radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Tube bosses’ anti-strike propaganda absolutely stinks

    Bosses at the London Underground (LU) and Transport for London (TfL) are playing fast and loose with the truth over why tube workers are striking. It comes as the capital was brought to a standstill by the dispute. LU and TfL have been waging an all-out propaganda war against striking workers, and they’ve been using the pandemic and Londoner’s finances as leverage.

    TfL: axing tube jobs

    Back in December 2021, TfL said it was freezing recruitment on customer service jobs. The Guardian reported that this meant TfL would not fill 350 jobs when staff left, nor would it fill 250 vacancies it currently has. Or, as ITV News put it, TfL made plans:

    to axe up to 600 jobs.

    TfL and LU claimed it was due to the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. LU director of customer operations Nick Dent told the Guardian:

    The devastating impact of the pandemic on our finances has made a programme of change urgently necessary.

    Bosses: cutting pensions?

    Bosses are also reviewing workers’ pensions. As the RMT highlighted, London mayor Sadiq Khan’s independent review called workers’ pensions:

    ‘expensive’, ‘unreformed’, ‘outdated’ and too generous to employees. It said that by reforming the scheme, TfL could save £100 million per annum

    So, Khan is carrying out another review. And the RMT is worried this could mean him and TfL cutting workers’ pensions.

    Obviously, trade unions weren’t happy, and the RMT planned strike action. Now that’s happening, TfL and LU are back-tracking – making out no one is losing their job.

    Everybody out. No – literally everybody

    On Tuesday 1 March, around 10,000 tube workers began a 24 hour strike and brought the entire underground to a halt:

    Already, TfL and LU have launched a propaganda war against their workers.

    Blatant propaganda

    TfL boss Andy Lord told PA:

    We haven’t proposed any changes to pensions or terms and conditions, and nobody has or will lose their jobs because of the proposals we have set out, so this action is completely unnecessary.

    That’s clearly not the whole story given that TfL and LU are implementing a recruitment freeze and Khan is reviewing pensions. But Lord went further – trying to spook Londoner’s over their finances. He said workers protecting their livelihoods are:

    threatening London’s recovery from the pandemic.

    Khan’s spokesperson said similar. PA reported that they argued:

    the strikes will cause disruption to Londoners and businesses trying to recover from two devastating years.

    Of course, Khan previously attacked tube workers over another strike in November 2021. But the strike is not just down to LU, TfL, and Khan. Because the Tory government has also had a hand in the chaos.

    Tories: managed decline of the tube?

    The Tories’ pulled TfL’s government funded grant in 2018. This meant the network lost around £700m a year, which it had to try and make up. As the website Ian Visits reported, the effect of the pandemic meant the government had to prop-up TfL with extra cash. As it wrote, TfL is now on its fourth short-term funding boost from the Tories. But it comes with conditions. Ian Visits wrote:

    TfL commits to deliver a plan by 31st March 2022 demonstrating the options that exist to achieve up to £400 million of additional revenue or cost savings in 2022/23, in addition to delivering the previously agreed operating cost savings for the 2021/22 financial year.

    So, given that the Tories are forcing TfL to make savings, it’s of little wonder workers are scared about their pensions and jobs.

    RMT: not having it

    RMT general secretary Mick Lynch told PA that workers were caught in “a turf war” between Khan and the Tories. He said:

    the mayor agreed to submit proposals to the Government that will result in detrimental changes to pensions.

    [Khan] has to decide if he is on the side of key workers who have kept London moving during the pandemic, or Tory ministers hellbent on punishing Tube workers.

    So far, the evidence shows Khan bowing-down to the Tories. And with TfL and LU pretending the workers are striking over nothing, it seems they’re no different either. RMT members will be striking again on Friday 4 March. Londoners and everyone across the country would do well to get behind them.

    Featured image via the RMT Union

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • As the world burns and personal finances wither, rail fares get hiked again

    The largest rise in rail fares in nearly a decade has added more than £100 to the cost of many annual season tickets. It comes on top of many other cost of living rises currently impacting Britons. It also comes as climate warnings mean that carbon-cutting measures like public transport are seen as being more important than ever.

    The cost of living

    Analysis of fares by the PA news agency shows commuters have been hit hard by the price increase of up to 3.8% in England and Wales. The government has been accused of adding to the cost-of-living crisis following the hike in fares.

    Examples of increases in season ticket prices include:
    – Woking to London: Up £136 to £3,664.
    – Liverpool to Manchester (any route): Up £104 to £2,864.
    – Gloucester to Birmingham (any route): Up £168 to £4,636.
    – Neath to Cardiff: Up £68 to £1,920.

    Paul Tuohy, chief executive of pressure group Campaign for Better Transport (CBT), claimed the fare rise “will do nothing” to ease the cost-of-living crisis, help the economy, or tackle climate change. He added:

    If this Government is serious about shrinking transport’s carbon footprint and growing the economy, it must do more to address the high cost of public transport by prioritising fares reform, introducing more contactless and pay as you go ticketing, and providing a better value flexible commuter ticket to cater to the millions of new hybrid workers.

    (PA Graphics)
    (PA Graphics)

    CBT calculated it will take seven weeks for a full-time worker in Brighton earning an average salary to pay for their annual season ticket. A commuter travelling from York into Leeds will have to work for five weeks, while it will take six weeks for a worker travelling from Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire, into Birmingham.

    Commuter confusion

    Tutor Megan Loft, 32, who was at Paddington station, told PA:

    If services were improving, less people would be as angry. The service is only getting worse and prices are increasing. Why?

    I have family in Brighton and Manchester and it is going to be harder to visit them.”

    The UK, Scottish, and Welsh governments set the cap on rises in regulated fares, which are around half of tickets such as season tickets and off-peak returns on long-distance journeys. They decided to match this year’s figure with the Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation for July 2021, which was 3.8%. This is the steepest increase since January 2013, according to figures from industry body the Rail Delivery Group (RDG).

    Fares went up in Scotland on 24 January. Train operators traditionally controlled increases in unregulated fares, but governments have much more influence on their decisions after spending billions of pounds to take on their financial liabilities during the coronavirus pandemic.

    A Department for Transport (DfT) spokesperson said it has “protected passengers” by delaying the fares rise until two months later than normal, and setting a cap which is “well below current inflation rates”. Latest figures show RPI in January was 7.8%.

    The DfT spokesperson added:

    We must now look to recoup some of the £14 billion which was spent to keep vital services running throughout the pandemic in a way that is fair for all taxpayers.

    By striking this balance, we will be able to encourage people back on to trains whilst funding the necessary improvements and unprecedented investment that will benefit all those who use our railways.

    Omicron

    Operators are still working to restore all the services cut in December and January amid huge staff shortages due to the Omicron coronavirus variant. Demand for rail travel is around a third below pre-coronavirus levels.

    Anthony Smith, chief executive of passenger watchdog Transport Focus, said it is “crucial the rail industry delivers a punctual and reliable service”. Hours after the higher fares were introduced on 1 March, Network Rail said a suspected power supply failure caused a “complete loss of signalling” in Ashtead, Surrey.

    This caused major disruption to Southern and South Western Railway services during the morning rush hour. Rail fares in Northern Ireland are set by state-owned operator Translink, which does not use RPI.

    More than just rail

    The Canary has reported on the “broken” public transport system before. In July 2021, Steve Topple covered the report Public Transport, Private Profit: The Human Cost of Privatizing Buses in the United Kingdom. According to the report:

    Over the past 35 years, deregulation has provided a master class in how not to run an essential public service, leaving residents at the mercy of private actors who have total discretion over how to run a bus route, or whether to run one at all.

    In case after case, service that was once dependable, convenient, and widely-used has been scaled back dramatically or made unaffordable.

    The absence of a strong public bus system affects a great many people’s economic opportunities, but also their means to participate in their communities, travel to football matches or libraries, and visit family and friends.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • FOI reveals eye-watering sum spent by the government on criminalising communities

    A freedom of information (FOI) response has shown that the Home Office spent £209.3m on the Prevent programme between 2010 and 2021. However, there’s much more that lurks behind this figure.

    Prevent Watch has organised the People’s Review of Prevent in response to a boycott of the Shawcross review. The Shawcross review looks at the implementation of Prevent and aims to provide recommendations for the future. It’s led by William Shawcross, a member of the Henry Jackson Society, who has expressed “patently Islamophobic views”. A number of organisations have pledged to boycott the review.

    That’s exactly why Prevent Watch has taken up its own review. You can read its full report here. It includes analysis of why and how Prevent is Islamophobic, along with a number of case studies from parents, children, and others whom Prevent has targeted.

    How did Prevent Watch get these numbers?

    Prevent Watch shared its FOI request that it sent to the Home Office with The Canary. Among other things, it asked for a breakdown of Prevent’s budget. The Home Office gave the following information:

    Prevent Watch submitted 273 FOI requests while doing research for the People’s Review of Prevent. Dr Layla Aitlhadj, director of Prevent Watch, told The Canary:

    The People’s Review of Prevent sent FOIs to almost 300 local authorities and the majority of them claimed they did not hold information on whether they are a Priority Prevent Area

    Aitlhadj said this “seems very disingenuous”, because:

    those 44 who were [a Priority Prevent Area] would have received additional Prevent funding as part of their budget. This tactic of sending people on wild goose chases to get FOIs is not unique when other researchers have tried to gain some transparency about Prevent – be it funding or operational aspects.

    As The Canary has now covered repeatedly, it can be very difficult to get much information from the FOI process. Aitlhadj said “the FOI programme is only fit for purpose if the authorities are made accountable when they fail to deliver”. She added:

    and even where complaints are made to the ICO this does not seem to serve as a deterrent for this opaque behaviour.

    Where has all this money gone?

    As the People’s Review of Prevent shows, there are many cases where people have been referred to Prevent only to feel targeted, isolated, and under suspicion.

    The report includes a number of cases of people referred to Prevent. These include:

    • An Imam who gave a speech about white supremacy and Martin Luther King.
    • A 26-year-old mum who put together aid packages for Syrian refugees.
    • A mum who took her 8-year-old child to a Palestine protest.
    • A woman discussing her religious beliefs with her psychiatrist.
    • A 12-year-old boy questioned without a parent or guardian present.

    Aitlhadj explains that in the cases where referrals lead to proposed action:

    they are recommending some kind of intervention be it social or medical that could have actually been sought directly without the need for the securitised middle man

    She goes on to emphasise how funding for social and health services gets diverted to Prevent. This ultimately causes further harm to the communities that are under scrutiny:

    Prevent causes genuine support that could be provided to go around in a huge loop that creates jobs for those pushing Prevent but means that the end service required is short of all the cash it could have had if the unnecessary middle steps were omitted.

    As the People’s Review of Prevent argues, Prevent targets Muslims and positions us as the enemies within. Children, vulnerable people, and many others are seen as suspicious. As the FOI shows, this takes a huge amount of  public money. That’s money which could otherwise be spent on welfare, social care, education, health, and community projects.

    Aitlhadj goes on to say:

    The millions injected into Prevent started when the austerity measures also started. Genuine community projects eventually had their money dependent on their engagement with Prevent. The money needs to be pumped back into communities but without the lens of security or any strings attached.

    Pre-crime

    Yet another factor that emerges in this review of Prevent is the issue of pre-crime. As The Canary’s previous work shows, pre-crime is sometimes known as predictive policing. It often uses data to predict areas where crime may occur in order to redirect police energies.

    The People’s Review of Prevent makes it clear that Prevent is firmly within the category of pre-crime:

    We need to reiterate that Prevent operates in the pre-crime space, where no offences have been committed and where the information gathered is, at best, an indication of a potential risk of an offence being committed at some considerable point in the future.

    At its core, Prevent is about targeting Muslims who, in the future, may or may not commit crimes. Aitlhadj told The Canary:

    Pre-crime has been conflated with actual policing and even with preventative policing and it is essential that awareness is raised to demonstrate that pre-crime is an arena of absolutely no crime intended or even in the making nor is it based on correlations or any real science.

    This, according to Aitlhadj, has serious consequences for the people and communities targeted by Prevent:

    As policing strategies more generally move towards using data and algorithms to make assumptions, it is worrying that there is a huge influx of data, particularly of children’s data that could potentially be used in such a manner… what is happening to the information gathered and retained of the thousands of children referred every year to Prevent who, by Prevent’s own logic, are not even suspected criminals? Why is it retained on several databases controlled by police and how is it being used?

    In other words, it’s crucial to understand Prevent as pre-crime precisely because the data it gathers, often on children, is self-sustaining. Prevent exists to work out which Muslims to be suspicious of – it has never been a question for the government that suspicion of Muslims is necessary – and it exists in order to collect information on Muslims. Then, regardless of whether referrals actually stop any crimes, they provide themselves with their own data to justify the continued existence of Prevent. In other words, Prevent is a surveillance tool more than it is a security tool.

    National security

    Aitlhadj also told The Canary that the issue of national security is one of mistrust:

    There is deep mistrust towards the Government when it comes to matters of national security and this is not based on paranoia. It is based on past experience and on their past reviews, from race to security, they have failed to deliver independent scrutiny.

    It remains to be seen how, if at all, the Shawcross review will justify the huge amounts of money spent on Prevent. What is known, however, is that rights organisations from Amnesty International to Liberty have come together to boycott the Shawcross review. Many more Muslims have spoken out about the damage Prevent has done to our communities.

    All the more reason to take the conclusions of the People’s Review of Prevent with the vital insight it provides: a government that won’t spend money helping people is happy to waste it on surveilling children.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Felton Davis cropped to 770×403 pixels, licensed under CC by 2.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • As ‘stealth’ variant spreads, Boris Johnson is more interested in retaining power

    A highly transmissible coronavirus (Covid-19) variant, nicknamed the ‘stealth variant’, has been identified. As of 28 January, it accounted for around 9% of coronavirus cases in the UK. Yet prime minister Boris Johnson has gone ahead and abandoned many of the protections in place against the virus.

    Stealth variant

    The stealth variant is described as a ‘cousin’ of Omicron and designated BA.2. It’s called stealth because it “has certain genetic traits that make it more difficult to identify as Omicron on diagnostic tests—specifically polymerase chain-reaction (PCR) tests”. However, that does not mean that results of a positive coronavirus test or the care needed will change.

    Studies from Japan, not yet peer-reviewed, suggest BA.2 is not only more transmissible than the original Omicron but can cause more severe disease. Worryingly, it also found that “therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2”.

    However it’s understood:

    BA.1 [Omicron] and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely.

    And more clarity is needed:

    It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said.

    Trevor Bedford is a scientist based at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Centre in the US. In January, he reported that BA.2 had been found in 74 countries:

    ‘Living with Covid’

    Despite the variant, as of 24 February there’s no longer a legal requirement to isolate for anyone who tests positive for the virus. And from 1 April, free universal symptomatic and asymptomatic testing for the general public in England will end. However, free symptomatic testing will be available to a “small number of at-risk groups” and social care staff.

    Moreover, the £500 self-isolation payments have ceased. And according to the government’s ‘Living with Covid’ guidance:

    people will no longer be eligible for Employment and Support Allowance because they are self-isolating due to COVID-19

    This is unless “they have a health condition or disability that affects their ability to work”.

    To make matters worse, free Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for NHS and social care staff will only continue until the end of March. It could also be before that if:

    the UK IPC [Infection Prevention and Control] guidance on PPE usage for COVID-19 is amended or superseded.

    All these moves could potentially exacerbate the spread of the stealth variant and bring about a new wave of cases.

    Poor people hardest hit

    Trade unions have condemned the fact that statutory sick pay for those with coronavirus symptoms will no longer be available from 24 March. And trade unionist Howard Beckett notes that from 2 April, the government will no longer support low paid workers in minimising the risk the virus poses:

    Condemnation by scientists

    There has been widespread condemnation of these moves by the scientific community.

    Indie Sage has condemned the ending of free tests and payments in support of self isolation. It has listed 11 points as to why that move is unacceptable.

    Also, a number of scientists have signed a letter to England’s chief scientific advisor Patrick Vallance and chief medical officer Chris Whitty. It stated that ending protections will almost certainly “increase the circulation of the virus and remove the visibility of emerging variants of concern”.

    The letter has gained more than 3,800 signatories. It added:

    Every strain of SARS-CoV-2 to date has failed to reach population saturation. Instead, each has been replaced by a new variant that is more transmissible, more immunity-escaping or both. This pattern will likely be repeated, and further reinfections will occur, with a continuing burden of disease and displacement in the healthcare system.

    Two-tier system

    The British Medical Association (BMA) also criticised the Living with Covid plans, saying:

    Today’s announcement fails to protect those at highest risk of harm from Covid-19, and neglects some of the most vulnerable people in society.

    The BMA added how the strategy will:

    create a two-tier system, where those who can afford to pay for testing – and indeed to self-isolate – will do so, while others will be forced to gamble on the health of themselves and others.

    Covid-19 has already disproportionately impacted those on lower incomes, in insecure employment and from ethnic minorities. This move threatens to exacerbate these health inequalities.

    It further added:

    Meanwhile, all people must be financially supported to do the right thing, and the removal of self-isolation payments, and then access to statutory sick pay in a months’ time, is incredibly concerning, as it will mean people cannot afford to stay at home if they are unwell.

    Risking the nation’s health

    Johnson is determined to open the economy in order to appease his Tory backbenchers. This is an attempt to retain power, whatever the consequences. As Labour MP Zarah Sultana said:

    With the emergence of the stealth subvariant, only time will tell if the lifting of protections has been dangerously too early.

    Hopefully the public will do what it can to act responsibly, despite the government’s gamble with our lives.

    Featured image via YouTube

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Sarah Everard’s murder was ‘a watershed moment’ but the government failed to act

    The impact of Sarah Everard’s murder was a watershed moment for women’s safety that was wasted by the government, a campaigner has claimed.

    Jamie Klingler from Reclaim These Streets spoke to the PA news agency. She said that misogyny in the Metropolitan Police, Britain’s biggest force, must be rooted out with a full public inquiry.

    ‘A watershed moment that they wasted’

    Everard, 33, was raped and murdered by serving Met officer Wayne Couzens as she walked home in south London on 3 March 2021.

    Couzens had remained an officer despite twice being accused of indecent exposure. Once was in 2015 while working for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC), where colleagues nicknamed him “the rapist”. And he was accused of indecent exposure a second time in the days before the murder.

    Sarah Everard, 33, whose murder by a serving police officer sparked public outrage
    Sarah Everard, 33, whose murder by a serving police officer sparked public outrage (Family handout/PA)

    Klingler said:

    It was a watershed moment and it was a watershed moment that they wasted.

    It was a watershed moment that could have changed our lives, that could have made our daughters safer, that could make us safer.

    And there were choices made for it not to be a watershed moment.

    “This isn’t one bad apple”

    Campaigners including Reclaim These Streets are part of a legal bid to try to force the government to hold a statutory public inquiry to investigate misogyny in policing.

    Currently, dame Elish Angiolini is leading the first part of a non-statutory inquiry. It looks at how Couzens was able to work as a police officer for three different forces despite concerns about his behaviour. Couzens worked for Kent police, the CNC and the Met.

    Following this, there are plans for a second part that would look at wider issues in policing.

    The Met has also commissioned its own review of the culture and standards at the force. This includes Couzen’s former unit – the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command.

    Klingler said:

    We absolutely continue to demand a statutory inquiry of police treatment of women, not of Wayne Couzens, not of a single person in a single act.

    We need to overall understand the deep levels of misogyny within the Met, and they need to be exposed and accounted for.

    If there’s not a statutory inquiry, police aren’t required to testify. The families aren’t given legal representation as interested parties. Reclaim These Streets are not given legal representation.

    It just becomes the bogeyman of Wayne Couzens.

    This isn’t one bad apple and there’s no way to fix the force without rooting all of this out.

    Misogyny from Met officers

    The Metropolitan Police are facing serious concern over the behaviour of officers.

    In the wake of Everard’s death, one officer faced misconduct proceedings after sharing a highly offensive meme relating to her kidnap.

    Moreover, constables Deniz Jaffer and Jamie Lewis were jailed for taking photographs of the bodies of murdered Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman and sharing them on WhatsApp.

    Two police officers were jailed after sharing WhatsApp images of the bodies of Bibaa Henry (left) and Nicole Smallman.
    Two police officers were jailed after sharing WhatsApp images of the bodies of Bibaa Henry (left) and Nicole Smallman (Victoria Jones/PA)

    And, earlier this month, the police watchdog published disturbing misogynist, homophobic and violently racist messages shared by Charing Cross Police station officers between 2016 and 2018.

    The fallout led to the resignation of commissioner Cressida Dick after London mayor Sadiq Khan said he wasn’t satisfied with her response to the scandal.

    An epidemic

    Klingler described violence against women as “an epidemic”.

    The past year has seen a number of high profile alleged stranger murders of women. They include the deaths of PCSO Julia James and teachers Sabina Nessa and Ashling Murphy.

    Another case saw labourer Valentin Lazar jailed for life for beating Maria Rawlings to death after a chance meeting on a bus.

    Klingler said:

    The idea that we can’t just get home safe and alive is insane for half the population.

    It isn’t that we’re harassed once in our lives and then we have a horror story to tell, it’s a constant decision tree of, ‘How do I avoid conflict? How do I not get noticed? How do I avoid putting myself in harm’s way?’

    There’s a woman killed every three days and nobody’s doing anything about it.

    This week police are expected to be told to make tackling violence against women and girls as much a priority as fighting terrorism, child sexual abuse and serious and organised crime.

    Commenting on the move, home secretary Priti Patel said the safety of women and girls is an “absolute priority”, adding:

    I do not accept that violence against them is inevitable.

    The government is also launching an advertising campaign focusing on “targeting and challenging perpetrators and harmful attitudes”, the Home Office said.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • New UN report set to paint stark picture of impacts of climate change

    A new UN science report is set to send what may be the starkest warning yet about the impacts of climate change on people and the planet.

    The assessment is the second in a series of three reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reports make up the latest review of climate science; this takes place every six or seven years for governments.

    ‘Code red for humanity’

    It’s being published on Monday 28 February. That’s a little over 100 days after the Cop26 summit agreed to increase action to try and limit global warming to 1.5C (2.7F). Doing so is essential in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

    Conference president Alok Sharma described the outcomes of the UN talks in Glasgow as keeping the temperature goal alive, but only with a weak pulse.

    The first in the series of reports was released last summer before Cop26. At the time, UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres described it as a “code red for humanity”. It set out the unequivocal and unprecedented impact humans were having on the planet.

    This latest assessment is expected to be even more worrying. It looks at the impacts of climate change, efforts to adapt to rising temperatures, and vulnerabilities.

    Tipping points

    A draft leaked in 2021 warned of the risk of crossing dangerous thresholds or “tipping points”. This is where things such as melting of ice sheets or permafrost, or rainforests becoming grassland, become irreversible, with huge consequences.

    The final version of the study will be released after its summary was approved after some haggling in a process involving representatives of governments and scientists. It means that governments have signed off on the findings of the final version.

    The report will set out the impacts of rising temperatures, which have already reached 1.1C (1.98F) above pre-industrial levels, from droughts to floods, storms, effects on health, agriculture and cities, and cascading and irreversible impacts.

    There will be a specific focus on the different regions of the world, as well as looking at vulnerable populations and communities, migration and displacement. It will detail options for – and limits to – adapting to climate change.

    ‘A grim vision’

    Mark Watts is executive director of the C40 Cities group of mayors taking action on climate change. Ahead of publication, he warned the latest report was likely to “paint a grim vision” for big cities from London to Lima:

    City residents are already on the front line of a worsening vulnerability to climate impacts such as deadly flooding, sea-level rise, wild fires, extreme storms and unbearable urban heat.

    It is clear we are now in the climate crisis, not waiting for it. We can still overcome climate breakdown and build a thriving future, but urban adaptation efforts must outpace this new climate reality.

    He said national leaders must work with mayors to invest in cities’ defences. And richer countries must deliver on finance commitments to poorer nations to ensure no city is left behind.

    (PA Graphics)
    (PA Graphics)

    A crisis that ‘demands a global response’

    Former UK chief scientist David King warned that because of the way the IPCC reports worked, they didn’t include the most up-to-date studies or evidence. For example, these could include heatwaves in Canada and floods in Europe in 2021. King founded the Climate Crisis Advisory Group of independent experts.

    (PA Graphics)
    (PA Graphics)

    He said the importance of the reports could not be overstated, telling the PA news agency:

    This crisis is such that it demands a global response.

    Whereas the Covid-19 outbreak has been cataclysmic for the world, nevertheless we do recover from these as we know from the past, even before we had vaccines, we had plagues and we recovered from them as a humanity.

    There’s absolutely no guarantee that we will recover from the impacts of climate change, unless we all begin to work together and far more quickly, far more effectively, than we are doing at the moment.

    There’s a real cause to say the climate crisis is with us and we all have to work together and deal with it in an equitable way.

    He warned:

    Each individual nation is run by governments that are working for their own communities and that kind of selfishness doesn’t fit this challenge.

    We all have to understand this is a joint challenge – and I think we’re quite a bit removed from that as we stand now.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Picking NATO over Russia, or vice versa, is a fool’s game. Choose people, not power.

    Less than 48 hours into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and so much remains unclear. Will Russia occupy? Will NATO respond militarily? What are the risks of nuclear escalation? But one thing should be very apparent. Looking to either NATO or Russia in search of a good guy in all of this is deeply naïve.

    On the one side we have the Russian regime. Viciously illiberal and oligarchic, it’s a model of authoritarian capitalism. Determined to reclaim its lost imperial status, it’s as willing to bomb Ukrainian cities as it is to batter its own courageous anti-war protestors off the streets of Moscow.

    In NATO, we have an organisation which today functions as a beard for US imperial ambitions. It comes with a bleak history of supporting fascists in Europe and of the kind of brinkmanship which has brought us to where we are today. It’s also played a direct part in the disastrous wars in – to name just two recent examples – Libya and Afghanistan.

    Putin’s regime is no more anti-fascist than NATO is the FBPE movement with guns. They both just like to claim otherwise because it suits them.

    How about… no.

    There is little to admire or endorse in either party, even if both make claims which contain an atom of the truth. Has NATO aggressively pushed into the buffer zone Russia wanted after the end of the USSR? Have NATO countries helped arm and train actual, real-life fascists in Ukraine? Absolutely. Is the Russian regime grotesquely corrupt? Does it oppress LGBTQI+ people? Has it just invaded a sovereign nation? Yes, yes, and yes.

    Then why the clamour to side with one over the other? Of course, part of it is effective propaganda. NATO, for example, is held up by many as a liberal institution which sustains peace. This is a line echoed by mainstream British politicians of all stripes. It’s a position which even notionally left-wing MPs invoke uncritically. Even the last Corbyn manifesto promised to fund NATO. I myself, however, have a NATO medal from the war in Afghanistan which tells a different story. A story of occupation, injustice and, ultimately, hubristic failure.

    For some on the Russia-supporting side there is a nostalgia for an ‘anti-fascist’ and ‘anti-imperialist’ Russia which, if it ever did exist in this pure, unblemished form, it certainly does not today. The point being this nostalgia makes Putin’s claims of his invasion being about clearing out Nazis from Ukraine seem appealing and genuine. At least for some people. The Russia of 2022 is many things, but it’s certainly not the Russia which inhabits the mind of today’s Stalinists – even if that is your bag. From a purely humanist viewpoint, it definitely isn’t mine.

    Software update

    We need to move past the Cold and World War framings which are being applied to Ukraine. New Hitler’s, New Stalin’s, ‘appeasement’, and so on – this is a crass brand of politics, and it only benefits the powerful. We need to look at the world as it is, and support the people who are suffering in this war.

    While Ukraine was being invaded, people across the political spectrum here in the UK were churning out any number of hot takes on Twitter. And that’s what Twitter is good for – pretending you have all the answers – something which should absolutely be avoided. The real questions we should be asking are where can practical forms of solidarity be given? And where is the resistance from below coming from?

    We can’t make sense of the world running on Windows 1945, or Windows 1954. It’s long past time for some of us to update our software on Russia/NATO antagonism. And that doesn’t involve backing one over the other.

    If not them, who?

    While their crowdfunders and posts haven’t gained the same mass traction as some others, there are Ukrainians and Russians who are resisting both fascism and Russian militarism. The website CrimethInc has published the positions of some of these groups. Its article includes both Russian and Ukrainian perspectives.

    Russian anarchists released a statement on the invasion which CrimethInc published:

    Palaces, yachts, and prison sentences and torture for dissenting Russians are not enough for Putin’s imperial gang, they should be given war and the seizure of new territories. And so, “defenders of the fatherland” invade Ukraine, bombing residential areas. Huge sums are being invested in murder weapons while the people are impoverished more and more.

    The Anarchist Black Cross Dresden group have also established a fundraiser to help those caught up between these two forces. It said:

    You can help people to bring their relatives and friends in safety, support people who need to leave the country and establish a place to live, organize resistance to protect their neighborhoods, get needed goods and medical supply to survive. There are also a lot of people from other countries in the region like Belarus and Russia who seek in the last years refugee in Ukraine. With a Russian invasion they are threatened in Ukraine and are not safe anymore.

    Neither NATO nor Putin

    Partly, what we have seen in the last days are two sets of nostalgists relitigating old conflicts while Ukraine burns. This does nothing to help a population caught between two rapacious powers. There is a suggestion at times that because Ukraine – like Russia and, indeed, Britain – has fascists in it, the whole population is fascist and thus undeserving of solidarity. On the other side, there is considerable apologia for the bosses club that is NATO, and myth-peddling about its commitment to some liberal, ‘rules-based order.’

    These are positions which cannot stand. They are no use to thinking people, because they are factually wrong and fundamentally immoral. On the left, we are meant to be engaged in the project of reason. We are meant to back people, not power. And the time to do so is now.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ Russian defence ministry, cropped to 770 x 440, licenced under CY BB 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Keir Starmer’s latest authoritarian crackdown is dire timing

    Keir Starmer has shut down 11 MPs who signed a Stop the War Coalition (STWC) statement on Ukraine. It’s divided opinion and caused controversy. Now, he’s also taken action against Young Labour, too. And his timing with all of this couldn’t have been worse.

    The STWC statement

    PA reported that STWC issued the statement earlier in February on Ukraine. The group accused the UK government of “aggressive posturing”. It also said that NATO “should call a halt to its eastward expansion”. The Labour MPs who signed the statement were:

    • Diane Abbott.
    • John McDonnell.
    • Richard Burgon.
    • Ian Lavery.
    • Beth Winter.
    • Zarah Sultana.
    • Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
    • Apsana Begum.
    • Mick Whitley.
    • Tahir Ali.
    • Ian Mearns.

    As PA reported, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also signed the letter, as did MP Claudia Webbe, both of whom now sit as independents.

    NATO: not a “defensive alliance”

    You can read STWC’s full statement here. The part of it that caused controversy was that STWC:

    believes NATO should call a halt to its eastward expansion and commit to a new security deal for Europe which meets the needs of all states and peoples.

    It continues:

    We refute the idea that NATO is a defensive alliance, and believe its record in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya over the last generation, not to mention the US-British attack on Iraq, clearly proves otherwise.

    When the media picked up the story on Thursday 24 February, Labour quickly acted. The shadow chief whip wrote to the MPs, telling them the party would remove the whip from them if they did not retract their support for the letter.

    So, all the Labour MPs removed their names from the STWC statement.

    Starmer and Young Labour

    Then on Friday 25 February, the Mirror reported that Starmer:

    has cut funding for Young Labour and scrapped its annual conference after the youth wing accused the leader of “backing Nato aggression” over the Ukraine crisis.

    The dramatic clampdown is the latest clash between the leader and left-wing activists and comes after Young Labour’s Twitter account was restricted “until further notice” by party chiefs

    It appears that the STWC and Young Labour situation are linked. The Mirror said that after the party threatened the 11 MPs who signed the STWC statement:

    Young Labour later lashed out at… Keir and declared its support for Stop The War “and other pro-peace activists”.

    Divided opinion

    People have had divided opinions on this. Leader of the Northern Independence Party Philip Proudfoot tweeted:

    Momentum tweeted about the Young Labour situation:

    Others were critical of STWC’s position:

    Some people were unhappy with the 11 MPs:

    While other people noted Starmer’s timing:

    What a mess

    In reality, this story is reflective of the current mess within the Labour Party. It seems to be another clear attempt by Starmer to continue with his purge of left-wingers. But there are several other problems with what’s gone on.

    His timing, in the middle of a global crisis, was dire. He managed to get headlines and column inches dedicated to internal divisions in Labour while the situation in Ukraine worsened. His clampdown also reeks of an anti-democratic approach to internal divisions. This is despite Starmer saying as recently as September 2021 that the party was a “broad church”. There are also questions to be asked over why these 11 MPs chose to back down. Was it because they agree with Starmer’s position? Did they not want to lose the whip? Or did they think it was better not to make the story about Labour at this time? Currently, this isn’t clear.

    Undemocratic

    Whatever the logic behind all these decisions, several things are clear. Starmer’s clampdown on both left-wing MPs and Young Labour shows a cementing of the party’s now right-wing position. Domestically, that isn’t good for democracy nor the public.

    But moreover, the UK government is making decisions that will affect people around the world for years to come. Labour’s role should be as an opposition. For a functioning domestic democracy, it needs to be questioning what the Conservative leadership is doing. But that’s not what’s currently happening. Stifling internal party debate compounds this, and it’s bad for all of us. 

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Behind the scenes at the latest Cobra meeting

    A cartoon of Tory MPs asking what they can do to demonstrate they are against Putin and then laughing at the suggestion they could give the money they've taken from Russian donors to charity

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • What do you think about the end of Covid rules and free testing?

    Curtis Daly asks people in Leeds what they think about the government’s scrapping of free Covid tests and the requirement to self-isolate. What do you think?

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Government plans will lock disadvantaged pupils out of higher education

    On 23 February, the government announced plans to ban pupils who fail their maths and English GCSEs from taking out student loans. The proposal marks another move toward making higher education even more marketised and inaccessible.

    A racist, classist, ablest proposal

    Experts have warned that these plans will hit the most disadvantaged pupils hardest, effectively locking them out of higher education altogether.

    Lee Elliot Major, professor of social mobility at the University of Exeter told the Guardian:

    If this is implemented crudely it will effectively be closing off university prospects at age three for many poorer children. Our research shows the depressingly strong link between achieving poorly in early-age tests and failing to get passes in English and maths GCSEs at age 16.

    He added:

    Children from the lowest fifth of family income backgrounds are five times more likely to leave school without passes in English and maths GCSEs basic skills than those from the highest fifth of incomes,” he added. “We already label a third of pupils taking English and maths GCSEs as failures – this will only condemn them further.

    Others have highlighted that these plans will hurt disabled and other marginalised pupils, making a mockery of widening participation efforts.

    Responding to the announcement, Northern Lights founder and Disability Union columnist Rachel Curtis said:

    Highlighting the way in which this would exacerbate entrenched inequality, Wolverhampton education professor Damien Page shared:

    Art historian Dr Bendor Grosvenor added:

    In its response to the Augar review of post-18 higher education funding, the government also set out plans to make those who start university in 2022 pay back their student loans in full over the course of 40 years instead of 30.

    Among other recommendations, the review urged the government to introduce more support for disadvantaged students and to increase access to higher education for all. But if implemented, the government’s plans will likely have the opposite effect.

    What about other subjects?

    The government’s prioritisation of maths and English reflects its ongoing battle against the arts in education. In 2021, education secretary Gavin Williamson announced plans for huge cuts to higher education funding for arts subjects such as art, drama and music.

    Speaking to the marginalisation of subjects beyond maths and English, one Twitter user shared:

    Journalist Louis Staples added:

    People share their experiences

    People soon took to Twitter to explain the myriad of reasons why a pupil may fail their GCSEs, including poverty, homelessness and abuse.

    Joanne Phillips, a writer and survivor of trafficking shared:

    Another Twitter user posted:

    Ian Muirhead is now a space scientist, but he didn’t pass his GCSEs. He commented:

    And Birkbeck criminology lecturer Aviah Sarah Day shared:

    An education system in crisis

    The government’s plan comes in the midst of nation-wide University and College Union (UCU) industrial action over poor pay and conditions.

    University staff across the country are engaged in action short of a strike (ASOS) as well as a series of strikes against race, gender and disability pay gaps; increased casualisation and precarity; increasing workloads and real-terms pay and pension cuts.

    Meanwhile, National Education Union (NEU) members are on strike over attempts to cut teachers’ pensions.

    Reflecting on the country’s “broken education system”, National Union for Students (NUS) president Larissa Kennedy shared:

    Stating that the government’s plans to lock marginalised and disadvantaged young people out of higher education will effectively create an “underclass” with no opportunities, Harley Shah tweeted:

    The government’s proposed plan will hit those most in need of financial support the hardest, creating further barriers to the UK’s increasingly elitist, inaccessible and marketised universities.

    Featured image via Ivan Aleksic/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Urgent action is needed to stop even more homes falling into fuel poverty

    More than one in eight households in England were living in draughty homes and struggling to pay their bills in 2020 – even before rising energy prices hit. Official statistics for 2020, the most recent year for which figures are available, show there were an estimated 3.16 million English homes in fuel poverty, or 13.2% of households, down slightly from 3.18 million, or 13.4% of households, in 2019.

    But campaigners warned that surging prices are now pushing millions more into fuel poverty across the UK. In England, official statistics now consider a household to be in fuel poverty if their home has a poor energy efficiency rating of band D or below and their disposable income after housing and fuel costs is below the poverty line.

    Energy efficiency, such as insulation, improved between 2019 and 2020, the figures show, with 52.1% of all low-income homes living in a property with a rating of C or above – taking them out of fuel poverty under the new measure.

    A temporary reprieve?

    In 2020 incomes grew and energy prices fell 2.6% in real terms as wholesale energy prices dropped at the start of the pandemic – although prices for those on prepayment meters rose slightly.

    The figures are already out of date

    But director of policy and advocacy at National Energy Action (NEA), Peter Smith criticised the time lag for the data, warning that the figures are already out of date. Smith said:

    It doesn’t take the October price rise into account, or any of the impacts of Covid, and we know the picture will be much worse come April when prices are expected to increase by over 50%,

    Under NEA calculations that take an alternative approach to measuring the problem, which it says better reflects the impact of surging prices, some four million households across the UK were in fuel poverty by October 2021. The NEA estimates there will be 6.5 million households in fuel poverty in the UK in April when the new price cap comes in.

    And Ed Matthew, campaigns director at climate change think tank E3G, said that, since 2020:

    energy bills have gone through the roof, plunging at least two million more households into fuel poverty across the UK

    This causes impossible choices for some on whether to heat or eat.

    The response to this energy bill crisis should be to double down on action to insulate our housing stock, the least energy-efficient in Western Europe.

    He urged the Government to accelerate regulation to bring private rental and social housing up to a high standard of energy efficiency, and double public investment in insulation and clean energy, prioritising low-income homes. Matthew urged:

    That investment can boost the economy and generate jobs whilst providing the best long-term solution to high energy bills, ending the blight of fuel poverty forever,

    Simon Francis, co-ordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said the 2020 data shows the Government has failed to tackle fuel poverty:

    The impact of measures taken pre-pandemic has barely shifted the dial – and we know very little has been done since 2020 to change the picture. Indeed, the situation has become much, much worse.

    Francis added:

    We need urgent help for households in fuel poverty now combined with a long-term plan to improve energy efficiency of our homes and a sustainable, renewable-led energy mix.

    Featured image via – climatejusticecollective – Flickr cropped to 770×403 (CC BY 2.0)

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Urgent action is needed to stop even more homes falling into fuel poverty

    More than one in eight households in England were living in draughty homes and struggling to pay their bills in 2020 – even before rising energy prices hit. Official statistics for 2020, the most recent year for which figures are available, show there were an estimated 3.16 million English homes in fuel poverty, or 13.2% of households, down slightly from 3.18 million, or 13.4% of households, in 2019.

    But campaigners warned that surging prices are now pushing millions more into fuel poverty across the UK. In England, official statistics now consider a household to be in fuel poverty if their home has a poor energy efficiency rating of band D or below and their disposable income after housing and fuel costs is below the poverty line.

    Energy efficiency, such as insulation, improved between 2019 and 2020, the figures show, with 52.1% of all low-income homes living in a property with a rating of C or above – taking them out of fuel poverty under the new measure.

    A temporary reprieve?

    In 2020 incomes grew and energy prices fell 2.6% in real terms as wholesale energy prices dropped at the start of the pandemic – although prices for those on prepayment meters rose slightly.

    The figures are already out of date

    But director of policy and advocacy at National Energy Action (NEA), Peter Smith criticised the time lag for the data, warning that the figures are already out of date. Smith said:

    It doesn’t take the October price rise into account, or any of the impacts of Covid, and we know the picture will be much worse come April when prices are expected to increase by over 50%,

    Under NEA calculations that take an alternative approach to measuring the problem, which it says better reflects the impact of surging prices, some four million households across the UK were in fuel poverty by October 2021. The NEA estimates there will be 6.5 million households in fuel poverty in the UK in April when the new price cap comes in.

    And Ed Matthew, campaigns director at climate change think tank E3G, said that, since 2020:

    energy bills have gone through the roof, plunging at least two million more households into fuel poverty across the UK

    This causes impossible choices for some on whether to heat or eat.

    The response to this energy bill crisis should be to double down on action to insulate our housing stock, the least energy-efficient in Western Europe.

    He urged the Government to accelerate regulation to bring private rental and social housing up to a high standard of energy efficiency, and double public investment in insulation and clean energy, prioritising low-income homes. Matthew urged:

    That investment can boost the economy and generate jobs whilst providing the best long-term solution to high energy bills, ending the blight of fuel poverty forever,

    Simon Francis, co-ordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said the 2020 data shows the Government has failed to tackle fuel poverty:

    The impact of measures taken pre-pandemic has barely shifted the dial – and we know very little has been done since 2020 to change the picture. Indeed, the situation has become much, much worse.

    Francis added:

    We need urgent help for households in fuel poverty now combined with a long-term plan to improve energy efficiency of our homes and a sustainable, renewable-led energy mix.

    Featured image via – climatejusticecollective – Flickr cropped to 770×403 (CC BY 2.0)

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The National Portrait Gallery ending its relationship with BP is a victory for direct action

    On 22 February, the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) announced its sponsorship with British Petroleum (BP) is at an end. The relationship with the multinational oil and gas company had lasted over 30 years. According to Culture Unstained, its termination is a result of “pressure from leading artists, campaigners and public”. The NPG said the:

    partnership will not extend beyond December 2022, when their current contract comes to an end.

    The Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Galleries of Scotland have already ended their relationship with the fossil fuel giant. This followed a threatened boycott from students and published scientific evidence on the dangers of the climate emergency.

    The move is being hailed as a victory for years of direct action campaigning:

     

    Ending the relationship

    Fossil fuel research group Culture Unstained (CU) believes that the ending of this relationship is a result of “years of growing opposition to BP’s sponsorship of the Gallery”. The group feels the NPG announcement puts pressure on:

    the British Museum to end its BP sponsorship deal after it was revealed just last week that the Director has already been seeking to renew the controversial partnership, and over 300 archaeologists came out in opposition to the renewal.

    Furthermore, CU believes:

    the tide is turning on the role of fossil fuels in public life.

    Years of campaigning

    This announcement is a moment for direct action campaigners to celebrate. It follows years of organising by activists against the involvement of a fossil fuel company with a cultural institution:

    In June 2019, artist Gary Hume wrote to the NPG demanding it end its relationship with BP. Hume wrote:

    Either we distance ourselves from one of the world’s biggest fossil fuel producers and embrace the challenge of decarbonising, or we continue to give legitimacy to BP and its business activities that are seriously exacerbating the problem.

    Not the first, but others must follow

    These direct action campaigns have severed the links between a fossil fuel giant and cultural institutions in the UK. But it’s not about saving cultural institutions from the scourge of fossil fuel companies. It’s about saving the planet. So several other organisations need to follow and divest from businesses that are slowly killing us and our planet.

    Featured image via Amy-Leigh Barnard – Unsplash & @RealMediaGB- YouTube Screengrab

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The police are trying to withhold information on the death of a 14-year-old child

    Content warning: This article mentions details of Noah Donohoe’s case that some readers may find distressing.

    On Friday 25 February, Noah Donohoe’s justice campaign team will hold a peaceful protest outside police headquarters in Belfast.

    As reported by The Canary, 14-year-old Noah Donohoe disappeared on 21 June 2020. His body was found in a storm drain six days later.

    The protest is to demand the chief constable releases files into Noah’s case. Justice campaigners believe these files are:

    vital for us to get the truth we desperately need, to find out what really happened…

    Campaigners have been forced to take action because the police are applying for a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate in relation to some of the files related to Noah’s death.

    Foul play?

    A post-mortem examination found Noah died as a result of drowning, and his mother Fiona Donohoe suspects foul play. While the police do not suspect this, a preliminary inquest last year heard the PSNI received several reports that Noah had been assaulted on the day he disappeared.

    Fiona also believes the police are not doing everything possible to investigate the case. She said:

    I as Noah’s mummy have, from the very start of Noah being missing, believed that the police did not use all their resources in finding Noah. This was confirmed when it emerged they had not paid anyone overtime while investigating his death. They did little, if any, forensics and any suspects that were brought to their attention were dismissed as not relevant.

    Still waiting on a full inquest

    Now, more than 20 months later – and despite the plan to hold it on 10 January 2022 – a full inquest into Noah’s death has still not happened. A Coroner’s Service spokesperson told The Canary:

    An inquest date has not yet been confirmed but preparatory work is continuing, including in relation to identifying a suitable date and venue.

    In November last year, barrister Brenda Campbell, representing Noah’s mother Fiona, said she needed more time to consider three expert reports and to review the findings into the police’s original investigation. Campbell questioned the quality of the material coming from the police, saying it’s a “constant source of concern” because some of the information is either illegible or the photocopying is poor. She said:

    I would press to the court again that if we could have material in a legible format it would take a lot of heat out of the disclosure process.

    Moreover, Campbell added:

    What is causing most concern at the moment is the issue of the sensitive material.

    That’s because the police are applying for a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate.

    Withholding vital information?

    Some refer to a PII as a “gagging order“. If the police get this certificate, which could legally be challenged, it would mean some of this case’s “sensitive material” would be censored. A legal professional in the north of Ireland told The Canary his firm’s only dealings with PIIs was in terrorism cases. He said:

    that’s why it’s so strange that this is being invoked here. It’s really really obscure

    And while he added that a PII can be invoked in non-terrorism cases, it would have to be “pretty extenuating circumstances to get it justified”. The Coroner’s Office told The Canary:

    As you may be aware, various matters (including in relation to sensitive information), have been addressed during the preliminary hearings, most recently on 8 February 2022.

    Fiona Donohoe has also complained to the Police Ombudsman about the police’s handling of this case.

    The campaign for transparency

    Sinn Féin MP for West Belfast Paul Maskey has written to the British government and the head of police to raise his concerns about the application for a PII:

    Additionally, Noah’s justice campaign team has started a petition calling for the release of these vital files. At the time of publication, it had around 280,000 signatures. The page reads:

    My son, Noah Donohoe was an intelligent smart gentle boy. He was 14 years old and he was my only child and my everything.

    It adds:

    I believe that someone harmed my Noah and that there have been serious and repeated failings in the Police investigation of his death. I will never get Justice for Noah if I do not get all the information. These four files are vital for us to get the truth we desperately need, to find out what really happened to my precious son.

    I am asking you as the public, some of you as parents, to sign this petition so that Noah gets the justice he truly deserves and to place transparency and accountability where it should rightly be.

    Featured image via The Irish Mirror – Screengrab

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Here’s a round-up of the strikes happening nationwide

    Amid the cost of living crisis, workers up and down the UK are fighting back. Various strikes are taking place. And one left-wing party has provided a round up of them.

    Breakthrough showing how it’s done

    Of course, the party showing support for all these strikes isn’t Labour; that would be too much to ask. Instead, it’s the Breakthrough Party, and on 23 February it tweeted a useful thread that detailed several current strikes:

     

    No sick pay for RMT workers

    First up, and rail cleaners have walked out over pay conditions. Members of the RMT union are fighting for £15 an hour. Currently, bosses pay these workers either the minimum or real living wage. But as the RMT said, rising inflation means that for these people to avoid a real-terms pay cut:

    a worker on the National Minimum Wage would need £1,252 more a year… while a worker on the Real Living Wage would need £1,395 more.

    Meanwhile, their employer Churchill made a nice profit last year and paid its directors a £3.8m dividend. Despite this, it can’t even be bothered to pay its cleaners sick pay. So, the workers have downed tools:

    Pensions rip-off for uni staff

    University staff across the UK are also striking. They’ve walked out over pay, pensions, and working conditions. Since 2009, the University and College Union (UCU) says bosses have cut staff pay by 25% in real terms due to “below inflation pay offers”. On Tuesday 22 February, bosses confirmed that staff would also see at least a 35% cut to their pensions. The UCU strike has seen over 50,000 staff at 68 unis walk out:

    To top this off, the UCU is balloting staff over strike action at Staffordshire university. It’s over what the union calls bosses making a “two-tier workforce”. The university will employ new staff on different contracts to existing ones which will place them on a worse pension scheme. Meanwhile, around 1,500 workers from a group of private girls schools are also striking. Again, this is over pensions. They’re part of the National Education Union (NEU):

    What a load of rubbish

    Over in Coventry, refuse workers have been on a long-running strike. Again, it’s over pay. Labour-run Coventry council pays its refuse workers less than the going rate, and the council also makes staff work over 50 hours a week. The strike has been a damning example of how the Labour Party operates.

    SKWAWKBOX said the council was a “scab“. It reported on Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) candidate in the Birmingham Erdington by-election Dave Nellist. He spoke to Not The Andrew Marr Show about the strike, and accused Coventry council of spending £3m to try and break the strike:

    Meanwhile, Unite has threatened to pull funding from Labour over its council’s actions. Keir Starmer simply sneered at the Coventry strike and Labour’s part in it.

    An unhealthy deal

    Great Ormond Street is a world-famous children’s hospital, but bosses are giving outsourced security staff an unhealthy deal. United Voices of the World (UVW) union has been supporting them. It says the staff:

    are denied the same annual leave, sick leave, and career progression as other NHS workers.

    UVW calls this a “two-tier system“. But bosses are battering the striking workers. They got a court to place an injunction on the strike. This means staff could be fined or jailed for taking action outside the hospital. So, workers are holding a rally on Friday 25 February at 12pm. If you can, go and support them:

    Bosses not delivering the goods

    And finally, delivery couriers have been on a walk-out for over two months. The Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) union has been supporting them. It involves people who work for Stuart Delivery, a subsidiary of DPD, that provides couriers for JustEat. In December 2021, it cut workers’ pay – slashing their delivery rates by 24%. This means couriers get a minimum of £3.40 per delivery, down from £4.50.

    As IWGB said, for the bosses it’s different:

    in 2020, Stuart’s highest earning director received a 1000 percent pay rise over the previous year to over £2 million

    You can send an email to Stuart Delivery bosses here to show your solidarity with the workers.

    General strike: everybody out?

    With so many strikes happening up and down the country, and the cost of living crisis spiralling, it is time for collective action. As a minimum, more trade unions should organise actions. If they won’t, then workers should organise wild cat strikes. Moreover, surely the time for a general strike from all workers and unions is now: demanding as a minimum an end to government cuts and a national living wage of £15. Nothing less will do.

    Featured image via UVW Union – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • We all need to protest racist Tory legislation this weekend

    A newly-formed campaign has organised a demo over a racist piece of Tory legislation. It will see numerous organisations working together to oppose the government’s Nationality and Borders Bill. With up to six million people possibly affected by the new law, the protest is sorely needed.

    So ahead of the bill’s next reading in the lords on 28 February, the group has called a protest in London on Sunday. It is also highlighting and opposing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which is also back in the House of Commons on Monday.

    Racist Tory legislation

    As I previously wrote, the Tories’ Nationality and Borders Bill is a:

    nasty piece of legislation [that] aims to make it even harder for refugees to try and seek help and safety in the UK – trashing international law in the process. The bill will criminalise refugees and stop them arriving in small boats – including measures to let border control staff do so-called ‘pushback’ techniques which puts refugees at risk of drowning. It will also let the government strip people of their UK citizenship without even telling them. This would include people of Indian, Bangladeshi and Jamaican heritage.

    The bill is overall inherently racist. So, a campaign group is taking action.

    Our right to citizenship

    Citizenship Is A Right (CIAR) is a new coalition, formed of various groups. Groups involved include:

    • Jewish Voice For Labour.
    • Black Lives Matter (BLM) Coalition.
    • Sikh Council UK.
    • Muslim Association of Britain.
    • CAGE.
    • Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC) UK.

    The coalition says that:

    We believe in a fair, humane and caring immigration policy, and unequivocally reject the Hostile environment – driven by racism, hatred, greed and open contempt for international law.

    An entrenched hostile environment

    CIAR notes that the two bills:

    are a continuation of a full-scale assault on the lives of so many. We call on everyone to rise for justice to defend our already fragile democracy and basic rights – and join us in our fight to defeat them.

    As CIAR points out, currently UK law already allows governments to strip people of their citizenship. These bits of legislation date back as far as 1981. CIAR says that updates in 2014 allowed:

    the Home Office to remove a naturalised citizen’s citizenship as long as they have “reasonable grounds” for believing the person has a right to citizenship of another country. This could render them stateless – and for some already has.

    Now, it’s getting even worse. As CIAR notes, if the Tories make the Nationality and Borders Bill law:

    Every person with foreign-born parents is under threat. Shockingly, this Bill would also give this Government the power to introduce primary immigration legislation without parliamentary scrutiny, known as the Henry VIII clauses. This is wholly undemocratic and immoral and this is what we are campaigning to end.

    That’s six million people who CIAR refer to as being “under threat”. So, on 27 February, CIAR is taking to the streets.

    Protest

    The group has organised a demo from the Foreign Office to Parliament Square:

    Map of the CIAR march from the foreign office to parliament square

    CIAR says that:

    we’re taking to the streets to make some noise and put pressure on the House of Lords to kill this bill which will strip dual citizens of their British passport without notice and criminalise refugees.

    Other protests against the bills are being organised across the UK using the hashtags #KillTheBills and #DefendDemocracy, #CitizenshipIsARight and #RefugeesWelcome.

    Creating another Windrush scandal

    Zita Holbourne is the national chair of BARAC UK. She told The Canary:

    BARAC UK has been campaigning for migrant and refugee rights since we were established in 2010. This includes warning of, and then in opposition to, the Windrush scandal and mass deportations. We also believe in practical solidarity. So, for the past eight years have organised regular humanitarian aid missions to support refugees stuck in limbo in northern France.

    The [Nationality and Borders Bill] seeks to further reduce the rights of all these groups of people and many more.

    BARAC UK is working with a number of groups to campaign against it. We are one of the 21 co-founding organisations of CIAR who have organised the demo on Sunday. This is our second one since forming in January.

    Up to six million overwhelmingly Black and Brown people could have their citizenship stripped under the bill proposals. It seeks to create another Windrush scandal on an even larger scale.

    So it’s imperative that we mobilise, organise and take action against it with urgency.

    ‘Mobilisation is vital’

    Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi from JVL told The Canary:

    These bills reinforce attempts to undermine rights and liberties that are widely taken for granted in a liberal “free” society. Their full implications may not become visible immediately, or even under this government. They should be seen in the context of others already on the statute books, such as the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act, enacted in March 2021, anti-trade union legislation in force since the 1980s, and other ongoing threats such as the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices through imposition of the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism and the criminalisation of calls for BDS [Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions].

    These bills will almost certainly pass into law, given the Tories’ huge parliamentary majority. Mobilisation in advance is vital to alert vulnerable communities to their potential impact and prepare for the battles ahead.

    We’re all affected

    The Tories are currently attacking many of us on all fronts. But it’s the sheer scale of the assault of the Nationality and Borders Bill that is so shocking. With six million people potentially in the Tories’ line of fire over revoking citizenship alone, that’s around one in 11 people. Therefore, many of us will either be or will know someone personally affected by this. So – it’s each and every one of our duties to oppose this nasty, racist legislation.

    See you on the streets on 27 February.

    Featured image via CIAR

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The DWP’s latest error is ‘cheating’ people out of money

    The latest error from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has “cheated” people out of money they’re entitled to. It’s also lining the pockets of local councils. And the situation could also funnel money into the hands of private companies.

    DWP: ‘don’t blame us, blame the system’

    As The Canary previously reported, the DWP has overseen pensions chaos. It:

    estimates it has underpaid 134,000 pensioners over £1bn of their state pension entitlement. Most of them are women, and some errors date as far back as 1985.

    In January 2021, the DWP started an exercise to correct the errors. This was the ninth such exercise since 2018… The errors mostly affect widows, divorcees, and women who rely on their husband’s pension contributions for some of their pension.

    The DWP blamed complex pension rules and a reliance on highly manual systems for the errors. And now, an independent journalist has exposed more wrongdoing on the DWP’s part.

    “Pay out and grab back”

    David Henke reported on a House of Lords session during which peers debated the pensions chaos. DWP minister baroness Deborah Stedman-Scott revealed that so far her department has paid back £60.7m to 9,491 people. Or, as Henke put it – paid back what it had “cheated” people out of in the first place. This works out at an average of around £6,295 per person.

    Stedman-Scott confirmed that some older people are going to be stung by the repayments. This is affecting people who are in care homes or rely on social care. It’s happening because the DWP’s bulk payouts could push these people over the capital threshold where they have to pay for their care. It’s currently £23,250. Henke called the DWP’s handling of this a “pay out and grab back” scheme.

    As he wrote:

    Given that many care homes charge differential rates for people residing there – local authority rates are often lower than private rates – this could even be a new bonanza for care home owners – as they could get more money for providing the same services.

    This is because council-run social care services are often outsourced to private companies – so therefore people end up technically paying them

    Conscious cruelty or dire mismanagement?

    Peers widely condemned the DWP. One of them said it was “hiding behind the skirts of local government”. Another peer suggested that the chaos would mostly hit women. Stedman-Scott said she’d speak to the Treasury and DWP boss Thérèse Coffey about law changes so people don’t lose out.

    The initial fault for DWP pensions underpayments clearly stands with the department. But now, it’s knowingly ripping older people off after finally repaying the money it owes them. Thankfully, Henke is exposing this story, and The Canary will continue to follow as it progresses.

    Featured image via Robert Prax – pixabay and UK government – Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • MP demands to know if taxpayers picked up the bill for Downing Street parties

    The government has claimed that taxpayers incurred no costs for food, alcohol, suitcases, or a fridge connected with gatherings investigated as part of the Downing Street partygate allegations. Until quite recently, the government was still claiming that no such gatherings took place.

    Who foots the bill?

    Cabinet Office minister Michael Ellis replied simply with “no” when challenged by Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) on “whether there was a cost to the public purse from expenditure” on the items. The civil servant-led Sue Gray report investigated 16 events following allegations of parties being held and lockdown rules broken in Downing Street and across Whitehall.

    The Metropolitan Police is investigating 12 events, including as many as six that the prime minister is reported to have attended. The investigations follow allegations of frequent and excessive drinking by Downing Street staff to the extent where a wine fridge was purchased and staff were dispatched to local supermarkets to fill a suitcase with wine.

    Olney, in a written parliamentary question, said:

    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether there was a cost to the public purse from expenditure on (a) alcohol, (b) food, (c) suitcases and (d) a fridge at gatherings being investigated by the (i) Second Permanent Secretary to Cabinet Office and (ii) Metropolitan Police?

    “No,” responded Ellis.

    The Daily Telegraph has reported that at one event a partygoer took a suitcase to a nearby Co-op branch which was then filled with bottles of wine to bring back to Downing Street. A fridge with the capacity for 34 wine bottles was delivered through the back door of No 10 in December 2020 for staff’s “wine-time Fridays” which were held throughout lockdown, according to reporting in the Mirror.

    One of the events being investigated by the Metropolitan Police is the “socially distanced drinks” held on 20 May 2020 at which staff were encouraged to “bring your own booze”.

    “Excessive consumption”

    Gray’s report didn’t refer to specific incidents because the Met police asked her not to (since that happened, Met commisioner Cressida Dick was forced to step down because of uncovered racism and corruption under her watch).

    The Gray report found:

    The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time.

    Steps must be taken to ensure that every Government department has a clear and robust policy in place covering the consumption of alcohol in the workplace.

    The Cabinet Office has faced a number of written questions from opposition MPs relating to the Partygate affair seeking to establish if public money was involved.

    Labour shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry has previously asked if government procurement cards were used to make purchases lower than £500 at the Co-op on 16 April – the night of the alleged suitcase trip. “No,” was again the one-word answer from Ellis.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A York MP wants to strip the duke of York of his title

    A new law could be tabled in the House of Commons to create the power to remove the duke of York title from Andrew Windsor, MPs have heard.

    Dropping the duke

    Labour’s Rachael Maskell, who represents York Central, has suggested Windsor should lose his association with the north Yorkshire city following the settlement of his legal battle with Virginia Giuffre. Maskell said it appeared “impossible” under parliamentary rules to bring forward new legislation to ensure the necessary powers are in place to remove such a title from someone. In response, deputy speaker Eleanor Laing suggested the private members’ bills system, which enables backbench MPs and peers to introduce proposed laws, could be an option for her to pursue.

    Laing added House of Commons clerks could offer advice should Maskell wish to take the matter forward.

    Elsewhere, Laing also advised Labour’s Andy McDonald to get in contact with ministers to establish if any public money has been used to pay for the duke’s settlement with Giuffre. Andrew will have to pay a legal bill of up to £12m, according to speculation, following his out-of-court agreement with Giuffre who was suing the queen’s son for sexual abuse after she claims she was trafficked by his friend the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    Although the parties have settled the case, the agreement is not an admission of guilt from the duke and he has always denied the allegations against him.

    The Duke of York, Virginia Giuffre, and Ghislaine Maxwell (US Department of Justice/PA)
    The duke of York, Virginia Giuffre, and Ghislaine Maxwell (US Department of Justice/PA)

    Protected in parliament

    Erskine May, which outlines parliamentary procedure, states in its section on the royal family:

    No question can be put which brings the name of the sovereign or the influence of the crown directly before Parliament, or which casts reflections upon the sovereign or the royal family.

    It adds only questions on matters such as costs to the public of funding royal events and royal palaces are allowed.

    Speaking in the Commons, Maskell told Laing:

    I seek your advice on a matter of a point of order concerning the ability to raise the matter of the removal of a title when it impacts on a geographical location, such as my city of York.

    Maskell cited Erskine May’s restrictions on discussing royal family matters, adding:

    The removal of a title, such as a duke, can only be achieved through the passing of legislation.

    According to the clerks of the House, this has been achieved through legislation in 1798 concerning a specific individual and in 1917 under the Deprivation of Titles Act for the matter of treason.

    The sovereign does not have powers to remove a title unless Parliament confers such powers on them, nor does Parliament except under this specific legislation which is very limited in its application. However, in order to bring forward future legislation so that there were such powers available then new legislation would need to be introduced, which would appear impossible under the rulings of Erskine May.

    Laing, in her reply, said:

    There are other means by which the matters she’s raised can be brought before the House, and she rightly says the matter she describes can be resolved by legislation and (Ms Maskell) knows there are ways in which she can introduce legislation into the House – by private members’ bills, through the 10-minute rule procedure.

    And I’m quite sure if she were to ask the advice of the clerks, they would guide her on how she might take this matter forward if she so wishes.

    The Duke of York (Neil Hall/PA)
    The Duke of York (Neil Hall/PA)

    Cost to the public?

    McDonald did not refer to the duke by name as he said:

    In recent days there’s been widespread coverage of the settlement of an extremely high profile court case. There are undoubtedly significant sensitivities and difficulties here and I’m conscious of the need to proceed with care. But my particular concern is whether such a significant settlement could be satisfied by the use of public funds.

    In those circumstances, I seek your guidance as to how I might illicit clarification and assurance from a Government minister that no public funds have been used or will be used in part or whole in satisfaction of the settlement.

    Laing replied:

    I suggest that given that (Mr McDonald) were to put down questions for ministerial answer here in the chamber, there could be difficulties because questions are based on ministerial responsibility and there’s no obvious ministerial responsibility for the expenditure of public funds in the way (Mr McDonald) suggests.

    So therefore it might be best if he were to write to ministers to seek the assurance that he wishes.

    It’s understood McDonald will do as suggested by the deputy speaker. No detail has been disclosed with regard to the settlement and costs.

    Reports suggest the duke has agreed to pay around £10m to Giuffre and a further £2m to her charity, with speculation the queen might help with costs from her private funds. Windsor is reportedly in the process of selling his Swiss ski chalet with the property expected to generate many millions in funds. This situation has led to an enormous public backlash against him.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • It’s time to ramp up our fight against the police bill

    On 28 February, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will return to the House of Commons. The bill suffered a series of defeats in the lords. But those defeats were never going to be enough to kill the bill. And indications from the Home Office now confirm that home secretary Priti Patel will try and reinstate some of the provisions dismissed in the upper house.

    So it’s now time to take to the streets again and ramp up our protests against this racist and draconian piece of legislation.

    Don’t believe the hype

    As The Canary previously reported, it was always important not to get too excited about the defeats inflicted to the bill by the lords. Yes, the lords voted against amendments that would have introduced a raft of draconian protest offences, such as locking on. And these amendments, due to the fact they were introduced in the lords, cannot be re-added to the bill.

    The lords also voted against the provision for criminalising protests that are too noisy. But as this was in the original bill, it can just be added back in. Now, according to the Guardian, ministers are to “continue fighting” for the protest powers.

    Additionally, the lords didn’t amend the massive watering down of the threshold for prosecution for breaching conditions imposed on a protest. This key change in the wording of the 1986 Public Order Act means that a person commits an offence if they “ought to know” the conditions imposed by the police. In other words, you could be convicted of breaching a condition even if you didn’t know they’d been imposed. Currently, it has to be shown that a person knew the conditions were in force.

    Many other protest provisions, such as ten-year sentences for damaging a statue or ten years in jail for actions that cause “serious annoyance”, were also left unchanged.

    Racist and draconian

    Even if all the protest amendments had been stripped from the bill, it would still be a racist and draconian piece of legislation. And it’s essential that we all remember that the bill isn’t just about protest.

    As Eliza Egret previously wrote for The Canary in the wake of the lords defeats:

    The bill will still criminalise the way of life for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities by making trespass with the intention to reside in or near a vehicle criminal offence. It will allow the police to arrest travellers, and/or confiscate their caravans or vans, which are literally their homes.

    And as Egret points out, there’s a whole raft of other worrying proposals:

    The bill will change the minimum age of receiving a life sentence in prison from 21 years old to 18 years old, locking up young offenders who are usually from the most working class and difficult backgrounds. On top of this, the bill will introduce secure schools, which the government describes as a “planned new form of youth custody”. Secure schools will, essentially, be prisons for children aged from 12 to 18 years of age, and they will be run by charities: yet more money being funnelled into the private sector.

    To the streets…again!

    When the bill was first introduced, it led to a wave of protests across the country, including the uprisings in Bristol. It’s time to ramp up that pressure again. We need to be noisy, disruptive, and seriously annoying. We need to be ungovernable.

    We didn’t win our rights by asking nicely, and we’re certainly not going to keep them unless we make a hell of a fuss. The time for action is now. See you on the streets!

    Featured image via Emily Apple

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • As storms batter the UK, homelessness is a political choice for the Tories

    Storms Dudley, Eunice, and Franklin have recently struck the UK. As one after the other hit, many of us stayed at home rather than getting battered by the wind and hail outside.

    But what about Britain’s rough sleepers? As trees have crashed down and church spires have toppled, local authorities have temporarily provided severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) placements for rough sleepers. SWEPs mean that emergency beds are given to people to prevent deaths on the streets in extreme weather conditions.

    But despite SWEPs supposedly being put in place throughout the country, the public has noticed people remain on the streets, sleeping in the brutal weather.

    Meanwhile, Streets Kitchens has continued to serve food to people who are still on the streets:

    Wildly inaccurate government stats

    The government’s official statistics put the figure of rough sleepers at 2,688 during the pandemic in autumn 2020. But many are critical of the Tories’ figures, which conveniently show Boris Johnson’s government to be successfully tackling homelessness.

    Figures from Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN) show that the government figures are likely to be inaccurate. According to CHAIN, in London alone, 11,018 people were seen sleeping rough between April 2020 and March 2021. The Big Issue says:

    The figures show rough sleeping has increased by 94 per cent in the last decade – almost double the number of people living on the streets in the English capital 10 years ago.

    Homelessness is a political choice

    According to recent data, there’s currently a staggering £200bn worth of empty homes in Britain. In England alone, there are 665,628 vacant dwellings. In London there are currently 80,295 empty homes, and they’re worth around £41bn.

    A warm shelter is surely the most basic right that someone should have, and there are more than enough buildings to house everyone. Despite this, the Tories continue to put capitalism first, taking zero steps to regulate the property market. After all, it’s their rich speculator friends who are rubbing their hands with glee, sitting on empty properties in prime locations, doing nothing while they watch their properties increase in value.

    On top of this, many who own more than one home commonly rake in the money by letting out their properties short-term using Airbnb or short-term property agents. There’s been uproar around the world as Airbnb has driven up rental prices. Properties that would have once been long-term rentals are now higher-priced short-term Airbnb lets, reducing the supply of long-term housing and pricing out local people.

    System change

    If local authorities are able to open emergency beds during the storms, it begs the obvious question: why can’t the government do it permanently? After all, it was able to hurriedly house people in its ‘Everyone In’ campaign during the first wave of the pandemic.

    But perhaps more importantly, why do we accept a government that puts property speculation before human lives?

    With higher rents, increased fuel costs, last year’s cut to benefits, and an increasing number of people struggling with their mental health while living through a pandemic, it’s highly likely that the numbers of street homeless people will increase. We need complete system change where everyone has the right to a roof over their heads, and where everyone can afford to heat their homes and feed their children.

    Featured image via Leo Reynolds / Flickr. Licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson is endangering the clinically vulnerable by ending self-isolation, carer says

    The mother of a clinically extremely vulnerable 11-year-old has said immunocompromised people are being “thrown to the wolves” by Boris Johnson’s plans to axe self-isolation laws.

    Abandoning the clinically vulnerable

    The PM will brief ministers today and is expected to repeal all pandemic regulations that restrict public freedoms in England by the end of this week. That includes plans to scrap the requirement of isolation after a positive coronavirus (Covid-19) test.

    Lorna Fillingham, 50, is a full-time carer for her daughter and wheelchair-user Emily-May. Fillingham’s daughter has physical and mental disabilities and lives with Baraitser-Winter syndrome. This affects the development of the brain – making her extremely vulnerable to coronavirus.

    Fillingham, who is based in Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, told the PA news agency:

    I find it negligent – that is what I think it is. (Johnson) is neglecting the health of too many people… and I just don’t understand why he is making this decision.

    I’m all for freedom, don’t get me wrong, but I cannot understand the timing of this announcement.

    The plans will affect the daily life of Fillingham and her family. They have have been shielding since the country’s first lockdown in March 2020. The family regularly calls ahead to attractions to check they aren’t too busy before taking the children. Fillingham said:

    Every time we go somewhere, it’s always going to be in the back of my head as to whether (Emily-May) is safe in that environment or not. Because she could be sat next to somebody with active Covid, and she hasn’t got the full protection of the vaccine.

    Fillingham also said the plans to scrap self-isolation laws have angered the online community of clinically vulnerable people. She said:

    People are feeling that they’ve been thrown to the wolves. That is what I’m getting from the Facebook groups. I don’t believe (Johnson) can be following the science any more.

    Weighing the risks

    Tom Pearman, based in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, has an immune deficiency. He said removing isolation for known cases “seems madness” to him. The 44-year-old said:

    We all want to get living, but we have to weigh the risks.

    I, like many, am desperate to return to normal but knowing that I could sit next to someone in a cafe, cinema or other public space that has knowingly has Covid but choses not to stay at home, means I have to weigh the risk and probably step back until further treatments are available.

    Is this just financially and politically motivated rather than health and scientifically related? It seems that over one million people will have to step back and review the risk they face with this plan – what’s the plan for these people?

    Coronavirus – Thu Jan 27, 2022
    Tom Pearman is clinically vulnerable and said the plans to scrap isolation laws in England ‘seems madness’ at this time (Tom Pearman/PA)

    ‘Another huge blow’

    The charity Immunodeficiency UK aims to give guidance and support to those who are immunocompromised. Its chief executive Susan Walsh said this is a “political decision that will cost lives”. Walsh told PA:

    This is another huge blow to our immunodeficiency community – they’ve been angry before, but they’re just furious about this.

    I find it shameful that the Government thinks the job is done – the immunodeficiency community needs a coherent plan based on preventing, testing, treatment and support packages.

    We’re just an inconvenience to this Government.

    The latest figures

    Around one in 20 people in private households in England had coronavirus in the week to 12 February, or 2.4 million people. That’s according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This is down from one in 19 in the week to 5 February.

    Infections are still higher than they were before Christmas, when the estimate stood at one in 25, or two million people. Despite the numbers remaining high, we’ve since moved back to Plan A restrictions. Johnson’s expected announcement would remove even more safety measures still.

    HEALTH Coronavirus Data

     

    The number of deaths in England where coronavirus was recorded on the death certificate averaged between 150 and 190 a day during January 2022, according to the ONS. This is below the equivalent figures for January 2021, but higher than much of the second half of 2021.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Daily Mail just gaslit every single person struggling with coronavirus

    The Daily Mail decided what we all needed on a stormy Monday morning is gaslighting. It told us how marvellous the queen is because she’s working from home despite contracting coronavirus (Covid-19). In fact, the Mail went as far as to tell us that she’s an “example to us all”.

    While the story would have been bad enough at any time, it was made worse by the fact that it was published as Boris Johnson announced he was ending compulsory self-isolation for those who test positive for the disease:

    In other words, the Mail thinks it’s great that she’s working from home, a luxury many will simply not have once Johnson ends self-isolation rules.

    Seriously sickening

    The comment piece that accompanies the headline is even more sickening with sycophantic gushing to both the queen and Johnson:

    That Her Majesty is now able to brush off the infection so lightly is testament to the miraculous effect of the vaccines, which this country pioneered and Boris Johnson ensured were properly funded.

    This is jingoistic nonsense. Yes, the UK did develop the Astra-Zenica vaccine that was widely used initially. But most young people either had the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines for their first shots and most of us got those for our booster vaccines. Figures from September 2021 show that 189 million doses of Pfizer had been administered compared to 100 million Astra-Zenica shots.

    The Pfizer vaccination was developed in Germany by the children of refugees – which doesn’t fit so neatly with the Mail‘s xenophobic views.

    The article continues:

    The time has come for Britain to become a free society once more – learning to live with Covid, rather than being shackled by it.

    The article further claims that:

    the relative weakness of the Omicron variant, the chances of the fully vaccinated becoming seriously ill are small to negligible.

    This, of course, will be news to the thousands of people still being admitted to hospital. And it’s a devastating insult to the loved ones of the thousands of people still dying from coronavirus each month. It also doesn’t account for the debilitating impact of long Covid – something that’s still an unknown with regard to Omicron as the variant remains relatively new.

    Be more like the queen!

    But just maybe, the Mail has unexpectedly got it right. Maybe the queen should be an example to all of us. She’s an example of how grossly unfair our country is. Because quite frankly, dealing with any illness is easier if you’re not worried about heating your home (let alone your palace) and putting food on the table. It’s also much easier if you’re not trying to survive on £96.35 a week statutory sick pay – one of the lowest rates in Europe. She’s an example of what life could be like if we didn’t have a society based around what benefits the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

    It should go without saying that we don’t all have the same options as the queen. So for starters, let’s tax billionaires, ban second homes, implement a universal basic income, and properly fund social care and our NHS. Let’s ensure that every single person has the same options as the queen in dealing with any illness.

    But let’s face it. That’s not what the Mail intended. It used an obscenely wealthy woman to gaslight all of us with “her typical ‘keep calm and carry on’ approach”. And that is nothing but insulting and sickening.

    Featured image via Flickr/Foreign Office

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Tories still claim attack on Ukraine is ‘highly likely’ despite possible Putin-Biden talks

    Foreign secretary Liz Truss has warned that a Russian invasion of Ukraine appears “highly likely” despite Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin tentatively agreeing to hold a crisis summit. It’s unclear what benefit there is in predicting that Biden will fail before the talks have even happened (if it was ever likely that Russia would invade in the first place).

    Brinksmanship

    The US President agreed during diplomatic efforts, against the backdrop of heightened media reporting, to meet his Russian counterpart. But he did so on the condition that Moscow does not invade.

    Some have cast doubt on the idea that Russia will invade (while Putin did illegally annex Crimea, he did so with the support of many within the region – a situation which wouldn’t repeat in Ukraine). Truss, however, did not appear to be revising her concerns that the Kremlin would order an attack, as she warned that the price of an invasion must be “intolerably high” for Russia. Truss, the media, and the Tories have been warning of an invasion ‘any day’ for the past few weeks now.

    The following is Truss describing Russia as being on the brink on 15 February – nearly a week ago:

    Here are some newspapers from 13 February:

    Over a week later, we’ve gone from the “final push” to “last-ditch talks” (Thesaurus owners may notice these are actually the the same thing):

    The growing suspicion, then, is perhaps we’re not on the cusp of war, but that the media/government would rather you think otherwise. Although, saying that, obviously it’s  far-fetched to suggest these people would ‘sex up’ a situation to sell a war to an unwilling public.

    Of course, it could be that Putin does actually intend to invade a hostile and well-armed country of 44 million people that’s backed by multiple nuclear powers. Given the US’s recent loss of the Afghanisatan war, it’s easy to see how a modern land war might appeal to him – especially one on his own border.

    It could also be that Putin is once again sabre-rattling, and that the primary difference is how our media and government are portraying it. We should know either way in the next 48 hours. Or the 48 hours after that. Or the 48 hours after…

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Rail workers were called ‘heroes’ during the pandemic. Now they’re striking for fair pay.

    Rail services were disrupted on Sunday 20 February because of a strike by train conductors in a dispute over pay.

    Members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) at TransPennine Express walked out. It’s because of what RMT’s John Tilley described as “a long standing grievance”. Further stoppages are planned in the coming weeks.

    The action led to a “significant” reduction in services on Sunday.

    ‘A pay deal that recognises the growing cost of living crisis’

    The union said the strike was solidly supported. RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said:

    RMT’s TransPennine Express conductor members are standing rock solid again today in their fight for a pay deal that recognises the growing cost of living crisis confronting working people.

    RMT has made it absolutely clear that those at the sharp end of our public services, who have worked throughout to keep Britain moving during Covid should not now be taking a hit to their standards of living.

    A company statement did not refer to the union or workers’ grievances, instead only addressing customers:

    We’re advising customers not to travel on the majority of routes and to plan carefully if journeys are necessary.

    Those attending major events, including the Leeds United vs Manchester United match, should seek alternative transport where possible.

    ‘We’ve exhausted all possible avenues’

    In an interview with That’s TV North Yorkshire, Tilley said:

    …our conductors on TransPennine are paid significantly less than other staff in the company for coming in and working their day off and working on Sundays, and the company have given a flat ‘no’ to that. And that’s the thanks that the people have… been given by the company for what they’ve done during Covid and our members are absolutely incensed by that.

    Unfortunately we’re transport workers, so if we use our last resort – and I can assure your listeners that it is absolutely the last resort… we’ve exhausted all possible avenues – so when transport workers use that last resort and withdraw their labour, and lose money doing so, then unfortunately that causes disruption because it’s the job that we do. We have no other option, we have no other weapon to use.

    The RMT has announced further strike action on 27 February and 6 March.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • In saying ‘shoot first’, Angela Rayner ignores the devastation caused by police violence

    Deputy Labour leader and MP Angela Rayner has advocated “shoot your terrorists and ask questions second”. She also made it clear she was “quite hardline” on crime generally. Her comments, made during Matt Forde’s Political Party podcast, were subsequently criticised on Twitter.

    But the timing could not have been worse. That’s because her comments came when there’s renewed interest in Labour leader Keir Starmer’s handling of the Jean Charles de Menezes case. Not forgetting, too, the murder of 14 innocent civilians on ‘Bloody Sunday’, now in its 50th anniversary year – and with still no justice in sight.

    The cases given here highlight the tragedy of innocent lives lost to police violence. Meanwhile the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) Act, which passed into law in 2021, controversially authorises “sources” to commit criminal acts in certain circumstances. These criminal acts are not defined and so could include killing a suspect.

    ‘Shoot first’ is current practice

    Either Rayner via her comments is saying she backs current “shoot first” practice, or she’s unaware that, as The Canary reported, this is how counter-terrorism police already operate.

    Perhaps one of the more infamous examples of “shoot first” was the killing of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005. He was an innocent man, travelling on the London underground, but mistaken for a terrorist.

    De Menezes was shot seven times by Metropolitan police at Stockwell tube station:

    The de Menezes operation was led by Cressida Dick, who was later appointed Metropolitan Police commissioner.

    One tweet referred to a December 2006 High Court ruling that the director of public prosecutions (DPP) had made “a reasonable decision” to not prosecute “on the basis that [prosecuting the police officers was] likely to fail”:

    In July 2008, the then director of prosecutions (DPP) Ken Macdonald reportedly concluded that a conviction of any of the police officers involved was not realistic. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided that no police officers would be prosecuted with any offence.

    An inquest into de Menezes’s death resulted in an open verdict, and the family was paid compensation. But compensation is not justice, and it’s certainly no substitute for a lost life. In November 2008, Starmer took over the DPP position from Macdonald. Starmer also agreed not to prosecute the police over the killing.

    It’s easy to say “shoot first”, but the consequences of such policy are both devastating and permanent. And, as the de Menezes case shows, there’s often little to no accountability or recourse to justice.

    Other “shoot first” cases

    There were other cases, as pointed out by The Canary, where the police shot and killed suspects, though not all of them suspects of terrorism, with no questions asked.

    Harry Stanley, for example, was unarmed when the police shot him in 1999. An inquest found he was unlawfully killed.

    Another victim was Mark Duggan, who the police shot and killed in August 2011. An inquest found he was unarmed, but the jury ruled it was a lawful killing. And Azelle Rodney was shot six times by an officer in 2005 after his car was stopped. A police officer was prosecuted for his murder, but was cleared by a jury.

    Again – lives lost, but little to no justice for the victims or the bereaved they left behind.

    Bloody Sunday

    Moreover, Rayner’s “shoot first” comments were made not long after the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday where civilians, not terrorists, were targeted – this time by the British army:

    On 30 January 1972, 14 unarmed civil rights protesters were murdered in Derry by British armed forces. Many more were injured. The Saville inquiry exonerated the 14 from any wrongdoing.

    Fred Holroyd, a former British army intelligence officer, commented:

    Bloody Sunday was a planned, calculated response to a demand for civil rights, designed to terrify organised protestors away from protesting.

    Not just James Bond

    With regard to the CHIS Act, human rights organisations have pointed out:

    There is no express prohibition on authorising crimes that would constitute human rights violations, including murder, torture (e.g. punishment shootings), kidnap, or sexual offences, or on conduct that would interfere with the course of justice

    Indeed, Home Office minister James Brokenshire explained:

    We do not believe… that it is appropriate to draw up a list of specific crimes that may be authorised or prohibited.

    The “shoot first” endorsement was presumably intended to show that Labour can be as tough as the Conservatives when it comes to combating crime. However, that endorsement may well come back to haunt Rayner when another innocent person is shot and killed. It is unacceptable that Labour should use people’s lives for political point scoring.

    Featured image via Wikimedia / Rwendland cropped 770×403 and licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson smirked his way through partygate questions in his BBC interview

    Boris Johnson said there’s “not a jot” he can say about the partygate affair. It comes as he repeatedly declined to say whether he will resign if found to have broken his own rules. As Herald Scotland and others have pointed out, there’s “no obvious legal reason” why Johnson can’t answer such questions. While it’s certainly the case that you can’t force a person to say something incriminating, there’s no law which says a person can’t discuss information that reveals their innocence.

    This ultimately suggests that any answer Johnson did give would not shine a flattering light on his activities.

    The man with no answers

    On the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, the prime minister faced more than 10 minutes of questioning on the topic of partygate. He repeatedly told the programme there was “nothing” he could say on the matter until the police inquiry was completed. Johnson said he hoped the public “won’t have long” to wait for the investigations to complete, claiming:

    I will be saying a lot more about it in due course.

    Johnson handed a legal questionnaire to police on 18 February regarding claims that lockdown-busting parties were held in Downing Street. The content of his questionnaire response has not been made public. He further claimed:

    Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to give you full and detailed answers on all this stuff. I genuinely can’t because we’ve got a process under way – there is not a jot I can say until it is done

    Again, it remains unclear what “process” prevents Johnson discussing the matter.

    When told the public found some of his excuses for attending Downing Street gatherings “implausible”, particularly the “bring your own booze” event in May 2020, Johnson replied:

    You’re just going to have to wait until the process is complete – there is literally not a bean I can tell you about that, as much as I would like to.

    Johnson – the most powerful person in the UK – did not expand on who was stopping him spilling his beans.

    Pressed further, he added:

    I understand your curiosity, I totally accept it, but you’re just going to have to accept for the time being – and you won’t have long, I hope – but for the time being you’re going to have to contain your interest.

    I will be saying a lot more about it in due course.

    Johnson’s excuses have done nothing to appease his many, many detractors:

    Labour MP Diane Abbott pointed out:

    There were also other matters that the usually chatty PM felt unable to discuss:

    Mr Vacuum

    Speaking of the police investigation and criticism from his own party members, Johnson said:

    I am fortunate to live in a democracy. I am fortunate to be the PM of a free, independent, democratic country where people can take that sort of decision, and where I do face that sort of pressure, that’s a wonderful thing.

    Meanwhile, Europe minister James Cleverly said the country does not need a “vacuum at the centre of Government” when asked about how the PM should react if he gets a fixed penalty notice. He presumably didn’t mean a vacuum cleaner, although it’s hard to see how a Henry Hoover could suck harder than Johnson.

    Speaking to Sky on Trevor Philips on Sunday, Cleverly said:

    I don’t think what the country needs at the moment is a vacuum at the centre of Government when we are dealing with our recovery from Covid, the accumulation of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, making sure that the health service is able to deal with the sad, the unfortunate but nevertheless obvious, backlog that’s been created by Covid.

    That’s what the country needs. That’s what I believe the Prime Minister should be doing.

    Cleverly did not directly answer a question about whether Johnson should resign if issued with a fixed penalty notice. To be fair, though, the fixed penalty notice would be small potatoes compared to other acts the Tories stand accused of:

    Prime Minister’s Questions
    Johnson apologised in the Commons for attending one of the events but said he thought it would classify as a ‘work event’ (it remains unclear what a ‘work event’ is as there was never a exception for them in the coronavirus guidelines) (Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament)

    “Fess up and resign”

    Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said:

    If Johnson is found to have broken the law, he must fess up and resign.

    He added:

    If he won’t resign, Conservative MPs must do the right thing and sack him. For a sitting Prime Minister to be found guilty of breaking the law would be unprecedented and put to bed once and for all the Conservative Party’s claim to be the party of law and order.

    Meanwhile Labour MP Diane Abbott said the PM’s response “speaks to his arrogance and contempt for voters”:

    The Metropolitan Police is investigating 12 events allegedly attended by government figures during lockdowns. They include as many as six that the prime minister is reported to have attended.

    Officers involved with Operation Hillman, which is examining whether coronavirus restrictions were broken in Downing Street and across Whitehall, sent formal questionnaires to approximately 50 people as they look into the details of alleged rule-breaking. Presumably the questionnaire contained questions like ‘can you confirm what you’re obviously doing in this photo everyone has already seen?’

    It’s unclear if the police will start interrogating other criminals with questionnaires, but probably not.

    Featured image via Twitter

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Jack Ritchie’s parents speak out ahead of inquest into his death

    The parents of a 24-year-old gambling addict who ended his life have said changes to betting laws could save lives but have been delayed.

    An inquest for Jack Ritchie is taking place this week. It will consider issues including the state’s involvement in his death, such as medical care he received and information he had about gambling risks.

    Failures on the part of UK authorities

    Ritchie was a Hull University history graduate. He was working as an English teacher when he died in Hanoi, Vietnam, in November 2017, after years of gambling problems dating back to his teens.

    His parents, Charles and Liz Ritchie, have spent the last four years arguing that failures on the part of UK authorities to address gambling issues contributed to their son’s death. And they’ve been campaigning for reform through the Gambling With Lives charity which they set up.

    The parents said Ritchie began gambling under-age at 17 when he and friends would use dinner money to play fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) at a betting shop.

    They believe an undiagnosed gambling disorder lay behind his death. And they’ve argued there were no public health warnings about the risk to life posed by gambling products. Moreover, they’ve said their son was not diagnosed or offered treatment that linked his symptoms to gambling disorder.

    ‘Every day someone else dies’

    Charles Ritchie told the PA news agency on Sunday 20 October:

    Jack’s inquest will give him respect and we’re very grateful that we have a legal process that will consider what happened to our son.

    That there is a coroner listening intently to the evidence about his death is significant for us and for everyone who believes that gambling affected their lost family member.

    The inquest comes at a time the Government is reviewing our gambling laws but continues to delay the changes which we believe will save lives.

    We know the resulting devastation first-hand and every day someone else dies and another family is added to the casualty list.

    In 2020, senior Sheffield coroner David Urpeth ruled that the inquest will investigate issues including the state’s provision of medical treatment to Ritchie and the information available to him and his family about the risks of gambling. The inquest resumes at Sheffield Town Hall on Monday 21 February.

    Urpeth said the inquest would include looking at “what is the system of regulation around gambling” and “whether gambling caused or contributed to Jack’s death”.

    Jack Ritchie inquest
    Jack Ritchie’s family say he began using betting shops when he was underage (family handout/PA)

    First Article 2 inquest in relation to gambling

    A previous coroner, since retired, ruled in 2019 that the full hearing will be an “Article 2 inquest”. This means it can examine whether any arm of the state breached its duty to protect Ritchie’s right to life.

    His family believes it’s the first time an Article 2 inquest has been held in a case relating to gambling.

    The coroner has named the following as interested persons:

    • The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
    • The Department for Health and Social Care.
    • The Gambling Commission.
    • The charity GambleAware
    • And the charity GamCare.

    Witnesses from the Gambling Commission, DHSC, GambleAware and GamCare will give evidence to the inquest. And there will be testimony from a range of other experts.

    A DCMS spokesperson said:

    Our thoughts are with Jack’s family at this difficult time and following this tragic case.

    We will not comment further until the inquest and legal proceedings have concluded.

    By The Canary

  • Storm Eunice hits Europe kills at-least 7 peoples.

    London,

    Storm Eunice hits Europe on Friday, while Britain affected with record-breaking winds and forcing millions to take shelter. At least 7 peoples killed in Britain. Storm disrupted flights, trains and ferries across Western Europe.

    London was empty after the British capital was placed under its first “red” weather warning, meaning there is “danger to life”. According to police, by nightfall, a woman in her 30s had died after a tree fell on a car.

    Meanwhile a man in his 50s was also killed in northwest England after debris struck the windscreen of a vehicle while travelling, according to Merseyside Police.

    Falling trees during storm killed three people in the Netherlands and a man in his 60s in southeast Ireland, while a Canadian man aged 79 died in Belgium, according to officials in each country.

    In London, the highest weather alert level was declared across southern England, South Wales and the Netherlands, with many schools closed and rail travel halted, as high tides waves broke sea walls along the coasts.

    Meanwhile, power outages and blackout to more than 140,000 homes in England, mostly in the southwest, and 80,000 properties in Ireland according to utility companies.

    Three people were taken to hospital after suffering injuries in the storm, and a large section of the roof on the capital’s Millennium Dome was shredded by the gales.

    Wind gusted of 122 miles (196 kilometers) per hour was measured on the Isle of Wight off southern England, “provisionally the highest gust ever recorded in England”, the Met Office said.

    Scientists said the Atlantic storm’s tail could pack a “sting jet”, a rarely seen meteorological phenomenon that brought havoc to Britain and northern France in the “Great Storm” of 1987.

    Eunice caused high waves to batter the Brittany coast in northwest France, while Belgium, Denmark and Sweden all issued weather warnings. Long-distance and regional trains were halted in northern Germany.

    Ferries across the Channel, the world’s busiest shipping lane, were suspended, before the English port of Dover reopened in the late afternoon.

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has ordered the British army on standby and tweeted,

    “We should all follow the advice and take precautions to keep safe.”

    Environment Agency official Roy Stokes warned weather watchers and amateur photographers against heading to Britain’s southern coastline in search of dramatic footage, calling it “probably the most stupid thing you can do”.

    London’s rush-hour streets, where activity has been slowly returning to pre-pandemic levels, were virtually deserted as many heeded government advice to stay home.

    Trains into the capital were already running limited services during the morning commute, with speed limits in place, before seven rail operators in England suspended all operations.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.