Category: UK

  • Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) has warned it will apply to court for an injunction unless striking workers stop picketing on hospital premises and reduce the number of protesters. This comes just five days into a planned 44-day strike by GOSH security guards over unfair terms and conditions. But striking workers – supported by trade union United Voices of the World (UVW) – aren’t backing down without a fight.

    Attempts to silence striking workers

    The striking guards are fighting for full sick pay and the same benefits as other NHS workers, including annual leave and sick leave.

    A GOSH spokesperson told The Canary:

    Our lawyers have written to the union involved in this action requesting a signed undertaking: to stay out of Trust premises; leave entries and exits clear for patients, families and staff; and protest in a manner which respects the setting of a children’s hospital.

    However, UVW has said that it “will vigorously contest” GOSH’s application for an injunction. A spokesperson for the trade union told The Canary:

    UVW does not accept that GOSH has any right to the undertakings sought which are oppressive and a draconian and unjustified encroachment on our member’s human rights to picket and protest.

    An ongoing battle

    UVW alleges that on one day of strikes, the picket line was “violently attacked” outside GOSH CEO Matthew Shaw’s offices.

    GOSH condemned the violent incident in a statement, saying:

    We understand that a GOSH contractor was present when the assault took place and we are working with the police to understand his role before deciding what action is most appropriate.

    The striking security guards are a group of predominantly Black, Brown and migrant workers. In January, GOSH security guards launched legal proceedings against their employer at an employment tribunal. They – along with GOSH cleaners – are claiming indirect racial discrimination over pay inequality and the denial of NHS benefits.

    Explaining why he’s taking part in the industrial action, GOSH security guard Samuel Awittor said:

    GOSH is made up of departments of families. And in a family circle, even when one member of the family feels he’s been left behind, or he’s not been treated fairly, there’s always going to be a reaction.

    Regarding GOSH’s attempts to silence its striking workers, UVW general secretary Petros Elia said:

    It is shocking that GOSH would rather throw tonnes of money at corporate lawyers to attack their security guard’s human rights to strike and protest, rather than simply treating them with respect and as equal members of the NHS.

    He added:

    We have made clear that we remain available to negotiate at any time, and hope that common sense will prevail and that the security guards’ reasonable demands will be met without the need to move to an all-out strike.

    A GOSH spokesperson told The Canary:

    We fully support the right to strike and the right to peaceful protest, but the recent conduct of protesters has caused distress to children and families and affected our ability to provide essential care.

    UVW is committed to fighting GOSH management’s union busting attempts. In the meantime, the industrial action continues.

    Anyone looking to support the striking security guards can donate to their strike fund, sign their petition, or write a letter to GOSH bosses urging them to give hospital guards equal NHS terms and conditions.

    Featured image printed with UVW’s permission 

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Conservative Party is once again causing an explosion in destitution. That’s the verdict of a new report. The think tank behind it previously warned that the number of families living in the poorest conditions had already sharply increased. And now, its warning is even more dire. Because government policies from the likes of Rishi Sunak could leave over two million people in the most abject of poverty.

    One year ago…

    The Canary reported just under a year ago on the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). It looked into destitution levels in 2020. This is defined as:

    a two-adult household living on less than £100 a week and a single-adult household on less than £70 a week after housing costs.

    In real-world terms, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says destitution is:

    going without the essentials we all need to eat, stay warm and dry, and keep clean.

    In February 2021, NIESR said that destitution in 2020 had more than doubled. It found that the number of households living in this level of poverty had gone up from 197,400 to 421,500. NIESR also found that the amount of destitution was different across the UK. For example, in the North West of England rates were three times higher than the UK figure. And NIESR’s research is against a backdrop of increasing social decay.

    Now, NIESR has produced another report. It says that destitution this year is once again going to explode.

    “Powering Down”

    NIESR released a report called Powering Down, Not Levelling Up. In it, NIESR made various economic forecasts. For example, it:

    • Agreed with other forecasts that inflation would hit 7%.
    • Said people’s wages would be lower in real terms.
    • Noted corporate profits rose during the pandemic.

    NIESR also looked at the government’s “levelling up” plan. It said that with no new money, the plan “severely limits the prospect for regional regeneration”. In real terms, NIESR said:

    by the end of 2024, poorer regions in the North of England and the devolved nations will on average be some £7,500 worse off in terms of disposable income per person than in London and the South East.

    NIESR also forecasts an increase in destitution for the financial year 2022-23. And it was this which was of most concern.

    Destitution: set to explode

    In short, the think tank said that based on its forecasts and current government policies, the number of destitute households will spiral. It said the:

    impact of this inflation in energy and food prices is a 31 per cent rise in destitution, bringing the total number of destitute households to about 1 million.

    It’s difficult to quantify how many people this will be. Previously as the Guardian noted, 2020’s 220,000 rise in destitute households may have equated to around 500,000 people. So, based on that, NIESR’s forecast of one million destitute households could potentially mean over 2.2 million people will be living in the most abject poverty.

    NIESR also said that the effects of destitution would be different across the UK. Despite the government’s levelling up agenda, this extreme poverty would hit the West Midlands and North East very hard. But its the North of Ireland that would destitution could hit the hardest:

    A map of the NIESRs forecast destitution rises

    The government: creating a crisis

    The NIESR report paints a bleak picture of the next year. As it summed up:

    The costs-of-living crisis is hitting the lowest income households hardest, as they spend a greater proportion of their income on fuel and food, while neither wage growth nor welfare benefits compensate for fast-rising inflation.

    It also noted that the impact among the lowest income households would vary. This is because, as NIESR said, government changes to social security and the minimum wage:

    benefit a slightly different segment of the population – not the poorest who are without stable jobs and falling through the cracks of the welfare system, but the poor yet slightly better off households who are lucky to retain their jobs.

    However, even this small gain for this segment will soon be wiped out by increases in National Insurance contributions

    2022-23 will see a perfect storm of destitution – created by the government – hit the poorest people in the UK. The economic and social shock will be huge. But the physical and mental impact of this on people already struggling will be even greater. Community will be everything – and as a community, we need to come together to support each other in the face of the government’s economic and social carnage.

    Featured image via Jerzy Gorecki – Pixabay and the Telegraph – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson has refused to say whether he’ll resign if he’s fined for breaching lockdown restrictions by police investigating a string of events in Downing Street. The prime minister is expected to be among the more than 50 individuals in No 10 and Whitehall who will receive legal questionnaires from officers working on Operation Hillman.

    Scotland Yard said it’ll be dispatching the questionnaires by the end of the week as officers consider whether to widen the investigation to cover a Christmas quiz in No 10 in December 2020.

    Damning photo emerges

    Police are reconsidering their decision not to include that event after a photograph emerged of Johnson and colleagues near an open bottle of sparkling wine. The prime minister has already resisted calls to resign, but these are expected to grow louder if he is issued with a fixed penalty notice.

    Asked at a press conference, the prime minister said he would not outline how he would respond until the police investigation concludes. He told reporters in Brussels:

    That process must be completed and I’m looking forward to it being completed and that’s the time to say more on that,

    Featured image via – dailymirror – YouTube screengrab

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Tories are pushing laws that could turn the UK into a fascist state. We have to stand up to them before it’s too late.


    Video transcript

    We’re told that authoritarianism and fascism are things from the past. The media tells us they’re a problem that only happens outside of supposed Western democracies. And politicians make us believe we’re living in a shining example of one of them. But all that is a lie. Because the UK is rapidly descending into authoritarianism and corporate fascism. And our government is enabling it by changing the law. 

    Authoritarianism

    Let’s break this down. Authoritarianism is the concentration of power in the hands of a few people – where a government has power over the public, does what it wants, removes people’s basic freedoms and fails to act in the best interests of the majority. 

    So, what laws are the UK government changing that are increasingly authoritarian? 

    The Nationality and Borders Bill

    This nasty piece of legislation 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 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

     Do you enjoy going out to protest? Are you a fan of disrupting the system? Do you think there’s no better way to spend an afternoon than engaged in civil disobedience? Well, you’d best think again. Because the so-called ‘police bill’ was trying to stop most of that. It was going to clamp down on our right to protest with a serious risk that anyone on non-state sanctioned demos could end up in jail.  It took the unelected, privileged House of Lords to stop many of these aspects of the bill. But it might not be over yet: because the government still could add some of the nastiest anti-protest bits back in. Plus, the bill is also still really racist: targeting both the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller and Black communities with new laws and increases in police powers.

    The Elections Bill

    If you want to vote in an election, the Tories want you to have to show ID. This is because of voter fraud. Sounds fair, doesn’t it? Wrong. Because there are potentially millions of voters who might not have the right ID to vote – and voter fraud is a tiny issue with just a few hundred cases in recent years. Meanwhile, the Tories also want to change how the map of constituencies, the areas the UK is divided up into when we vote, looks: literally to help them get more MPs. And they just blocked a move to lower the voting age to 16 – knowing that younger people tend to be more left-wing. Donald Trump would be loving this shit. 

    Corporate fascism

    Let’s break this down further. Corporate fascism is a form of oppressive regime that removes civil liberties while handing corporations huge wealth from the public purse as well as giving them power and control over all of us. So, what laws are the UK government changing that are increasingly corporate fascist? 

    The Health and Care Bill

    If you’re old enough to remember British Rail, you’ll be old enough to remember the Tories intentionally making it shit so the public would happily let them privatise it. Well, that’s exactly what’s happening to our NHS – and has been for years. Except the Health and Care Bill is going to make it even easier. This is because the government is fiddling with who makes decisions about NHS services – like, for example, cancer treatment. The bill gives  the government more power and will let private companies be involved locally in these decisions. So, if a private cancer treatment service wanted to buy up your local oncology ward – it could soon have the power to do so. 

    The Online Safety Bill

    Big tech companies already have huge control over our lives. Twitter and Facebook routinely attack anyone who says things that go against the status quo. And now, the government wants them to crack down on our free speech even more. The Online Safety bill will fine companies like Twitter and Facebook if they allow people to put content on their sites the government doesn’t agree with and don’t follow the government’s “duty of care”. Plus, it aims to clamp down on end-to-end encryption. The Matrix just got real. 

    The Judicial Review and Courts Bill

    Private companies already have power over decisions that affect many of us: just look at who makes decisions about your benefits. And we all know the power the government holds and wants to in future. But now, it wants to remove some of our rights to challenge it and the companies that work on its behalf. For example, currently if a refugee is unhappy with a Home Office decision, they can get a tribunal to look at it. If they’re unhappy with its decision, they can appeal to a higher court. But now, the government wants to remove this right – leaving refugees with little right to appeal.

    The big picture

    All of these law changes form part of the Tories wider end-game. Society is shifting. When the pandemic hit, those in power saw it as an opportunity to firstly increase their stranglehold over our lives – but also to make the richest in society even richer. More power and control has been given to corporations, while the rest of us have seen our rights and civil liberties increasingly chipped-away. What all these law changes also do is feed into each other. So, for example, the government’s Nationality and Borders Bill is trying to stop so many refugees getting here. Then, the Judicial Review and Courts Bill will make it harder for any refugees that do make it to challenge government decisions over the way their cases are handled in the courts. And if you take to the streets to protest these decisions, you could be sent to jail because of the police bill.

    And as if there weren’t enough problems with these six pieces of law changes – you’ve then got to factor in the Tories’ majority in parliament. These deviants are constantly fiddling with the rules – to the point where it’s hard to keep up with what they’re changing. And with the Labour Party offering zero opposition, sometimes actively jumping into bed with the Tories – what the fuck are we supposed to do? 

    What are we supposed to do?

    Well – it’s time for radical resistance. I mean – the system is already criminalising people for sitting down in the road. So, if it wants to play hard-ball then we have to up our game, too. The time for organised, ‘A-to-B’ marches where everyone carries mass-printed banners on a lovely day-out and the organisers pay the police to let them protest is over. Done. Finished. We’ve got to stop playing the game by the system’s rules. And instead, we need to make the system unmanageable. We need to learn lessons from radical movements in the past to really change things in the present. From the Black Panthers, to the anti-Poll Tax movement via the anarcho-communists in 1930s fascist Spain – to current ones like the radical Kurdish and Zapatista movements, US Black Lives Matter, Kill the Bill and the Spanish communist village of Marinaleda. We need to trespass. Take direct action. Occupy property.  Watch the cops. Stop evictions. Fight deportations. Block infrastructure. And ultimately disrupt the system the Tories are part of.

    The Tories are turning the UK into an authoritarian, corporate fascist state right before our eyes. If we don’t stand up to them now, when? When our basic rights have gone? When our freedoms have been completely removed? When they have cemented themselves in power for decades to come? Enough is enough. This affects all of us. And all of us have to fight back. Now. 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A number of new authoritarian laws are in the Tory government pipeline this year. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has already been a controversial proposal with hundreds of Kill the Bill demonstrations around the country. But it’s not the only new law that should be worrying us. In fact, there’s a whole raft of similarly repressive legislation in the works.

    Here’s a list of which bills are coming up and why they’re alarming.

    Online Safety Bill

    The Online Safety Bill is currently only in draft form, but there are already worries about free speech and government censorship.

    The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which wrote the bill, says:

    there are increasing levels of public concern about online content and activity which is lawful but potentially harmful. This type of activity can range from online bullying and abuse, to advocacy of self-harm, to spreading disinformation and misinformation. Whilst this behaviour may fall short of amounting to a criminal offence, it can have corrosive and damaging effects…

    In the same explanatory note, it goes on to say that providers of online services, like Twitter and Facebook, would be forced by the government to put more regulations in place for their users:

    The Bill is intended to make the services it regulates safer by placing responsibilities on the providers of those services in relation to content that is illegal or which, although legal, is harmful to children or adults.

    Civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch has written a report called The State of Free Speech Online which explains that:

    the Online Safety Bill in its current form is fundamentally flawed and destined to negatively impact fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression in the UK.

    Big Brother Watch has also built the Save Online Speech Coalition, made up of digital rights activists. Its statement insists:

    the Online Safety Bill will impose a two-tier system for freedom of expression, with extra restrictions for lawful speech, simply because it appears online.

    Any further restrictions on our right to free speech must be in line with UK law and decided on in a democratic, parliamentary process — not through the backdoor with a blank cheque handed to a state regulator and tech companies.

    Human Rights Act reforms

    In 2021, the government published a document which set out its intention to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. The consultation is still ongoing and has yet to reach the Houses of Parliament. Civil liberties organisations, unions, activists, and more have come together against this proposal in what could be the largest coalition of its kind in UK history.

    It includes the likes of Amnesty International UK, the British Association of Journalists, Disability Rights UK, Fair Vote UK, Mermaids, Netpol, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Southall Black Sisters, Stonewall, and many, many more.

    It’s telling that such a large and diverse number of groups have come together to organise against the government’s proposal. A statement from the coalition makes it clear that whilst the Human Rights Act can be improved:

    Any government that cares about freedom and justice should celebrate and protect these vital institutions and never demean or threaten them.

    The human rights group Liberty has called the plans for reform an

    unashamed power grab.

    Health and Care Bill

    The Health and Care Bill has passed through the House of Commons and is currently in the House of Lords. The Canary has produced extensive coverage of the bill and, once again, many campaigners have voiced their concerns.

    Back in the summer of 2021, Dr Julia Patterson of campaigning group Every Doctor explained how the bill wants to set up Integrated Care Systems (ICS) – and why that’s a problem:

    The way that this bill is restructuring the NHS is that it’s setting up things called integrated care boards in local areas who previously have held responsibility for the care of their local populations. And those care boards are going to be able to help private companies and members from private companies will be able to sit on the boards, they will be handling public money and making decisions about how that money is spent.

    Anti-privatisation campaigner Pascale Robinson of We Own It told us:

    This bill is hugely dangerous for our NHS. And many have argued that it will be the end of the NHS as we know it, because they are changing NHS structures in so many ways.

    Nationality and Borders Bill

    The Nationality and Borders Bill has also passed through the House of Commons and is currently in the House of Lords.

    Once again, the likes of Amnesty International UK have expressed grave concern at the content of the bill. The rights organisation said:

    The Government has introduced a raft of measures in a new piece of legislation that, if passed, will create significant obstacles and harms to people seeking asylum in the UK’s asylum system.

    Four barristers have also come together to warn that the bill will lead to challenges from international human rights and refugee treaties. This bill will allow the government to strip people of their citizenship, as well as allowing potentially lethal push-backs in the Channel. According to Scottish social justice secretary Shona Robison and her Welsh counterpart Jane Hutt:

    This legislation contains measures that will prevent migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats, including the barbaric suggestions for ‘push-back’ exercises involving enforcement officials seeking to repel small boats.

    And as Channel Rescue previously told The Canary:

    The Nationality and Borders Bill will criminalise those assisting people making the crossing, even if there is no gain for those assisting.

    Once again, this government has opened itself up to challenges on the basis of human rights, global conventions around refugees, and the stripping of civil liberties.

    Elections Bill

    The Elections Bill has also passed through the House of Commons and is currently in the House of Lords. As The Canary’s Curtis Daly explains, the bill attempts to push through barriers to voting by requiring voter ID:

    At its heart this is a civil liberties issue. In a society in which wealth and power grants you more access and democracy is fading away, the last thing we should be doing is adding more barriers for voters.

    Once again, a coalition of campaigners, trade unions, and rights groups have come together to warn of the dangers of this bill:

    This Bill represents an attack on the UK’s proud democratic tradition and on some of our most fundamental rights.

    The independence of the regulatory body, the Electoral Commission, is also under threat. The Electoral Reform Society and Fair Vote UK have both criticised the bill for presenting barriers to democracy and making it harder for people to vote.

    Judicial Review and Courts Bill

    The Judicial Review and Courts Bill is currently being read in the House of Commons. The right to judicial review is an important part of the justice system, and this bill plans to strip that back. Even Conservative MP David Davis, among other MPs from across the aisle, has criticised the plans:

    The government plans to restrict the use of judicial review in an obvious attempt to avoid accountability. Such attempts to consolidate power are profoundly un-conservative and forget that, in a society governed by the rule of law, the government does not always get its way.

    The effectiveness of rule of law is another conversation. However, the judicial review mechansim is one of the essential tools we all have to hold governments and government bodies to account.

    Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

    The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, with its attacks on our right to protest, has had the most vocal opposition to it, with Kill the Bill protests taking place across the country.

    As Kill the Bill coalition explain:

    There is no version of this bill that is tolerable. Whilst we support the many efforts to stop this bill passing through parliament, we also call on all groups and organisations to stand unified in demanding nothing less than a complete rejection of the bill.

    While many people celebrated when the House of Lords rejected some of the most draconian amendments to the bill, it is still a fundamental attack on our right to protest. In fact, much of the bill is unchanged from the original legislation people took to the streets to oppose in March 2021. 

    Moreover, the bill is not just about protest. It is also a fundamentally racist bill. The bill will criminalise the lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. Other provisions include a pilot scheme for serious violence prevention orders and the introduction of secure schools. These will be used to target already marginalised communities by an institutionally racist police force. 

    Taken together

    On their own, each of these pieces of legislation is deeply worrying. Taken together, they tell us that this is not a slide into fascism but an arrival. The fact that so many campaign groups, trade unions, charities, and rights organisations are coming together in coalition over this range of bills shows you just how repressive these proposals are.

    It also means it’s more important than ever for independent media to be allied with the activists, campaigners, and communities.

    Moreover, as The Canary’s Steve Topple argues:

    The time for organised, ‘A-to-B’ marches where everyone carries mass-printed banners on a lovely day-out and the organisers pay the police to let them protest is over. Done. Finished. We’ve got to stop playing the game by the system’s rules. And instead, we need to make the system unmanageable.

    Polite protest, petitions, and the like are not going to make a difference here. This is a government looking to strip citizenship, remove avenues for legal review, introduce further barriers to voting, further privatise healthcare, weaken human rights protections, threaten free speech – and, on top of all that, criminalise our right to protest about any of it!

    We need to work across communities, we need to be able to organise, and we need to be able to resist in whatever ways we are able. That can be through rights organisations, but it must also be on the streets, vocally, and in whatever form people are able to express themselves.

    Featured image via Flickr/Alisdare Hickson, cropped to 770×403 pixels, licensed under CC BY SA 2.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will be effectively cutting people’s social security from April. It means that for people claiming benefits like Universal Credit, the cost of living crisis will be even more catastrophic.

    Even worse, the DWP is trying to disguise these cuts as an increase in benefit payments.

    DWP: social security going up?

    The DWP said in November 2021 that most social security payments will be going up by 3.1% from April 2022. It comes after previous governments froze rates for four years from April 2016. Since then, the DWP has increased social security rates. But the rises won’t make up for the four-year freeze. This is because of inflation – that is how much the cost of things we buy rises by. And now, the DWP has again ignored the impact of inflation on social security.

    A 3.1% increase will means that parts of Universal Credit will go up. For example:

    • Standard allowances for single people under-25 will rise from £257.33 to £265.31.
    • The same but for joint claimants over-25 will rise from £509.91 to £525.72.

    Most other social security, like Personal Independence Payment (PIP), will also go up by 3.1%.

    Universal Credit

    Some health and disability-related elements of Universal Credit and social security are going up by a bit more. For example:

    • Universal Credit limited capability for work and work-related activity will rise from £341.92 to £354.28 – a 3.6% increase.
    • PIP rates for the standard mobility element will rise from £23.70 to £24.45 – a 3.2% increase.

    A few social security payments are going up by less. For example, for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) the:

    • Work-Related Activity Group element will rise from £29.70 to £30.60 – a 3% increase.
    • Support Group element will rise from £39.40 to £40.60 – a 3% increase.

    These increases may seem like a good thing. But in reality, they are actually cuts.

    An actual cut to your money

    The problem is inflation. The DWP has based the social security rise on September 2021’s inflation rate. But since then, it’s shot up. Forecasts now say inflation could hit 7% by the spring. So, that would mean the 3.1% social security increase would actually be a cut.

    The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) crunched some numbers on this. It worked out how an inflation rate of 6% would affect the 3.1% social security increase. The IFS found that some 10 million households will lose on average, in real terms, £290 a year. This will come on top of the government’s national insurance hike of 10.4%; a 54% rise in energy bills; stagnating real-terms wages, and more potential increases in petrol prices.

    As the IFS showed in a graph, rising prices will hit the poorest people the hardest:

    A graph showing how inflation affects different social grades of families

    Capping children into poverty

    Meanwhile, the overall benefit cap is staying the same. This is the maximum amount households can claim in social security. The cap hasn’t changed since the DWP lowered it in 2016. The rates since then have been:

    • £20,000 for couples and lone parents outside Greater London (£13,400 for single adults with no children).
    • £23,000 for couples and lone parents in Greater London (£15,410 for single adults with no children).

    The benefit cap was keeping around 150,000 children in poverty as of 2020. Affected households lose an average of £55 a week because of it. And the number of people the cap hits has more than doubled because of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. Current high inflation, coupled with the DWP’s real-terms social security cut, means the cap will have an even greater negative affect on countless households.

    A cut in all but name

    Overall, the DWP’s social security increase cannot be called anything else but a cut. 2.5 million families were already struggling to pay rent and heat their homes. 15% of households live in food insecurity. 4% of households have used a foodbank. Now, if inflation continues to soar, 2022 could be an even more devastating year for countless families. So, it’s up to us and our communities to support each other as best we can.

    Featured image via Schäferle2 – Pixabay and UK government – Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • People aged 80 and over are accounting for more deaths involving coronavirus (Covid-19) in England and Wales than at any point since December 2020, new analysis shows. However, the number of deaths in the current wave of the virus remains well below levels reached during the second wave last winter.

    Over 80s

    Some 856 of the 1,355 of deaths that occurred in the week ending 21 January 2022 and which mentioned coronavirus on the death certificate were among over-80s – the equivalent of 63.2%. This is the highest proportion since the week to 18 December 2020, when it stood at 64.0% (2,115 of 3,306 deaths).

    The proportion had dropped to nearly half this level during the summer of 2021, dipping to 37.9% in the week to 2 July 2021.

    HEALTH Coronavirus Deaths
    (PA Graphics)

    The figures have been compiled by the PA news agency using the latest data on deaths involving coronavirus from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). They show how the breakdown by age of people who are having coronavirus recorded on their death certificate has tilted back heavily towards the oldest groups.

    It follows a period in November and early December 2021 when the over-80s and people aged 60-79 each accounted for around 43% of deaths. But a gap opened up sharply at the end of December and widened at the start of this year.

    People aged 60 to 79 accounted for 30.7% of deaths in the week to 21 January 2022, compared with 63.2% of over-80s. The last time the gap was this wide was just before Christmas 2020, when the figures were almost identical (30.7% and 64.0% respectively).

    The change coincides with the surge in coronavirus infections in December 2021 driven by the Omicron variant, which pushed the overall number of coronavirus deaths to their highest level since spring last year. However, the 1,355 deaths involving coronavirus in England and Wales that occurred in the week to 21 January 2022 is still far below the 9,064 that occurred in the week to 22 January 2021.

    HEALTH Coronavirus Deaths
    (PA Graphics)

    The PA analysis has excluded the ONS data for deaths occurring in the week ending 28 January, as this is incomplete. Separate figures from the ONS show there were 1,385 deaths registered in England and Wales in the week to 28 January that mentioned coronavirus on the death certificate. This is down 7% on the previous seven days and is the first week-on-week drop so far this year.

    Around one in nine (11.2%) of all deaths registered in the week to 28 January mentioned coronavirus on the death certificate.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A group of civil society organisations and privacy campaigners have accused the government of using “scare tactics” to try to sway public opinion over the use of end-to-end encryption in messaging apps.

    “Encryption is vital”

    Writing an open letter to mark Safer Internet Day, the Open Rights Group and more than 40 other campaign groups criticised a recent Home Office advertising campaign which claimed that encryption puts children at risk from predators and can be used to hide online abuse.

    The civil society groups said they are concerned that the government is seeking to influence public opinion prior to amending the draft Online Safety Bill so that tech firms would be forced to weaken or remove end-to-end encryption from their messaging systems, something the groups argue would in fact put more people at risk.

    Jim Killock from the Open Rights Group said:

    The way the Government has been using scare tactics damages trust with its citizens.

    The Government exploiting emotive narratives for their campaign is manipulative and does not provide a balanced view. The truth is that encryption is vital for online safety.

    The open letter has been signed by a number of experts as well as members of the Global Encryption Coalition including Index on Censorship, the Internet Society and human rights group Article 19. It said that damaging encryption would reduce privacy for the wider public, as well as vital protections for the most vulnerable.

    The letter said:

    Undermining encryption would make our private communications unsafe, allowing hostile strangers and governments to intercept conversations.

    Undermining encryption would put at risk the safety of those who need it most.

    Survivors of abuse or domestic violence, including children, need secure and confidential communications to speak to loved ones and access the information and support they need.

    Privacy

    Popular apps such as Facebook-owned WhatsApp and Signal use end-to-end encryption to offer secure, private messaging for users. Facebook has announced plans to introduce end-to-end encryption – so messages can only be accessed and read by the sender and recipient – across the rest of its app messaging platforms by 2023.

    The tech giant has said it is taking the time until then to “get this right” and strike a balance between user privacy and keeping people safe online.

    The Home Office and some law enforcement agencies have suggested that encryption can hamper efforts to stop criminals from organising and communicating. Home secretary Priti Patel has previously spoken out about her concerns around encryption, saying it could put progress in preventing child sexual abuse “at jeopardy”.

    Last year, Metropolitan Police commissioner Cressida Dick called for greater international co-operation among law enforcement bodies and governments to engage tech companies on the issue. Dick has faced repeated allegations of corruption in her time at the Met.

    In response to the open letter, security minister Damian Hinds said:

    Privacy and children’s safety are not an either/or – we need both. End-to-end encryption can be an important and beneficial technology when used responsibly, and the Government supports this.

    We believe it can be implemented in a way that is consistent with protecting children, and that’s what we want to see.

    Hinds seems to be suggesting that encryption should have a ‘back door’ that allows those with access to view messages. As others have pointed out, this would make data vulnerable to malicious actors who seek to gain access to the back door. As Marc Laliberte wrote for Help Net Security in 2020:

    There’s simply no such thing as a “good guys only” backdoor. Eventually, a cyber-criminal will get their hands on the “golden key” or exploit the intentional chink in the armor to break their way in. The NSA losing its stockpile of Windows zero-day vulnerabilities in 2016 should be clear proof that we shouldn’t be so quick to trust government agencies to act responsibly with security.

    He added:

    Even if most governments managed to pass anti-encryption laws, criminals would simply move to different apps instead of the ones that maintain compliance. Giving up the security and privacy of the masses is simply too big of a price to pay for something that is very unlikely prevent crime and incredibly likely to result in abuse.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A jury has found Kill the Bill defendant Jasmine York guilty of arson, but not guilty of riot. The case against Jasmine York was always outrageous, and evidence against her was scant. She’s one of 82 people who have been arrested – most of them for riot – following the 21 March demonstration in Bristol.

    The jury was unanimous on a not guilty verdict for the riot charge.The state poured a lot of resources into trying to find Jasmine guilty, and the prosecutor had a police team assisting her throughout the trial. For a person to be guilty of riot, they have to have committed unlawful violence. But the prosecution showed no evidence that Jasmine used any violence at all. It relied heavily on footage of other protesters graffitiing and rocking a police van, and, much later, vehicles on fire. But none of this involved Jasmine. Most of the footage they did have of Jasmine showed her yelling at the police and chanting. As defence barrister Russell Fraser said in his closing speech:

    emotion runs high indeed in times of social upheaval. I suggest you saw that full range of emotion in the footage played in the trial: optimism, excitement, anger, pain. That anger, even when it spiralled into foul language, never came close to unlawful violence, not violence for a common purpose.

    He pointed out:

    The Crown says, of course, that chanting is important as evidence of a common purpose [of riot]. Let’s have a serious analysis of chanting. Anti-police chanting is not evidence of a common purpose to do anything…

    So chanting is one of the reasons why Miss York finds herself here, why the Crown sees her as a leader, an instigator. It is a particularly big claim.

    Tall tales

    Desperate to prove that Jasmine was the ringleader, prosecutor Sarah Regan relied on a video clip of Jasmine saying that she was going to set up a Signal group chat on her phone. Regan suggested that Jasmine set up this group before 21 March in order to organise with others against police at the protest. But it quickly became apparent that Jasmine had set up the chat days later – only after she had been traumatised by the police, hit by a baton, and bitten by a police dog. In response to Jasmine being painted as a premeditated instigator, Fraser said:

    If someone is a leader, are they not recognised as a figurehead? Are they not someone of influence? People need to know who you are and she’s not known to the police. She’s not noticeably with anyone else at the protest. She isn’t with anyone outside the police station. How is it that from that she becomes the orchestrator of a riot?

    On top of this, Jasmine arrived at the demonstration unmasked and wearing a long, bright yellow skirt. That’s hardly clothing you’d wear if you were planning a riot.

    Protecting others

    The prosecution, along with its police witnesses, did a good job of painting a one-sided picture of a “mob” attacking the defenceless police, of a police force solely acting in self-defence. But as The Canary has extensively reported, there’s ample evidence of the police using shocking violence, and even of them ‘blading’ protesters with their oblong shields. Jasmine herself called the police after the demonstration to make a complaint about the violence the police had inflicted upon her.

    Fraser pointed out:

    We played a number of incidents of footage that you would appreciate – we say – demonstrates police violence. A man who was kicked several times on the ground as he retreated. A man who had a shield brought down on his head. The men lying down on the pallets who were hit while they were on the ground. Miss York being hit by a baton when she wasn’t a threat to anyone. A photographer being pushed with force: what could he have been doing?

    Regan was so keen to portray Jasmine as violent that she tried to discredit livestream footage which Jasmine herself had submitted as evidence. The livestream was filmed by Jasmine, and it showed her screaming “no, don’t hit” and “stop hitting her” at the police as they attacked the crowd. Regan ludicrously argued that because the footage came from Jasmine herself, she obviously had “an agenda”. But as Jasmine and her defence pointed out, she was on the frontline to protect others.

    Referring to the footage played to the jury, Fraser argued that at one point in the video:

    where she has her arms outstretched, if you watch the video and watch it in full, she is putting herself in harm’s way to protect others. She shelters people and takes a small female with her, away from danger.

    He continued:

    The one consistent thing she does is that she comes to the aid of other women. Consider the woman thrown back into the crowd. She moves across the line for that reason. There’s not many of us who would do that sort of thing, you might think.

    Fraser told the jury that “time and time again” Jasmine put herself between danger and other people.

    Arson claims

    The Crown insisted that Jasmine was guilty of arson because she pushed a commercial rubbish bin towards a burning police car, and the bin added fuel to the fire. But Jasmine insisted that she didn’t push it towards the police car but towards the police themselves. She said that she was using the bin to try to create an obstacle between her and the police. Crucially, there was no evidence whatsoever that the bin in question was ever on fire.

    Fraser said that the car was:

    already engulfed in flames. Most importantly of all, when you’re considering the standard of proof, where is the bin? There’s no photos of it. No one reported it missing. Does that absence of evidence leave you uncomfortable?

    Despite this, the jury found her guilty of arson.

    Stand with the Kill The Bill defendants

    Regardless of what happened in court, it’s important to stand with Jasmine and others who defended themselves against the police’s violence on 21 March. We know that the combined force of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the mainstream media is stacked against them. They need our support now more than ever. The Kill The Bill demonstrations of March 2021 were the beginning of a new wave of resistance against the state’s latest authoritarian measures. We need to carry on that struggle and build real community power that can truly challenge state control.

    Featured image via Eliza Egret

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The trophy hunting lobby group Safari Club International (SCI) attracted media attention in January. This was for auctioning off killing trips for a polar bear and numerous other wild animals at its Las Vegas convention. The coverage was based on a report by the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. It noted that some of the funds raised from the sales will go towards fighting an impending UK ban on the import of body parts from slain wild animals.

    A government consultation in recent years overwhelmingly confirmed support among the public for a comprehensive ban on imports. It’s hard to imagine that SCI’s bloody auction will help the industry’s efforts to win over the UK public’s minds. In fact, the optics are terrible. But the industry started the year reeling from another blow dealt by an investigative report focused on elephants.

    Undercover investigation

    As The Canary has extensively reported, proponents of trophy hunting argue that it’s a ‘conservation tool’. These proponents include a number of conservationists. But there’s little consensus on trophy hunting’s conservation value among the sector as a whole.

    Proponents argue that the practice protects species by providing an income to communities which co-exist with them. It supposedly incentivises people to preserve wild animals and the wild spaces in which they live. However, an investigative report released towards the end of 2021 challenges this claim.

    Its findings are based on a two-month-long undercover investigation in Namibia. This country is arguably the poster child for so-called ‘sustainable use‘. This approach to conservation promotes people’s use of wildlife in a continual but theoretically sustainable way. It includes practices like trophy hunting, trading wild species and wildlife tourism.

    The elephant in the dogma

    Journalists Adam Cruise and Izzy Sasada undertook the investigation. Its purpose was to explore the effectiveness of Namibia’s Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) model – particularly in relation to African elephants.

    In the CBNRM model, communities manage nature within their designated areas, known as conservancies. This community management is “guided by policy directives of the government” and involves the use of nature to provide benefits for people. Trophy killing, wildlife tourism, and trading in wildlife all feature in the model.

    The investigation focused on elephants due to their centrality, both in “an ecological sense” and in relation to the CBNRM model. Elephants are a keystone species, which means they’re a species that’s pivotal to the health and stability of an ecosystem. They’re of high-value within the Namibian system, both in terms of their draw as a tourist attraction and what others will pay to kill them. Elephants can also create problems – for instance by raiding crops – which can make them costly to co-exist with.

    “A fabrication rather than a fact”

    Cruise and Sasada spoke with multiple stakeholders in 29 out of the 86 conservancies within the CBNRM system. This included community members, hunting operators, and conservancy officials. They also crunched the numbers in terms of wildlife statistics and conservancy income. Based on all these sources and their on-the-ground experience, the report concluded that:

    the perceived success of wildlife conservation and concomitant economic benefits for previously disadvantaged rural communities in Namibia is found to be predominantly a fabrication rather than a fact

    The report asserted that the majority of people in conservancy communities within the three regions the investigators visited – Kunene, Otjozondjupa, and Zambezi – remain “as impoverished as ever, in many cases, more so”. It also cited the exploitation of minority groups as an issue, both by other ethnic groups and the government. San communities, for example, complained of unimpeded encroachment on their lands by other groups. They said this inhibits their ability to hunt for food or grow and harvest their own crops or wild-grown vegetation. The San are indigenous peoples of southern Africa. 

    In a conversation following the report’s publication, Cruise told The Canary that the conservancies are predominantly situated in areas where marginalised or minority groups reside. He also asserted that among marginalised people, women are faring worst and “really taking the brunt of this mess”.

    Overall, the report presented a picture of a system that generally works for the few, but not the many. Propped up by international funding, the system maintains itself, looks after conservancy officials and staff like wildlife guards, and takes care of the core organisations engaged in advising and assisting conservancies. In terms of providing meaningful income and support to the wider conservancy members, however, the report suggests that the system is lacking.

    Wildlife decline

    The investigators also said that wildlife populations are declining sharply in the Kunene region of Namibia. The species here are adapted to its dry, desert conditions. They include elephants, lions, Hartmann’s mountain zebras, giraffes, black rhinos, and oryxes. According to the report, the annual wildlife counts show that:

    most species have steadily declined in the past five years, with some species, like the oryx, now down to critically low levels.

    It further warns that “the entire elephant population in the Kunene could be on the verge of collapse”, with its “extremely low numbers of breeding bulls and high infant mortality rate”. The report asserted that overall “wildlife numbers are declining” in the country.

    Pushback

    The report has attracted significant pushback. The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT), members of the Namibian Chamber of Environment, and the Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations (NACSO) wrote a scathing response to it. NACSO’s purpose is to connect “the communities and organisations that manage and conserve Namibia’s natural resources”. It’s deeply involved in the implementation of the CBNRM model. The association counts NGOs like WWF in Namibia among its members and many trophy hunting outfits among its partners.

    In their response, these entities accused the report’s authors of using it to “attack trophy hunting”. They questioned the report’s “methodology” and its funding by wildlife- and animal rights-focused organisations. They also criticised the report’s presentation of data. And they further questioned how the investigators had selected people to speak to and whether they’d obtained “free, prior and informed consent” from interviewees. Essentially, they characterised the report as being scientifically unsound. Additionally, they asserted that the authors conducted the research illegally without permits or clearance to do so.

    Further critiques came from conservancy officials. They said the report misrepresented their comments and presented their conservancies in a distorted way.

    Negative impacts

    Cruise, however, says that some of the criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the undertaking. It was, he said, a journalistic undercover investigation, not a scientific research project. He explained that he and Sasada “spoke to everybody that we came across”. And all those approached who weren’t part of or connected to conversancy management tended to “feel like they weren’t benefiting very well”. He also said the wealth disparity between individuals linked to management and those who aren’t is ‘palpable’.

    The report acknowledged the money that trophy killing brings in for conservancies. It also noted which conservancies supported an open letter against trophy hunting import bans. Moreover, it highlighted a lack of objections to the practice among community members interviewed, such as the Ju/’hoansi San. But it spotlighted the apparently small proportion of this money that filtered down to people on a household or individual level. Indeed, the report’s critics drew attention to “relevant statistics” that they suggested countered the report’s findings. These statistics, however, show that overall trophy killing provides significantly less cash income to households through employment than tourism. The benefits that the practice provides to community members appear to be mainly in relation to meat they receive from the dead animals and support or resources for education, training, and other costs like funerals.

    The report found that unequal meat distribution was an issue in some conservancies. It also looked into other aspects of the practice, such as the social impact it has. It found that in some cases the practice “enhances social inequalities and has negative impacts on the lived experience” of communities. This is due to, for example, poor treatment of community members by largely white hunting operators who have the balance of power.

    An existential threat

    Desert Lions Human Relations Aid (DeLHRA), a Namibian organisation, has responded to criticism of the report on social media. Its chair Izak Smit also told The Canary that the criticism amounts to the “same old authors doing damage control to their image”. He explained that for entities like NACSO the report is an “existential threat”. This is because its funding and donations are intimately connected to the CBNRM conservancies.

    Last year, Smit spoke to The Canary about the dire situation for desert-adapted lions and other wildlife in the Kunene region. He described a catalogue of apparent policy failures over the years. This involved the sanctioned over-utilisation of species for commercial meat sales and unimpeded human encroachment of areas meant to be set aside for wildlife in conservancies. Smit said that trophy killing had also significantly skewed the gender ratio among the lions. And this had “impacted severely on the Lion population growth”. Trophy hunters most commonly target males.

    Positive developments

    In the recent discussion, Smit said that there have been some positive developments. He asserted that MEFT has “to an extent stepped up to the plate”. And efforts are underway to re-establish a wildlife corridor between the Etosha National Park and the Kunene region, along with other improvements. Such a corridor would offer mobility for lions, and other wildlife, to find food and mates.

    DeLHRA has also engaged the Kunene regional councillor to form a committee. It aims to secure agreement among all the relevant conservancies on formally designating the wildlife areas as protected areas. If successful, this could lead to tourism-related investment and the reintroduction of depleted species. Ultimately, Smit hopes that protected areas in the Kunene region could become part of a vast cross-boundary area of protected lands from Namibia’s Skeleton Coast National Park to Angola’s Iona Park, overseen by an entity like African Parks.

    In terms of the desert lions, Smit says it will take “nothing short of a miracle” for them to bounce back from their current situation. DeLHRA has now revised their numbers down to 45-55 individuals. Estimates stood at 85 a couple of years ago, and 150 in 2016.

    Echoing findings

    Smit’s assertions about the situation for Kunene’s wildlife reflect those in Cruise’s and Sasada’s report, as well as the findings of others. In 2019, investigative journalist John Grobler visited Nyae Nyae, Namibia’s “first and most successful conservancy”. He reported his findings in Mongabay. Grobler found poverty and dissatisfaction among community members and a notable lack of wild animals.

    Christiaan Bakkes, meanwhile, worked in Namibia on wildlife conservation for over 20 years. He wrote of drastic declines in wildlife linked to the country’s sustainable use policies in a 2015 article titled End of the game.

    Bakkes’ book, Plundered Desert, builds on this. As an article by Melissa Reitz featured on the Conservation Action Trust website explained, the book exposes:

    outrageous instances of rhino and elephant slaughter; unregulated trophy hunting; excessive hunting by anti-poaching patrols; contentious meat sales from community-run conservancies and declining wildlife numbers

    Far-reaching impact

    Evidence of the negative impacts of trophy killing on wildlife, such as over-exploitation and gender imbalances, isn’t reserved to Namibia. Ex-president of Botswana Ian Khama has made similar complaints about such impacts in that country prior to the institution of a trophy killing ban there. He has also asserted human-wildlife conflict increased there due to targeted species consequently viewing humans as a threat. The ban in Botswana was reversed by the president that followed Khama.

    Meanwhile, the lion conservationist Craig Packer has spoken out about unsustainable lion killing in Tanzania, which he says contributed to reduced populations there. The killing included the slaughter of young lions before they had the chance to breed. Packer told Africa Geographic in 2020 that he hasn’t seen clear evidence of the practice helping to maintain or increase lion populations outside of two conservancies in Zimbabwe.

    Trophy killing in a changed world

    Those who argue for continued trophy hunting offer examples to support their claims that if “well-managed”, it can assist conservation. Namibia often features in such examples. Moreover, critics of Cruise and Sasada’s report said that the authors implicated sustainable use in issues that were attributable to other causes. Namely, the years-long drought that Namibia has experienced of late.

    However, extreme weather events such as drought are likely to become more frequent as the climate crisis progresses. So these other causes are not separate from considerations about what ‘use’ of wildlife can be considered sustainable. A 2017 study warned, for example, that trophy hunting could cause species extinction in our changing world. Science Daily explained that’s because people who engage in it tend to target individuals with distinct traits – large manes, tusks, and antlers, for example – that make them “evolutionarily fit”. This removes the “best genes” from their populations – the genes that could mean the difference between species survival and extinction in altered environmental conditions.

    Silencing critics

    In short, the issues surrounding sustainable use, and trophy killing in particular, appear to be many, varied, and evolving as new conditions present themselves. People are raising concerns about this approach to conservation. But attempts to silence or discredit their findings abound when they do. Bakkes and Packer say they were respectively ousted from Namibia and Tanzania.

    Critiques and analysis are essential in determining what’s best for people, other animals, and the planet. So we need to hear more, not less, of these dissenting cries from the wilderness.

    Featured image of polar bear via Gaiter/Flickr, cropped to 360×403 pixels, licensed under CC BY 2.0, Featured image of elephants and additional embedded images via Adam Cruise

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • According to Downing Street’s new spin doctor, he and the PM sang “I Will Survive” as Johnson vowed to plough on with his premiership despite the ongoing partygate scandal. The story has already been dismissed as “utter tripe” by the leader of the Northern Independence Party:

    Things that definitely happened

    Guto Harri’s appointment to the spin doctor role was announced over the weekend. According to Welsh language news website Golwg360, Harri said Johnson is “not all that clownish” and “a very likeable character” (a description that would also describe a part-time clown).

    Harri took on the communications brief following a swathe of resignations among the prime minister’s aides.

    According to a translation, Harri told Golwg360 that Johnson quoted from Gloria Gaynor’s hit when the pair met on the afternoon of 4 February, before settling down to a “serious conversation” about getting the government “back on track”.

    The PM reportedly suggested he should kneel before Harri in an apparent nod to a row over the former broadcaster taking the knee during an on air debate about racism in football last year. Harri claimed:

    I walked in and did a salute and said, ‘Prime Minister, Guto Harri reporting for duty’, and he stood up from behind his desk and started taking the salute, but then he said, ‘What am I doing? I should take the knee for you’.

    And we both laughed. Then I asked, ‘Are you going to survive, Boris?’, and he said in his deep, slow and purposeful voice and started to sing a little while finishing the sentence and saying, ‘I will survive’.

    I inevitably invited him to say, ‘You’ve got all your life to live’, and he replied, ‘I’ve got all my love to give’, so we had a little blast from Gloria Gaynor.

    Harri added:

    There was a lot of laughter and we sat down to have a serious conversation about how to get the Government back on track and how we are moving forward.

    Everyone’s attention is on recent events that have caused a lot of hurt, but in the end that’s nothing to do with the way people voted two years ago.

    The BBC to Downing Street pipeline

    Harri is a former BBC journalist who went to work for GB News:

    Harri quit GB News following a controversy in which he partook in an anti-racist gesture live on air. This last fact is already causing controversy among right-wing figures for some reason:

    Harri’s links with Huawei have also raised some crusty, right-wing eyebrows:

    There’s now a question of whether Harri’s appointment will play well with Tory MPs – many of whom were worried that one buffoon in Downing Street was more than enough:

    Asked about Harri’s reported assessment that Johnson is “not a complete clown”, the prime minister’s official spokesperson said:

    I think obviously he is firmly committed to the Prime Minister’s agenda and delivering on the public’s priorities.

    This could be read as meaning Johnson’s “agenda” is one of ‘less than total clownishness’.

    Harri went on to say that “90%” of their discussion was “very serious”. He said the PM is “not a vicious person as some misrepresent it”, but this seems to be a misreading of how people see Johnson. Generally, the public doesn’t think he’s vicious; they think he’s a liar and an idiot – something Harri’s improbable story does nothing to dismiss.

    Additional reporting by PA

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 31 January, foreign secretary Liz Truss outlined to the House of Commons her plan to impose sanctions against Russia should it invade Ukraine. But she was heavily criticised over her failure to comprehensively deal with money laundering by Russian-linked oligarchs in the UK.

    Truss also failed to address the large donations given to her Conservative Party colleagues by some of those oligarchs.

    Money laundering rife

    Sanctions have been known to crush the poorest populations while having little impact on the leaders of their respective countries. Although shadow foreign secretary David Lammy welcomed the sanctions, he commented on how:

    London is the destination of choice for the world’s kleptocrats. We are home to the services and enablers who help corrupt elites to hide their ill-gotten wealth

    He also pointed out that legislation to prevent such money laundering was lacking:

    Where is the economic crime Bill that the Government have just pulled? Where is the comprehensive reform of Companies House? Where is the register of overseas entities Bill? Where is the foreign agent registration law? Where are the new counter-espionage laws? Where are the new rules on political donations? Where is the reform of tier 1 golden visas? Where is the replacement of the outdated Computer Misuse Act 1990? Where is the reform of the Electoral Commission, and why does the Government’s Elections Bill make these problems worse by enabling political donations from donors based overseas?

    Tories accused of complicity

    Labour’s Anna McMorrin pointed out that:

    More than £4 million has been donated to Tory MPs, including to a quarter of the current Cabinet, by Russian-linked individuals

    Meanwhile Labour’s Ben Bradshaw commented on how the US is saying “any new sanctions would be worthless as long as London remains the main international laundromat for dirty Russian money”.

    But it was left to Green Party MP Caroline Lucas to go for the jugular:

    The Government’s attempt to claim some kind of moral high ground on Russian sanctions is sheer hypocrisy when the right hon. Lady’s party has accepted donations from oligarchs and her Government have turned a blind eye to the Kremlin meddling in our democracy and have held open the door to Putin’s cronies to have their money laundered in London.

    Money laundering the “new normal”

    The Intelligence & Security Committee’s (ISC) much-delayed Russia report, published in July 2020, described “ideal mechanisms” by which:

    illicit finance could be recycled through what has been referred to as the London ‘laundromat’. …

    In brief, Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’, and there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene, and accepted because of their wealth.

    The report added:

    It is not just the oligarchs either: the arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of enablers – individuals and organisations who manage and lobby for the Russian elite in the UK. Lawyers, accountants, estate agents and PR professionals have played a role, wittingly or unwittingly, in the extension of Russian influence which is often linked to promoting the nefarious interests of the Russian state. A large private security industry has developed in the UK to service the needs of the Russian elite, in which British companies protect the oligarchs and their families, seek kompromat on competitors, and on occasion help launder money through offshore shell companies and fabricate ‘due diligence’ reports, while lawyers provide litigation support.

    Lords implicated

    The ISC press release that accompanied the report referred to members of the House of Lords who “have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state”.

    Moreover, leaked testimony (redacted by The Canary) by anti-corruption campaigner Bill Browder to the Home Affairs Select Committee named UK firms, with connections to peers, that were hired by Russians to advise on avoiding sanctions.

    Browder added:

    These UK-based commercial organisations have derived financial benefit from alleged Russian criminals, and have potentially received proceeds of crime as remuneration for their advisory services

    One firm named was CTF Corporate and Financial Communications (CTFCFC). This firm was co-founded by Lynton Crosby, who worked on Conservative Party election campaigns.

    Tory donors

    In November 2019, The Canary published names of Russia-linked oligarchs who donated funds to Tories or their constituencies and the amounts donated. They included: Lubov Chernukhin, George Piskov, and Alexander Knaster.

    openDemocracy claimed that the Tories had received more than £3.5m from Russian funders since 2010 as of 2019.

    And Reuters reported that according to the Electoral Commission records, Alexander Temerko and UK companies linked to him made:

    donations to 11 individual MPs, including [then Conservative Party chair Brandon] Lewis, the chairman of the Tory Party, while helping fund as many as 27 local branches of the Conservative Party in areas where Tory MPs won election in the north of England, Wales and London.

    Temerko made 69 donations to Tory MPs and Conservative Party central office. Furthermore, Temerko and Chernukhin made donations of £23k and £25k respectively to Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis.

    In another article, The Canary published details of leaked files that showed Russian oligarch and Putin ally Suleyman Kerimov donated millions of pounds to Chernukhin’s husband. Searches conducted by The Canary showed Chernukhin donated 43 separate sums, mostly to Conservative Party central office. The total came to over £1.2m from April 2012 to July 2019.

    Suspicious activities

    Reuters further asserted that a “senior Conservative Party member” claimed Temerko was “very much behind the attempt to oust” Theresa May as prime minister. Moreover, Reuters suggested there was a coup led by “Temerko’s allies” who “are at the helm of Johnson’s campaign”. This reportedly included former defence secretary Gavin Williamson, Crosby, and “a group of East European businessmen”.

    Temerko is known to be a good friend of Johnson, and it’s claimed he has financed the Conservative Party by more than £1m. Reuters claimed Temerko financed Johnson’s allies too, including James Wharton, who ran Johnson’s leadership campaign.

    And then there’s Russian Embassy senior diplomat Sergey Nalobin. His father worked for the KGB and his brother for its successor the FSB. Nalobin arranged the launch of the Conservative Friends of Russia (CFR) group, of which Pro-Brexit MP John Whittingdale was honorary vice-president. Additionally, Matthew Elliott, who launched Brexit Central, was a founding member of CFR.

    Dirty money

    It’s all about dirty money and how those at the centre of power are benefiting, says Browder:

    London is one of the main outposts for Russian financial and political influence programmes in the west. It’s floating on a tide of dirty money. All the oligarchs have bases there. They all have homes. All the professional service firms are in London – lawyers, investigations agencies – all running private influence ops on behalf of the oligarchs who are working on behalf of Putin. There’s a huge reluctance in Britain to strangle the golden goose. Because a lot of people very close the centre of power are financially benefiting.

    A diplomatic source in Washington told the Times on 4 February:

    The fear is that Russian money is so entrenched in London now that the opportunity to use it as leverage against Putin could be lost.

    Whether or not Russia invades Ukraine, the question remains: will sanctions be applied against these and other oligarchs? If not, arguably the threat is empty. Though if Truss really does follow the money, she will undoubtedly find it leads to some very uncomfortable places.

    Meanwhile the standoff between NATO forces and the Russian Federation remains, with the prospect of war still threatened. And if there is war, there will be no winners.

    the Government’s Elections Bill make these problems worse by enabling political donations from donors based overseas?

    Featured image via YouTube

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On Sunday 6 February, business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng appeared on the BBC‘s Sunday Morning. Predictably, he was asked about Johnson’s leadership and its “descent into chaos”. Kwarteng was also asked about the national insurance hike. As reported by The Canary on 28 January, both the Tories and the BBC have attempted to whitewash how severe this hike would be.

    In response to a question from presenter Sophie Rathworth on the national insurance hike, Kwarteng said:

    Look, I think the national insurance issue has been settled. We’ve identified the fact that there’s a huge backlog in the NHS, there’s a huge looming issue of social care and this is one way which we can actually foot that huge bill. There was a debate in cabinet but I think the prime minister and chancellor have been clear that the national insurance rise is something which is painful but necessary

    ‘Painful but necessary’

    But Kwarteng’s “painful but necessary” comment angered some people online. Especially as neither he nor his government colleagues would be feeling that pain:

    Brexit cost reminder

    To make matters worse, neither Kwarteng nor Rathworth mentioned the fact that money saved by withdrawing from the EU was supposed to pay for improvements to the NHS. So there should be no need for such ‘pain’.

    Filmmaker Peter Stefanovic was among those who reacted to Kwarteng’s national insurance claims. Stefanovic said “Johnson’s government has just hiked taxes to their highest level in 70 years”. He also reminded us of Johnson’s 2019 promise not to raise taxes or national insurance. Again, this was something which Rathworth failed to point out:

    Not the only Brexit lie

    And this wasn’t the only Brexit skeleton in the cupboard to come back and haunt the Tories. BBC Scotland‘s Sunday Morning presenter Michael Geissler actually did take a Tory to task. This time it was energy minister Greg Hands MP. They were discussing the rising cost of living in the UK, relative to other European countries. Geissler reminded Hands of a 2016 Brexit referendum pledge from Michael Gove. During that campaign, Gove said leaving the EU would mean the government could cut VAT on household fuel bills:

    France and Germany have already taken steps to cut or slow the rise of household energy bills. But Hands claimed the UK still “compares favourably with the average of European countries”. This is despite some reports that prices in France have only risen by 4% compared to the UK’s eye-watering 54%:

    Meanwhile Kwarteng continued to deflect the rising prices as a “global challenge”:

    Although Labour MP Bill Esterson reminded Kwarteng that the price increases are more a result of the choices Tories make than a “global challenge”:

    Choices such as spending £1.4bn on “a fantasy military space initiative” while people can’t afford heating would be among them.

    In decline for the wrong reasons

    The BBC, on its flagship Sunday Morning politics show, had the perfect opportunity to call out Tory lies and take a stand for people bearing the brunt of these prices increases. Instead it ignored the opportunity, something that we’ve become all too familiar with on Sunday mornings.

    Independent media, on the other hand, will continue to call out the Tories’ bullshit. And it’ll do so long after partygate becomes painful old news.

    Featured image via BBC – Screengrab

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • In John Pilger’s 2019 documentary The Dirty War on the NHS, campaigner Dr Bob Gill says:

    The NHS has been repurposed from a public service to something for profit extraction. And all the changes we have seen have just been about liberating up these potential assets for the corporate raiders to take them over.

    This is a stark warning about attacks on the NHS by capitalists. Yet the campaign to save the NHS, relative to the destruction that could be on the way, doesn’t appear to reflect that. I say this not to knock the excellent work of tireless campaigners around the country, but to remind people of how serious this current assault on the NHS is.

    Capitalists have waged a war on the NHS for decades, and they appear to be winning. So now, as the Tories’ Health and Care Bill powers its way through the Houses of Parliament, we need to wage a war to save the publicly run health service that was once the envy of the world. Because should the profit-driven capitalists get their way, the NHS could become little more than a mirror image of the dystopian US healthcare system. A system that’s dominated by profit-driven health insurance corporations and run at the expense of sick, injured and disabled people.

    Let’s sound the alarm bells

    The people who really care deeply about our health service are sounding the alarm bells. They believe this bill spells the end of the NHS as we know it. And it’ll be a “legislative lock-in for the changes already embedded throughout the NHS”. It will also cost people more while delivering less. This bill, if it becomes law, will consolidate a privatisation agenda as they sell off parts of the NHS to the highest bidder.

    Successive UK governments, in full public view, have enacted this. Yet it feels as if there’s an absence of outrage. Why aren’t we all yelling ‘stop’ with the ferocity this deserves? How is it that a local campaign to save a local hospital can get 25,000 people on the street, but a national campaign can’t do something comparable?

    Given the cut-throat capitalistic policies of successive Tory and neo-liberal Blairite governments, attacks on a valuable and free public service aren’t at all surprising.

    Sajid Javid certainly wasn’t the first

    Let’s take a look at this stealthy path towards NHS privatisation, culminating in this damaging bill which is currently in the House of Lords.

    Nye Bevan, the Labour minister credited with founding the NHS, famously said “the NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it”. The NHS faced opposition before it even started in 1948. And Bevan himself admitted he only got doctors and its trade union, the British Medical Association (BMA), on board by “stuffing their mouths with gold”.

    The NHS has been under attack since that time. In fact, Bevan resigned just three years after its founding over the introduction of dental and spectacle charges.

    From there, one of the first organised attacks on the NHS started with Arthur Seldon. Seldon was a Thatcherite and once adviser to “cross-party” think tank Demos. He wrote the book After the N.H.S.: Reflections on the Development of Private Health Insurance in Britain in the 1970s. Seldon, as well as others at the right-wing Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) think tank, put forward in a report “the advantages of user payments and private medical insurance instead of the NHS”.

    Furthermore, Thatcher targeted the health service for privatisation when she came to power in 1979. Documents from 1977, before Thatcher took power, show they were already planning to privatise key public services.

    Thatcher hands it over

    Following the Thatcher and John Major years, the Blair and Brown regime took up the mantle. During their time, according to director Ken Loach, they increased NHS privatisation and also outsourced medical and cleaning services. In his documentary The Great NHS Heist, Gill laid out the timeline of NHS privatisation from the early 1980s until 2014:

    Gill says “the number of beds per head of population, has more than halved since the 1970s”. When Gill spoke to The Canary in July 2021, he explained:

    We have the lowest bed capacity per head of population compared to all other OECD countries of similar economic status. We have the fewest number of doctors per head in Europe. And by the time we entered the pandemic, we’d suffered a historic freeze of annual increase in the budget of around 1% on average over the decade, where since 1948 it’s averaged about 4%.

    As shown in the figure above, the Health and Social Care Act became law in 2012. According to Gill, it then became a:

    defunded, repurposed, marketised NHS with a huge hole in the workforce – 10,000 vacancies in doctors, 40,000 nurse vacancies – and then we were hit with a pandemic. So this was a disaster waiting to happen.

    Integrated Care Systems

    According to Gill, one of the biggest changes proposed in this latest bill is the creation of Integrated Care Systems (ICS). But instead of integrating or improving healthcare, as its name suggests, these ICSs will integrate and be:

    based on the US Medicare, Medicaid system – which is dominated by big private insurance companies like United Health, the world’s biggest private insurer – where the government, the taxpayer, puts in the money, but the management of that money is with a private insurer. And they are allowed to make profit… out of the ICS budget.

    Gill also explained that the “terminology is deceptive”. Because it’s not about integrating the clinical services for improvement, but about “integrating the budgets”:

    to pull over social care budgets… into NHS budgets over time, and all primary care and secondary care budgets, and give responsibility for control of all that money to an arms length new public-private entity called an integrated care board.

    Now this integrated care board, on the board will be sitting all the private corporations that have been awarded outsourcing contracts over the years. And what most people are unaware of, is that this legislation is making legal what has been going on behind the scenes very quietly for over a decade. Which is, corporations such as the big four accountancy firms, the management consultancies like McKinseys, the outsourcing giants like Serco, they have all been at the heart of the backroom function of the NHS…

    So they’ve already been in place, this is not some hypothetical threat, the corporations are embedded within the NHS, and what the creation of the new legal entity will do is formally transfer power from government… to this new public-private entity. So that’s a massive step.

    In Consortium News last December, Gill and public policy analyst Stewart Player warned of creeping “Americanization of the NHS” and “the penetration of the healthcare system by the giant U.S. insurer UnitedHealth”. They believe the current bill, with its 42 regional-scale ICSs, is proof of this. And they believe it’s being:

    effectively designed and fast-tracked by the private UnitedHealth.

    The severity of Private Finance Initiatives (PFI)

    As Gill told The Canary, the Blair years also saw the private sector being allowed “to saddle the NHS estate, land, and buildings with PFI debt”. PFI uses private money to build public infrastructure such as hospitals or schools. These are then leased to the government but owned by the private institution. It was actually introduced by the Tories, but Blair’s Labour drove it forward with enthusiasm.

    Gill told us this saddling of debt can:

    then be used as an excuse to flog off land

    And PFI:

    also handed over ownership to the private sector. So you had the assets being privatised.

    In 2010, PFI investor David Metter received dividends of £8.6m. He had a stake in 19 hospitals. In 2013, BBC’s Panorama likened overall PFI programme to a credit card, because:

    they buy now, we all pay later

    In 2018, the chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland said PFI was a “fraud on the people”. And the Independent reported the PFI bill for NHS hospitals was projected to be above £79bn. A considerably high price on its own, but significantly higher than the build cost of £11.4bn.

    In 2019, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) found that £13bn invested by the private sector in new hospitals would cost the NHS in England £80bn. Some trusts spent one-sixth of their budget repaying debts because of PFI.

    But there’s still time to save the NHS

    Large as the Tory majority is, Boris Johnson – assuming he survives much longer – certainly doesn’t have the loyalty of his ranks. And if public pressure is brought to bear, it could once again force change. Tory MPs or House of Lords members could possibly rebel if they believed there was significant public opposition to this bill, or indeed if they believed their own position was under threat.

    There’s so much we need to defend at present. It’s essential the NHS is part of that, and that every individual plays their part. The campaign to stop this assault on our health needs to be as loud as the campaigns for our planet’s survival and the campaigns that stand up for our civil and human rights. It’s really is that important.

    Because if we all don’t stand up now, what we know and cherish most about our health service could very well be a distant memory. A mirror image of the US’s profit-driven ‘healthcare’ system.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons – SLaMNHSFT & Pixabay – TheDigitalArtist

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • As I’ve argued before, there’s nothing that complicated about politics in the north of Ireland. Nor is there anything that complicated about the DUP’s latest efforts to collapse the power sharing government (called Stormont) in the north. Put simply, this is damage limitation for the DUP’s Brexit balls up and the notorious Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP) that followed.

    This self-inflicted harm is costing the DUP quite severely. Brexit has weakened its precious union. And according to opinion polls, it’s losing voter support. This is support which it’ll want to regain ahead of elections in the north scheduled for 5 May 2022. The DUP’s response to this self-inflicted shambles? Appeal to a lying Boris Johnson, who it also claims lied to them over the NIP, for help:

    Consequences?

    The DUP effectively collapsed the government in the north when its first minister Paul Givan resigned on 3 February. And it may not even have the three months between now and May to put things right. To begin with, its current government partner Sinn Féin is calling for early elections:

    But even if those elections don’t come early, according to opinion polls, Sinn Féin looks set to become the largest single party in the north. Moreover, Givan’s resignation has serious consequences, because it means local government can’t approve future spending on schools and hospitals. Additionally, an official apology to victims of institutional abuse won’t now happen in March, as was initially planned.

    A quick reminder on Brexit

    Despite not being able to convince a majority of people in the north of Ireland to vote Leave, we can’t forget the sordid role the DUP played in promoting Brexit in 2016. And there were plenty of people to remind the DUP of this and how it’s now trying to avoid blame:

    The DUP’s Brexit position has been described as “a huge strategic error”:

    But RTE‘s David McCullagh was on the ball in pointing out DUP contradictions to MP Gavin Robinson:

    We’ve been here before

    There’s nothing new in the DUP collapsing Stormont. It last collapsed it in January 2017 when Arlene Foster refused to step aside pending an investigation into the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) financial scandal. And the absolute stupidity of the DUP appealing to a British prime minister isn’t new either:

    Comedian Jake O’Kane summed up the DUP’s position perfectly:

     

    The DUP lost two of its MPs at the 2019 general election. It’s currently performing poorly in the polls. And if those polls are reflected in the next Stormont elections, Sinn Féin will become, for the first time ever, the largest party in Stormont. It would then hold the position of first minister – also for the first time ever.

    It could be too late for the DUP to undo this self-inflicted electoral damage. But appealing to a lying prime minister, when the mainstream English media appears to care so little about Stormont, reads like an act of desperation. It would serve the people of the north a lot better if the DUP dropped its Brexit rhetoric and helped tackle the serious issues that probably matter most to voters.

    Featured image via RTE News – YouTube Screengrab & The Telegraph – YouTube Screengrab

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Kwasi Kwarteng has suggested the prime minister was not counting rates of fraud when he falsely claimed in the Commons that crime had fallen under his leadership.

    The business secretary said Boris Johnson was referring to “personal injury and crime in relation to individuals” when he told MPs “we have been cutting crime by 14%”.

    It followed a Home Office press release which said latest data showed “crime continues to fall under this Government”. The press release quoted home secretary Priti Patel as saying it demonstrated the government’s approach “is working”.

    Misleading

    But the government has since been placed under investigation by the UK Statistics Authority. It comes after they received complaints about the claim.

    Despite a fall in most crimes during coronavirus (Covid-19) lockdowns, some are now reaching or exceeding pre-pandemic levels. Moreover, rises in some offences like fraud have offset reductions seen elsewhere, according to the Office for National Statistics.

    The figures also showed that police recorded the highest number of rapes and sexual offences in a 12-month period. Meanwhile separate Home Office data detailed how the proportion of suspects being taken to court has fallen to a new record low. And it remains the lowest for rape cases.

    UK Statistics Authority boss David Norgrove said the government had presented crime figures in a “misleading way”. He said this in a letter to Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson who raised the issue.

    But appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Kwarteng said Johnson:

    was referring to personal injury and crime in relation to individuals.

    The point the Prime Minister was making is that crime that people experience in their day-to-day lives… in terms of burglary, in terms of physical injury, has gone down and that’s absolutely right.

    Following the interview, Labour MP and chairman of the Commons Committee on Standards Chris Bryant tweeted:

    I can understand why Tories don’t want people to think fraud counts as crime.

    Total crime didn’t fall, but quite the opposite

    It comes after the minister who was responsible for tackling fraud, lord Theodore Agnew, dramatically quit the government over the “schoolboy” handling of fraudulent Covid-19 business loans.

    In the letter to Carmichael, Norgrove said:

    I agree that Office for National Statistics (ONS) measures of crime must be used accurately, and not misrepresented.

    In this case, the Home Office news release presented the latest figures in a misleading way.

    Likewise, the Prime Minister referred to a 14% reduction in crime, which is the change between the year ending September 2019 and the year ending September 2021. This figure also excludes fraud and computer misuse, though the Prime Minister did not make that clear.

    If fraud and computer misuse are counted in total crime as they should be, total crime in fact increased by 14% between the year ending September 2019 and the year ending September 2021.

    We have written to the Home Office and to the offices of the Prime Minister and Home Secretary to draw their attention to this exchange.

    The watchdog works to “promote and safeguard official statistics to serve the public good”. This includes “regulating the quality and publicly challenging the misuse of statistics”.

    It can intervene if it considers a politician or government department has misused or misrepresented figures and has not adhered to a code of practice.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Two important bits of news were announced this week. One is that energy bills will be hiked by 54%. The second is that Tories have found £1.4bn to spend in a fantasy military space initiative that looks set to largely benefit defence contractors and spy agencies.

    At least GCHQ will be able to watch your nan shiver in her house from five miles up.

    Yes, the Ministry of Defence has finally revealed its ‘Defence Space Strategy’, complete with the kind of cryptic subtitle only the MOD can muster: “Operationalising the Space Domain”. But what does this mean? It means that a government which refuses to even consider a wealth tax to help out the worst off has found enough spare change down the back of the sofa to fund another new madcap military project. For the next ten years, in fact…

    Boris Johnson in Space

    Here’s defence secretary Ben Wallace channelling a sort of evil captain Picard on in the report’s opening passages:

    Space has brought unprecedented advantages and new threats. Daily life is reliant on space and, for the Armed Forces, space underpins vital, battle-winning technologies. From space we can deliver global command & control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, precision navigation, and more. Adversaries understand this reliance and are increasingly able to exploit vulnerabilities, threatening our strategic stability and security

    But what does this look in in practice? Well, we know the new strategy will increase surveillance capacity for the military and government partners. Naturally, most of the strategy is written in Whitehall gibberish, but we can discern that both “Earth-facing and spacefacing” capacities will be increased at a cost of only £970m over the next decade. One can only imagine this will allow us to spot strange alien creatures both in space and here on Earth. Because who wouldn’t want to keep an eye on Rory Stewart?

    Capitalist space cadets

    The document is very clear that major beneficiaries of the programme will be capitalists. In fact, capitalists of all sizes from “start-ups to multinational conglomerates” will make their money. The space strategy authors actually seem rather proud of the profit-making record of the burgeoning UK space market:

    Space-related activity was once solely the preserve of governments; launching satellites into space relied on the same technologies as ballistic missiles. Today though, investment is driven by private investors and the UK space industry primary income is from commercial ventures

    So someone, at least, is going to directly benefit from the space strategy. It just won’t be you. Sorry.

    Threats

    The new strategy claims the military must “seek out and seize the enduring strategic advantage opportunities offered by space”. Space, like cyber, is now a battlefield to be fought across. But who are the enemies? It’s probably a sign of the times that the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ do not feature in the document. Two examples are given of ‘International Threats’, and these are, predictably, Russia and China.

    And while busily chasing its own military goals in the stratosphere, the UK will continue to seek engagement with “nations who are committed to the peaceful use of space”.

    Beyond these two much-touted enemies, the report warns we are all at the mercy of space weather, which:

    in addition to energetic particle storms produced by solar flares and major changes to the solar wind, directly impacts the Earth’s magnetic field, which could reduce the effectiveness of satellites or induce undesirable effects on the ground.

    Militarizing space

    To understand the UK’s military space strategy we need to look beyond its rhetoric. Space is a new theatre of warfare and surveillance. It’s also a new market in which profit can be made by firms small and large. Much of that profit looks like it will come from British state investment. And this vanity project comes at a time when the kind of sums involved would be better used to support people whose utility bills are soaring.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/MOD, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under Open Government Licence.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • London,

    The 64-year-old Labor peer and Former Lord Nazir Ahmed were found guilty and have been jailed for five years and six months. The Sheffield Crown Court heard the sexual assaulting case of two young children.

    Nazir raped teenage girl and attempted to rape 11 year boy in the 1970’s when he was a teenager and lived in Rotherham. The defendant Nazir Ahmed was about 16 or 17 years old but the girl was much younger. Ahmed was also found guilty of a serious sexual assault against a boy under 11, in the same time period.

    According to Independent, Judge, Mr. Justice Lavender jailed Ahmed and said his actions had “profound and lifelong effects” on his victims.

    According to a victim personal statement from the male complainant read in court and said being sexually abused by the three men had

    “Affected me on a daily basis”.

    He added that,

    “I buried the abuse and carried it with me on my own for years and years. I feel shame because of what these men did to me. This is not about revenge, this is about justice.”

    The victim of the attempted rapes read her own victim personal statement in court, saying that “An overwhelming feeling of shame remained with me throughout my childhood and early adult years.

    “It was a burden I was made to carry, and it silenced me for many years.

    “It is now time for me to pass that burden to him the pedophile who I know feels no personal shame.”

    Ahmed‘s two older brothers Mohammed Farouq, 71, and Mohammed Tariq, 66, were also charged with indecent assault in relation to the same boy that Ahmed abused, according to Independent.

    Both men were deemed unfit to stand trial, but a jury found that they did the acts alleged.

    Farouq and Tariq were both given absolute discharges after the judge said the only other two options a hospital order or a supervision order would not be appropriate in this case.

    According to Mr Justice Lavender passed judgment, “Your actions have had profound and lifelong effects on the girl and the boy, who have lived with what you did to them for between 46 and 53 years. “Their statements express more persuasively than I ever could how your actions have affected their lives in so many different and damaging ways.”

    He jailed Ahmed for three and a half years for the offence of buggery, and imposed two more sentences of two years for each of the attempted rapes.

    Former Labor member Ahmed resigned from the House of Lords in November 2020 after reading the contents of a conduct committee report which found he sexually assaulted a vulnerable woman who sought his help.

    The report made him the first peer to be recommended for expulsion, but he resigned before this could be implemented, Independent reported.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Boris Johnson’s further descent into chaos has dominated the news. So, you may have missed the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been up to its usual, nasty tricks. Here’s some of the news you may have missed while the PM wreaked havoc.

    DWP: failure one

    First up, and as the Mirror reported, the DWP finally released a report into social security. It took MPs getting involved for the department to release it, and even then it still took a year. And it’s of little wonder the DWP wanted to bury it. Because the report is damning. It found that the DWP is failing some of the poorest chronically ill and disabled social security claimants. The report said these people:

    experienced difficulty meeting their health related needs and some also struggled to afford essential day-to-day living costs, such as heating and food.

    The report gave an example of one person’s experience. It noted that the claimant lived alone in a housing association flat. He lived with:

    kidney failure, arthritis in his back, legs and arms, depression and bulimia which caused chronic stomach pains… He was in the ESA Support Group and received PIP… His debt repayments meant he could not afford essential day-to-day living needs and used a foodbank.

    Crucially, the claimant and his family seemed unsure or unaware of what support was available or how to claim it. This poor communication from the DWP isn’t new. As The Canary previously reported, hundreds of thousands of people entitled to Universal Credit during the pandemic didn’t claim it. Many of these people thought they weren’t entitled to it. So, this new report shows what we already knew: the DWP is failing countless people.

    DWP: failure two

    Next, and a court recently ruled that the government’s National Disability Strategy was unlawful. Disability News Service (DNS) reported that the strategy, released last year, was “botched”. One disabled people’s organisation (DPO) said it was “a cynical re-packaging of current polices and current budgets”.

    Chronically ill and disabled people and their organisations were supposed to be able to give input into the strategy. But as DNS reported, four disabled people took the DWP to court because they felt this wasn’t the case. And the court agreed, saying the DWP and government:

    had made it “impossible” for disabled people to “shape” the content of the strategy.

    The court ruled that the consultation was unlawful because the thousands of disabled people who took part were not given enough information about the government’s proposed strategy to allow them “intelligent consideration and response”.

    Now, DNS has learned that the court has also refused to let the DWP appeal the decision. But the department can go to the Court of Appeal. So, the future of the strategy hangs in the balance. Because if it loses an appeal to a higher court, the whole strategy will be unlawful. And, as DNS reported, this may mean the DWP has to scrap the strategy and start again.

    Tory ministers: sticking fingers in their ears

    Meanwhile, two DWP ministers dismissed calls for things to change at the department. DNS reported that minister for disabled people Chloe Smith ignored Labour’s call for an inquiry into deaths on the DWP’s watch. As The Canary previously reported, in the last decade nearly 35,000 people died either waiting for the DWP to sort their claims or after it said they were well enough to work or start moving towards work. But Smith, during a parliamentary debate where Labour’s Marsha De Cordova raised the issue, failed to even acknowledge it.

    Additionally, in the House of Lords, several peers tabled an amendment to the Health and Care Bill. Again, as DNS reported:

    The proposed amendment… would mean that no-one in England who entered the social system at or under the age of 40 would ever have to pay for their support.

    In effect, it would place a lifetime zero cap on social care charges for many disabled people

    But as expected, the Tory peer from the DWP dismissed the idea. Peers may try and add the amendment back in when the bill reaches the report stage.

    DWP: business as usual

    Johnson’s behaviour in recent times is hardly surprising. But while the media focussed on this, the DWP carried on making people’s lives worse. Its contempt for claimants knows no bounds – even in the face of the most damning evidence. So, while we focus on Johnson’s wrongdoings, it’s vital we continue scrutinising the state of our social security system.

    Featured image via 5 News  – YouTube and UK government – Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  •  It’s not all doom and gloom, as Pablo Navarrete explains, Latin America offers the left hope and inspiration.


    Video transcript

    While the political horizon in the UK looks bleak with little real choice beyond business as usual, there is hope if we look further afield.

    In Latin America, 2021 saw presidential election victories for progressive candidates in Peru, Honduras, and Chile. This has come on top of a wave of recent advances in the region that have reinvigorated those fighting for a better world internationally.

    Latin America is showing us that the right can be defeated and is providing us with much needed hope and inspiration.

    In Bolivia, a November 2019 US and UK-backed coup that overthrew left-wing president Evo Morales was overturned in less than a year. Relentless grassroots mobilisations against the coup were key to its eventual defeat. People hit the streets even in the face of brutal repression by the security forces of the far-right Jeanine Añez coup regime that ousted Morales.

    Añez was forced to offer new elections and Luis Arce, a key minister for most of Morales’s presidency, won a landslide victory and became president in November 2020. Bolivia is now making great strides to recover from the economic and social devastation caused by the coup regime.

    In the UK it’s only the non-stop protesting and campaigning by the Kill The Bill movement over the last ten months that has seen some of the worst aspects of the draconian Police Bill put on hold for now.

    Whether it’s in Bolivia or the UK, people protesting on the streets can make a massive difference to overcoming the forces of reaction.  

    In Chile, defeating the right and the violent imposition of neoliberal economics associated with them is taking much longer but some key recent wins have excited many around the world.

    Left-winger Gabriel Boric, a 35-year-old former student leader and member of parliament, trounced José Antonio Kast, a far-right politician and open admirer of former dictator Augusto Pinochet, in December’s presidential election run-off.

    Let’s not forget how friendly Margaret Thatcher was with Pinochet whose brutal dictatorship oversaw the murder and disappearance of more than 3,000 people while hundreds of thousands were imprisoned, tortured, and exiled.

    Boric takes office in March and alongside an important process to replace Pinochet’s constitution with a new progressive one, his election has given hope that a new Chile lies on the horizon. It was mass street protests that began in late 2019 that provided the spark that has energised those fighting the right in the country. “Neoliberalism was born in Chile and it will die in Chile!” has been a rallying cry of protestors.

    Mass street protests against repressive right-wing governments in Brazil and Colombia could also mean that the left in these countries win crucial presidential elections set for later this year. These victories would be a massive blow to the US, which continues to support coups against the left and prop up blood-soaked right-wing governments in the region. The UK plays a similar if less influential role, so if we want to help progressive governments in Latin America, we should do all we can to hold our government to account for their support of right-wing forces and anti-democratic practises in the region. 

    While Latin American countries have very different histories and circumstances to the UK, the biggest thing we can learn from the victory of people’s movements there is not to give up and to keep fighting. Popular protests and uprisings have proven to be key in weakening the right and contributing to their defeat at the ballot box.

    Of course, Washington won’t give up trying to make sure that a politics for the many doesn’t take hold in Latin America, but if people there can resist and fight in the face of brutal repression and then win, this should give us the courage and inspiration to do the same here.

    As Chile’s left-wing poet Pablo Neruda, who died in mysterious circumstances shortly after the September 11th 1973 coup, once wrote: “You can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep Spring from coming.”

    By Pablo Navarrete

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Curtis Daly guides us through the classist, racist, sexist institution that is the police and explains why they need to be abolished.


    Video transcript

    With the Sue Gray report being released with crucial information missing, Cressida Dick seems to have come to Boris Johnson’s rescue.

    And while radical centrists such as James O’Brien seem to think that it’s Johnson who has brought corruption into the Met Police, all the facts point to the Met, and the police as a whole, being corrupt since their inception.

    It looks increasingly likely that Johnson will face the chopping block, although the efforts of Cressida Dick to block the Grey report may have bought the Prime Minister some time.

    Power protects power, that’s for sure.

    Speaking of protecting power, let’s look at the history of the police.

    1829 is considered the birth of modern policing in England, with the Met being the first fully “professional” police organisation. 

    Robert Peel was known as the father of policing, bringing the Met to fruition when he was home secretary. 

    It’s also where the name ‘Bobbies’ came from, after the man himself.

    Robert Peel got the idea of the police from his previous job as chief secretary in Ireland.

    His role included managing the uprising in that period. 

    But don’t let the liberal class fool you. The imposition of a police force was not there to protect the public, it was in-fact to control growing peasant uprisings against landlords. 

    The work Peel was doing was on behalf of the owner class.

    Alex Vitale is a professor of sociology, and he argues: “The reality is that the police exist primarily as a system for managing and even producing inequality by suppressing social movements and tightly managing the behaviours of poor and non-white people: those on the losing end of economic and political arrangements.”

    The police were a tool for capitalism, the wealthy used the police to exploit the poor to enrich themselves. 

    Immigrants were used especially in Northern cities to solidify a new working class to serve capitalist interests. The rich used immigrants for their labour, whilst simultaneously using the police to instil order on the workers.

    The side of power on which the police lie has continued to this day. Protest movements are met with hostility and violence. Those who oppose the ruling elite are labelled domestic extremists. Since 1968, over 1,000 groups have been spied on by undercover police including family justice campaigns, trade unions, and environmental and peace groups.

    During the 80s, miners suffered beatings at the hands of the police who were there to break strikes and workers solidarity. In 2021, the police battered Kill The Bill protesters in Bristol. They are all victims of a political war. 

    There is a reason why the police are so racist, sexist, and classist. It’s not the breakdown of an institution in which a few bad apples managed to slip through.

    Need we be reminded of Mohamud Hassan, who died just a day after being detained by the South Wales police. Witnesses say that he was severely beaten. According to INQUEST, there have been 1,803 deaths in police custody or following contact with the police in England and Wales since 1990.

    At the beginning of this year, the Met Police were scouring the streets at night, swabbing hands for drug use. Their given reason to bother innocent people was ‘women’s safety’.

    Ironically, only one person was arrested – a woman. The operation proved to be an embarrassment for the police.

    The police as an institution absolutely do not have women’s safety at the heart of their practises. Kosha Duff was a victim of a disgusting strip search by the police in 2013. 

    The strip search, or rather sexual assault, saw the police tying her hands together, pinning her down, cutting her clothes off with scissors, and bashing her head against a concrete floor – all while making jokes.

    It took the police nearly 10 years to apologise, which is in no way sufficient for the assault they perpetrated against her.

    The institution itself is rotten to the core. But the way the police behave isn’t out of kilter with the way it was set up. Women, minorities and the poor are always right at the bottom.

    Messages between officers at the Charing Cross station have revealed jokes about rape, domestic violence, and killing black children.

    The liberal class wants us to think that our systems are fine as they are,‘If only we all just voted Lib Dem and Remain, all would be right with the world!’

    But that’s clearly not reality. Our systems and structures often come from a place of injustice. Social movements and political battles, that sometimes involve direct confrontations with those wielding power, including the police, are vital to create a more just world.

    The role of the police, in which it protects the capitalist class and the privileged, and the disgusting racist and sexist culture within it, doesn’t need reform. Its current apparatus needs to be abolished, and true community and restorative justice put in its place.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Jasmine York told Bristol Crown Court that she had attended College Green on the 21 March 2021 to remember the killing of Sarah Everard by a police officer. But by the end of the day she had been beaten by the police herself.

    A vigil was being held on College Green to remember Sarah, who had been murdered on 3 March by serving police officer Wayne Couzens. Members of the public had been leaving flowers at a memorial. Jasmine told the court that she had gone to the vigil, and then joined the demonstration against the proposed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

    She said in evidence:

    There were speeches about the Policing Bill, which gives the police more powers, for example increasing Stop and Search powers which target minority groups.

    Sarah was murdered by a police officer so giving them more powers scared me.

    She said that she hadn’t gone to College Green because of the Policing Bill, but that she had learnt about the Bill from the speeches, and from the people in the crowd. She decided to join the demonstration.

    The trial so far

    Jasmine’s trial has been ongoing since Monday 31 February.

    On Wednesday 2 February, the jury saw footage of Jasmine and other protesters being struck with batons and kicked by officers. Later on in the evening Jasmine is bitten by a police dog as she is walking away from the police line.

    Jasmine called the police – just hours later – to report that she had been assaulted by several officers, but she ended up being arrested herself. She is now in court charged with riot and arson. She denies both charges. If found guilty she faces years in prison.

    Click here and here to read The Canary‘s previous coverage of the trial.

    I was there to “protect women”

    Jasmine started her defence evidence on Wednesday 2 February, her evidence continued on the morning of Thursday 3rd. In her defence evidence, Jasmine told the court that her intention had been to film what was going on, and to protect women in the crowd who were facing violence from the police. She explained why she felt it was important to be there:

    I think filming is important whenever there’s violence. I’ve been in situations when there’s been violence before and people don’t believe you. I am taught not to respond to violence with violence, so I think I am a good person to be around.

    Jasmine explained to her defence barrister that she had experienced male violence before. She described her motivations in what she was doing:

    the only thing I was ever trying to do was to make sure people were safe. I wanted people to be safe.

    She said that police officers had acted “in a shameful way” when they hit her with batons. There was a point in the protest where Jasmine picked up a police baton. But she said that she simply “put it to the side” of the road.

    The court heard that – later on – Jasmine was pushed by an officer, and then hit with batons. After that she is seen to have her arm around someone in the crowd. Defence barrister Russell Fraser pointed out:

    to your left hand side you appear to be putting an arm around someone and then returning back into the crowd.

    Jasmine replied that:

    there was a girl who had been hit and I was protecting her. That’s why I was there. To protect femme people, women.

    She returns to the demonstration

    A little later, Jasmine left the demonstration. But she told the court that she watched the events unfolding on social media and she decided to go back. Fraser asked her why. She said:

    because I knew people were still being hit and I felt bad that I had decided to leave. I feel like in situations of injustice if you do nothing you side with the oppressor, and that’s what I felt like I’d done

    Jasmine said she returned to the demonstration at around 10pm. A police car was on fire close to the Cedar Express restaurant near Bridewell Police Station. The arson charge against Jasmine relates to pushing a bin – which the prosecution say was damaged by the fire. When prosecutor Sarah Regan asked Jasmine why she moved it she denied wanting to set it alight. She said:

    I had been really badly beaten that day, I was more scared of the police than the fire.

    She added that she had pushed the bin because she:

    wanted it to be an obstacle, between the police line and the people

    Finally – responding to cross-examination from Regan – Jasmine reiterated that her actions were:

    about protecting women, protecting people

    I was heartbroken

    Jasmine told Fraser – and the court – how she felt after the demonstration. She said:

    I can’t believe that the day started with me trying to remember Sarah Everard – who was killed by a police officer and by the end of the day I had been beaten by a police officer myself.

    I was heartbroken, to be honest.

    Police officers used “shields as weapons”

    The defence also called evidence from Katherine Hobbs. Hobbs works for the Network for Police Monitoring, and was acting as part of a volunteer legal observer team on the 21 March.

    Hobbs gave evidence about the use of police riot shields as weapons. She said:

    I think that it was around 6pm that we saw square shields being deployed. There was quite an issue with shields being used as a weapon on that demonstration. There were a lot of incidents of a tactic that’s known as ‘blading’, particularly as people were sitting on the floor – its a controversial tactic and causes a lot of injury 

    “Blading” is the practice of striking people with the bottom of a rectangular riot shield. On Wednesday 2 February the court had been shown footage of a police officer hitting a man over the head repeatedly with a rectangular riot shield.

    “Impromptu first aid station set up”

    Hobbs described how – as a response to the police violence – she and others set up an “impromptu first aid station”. She described providing first aid to people who had been pepper sprayed, hit with police batons or police shields. She described supporting one woman who had suffered a serious panic attack.

    She told the court:

    I noted that the police weren’t assisting us in any way, they didn’t provide any medical assistance to us.

    I saw a police line attacking a protest

    Hobbs said that she saw incidents where the police were attacking members of the crowd while they had their hands raised over their heads. When Regan asked her if she saw protesters being violent, Hobbs replied:

    I saw a police line attacking a protest and people trying to protect themselves

    The defence has now closed its case and Fraser and Regan have given closing speeches for the defence and prosecution. The jury is expected to be sent out on Friday 4 February.

    Featured image by Eliza Egret. Thanks to Eliza Egret for taking notes during the case.

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) people in the UK are subjected to grossly inaccurate media portrayals, a new report claims. Additionally, biased reporting means the public often don’t understand GRT issues. The Media That Moves report is a joint effort by London and Leeds-based Gypsy and Traveller organisations. The report examines how media portrayals impact GRT lives. But it also tells us what is wrong with the media as a whole.

    Extremely damaging

    The authors argue that deeply ingrained and damaging untruths about GRT people are constantly repeated by the powerful, shaping public perception for the worse:

    Media coverage, public comments and statements from those in positions of power all reveal deeply ingrained misconceptions about, and prejudice against, Gypsies and Travellers. These are extremely damaging.

    And these misconceptions have serious impacts on the lives of GRT people:

    They influence interactions and policy, leading to further deprivation, alienation and poor mental health in the Gypsy and Traveller community. Our organisations have a painful understanding of the impact that media representation has on communities.

    Gutter press

    The report found that of 365 stories published over three years, more than half were in the Daily Mail and Daily Express. The authors said this shows “a tabloid campaign to over-represent, as well as mis-represent, Gypsies and Travellers.”

    A majority of stories were about allegations of crime by GRT people and issues around GRT campsites. And stories written by GRT people were rare. Outlets such as the Guardian and the Independent did more diverse stories overall and gave more space to GRT writers. But these were outweighed by the right-wing tabloid media. And one journalist was quoted as saying the BBC, for example, were afraid of seeming too liberal in their coverage:

    It actually did cause some quite rigorous conversations in the newsroom, where it was felt very much that actually we can be too soft on Gypsies and Travellers.

    The report found that GRT people are reported on in ways which would never be tolerated for other ethnic groups. As a result many people did not even understand that GRT are unique, protected groups:

    It is still socially acceptable to report on Gypsies and Travellers in a way that would not be tolerated if it was any other ethnic group. And, because media reporting is so poor, there is very little public understanding that these are protected ethnicities, with culturally significant ways of life, that have been part of our culture for centuries, and that most people in these communities now live in houses and pay tax.

    The study suggests reporting on GRT matters is subject to cheap moral outrage and that GRT news is made overly dramatic. Additionally, GRT stories are often churned out as clickbait rather than being critically researched.

    Issues

    The report identifies a number of problems with media culture which make things worse. Such as lack of control which can lead to bad interviewers taking words out of context. As well as the nature of social media trolling. They also lament the use of images of litter and poverty for stories about GRT topics.

    The “pale, male and stale” demographic of news editors is also a problem. The reports argues that older, white, male editors tend to not understand issues of race and representation. And diversity initiatives often don’t include GRT people:

    It’s common for media outlets to have big equality and diversity initiatives, but these don’t usually explicitly extend to Gypsies and Travellers, and nor do they necessarily impact editorial decisions.

    One journalist suggested improvement was partly an issue of power and workplace democracy. Bottom-up change is also tough given low union density in many media outlets:

    Depending on how well unionised the paper is, that also determines how much the staff can have an input.

    Policing Bill

    Prejudice informs policy, as the authors point out. And nowhere is this more apparent than the Tory’s Policing Bill. Critics have long warned that GRT people’s way of life will be criminalised by the legislation.

     

    The Canary recently interviewed (video above) GRT journalist Jake Bowers, who warned:

    It has direct parallels in history. In 1936, the Nazis passed a similar decree, which said that all Romany should stop traveling so that they can be kept an eye on by the police. This is the beginning of that thin end of the wedge of persecution. And we’re resisting it with everything we’ve got.

    Media culture

    Media That Moves indicts press coverage of GRT people, but it also does a lot more. The report is a wide-ranging critique of the British press. And GRT misreporting can’t be separated from the grim state of British journalism. Bad editors, media tycoons, hard-pressed journalists, clickbait over proper critical research, a lack of press regulation – all of these shape how the public see the world. And at the moment, they shape it for the worse.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Adam Calma/IAEA, cropped to 770 x 403, Licenced via CC BY 2.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 1 February, human rights organisation Liberty launched a judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of the Metropolitan police’s gangs matrix. Acting on behalf of two clients, Liberty intends to take the Met to court on the grounds that the gangs matrix is racist, and breaches human rights law. Liberty is urging people to support the case by raising awareness and donating to their fundraiser.

    The gangs matrix

    The gangs matrix is a database of people that the Met police thinks could be gang affiliated. The watchlist’s unclear criteria includes who people are friends with, or what music videos they share on social media. According to the criteria, sharing drill or grime music videos can help the Met place someone on the watchlist. Both of these genres are firmly rooted in Black British youth culture.

    In 2019, Wired found that the watchlist includes children as young as 13. And a 2020 report by Amnesty found that in 2017, 78% of people on the gangs matrix were Black, even though only 27% of individuals convicted of serious youth violence offences were Black. 

    The Met shares gang matrix data with other bodies, including immigration authorities, schools, workplaces and NHS service providers. This increases people’s risk of deportation and unfair treatment. 

    According to Liberty, police consider most people on the matrix to be “low risk”. But the watchlist’s “enforcement actions” are extremely damaging. They include exclusion from school, benefits and housing, as well as eviction. Police are also likely to target those on the matrix with more stops and searches and police surveillance.

    Police don’t tell people if they are on the watchlist. And there is no way for individuals to appeal their inclusion, or seek a review of the data.

    Liberty lawyer Lana Adamou said:

    We all want to feel safe in our communities, but the gangs matrix isn’t about keeping us safe – it’s about keeping tabs on and controlling people, with communities of colour and Black people worst affected.

    Arguing that the gangs matrix “is fuelled heavily by racist stereotypes”, she added:

    Secret databases that risk young Black men being excluded from society based on racist assumptions are not a solution to serious violence, they are part of the problem.

    Challenging the discriminatory database

    Liberty has launched a judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of the Met’s gangs matrix on the grounds “that it discriminates against people of colour, particularly Black men and boys, and breaches human rights, data protection requirements and public law principles”. 

    Liberty is acting on behalf of Awate Suleiman, who has experienced and witnessed harassment by Met police since childhood. Suleiman tried to find out whether he is on the gangs matrix in 2019. The Met only told Suleiman that he isn’t on the database in December 2021 after he threatened legal action.

    Suleiman told Liberty:

    The fact that I had to threaten the police with judicial review before they would confirm whether I was on the GVM [gangs violence matrix] is not good enough and another indication of the Met’s intention to covertly surveil young, black people.

    Liberty’s legal team is also acting on behalf of Unjust UK, an organisation that works to challenge discriminatory policing.

    Unjust UK’s founder Katrina Ffrench told Liberty:

    The clandestine nature of the Gangs Matrix must be challenged. Everyone has a right to be policed fairly and treated equally before the law. It is hoped that the decade-long wrongs of the Matrix can be remedied in bringing this case.

    Featured image via Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona/Unsplash 

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A jury at Bristol Crown court was shown footage of police officers hitting protesters outside Bristol’s Bridewell police station last year. The protesters included the defendant in the case – Jasmine York – who was hit repeatedly with a baton.

    Jasmine is currently on trial at Bristol Crown Court charged with riot and arson; she denies both charges. If convicted, she could face years in prison. Jasmine is just one of 85 people who have been arrested for the events of 21 March. The prosecution began its case against Jasmine on 31 January.

    Footage shown to the court showed police officers striking out numerous times at several protesters. One demonstrator is seen to be violently hit over the head with a rectangular police riot shield. This is despite the fact that one of the police witnesses confirmed that police guidance says that blows not should be directed toward the head or neck.

    “We couldn’t see the tarmac for protesters”

    The case relates to the massive Kill the Bill demonstration on 21 March 2021. Thousands took to the streets to protest the government’s proposed Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill. Clashes between the police and protesters at the demonstration ended with Bridewell police station’s windows being smashed, and three police vehicles being set alight.

    The court heard how the police were taken by surprise by the size of the protest. PC Sean Oliver – giving evidence for the prosecution – said that as protesters were leaving College Green he “couldn’t see the tarmac” on the road because of the large numbers of people

    The bill will “give more power to the state”

    A statement – written in support of Jasmine – by Bristol Anti-Repression Campaign, explains the context of the protest:

    The Bill seeks to give more power to the state, police and prison system at a time when the police are only being further exposed for their institutional racism, misogyny and brutality.

    The statement goes on:

    On 21 March, demonstrators like Jasmine faced repeated and excessive violence from police officers. Indeed, the horrific injuries received by Jasmine at the hands of police have been widely disseminated in the media.

    62 demonstrators were injured in a succession of protests in Bristol between 21 and 26 March.

    Police were “outnumbered”

    Police sergeant (PS) Williams said that the police were “outnumbered” by the crowd outside Bridewell, while PS Smart admitted that if the whole crowd had all pushed forward together they would have broken through police lines.

    Very little of the police officers’ evidence related to Jasmine. And none of the officers mentioned the violence by the police, until it was brought out in cross-examination by defence barrister Russell Fraser.

    Much of the police evidence relating to Jasmine was about chanting. Footage shown to the court showed Jasmine chanting “A, C, A, B – All cops are bastards”, “Who do you protect?”, and “Kill the Bill”.

    Say her name

    PC Sean Oliver told the jury that protesters on College Green had come together to remember Sarah Everard, who was murdered in 2021 by serving police officer Wayne Couzens. Tragically, Oliver wasn’t able to remember Sarah’s name correctly, stumbling over her surname in his evidence and eventually calling her “Sarah Everett”. He also failed to remember the name of Priti Patel, who he said protesters were chanting about. He called the home secretary “Preta”.

    Oliver was acting as a police evidence gatherer on the day, involved in videoing the people taking part in the protest. His evidence – as well as the police Operational Log – showed that Avon & Somerset Police were closely monitoring protesters on the day.

    Confrontation at Bridewell

    Much later in the day, demonstrators ended up at Bridewell Police station.

    The court was shown a video of police moving in after protesters graffitied a police van and began to rock it. Police are soon seen to don riot gear.

    Fraser cross-examined detective constable Leanne Wheats, the officer in charge of the case, about a piece of footage showing an incident just after the rocking of the police van by protesters. Confrontation between the police and protesters appears to have begun to subside. Then police officers are seen to assault a photographer standing in the crowd, shoving him. The crowd reacts angrily, and seconds later a police officer is seen striking a young woman in the crowd repeatedly with his baton.

    “Kill the Bill”

    The footage showed that – after the incident with the photographer – police in riot gear quickly formed a line across the street. Police officers can be seen striking people in the crowd.

    Fraser played Wheats a piece of footage showing another man being violently shoved to the ground by officers and then kicked repeatedly. He is seen struggling to get up, as officers loom over him.

    Seconds later, Jasmine can be seen intervening to protect a woman who is facing a line of riot police.

    In fact, throughout the footage, Jasmine can be seen acting protectively towards several female-presenting protesters who are facing violence from the riot police.

    Inconsistencies in police accounts

    Police witness PS Smart said that he “played rugby and American football” and was a “large” person who had policed a riot before. Despite this, he claimed he was “terrified” while policing the protest on 21 March. He also alleged that he had heard the crowd chanting “kill the police”.

    However, when Fraser cross-examined him, Smart was forced to go back on his previous statement, and admitted that the crowd had in fact been chanting ‘Kill the Bill’ – the slogan adopted by the mass-movement against the policing bill.

    Smart said that he had felt personally targeted after the crowd began shouting out his collar number (a number used to identify police officers). In response, Fraser suggested that shouting collar numbers is a common tactic used by protesters, so that legal observers can make a note of them.

    Fraser played several pieces of footage from 21 March to Smart. The footage showed that Smart had pushed a female-presenting protester to the ground. Fraser asked him why he did this. Smart responded:

    you’ve got to keep your line, keep your footing. that’s the whole point of the exercise. I had already warned them, and if they need to be pushed back, that’s what we need to do.

    Fraser described how Jasmine intervened to protect the person that Smart had pushed over. Fraser said to Smart:

    after the female is on the ground, Miss York is in front of you, arms extended out at the side of her, telling you to stop.

    Smart admitted that he pushed Jasmine at this point.

    “Still a legitimate target?”

    Fraser played another piece of footage showing Smart striking Jasmine repeatedly.

    Under cross-examination, Smart admitted that he struck Jasmine with a baton. Fraser pointed out that Jasmine “has her lower arms up around her forearms”, crossed across her chest. He asked Smart if Jasmine was “still a legitimate target?”. Smart replied:

    not a target, but it’s the whole crowd dynamic. If the only way to get them away is the use of force then you have to do that.

    It’s a situation where you need to be able to fight your corner and push back.

    Use of horses

    The footage shows that – soon after the incident where PC Smart strikes Jasmine – police on horseback were deployed.

    The jury heard evidence from PS Williams about the use of police horses. She initially told the court that the horses had been forced to retreat because of missiles, but under cross-examination from Fraser, she was forced to admit that this was not the case. In fact, the horses couldn’t enter the crowd because of people sitting or lying in the road. Fraser said:

    may I ask you about when the horses were brought into the road, the horses were unable to move into the crowd. You said there was shouting and missiles.

    Fraser pointed out that Williams’ evidence was not consistent with her statement. He said:

    Look at page six of your statement. you will see that you said “when we split to make room for the horses, the protesters sat or laid down preventing this from happening”.

    Dog bite

    The court then heard from Liam Biggs, a police dog handler. Biggs said that he was given orders to disperse the crowd from the vicinity of Bridewell.

    Biggs told the court that he saw Jasmine after she had been bitten by one of his colleague’s dogs, and that she was “holding her leg”.

    When cross-examined by Fraser about why the dog bit Jasmine, Biggs said:

    I didn’t see what led up to the bite.

    He later said:

    dogs always have a handler. If you’re walking past a passive person then it shouldn’t engage.

    Fraser asked

    What about people walking away from a dog or facing a dog? The people need not be doing anything?

    Biggs responded

    it depends if the dog perceives the person as a threat.

    Fraser went on to ask:

    So if a person was dragging their heels a bit they might be in jeopardy?

    Biggs replied:

    potentially

    The court was then shown a piece of footage showing the moment Jasmine was bitten. She and others are walking away with their backs to the police. A police officer can be heard shouting:

    Move! Move! Move! Move back!

    “I just went to a peaceful protest in Bristol and I got hit with a baton three times and then bit by a dog”

    The court was shown pictures of the injuries Jasmine sustained at the hands of the police on 21 March, which were publicised at the time by the Guardian and Al Jazeera. The court heard that Jasmine went to hospital in the days following the protest so that her injuries could be examined.

    As the prosecution case drew to a close, Fraser played Wheats a recording of Jasmine calling the police just hours after the protest and reporting that she had been injured by officers. Jasmine called 101 and said:

    I just went to a peaceful protest in Bristol and I got hit with a baton three times and then bit by a dog

    She continued:

    also I think my left hand is broken

    Jasmine asks the operator:

    when you get hit by police who do you report to?

    The operator replies:

    to the police and then we take it from there.

    Jasmine goes on to ask:

    do you see a flaw in that?

    The operator says that she doesn’t.

    Jasmine says that she was hit by three male officers, one of whom was six foot tall. She confirmed that it was all on video, including the “dog mauling”.

    The trial continues.

    Featured image via Screenshot/Ruptly

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A new oil and gas field in the North Sea has been approved by the UK government – a move that has prompted a damning response from environmental campaigners.

    The Abigail field, which lies about 233km (145 miles) from Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, has been given the go-ahead for construction and is set to cost about 200 million US dollars (£150 million), according to Rystad Energy data.

    Tessa Khan, director of Uplift, a campaign group working towards a fossil fuel-free UK, said the new site “only worsens the climate crisis,” and urged the UK government to stop sanctioning oil and gas developments.

    Ignoring the climate crisis

    The plans for the new field were given the green light on January 19 by the Oil and Gas Authority – just over two months after Glasgow held the world’s Cop26 event where thousands of delegates descended on the city to talk about their methods to tackle the climate crisis around the globe.

    Abigail, which is owned by Ithaca Energy, is due to contain 5.5m barrels of oil equivalent, which will be split equally between oil and gas.

    Campaigners have claimed that the “tiny” new field will only produce enough gas to meet UK demand for roughly a day and a half.

    Oil and gas
    Climate activists protesting oil and gas projects during a demonstration in Glasgow at Cop26 in November last year (Andrew Milligan/PA)

    Khan said:

    Why is the Government sanctioning an oil and gas development that will see little to no benefit for UK energy customers or taxpayers, which only worsens the climate crisis, and where the only winners are the oil firm behind the project?

    If we carry on down this path, we’ll be dependent on a very expensive, highly polluting energy source for decades longer than is necessary.

    A serious response from the Government to both unaffordable energy bills and the climate crisis, would see all this investment steered into cheaper UK renewables.

    The Government needs to stop rolling over for the oil and gas industry, stop dishing out licences, and get on with making sure people have access to affordable, renewable energy.”

    “Climate science is crystal clear”

    Caroline Rance, climate and energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said the UK Government should immediately pull the plug on granting further permission for new oil and gas projects.

    She said a managed phasing out of existing fields should be done to ensure a “just transition for affected workers and communities”. She continued:

    Every new field harms the ability of workers to transition by continuing to channel public money and support into fossil fuels instead of into increasing renewables, creating new jobs and supporting workers to retrain.

    Rance said the announcement is an example of the UK Government “saying one thing and doing another,” having reaffirmed their commitment to “keeping 1.5ºC alive” at Cop26 just months before approving the new field.

    The Government’s so-called climate test is designed to set the bar so low that the oil industry gets to lock us into their climate-wrecking business as usual for decades to come,”

    The simple fact is that there is no such thing as a climate-compatible oil and gas development.

    Climate science is crystal clear that burning fossil fuels is the key driver of the climate crisis and that there can be no new oil and gas fields anywhere in the world if we’re to limit warming to the 1.5C limit.

    Both campaigners echoed the United Nations general-secretary Antonio Guterres’s comments saying the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report last year must “sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet”.

    The UK Government has been approached for comment.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • CONTENT WARNING: This article contains references to sexual violence and criminal acts perpetrated by police officers

    A watchdog has published “shocking” racist, sexist, and homophobic messages exchanged by police officers. The highly offensive language uncovered was dismissed as “banter”. The messages have been revealed while a review of ‘culture’ at the Met is ongoing.

    “I would happily rape you”

    Details of messages from WhatsApp groups and a Facebook chat group including multiple references to rape, violence against women, and racist and homophobic abuse were unveiled by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) on 1 February.

    The watchdog took the unusual step of publishing the messages in full – despite the fact that much of the content is too offensive to print in mainstream news coverage – as it detailed the “disgraceful” behaviour of Metropolitan Police officers based in a now disbanded Westminster team between 2016 and 2018.

    Nine are still serving with the force, while another is working as a contractor in a staff role.

    Messages exchanged in two WhatsApp groups and one Facebook group included multiple references to sexual violence including, “I would happily rape you” and “if I was single I would happily chloroform you”.

    In other discussions one officer bragged that he had hit his girlfriend, and told a colleague: “It makes them love you more”, while another boasted that he had repeatedly slept with a prostitute who he met through work.

    One officer was referred to as “mcrapey raperson” in WhatsApp messages because of rumours that he had brought a woman to a police station to have sex with her.

    Homophobic language was also used including one entry that said “f*** you bender”, and a number of racist messages including references to African children, Somali people, and Auschwitz that are too offensive to print.

    There were also references to ‘Muslim fanatics’ and offensive terms for disabled people, and messages about police officers attending a festival dressed as known sex offenders and a molested child.

    The Met response

    The messages were uncovered as part of nine linked investigations into officers based in Westminster, mostly at Charing Cross police station, that began in March 2018 after allegations that an officer had sex with a drunk person at a police station that were later found unproven.

    The Metropolitan Police Force and its leader Cressida Dick have been accused of corruption on more than one occassion. Referring to its “values”, the Met said in reference to the latest accusations of police misconduct:

    IOPC regional director Sal Naseem said:

    The behaviour we uncovered was disgraceful and fell well below the standards expected of the officers involved. While these officers predominantly worked in teams in Westminster, which have since been disbanded, we know from other recent cases that these issues are not isolated or historic.

    The learning report we are publishing today is shocking and contains language which is offensive – and some may find it upsetting. However, we felt it was important to provide the context for the public, the Met and other forces, for why such hard-hitting recommendations are necessary.

    The IOPC found that the offensive language was dismissed as banter to hide bullying, and that officers felt unable to raise concerns.

    Messages revealed included: “There’s a few of those grassing c**** I would like to knife”, “grassing is dirty”, and “I’ve made it the no grassing no shit of anyone team… it’s my f****** baby”.

    Naseem said:

    Our investigation showed the officers’ use of ‘banter’ became a cover for bullying and harassment. Colleagues were afraid to speak out about these behaviours for fear of being ostracised, demeaned or told to get another job.

    We are grateful to those officers who were brave enough to speak to us about the cultural issues that existed within these teams, realising that in doing so they risked further bullying. This took courage. Hopefully our learning report and recommendations will give officers the confidence to come forward in the knowledge that people are listening and that changes will be made.

    The relationship between the police and the public is critical to maintaining the principle of policing by consent.

    The concerns about behaviour and culture addressed in our report, if allowed to continue and go unchallenged, risked causing serious damage to that relationship.

    Gross misconduct

    Fourteen officers were investigated by the IOPC, and two were found to have a case to answer for gross misconduct – one of whom resigned and one was sacked. Misconduct was proven against another two, one of whom received a written warning. Another four had internal measures to improve their performance.

    Deputy assistant commissioner Bas Javid said:

    I am angry and disappointed to see officers involved in sharing sexist, racist and discriminatory messages. It’s clear we have a lot of work to do to ensure bullying and discrimination does not exist in any part of the Met.

    The actions of these officers between 2016 and 2018 were unacceptable, unprofessional, disrespectful and deeply offensive. I read their messages with increasing disgust and shame.

    We haven’t waited for the IOPC’s report to take action – a number of officers have been subject to misconduct proceedings, including one officer dismissed and one who would have been dismissed had he not already resigned.

    Every Met employee has also been spoken to about responsible use of social media.

    We recognise that there is need for real change in the Met and we are committed to creating an environment that is even more intolerant to those who do not uphold the high values and standards expected of us.

    Culture

    A review of culture and standards in the Met is currently being carried out by baroness Casey. It comes in the wake of the rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, and the violent policing of a vigil following her death.

    Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said:

    I am utterly disgusted by the behaviour outlined in this IOPC report, which details the shocking evidence of discrimination, misogyny, harassment and bullying by police officers.

    The conduct of these officers was totally unacceptable and what has been revealed by these investigations will only further damage public trust and confidence in the police.

    It is right that the team concerned has been disbanded and the police officers found to be involved have been dismissed, disciplined or have left the police.

    Anyone found to be responsible for sexism, racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, antisemitism, bullying or harassment does not deserve to wear the Met uniform and must be rooted out.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Households are borrowing more and putting less money into savings, according to Bank of England figures. At the same time, more than one in five Britons have cut back on energy usage. That’s even before the massive spike in gas and electricity prices coming in April.

    While this is going on, the police are investigating whether Boris Johnson threw parties during lockdown. Parties may be allowed again in Britain, but for those struggling with inflation and rising energy prices, it’s likely they won’t have much to celebrate.

    Rising costs

    Some experts pointed to the household borrowing statistics as evidence of people trying to maintain their lifestyles as their incomes are battered by high inflation. Experts also said the figures suggest that householders are starting to dip into extra savings built up during the pandemic as they juggle rising bills.

    Thomas Pugh, an economist at RSM UK, said:

    Normally, a rise in consumer credit is a good indication that consumption is growing strongly because it tends to expand when the economy is good. People feel confident enough to borrow and splurge on big ticket items, such as cars. However, this time may be different.

    A rise in consumer borrowing over the next year may suggest that consumers are dealing with high inflation and attempting to maintain their lifestyles by borrowing. Indeed, we know that retail sales volumes slumped in December, so it seems unlikely that the £0.8 billion increase in consumer credit in December was due to consumers buying more goods.

    As some have noted, the rich are able to weather the cost-of-living increase more readily than the rest of us:

    Others have pointed at the issues that result from Britain’s perverse housing market:

    Falling temperature

    The Office for National Statistics said that 66% of adults said that their cost of living has increased in the past month, most of whom said that gas and electricity bills had contributed to the rise. Of these, just under a third said that they were cutting back on spending on fuel such as gas and electricity.

    The data offers a glimpse of the cost of living crisis which is only going to get worse in April.

    Overall inflation in the UK hit 5.4% in the 12 months to December, the highest level in nearly three decades. Part of this was caused by a rise in energy costs in October, when the cap on household energy bills was set at a record £1,277 for an average household.

    In April, this cap is expected to rise further, probably to around £1,900 according to experts at Cornwall Insight.

    It is likely to cause pain for millions of households, especially those with less insulation which will need to burn more gas to stay warm. As the Guardian reported, ‘Britain’s damp, leaky homes are among Europe’s most costly to heat’. This is the insulation crisis that protesters have been attempting to draw attention to.

    More than 86% of households in England use gas to heat their homes, according to figures from 2019. But poorly insulated homes are a lot more costly to heat. Average fuel costs in 2019 – before the massive spike – were £1,057 for well-insulated homes. These homes had energy ratings – called SAP – of between A and C. However D-rated homes cost £1,279 to run, while G-rated homes saw fuel bills of £3,071, the ONS said.

    Fewer than half of English homes have a rating of C or higher, according to data from last year.

    Households with lower incomes will have a tougher time. The poorest 10% of households use 54% of their average weekly spend just to cover essentials, which includes energy, housing, food, and transport.

    The richest 10%, meanwhile, spend 42% on the same essentials.

    What can be done?

    Labour has a plan to reduce bills, albeit only by a fraction. Keir Starmer has actually come out in support of maintaining privatised energy – a system in which companies leech profits while customers suffer:

    If your bills rise by close to a thousand pounds and Labour saves you £200, your bill has still risen by close to a thousand pounds. Meanwhile, shareholders continue to profit – shareholders who will possibly donate to the political party that helped keep them filthy rich.

    Starmer actually promised to nationalise energy as part of his ‘ten pledges‘ (using the phrase “common ownership”), but has since U-turned – all the while claiming that ‘common ownership’ isn’t necessarily the same thing as ‘nationalisation’. This is what Starmer promised in his notorious ten pledges:

    Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water

    When the pledge-breaking Starmer was forced to read this live on air, he said to Andrew Marr:

    I don’t see nationalisation there.

    Marr responded:

    What else does public hands mean?

    Starmer responded as you’d expect given the ridiculousness of his position – incoherently:

    Not all Labour politicians have turned against nationalisation, and Starmer is going to struggle to sell the position to an exhausted British public if energy prices remain high at the next election. He’ll likely struggle even if they don’t, as even in 2019 there was a “political consensus” on re-nationalisation.

    Given that Britain has a first past the post electoral system, voters are essentially limited to two choices at the next election: a party that’s dedicated to a failed energy system or a party that’s dedicated to a failed energy system. In other words, the argument for proportional representation has never been stronger.

    Partygate may be the biggest story in the UK right now, but the real scandal is the decades-long party that politicians have been throwing for their shareholder mates.

    Additional reporting and featured image via PA

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on The Canary.