnerable pupils.

    The report from the Commission on Young Lives says Ofsted should introduce a new inclusion measure, with schools that are not inclusive being unable to receive a “good” or “outstanding” grade.

    Vulnerable pupils

    It calls for exclusions from school of primary school-aged children to be ended within the next four years, with schools “supported with the necessary resources to achieve this”.

    It adds that all schools should report how many pupils have been excluded or moved from their rolls every year.

    The report notes that vulnerable pupils are sometimes:

    viewed as a problem that can be pushed onto someone else to deal with.

    It also stated that some schools have used tactics such as managed moves, off-rolling, exclusions or encouraging families to pursue “home education”.

    One parent who spoke to the commission, whose child later received an autism diagnosis, said her son was excluded 17 times from school at the age of five:

    The school said there was defiance and violence, but he was literally tiny.

    The report notes that there is a “prominent strand of opinion” that does not accept there is any link between being excluded and becoming involved in crime. However, youth workers, parents and children had recounted how exclusion from school was a “trigger point” when pupils became more vulnerable to criminal or sexual exploitation.

    The report states that:

    There should never have to be a trade-off between a school achieving good scores and providing an inclusive, nurturing environment that takes responsibility for every child. But so often it seems there is.

    It adds that some schools

    don’t focus on vulnerable children because they don’t feel they have an obligation or responsibility to do so… or worse, in a minority of schools, they do not feel it is in their interests to even have vulnerable children in their school at all, and they game the system to keep them off their roll.

    It said it can “surely be no coincidence” that the majority of exclusions take place in years 10 and 11, when pupils sit GCSE exams that will impact on the school’s position in league tables.

    Adultification

    The report also highlights how Black children are more likely to be excluded and are subjected to “adultification”, where they are perceived as older than their years and less likely to be vulnerable by teachers and other adults, preventing them from receiving the care and protection they should have as children.

    Children who are perceived as more adult-like are also more likely to be punished or excluded, the report says:

    The recent abhorrent treatment of Child Q, a teenage girl who was left traumatised after being strip-searched at school by Met police officers while on her period, is a recent shocking example of how adultification can happen in educational settings.

    It adds that adultification

    can manifest itself by black students being disproportionately targeted by “draconian” zero-tolerance behaviour and uniform policies in schools.

    It says that race-equality training should be a core part of teacher training while the school curriculum should be reformed to make it more inclusive.

    The report also calls for “alternative provision” to be renamed “specialist provision” while it says that the name “pupil referral unit” should also be scrapped:

    We do not believe primary school children should be permanently excluded at all and we would also like to see the end of the term ‘pupil referral unit’, which feels like a throwback to a bygone age.

    Pilot proposal

    It proposes that in the 55 education “cold spots” identified by the Levelling Up Paper, there should be a five-year pilot to create new, inclusive schools, trialling a “cradle to career” approach.

    Julie McCulloch, policy director at the Association of School and College Leaders, said while the power to exclude was a “necessary last resort”:

    it is very clear we must do everything possible to defuse problems which lead to challenging behaviour and keep young people in school.

    She added that the “vast majority” of schools made this a priority but did this in a context of “extremely tight budgets” which limited their ability to give more support to vulnerable pupils:

    It is also the case that school performance tables prioritise academic attainment rather than how well a school provides an inclusive environment.

    Anne Longfield, chair of the Commission on Young Lives, said:

    Look behind the headlines of the tragic deaths, acts of serious violence and criminal exploitation of our young people over recent years and so often you see a pattern of children disengaging and falling out of school and into harm.

    Not all children who leave mainstream school will be affected but the statistics show that too many will – even more so if the child has special educational needs or is black.

    A system that has no real accountability for a five-year-old boy being excluded 17 times in a year, or where a vulnerable teenager is out of school for months or even years, is not a system that is working for every child.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Former health secretary Matt Hancock just lied about the government’s knowledge of the asymptomatic transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19). It was in relation to 3 April 2020 – which up to this date a court has now ruled the government had acted unlawfully in allowing people back into care homes without coronavirus testing.

    Unlawful actions or state-sanctioned deaths?

    As Sky News reported, the government did not require care homes to test residents who were returning from a hospital until mid-April 2020. A court has now ruled that as unlawful. Sky News wrote that two judges said:

    policies contained in documents released in March and early April 2020 were unlawful because they failed to take into account the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from non-symptomatic transmission of the virus.

    They said that, despite there being “growing awareness” of the risk of asymptomatic transmission during March 2020, there was no evidence that Matt Hancock, who was health secretary at the time, addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

    But if you’re Hancock, then he and the government knew nothing about asymptomatic transmission.

    Hancock: lying

    BBC News questioned the former health secretary about this. Hancock gave the usual vacuous token apology for the “pain and the anguish” he and the government caused families. He trotted out the usual ‘lessons learned’ BS the government is so fond of. But crucially, Hancock claimed that:

    We ministers were not told about the asymptomatic transmission. This was a really important scientific fact.

    This is a lie. Sky News said as much, as it reported that:

    The SAGE scientific advisory group said “asymptomatic transmission cannot be ruled out” in early February.

    The evidence is clear: Hancock’s a liar

    On Twitter, people were pointing to vast amounts of evidence. This showed that the government would have known about asymptomatic transmission before mid-April 2020. Dr Anthony Costello from Independent SAGE put out a huge thread. It contained large amounts of research prior to April 2020 on this:

    Fionna O’Leary screen-grabbed a portion of the parliamentary record from 16 March 2020. It shows that Hancock seemed to know about asymptomatic transmission:

    A screengrab from Hansard of Matt Hancock speaking

    Broadcaster Matthew Stadlen claimed SAGE knew of this on 28 January 2020.

    So, either Hancock is a liar, he has a terrible memory, or – in light of scientific researchers producing documentary evidence of asymptomatic transmission in early 2020 – he thinks we’re all fools. It’s pretty clear which one it is.

    Featured image via BBC News – screengrab 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Ministers have been accused of dragging their feet over opening up a controversial Government “clearing house” for dealing with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to scrutiny.

    The Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee said it was “unacceptable” that a promised internal review by the Cabinet Office had yet to take place.

    The committee said the Cabinet Office had failed to provide a convincing explanation as to why it turned down a request by the Information Commissioner’s Office to conduct an audit of its operations.

    And it said its own investigations had found evidence of “poor FOI administration” in the Cabinet Office and which appeared “inconsistent with the spirit and principles” of the FOI Act.

    Blacklists?

    The Cabinet Office has previously denied the clearing house – which co-ordinates Whitehall’s response to certain FOI requests – was used to blacklist some information seekers, including some journalists.

    However, a tribunal ruling in April 2021 required the Government to release information about its operations, citing a “profound lack of transparency” about what it does.

    Prior to that, the committee said the clearing house had “an opaque status”.

    Following the ruling, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) made a request to carry out an audit of the clearing house’s operations but was turned down – a decision the committee said was “misjudged”.

    Instead the Cabinet Office announced it would conduct a short internal review but has yet to say who will conduct it or what their terms of reference will be.

    The committee said:

    This is an unacceptable delay. From the limited amount we know, the suggested direction of the review’s terms of reference lacks the same depth as the ICO’s proposed FOI audit approach.

    To reassure the public and this committee, we recommend that the Cabinet Office should instead expose itself to rigorous external third-party scrutiny from the ICO and accept the ICO’s offer of an audit.

    As the lead department in Whitehall on FOI, the committee said it was important the Cabinet Office was held to a higher standard to ensure “a vibrant FOI culture across government”.

    Withholding information

    Instead, however, there was evidence suggesting that, up to 2019 at least, the Cabinet Office granted fewer FOI requests and withheld more information than other departments.

    Committee chairman William Wragg said:

    Our Freedom of Information laws are a crucial part of our democracy, allowing citizens to hold government to account.

    As FoI policy owner and coordinating department, the Cabinet Office should be championing transparency across government, but its substandard FoI handling and failure to provide basic information about the working of the coordinating body has had the opposite effect.

    The Canary’s own journalists have repeatedly found the FOI system to not be fit for purpose. Indeed, in an investigation from last year, the Home Office told our journalist:

    This FOI request shows that we do respond to queries from The Canary but that there have been occasions where press officers have not done so.

    Civil servants must act with impartiality and must not act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular news media. We have reminded our media officers of that obligation.

    Wragg continued:

    An internal review alone won’t be sufficient to restore trust. The Government must go further and allow for an independent audit of its practices such as the one offered by the Information Commissioner.

    The Cabinet Office has dragged its feet for too long on this issue and must act now to remove suspicion around the clearing house, improve compliance with FoI laws and regain public confidence.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A devastated mother has spoken out about how her 17-year-old Black British son was found at an immigration detention centre after going missing from hospital. On hearing the news, outraged people took to Twitter to condemn the UK’s racist police and Home Office.

    A traumatic experience

    A woman’s son went missing after being sectioned under the Mental Health Act in a Kent hospital on 7 April.

    British Transport Police found him in Euston, London on 9 April. He had no phone, money, or ID. Rather than supporting the boy – who was registered as a missing person – the transport police arrested him on suspicion of not paying his train fare.

    Officers held the boy in police custody at a station in Islington, London. Here, they failed to communicate with the boy, and took his fingerprints.

    People who communicate non-verbally have the right to have an ‘interpreter’ present when police question or interview them. It is unclear whether the officers involved made such arrangements. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, enforcement should only arrest, detain or imprison under-18s “as a measure of last resort”.

    Prepared to deport him

    Police then sent the boy to Home Office immigration enforcement, who held him in immigration detention near Gatwick – despite him being a British citizen who has never left the country.

    Having incorrectly recorded his nationality as Nigerian, immigration officers prepared to deport the boy on the grounds that he hadn’t given officers “satisfactory or reliable answers”.

    The name and date of birth that immigration officers recorded on the boy’s documents were also incorrect.

    According to the Guardian, the non-verbal 17-year-old’s mother:

    said he would not have been able to say his date of birth properly, and would never have said he was from Nigeria.

    Racist Britain

    Calling out the officers involved in detaining her son, the boy’s mother told the Guardian:

    Because he’s black they just assumed ‘let’s pick him and put him in a deportation centre’.

    Expressing disgust at the boy’s treatment, barrister Michael Etienne tweeted:

    Chief executive of anti-racist charity Race on the Agenda Maurice Mcleod added:

    Violent institutions

    Indicting the many institutions involved in detaining the vulnerable boy, gal-dem editor Diyora Shadijanova said:

    Reflecting on the boy’s traumatic experience of racism and ableism at the hands of violent carceral institutions, barrister Zehrah Hasan tweeted:

    As if things weren’t bad enough

    The government’s authoritarian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and Nationality and Borders Bill became law on 28 April.

    Among other draconian measures, the policing act introduces more powers and protections for police, and harsher sentences for people who are in trouble with the law.

    Meanwhile, the inhumane anti-refugee law gives the Home Office the power to strip people of their British citizenship without notice, along with other measures that will exacerbate the UK’s ‘hostile environment‘.

    As a result of these new laws, we will no doubt see even more policing and criminalisation of minoritised people. This is particularly true when laws are enforced by such inherently racist and ableist institutions.

    Referring to this, Black Lives Matter posted:

    Highlighting a number of grassroots abolitionist groups working against police, prisons, and borders, Hasan shared:

    This case is further evidence that punitive institutions like the police, prisons, and immigration detention centres do not keep anyone safe or prevent harm. In the face of these violent and discriminatory institutions, we must be prepared to intervene in every police interaction and resist every immigration raid that takes place in our communities.

    Featured image via Oliver White/Wikimedia Commons – resized to 770×403, via Creative Commons 2.0

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Culture minister Nadine Dorries is no stranger to a gaffe. But her latest error is really stirring up a storm. Dorries is talking up the Tory plan to privatise Channel 4. Her latest outing was an interview with Iain Dale on LBC.

    Pink News CEO Benjamin Cohen was among those who picked up something odd in Dorries’ argument:

    Positive model?

    That’s right. Dorries tried to cite Channel 5 as a postive model of privatisation. But there’s a problem here. Channel 5 has been privately owned since it was founded… in 1997.

    Cohen also pointed out that Channel 5 was hardly a good example of privatisation being better than non-privatised media. After all, Channel 4 makes several times the revenue of Channel 5:

    Naturally, social media users were quick point out the culture minister’s errors. In fact, even the media correspondent from the right-wing Times newspaper waded in:

    Buyout

    As another journalist pointed out, Channel 5 was bought out by a US firm not too long ago. The results are hardly an argument for selling off Channel 4:

    Others were even more critical of Dorries. One suggested that the minister might need the UK media landscape explained to her in crayon:

    Fever dream

    Meanwhile, another person feared that Dorries was a character in some bizarre fever dream he was having:

    One Twitter user lamented Dorries’ suggestion that Channel 5 was a successful model of neoliberal television by comparing it to Netto, a defunct supermarket chain:

    It was also pointed out that the privately owned Channel 5, unlike Channel 4, was not exactly known for its weighty contributions to culture:

    Misspoke

    Dorries later claimed to have misspoken, and that her error did not alter her point. True to form, she branded the criticism she had received as personal attacks. However, a number of her critics were not convinced:

    But underpinning all of this is the Tory claim that Channel 4 provides biased, liberal coverage while receiving public money. This claim itself is strongly contested, for example, by the fact checking service Full Fact. According to Full Fact:

    This is not true in the usual meaning of that phrase. Channel 4 funds itself with commercial operations. Its debt appears on public accounts, but it also pays tax.

    So it looks like Dorries, and the Tories generally, are less concerned about turning Channel 4 into a profitable business. It is more likely that they are far more interested in shutting down even vaguely critical media coverage.

    So much for their commitment to free speech. It’s just business as usual for the Nasty Party.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/DDCMS, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under Public Domain Mark 1.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Cancer patients are struggling to eat and heat their homes. That’s what a charity found when it surveyed 2,000 people living with the disease. The blame for this can be firmly placed on the government and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) – unless of course you’re the Guardian. For them, cancer patients’ suffering is ‘just one of those things’ in the faceless “cost of living crisis“.

    Cancer: appalling findings

    Macmillan Cancer Support surveyed 2,000 cancer patients about their financial situation. The charity framed it in the context of the so-called “cost of living crisis”. As the Guardian reported, Macmillan found that among cancer patients:

    • 32% are “wearing coats or dressing gowns indoors more to try to stay warm”.
    • 24% “can’t afford life at the moment”.
    • 24% “have been buying less food or making fewer hot meals”.
    • 16% have been “washing their clothes or bedding less – or not at all”.

    Pretty shocking figures, no doubt. It’s worse when you consider the health needs of cancer patients. Lara Burwell, who lives with thyroid cancer, said that:

    I have overwhelming anxiety as all the money worries add up, and on top of this I am so fearful about how our standard of living will affect my cancer recovery. We’ve completely cut out heating, which is horrible as my treatment means I get really cold, but even with that saving I’m not sure we can afford the rent any more.

    The DWP: blameless?

    But who is responsible for leaving cancer patients in this dire situation? If you read the Guardian article – you’d have no idea. It managed to write over 500 words on the story without once mentioning:

    • The government.
    • The DWP.
    • HMRC.
    • Energy companies.

    That is, the Guardian did not give any context as to whose actions were causing cancer patients’ suffering. This is despite the culprits being obvious.

    DWP: attacking the poorest people

    For example, Disability News Service (DNS) reported on the state of the DWP. It noted that it was taking on average 23 weeks (nearly six months) to deal with people’s Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claims. Many of these would likely be for cancer. Then, you also have the built-in five week wait for people’s first Universal Credit payment that the DWP inflicts on new claimants. On top of this, it also makes chronically ill, sick, and disabled people wait three months for the extra sickness and disability payments in Universal Credit.

    HMRC isn’t blameless in this, either. It deals with Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), which some cancer patients will claim. The UK’s SSP rate of just over £99 a week is one of the lowest in Europe. Moreover, the EU found it breached its Social Charter in 2018, saying that UK SSP was “manifestly inadequate” and “not in conformity” with the charter. The Institute for Employment Rights noted that:

    Only three countries – including the UK – apply a flat rate of [SSP] to all workers, and we are one of only four that do not extend this protection to the self-employed.

    All of this is without the energy companies seeing a £1bn-plus profit bonanza as people’s prices surge. Yet if you’re the Guardian none of this matters, and cancer patients’ hardship and destitution is all down to the faceless, perpetrator-less “cost of living crisis“.

    The Guardian: don’t mention the class war

    When even right-wing tabloid the Express manages to report on campaigner’s claimed link between the DWP and cancer patient’s suffering, you know the Guardian has had it. However, the broader point is that its approach sums up a wider problem.

    The media’s framing of the wilful persecution of the poorest people as a ‘cost of living crisis’ helps absolve the government and corporations of any responsibility. It downplays the fact that they know their policies and inaction are hitting the poorest the hardest. So, framing forced destitution as “Tory incompetence”, like Labour leader Keir Starmer did, means the class war we’re in the midst of becomes an almost benign entity about which nothing can be done. You’d hope the Guardian would know better. Sadly, it seems it doesn’t.

    Featured image via Sander van der Wel – Flickr, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Royal tours to the Caribbean should be scrapped unless the royal family uses them to address “truth, reconciliation and justice”, a political activist has warned.

    Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu branded the Earl and Countess of Wessex and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s Jubilee trips to the Queen’s island realms as an

    embarrassment to the British monarchy.

    The overseas visits were met with controversy as campaigners demanded apologies from the royal family and reparation over slavery, while numerous nations set out their intentions to become republics.

    Earl and Countess of Wessex visit to the Caribbean – Day 2
    Protests were staged as the Earl and Countess of Wessex arrived at Government House in St Vincent and the Grenadines (Joe Giddens/PA)

    Legacy of empire

    Lawyer Dr Mos-Shogbamimu told the PA news agency:

    If the purpose of the trip is what we’ve seen which is basically a continuation of representing the legacy of the British Empire, then absolutely yes these tours should just end.

    Quite frankly these royal tours that we’ve seen to date are an embarrassment to the British monarchy.

    However if the royal tour was one that speaks to what many of these Afro-Caribbean nations are seeking to address, which is truth, reconciliation and justice, then you need to get on board those tours and make them work.

    During Edward and Sophie’s trip to Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda, which came to a close on Thursday, the earl was criticised for his response after being pressed over reparations.

    The Queen’s youngest son gave a nervous laugh when asked to make remarks after the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda called on the Wessexes to use their “diplomatic influence” to achieve “reparatory justice”, and outlined the country’s wish to “one day become a republic”.

    Earl and Countess of Wessex visit to the Caribbean – Day 4
    Edward and Sophie meet Gaston Browne, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda (Joe Giddens/PA)

    The earl joked that he had not been taking notes during Gaston Browne’s opening comments, so could not respond to all the points he had made.

    Dr Mos-Shogbamimu accused Edward of “arrogance”, saying:

    He’s not taking notes? What the hell is he doing there? That was his response to very sensitive issues that pertain to people of that country.

    She highlighted the two years since the global Black Lives Matter movement, saying:

    What I can’t understand is how, in 2022, we still have a royal family that refuses to get with the programme, that is so behind the times. They are losing all relevance.

    Colonial days

    William and Kate were accused of harking back to colonial days in Jamaica in March after the pair shook hands with crowds behind a wire mesh fence and rode in the back of a Land Rover, just like the Queen did 60 years ago.

    Demonstrators accused them of benefiting from the “blood, tears and sweat” of slaves, while in the Bahamas they were urged to acknowledge the British economy was “built on the backs” of past Bahamians and to pay reparations.

    Jamaica’s prime minister Andrew Holness suggested to William and Kate that his country may be the next to become a republic, while a minister from Belize said afterwards that perhaps it was time to “take the next step in truly owning our independence”.

    William acknowledged after the trip that the monarchy’s days in the Caribbean may be numbered as he stated the future “is for the people to decide upon”.

    He stressed that he and Kate were “committed to service” and saw their role as supporting people, “not telling them what to do”.

    The duke had expressed “profound sorrow” in a speech during his visit at the forced transportation of millions of people from Africa to the Caribbean and North America.

    Responsibility

    Future king Charles addressed the “appalling atrocity of slavery”, describing it as something “which forever stains our history” last November when he attended the ceremony marking Barbados’ transition to a republic.

    But the royals’ rhetoric has been criticised as “phony sanctimony” by campaigners who asked for the “mantra” not to be repeated in an open letter from the Antigua and Barbuda Reparations Support Commission to Edward and Sophie.

    Dr Mos-Shogbamimu said:

    ‘Oh we acknowledge that slavery was abhorrent.’ Please kiss my royal chuddy. What nonsense.

    I don’t need you to tell me that. I know that slavery was abhorrent. I want to know how and when you are going to take responsibility.

    This does not mean asking Prince William or Prince Edward to be personally responsible. No, they are institutionally responsible. It’s a collective responsibility.

    Royal visit to the Caribbean – Day 6
    The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attending the inaugural Commissioning Parade in Kingston, Jamaica (Jane Barlow/PA)

    “Ill equipped”

    The British royal family was involved in the transportation and selling of people for profit for centuries with Elizabeth I becoming involved in the lucrative dealings of John Hawkins, one of Britain’s first slave traders in the 16th century.

    When his first adventure proved successful and his ships returned laden with goods, she supported his future expeditions by providing vessels to carry the human cargo.

    The connections between the royal family and slavery continued with Charles II, who encouraged the expansion of the slave trade.

    He granted a charter to a group of men, the Royal Adventurers, who later became the Royal African Company – and the monarch invested his private funds in the venture.

    During the Wessexes’ seven-day tour, demonstrators in Saint Lucia displayed banners reading “repatriation with reparations” and “Queen say sorry”.

    The couple also received warm welcomes, with visits to a Sail-Ability programme in Antigua and Barbuda, Sophie taking questions on female empowerment at a secondary school in Saint Lucia, and Edward visiting Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’ national stadium to meet athletes training for the Commonwealth Games.

    Former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt suggested the Windsors appeared

    ill equipped to rise to the occasion.

    Hunt said:

    The Caribbean visits showed the royals behaving as they always do, but the world has moved on in the wake of the Windrush scandal and Black Lives Matter.

    Any future trips would be unwise, as the role of Britain and the monarchy in the slave trade would feature and the royals appear ill equipped to rise to the occasion.

    Buckingham Palace has yet to comment.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On the day that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill becomes law, another Kill The Bill defendant, Charli-Mae Pitman, has been found guilty of riot.

    Charli-Mae is one of at least 82 people who were arrested following protests in early 2021 against the draconian Police Bill. 15 others have already received prison sentences for taking part in the protest.

    Audacity of the state

    The state has been relentless in trying to track down people who were involved in the first of the protests, which saw police vehicles set on fire after police officers used extreme violence on protesters, including cracking the edges of their shields down onto people’s heads, striking them with batons, the use of pepper spray, and setting their dogs on people.

    During the trial, prosecutor Sarah Regan showed the state’s audacity when she said:

    The re-writing of history is very relevant to what you have to determine. This is what we say Charli-Mae Pitman is attempting to do.

    She continued:

    On 21 march she was a rioter. She showed her hatred towards the police and showed her hatred against them.

    However, this was a classic case of the state gaslighting the jury. It is, in fact, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – with its police witnesses who said they feared for their lives – who are re-writing history. It is the CPS that has shown the jury carefully edited footage of the events of the 21 March, sewing it together to make a very inaccurate timeline of what actually happened that day: they condensed an eight hour day to around 15 minutes of footage.

    Regan herself was telling untruths as she made her closing speech, in a successful attempt to find Charli-Mae, who suffers from anxiety, guilty. Charli-Mae was seen in footage to throw something, which she had said was a piece of paper or cardboard, towards the police. Regan said matter-of-factly to the jury that it was, in fact, glass, with zero evidence that this was the case.

    Where’s your broken bones?

    The CPS’s re-writing of history in court follows on from the Avon and Somerset police doing the same thing. Following the first Kill The Bill protest, the force said that its officers had suffered broken bones, and one officer had suffered a punctured lung. It quietly retracted this statement, but only after this fabrication had made news headlines, broadcasting to the nation the story of a mob attacking a defenceless, innocent police.

    However, there’s plenty of evidence of the horrific police violence that took place during Bristol’s Kill The Bill protests in late March, and there were calls from Labour politicians for an investigation into the heavy-handed policing. Just how many protesters were injured isn’t known, but 62 injuries were reported, including seven injuries that needed hospital treatment and 22 head injuries. Meanwhile, Avon and Somerset’s police chief stepped down shortly after criticisms of the policing of the Kill The Bill protests.

    Who’s the real violent mob?

    Charli-Mae was shown on footage to kick out at a police officer, flick a police shield, and hit a policeman on his helmet. This is nothing in comparison to a police force that brutalised protesters and admitted in court that they used “multiple shield and baton strikes“. Yet she is the one who faces a prison sentence, while the officers involved in the events of the 21 March continue to keep their jobs with zero consequences.

    We have to ask who is really the “violent mob” terrorising our neighbourhoods? Could it be those who are paid to ‘protect’ us while they repeatedly beat us over the head dressed as RoboCop?

    According to Inquest, police in England and Wales have been responsible for:

    1815 deaths in police custody or otherwise following contact with the police in England & Wales since 1990.

    Then, there’s at least 194 women who have been murdered by the police and prison system in England and Wales. Back in May 2021, Channel 4 News reported that at least 129 women had come forward in the last two years to report that their police officer partner was abusing either them or their children.

    On top of this, the police’s “racism, misogyny” and “harassment” throughout the country is well-documented. The vile text messages they send to each other about rape, and the selfies they took of themselves with the bodies of Black women Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry: these have been made public.

    Yet instead of taking police powers away, we’re living in a society that has just given them much, much more. With the passing of the Police Bill, they’re going to get away with so much more. It doesn’t bear thinking about.

    Featured image via Shoal Collective

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 27 April, a series of authoritarian and discriminatory bills passed through parliament. Having been granted royal assent on 28 April, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill; Judicial Review and Courts Bill; and Elections Bill  became law. This comes after a year of parliamentary “ping-pong” and widespread resistance to these oppressive bills.

    The controversial Nationality and Borders Bill and Health and Care Bill are also due to become law on 28 April.

    Each piece of legislation increases the government’s power while chipping away at our civil liberties and decreasing our ability to hold the state to account. The passage of these bills is devastating, but we must continue to fight for our fundamental freedoms.

    It’s official

    In spite of widespread opposition led by Sisters Uncut and the Kill the Bill coalition, both Houses of Parliament approved the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. It became law on 28 April.

    Calling this a “dark day for civil liberties in the UK”, Amnesty International CEO Sacha Deshmukh said that it:

    places profound and significant restrictions on the basic right to peacefully protest and will have a severely detrimental impact on the ability of ordinary people to make their concerns heard.

    This includes a ban on noisy protest and the introduction of other rules designed to limit effective protest. However, this does not mean a blanket ban on protests – we can still take to the streets to challenge the law.

    The new legislation also includes increased police powers and protections, harsher sentencing, new rules on trespass, and the introduction of ‘secure schools‘. It will disproportionately impact the most marginalised people in society, including Black and brown people; Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller people; and sex workers.

    Both Houses of Parliament have approved the Health and Social Care Bill, and it is awaiting royal assent. This bill seeks to accelerate NHS privatisation

    Other authoritarian laws

    The Elections Bill also received royal assent on 28 April. This means that the Electoral Commission – the watchdog responsible for holding UK governments to account on electoral matters – is no longer an independent body. As reported by the London Economic, this:

    could now give ministers new and unchecked powers over the elections regulator, undermining free and fair elections in the UK.

    This is an open attack on democracy.

    The government’s controversial plan to introduce voter ID is included in this bill. In effect, this is a tool for voter suppression, as over 2 million people don’t have the required ID under the new law.

    Unsurprisingly, this will disproportionately disenfranchise working class and marginalised people. Those hit hardest will include young people, Black and racially minoritised people, disabled people, trans people, homeless and nomadic people, and anyone who can’t afford steep photo ID fees.

    The Judicial Review and Courts Act also became law on 28 April. Campaigners have warned that the new legislation will make it harder to challenge the government in court, depriving vulnerable people of access to justice. This could include people challenging life-threatening deportations or those fighting against the unlawful denial of their benefits.

    More in the pipeline

    The Nationality and Borders Bill passed through parliament on 27 April, and is set to become law. This includes plans to detain and process asylum seekers overseas, and to empower the Home Office to remove people’s British citizenship without notice.

    United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi has warned that when it becomes law, the anti-refugee legislation will relegate asylum seekers to second-class citizenship in the UK. Other human rights bodies have accused the government of ‘abandoning its responsibilities’ under the international Refugee Convention.

    The Health and Care Bill is also awaiting royal assent before becoming law. Through this bill, the government seeks to accelerate NHS privatisation.

    Warning against the ‘catastrophic’ impact the legislation will have on NHS patients and staff, Keep Our NHS Public co-chair and retired paediatrician Dr Tony O’Sullivan said:

    This is an Act of intent, deliberately breaking up the NHS and facilitating the spread of parasitizing private interests, looking to make billions from funding for public services.

    O’Sullivan adds that the new legislation will limit patients’ access to free and safe care, with care costs putting some at risk of losing their home. This will inevitably hit the poorest hardest.

    But wait, there’s even more

    When parliament returns in summer, the government will try to push through its Online Safety Bill and human rights reforms.

    Setting out its concerns about the Online Safety Bill, civil society organisation ARTICLE 19 said:

    The Bill is an extremely complex and incoherent piece of legislation that will undermine freedom of expression and information, privacy and the rule of law and will ultimately be ineffective in achieving its stated goal of making the Internet a safer place.

    Through the bill, the government seeks to clamp-down on ordinary people’s right to free speech, and to increase surveillance of our online activity.

    Meanwhile, as barrister David Renton explains, the government’s proposed reforms to the Human Rights Act would essentially “make rights harder to enforce”. The act has helped a wide range of groups in their quest for justice and accountability, from the Hillsborough families to people fighting evictions.

    The proposed changes to the Human Rights Act would put barriers in the way of human rights claims, and limit our ability to seek justice from the state. This is particularly true for marginalised and working class people looking to hold the state to account.

    While the government continues to attack us on all fronts, our ability to defend our rights could not be more important.

    Time to become ungovernable

    The passing of these authoritarian and discriminatory bills shows that electoral politics won’t save us. Now more than ever, we must take to the streets and organise on the ground to seize our civil liberties and create the society we want to live in.

    Those who tirelessly organised against the government’s repressive bills are still hard at work, and committed to bringing about the changes we need to see.

    Feminist direct action group Sisters Uncut and Operation Withdraw Consent coalition members are urging the public to withdraw consent from policing and make the policing bill unenforceable. Join your local copwatching group to monitor and disrupt policing in your community.

    Civil liberties organisation Liberty is raising funds to provide legal advice and training for ordinary people fighting against the policing bill.

    Meanwhile, Refugee Action is building a movement to repeal the anti-refugee laws. Grassroots abolitionist group SOAS Detainee Support – which has been working in solidarity with detained people against the anti-refugee bill and policing bill – is welcoming new members.

    Elsewhere, groups such as We Own It  and Keep Our NHS Public have committed to fighting NHS privatisation.

    This week’s losses should energise us all to organise against the fascist state and its institutions. Freedoms are won on the streets. Resistance is built by communities. Our only hope for the future lies in widespread grassroots resistance. So tell your friends, family, and neighbours to get involved. We need everyone on board if we are to build a fair and just society.

    Featured image via Kyle Bushnell/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • More than nine in 10 people do not think Channel Four would struggle to be a success if it remained in public ownership, a new survey suggests.

    Some 96% of responses to a Government consultation said they did not agree with the statement that there are “challenges in the current TV broadcasting market” that present barriers to “a sustainable Channel Four” staying in public hands.

    Just 2% said they agreed.

    Clear outlook

    A large number of responses to the consultation came through the social campaigning organisation 38 Degrees, which rephrased the Government’s statement as: “Do you think Channel Four should be privatised?”

    But even with these stripped out of the figures, the vast majority of the other respondents – 89% – disagreed that Channel Four is facing challenges to a successful future in public ownership, while 5% agreed.

    A total of 55,737 responses were received from individuals to this question, 40,408 of which came via the 38 Degrees campaign.

    The broadcaster has been publicly owned since it was founded in 1982 and is funded by advertising.

    The Government is forging ahead with plans to privatise it, claiming public ownership is holding it back from competing with streaming giants such as Netflix.

    The consultation also asked whether Channel Four would be “better placed to deliver sustainably against the Government’s aims for public service broadcasting” if it was outside public ownership.

    Of the 55,365 responses received from individuals, 91% said no to this question, while 4% said yes.

    Excluding the 40,076 responses that came via the 38 Degrees campaign – which rephrased the question as “do you think a privatised Channel Four will be more financially sustainable than in public ownership?” – the percentages were 88% against and 9% in favour.

    White paper

    Plans for the sale are set out in a White Paper, which argues the market in which Channel Four operates “has changed radically and is continuing to change” since it was established.

    While it acknowledges the channel is currently commercially and financially successful, the paper continues:

    The company’s current financial position and its short-term outlook cannot therefore be our sole focus.

    Its historical performance does not guarantee its future sustainability – we must pay attention to the longer term outlook too and consider what tools will be necessary for future success.

    The paper acknowledges there is “a clear strength of feeling on this issue” and said the Government has taken the consultation responses into account and “examined a broad range of other options outside of a change of ownership”.

    It added: “This is not a decision the Government has taken lightly.”

    Independent production

    The paper also said the Government acknowledges concerns raised during the consultation about the impact removing the publisher-broadcaster restriction on Channel Four, which effectively bans it from producing its own content, could have on the independent production sector.

    However, it added:

    We do not agree with those who have argued that it is necessary to retain the restriction in order for the sector to continue to succeed.

    The paper continues:

    The Government does not believe that private ownership has to be to the detriment of public good. It is not a binary choice, and the right owner will provide more investment, and support Channel Four’s role in delivering public good.

    However, the director of anti-privatisation campaigners We Own It, Cat Hobbs said:

    It’s a unique business model this country can be proud of. Selling it off would destroy jobs from Glasgow to Leeds, from Bristol to Peterborough. 82% of us are against this privatisation and we will fight it every step of the way. ‘Levelling up’ and ‘taking back control’ means being proud of this Great British success story, not selling it off.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On Monday 24 April, the government announced that it was abandoning its plans to push back migrant boats in the Channel, just days before a legal challenge was set to begin.

    This is a profound shift from last September, when volunteers from Channel Rescue witnessed Border Force agents practising using jet skis “pushing back” people in small boats seeking safety in the Channel. The Home Office ordered such exercises in the full knowledge of their lethality. ‘In the Mediterranean Sea’, a report released by the Border Violence Monitoring Network, showed that over 2000 refugees deaths were linked to pushbacks in one year alone. “Pushback” is simply a euphemism for state-sanctioned punishment drowning.

    Legal challenge

    Such tactics are as unlawful as they are dangerous. That’s why four organisations from a range of backgrounds – the Public and Commercial Services Union representing border staff themselves, refugee solidarity organisation Care4Calais, monitoring group Channel Rescue, and human rights group Freedom from Torture – brought a legal challenge. Among other things, we argued that the policy directed officers to breach asylum seekers’ rights to life, and their right not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. We argued that this was a breach of international maritime law, which compels seafarers to help – not harm – people struggling at sea. The Home Office backed down in order to stay out of court – a sign of just how flimsy their case was.

    This victory is not only important in terms of the lives it will directly save. Pushbacks are the thin end of a wedge with consequences not only for migrants, but for our rights and freedoms as a whole. In the Mediterranean, we have already witnessed governments attempting to criminalise seafarers carrying out their duty to rescue people in distress. In May, a crew of human rights defenders will go on trial under sham charges of “aiding illegal migration” for saving people from drowning, and could face over a decade behind bars.

    From demanding that teachers and doctors help with the policing of borders, to introducing mass surveillance under the guise of security, to pouring billions in public money into private prison profiteers, there are far wider consequences of this government’s war on migrants. From the rescue boats of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to the Archbishop of Canterbury, we have seen chilling attempts from the media and politicians to bully and silence people who have dared to stand up for refugee lives.

    Borders bill

    Our victory comes as the Nationality and Borders Bill reaches its final stages in parliament, and as the government announces its disastrous plan to force people seeking asylum onto deportation flights to Rwanda. Former refugee Elahe Zivardar, detained on Manus Island in Australia, has written this week about her own experience of violence and abuse in a scheme she says is “near-identical” to the Rwanda plan:

    Instead of being processing centres, these island prisons are a place of torture, humiliation, cruelty and racism. They are intended to drive innocent people to either go back to the countries from which they came, or die on the island – which some have.

    In the Australian case, the International Criminal Court declared the policy unlawful. There may soon be more fights on our hands.

    We should not have had to take the government to court to defend the sanctity of life. However, the retreat from the government was not just about the legal weakness of the pushbacks case. It’s one thing to attempt to win votes with cheap rhetoric about border control. Yet when ordinary people see the human consequences of border violence up close; when legal challenges and public campaigns force the media to report on the realities of the situation facing migrants and refugees; human decency triumphs. That’s why the anti-migrant wing of politics and public life go to such lengths – from criminalising humanitarians to smearing refugees – to distract from and dissuade our natural instinct to help people who need it.

    Ethics

    The rapid response in Europe to the plight of Ukrainian refugees shows that we are capable of organising relief at a large scale and short notice, and letting compassion lead our approach. Few people want to live in a world where we drown people seeking safety at sea, lock them in detention centres indefinitely, or ship them halfway across the planet. However, if we’re serious about building a different and better future and fighting for safe pathways, an ethical moral migration policy is a shared responsibility. It won’t happen in the courts alone – what happens next is up to us all.

    Written by Kim Bryan, Steve Martin, and Channel Rescue

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Arriva436 – cropped to 770×403 via Creative Commons 3.0

    By Channel Rescue

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The think tank Policy Exchange has released a report – ‘Delegitimising Counter-Terrorism’ – which makes the case that:

    the groups opposing Prevent have tended to criticise pretty much any counter-terrorism policy.

    Generally, that is how opposition to policy works.

    Noted Islamophobe David Cameron praised the report:

    Muhammad Rabbani, Managing Director of CAGE, said:

    It is very telling that in its attempt to defend PREVENT, Policy Exchange has completely ignored the vast body of critique from beyond the Muslim community. This underlines their open Islamophobic agenda.

    It’s indicative of Islamophobia in the UK when Former PM’s give their name to such open hostility to Muslim civil society.

    Activists targeted

    A number of activists, many of whom were mentioned in the report, took to social media.

    Research director of CAGE Dr. Asim Qureshi referenced the front page of The Times:

    The editor of British Muslim news site 5Pillars Roshan Salih, meanwhile, collated a tongue-in-cheek league table for the activists mentioned in the report:

    The Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, Zara Mohammed, also noted her inclusion:

    Dr. Maria Norris pointed out that Cameron and Policy Exchange’s perspectives are wholly Islamophobic:

    Moreover, MP Zarah Sultana also pointed out the racist double standards:

    Dissent

    Both the report and Cameron’s comments are characteristic of a racist and Islamophobic society which continually punishes any dissent. As Rabbani also said:

    Civil society organisations defending their communities are no stranger to state sponsored defamation. Hence, to suggest critiquing prevent equates to enabling terrorism is not only desperate, but also libellous. The former Prime Minister and Policy Exchange seem wholly unable to respect the long standing democratic tradition of dissent and holding those in power to account.

    The desperation of the racism on display is reflective of the strength of activists and campaigners who have made it their mission to call out Islamophobia wherever they see it. That’s a motivation we would all do well to adopt.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Fibonacci Blue – resized to 770×403, via Creative Commons 2.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Another Kill The Bill activist has been standing trial in Bristol this week. Charli-Mae Pitman is one of at least 82 people who were arrested following a succession of protests against the draconian Police Bill. During the protests, police hit people over the head with batons, cracked their shields onto activists’ skulls, and set police dogs on them. 62 people reported injuries.

    Charli-Mae is charged with riot after attending the protest on 21 March, which saw police vehicles set on fire and police station windows smashed after the police attacked demonstrators. There were calls by politicians for an investigation to examine the violent and disproportionate policing of the protests, but of course, this has not happened. Instead, it is the protesters who find themselves in the dock.

    Charli-Mae told the court that she attended the protest to join the vigil for Sarah Everard, who had been murdered by a police officer. Accused of joining in chants such as “Whose streets? Our streets”, she said:

    It was personal to me because of Reclaim The Nights… It was a solidarity gesture so that women can walk freely in the night without being hurt.

    “Vulnerable”, “confused” and “disorientated”

    Prosecutor Sarah Regan attempted to portray Charli-Mae – a young woman suffering from anxiety, who lost her two friends in the massive crowd, and whose phone had died so she had no way of contacting them – as a rioter who was part of a “violent mob”. Rather than acting with others around her, Charli-Mae said that she was “vulnerable”, “confused” and “disorientated”.

    Regan portrayed the police as a defenceless force who were attacked with “missiles”. Meanwhile, police officers who took the stand also fed into a narrative that they acted purely in self defence.

    But two police officers admitted that they had used not just their batons, but their shields, to attack the crowd. In a statement that was read out, PC Williams said:

    I performed multiple shield and baton strikes…

    The jury was played a number of pieces of footage, a lot of which showed the extreme violence of the police officers that has already been well-documented in both The Canary and the mainstream press.

    Defending women

    Charli-Mae herself is accused of standing at the front of the crowd, kicking out at PC Bowers and hitting him on his helmet. She said that she kicked out:

    because I saw others around me, including myself, be pushed and shoved by police. I struck out to make space for myself and create a bubble.

    Bell asked her how she felt at that moment. She said:

    Frustrated. I went for a peaceful protest and police were in front of me in riot gear. It made me feel intimidated.

    Charli-Mae told the jury that she was hit and shoved by police using their shields, and that she fell several times. She said that she saw a woman struck multiple times by a police officer using a baton. Bell asked her how she felt when she saw others struck by the police. She replied:

    scared, actually.

    Asked if she felt like she was in imminent danger, she said:

    yes.

    Defence barrister Harford-Bell said:

    She was – is – very protective of others. She – no doubt then and no doubt now – felt very protective in particular of other women. She had seen her friend being attacked…

    We know that she says she acted because she was defending another.

    During the protest, she picked up something from the ground – which she said was a piece of paper or cardboard – and threw it towards the police. She said:

    I didn’t do it maliciously… It wasn’t a gesture to hit the police. It was to release my frustration at that situation. They’d released dogs and horses at this point. I’m a bit scared of dogs.

    Regan asked her why she didn’t leave the scene. She said that she didn’t feel safe leaving on her own. She recalled:

    Every time I went to move back I was pushed forward. I didn’t want to turn round and just leave because I was scared of what was going on behind me.

    Targeting Bristol’s protesters

    The targeting of Charli-Mae is part of the state’s ongoing persecution and repression of the Bristol residents who took to the streets last March.

    Bristol Anti-Repression Campaign (BARC), which is made up of a number of the defendants and their supporters, released a statement of support for Charli-Mae. It said:

    The protest took place just days after Sarah Everard’s murder by a police officer. The brutality the police used to shut down the protest reminded us again of the violence of policing. And the aftermath of the protest – the arrests, raids, harsh prison sentences and trumped up charges – reminds us of the violence, sometimes less visible but just as scarring, of the entire criminal justice system.

    Harsh prison sentences

    BARC continued:

    We’ve been disgusted by the number of harsh prison sentences that have been handed out following the protest. We see this as political repression — it’s clear the police and courts are sending out a message that anyone who opposes them will be heavily punished. Last year, Ryan Roberts was given a shocking 14 year sentence for their involvement in the protests, and we’ve seen people receive prison time for ‘crimes’ like nicking a policeman’s hat!

    These harsh sentences illustrate how the court system criminalises protest and punishes those who act for social change.

    The jury is likely to reach a verdict tomorrow.

    Featured image via Shoal Collective

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group (SYMAAG) has shared footage online of what appears to be South Yorkshire Police striking protestors and using pepper spray. SYMAAG said:

    This began, and should have ended, as a peaceful, calm protest showing solidarity with those in Kurdistan. Instead the police reacted in a way completely out of proportion to the protest and the actions of those present. This was a protest with families and young children.

    Instead, officers seem to drag one person away, whilst beating others back:

    SYMAAG also outline in an earlier tweet that Kurdish flags were ripped away from protestors:

    Sequence of events

    SYMAAG explain how the police made their presence felt at the protest. In a statement released on their social media, they explain why they held the protest:

    Since Sunday 17th April,  Turkey’s army -one of NATO’s largest armies has been invading parts of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan. In response to this attack and in solidarity with Kurdish people resisting the invasion, the Sheffield Kurdish Community and its supporters came together for a rally in front of Sheffield Town Hall on the afternoon of the 24th of April.

    They detail how, as the rally was coming to a close, police asked the attendees to hand in their flags:

    As the rally ended and people started packing up banners and flags, two policemen approached one member of the community and asked him to hand in his Kurdish flags. The man refused and tried to continue collecting his things, helped by friends. After moving the conversation to the town hall stairs, the police insisted on getting the flags from the man. For about forty five minutes, police and rally attendees argued on the steps.

    Because the man held on to his flags, the police then acted forcefully:

    The police would not let people go home with the flags and banners they brought. After a while, the man asked if he was under arrest to which the police replied negatively. The police, seeing that people would not give their flags, tried to forcefully grab the flag and the flagpole, which ended up breaking. Police then decided to arrest the man in question and several extra policemen violently pushed away attenders including women, teenagers and younger children. This put families and children in a state of shock, with many crying for help. 

    This police violence continued:

    People followed, trying to support the man and stop the arrest. The police then indiscriminately used pepper spray and punched people in order to disperse the supporters. Several men, women and a teenager were badly affected by pepper spray with eyes and throat burning. An ambulance was almost called as the teenager could not stand up for a while, crying and disoriented. The man put under arrest was taken to the police station and released later in the evening.

    Sheffield Superintendent Benn Kemp said:

    We know there has been some community concern regarding the circumstances surrounding yesterday’s arrest.

    Footage of the incident and the events leading up to the arrest is currently being reviewed at Chief Officer level.

    More than concern

    Kemp’s comments do very little to inspire confidence in either the police or their review process. As SYMAAG’s statements show, protestors in Sheffield were met with heavy-handed policing. Concerningly, there’s also the implication of extremism or terrorism as a possible explanation for the police’s actions.

    As The Yorkshire Post report:

    A 44-year-old man from Sheffield was arrested shortly before 2pm at the protest, on suspicion of displaying articles suggesting support for a proscribed organisation, which is an offence set out in the Terrorism Act 2000. He was then released under investigation.

    It is commonplace for Kurdish people and their supporters to be immediately cast under suspicion. As The Canary’s Emily Apple reports from a trip to Bakur:

     In every meeting we go to, in every interview we conduct, eventually we discuss what sentences people are facing or have already served.

    Everyone is charged with “membership of a terrorist organisation”. But these are not terrorists. These are lawyers, journalists, MPs, co-op members, and human rights activists. Their crime is being Kurdish and supporting radical democracy in the face of president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s fascistic regime.

    The actions of South Yorkshire Police are frighteningly similar to the broader repression faced by Kurdish people in Turkey. It’s going to take far more than a review to address these injustices.

    South Yorkshire Police had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

    Featured image shared with permission.

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • We’re currently in the midst of a class war in the UK. However, if you’re the political and media class, it’s a “cost of living crisis“. The latest plans from the Tories do nothing to help the poorest people. But if you’re rich, of course, you’ll be better off.

    Tory warfare

    First up in this class warfare is changing the rules around MOTs. The Tories want to relax them so that cars only have to have one every two years; this is possibly unsafe, to say the least. The major problem with this is it won’t help the poorest people. As I previously wrote, only 35% of the poorest households own a car – versus 93% of the richest ones.

    Then, BBC News reported that the Tories want to increase the number of kids one childcare worker can legally look after. The grand idea behind this is that it will reduce costs – allegedly making the price that parents pay cheaper. However, its mostly richer parents using childcare anyway. Research from 2016 showed that 78% of the poorest parents/guardians wouldn’t return to work/work more hours because of childcare costs. The Tories’ plans will do nothing to address this. As Labour pointed out, it won’t affect availability and therefore won’t affect the cost.

    Don’t worry though – enter Tory MP John Redwood to suggest removing VAT from energy bills. Yeah, thanks for that John. I look forward to saving 5p on the pound it costs my family every time we turn the shower on.

    Class war

    The point is that none of these measures will do anything for the poorest households. You know – the ones bearing the brunt of this class war. Even before things like the 54% energy price increase and National Insurance hike came in, 34% of the poorest people were struggling to pay their bills. In the coming months, there’s going to be carnage.

    If you’re wondering how seriously politicians and the media are taking the class war, look no further than cooking. Angela Rayner, Sajid Javid, the Mirror‘s Pippa Crear and LBC‘s Iain Dale were all happily taking part in a bake-off on Tuesday 26 April. Talk about not reading the fucking room. Because really – cosying-up to bake on the same day we found out food prices have risen by the most in over a decade? Our misery is all a joke to these careerists, whose performative anger at each other is clearly just that.

    So, another day and the political class wage yet more economic warfare on the poorest. And with at least 1.3 million more people set to be pushed into absolute poverty this year, the situation will only get worse. Remind me: when does the revolution start?

    Featured image via 10 Downing Street – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The pay gap between people with disabilities and those without grew last year, new data show.

    The Office for National Statistics revealed that the average employee with a disability was paid 13.8% less than their peers in 2021.

    It was a small increase from 13.5% the year before, and the pay gap was nearly a fifth wider – or 2.1 percentage points – than it had been in 2014.

    ‘A living standards emergency’

    This means that those with disabilities are earning £1.93 less every hour than their non-disabled counterparts, adding up to £3,500 a year in a full-time job.

    Trades Union Congress general secretary Frances O’Grady said the Government should force companies with more than 50 staff to publish their disability pay gaps.

    She also called for funding for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to help it enforce the rights that workers with disabilities have. These include the expectation that their employer will make reasonable adjustments quickly and effectively.

    O’Grady said:

    Disabled workers were among the hardest hit during the pandemic.

    And now millions of disabled workers face a living standards emergency – with lower pay than non-disabled workers, but higher energy and transport costs.

    She added:

    Disabled workers deserve better. It’s time for big employers to be forced to publish their disability pay gaps, to help shine a light on poor workplace practices that fuel inequality at work.

    ‘No one gives a second thought’

    The data show that those who listed autism as their main disability are paid a third less than non-disabled employees, making them the worst-hit group.

    They were followed by those who identified their main disability as “severe or specific learning difficulties” (29.7%) and epilepsy (25.4%). This was before controlling for other aspects, such as age or where people lived.

    Malcolm Baker, office manager at Wisbech-based Halo Beauty and Holistic Therapy, who uses a wheelchair, said there is still a lot of discrimination against those with disabilities in the UK labour market.

    Because of the needs of disabled employees obviously being greater than that of their more able-bodied colleagues, businesses will often stick with people who won’t require them to make physical adaptions to the workplace.

    If you’re lucky enough to get employed, then comes the holding back of pay rises because the disabled person probably had two incidences of illness and absence.

    It feels like no one in Government gives a second thought to disabled people.

    Just look at the Personal Independence Payment and how thousands of people are denied things they are entitled to.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Police say the theft of a blue plaque commemorating a black man who drowned after being hounded by officers is a hate crime.

    The memorial to David Oluwale was taken from Leeds Bridge hours after it was unveiled in the city centre, close to the spot where he died in the River Aire in 1969.

    The plaque read:

    A British citizen, he came to Leeds from Nigeria in 1949 in search of a better life.

    Hounded to his death near Leeds Bridge, two policemen were imprisoned for their crimes.

    ‘Truly appalling’

    West Yorkshire Police have launched a hate crime investigation.

    An unveiling ceremony took place at 5pm on Monday 25 April and ended two hours later, with the plaque thought to have been stolen between 9.30-10pm.

    Chief Superintendent Damien Miller said:

    It is truly appalling that someone would remove the plaque commemorating the life of David Oluwale, and we recognise the significant impact that this act will have had on all those involved in keeping David’s memory alive and on the wider community.

    The timing clearly suggests that this has been a deliberately targeted act and we are classing this as a hate crime.

    We are treating this incident very seriously and have detectives from Leeds District CID carrying out extensive enquiries to identify who is responsible and to locate and recover the plaque.

    Tracy Brabin, Mayor of West Yorkshire, tweeted the following statement in response:

    ‘Shame on our city’

    Leeds Civic Trust, which organised the plaque, called the theft abhorrent and cowardly.

    It tweeted:

    The people responsible bring shame on our city and we will not be deterred from commemorating David’s life and legacy.

    The Remember Oluwale group, which campaigns to keep his memory alive, tweeted:

    It’s appalling, but it demonstrates their weakness.

    Racist graffiti, theft, & criminal damage are the tools of people with no following, no solutions, motivated only by malice.

    They are the past. We are the open, welcoming, dialogue & inclusive future!

    Anyone with information is asked to contact Leeds District CID on 101, online via www.westyorkshire.police.uk/101livechat or by calling Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has revealed that it’s stripping 400,000 people of their social security entitlements. It’s also admitted that some 900,000 people are going to be even worse off than they are now – on top of £10bn of cuts to claimants’ money. At the centre of the DWP’s latest scandal is Universal Credit and its plans to force claimants onto the benefit.

    Managed migration

    The DWP is starting the process of forcing people onto Universal Credit. This will be for claimants who are currently on so-called “legacy benefits”, such as Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). The DWP calls this “managed migration”. It was originally supposed to start this in 2019. However, after the chaos with Universal Credit, the DWP delayed the rollout of managed migration – before saying on Monday 25 April that it’s going to restart it.

    The DWP has released a document laying out how managed migration will work. It states on its website that it will move all claimants:

    over to Universal Credit by the end of 2024.

    Claimants can volunteer to move to Universal Credit. However, the DWP noted that it will start managed (forced) migration:

    on 9 May and will be carefully managed.

    Overall, the full document shows that managed migration will be disastrous for many people.

    The DWP: cutting yet more claimants’ money

    The headline figures from the DWP’s document show that under managed migration:

    • 400,000 legacy benefit claimants will no longer be entitled to any social security.
    • Overall, 900,000 will technically be worse off – with potentially half a million of them being sick and disabled people.

    The DWP has also revealed that Universal Credit barely makes a difference to getting people into work. It said that after nine months on Universal Credit, the employment rate was just two percentage points higher than under Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA).

    Transitional protections are part of managed migration. The DWP had to put these in place because people would be worse off under Universal Credit. For example, it took two claimants numerous legal challenges to finally get the DWP to admit that severely disabled people would be worse off under the new system. It has now put in place these transitional protections. The DWP will give claimants money to make up for the shortfall of moving to Universal Credit.

    Yet despite these transitional protections, some people will once again be worse off anyway.

    Cuts by stealth

    The DWP will not be increasing transitional protection payments. Instead, they will stay the same while Universal Credit increases every April with inflation. Essentially, the DWP will be cutting up to 900,000 people’s money each year until it overtakes its value with the transition payments included. Of course, the DWP doesn’t call this a cut. It says:

    The transitional protection element will erode over time with increases in UC.

    Moreover, the department is making a further cut. Once the DWP stops transition payments, it’s only taking claimants back to the level of payment they were on under legacy benefits years earlier. This won’t account for increases in inflation. As such, the DWP will actually be making a real-terms cut.

    Plus, the DWP’s draft legislation for managed migration has a further cut within it. Disabled activist Gail Ward found it, and Disability News Service (DNS) reported the story. The DWP will put some sick and disabled people it moves to Universal Credit from legacy benefits like ESA into the Limited Capability for Work group. It will give them transitional protection payments. But if these people’s health conditions or disabilities worsen they may move into the higher-paid Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity group. Then, the DWP will cut their transitional protection payments by the extra amount they get for being in the new group. Ward said the cut was “absolutely a disgrace”.

    Managed chaos

    The process of managed migration has been fraught with chaos.

    After delays, the DWP did a trial of the process which started in 2019, in Harrogate. However, the DWP halted the pilot in early 2020 due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. By this time, it had only moved 13 households onto Universal Credit from a cohort of 10,000. Fast-forward to January 2022 and the DWP was refusing to answer Freedom of Information (FOI) requests about the details of the Harrogate pilot. It said that it would restart the pilot in April 2022.

    Now, it will start managed migration without even finishing the Harrogate pilot. This is in direct contradiction of its own position when it launched the pilot. Former DWP minister Alok Sharma said in 2019:

    The Government will report on our findings from the pilot before bringing forward legislation to extend managed migration.

    Still, it’s pushing ahead with it anyway.

    The DWP says…

    DWP boss Thérèse Coffey said:

    Over five million people are already supported by Universal Credit. It is a dynamic system which adjusts as people earn more or indeed less, and simplifies our safety net for those who cannot work. Parliament voted to end the complex web of six legacy benefits in 2012, and as this work approaches its conclusion we are fully transitioning to a modern benefit, suited to the 21st century.

    Yet countless people and organisations have repeatedly warned about managed migration. As DNS reported, documents the DWP released under FOIs revealed that charities and campaign groups told it that managed migration would see claimants:

    fall between the cracks and suffer hardship.

    Clearly, the DWP ignored these warnings. Now, the true effects of managed migration are clear. It’s cutting the social security of hundreds of thousands of people with little evidence to guide its actions. In the middle of a class war (framed as a cost of living crisis), this further attack by the DWP will push countless people who are already struggling further over the edge. There needs to be an immediate and sustained campaign to stop the DWP rolling out managed migration – before more people suffer.

    Featured image via The Canary and Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • We are all of this land. But we’ve been fenced off from it, told that we don’t belong here, and met with ‘KEEP OUT: PRIVATE PROPERTY’ signs. For many of us, the working class, and those brought up in cities without access to nature, the countryside feels alien.

    Of course, whenever we do venture to the villages that dot the countryside, we get a sense that we don’t belong. We’re met with a distinct whiff of Tory, fox-hunting disgust for us.

    This feeling of being unwelcome is magnified even more if you’re BPOC (Black or a Person of Colour) if you’re a Traveller, or if you have a disability.

    Just 1% of the population owns half of the land in England. Land owners tolerate us, at best. They begrudgingly give us access to measly footpaths and bridleways that make up our legal public rights of way (that’s if these ways aren’t overgrown with nettles, or haven’t been planted over), and they expect us to be grateful.

    In 2000, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act gave us the pitiful right to roam on just 8% of England’s land, such as mountains, moors, and heathland. We’re still not legally allowed to access 92% of England’s land, or to swim in 97% of our rivers and waterways.

    So, on 24 April – the 90th anniversary of the Kinder Scout mass trespass of 1932 – there were actions across the country.

    Trespassing Dyson’s land

    While people marched on Kinder Scout in their hundreds (more on that later), a lesser-known action was taking place close to Bristol. 50 people came face-to-face with billionaire James Dyson when they trespassed his massive 700-acre Dodington Estate, complete with its mansion and moat. Dyson, who has a net worth of £16.3 billion, owns over 30,000 acres of land in England. That’s more than the Queen.

    The police were called onto the land, while security blocked bridges over the moat. Despite this, the activists managed to take a swim in the palatial lake, while others rowed a boat out onto it.

    The activists struck up a conversation with Dyson himself about unjust land ownership, but it’s unlikely that a man who topped the 2020 Sunday Times’ Rich List will listen. After all, this is a man who avoids inheritance tax, who sees nothing wrong in receiving millions of pounds of government farm subsidy payouts, and who wanted to turn a post-Brexit Britain into a low-tax version of Singapore.

    Dyson's mansion
    James Dyson’s mansion

     

    Dyson trespass swim
    Activists take a forbidden swim in Dyson’s lake

    Kinder Scout

    Meanwhile, in the Peak District, around 500 people hiked up Kinder Scout. Their action was a protest for our right to access land, but it was also much greater than that: it was a march to decolonise the countryside.

    The mass action was led by BPOC groups, as well as the Right to Roam campaign. Haroon Mota, of Muslim Hikers, said:

    Meanwhile, Anneka Deva said:

    BPOC people make up just 2% of rural England

    England’s countryside is overtly a rich and white playground. According to the Right to Roam campaign, in 2018:

    BPOC communities made up just 2% of [the] rural population [of England], while the remaining 98% was white.

    It also stated that:

    Despite making up 13% of the UK population, Black People and People of Colour (BPOC) make up only 1% of visitors to national parks.

    Is this any wonder, when BPOC people are more likely to experience racist abuse in rural areas than in the cities?

    On top of this, the 8% of land that is legally accessible is often too remote to to get to, especially if you are one of the 40% of Black households who don’t have access to a car or van.

    The trespasses will continue

    The weekend’s actions took place following last year’s very successful mass-trespass in Brighton, when hundreds of people hiked on Pangdean Bottom, an area which has been out of bounds to the people since its public purchase by Brighton Council in 1924.

    More trespasses are planned throughout the year. On 8 May, hundreds of people are expected to gather for a mass trespass on private land close to Totnes, while there’s another trespass planned on 14 May in Berkshire.

    These actions are essential because the government just isn’t listening, nor does it care. On 20 April, it announced that it had quashed a review into the right to roam in England, and is refusing to publish any results. This government will do its utmost to protect the elites from the common masses.

    The government and land owners would have us believe that the right to roam – to legally access land – is a privilege. On the contrary, it is the most basic of rights. When we do finally win our right to roam, we shouldn’t stop there: we should rise up together to dismantle this broken system, where 1% of the population owning half of the land is seen as normal.

    This is what the government and elite land owners are afraid of. They’re worried that if we’re given some small freedoms, we might just realise that we’re caged.

    Featured images via activists, with permission

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The price of groceries is increasing at its fastest rate in 11 years, adding an extra £271 to the amount average households will pay at the till this year.

    Data from Kantar showed that grocery price inflation hit 5.9% in April, as the number of items on promotion decreased. It is the fastest rise since December 2011.

    Everyday essentials

    Fraser McKevitt, head of retail and consumer insight at Kantar said:

    The average household will now be exposed to a potential price increase of £271 per year.

    A lot of this is going on non-discretionary, everyday essentials, which will prove difficult to cut back on as budgets are squeezed.

    McKevitt continued:

    We’re seeing a clear flight to value as shoppers watch their pennies. The level of products bought on promotion, currently at 27.3%, has decreased 2.7 percentage points as everyday low price strategies come to the fore.

    Imperfect tracking

    Campaigner Jack Monroe recently criticised supermarkets for taking their cheapest everyday items off shelves.

    They argued that inflation – which tracks the cost of the same items over time – is an imperfect way of measuring how much prices are increasing because the cheapest products are no longer available.

    Monroe also warned against governmental reliance on food banks:

    McKevitt said supermarkets have been listening, with Asda, Morrisons and Tesco all taking steps to offer cheaper food to customers.

    Kantar found that supermarket sales dropped 5.9% over the 12 weeks to April 17.

    Sales are also, for the first time since the pandemic started, 0.6% below where they were two years ago. This period now takes into account the early days of the first lockdown.

    Aldi is the fastest growing retailer, with its sales increasing 4.2%, while Lidl saw a 4% rise.

    McKevitt said:

    Over one million extra shoppers visited Aldi and Lidl respectively over the past 12 weeks compared with this time last year.

    Both retailers achieved record-breaking market shares, with Aldi now holding 8.8% while Lidl stands at 6.6%. Collectively, the two discounters account for 15.4% of the market – up from just 5.5% a decade ago.

    Tesco was the only other retailer whose market share grew over the period – by 0.3 percentage points to 27.3%.

    The Joseph Rowntree Foundation urged quick action from the government:

    The Trussell Trust asked for people affected by the cost of living crisis to get in touch:

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Conservative government is facing resistance to its apparent backpedaling on planned legislation to protect non-human animals overseas.

    A raft of organisations recently wrote to the prime minister to express their “extreme disquiet”. This was in response to rumours that elements of the Animals Abroad Bill are destined for the parliamentary shelf. In particular, the signatories called on the government to make good on the bill’s “promise” to ban unethical tourism advertising. Because this advertising relies on the ‘brutalisation’ of elephants, particularly endangered Asian elephants.

    Overwhelming support for a ban

    The open letter landed in the PM’s mailbox at the end of a week of discontent among the wider public over the issue. As the Mirror reported, on 20 April Save the Asian Elephants (STAE) released the results of a poll it commissioned. The poll found that 85% of people agreed the government should ban the advertising of venues which involve brutality against elephants.

    As The Canary has previously highlighted, elephants are wild animals. They’re not inclined to let people ride on their backs, or feed them, or to paint and do other absurd tricks. They do so at entertainment venues because they have generally been tortured into obedience through a process called pajan. This process can involve beating, crushing and starving the elephants, to name but a few of the horrors, in order to subdue their natural spirits. Moreover, this often happens to babies, who are ripped from their family units at a young age, as they’re easier to brainwash. Their families may be killed in the process.

    A dangerous business

    This sort of tourism has implications for the survival of Asian elephants. The letter says the species has “been designated as endangered for over 35 years”. And it adds that their use in tourism in Thailand in particular grew by 70% between 2010 and 2020.

    There are also health risks for both elephants and humans in relation to the transmission of diseases. And interacting with these traumatised elephants can be dangerous for humans in other ways, too. Helen Costigan’s sister, Andrea Taylor, died after an elephant charged at the audience in a venue in Thailand which they visited in 2000. Speaking to the Independent after the release of STAE’s poll results, Costigan said:

    When we went to Thailand we didn’t understand the dangers to us or the abuse elephants face. For a normal person going on holiday, asking whether it’s ethical is not at the forefront of their mind. Travel companies are making a fortune from these places. We didn’t know to do any research, and my sister came home in a coffin.

    She also said it was “disgusting” that the government could shelve the ban on unethical advertising.

    Shirking responsibility

    The Independent reported that a government spokesperson said:

    We have been working with the Association of British Travel Agents to encourage them to make their customers aware of reported issues around Asian elephants.

    But the letter to the PM argued that self-regulation by the industry has proven insufficient. Organised by STAE and signed by many organisations including Animals Asia, Animal Aid, and Action for Elephants UK, the letter stated:

    Numerous promises of change by unethical operators have proved empty over many years. No steps have been taken during lockdown to improve safety or welfare.

    STAE says that it has identified a minimum of 1,200 companies operating in the UK market. Between them, these companies advertise 277 venues implicated in brutality against elephants. The letter also noted that India and Thailand, where elephant-related tourism is common, received two million UK visitors in 2018/19. As World Animal Protection’s report – titled ‘Taken for a ride’ – highlighted, 36% of Thailand tourists surveyed in 2014 took elephant rides, or planned to, during their visits.

    The UK’s involvement in elephant-related tourism, both in terms of travelers and tourism companies, continues on a considerable scale. NGOs have therefore insisted to the PM that a “new law is needed” to ban advertising of tourism linked to unethical practices in relation to elephants and other species.

    It’s about choice

    Concerns grew towards the end of 2021 that the Animals Abroad Bill was on shaky ground. This was after repeated delays to its passage through parliament. As the BBC reported, in March the government insisted that the bill’s proposed ban on the import of hunting trophies would go ahead. However, amid mixed messaging from officials, the fate of other elements of the bill, such as the banning foie gras, fur imports, and unethical advertising, remain uncertain.

    Critics have blamed the bill’s precarious predicament on opposition from within the Conservative Party. A government source told the Guardian in March that a “handful of crusties have managed to seize control”. Comments by Jacob Rees-Mogg in February suggested that opposition stems from concerns that elements of the bill limit people’s personal choice, the Mirror reported.

    STAE’s poll shows that a ban on unethical advertising is the personal choice for many Brits. More critically, a person’s choice to ride an elephant, or to eat foie gras or wear fur for that matter, shouldn’t trump the rights of the other animals involved to live free of torture and pain.

    Moreover, the ‘personal choice’ of elephants and many other species implicated in the Animals Abroad Bill would surely be to live their lives freely, in the wild, where they belong. Many people support their personal choice to do so, although this doesn’t include a “handful of crusties” in the government, apparently.

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

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • I am a Senior Counsel (SC) barrister and spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance. It is my view that the UK government’s offshore detention deal is simply, despite what home secretary Priti Patel says, a carbon copy of the notorious Australian arrangement first devised in 2001.

    This arrangement saw asylum seekers who arrived by boat to Australia sent to the impoverished Pacific island nation of Nauru, and Manus Island in the equally impoverished Papua New Guinea.

    Australia: a human rights pariah

    It is no coincidence that the UK government’s plan has emerged after its appointment of one of the key architects of the so called “Pacific Island solution”, former foreign minister Alexander Downer. It’s also telling that Patel met in 2021 with former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, who campaigned successfully on “Stopping the Boats”.

    What’s missing from the discussion about the controversial plan to use Rwanda, a nation with a brutal human rights abuse record, is that the Australian approach to asylum seekers has made the nation a human rights pariah internationally. It’s also cost taxpayers billions of dollars. The long term physical and mental harm to those who have been subjected to detention on Manus and Nauru is both horrific and well-documented by leading medical groups.

    What lies behind both the UK and Australian approach to offshore asylum processing is toxic neo-colonialism. This involves, in each case, a wealthy country seducing poorer nations with the promise of aid and money if they play ball. It’s a contract where there is clearly gross inequality in the bargaining power of one party.

    A lucrative business

    A previous Australian Labor government, under electoral pressure, put in place the current arrangements with Nauru and Papua New Guinea in 2013. What Downer and Abbott may not have told the Johnson government is that offshore processing has cost Australian taxpayers an average of over AUD 1bn a year since then. This is not counting the cost of successful claims made for compensation by asylum seekers. One case, a class action brought by detainees on Manus Island in 2017, cost the government over AUD 100m in damages and legal costs.

    However, while long-suffering taxpayers foot the bill for the Pacific solution, contractors have found a gold mine. According to the Refugee Council of Australia, an NGO, service providers billed billions of dollars to the Australian government between 2013 and 2021. One company – Broadspectrum – made AUD 2.5bn. Another, International Health and Medical Services, made AUD 446m over the same period.

    International condemnation

    Moreover, international condemnation of Australia’s policies towards asylum seekers has been constant and consistent. In February 2020, independent Australian MP Andrew Wilkie was told in a letter from the International Criminal Court that conditions in the Australian-run camps on Nauru and Manus Island were dangerous and harsh. Alarmingly, the letter describes an:

    environment rife with sporadic acts of physical and sexual violence committed by staff at the facilities.

    In 2018, a spokesperson for the UNHCR said that Australia’s policy has [0:12]:

    failed on a number of measures. It’s failed to protect refugees, it’s failed to provide even for their most basic needs throughout a period that now exceeds five years. And it’s failed to provide solutions for a substantial number that is still waiting and can clearly no longer afford to wait.

    Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have also regularly condemned the policy.

    The permanent harm inflicted on asylum seekers from offshore detention has been noted by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP). In September 2017, it said:

    Prolonged or indefinite detention itself is known to contribute to adverse mental health outcomes as a result of prolonged exposure to factors including uncertainty, lack of autonomy, deprivation of liberty, dehumanisation, isolation and lack of social support.

    It cited UN, Australian Human Rights Commission and Amnesty reports that have found:

    Self-harm and suicidal behaviour have become endemic in detention facilities amid well-documented allegations of the exposure of asylum seekers and refugees in detention to sexual and physical assault and abuse, and conditions which are tantamount to cruel and degrading treatment.

    If the UK proceeds with its plans, what happens when Rwanda’s medical system cannot treat seriously ill asylum seekers? Patel will likely follow the Australian stance, which has been to oppose every transfer from Manus Island or Nauru to Australia for healthcare.

    The result has been death, and a rapid decline in the health of vulnerable individuals. The Australian government has blood on its hands, and the UK government seems determined to follow in its footsteps.

    Featured image via Flickr/Love Makes a Way – cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Greg Barns

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Four in 10 people in the UK said they were struggling to pay their energy bills in March, even before the latest price cap hike, new data shows.

    A survey by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that 43% of those who pay energy bills said it was “very or somewhat difficult” to afford them last month.

    This was while 22 million households in Britain still had their energy bills capped at £1,277 per year for the average household. The cap rose to £1,971 on 1 April and has been applied to most default tariffs.

    Figures from March

    In the most deprived parts of England, 57% of people reported difficulty in paying energy bills. But even in the least deprived areas of the country, 35% struggled.

    Energy price cap: default tariff
    (PA Graphics)

    Meanwhile, nearly a quarter (23%) of adults across the country reported it was difficult or very difficult to pay their usual household bills in March compared to a year ago. In November, the same figure was 17%.

    Nearly all the people surveyed by the ONS in March (87%) reported that their cost of living had risen compared to just a month before. In November, 62% of people reported the same.

    The survey found that 17% are borrowing more money or using more credit than a year ago. Meanwhile, 43% reported they won’t be able to save money over the next 12 months.

    Bad to much worse

    Bills are rising alongside everyday costs for nearly everyone in the UK. Meanwhile in France, the government has imposed a 4% cap in order to shield consumers from energy price rises.

    Inflation in the UK also rose by 7% in the 12 months to March, according to the latest Consumer Prices Index data from the ONS.

    Jack Leslie, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said:

    The combination of shrinking pay packets and rising costs means that the pressure on households is building, with lower-income families set to feel the squeeze the most, and over a third of the most deprived fifth of households in England already saying it has been difficult or very difficult to pay their usual bills.

    This is set to get worse, with the estimated number of households experiencing fuel stress hitting five million this month.

    Going forwards, the Government must do all it can to protect those who will be hardest hit – with support for low-income households a priority.

    Separate research from insurance company MetLife found that one in six people have cut back costs. And 57% say they expect to do so soon.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.