radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Priti Patel’s plan for sending refugees to Rwanda is discriminatory and illegal

    Home secretary Priti Patel wants to transport refugees arriving in the UK to Rwanda. But there’s plentiful evidence that these plans are both immoral and illegal. The UK government’s own assessment of human rights in Rwanda is nothing short of withering.

    Patel’s plan is also discriminatory and flouts several international laws. So either Patel hasn’t done her homework, or she simply doesn’t care about the limits of international law in pursuit of her xenophobic agenda.

    UK condemnation

    The UK’s own assessment of Rwanda’s human rights record is damning. The following is an extract from a July 2021 speech by Rita French, the UK’s International Ambassador for Human Rights:

    We regret that Rwanda did not support our recommendation, which was also made by other States, to conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture.

    We welcome that Rwanda accepted recommendations from other countries on combatting human trafficking, but we were disappointed that Rwanda did not support the UK recommendation to screen, identify and provide support to trafficking victims, including those held in Government transit centres.

    HRW condemns Rwanda

    Human Rights Watch (HRW) has commented that Rwanda:

    has a known track record of extrajudicial killings, suspicious deaths in custody, unlawful or arbitrary detention, torture, and abusive prosecutions, particularly targeting critics and dissidents.

    This is the country where Patel wants to send refugees “to build a new life”.

    A 2020 HRW report on Rwanda stated that:

    Arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, and torture in official and unofficial detention facilities continued, according to credible sources.

    The report named several senior opposition figures who were murdered or went missing. It also referred to a February 2018 protest by Democratic Republic of Congo refugees, where at least 12 of those who participated in a protest were killed by Rwandan police. Between February and May 2018, more than 60 refugees were charged with taking part in demonstrations and other activities deemed illegal by Rwanda authorities.

    More recently, in September 2021, HRW reported that Rwandan “authorities rounded up and arbitrarily detained over a dozen gay and transgender people, sex workers, street children, and others”. Patel doesn’t seem to be concerned about how her plan might affect LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers who fled from persecution because of their sexuality.

    In March 2022, HRW further reported that violations of human rights in Rwanda have continued, including the repression of government critics, journalists, and opposition members.

    Patel’s plan is discriminatory

    Following Patel’s announcement to proceed with the Rwanda plan, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) expressed concerns. Assistant high commissioner for protection Gillian Triggs said that:

    People fleeing war, conflict and persecution deserve compassion and empathy. They should not be traded like commodities and transferred abroad

    The UNHCR further clarified that asylum-seekers and refugees who are smuggled should not be deprived of any rights regarding access to protection and assistance.

    A UNHCR document further clarifies:

    Every person has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, serious human rights violations and other serious harm. Seeking asylum is not, therefore, an unlawful act. Furthermore, the 1951 Convention provides that asylum-seekers shall not be penalised for their illegal entry or stay, provided they present themselves to the authorities without delay and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

    The UNHCR adds:

    Article 31 of the 1951 Convention specifically provides for the non-penalisation of refugees (and asylum-seekers) having entered or stayed irregularly if they present themselves without delay and show good cause for their illegal entry or stay.

    The UNHCR also points out that detention of refugees should be non-discriminatory:

    International law prohibits detention or restrictions on the movement of a person on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, such as asylum-seeker or refugee status.

    Patel’s plan falls foul of this requirement, as it will initially focus on transporting “single men arriving in the UK on small boats or lorries”.

    The UNHCR also specifies the right of refugees to legal counsel and the right to be “brought promptly before a judicial or other independent authority to have the detention decision reviewed”. If Patel’s plan does not make these provisions, that would be a further violation of refugee rights.

    The UK flouting international law

    Article 31 of the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees bans states from imposing penalties:

    on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization.

    Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon is scathing of Patel’s plan, saying:

    The government is choosing control and punishment above compassion despite the fact its own data shows that two-thirds of men, women, and children arriving in small boats come from countries where war and persecution have forced them from their homes.

    The “illegal” Australian model

    The Australian model, to which Patel’s plan is compared, saw Australia imprison refugees and asylum-seekers on offshore islands such as Manus (Papua New Guinea) and Nauru. Many of those incarcerated attempted suicide, and there were numerous deaths and instances of self-harm.

    Leaked ‘Nauru Files’ revealed shocking events on the island state that included “attempts at self-harm, sexual assaults, child abuse, hunger strikes, assaults and injuries”. Altogether, there were more than 2,000 leaked incident reports.

    The Manus island detention centre opened in July 2013. By the end of the year, almost 1,200 asylum seekers had been transported there by the Australian authorities. But in 2016, the Papua New Guinea (PNG) supreme court ruled that the asylum-seekers detention facility there was illegal.

    Further, the court demanded that Australia resettle all those held. It said:

    Both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments shall forthwith take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees at the relocation centre on Manus Island and the continued breach of the asylum seekers or transferees constitutional and human rights

    Doomed “toxic” plan

    Greg Barns SC is an Australian barrister and spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance. He has assisted PNG lawyers acting for the refugees detained on Manus.

    On hearing of Patel’s plan, Barns told The Canary:

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

    Patel’s plan has been criticised by her own government as well as by human rights and refugee NGOs. It flouts international laws and therefore could open the UK to prosecution. In short, it is not only morally wrong but unworkable and illegal.

    However, given this government’s right wing agenda, who’s to say if that’ll be enough to stop these plans from going ahead.

    Featured image via Youtube

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The UK should have acted sooner to reduce nuclear threat, says SNP leader

    The UK has had a “massive missed opportunity” to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, the SNP’s Westminster leader has said.

    “Missed opportunity”

    Ian Blackford was speaking to Sophie Raworth on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme. He was asked about the SNP’s ambition to remove the Trident nuclear deterrent from the Clyde Naval Base. In response, he said the UK should have acted sooner to remove itself as a threat. It comes amid suggestions that Vladimir Putin could use such weapons in his war in Ukraine.

    Blackford said:

    You’ve got someone [Putin] that you don’t know if they’re prepared to press that button or not.

    There’s been a massive missed opportunity over the course of the last decades, because we should have been getting round the table with the Russians and others, and making sure that we were reducing the threat from nuclear weapons, reducing nuclear warheads.

    We’re in a very dangerous situation. The world is very unstable, we’re dealing with the situation in Ukraine. We need to make sure that we never, ever, ever are in a situation where anyone is prepared to use nuclear weapons, that threat of mass destruction that would take place.

    Having nuclear weapons isn’t a protection. Having nuclear weapons makes us a threat and we’ve had a long-standing position that having nuclear weapons on the Clyde is something that we cannot tolerate.

    Ian Blackford comments
    Ian Blackford said the UK has missed out on the chance to remove itself as a threat (Isabel Infantes/PA)

    “Asleep”

    Blackford is also the MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. He said an independent Scotland would “present an opportunity” for other countries to begin to negotiate reductions in their own nuclear warheads. And he added:

    We’ve been asleep at the wheel and we haven’t tackled Russian aggression.

    We simple haven’t done what we should have done to make sure that we were dealing with that Russian threat and it’s the lack of ability of UK governments over a number of years that put us in the position that we’re now in.

    Meanwhile the Scottish Greens, who are in a co-operative agreement with the SNP at Holyrood, have held a long-standing opposition to NATO membership.

    Asked if his party is comfortable working alongside them despite a determination to leave NATO, Blackford said the SNP’s position is “very clear – that we wish an independent Scotland to be a part of NATO”. However, several of the countries that are members of NATO are nuclear powers.

    Independence

    Raworth also quizzed the SNP MP on the likelihood of a second independence referendum. First minister Nicola Sturgeon has said she intends to hold a vote before the end of 2023. And the party has been campaigning for a referendum during the local government election campaign.

    Blackford echoed this timeframe, stating the SNP and the Scottish Greens had a manifesto commitment of delivering a second vote in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections. He added:

    This is a question for Boris Johnson and the Conservative government. Will they respect democracy, will they respect the rights of the Scots who sent MSPs to the Scottish Parliament with a mandate to deliver that independence referendum?

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Stop and search can’t be reformed. It needs to be scrapped entirely.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has published a report in which it urges police in England and Wales to address their disproportionate use of stop and search powers against Black and racially minoritised people.

    Published on 20 April, the report sets out recommendations for police to “improve” their use of the power.

    But as racialised communities have been saying for decades, they don’t need any more reports or empty promises of reform. Stop and search is an inherently discriminatory practice, especially when carried out by a racist institution. It’s time to scrap the police power once and for all.

    Yet another damning report

    The report’s findings are all too familiar.

    It states that in the year ending March 2021, police in England and Wales were seven times more likely to stop and search Black people than their white counterparts. While avoiding direct blame, the IOPC highlights how racist discrimination and stereotyping can factor in to stop and search.

    The report’s findings include that police regularly rely on the smell of cannabis as the sole grounds for a stop. As the IOPC explains, this doesn’t justify a stop and search. It also notes that officers’ “insufficient and poor-quality communication” is a key cause for anxiety and resistance from those being stopped. It adds that officers summarily resort to handcuffing those being searched, rather than working to de-escalate the confrontation.

    The report sets out a number case studies exemplifying the police’s discriminatory, excessive, and unjustified use of stop and search powers against Black children and young people. This includes a case in which officers allegedly stopped and searched a Black child more than 60 times over a two year period, leaving him traumatised.

    It also highlights other cases, such as an officer punching and kicking a Black child to the ground, having stopped the child for allegedly smelling of cannabis. In another case, an officer handcuffed a “compliant and polite” 12-year-old Black child “within 20 seconds of the officer exiting his police vehicle”.

    Beyond reform

    We don’t need another woolly report to understand the disproportionate harm caused by stop and search. We already know that that police in England and Wales disproportionately stop and search Black people compared to the general population. And that they’re more likely to use force against Black people.

    We know that in 2020 the Met was 19 times more likely to stop and search young Black men than London’s general population. We also know that police use stop and search powers disproportionately against children, making Black youngsters particularly vulnerable to traumatising police harassment and brutality.

    The IOPC report’s case studies offer just a snapshot of the routine harassment that racialised children and young people experience at the hands of police every day.

    As long as police have the power to stop and search, these disparities – and the trauma of police harassment – will persist.

    Institutionally racist

    The report comes while – decades on from the MacPherson Report – the Met continues to dither over whether the force is institutionally racist. A look at only a handful of recent cases will confirm what Met bosses are struggling to articulate.

    Indeed, a review in March revealed officers’ humiliating and degrading strip search of Child Q, and police stopped a Black man because he wasn’t “dressed for the climate“. Officers targeted him again days later.

    A recent pilot found that officers disproportionately targeted Black people for drug testing following arrest. And officers are increasingly using surveillance technology to target young Black people.

    This all sits in the broader context of excessive and disproportionate deaths in police custody and police use of force. Even officers themselves aren’t safe from racism in their ranks, as 90% of Met officers disciplined for internal racism remain active in the force.

    Despite the overwhelming evidence that stop and search is discriminatory and doesn’t deter crime, the government seeks to further expand stop and search powers through its authoritarian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

    Scrap the police power

    Stop and search, and policing in general, does not prevent crime. It doesn’t protect communities, and it only serves to traumatise and criminalise the most marginalised people in society.

    We must demand an end to the expansion of police powers, including stop and search, set out in the police bill. And we must withdraw consent from harmful and discriminatory policing.

    It’s evident that police forces have no intention of halting their excessive and discriminatory use of stop and search powers. Therefore, we must all be equipped to intervene when we see stops occur. Indeed, as members of the public, we have the right to dictate how our communities are policed.

    The London Campaign Against Police and State Violence (LCAPSV) has set out guidance for intervening in police stops. And police monitoring organisation StopWatch has created guidance for parents and children, as well as a guide on how to make complaints against the police. Meanwhile, the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) has published a practical guide on how to monitor the police.

    Elsewhere, local police monitoring groups such as Hackney Copwatch and Bristol Copwatch, routinely hold bystander intervention workshops.

    It’s vital that we support those working to hold the police to account, as well as groups like Sisters Uncut, Abolitionist Futures, and Community Action on Prison Expansion which are working to build radical alternatives to police and prisons.

    It’s up to us to play an active role in undermining the legitimacy of policing so we can work towards a safer society for everyone.

    Featured image via Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Three Cabinet ministers reported for sexual misconduct

    Three Conservative cabinet ministers and two Labour shadow cabinet ministers have been reported to a parliamentary watchdog that deals with complaints against MPs, it has been reported.

    The Sunday Times said the three members of Boris Johnson’s team and two from Keir Starmer’s are facing allegations of sexual misconduct.

    Johnson himself has historically faced allegations of sexual misconduct which came to light before the December 2019 general election.

    70 complaints

    They are among 56 MPs who have been referred to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) in relation to about 70 separate complaints, it reported.

    The allegations among the 56 range from making sexually inappropriate comments to more serious wrongdoing, the paper said. At least one complaint reportedly involves criminality and an allegation than an MP “bribed a member of staff in return for sexual favours”.

    The ICGS was set up as an independent process with cross-party backing in 2018 after the so-called Pestminster scandal. The scandal cast a spotlight on sexual harassment in the rooms and corridors of power.

    The ICGS operates a hotline allowing those who work in Westminster, including the staff of MPs and peers, to ring in to lodge a complaint or seek advice.

    According to the body’s 2021 annual report, the service had been used by people stating they were MPs. It exists to allow workers to report experiences of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. They can also report having been witness to, or aware of, such behaviour.

    In a statement on its website, ICGS director Jo Willows said the service is an “important step forward in tackling inappropriate behaviour in our workplace”.

    Allegations made to the ICGS are private and confidential. And political parties are not given information about who has been reported.

    Members of Boris Johnson and Sir Keir Starmer's top team have reportedly been reported to the ICGS
    Members of Boris Johnson and Sir Keir Starmer’s top team have reportedly been reported to the ICGS (UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor)

    Disbalance of power

    A union representing senior civil servants said more was needed to be done to stamp out harassment in Parliament.

    FDA general secretary Dave Penman said:

    Whilst some of the procedures for raising complaints have improved, the fundamental balance of power between MPs and the staff they employ has not.

    Where that exists it will inevitably be exploited, either by those who do not have the skills to manage staff effectively, or those with more malevolent intent.

    It can come as no surprise therefore that if the circumstances that allowed bullying and harassment to flourish have not changed fundamentally, what we are seeing is this number of complaints being raised now that we at least have an independent mechanism for dealing with them.

    Parliamentary authorities need to address the fundamental causes of bullying and harassment, rather than simply rely on an enforcement mechanism that only protects those who feel able to raise complaints.

    Penman said that meant “looking again at the employment relationship between MPs and the staff”, with a view to reforming the model of having 650 individual employers.

    He said authorities should instead consider establishing a new employment model that “will help protect staff whilst maintaining the level of service that MPs need to support their vital work”.

    Child molesters and alleged sex pests

    A government spokesperson said:

    We take all allegations of this nature incredibly seriously and would encourage anyone with any allegations to come forward to the relevant authorities.

    It comes after Imran Ahmad Khan quit as MP for Wakefield last week after being found guilty of sexually assaulting a teenage boy before he was elected for the Conservative Party.

    Meanwhile, David Warburton has had the Tory whip removed after an image was published which appeared to show the Somerton and Frome MP pictured alongside lines of a white substance.

    David Warburton, the MP for Somerton and Frome, has had the Tory whip withdrawn pending an investigation into allegations about his conduct

    David Warburton, the MP for Somerton and Frome, has had the Tory whip withdrawn pending an investigation into allegations about his conduct (UK Parliament)

    Earlier in April, the Sunday Times reported that two women had made formal complaints to the ICGS about Warburton’s behaviour, and a third woman had also made allegations about his conduct.

    Downing Street and Labour said they were unable to comment.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Andy Burnham just pointed out how bad rail fares are in the UK

    Train fares are a terrible rip off in the UK. No news there. But just how much of a racket they have become may surprise you. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has dug up some comparisons which really bring home how bad things have got.

    Burnham decided to compare ticket fees to international flights. And what he found was off the scale:

    That’s right. An advanced ticket to various locations on literally the other side of planet Earth will set you back less than a visit to see your mate or your nan or go sightseeing in London.

    In a piece for the Evening Standard, Burnham said this was wrong on many metrics:

    For as long as train tickets cost more than plane tickets, the economics of transport in the UK will be in entirely the wrong place when it comes to facing up the climate crisis. But the truth is it unlikely to change any time soon.

    Outrage

    For doubters, Burnham screen-grabbed the results of a ticket search and tweeted that too:

    Incredibly unfair, you might say. And you’d be right. While some people attacked Burnham’s claims, many other social media users seemed to agree:

    Indeed, some people were all-caps level shocked at some of the responses:

    European comparisons

    But you don’t even have to travel the entire globe to find out how badly scammed UK train users are. Right next door in mainland Europe, comparative fares are a fraction of the price:

    London to Manchester is a 164-mile trip that costs £369.40, according to Burnham’s estimate. According to the Trainline website, a return trip from Paris to Nantes would set you back just over £115. That is for a 212-mile journey.

    A comparable trip from Barcelona to Valencia, taking in the fabulous Spanish coastline (as opposed to the delights of Crewe and Birmingham New Street), would cost you £85.59.

    Travelling from Rome to Naples, and coming back tomorrow, would cost you £81.64.

    Stitched up

    Whether you compare it to the cost of travelling internationally, or the price our neighbours pay for a European train trip, transport in the UK is an absolute mess. People are being priced out of opportunities by money-grabbing firms and a government which refuses to even make fares affordable, let alone consider renationalising public transport.

    It’s time for a serious campaign to make public transport affordable again for everyone.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Fsheng666, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The DWP is still ‘penalising’ terminally ill people

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has recently changed its rules around social security claims for terminally ill people. The new rules apply in England and Wales. But people are saying it has not gone far enough. So, someone has launched a petition while charities campaign for further action.

    DWP: Special Rules

    From 4 April, the DWP changed the rules for fast-tracking social security for terminally ill people. Previously, the DWP would only give fast-track claims to people with six months to live. These are called the Special Rules. For years, charities, MPs and campaign groups were lobbying the government over this. As one parliamentary committee noted:

    the… “six-month rule”, is unfit for purpose… outdated, arbitrary and not based on clinical reality.

    The point being, many terminally ill people have more than six months to live. But they’re still going to die at some point.

    So, the government looked at the rules. It said that the DWP should align them with the NHS definition of “end of life” which is 12 months. And from 4 April, these new rules took effect.

    Still problematic

    But they are still not without problems. Firstly, as the Motor Neurone Disease Association (MNDA) said the rules still only apply for Universal Credit and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claims. The DWP hasn’t applied them to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance. These are social security payments for chronically ill and disabled people.

    Also, terminally ill people, regardless of life expectancy, will experience severe mental and emotional distress. As the campaign group My Death, My Decision said:

    We want people to have a better end of life experience, keeping their quality of life as high as possible for as long as possible. People who have an incurable illness that will eventually end their life should have ready access to the benefits they need.

    Now, a petition is calling on the government to scrap the 12-month rule almost as soon as it introduced it. Mark Hughes, who created the petition, said he feels the new rules are:

    penalising people with a terminal diagnosis but who are not expected to die in the next twelve months.

    He notes that when you have a terminal illness

    the last thing you need is a fight to get your benefits.

    Hughes says that the 12-month rule still causes:

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

    Terminal means terminal however long you have left to live.

    An unnecessary rule

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

    So, it seems in England the DWP is not only lagging behind other home nations but also some international ones, too. As the MNDA said over the North of Ireland changes:

    there is now a real disparity in access to benefits across the United Kingdom for people with terminal illness. This needs changing now to ensure no one has to suffer the indignity of a long, drawn out claims process.

    The DWP says…

    A DWP spokesperson told The Canary:

    We are helping more people in the final year of their life get faster access to vital financial support in the most challenging of times, with the majority receiving the highest possible award and paid within three days of making a claim.

    The changes to Special Rules for End of Life were implemented into Universal Credit and Employment and Support Allowance earlier this month and will be extended to Personal Independence Payment, Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

    The DWP needing “parliamentary time” to implement more changes is not without unpleasant irony. Time is not something terminally ill people have. But Hughes’s petition really gets to the crux of the matter. Because regardless of how long someone has to live, a terminal diagnosis is just that. And DWP policy should reflect this.

    Featured image via Gaertringen – Pixabay and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Holyrood faces backlash over creeping authoritarianism in coronavirus bill

    A lot of attention in recent months has been put on the laws and bills going through Westminster which are attempting to reduce our democratic rights. This attention is deserved. We need to stop these bills. We need to take to the streets and protest bills such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (policing bill), the Nationality and Borders Bill, and the Health and Care Bill. What isn’t being discussed however is that similar attempts are being made in Holyrood by a government typically considered more democratic. If we are to remain vigilant of power grabs by Westminster we must do the same for Holyrood. Don’t let the lack of attention fool you. Holyrood have as much disregard for democracy as Westminster.

    “The whole purpose of protest is to get noticed and to apply pressure”

    It’s important to look at how the policing bill allows the state to further control debate in this country – allowing certain movements and silencing others. It expands upon protest bans/restrictions from laws such as the Public Order Act 1986. This bill increases the size of the area outside Westminster which can be placed under protest restrictions, while also making it an offence to obstruct vehicles there. Such powers would further stifle protest and mean that many protests would be practically state sanctioned. Yet showing discontent towards some form of authority is exactly the point of protest. As Nick Dearden from Global Justice Now said:

    The whole purpose of protest is to get noticed and to apply pressure

    This bill would make it harder to have our voices heard at the exact time they need to be.

    The bill would force people convicted of terrorist offences to be placed under conditions that make it easier for the police to search their homes and give them the power to arrest people without a warrant. It’s important to note the police’s attitude on what constitutes terrorism is skewed with counter terrorism police previously labelling Extinction Rebellion an extremist organisation. These powers could be used against protestors when causing “serious damage to property” is defined as terrorism, and can occur during protests.

    What you don’t know can hurt you

    The subjective nature of the provisions in the bill threaten our right to protest. Various aspects of the bill relating to public nuisance, serious annoyance, and noise complaints are open to interpretation by the police. When I attended protests in the past, the police always had to notify the protestors when they were placing restrictions on the protest. This bill would change that. The bill means that if you didn’t hear the restriction being put in place you could still be found guilty for failing to comply with the restriction as you ought to know it was put in place, potentially receiving six months in prison.

    The bill would also give the police power to shut down protests deemed to be too noisy. However, part of the police’s way of determining this would be through inspecting whether buildings are double glazed or not. In doing so, they would determine the likelihood of a noise complaint. Using such a bizarre metric for deciding whether protests would be too noisy or not is just another example of the arbitrary nature of these provisions which would make it easier to stop protests.

    The “public nuisance” argument

    Protestors have been prosecuted under vague public nuisance laws in the past. 146 charges of causing a public nuisance were brought against Insulate Britain protesters last year. The policing bill will only further this erosion of protest rights through its definitions of public nuisance which remain unspecified. The bill provides no definition of what constitutes serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience, or serious loss of amenity. It would practically allow the police to determine it by their own definition. This is deeply concerning when causing public nuisance could land you 10 years in prison. The police would be able to arrest people based on their own subjective opinion. The idea that someone could be given 10 years in prison under such vague measures should worry us all. We must take to the streets and protest this bill before we can’t take to the streets anymore.

    The Policing bill is only one of many pieces of legislation that attempt to reduce our democratic rights. Bills such as the Elections Bill, the Health and Care Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill are just some of the legislation being considered as part of a concerted effort by the government to clamp down on our freedoms. But these are far from the only pieces of legislation affecting our rights. The Coronavirus Act passed in March 2020 ushered in restrictive and authoritarian laws.

    “We’ve been conditioned to live under very strict conditions”

    The government has used the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic as an excuse for greater and greater infringements of our rights. As Oliver Feeley-Sprague of Amnesty International told me:

    We’ve been conditioned to live under very strict conditions… The coronavirus restrictions softened up the public to accept a level of state interference in their lives they wouldn’t normally accept.

    Under the Health Protection Regulations the police could, for example, forcibly detain anyone including children and take a biological sample against their will under the pretence they may be infectious. Non-compliance with this could have also resulted in a criminal charge. Police wrongly brought 270 charges using the regulation up to March 2021. Just like with the police bill these arbitrary measures made it easier for the police to abuse their powers. With 292 cases also wrongly charged under the Coronavirus Act, it is obvious it was abused by the police.

    While it is important to stop the spread of an infectious disease such as Covid-19, it is vital we don’t allow this to be done by wrongly criminalising individuals as this was clearly not successful in stopping the spread of Covid-19 nor used proportionately. 

    Don’t you know there’s a pandemic?

    Justifications of protecting public health have been used to shut down protest. Mark Johnson from Big Brother Watch told me:

    The government has become increasingly anti-protest and this Bill will maintain powers to criminalise protesters if there is a risk of any type of ‘disease’, prolonging the pandemic powers that led to the criminalisation of BLM protests and the Clapham vigil [over the murder of Sarah Everard].

    The Coronavirus Act is even more worrying given the fact it allowed the government to “revive” provisions when needed. It also gave them the ability to suspend elections for up to a year after the passing of the act, delaying democratic accountability in this country. Our ability to fight for our rights is becoming increasingly difficult with laws that can be easily abused by those in power. It’s clear the policing bill is not the only attempt to take away our collective rights. We must ensure our rights aren’t taken away under false pretences of protecting public health.

    But Scotland wouldn’t clamp down on our freedoms, right?

    For many people the Scottish government is far more progressive and compassionate than the Tories. Free university and a more welcoming attitude to immigrants help promote this image of progressiveness. To believe this makes it more democratic however is to ignore its recent attempts to take away some of our fundamental rights. Holyrood was designated a protected site on 1 October which means individuals can now be prosecuted for being on the grounds of Holyrood without consent.

    Just like Westminster, Holyrood seems determined to shut down freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Cross party group the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB) now have the power to select what protests are allowed outside Holyrood – helping it control debate in this country. The Kill the Bill Scotland activist I spoke to said that the restrictions on protest at Holyrood and the police bill can be seen:

    in totality as diminishing the government’s accountability. Defending the powerful from the working class.

    If that isn’t enough to shatter your faith in the SNP, then maybe the Coronavirus Recovery and Reform Bill will.

    Perpetual lockdown

    The bill was recently introduced to Scottish parliament and would grant the Scottish government the ability to shut down schools and businesses, and force people into isolation without any parliamentary oversight. The SNP’s attempts to make school closures easier shows a complete disregard for schoolchildren. Schoolchildren’s educations have been greatly affected by lockdown measures and remote learning. Scotland’s schools now have a literacy attainment gap of 24.7% between the richest and poorest pupils, as opposed to only 20.7% pre-lockdown and 21.4% in their numeracy attainment gap, a near 5% increase compared to pre-lockdown numbers.

    Lockdown measures have also had a devastating impact on businesses with 20,000 businesses closing in a year. Unsurprisingly, these business closures have had a detrimental impact on the livelihoods of many Scots, with 41% saying lockdown has negatively impacted their household finances. Another aspect of the bill which may affect people’s finances is the proposal to drop the debt threshold for bankruptcy from £10,000 during in the pandemic to £5,000. It would be reckless to drop the debt threshold for bankruptcy when as we have see many people are still struggling financially from the effects of lockdown.

    Unchecked power at Holyrood

    Not only would the public or other MSPs have no say in the introduction of these measures, but it would also allow the Scottish government the power to extend the act [pdf, p35] until 2025. If enacted, this bill would take away our ability to exercise power on important decisions. We would have no say on going back into lockdown; no say on our ability to move freely; no say on whether our businesses stay open. There’s some seriously worrying parallels between this bill and the Coronavirus Act. They both attempt to control the duration of these measures – ones which have already had a devastating economic and social impact on this country. Don’t be fooled by the SNP’s progressive rhetoric, they are trying to wrestle power away from the public.

    The bill recently received massive backlash with 90% of the 4,000 organisations and individuals consulted on it opposing the bill. This is great news but we must keep the pressure on the Scottish government to ensure this legislation doesn’t pass.

    The SNP shows its true colours

    There are plenty of terrible laws that Westminster are proposing and passing. They must be protested and stopped at all costs. The Tories must be held to account for their actions. While it’s important we raise awareness of these issues, it’s vital we don’t also lose track of creeping authoritarianism in Scotland. The SNP has shown its true colours with their clampdown on protest and their desire to take even more agency away from the general public with the Coronavirus Recovery and Reform bill. We must raise awareness of this fact to avoid a descent into totalitarianism.

    It is right that measures were put in place to try and stop the spread of coronavirus. People’s lives depended on it. But some measures were abused by police – and now in Scotland the SNP is taking things too far. We can’t allow the pandemic to be used by those in power to wrestle more control away from us, stoke fear, and then use that fear to divide us – leaving us powerless to affect change in our lives and in society. We can’t allow them to take away our rights to protest, to have our voices heard. So, we must stand up, be counted, and fight for our rights.

    Featured image via John Campbell

    By Mark Masson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Typical Tory tactics – ignore the facts, stall and distract

    Partygate

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Here’s what you can do to oppose anti-refugee government plans

    As reported by The Canary on 14 April, the government has announced plans to process and detain asylum seekers in Rwanda. In spite of questions surrounding the legality of the offshoring plan, prime minister Boris Johnson maintains that the government can implement it using existing legislation.

    This comes as part of the Tories’ Nationality and Borders Bill which – if passed unamended – would empower the Home Office to revoke the British citizenship of anyone who can claim citizenship in another country.

    In spite of widespread resistance to the inhumane plans, MPs voted against a House of Lords amendment that would force the government to pass any offshore detention plans through parliament at a House of Commons debate on 20 April. The bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April.

    Now is the time to resist this draconian anti-refugee bill.

    A racist and inhumane policy

    In July 2021, the UK’s international ambassador for human rights raised concerns about Rwanda’s failure

    “to conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture.

    Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, has questioned whether Patel’s offshore processing and detention plan complies with Britain’s human rights obligations under international law.

    More than 160 charities and campaign groups have signed an open letter urging the government to u-turn on its “shamefully cruel” plan.

    Meanwhile, the Guardian has reported that civil servants working in the Home Office may resist the unconscionable policy on ethical grounds.

    In spite of opposition to the policy, on 20 April MPs voted 303:234 against a proposed amendment that would require MPs and Lords to approve any offshore processing and detention plans. This amendment included requirements for home secretary Priti Patel to present the details and costs of her offshore detention plans before she can enforce them.

    Shocked by the vote’s outcome, Independent home affairs editor Lizzie Dearden tweeted:

     

    The anti-refugee bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April for the last time before it passes.

    Contact your MP

    We must resist the government’s cruel and inhumane plan to send vulnerable asylum seekers to Rwanda, a much smaller and more densely populated country than the UK. This begins by putting pressure on those in power.

    Refugee rights group Safe Passage has drafted a template letter for people to put pressure on their MPs to oppose the anti-refugee bill. Ahead of the House of Commons debate, the group shared:

    Alongside this, human rights organisation Detention Action shared a link to their petition against the draconian legislation:

    Support groups working on the ground

    Grassroots groups continue to do fantastic work supporting refugees and asylum seekers, and organising against the government’s anti-refugee legislation.

    Detention Action directly supports those in detention, while also campaigning for policy and legislative change:

    Freedom From Torture provides therapy and support for torture and trafficking survivors in the UK:

    And SOAS Detainee Support is a grassroots abolitionist group working in solidarity with detained people in the UK to resist imprisonment and deportation:

    Supporters can donate to sustain their frontline work via PayPal.

    Meanwhile, Brighton-based charity The Hummingbird Project provides trauma-informed support for young refugees:

    Take to the streets

    Highlighting the vital role of protest in undermining such legislation, policy and advocacy manager for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants Zoe Gardner shared:

    Protests against government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda are due to take place on Saturday 23 April.

    Londoners can join Stand Up To Racism in Croydon:

    According to the Bristol Defend Asylum Seekers Campaign, Bristolians are coming together at midday: 

    People can keep an eye on Collective Action London‘s page for the latest updates on upcoming protests in other locations this weekend.

    Now is the time to resist Britain’s outsourcing of border control, and to demand an end to its anti-refugee policies altogether. We must use our collective power to demand that our government treats refugees and asylum seekers with the dignity and respect that every human being is entitled to.

    Featured image via Philip Robins/Unsplash – resized to 770×403, via Unsplash License

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Tories escalate their contempt for refugees

    The Tories have nurtured the hostile environment that set the stage for their latest anti-refugee policies. Curtis Daly picks apart the racist rhetoric of this despicable government.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Children’s commissioner calls for England to consider ban on smacking

    England should consider following Scotland and Wales in banning the smacking of children, the children’s commissioner has said.

    Dame Rachel de Souza has signalled her support for changing the law to give children the same protection from assault as adults.

    She told Times Radio:

    I absolutely abhor, and I’m against, violence of any kind against children.

    Because children are more vulnerable than adults, I think we do need to ensure that their rights are supported.

    Dame Rachel de Souza is made a Dame of the British Empire by the Princess Royal
    Dame Rachel de Souza (in hat) thinks England should consider following Wales and Scotland in banning smacking of children (Yui Mok/PA)

    (Un)reasonable punishment

    Wales, last month, made any type of corporal punishment, including smacking, hitting, slapping and shaking, illegal in the country.

    The “smacking ban”, as it is known, was brought in under the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act 2020. This marks the end of the common law defence of “reasonable punishment”.

    Caregivers can now face criminal or civil charges if they are found to have physically disciplined a young person in any way.

    Critics of the law change said it will criminalise parents, but the Welsh Government insisted the move was about protecting children’s rights.

    It came after Scotland introduced its own ban in November 2020.

    Previously, and as is still the case in England and Northern Ireland, smacking a child was unlawful, but such an assault was allowed as long as it constituted “reasonable punishment”.

    Whether the defence was accepted depended on the circumstances of each case, taking into consideration factors such as the age of the child and the nature of the contact. This included whether it left a red mark, or if it was carried out with a fist or an implement such as a cane or belt.

    Physical punishment of children in Wales outlawed
    The Welsh Government outlawed the physical punishment of a child in March (Welsh Government/PA)

    ‘The right thing’

    De Souza urged ministers to look at how the legislation moved through the Welsh assembly, and said she would support a decision to follow suit:

    Scotland and Wales have done this (banned the physical punishment of children). So we’ve learnt a lot about what that would mean, as it goes into legislation.

    I think we’ve got a great opportunity to look, watch it, as it’s embedded (in Wales), and I would be supportive — certainly, from what I’ve seen so far — I would be supportive if our government decided to do the same.

    Although de Souza acknowledged that “protections” for children are already “enshrined in law” in England, she expressed admiration for the actions of the Scottish and Welsh governments. She added that:

    It’s certainly something that I think we should consider.

    Labour leader Keir Starmer previously said the move should be mirrored in England and Northern Ireland, calling it “the right thing” to do.

    A survey commissioned by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found more than two-thirds of adults in England believe it is wrong for parents or carers to physically punish their child, with 58% thinking it was already illegal.

    More than 60 nations worldwide have legislated against the physical punishment of children.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Government fraud investigators probe PPE contracts

    Government fraud investigators are looking into contracts to supply the NHS with PPE during the pandemic, officials at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) have said.

    Giving evidence to the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Jonathan Marron, the director general of the office for health improvement and disparities, said they had “concerns” over 176 contracts worth a total of £3.9 billion.

    He said that the actual amount of equipment at issue was worth £2.7 billion – with concerns ranging from the quality of the kit provided to performance of the contractor.

    Legality

    The DHSC permanent secretary Chris Wormald said the level of suspected fraud was no higher than with other government contracts:

    It is not unusual to be in dispute on some contracts. Some of them will be resolved entirely amicably, some of them will get to the other end of the spectrum where we believe there has been wrongdoing,” he told the committee.

    Fraud in contracting is a fact of life, regardless of the circumstances. It would be astonishing if this was the only large set of government contracts in which there was no fraud at all.

    What we haven’t seen is this set of contracts being more susceptible to fraud than the average.

    Marron acknowledged that 1.1 billion items of PPE, worth £461 million, supplied during the pandemic had been identified as being unfit for any use.

    However he said it represented “quite a small proportion” of the 19.8 billion items used in health and social care to the end of last month.

    While some may be possible to resolve through mediation and commercial agreement, he said others may require a “more legal process”:

    We are working really, really closely with our internal fraud teams and the broader fraud authorities.

    That is part of what we are looking at, as to how we might bring resolution to these disputes. All options are on the table.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Corbyn: Disband military alliances like Nato to bring about peace

    Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has suggested that military alliances like Nato could build up “greater danger” in the world, and should ultimately be disbanded.

    Corbyn acknowledged the transatlantic alliance was not going to be scrapped immediately but added that people should:

    look at the process that could happen at the end of the Ukraine war.

    He said he did not blame Nato for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine but asked:

    Do military alliances bring peace?

    ‘The best way of bringing about peace’

    The Islington North MP said he wanted to see:

    some kind of much deeper security discussion, as indeed Nato was having a security discussion with Russia until last year.

    Corbyn, a long-standing critic of Nato, told Times Radio:

    I would want to see a world where we start to ultimately disband all military alliances.

    The issue has to be what’s the best way of bringing about peace in the future? Is it by more alliances? Is it by more military build-up?

    Or is it by stopping the war in Ukraine and the other wars… that are going on at the present time, which are also killing a very large number of people?

    And ask yourself the question, do military alliances bring peace? Or do they actually encourage each other and build up to a greater danger?

    I don’t blame Nato for the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine, what I say is look at the thing historically, and look at the process that could happen at the end of the Ukraine war.”

    POLITICS Ukraine
    (PA Graphics)

    ‘You have to appeal to people’

    The ex-opposition leader lost the Labour whip over his response to the equalities watchdog’s report into antisemitism in the party.

    Although he was reinstated as a Labour member after a suspension, Keir Starmer has refused to readmit him to the parliamentary party.

    Corbyn said:

    I think it’s a wrong, totally unjustified decision.

    He declined to rule out starting a breakaway party, possibly based on his peace and justice project.

    I don’t know what the future is going to bring. I am focused on representing my constituency, being a Member of Parliament and on saying to the Labour Party: to win the next election, you have to appeal to people.

    And you have to appeal to people on the basis of economic justice and changes in the power structures within our society.

    Abandoning policies that would achieve that, particularly public ownership, is not going to excite people.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson’s attack on the BBC furthers his corporate fascism

    The BBC is under fire from Boris Johnson over its coverage of the government’s plan to send refugees to Rwanda. The PM accused the state broadcaster of being more critical of the scheme than it is of Vladimir Putin. In reality, the BBC hasn’t been critical enough. It’s just done what it always does: present the government line under the guise of impartiality. Not that that matters when we have a far-right government engaged in class war, whose goal is a corporate fascist state.

    Johnson: the BBC is nicer about Putin

    The Telegraph reported on comments Johnson made in a private meeting of backbench Tory MPs. He allegedly said that the BBC, as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury, were “less vociferous” about Putin than they were about the refugee plan. Johnson also said the BBC has “misconstrued” the government scheme.

    In a later column, the Telegraph called Johnson’s comments a “war of words” between him and the BBC. Of course, the PM gunning for the Beeb is nothing new. As the Guardian reported, just days after the public elected him in December 2019, Johnson’s government was:

    threatening the future of the BBC by insisting it is seriously considering decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee, while boycotting Radio 4’s Today programme over the broadcaster’s supposed anti-Tory bias.

    This has been a running theme ever since. It has culminated in the government saying it plans to scrap the licence fee in 2027. Before then, it’s also freezing the price of the fee.

    The persecution complex

    Of course, in the context of the BBC, Johnson attacking it is a typical Tory and centrist MO: label views you disagree with as somehow being aligned with the country’s perceived enemies. Much like the treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, you then have a public who distrust those who the perpetrator is smearing.  Moreover, as The Canary previously wrote:

    The persecution complex is a right-winger’s bread and butter. Delusions of maltreatment contribute to a grand victim narrative: mundanities become sinister anti-Conservative plots, evidence of a society that is actively hostile to their beliefs, as opposed to one literally governed by the Conservative Party. The objective of this is to garner sympathy, to convince the wider electorate that if their views are controversial enough to be censored by influential, ‘woke’ progressives, then surely they must be worth listening to.

    Johnson’s current “grand victim narrative” is a personal one due to Partygate. But still, it serves the same purpose as The Canary noted above. Never mind the fact that the BBC‘s coverage of the government’s Rwanda plan was fairly dire, anyway.

    BBC coverage of Rwanda: fence-sitting on steroids

    In a drive for ‘balance’, the BBC essentially kept the government’s line with a few opposing comments thrown in. For example, it published one of its earliest articles about the plan on 13 April.  Originally, its headline was:

    UK to sign deal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing

    However, as the BBC edited the article, the content became closer to the government’s populist line. For example, the BBC changed the headline to this on 14 April:

    UK to give asylum seekers one-way ticket to Rwanda

    Before altering it again to this almost right-wing, tabloid-style ‘shout’:

    One-way ticket to Rwanda for some UK asylum seekers

    The final headline absolved anyone of any responsibility for the deal; that is, it didn’t say who was giving refugees a “one-way ticket”. Even so, all the other headlines failed to say it was the government doing this. Instead, they pinned it on the more homogenous “UK”. Moreover, the article itself gave the majority of the commentary to the government. The Canary‘s analysis shows that the BBC gave around 216 words to opposition voices in the 1,062-word article. This was compared to 388 from either government or pro-government voices. That’s 79.6% more words for people in favour of the plan. Plus, the article gave most of it’s conclusion to pushing the government’s other plans for refugees.

    Creeping corporate fascism?

    Ultimately though, Johnson’s attack on the BBC, regardless of whether it’s warranted, is a further step down the UK’s path to corporate fascism. As The Canary wrote, in its broadest sense this is:

    a form of [an] oppressive regime that removes civil liberties while handing corporations huge wealth from the public purse as well as giving them power and control over all of us.

    Control of the media is one aspect of corporate fascism. Johnson’s continued attacks on the BBC coupled with his government’s privatisation of Channel Four, are the epitome of this. Both these actions are not needed: the BBC is heavily biased towards the government, and Channel Four is a profitable venture that doesn’t need to be privatised, as the public doesn’t actually fund it. The government’s destruction of both will cement the already-dire UK media landscape as one controlled entirely by corporations.

    BBC: caught in the crossfire

    When even corporate journalists like ITV political editor Robert Peston call the government an “elected dictatorship“, something is seriously broken. The BBC has never been an outlet working in the public interest. But Johnson and his government aren’t attacking it for that reason. Shoring up their own agenda is the priority – that is, the agenda of a far-right government, meting out a class war in a corporate fascist state. The BBC is just in the firing line.

    Featured image via LBC – YouTube and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The US Cries About War Crimes While Imprisoning A Journalist For Exposing Its War Crimes

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    In what his lawyers have described as a “brief but significant moment in the case,” a British magistrates’ court has signed off on Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States, bringing the WikiLeaks founder one step closer to a US trial under the Espionage Act which threatens press freedoms worldwide.

    The extradition case now goes to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel for approval, which will likely be forthcoming as Patel is a reliably loyal empire manager. After that point, Assange’s legal team will be able to launch an appeal.

    This is happening at the same time the United States and the United Kingdom are loudly demanding accountability for alleged war crimes by the Russian military in Ukraine, which is interesting because attempting to bring accountability for war crimes is precisely why Julian Assange is in prison.

    “He is a war criminal,” President Biden said of Vladimir Putin following allegations of war crimes in Bucha, Ukraine earlier this month. “I think it is a war crime. … He should be held accountable.”

    And that’s all I’d like to say here today, really. That this discrepancy is very interesting.

    I mean, can we take a moment to deeply appreciate the irony of this? Because it’s so obscene and outrageous it’s actually hard to take in unless you really let it absorb. The most powerful government in the world, which serves as the hub of the most powerful empire that has ever existed, is working to extradite a journalist for exposing its war crimes while simultaneously rending its garments over war crime allegations against another government.

    I mean, damn. You would think a power structure that had recently been caught red-handed committing war crimes and is currently in the process of imprisoning a journalist for exposing those war crimes would at least have the sense not to yell too loudly about war crimes for a little while. But this is how confident the empire is in its ability to control the narrative.

    Really take it in. Really digest it. The more you think about it, the freakier it gets. Not only is the empire persecuting a journalist for exposing its war crimes while at the same time demanding that others be held accountable for war crimes, it is also attacking the free press for reporting the truth about the powerful while at the very same time engaging in a massive propaganda operation which holds that it is involved in Ukraine to protect its freedom and democracy.

    I mean, the gall. The absolute temerity. The balls on this empire, man.

    I have said it before and I will say it again: Assange exposed many ugly realities about the powerful in his work with WikiLeaks, but everything that he has managed to expose thereafter simply by forcing them to prosecute him far surpasses the revelations in those publications.

    If the highest form of journalism is exposing the darkest secrets of the most powerful people in the world, then Julian Assange is the highest form of journalist.

    _________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • The police want to impose a chilling list of conditions on a UK anarchist prisoner

    UK anarchist Toby Shone was put on trial for terrorism last year. The charges – which were never proven – related to the 325nostate.net anarchist website.

    Toby was arrested in November 2020 in the Forest of Dean in Southwest England.

    The prosecution against Toby was part of a wider police operation known as ‘Operation Adream’. The original charges were that the 325 website – which published reports of direct action – contained material ‘that would be useful to terrorists’, and that the site fundraised for ‘terrorist activities’.

    The case is comparable with the 1997 Green Anarchist/Animal Liberation Front – or GANDALF – trial’, which accused the editors of Green Anarchist magazine and the Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group newsletter of “unlawfully inciting persons unknown to commit criminal damage”. However, Operation Adream went one step further by charging Toby with terrorism.

    Toby told The Canary that “the implications of this case do not only concern anarchists”, but should be a warning to anyone  who “wants to see actual social, political or environmental change”.

    CPS’ terrorism case fails

    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) eventually offered no evidence in relation to the terrorism case, and Toby was found not guilty.

    However, he was convicted of possession of a small quantity of drugs with intent to supply, and was sentenced to three years and 9 months in prison.

    Now, the Counter Terrorism Unit want to use the drugs conviction to apply for a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO). The SCPO will enable the police to control his use of computers, bank accounts and other electronic devices for five years after he is released from prison. They can apply to renew the order indefinitely.

    SCPO orders can be imposed by courts on people who have been convicted of ‘serious’ crimes. The orders are designed to severely limit people’s freedom by – in the words of the CPS – imposing “conditions considered appropriate for the stated purpose of protecting the public from serious crime”.

    The CPS lists the crimes that qualify for the imposition of a SCPO order on its website. The list includes “drug trafficking”, but the crime has to be deemed by the court to be ‘serious’ in order for a SCPO to be imposed.

    The application for the SCPO is due to be heard on 6 May at Bristol Crown Court. A solidarity demonstration is planned at the court at 8.30am.

    Support Toby poster - https://www.brightonabc.org.uk/images/toby_may_6_demo.pdf
    A poster in support of Toby – by Brighton ABC

    Imprisoned since 2020

    Toby was originally imprisoned in Wandsworth and had a hearing at the Old Bailey. His trial was eventually moved back to Bristol, to be tried locally, and Toby was moved to HMP Horfield in Bristol.

    Recently Toby was moved again, this time to HMP Parc in Bridgend, after supporters spoke out about targeting and threats made against him by a right-wing prison officer.

    Operation Adream

    The Canary interviewed Toby from his prison cell. He said about Operation Adream:

    According to Operation Adream’s framework, anarchism is a terrorist ideology.

    Reporting on and publishing communiques on direct action and sabotage is ‘glorifying terrorism’. Prisoner solidarity efforts for anarchist prisoners is ‘supporting terrorism’, collecting funds for those prisoners and for anarchist publications is ‘funding terrorism’.

    Commenting on the initial terrorism charges against him, Toby stated:

    The prosecutors were seeking to impose over a decade of prison on me. I’ll leave speculation aside, and I’ll mention that the charges were not dropped. Technically, the Crown offered no evidence to refute my defence statement and a ‘not guilty’ verdict was recorded.

    According to Toby, the SCPO which is being sought against him is a politically motivated attempt to keep him, and those close to him, under close surveillance:

    The SCPO is a method to keep me under continuous five year investigation, and de facto house arrest. It is simply a method of repression, which is intended to intimidate me, my family and my friends. To criminalise and place under surveillance those I’m close to, and to try to force me to change the way I choose to live, and with whom.

    Toby described the conditions of the SCPO:

    It is an attempt to force me to use cashless banking and payments. To control my use of phones, USBs and computers. Stop me using encryption and stop me from using any form of open source software such as Linux. And to stop me from using crypto currencies.

    A “clandestine and subversive lifestyle”

    The SCPO order will make it very difficult for Toby to live collectively, as he did before his arrest. Toby told us:

    …In the papers filed against me, living collectively, ‘off grid’ in a ‘nomadic way’, is seen as a threat to the system. And it’s part of the ‘clandestine and subversive lifestyle’ that I must be stopped from pursuing. Really this means that anyone who is viewed as being ‘outside’ – if such a thing exists – of society, or the cops invented ideas of ‘normality’, can be targeted as an enemy of the state. And the police can invent whatever fictions they like to justify their control.

    Part of a move towards a surveillance society

    Toby relates the repression against him to a broader process. He said that it’s a move towards a society where the state gives itself more and more control, enabled by technological advances:

    It’s possible to make a broad argument that society itself is transforming into a world where everything and everyone is trackable, monitored and profiled. Any realities that don’t conform to this new vision of how regulation and digitalization is to function is seen as a threat to power.

    Toby also described how the control order would affect his life:

    As to how it would affect my life, the control order demands constant contact with the police to inform them and seek permission for my contact with others. Use of cash, use of communication devices, my movements, where I sleep, or reside, my use of postboxes, storage units, restrictions on using a single bank account. The list is extensive.

    A political measure

    Toby sees the order as something that is impossible to comply with, and – in fact – just a ploy to put him back in prison as soon as possible:

    The order is not really intended to be complied with. It’s been drawn up in such a way as to be impossible to submit to. The aim of the ‘Anti Terrorist Unit’ is to put me back in prison as soon as possible after I am released, and try to frighten me from speaking out about what the endgame is.

    The police are able to seek this SCPO against Toby because he has been convicted of intent to supply controlled substances. However, SCPOs are normally used against large-scale drug-dealing operations. This is confirmed by the CPS website which states that “The SCPO is intended for use against those involved in the most serious offences”. Far from fitting in to this categorisation, Toby’s drug conviction is comparatively insignificant.

    We asked Toby to comment on the drug charges he was convicted for. He said:

    The raids in Operation Adream took place against several addresses, which were collective living projects.

    I was using medical marijuana and DMT to treat my cancer and related conditions. I also had joint possession of LSD and psilocybin. This was deemed ‘possession with intent to supply’ despite being simply a collective amount in a house project/hangout. These medicines are known for their potential rapid deconditioning effects, and their use for self analysis and reprogramming has been widely studied.

    Toby said that the attempts by the police to paint him as a drug dealer are intended to hide the use of the SCPO to repress his political activity:

    Police efforts to label me as a ‘drug dealer’ are smears and attempts to obscure revolutionary anarchism. I’m anti capitalist and against any gang or mafia type practices. I’m opposed to the use of hard narcotics and their supply.

    “Prison is a path which all revolutionaries must face”

    I asked Toby whether this was his first time in prison. He said:

    This is not my first time in the hands of the enemy. But this is the longest I have spent behind the door, having faced the rifles of the ‘Anti Terrorist Unit’, and the demands for such a long sentence.

    Prison is a path which all non-conformists, dissidents and revolutionaries must face.

    Toby maintains that prison needs to be abolished as an institution. He argues that prisons are used to oppress the “exploited classes”:

    As for my observations, they are unchanged. Prison cannot be reformed. It must be destroyed along with the state and the society which requires it.

    Prison is the institutional repression of the most exploited classes, and maintains the divide between the rich and the poor. It’s always been so, and always will be. There is no ‘rehabilitation’, only warehouses of suffering where they store men, women and children in conditions unlikely to engender anything but hostility, misery and hatred. however much they dress it up with lies and phantasms of redemption.

    Cutting the “wild roses before they bud”

    Toby sees Operation Adream – and the application for a control order against him – as “an attack on 21st century anarchism”.

    According to Toby, police forces in Europe and Latin America have taken similar measures against anarchist insurrectionalist movements, but Operation Adream is significant because it took place in the UK. Toby said:

    Anarchist insurrectionalism is already a major target in Europe and Latin America. The only novel thing is that this is the first time such an operation was conducted in UK.

    Anarchist insurrectionalists believe in the need for constant social and class struggle, and attacks against the state. Insurrectionalists favour informal organisation based on affinity over the creation of permanent revolutionary institutions. Toby says that many anarchist insurrectionalists believe in organisation through affinity groups which are federated into larger flexible structures, but do not become formalised, and can remain responsive.

    Toby sees Operation Adream as part of a wider state strategy which labels left-wing groups as ‘terrorists’:

    The establishment of ‘left wing terrorism’, as a new [police] focus comes at a time of lethargy in the radical Left, despite the times we’re living in today, which are full of the conditions likely to create a real momentum towards resistance.

    However, at an international level, a resurgence of anarchist, anti-civilization and anti capitalist action is taking place. And the state is aware of that fact, and seeks to cut any wild roses before they bud.

    Terrorism label is nothing new

    In fact, the labelling of militant parts of the Left as ‘terrorist’ by the British state isn’t really anything new. Supporters of the UK animal rights movement have consistently been branded both ‘terrorists’ and ‘domestic extremists’, and UK supporters of the Kurdish Freedom Movement have been imprisoned under anti-terror laws in recent years. The UK police have long been labelling radical ecological movements as ‘terrorist’, and have used Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act to interrogate suspected radicals from a broad range of social movements at UK borders.

    A police counter-terrorism document – circulated in 2020 to medical staff and teachers as part of an anti-extremism briefing – included reference to groups ranging from the Anarchist Federation and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) to mainstream NGOs like Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

    Avenging “the state’s failure”

    I asked Kevin Blowe from Network for Police Monitoring for a comment on the SCPO being sought against Toby. He said.

    The SCPO is arbitrary punishment for a conviction Toby did not receive, imposed by counter-terrorism police who seem determined to avenge the state’s failure to find any evidence against him for alleged “terrorist” activities. If imposed, it is also almost impossible to comply with while maintaining any involvement in political activism, because the police must know everything about anyone he meets and talks to. It is, therefore, an unsubtle attempt to silence him.
    Blowe concluded:
    At a time when the government claims there are growing threats to the right of freedom of expression, Toby’s experience is a reminder that the biggest threat to free speech comes from the state itself.

    “The implications of this case do not only concern anarchists”

    Toby said that his case should not only be of interest to anarchists; it shows that the state will do what it can to repress and imprison everyone who chooses to struggle for change:

    The implications of this case do not only concern anarchists, who have been under the microscope for some time, but anyone who is living in alternative way with their ideas or their actions, collective or not. Anyone who essentially wants to see actual social, political or environmental change will at some point put that into practice. And the state has prepared prisons for you.

    Toby concluded with a call to organise for freedom, and for revolution:

    That’s why we must realise what we’re up against, and organise. Revolution and freedom is the imperative.

    Stay strong out there.

    Featured image via Flickr/Dave Nakayama (resized to 770x403px)

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson’s 1,000 days in power: who cares?

    The corporate media was awash with column inches on Tuesday 19 April, discussing Boris Johnson’s 1,000 days as Prime Minister. But the more crucial question here is, who the fuck cares? Because whoever the PM is, it’s always the same: perpetual class war.

    Living obituaries

    It seems to be an unwritten rule that as soon as a PM hits some sort of milestone anniversary, the corporate media is duty-bound to dedicate articles to this sort of nonsense. Theresa May had them after 365 days in power. David Cameron had them for certain years and after his first term in office. Gordon Brown even had a book on his first year as chancellor (clearly his first year as PM wasn’t that noteworthy). And Tony Blair had a living obituary (a veritable eulogy) for his first decade as prime minister.

    So, now it’s Johnson’s turn.

    1,000 days of clusterfucking

    The corporate media have been churning out potted history lessons about him as fast as he lies. The Guardian trumpeted that:

    From prorogation to partygate: 1,000 days of Boris Johnson as PM

    The UK prime minister leaves a trail of scandals, U-turns and law-breaking as he reaches his milestone

    National World did a political ‘listicle’, lamenting:

    The 14 scandals that define Boris Johnson’s time in office – 1000 days on from becoming Prime Minister

    And the Mirror went further, managing a half-century of Johnson’s misdemeanours:

    Boris Johnson’s first 1,000 days – his 50 biggest scandals, rows and U-turns as PM

    iNews, meanwhile, sat completely on the fence, whimpering:

    From Partygate to vaccines: Boris Johnson’s biggest failures and successes in first 1,000 days as PM… Mr Johnson’s premiership has seen him deliver Brexit and preside over a successful Covid vaccine rollout, but it has also been marred by scandal and sleaze.

    But what does all this from the corporate media mean? Absolutely fuck all.

    Dumbing-down leaders’ crimes

    It’s been a standard for years to do these ‘retrospectives’ on sitting leaders. All it serves to do is focus our minds on the individual actions of PMs: like people labelling Johnson the first sitting PM to be a criminal. This ignores Blair’s illegal invasion of Iraq, the UN’s accusations against Cameron’s government of “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights, and May’s presiding over the Windrush scandal.

    The point being that it’s not individual actions that are the problem. It’s the system that every sitting PM has ever presided over which is the real scandal. They’re all as bad as each other. The root cause is a system deliberately designed to create a society where the poorest and most marginalised people’s lives are infinitely dispensable in a perpetual class war. Until we address that root cause, then all the ‘1,000 day’ column inches in the world are just churnalism.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Amir Khan rob at gunpoint in Leyton, east London.

    London,

    Former boxing world champion Amir Khan has update his social media handle on Monday night that his watch was stolen by the thieves, who pointed a gun at his face. Khan, who was out with his wife, said: “The main thing is we’re both safe.”

    The boxer, 35, is a British-Pakistani Muslim with a tremendous record of 34 wins out of 40 fights.

    The Metropolitan Police said they were investigating after being called to an incident in Leyton on Monday night.

    “A man aged in his 30s is alleged to have been approached by two males who threatened him with a firearm before stealing his watch and fleeing,” the Metropolitan Police said.

    “There were no reports of any shots fired or any injuries. Police responded and conducted an area search.

    “At this very early stage there have been no arrests. An investigation has begun and police are following a number of enquiries.”

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • We owe it to the victims of conflict to tell the unsanitised truth about war

    Warning: this article includes graphic descriptions and images of injury and death

    Almost every day we see reports of horrific atrocities committed in Ukraine, with images of dead or mutilated bodies often sanitised by blurring. But as a Labour MP argues, the public should not be protected from seeing the true horrors of such atrocities.

    This is not about sensationalising, but standing witness to what is happening because we owe it to the victims of those crimes.

    The tragedies we are witnessing in Ukraine are devastating for the people there. Sadly they are not exceptional. The Canary has a long history of reporting on such war crimes – from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Yemen, to Turkey, and beyond.

    It’s essential the horror of all of these conflicts is told.

    Revealing the truth

    UK Labour MP Chris Bryant tweeted that media –  in this case BBC World – should not protect the public from seeing the truth about atrocities taking place in Ukraine:

    Byline Times executive editor Peter Jukes argues that we owe it to the victims of war and their families to reveal the full truth of such crimes:

    Unsanitised crime scenes

    Over many days tweets from independent sources provide unsanitised images of alleged war crimes, mostly discovered in Bucha. For example, one tweet claims to show more murdered civilians with their hands tied behind their backs. Another shows dead bodies of civilians left lying in the streets.

    This tweet shows the burnt bodies of dead civilians, apparently families:

    And this video shows the horrible scene that followed the bombing of the railway station at Kramatorsk, with at least 50 people dead:

    As for the total devastation of Mariupol, this level of destruction is reminiscent of what happened in Grozny (Chechnya) and Aleppo (Syria).

    Butchery in Bucha

    There are also other reports about alleged atrocities committed in Bucha.

    On 4 April it was claimed that the bodies of 410 civilians had been found in towns near Kyiv after the Russian military retreated. A mass grave was also discovered in Bucha. It was alleged that Russian soldiers had fired on men fleeing the town, and had killed civilians at will.

    Regarding atrocities in Bucha and the other towns of Hostomel and Irpin, Ukraine’s ambassador to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko commented:

    We see civilians’ dead bodies lying around the city, many of them have their hands tied up… Multiple rapes of women, children killed. This is a massacre.

    Many other atrocities were reported by a number of papers, including the Daily Mirror.

    Anatomy of murder captured by drone

    Then there was the now infamous murder, captured by drone, of what appears to be a civilian who simply stepped out of his car, with hands raised, after being ordered to by the military.

    Zdf commented:

    The pictures from March 7 show Russian soldiers dragging the body of the man away from his car and into a ditch. A woman and a child were also travelling with him. They are later led by soldiers into the nearby forest. What happens to them then, the pictures do not show.

    A BBC report takes up the story – and it is shocking:

    Some answers already exist for a couple who were killed by the Russians and left to decompose on 7 March. Their rusty, shrapnel riddled car lies in the road next to one of the petrol stations, reduced to a shell by fire. Next to it are the burnt and twisted remains of a body that is just about recognisable as the remains of a man. A wedding ring is still on the corpse’s finger. Stretched out inside the hulk of their car is what is left of the incinerated body of a woman, the mouth opened in what looks like a scream. …

    The bodies, the BBC discovered in an investigation this month, are of Maksim Iowenko and his wife Ksjena. They were part of a convoy of 10 civilian vehicles who were trying to escape the Russians and get to Kyiv.

    The report continued:

    Also in the car were their six-year-old son and the elderly mother of one of Maksim’s friends. Both of them survived and were eventually released by the Russian soldiers.

    They were found walking back down the road, and the woman told her family that Maksim was shouting that a child was in the car when he was killed.

    The elderly woman and the boy are now safe but traumatised.

    The report added: “Under the laws of war civilians are protected, and when they are killed in defiance of those laws, their deaths amount to war crimes”.

    But that was just one event, amongst hundreds of similar atrocities. It demonstrates all loss of morality.

    Dehumanising the enemy

    From the beginning of this war there have been reports of countless numbers of civilians murdered and tortured. These and similar acts are war crimes, says Amnesty International. They may even be considered acts of genocide.

    It’s now understood that as many as 20,000 civilians may have lost their lives in the city of Mariupol alone. And Iryna Venediktova, Ukraine’s prosecutor general, understands that more than 6,000 cases of war crimes have been opened for investigation.

    But why are civilians dealt with in this way? The answer is that, as with most wars, the protagonists are made to see the enemy – military or civilian –  as less than human.

    The following tweet includes an audio recording of what’s claimed to be Russian soldiers being ordered to kill in this way. The man giving the orders says “Here is a whole village of civilians. Shoot the civilian cars”:

    According to the Guardian, the recording was intercepted by Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence service, in relation to the attacks in Bucha. If it proves to be authentic, it demonstrates not just the dehumanising of civilians but also the brutalisation of the combatants.

    “Unspeakable, deliberate cruelty”

    Human Rights Watch’s European media director posted a thread, commenting on some of the recent examples of atrocities:

    Human Rights Watch has documented many alleged war crimes, in a number of locations in Ukraine.

    Hugh Williamson, Human Rights Watch’s Europe and Central Asia director, commented.

    The cases we documented amount to unspeakable, deliberate cruelty and violence against Ukrainian civilians. Rape, murder, and other violent acts against people in the Russian forces’ custody should be investigated as war crimes.

    The HRW report added:

    The laws of war prohibit willful killing, rape and other sexual violence, torture, and inhumane treatment of captured combatants and civilians in custody. Pillage and looting are also prohibited. Anyone who orders or deliberately commits such acts, or aids and abets them, is responsible for war crimes. Commanders of forces who knew or had reason to know about such crimes but did not attempt to stop them or punish those responsible are criminally liable for war crimes as a matter of command responsibility.

    The accounts listed in the report, detailing horrific atrocities, will no doubt add to other evidence to be examined by the international courts.

    Denials or in denial

    And then there’s another narrative: the denial by Russia of any involvement in war crimes and atrocities:

    This separate statement, issued by the Russian ministry of defence via its Telegram account, was in response to claims of war crimes committed in Bucha.

    It concludes:

    All this confirms conclusively that the photos and video footage from Bucha are another hoax, a staged production and provocation by the Kiev regime for the Western media, as was the case in Mariupol with the maternity hospital, as well as in other cities.

    Moscow also has its many supporters and apologists. For example, there’s this article in the Orinoco Tribune. It in turn refers to another article, published on the ‘War On Fakes’ site.

    And there’s this lengthy article by Jacques Baud, former member of Swiss strategic intelligence. He argues that Ukraine made serious errors in the years leading up to the war and it could have been averted.

    Justice?

    Putting aside the geopolitics, what is undeniable in this conflict, as with many others, is the way civilians and their homes have been criminally targeted from day one. And it is these civilians, not governments, who ultimately deserve our support.

    Moreover, journalists have an obligation to reveal, as far as they can, the truth about the horrors of war – for to do anything less would arguably equate to complicity. Indeed, over the years The Canary has not shirked from revealing the horrors of such crimes, sometimes publishing images and videos that bring home the full truth of what took place.

    And the more the truth of war is revealed, the more likely the perpetrators of war crimes will be exposed and hopefully brought to justice.

    Featured image via Flickr Creative Commons / manhhai cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The DWP is in hot water over buried Universal Credit figures

    The government’s statistics body has intervened in a long-running scandal involving the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It’s about its refusal to provide figures on the Universal Credit system for chronically ill and disabled people. However, the intervention is just the tip of the iceberg. For years, the DWP has been burying figures which could expose the harsh reality of Universal Credit.

    Universal Credit and the WCA

    As Disability News Service (DNS) reported, the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) has written to the DWP. This happened after DNS founder and editor John Pring wrote to the OSR, asking it to act over the DWP’s failure to publish figures on Work Capability Assessments (WCAs) on Universal Credit. The DWP uses WCAs to decide what social security people are entitled to. But for years, it’s been mired in scandal: from the conduct of the private companies that run them to the deaths of claimants who WCAs said were “fit for work”.

    The DWP started using WCAs for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), and has released figures on them since 2010. However, it has never done the same for Universal Credit. So now, the OSR has stepped in.

    The DWP: the OSR steps in

    The OSR’s deputy director for regulation Mary Gregory has written to the DWP. She said:

    Since the transition to Universal Credit in 2018, most new claimants are not included in the ESA WCA statistics as ESA and Universal Credit claimants are in separate systems. The lack of Universal Credit WCA statistics leaves a gap in the information available on workplace capability assessments.

    Gregory noted that the DWP said in 2017 that it would look into collating WCA data and publishing it. However, it said at the time that:

    It is not possible to provide a precise timescale or definitive list of additional breakdowns [WCA statistics] at this stage.

    So, Gregory – albeit politely – told the DWP it needs to sort this out. She said there is:

    a continued and unfulfilled need for WCA statistics since the rollout of Universal Credit as most new claimants are excluded from the ESA WCA statistics. It is not clear from what is publicly available, what, if any, plans are in place to address this and when they are anticipated to be completed. We expect statistics producers to be clear and transparent in their decision making, and to include reasons why gaps in reporting remain.

    The DWP told DNS that it:

    will respond to the Office for Statistics Regulation in due course. The response will be published.

    But will it listen? Based on the historical evidence, this is unlikely.

    Years of deception?

    The department’s lack of figures and analysis over Universal Credit has been a brewing scandal for years. As The Canary reported in 2020, at the time the DWP was:

    • Not assessing whether the five-week wait for a first payment causes poverty.
    • ‘Burying’ its own investigation into whether the benefit caused increased foodbank use.
    • Not regularly working out what percentage of new claimants have five-week wait advances.
    • Failing to record what claimant’s health conditions were.

    Perhaps most worryingly, the DWP was not publicly collating data on claimant deaths on Universal Credit. It also repeatedly avoided giving these figures to people making Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. More recently, the DWP pushed through the controversial £20-a-week cut to Universal Credit without assessing how it would impact claimants.

    Most of the points above remain true. The DWP has, for example, released figures around five-week wait advances when MPs pushed ministers to. However, it still routinely does not publish comprehensive data on this or other aspects of Universal Credit.

    Wilful negligence?

    The exact reasons for the DWP’s huge lack of data on Universal Credit are unclear. But Ken Butler, from Disability Rights UK, explained one of the consequences to DNS:

    The DWP is beginning the forced ‘managed’ migration of ESA claimants to Universal Credit. Scrutiny of how those already on Universal Credit are being treated in terms of work capability assessment referrals and outcomes is essential. Any lack of DWP transparency can only reinforce ESA claimants’ worries about having to leave the benefit.

    As The Canary previously wrote, the DWP’s lack of public data on Universal Credit shows:

    At best, it cannot cope with a complex system running away from it. But at worst, it shows wilful negligence.

    But whether it is burying the data or just refusing to compile it, the DWP is, perhaps intentionally, stopping scrutiny of Universal Credit.

    DWP: burying damning evidence?

    This is not surprising when the evidence surrounding its use of the WCA in ESA is so damning. As far back as 2015, researchers linked the process to nearly 600 cases of people taking their own lives. The DWP’s own figures show that between December 2011 and February 2014, around 90 people a month who it said were fit for work were dying.

    Then, a 2016 report from the UN accused the UK government of “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights. It also said that the WCA “processed rather than listened to or understood” claimants. It also noted that:

    the needs, views and personal history of persons with disabilities… were not properly taken into account or given appropriate weight in the decisions affecting them.

    The UN found that the WCA failed to keep disabled people informed about the process they were going through. This resulted in significant “anxiety” and “financial, material and psychological hardship”. In fact, the committee found that the WCA process had caused people’s mental health to “severely deteriorate”.

    It is likely that the same things are happening with the WCA and Universal Credit. Currently, except for claimant’s testimonies, we don’t know. The evidence suggests this is an intentional cover-up by the DWP, and one the OSR is right to question. Now, the DWP must start to compile and then release all of the data is has on the WCA. Proper public scrutiny of this controversial element of social security must take place.

    Featured image via Videoblogg Productions/The Canary 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A series of chain reaction, PML-N demonstrates outside Jemima house.

    London,

    Every action has a reaction same alike PTI workers demonstrate and chant slogans in front of Nawaz Sharif Residence in London. This action of PTI workers pushes PML N workers in retaliations to demonstrate in front of Imran Khan’s ex-wife Jemima Goldsmith house in London. 

    The demonstrations led by Muslim League-Nawaz British President Zubair Gul, Nasir Butt and Iqbal Sindhu. League workers gathered in large numbers including youth, women, men and elders.  Demonstrator holds league flags, Kashmir Flags, pla cards and pictures of Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif.

    The demonstrators protested against Imran Khan and also chanted slogans and expresses solidarity with PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif and newly elected Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif. Participants also dance bhangra on the drum beats.PML N workers has said that PTI workers protest outside the house of our leader Nawaz Sharif, we will not remain silent. Meanwhile, a senior PML-N leader based in the US, Danish Malik has expressed solidarity with the demonstrators in London.

    Read also

    Jemima reacts on PML-N protest calls outside her house.

  • Jemima reacts on PML-N protest calls outside her house.

    London,

    Pakistan Tehreek Insaaf (PTI) top leader and former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s wife Jemima Goldsmith shared her horror of living in Pakistan as she shared the poster of a protest being planned outside her London house on April 17 (Sunday).

    “Protest outside my house, targeting my children, anti-Semitic abuse on social media… It’s almost like I’m back in 90s Lahore,” Jemima Goldsmith tweeted with #PuranaPakistan, in her first social media reaction after the ouster of Imran Khan through the no-confidence vote in the National Assembly.

    Imran Khan was married to Jemima Goldsmith in 1995 which lasted to 2004 and they have two children both were boys. Following her divorce, she left Pakistan and settled in London. In several interviews, Jemima revealed how she was subjected to anti-Semitic attacks for decades.

    In a bitter social media exchange last year, Jemima had said, “I left Pakistan in 2004 after a decade of anti-Semitic attacks by the media & politicians. But still it continues.”

    Meanwhile, Abid Sher Ali share an update on his social media handle that PML-N decides to protest outside the house of Jemima Goldsmith, first wife of Imran Khan on Sunday.

    The UK government, however, distanced itself from its foreign office minister’s statement and said it is not the position of the UK government. “With regard to Pakistan, we respect Pakistan’s democratic system and we would not get into its domestic political affairs. We have longstanding ties with Pakistan and are monitoring developments,” a spokesperson of the government said.

     

     

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Planned Rwandan processing centre shows why we must resist the borders bill

    The government has announced plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. Priti Patel is currently in Rwanda to finalise a £120m trial that will see mostly single men who arrive in Britain being flown to Rwanda for processing.

    The BBC reported:

    Under the proposal, Rwanda would take responsibility for them, put them through an asylum process, and at the end of that process, if they are successful, they will have long-term accommodation in Rwanda.

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

    Borders bill

    This plan is part of a larger series of “barbaric” measures put forward in the Nationality and Borders bill. The bill is currently in its final stages, having passed through the House of Lords. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) have made it clear that if the bill is passed, it would be catastrophic for refugees:

    UNHCR believes the UK’s Nationality and Borders Bill would penalise most refugees seeking asylum in the country, creating an asylum model that undermines established international refugee protection rules and practices.

    The borders bill makes it even harder for refugees to find safety and asylum within the UK. One of the biggest problems with the borders bill is that it divides refugees up into two groups. The Refugee Council explains:

     Refugees who travel to the UK through third countries via irregular routes (like crossing the Channel in a small boat) will be given a new form of temporary protection with limited rights to welfare benefits and family reunion, and they’ll have their status reassessed after 30 months.

    Those who travel via “irregular” routes are to be considered one group, and those who took a more direct route will be considered another. The Refugee Council’s own research shows that most of the people arriving by boats are refugees. We also know that the refugees who arrive via boat risk severe injury and death in order to arrive in the UK.

    As the Refugee Council say:

    It is impossible to tell how much someone needs our help merely by the way they arrive in the UK. The majority of refugees have no choice but to use irregular routes to enter another country.

    Tiers of refugees

    The bill also makes it clear that the two groups of refugees will have different rights:

    The Secretary of State or an immigration officer may treat Group 1 and Group 2 refugees differently, for example in respect of—

    1. (a)  the length of any period of limited leave to enter or remain which is
      given to the refugee;
    2. (b)  the requirements that the refugee must meet in order to be given indefinite leave to remain;
    3. (c)  whether a condition under section 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Immigration Act1971 (no recourse to public funds) is attached to any period of limited leave to enter or remain that is given to the refugee;
    4. (d) whether leave to enter or remain is given to members of the refugee’s family.

    The plan to remove refugees to Rwanda is a follow through of the legislation outlined in the borders bill. It is also reminiscent of the outsourced detention centres used by the Australian government. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), Australia currently holds the record for detaining people for the longest amount of time. Elaine Pearson, director of HRW, said:

    Detaining people solely due to their immigration status is harmful, expensive and ineffective as a deterrent to migration. The Australian government should stop punishing those who may have fled violence and other injustices and offer rights-respecting alternatives to detention.

    Both the decision to divert refugees to Rwanda and the borders bill itself are not only an attack on refugees. They are also an attack on the basic humanity and morality required to understand that people arriving in the Channel, by regular or “irregular” means, are doing so because their lives are under threat. A government which can look at that and make it harder for refugees to reach safety is an inhumane government.

    What can we do?

    #BlackLivesMatterUK called for people to join protests:

    The Refugee Council have put together a template to assist people in writing to MPs to voice their disagreement with the borders bill.

    We absolutely must stand against anti-refugee and anti-immigrant rhetoric wherever we find it. The borders bill is a horrific piece of legislation, and we must work to make sure that all refugees are welcome here.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Richard Townshend – cropped to 770×403, via Creative Commons 3.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Peace agreements can never honour victims while politicians do nothing

    At the start of this month, victims’ campaigners from the north of Ireland spoke to The Canary. They told us how the victims of the 30-year conflict have been dishonoured since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in 1998. This is mainly as a result of the British and Irish governments’ failure to properly investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of murderous acts during that conflict.

    The decades-long dishonouring of victims was compounded by the UK government’s July 2021 command paper. The paper proposed an amnesty from criminal prosecution for all combatants of the conflict. Furthermore, it demonstrated Britain’s clear intention to hide the clandestine role it played in fuelling the conflict. As a result of this intransigence and belligerence, it’s been next to impossible for the victims and their loved ones to move on with their lives.

    This week, The Canary continues speaking with campaigners from different communities. We speak with Ciarán MacAirt of Paper Trail and Raymond McCord of the cross-community Truth and Justice Movement. They explain why they feel the inaction of 24 years since the signing of the GFA has failed and “ignored” the people they represent. In particular, they single out ‘cowardly’ establishment politicians, all over Ireland and the UK, for their deception and inaction.

    The past isn’t past

    MacAirt is also the grandson of two of the McGurk’s Bar bombing victims in Belfast on 4 December 1971. He told The Canary that his campaign work involves working with people and communities who have “lived experiences of the conflict”. In doing so, he deals with people:

    who have not only been traumatised, who have suffered great loss and injury but you’re also dealing with people who’re being retraumatised on a daily basis. And they’re being retraumatised by the media, they’re being retraumatised by governments, they’re being retraumatised by a lack of truth and justice and acknowledgement. And that’s the situation where we are now.

    He then added:

    I know that victims and survivors of the conflict would actually get quite angry and upset and hurt if and when people start talking about ‘drawing a line in the sand’ – as if their lives and their lived experiences mean absolutely nothing – and we can move on. Now you and I know that you can’t move on, not only as individuals but as communities and as a society.

    I know that a lot of our families would be very very concerned too that if we do not attend to the hurt of the conflict and if we do not attend to the great wrongs that were committed by every organisation and every state…that unless we attend to those and admit where we were wrong there’s a great possibility that it’ll [violence] happen again.

    And MacAirt also took aim at the Irish government when he said the “British state is not alone in this”:

    people in and around the border [between the north and south of Ireland] regions from the unionist community would be very concerned that there was collusion, at whatever level, between [Irish] republicans and members of the police force in and around that area.

    Justice campaigners from the unionist community, according to MacAirt, feel that:

    the Irish government, like the British government, is trying to bury its past as well.

    Moreover, he feels “the Irish government really took its eye off the ball”, as:

    there was a long period of time when Irish government had little concern for the political arrangements or any relationship with the north… In the interim period the British government, which we knew was partisan anyway…has been allowed do whatever it wanted…[the Irish government] should have been more involved.

    A reflection of Britain’s colonial atrocities

    MacAirt said his work also involves “managing the expectations” of campaigners who “dared to hope” the British government was about to deliver justice. But he says he’s “lucky”, as he’s “never trusted the British government”. This is mainly because of the:

    long history of British government perfidy as far as dealing with Ireland is concerned and dealing with every agreement that it makes.

    It’s not just when it comes to Bloody Sunday, McGurk’s Bar, and so many other British massacres in the north of Ireland that they can’t be trusted. It’s also when dealing with:

    Kenya, Malaya, Batang Kali…incidents that have happened after the second world war and are still going through British courts…they’re still fighting the same powers that be that we’re fighting in the north of Ireland…it’s the same beast.

    Then, speaking about today’s UK government, he added:

    You’re dealing with a right-wing government where truth doesn’t matter in any form, where the mask has really slipped and these people are standing in front of the British parliament and lying on a daily basis. They have killed, because of their policies, around about 130,000 of their own people because of poverty…

    [So] we’re looking across the water and seeing a right-wing British government that has so little concern for its own people that we know that it has even less for our communities in the north-east of Ireland.

    Victims “ignored”

    Raymond McCord comes from a loyalist background. However, it was loyalist paramilitaries (the UVF) who murdered his son in 1997. When asked how victims of the conflict have been treated in the last 24 years, he had just one word – “ignored”. He said victims, instead of the perpetrators, are treated as the problem and that needs to change. And the current post-conflict “political agenda” needs to become a “victims’ agenda”.

    He feels the main political parties – Sinn Féin and the DUP – are “not helping”. Both he and the campaigners he works with believe:

    political parties have failed us. It’s time all the parties, but in particular Sinn Féin and the DUP, listened to the victims…victims should determine victims’ issues, not politicians

    “Second class”

    McCord said a key point in the GFA was the release of republican and loyalist prisoners. To him, this demonstrated that “from day one victims were second class”. He believes, had there been a referendum on prisoner release, the majority of victims’ families would have voted to “keep them in jail”. He said the release of prisoners was the reason he voted against it in 1998.

    McCord adds that since the GFA was signed, subsequent agreements to deal with the past:

    have meant nothing, they haven’t done anything.

    As far as McCord’s concerned, he doesn’t understand why several agreements are needed to say:

    murder’s a crime and should be investigated, no secret deals…take the politics out of it.

    Loyalist paramilitaries are benefiting from ‘peace’

    He says that since the 1998 GFA, the unionist community has received funding from both the EU and Dublin. But some of the people in receipt of this funding:

    are paramilitaries wearing a suit, shirt and tie during the daytime. It’s [the funding] not going where it should be going.

    He said some in the unionist community, who claim to be anti-protocol (Northern Ireland Protocol – the post-Brexit agreement), still have no problem taking money from the Irish government. He said his attitude is “don’t give them a penny, don’t give them any money”. McCord says this money is meant for the local community but, within the unionist community, loyalist paramilitaries “hold great sway, to put it mildly, on where the funding goes”. Likewise they hold sway in the allocation of housing and jobs, in loyalist communities, that come from this same funding.

    So, according to McCord, despite all these years of a peace agreement and a loyalist ceasefire, there still isn’t real peace. Since that ‘ceasefire’, loyalist paramilitaries have “murdered 32 protestants within their own community”. The vast majority of these murders remain “unsolved”, says McCord. Yet – for some reason – none of the politicians, from any community, appear to be calling for an inquiry into these murders nor asking why there have been no convictions. He believes:

    deals have been done to ensure people in paramilitary organisations don’t be prosecuted because it won’t help the peace process.

    Then he added:

    When people [are] murdering, there is no peace process. People [have] to start being honest here.

    So, according to McCord, the powers that be believe:

    as long as it’s not sectarian murders it’s acceptable. Behind closed doors it’s acceptable.

    He has had to move home several times because the UVF has made attempts to murder and kidnap him. He added that while:

    the explosives are supposed to be handed over, the guns are supposed to have been handed over and it’s sort of accepted by people within the security forces, if Raymond McCord here gets killed, the security people won’t make too much of a fuss over it because he exposes them for what they are. They don’t like the truth.

    He added that it’s not Irish republicans that want to kill him; it’s people the media labels as ‘loyalists’. He adds:

    They’re not loyalists, they’re rapists, drug dealers, extortionists, gangsters and bigots – that’s what they are. [It’s a] disgrace they call themselves loyalists or unionists. And it’s time our politicians within unionism started saying this too.

    Jeffrey Donaldson’s broken promise

    When McCord took his concerns to mainstream unionist politicians, they fell on deaf ears. McCord said he met with the current DUP leader, Jeffrey Donaldson, soon after his son’s murder. He said Donaldson offered to name his son’s murderers in Westminster. But all these years later he’s still waiting. He doesn’t know exactly why Donaldson didn’t name them. However, he speculated that it may have something to do with the fact his son’s murderers were exposed as police informants.

    He said neither police nor unionist politicians have done anything for him in terms of protection or getting justice for his son. He believes they:

    take the easy option, in essence they’re cowards…paramilitary murderers come first, the victims come in last place, not second [but] in last place. As simple as that.

    United we stand

    Despite coming from what’s seen as two opposing communities, MacAirt and McCord are united in their mistrust of the British establishment. But they’re also united on something much more constructive. They’re united and determined, through their research and campaign work, to force the British and Irish governments out of their silence and inaction.

    If anything could be truly meaningful in this situation, the signing of the ‘peace agreement’ could be marked by people calling out the establishment’s deliberate silence and refusal to act in the interests of victims. It could be marked by people showing greater support for victims’ campaigners. With the elections on 5 May looming in the north of Ireland, they could be made to play a part in that outcome.

    Featured image via YouTube Screengrab

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • GMB interview eerily echos Don’t Look Up

    When a Just Stop Oil activist appeared on Good Morning Britain, the resulting interview eerily echoed the climate change satire Don’t Look Up. Curtis Daly breaks down why this is so troubling.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Ambulance and A&E performance drop to lowest levels on record as backlog grows

    Ambulance response times and A&E performance in England have dropped to their lowest levels on record while the backlog of patients waiting for care has continued to grow, new figures show. The latest data from NHS England shows the number of people in England waiting to start routine hospital treatment rose to a new record of 6.2 million at the end of February.

    This is up from 6.1 million in January and is the highest number since records began in August 2007. But the figures also show that while the overall waiting list has continued to grow, the number of people waiting more than a year and two years have both fallen.

    HEALTH NHS
    (PA Graphics)

    “Unacceptable levels”

    Meanwhile, the average response time last month for ambulances in England dealing with the most urgent incidents – defined as calls from people with life-threatening illnesses or injuries – was nine minutes and 35 seconds. This is up from eight minutes and 51 seconds in February and is the longest average since current records began in August 2017.

    Danielle Jefferies, analyst at The King’s Fund, said the latest figures show pressures are now reaching “unacceptable levels” in all parts of the health and care system. She added:

    A&E departments remain full of patients in need of urgent care, and separate data shows a similar story in general practice and social care.

    In March, 22,500 people waited over 12 hours to be admitted to hospital from A&E – a more than thirty-fold increase compared to a year ago.

    Today’s data also shows ambulance service response times for serious health conditions are falling far below the national standards, with patients waiting over an hour for an emergency ambulance.

    The NHS England figures also show ambulances in England took an average of one hour, one minute and three seconds last month to respond to emergency calls, such as burns, epilepsy and strokes. This is up from 42 minutes and seven seconds in February and is the longest time on record for this category of call-outs.

    Urgent calls

    Response times for urgent calls – such as late stages of labour, non-severe burns and diabetes – averaged three hours, 28 minutes and 13 seconds, up from two hours, 16 minutes and 13 seconds in February and another record. The latest A&E figures show that a record 22,506 people had to wait more than 12 hours in emergency departments in England in March from a decision to admit to actually being admitted.

    The figure is up from 16,404 in February, and is the highest for any calendar month in records going back to August 2010. A total of 136,297 people waited at least four hours from the decision to admit to admission in March, another all-time high.

    Just 71.6% of patients in England were seen within four hours at A&Es last month, the lowest percentage in records going back to November 2010. The operational standard is at least 95% of patients attending A&E should be admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours, but this has not been met nationally since 2015. NHS England said emergency departments are under significant pressure, with 2.17 million people attending A&E in March, a rise of nearly 20% month-to-month and the highest March ever.

    “Emergency care is under particular strain”

    Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday morning that there are 20,000 medically-fit patients who cannot be discharged due to pressures on social care.

    In a statement, he added:

    Emergency care is under particular strain, with record levels of demand: record A&E attendances for the month of March and record ambulance call volumes from December to March.

    We’re also seeing very concerning increases in ambulance response times and in the number of people waiting more than 12 hours in A&E before admission.

    HEALTH NHS
    (PA Graphics)

    Trust leaders are deeply aware of the obvious risks to patient safety here and are doing all they can to manage these risks.

    Trusts are also grappling with the ongoing impact of Covid-19. That’s meant more patients with Covid-19 in hospital beds, more staff off work with Covid-19, and more delayed discharges than anyone was expecting or had predicted.

    Hugh Alderwick, director of policy at the Health Foundation, said the figures should be a “wake-up call” for Government. He added:

    Part of the pressures are clearly due to Covid-19, with many staff off sick or self-isolating and the virus continuing to disrupt care.

    Government must be honest about the impact of ‘living with Covid’ on the NHS and social care. But the health system was already struggling before the pandemic – hampered by a decade of underinvestment in health and social care and chronic staff shortages.

    Staff and patients know that action is needed to address systemic workforce shortages – and today’s figures should be a wake-up call for Government.

    Tackling the enormous backlog of unmet need depends on having enough staff to deliver care.

    A fully-funded workforce plan for the NHS is urgently needed and must be a priority for Government.

    Waiting more than two years

    NHS England said that despite record volumes of 999 calls and ambulance call-outs for life-threatening conditions over the winter period of December to March, the service had managed to cut the numbers waiting the longest for hospital treatments.

    A total of 23,281 people in England were waiting more than two years to start routine hospital treatment at the end of February, down slightly from 23,778 at the end of January. But it is around nine times the 2,608 people who were waiting longer than two years in April 2021. The number of people having to wait more than a year to start hospital treatment also fell from 311,528 in January to 299,478 in February.

    The NHS elective recovery plan sets the ambitions of eliminating all waits of more than two years, except when it is the patient’s choice, by July and all waits of more than a year by March 2025. The new backlog figures come after data obtained by the PA news agency showed dozens of NHS patients have waited more than three years for hospital care in England.

    The figures, obtained through freedom of information requests, show at least eight people have been on the NHS waiting list for over four years, with one of these waiting for four-and-a-half years. NHS England national medical director Professor Stephen Powis said:

    Nobody should be under any illusion about how tough a job NHS staff have on their hands, balancing competing priorities and maintaining high quality patient care.

    Despite pressure on various fronts and the busiest winter ever for the NHS, long waits fell as staff continue to tackle two-year waits by July thanks to the innovative approaches to care they are now adopting – from same day hip replacements to dedicated mobile hubs for operations.

    As ever, if you need help, especially over the often busy bank holiday weekend, please do come forward for the care you need through NHS 111 online and if it’s an emergency, dial 999 or go to your nearest A&E.

    Featured image via – Flickr – Garry Knight

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Daily Mail goes into defence mode over PM’s partygate fine

    Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, amongst others, have been given fixed-penalty notices for breaking lockdown laws. Both Keir Starmer and Nicola Sturgeon called for the two to resign.  A YouGov snap poll showed that most of the public also thought Johnson should resign.

    Enter the Daily Mail. As Allie Hodgkins-Brown, BBC Home and Foreign Duty Editor, reported:

    Quibbles about the birthday cake not leaving its tupperware aside, it’s more than a little crass to downplay Johnson and Sunak’s actions. Actions which, for the record, they have lied about multiple times.

    Modern warfare

    It must be said, however, that we are very much not at war with Russia. But before we even come to the conflict in Ukraine, the UK has had a hand in wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and more. The UK’s involvement in these areas has taken the form of the supply of weapons, interventionist approaches to conflict, and the repeated attempts at a war on terror. Thanks to the military industrial complex, war can be outsourced.

    Now, for Ukraine. The Daily Mail headline of “Don’t they know there’s a war on?” makes it sound like Johnson is a beleaguered prime minister holed up in a war room. Like he’s leading military operations as enemies advance into the UK. That is far from the truth.

    While the Daily Mail may struggle to care about more than one issue at once, many others in the country have not been able to afford such luxuries.

    Crumbling NHS

    The strain of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic has left almost half of NHS critical care staff with PTSD, depression, and anxiety. A Guardian report from 2021 said:

    More than one in seven clinicians and nearly one in five nurses working in ICU reported thoughts of self-harm or suicide, according to the study, published in the journal Occupational Medicine.

    As news of Johnson and Sunak’s fines made headlines yesterday, NHS staff expressed their hurt and dismay online.

    NHS Dr Meenal Viz said:

    UK coronavirus rates remain near or at record levels whilst the NHS is under even more pressure. The British Medical Association (BMA) published an analysis that shows how the pandemic has made things even worse. They cite:

    • cancelled operations due to a lack of staff
    • an unsustainable strain on GPs
    • outdated IT systems
    • chronic understaffing
    • insufficient funding

    As the pandemic shows no signs of slowing down, the NHS continues to crumble under the pressure. NHS staff who were already struggling are left with a political leadership who quite literally partied while staff were on the frontlines.

    Grief in isolation

    Many other people had to watch loved ones die alone, hold stripped back funerals, and grieve alone. Naturally, many people shared their thoughts on the likes of Sunak and Johnson’s disregard for lockdown laws.

    Louise Dillon’s son died in 2020, and she shared this memory:

    Broadcaster Liz Bonnin shared how her mother died alone:

    Rachel Curtis described having to be alone during a suspected miscarriage:

    There are countless others across the country who followed the letter and spirit of the lockdown laws. They did so even while their loved ones died alone, when they couldn’t grieve together with others, when they themselves were in pain. Meanwhile, the political leadership of this country broke the very laws they made.

    Compliant media

    Having the likes of the Daily Mail brush aside these concerns is to be expected, certainly. However, that doesn’t make it any easier to stomach. What is not needed in this moment is a compliant media using phoney jingoism to brush any scandals under the carpet. What is needed instead is a media which will reflect the concerns of the people who have been so thoroughly insulted and let down by this government of incompetents.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/10 Downing Street – cropped to 770×404, via Open Government License 3.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Here are the nine rich white people paid £2.5m to control inflation

    Inflation has hit 7%. That means the cost of everything you buy is now spiralling out of control. But guess what? There are rich white people paid hundreds of thousands each to control inflation. And the fact they’re clearly not doing their fucking jobs properly while the rest of us suffer is another example of the class war we’re currently fighting.

    Inflation: the rich white people who are supposed to control it

    As journalist Paul Lewis tweeted:

    Yes, that’s right. There’s an actual committee at the Bank of England (BoE) that’s in charge of controlling inflation. It’s called the monetary policy committee. Here they are:

    The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee

    If there was ever a group of white bankers in work clothes, then this is it. Take Michael Saunders – previously an economist-turned-banker for HSBC and Citigroup. Then there’s Jon Cunliffe, who has worked high-up in the civil service and the EU advising governments for decades. Catherine L. Mann is also an economist-turned-banker, having worked for Citibank.

    WTF is the BoE doing?

    The BoE monetary policy committee is supposed to, in its own words:

    set monetary policy to achieve the Government’s target of keeping inflation at 2%.

    Clearly, it’s not doing a very good job of that at the minute. In fact, these rich white people keep getting inflation quite drastically wrong. They predicted in December 2021 that it would hit 6% in April – not the 7% we actually already reached in March. Even in February, the committee was saying inflation would be 6% in March; wrong again.

    You’re probably wondering just WTF these nine people are actually doing to earn the £156,500 a year they get paid for a three-day week. Good question – especially for the overall BoE boss, Andrew Bailey, who receives nearly £575,000 a year.

    They’re clearly not doing a lot. But why would they?

    Class war

    While rich white people are in charge of keeping rising prices under control, the result will always be the same: they won’t. That would involve putting up interest rates. Why won’t the BoE do this? Because of the economy. As Costas Milas wrote for the London School of Economics (LSE), the BoE won’t act because:

    a series of interest rate hikes could “derail” economic recovery.

    That’s not economic recovery for most of us, by the way. It’s economic recovery for the richest people. As The Canary has repeatedly reported, the most well-off in the UK generally feel the least strain financially – and low interest rates just make them even richer and the poorest even more in debt.

    Once again, we’re seeing the state (this time via the BoE) waging class war on many of us. The only people severely affected by spiralling inflation are the poorest – the rich, on the other hand, laugh all the way to the bank.

    Featured image via the Bank of England – screengrab 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Who is Rishi Sunak?

    Rishi Sunak is having a tough week. The millionaire has to pay a fine for breaking lockdown rules, and his even richer wife is going to have to pay some tax on her income. Boohoo! Learn more in the first of our ‘Meet the Tories’ series: Who is Rishi Sunak?

    Video transcript

    Rishi Sunak’s everywhere these days, from announcing budgets, to his countless photo-ops. But behind the wide smiles and polished look, a much more sinister and calculating individual can be identified.

    The first and most striking fact about our current chancellor is that he’s rich – and we mean really rich. For context, he’s actually the richest member of the House of Commons. And for more context, here is just one of Sunak’s four luxury properties – a striking £1.5m mansion located in Yorkshire. Estimates put his wealth at around £200m – so, just where does all his wealth come from?

    Rishi was born in 1980 to ‘well to do’ parents – his dad, a general practitioner, and his mother, manager of a local pharmacy. But it was while obtaining his MBA at Stanford University that he met his future wife – billionaire Akshata Murthy – daughter of Indian Billionaire Narayana Murthy.

    This opened many doors for Sunak, and he even went on to work as a director of his father’s in law’s company ‘Catamaran Ventures’. Aside from this, however, he’s worked for some of the world’s largest and most profitable banks, including the notorious Goldman Sachs. Sunak also worked for the hedge fund ‘The Children’s Investment Fund Management’. The hedge fund is known for launching a campaign that bet against a major Dutch Bank – ABN Amro. This point is crucial because this bet eventually led to the company’s instability, leading to its sale to the Royal Bank of Scotland – which ultimately started the chain of events that lead to the financial crash of 2008.

    But aside from his own personal dealings, his billionaire wife’s finances have recently come under close scrutiny.

    Akshata Murthy was widely criticised after being exposed for claiming non-domicile status on dividend payments she received from her father’s tech company, Infosys. Her stake in the company brought her over £10m last year – from which she paid no UK taxes. Only after massive public backlash was she pressured to drop this status and pay UK taxes on this income.

    While Rishi has shamelessly hiked taxes on millions of working people, and voted in measures that have reduced benefits for the most vulnerable – he lives in a completely different world. A world of luxury, wealth, and privilege.

    So the next time you hear Rishi claiming he understands the pain of working people, or that he empathises with the families facing an unprecedented cost of living crisis, show them this video so that they understand – this is class war, plain and simple.

    Featured image: HM treasury/flickr

    By Andrew Butler

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Brexit is the elephant in the newsroom

    Brexit elephant cartoon

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on The Canary.