radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Will Boris Johnson’s COVID Hypocrisy Finally Break His Political Grip in the UK?

    Boris Johnson

    A much-awaited report on booze-soaked parties attended by top U.K. officials — including Prime Minister Boris Johnson — in violation of COVID rules was finally released today by senior civil servant Sue Gray. It marks the worst crisis of Boris Johnson’s premiership.

    For 17 of the last 22 months, the U.K. has been in one form or another of COVID lockdown, as the government has tried to negotiate between two instincts. On the one hand, there has been a medical consensus that all should be done to keep fatalities to a minimum. Schools, workplaces and even Parliament closed. Even with those restrictions, a staggering 155,000 people have died in the U.K.: twice as many civilians as in World War II.

    On the other hand, the government contains its fair share of COVID skeptics, not least Prime Minister Johnson himself, who let it be known early in the pandemic that he was taking his lessons from Larry Vaughn, the fictional Mayor in Jaws, who keeps the town’s beaches open in defiance of the shark threat. People are still dying of COVID at the rate of over 2,000 per week, and yet the government is lifting restrictions, repealing laws requiring people to use masks on public transport and in shops.

    When a crisis strikes a democracy, it is the leader who must announce the rules. For two years, U.K. residents have all been reduced to spectators while Johnson fills our screens informing us of the latest intensification or relaxation of the lockdown. When the deaths were at the worst in spring 2020, our prime minister told us that staying at home would “squash the sombrero” of infections. When the rules eased, that summer, he was back on our screens saying that the old regime had been the greatest restriction on our liberty in “peace or war.”

    Over the last month, an increasing number of stories have reported to the effect that, even when the country was in the depths of lockdown and all forms of social contact were prohibited, Johnson and his closest advisers in 10 Downing Street were spending the evenings partying in breach of their own rules. Details of some 15 of these parties have been leaked, with each of them following the same cycle of denial and grudging admission.

    At first, ministers denied that anything took place at all. Then, they denied that officials were present. Then they denied that the prime minister had been involved. In the last week, we have ended up with Conservative members of parliament saying, after the prime minister had been seen partying with officials, family members and friends, that he must have been “ambushed” with a birthday cake.

    The effect of these revelations has been to reduce the Prime Minister’s approval ratings, which have collapsed.

    Until November 2021, Boris Johnson seemed nearly invulnerable. At the moment he became leader of the Conservative Party in summer 2019, that party was languishing in the opinion polls. When Johnson took over, it immediately began to rise. By the time of the general election in December 2019, his party had an 11-point lead over Labour in second, giving the Conservatives their first election landslide since Margaret Thatcher in 1987.

    The key to Johnson’s success has been the perception that he is unlike other politicians. In 1998, he was invited on to the BBC satire show “Have I Got News For You.” Teased there about some of the worst scandals of his early career, the panelists then cooled their attacks, treating Johnson as a fellow humorist. From that point onwards, Johnson has been treated as a clown, beyond the sphere of mere politics.

    The figure of the clown is an enduring type, although there have been more of them in recent years — Silvio Berlusconi, Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro. What such figures have in common is that they tell their followers that everyone in politics lies, and that even they themselves lie. Thus, in admitting that truth, they make themselves the only “honest” people in the room.

    For that reason, previous scandals surrounding Johnson have done nothing to diminish his popularity. As recently as November, the Conservatives were still ahead in the polls, as they had been each month since Johnson was elected leader. It is only since December that Labour has moved ahead — but now, 52 opinion polls put Labour ahead, and some of them by as much as 10 points.

    Populist leaders, it seems, are allowed lose anything — except for their popularity. Lose that, and their party is looking for a new leader. And this is especially true of Johnson’s party.

    British politics are different from American politics. We do not directly elect our prime ministers, who instead emerge from within parliament. You might expect it to follow that any leader gets a chance to test his or her popularity in a general election. However, the Conservative Party has a long track record of removing leaders before they suffer a defeat. Of the last five Conservative prime ministers, only one resigned following a general election setback. All the others (Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, and Theresa May) were forced to leave after their own MPs refused to back them.

    It is worth pausing a moment and asking why this particular issue, the breaking of his own COVID rules, has caused Boris Johnson such difficulty. It is not that public opinion objects in principle to leaders partying. Johnson has been part of our media culture for 20 years: We have seen him drunk with university friends, waving dead pheasants and dangling from an Olympic zipwire. Johnson’s party setting used to be part of his charm.

    The answer is that COVID has polarized society, with only a small and shrinking minority believing that the government has chosen the right path most of the time. One very large group of voters believes that we should be doing much more, even now, to prevent the disease’s spread — that schools should send the sick home, and masks should be compulsory. Another large group of voters believes the opposite — that COVID has been exaggerated, that the deaths have been restricted to those who were always going to die.

    It is the loss of second group which has been most devastating to Johnson. It became visible last month, when crowds gathered to watch the world darts championship, and chants broke out: “Stand Up If You Hate Boris.”

    There is every possibility that Johnson will find some way out of his immediate crisis, and that he will survive (as he so often has before). But should this crisis bring him down, a battle of interpretation will surely follow, with each group of Johnson’s critics struggling to show why he could no longer rule. On the left, we will try to show that Johnson’s arrogance was not a mere personal failing but a fault of the institutions in which he has thrived — our private schools, the right-wing press for which he wrote and writes. Johnson had to be removed from office, we will argue, because of his blatant obstruction of health measures and contribution to catastrophe.

    On the right, however, a different argument is already being made. That argument states that, as little as Johnson did to avert COVID, he was not Bolsonaro, he was not exactly Trump. His crime was that he did too much.

    The debate over what Boris Johnson did wrong brings together the culture wars of the last decade and a controversy as to how best to use the state. It has already started. Whether Johnson survives or not, it is likely to shape British politics — and politics in many parts of the world — for many years to come.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Bristol protester who suffered brutal police injuries could face years in prison

    Crowds of supporters protested outside Bristol Crown Court in solidarity with Jasmine York on 31 January. York is on trial after being brutally beaten by police following Bristol’s Kill The Bill protest on 21 March 2021. On the first day of her trial, a jury heard that York is accused of both riot and arson, after allegedly wheeling a rubbish bin towards a police van that had been set alight.

    York was just one of thousands who took to Bristol’s streets to demonstrate against the Tories’ draconian Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill. The police’s heavy-handed tactics on the day have been well-documented, both in The Canary and in the mainstream press. The Canary’s Sophia Purdy-Moore witnessed riot police hitting protesters round the head with batons, while both the Guardian and Al Jazeera reported that York claimed to have suffered injuries including a dog bite and baton strike.

    Judge Patrick urged the jury to “avoid any emotion” as they hear the evidence against York. He reminded them that it is a court of law, not a court of “morals”. Meanwhile, prosecutor Sarah Regan was keen to paint York as a ringleader of a “mob”. The prosecution showed lengthy footage of the course of events on 21 March, which culminated in three police vehicles being set on fire. Although much of the footage didn’t show York, Regan said in her opening speech:

    it is clear from the footage that even from that early stage, Jasmine York saw herself, not as merely one of a crowd, or someone who was led along with the tide, but as a leader and instigator of what very quickly thereafter unfolded. Because throughout all of that part of events, she wasn’t at the back, or even in the centre of the crowd, but right at the front – directing the mass of people behind her in chants and in their obvious hostility against the police.

    Screams of “no, no, no”
    Footage showed York on camera. She shows her injured hand, and says:
    I believe in the right to peaceful protest. My hand’s not very good…[I was] protecting a woman who was Black who got hit in the face with a baton.
    Another clip was shown to the jury, where York showed her injury after being bitten by a police dog. Further livestream footage from York herself was shown to the court, and the jury heard her screaming:

    no, don’t hit, stop…

    stop hitting her…

    no, no, no, no, no, stop, stop.

    Injuries

    York was just one of at least 62 people who were injured in a succession of protests in Bristol against the police bill between 21 and 26 March. Seven of those injuries required treatment in hospital, and there were at least 22 head injuries. Meanwhile, there was significant misreporting in the mainstream press. Avon and Somerset police falsely reported that officers had received broken bones on the 21 March before quietly retracting the allegations – but only after they had made national headlines. Avon and Somerset’s police chief quit his role after criticism of the policing of the protests although he claimed he made the decision before the events on 21 March.

    If found guilty, York could be facing years in prison, while none of the police officers who brutalised Bristol protesters in March 2021 have been held accountable.

    “A system that brutalises”

    Campaigners travelled from across the country to show their solidarity with York. In fact, there were so many supporters that people were turned away from the packed court room. Speeches were made outside, including by Bristol Anti Repression Campaign (BARC), a group made up of a number of defendants and their supporters. BARC said:

    In the backdrop of the rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, and the violent policing of the resulting vigils, thousands of Bristolians – including Jasmine – took to the streets of Bristol to protest against handing the police further powers through the PCSC bill.
    The group continued:

    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.

    Jasmine has now been charged with riot and arson, and she could face a custodial sentence. We see this as an attempt by the state to intimidate and frighten those who dare to come together to resist against a system that brutalises and impoverishes us.

    Kill The Bill

    So far, 82 people have been arrested – most of them for riot – following the 21 March demonstration. 12 of them have now received sentences totalling over 49 years in prison, including Ryan Roberts, who was sentenced to a brutal 14 years in prison in December. The people of Bristol were outraged that an institution that thrives on misogyny, spies on women, and kills people in custody will get even more powers.

    BARC said:

    We stand beside Jasmine and all of the other protesters facing charges for taking a stand against police violence and repression. They have all of our love, respect and solidarity.

    York was shown on video saying:

    We pose a threat, people are powerful, the institution’s weak…power to the people.

    The trial at Bristol Crown Court continues.

    Featured image via Eliza Egret

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Even Sue Gray’s redacted report makes Downing Street look like Ibiza

    Sue Gray’s abbreviated report into the “partygate” allegations of lockdown-busting gatherings in No 10 and Whitehall has finally been published. Gray was asked by the Metropolitan Police to leave out information relating to ongoing investigations, but what she has been able to publish looks incredibly bad for Boris Johnson and his Downing Street operation:

    The Gray Report

    In the course of the investigation, Gray and her team “carried out interviews of over 70 individuals, some more than once, and examined relevant documentary and digital information, such as emails; Whatsapp messages; text messages; photographs and building entry and exit logs. This has also included searches of official records.”

    TCoronavirus – Thu Jan 13, 2022

    Sue Gray (GOV.UK/PA)

    However, the full report has not been published due to

    the Metropolitan Police’s investigations, and so as not to prejudice the police investigative process, they have told me that it would only be appropriate to make minimal reference to the gatherings on the dates they are investigating. Unfortunately, this necessarily means that I am extremely limited in what I can say about those events and it is not possible at present to provide a meaningful report setting out and analysing the extensive factual information I have been able to gather.

    But the findings were still damning:

    i. Against the backdrop of the pandemic, when the Government was asking citizens to accept far-reaching restrictions on their lives, some of the behaviour surrounding these gatherings is difficult to justify.

    ii. At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.

    iii. At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.

    iv. The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time. Steps must be taken to ensure that every Government Department has a clear and robust policy in place covering the consumption of alcohol in the workplace.

    v. The use of the garden at No 10 Downing Street should be primarily for the Prime Minister and the private residents of No 10 and No 11 Downing Street. During the pandemic it was often used as an extension of the workplace as a more covid secure means of holding group meetings in a ventilated space. This was a sensible measure that staff appreciated, but the garden was also used for gatherings without clear authorisation or oversight. This was not appropriate. Any official access to the space, including for meetings, should be by invitation only and in a controlled environment.

    vi. Some staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but at times felt unable to do so. No member of staff should feel unable to report or challenge poor conduct where they witness it. There should be easier ways for staff to raise such concerns informally, outside of the line management chain.

    vii. The number of staff working in No 10 Downing Street has steadily increased in recent years. In terms of size, scale and range of responsibility it is now more akin to a small Government Department than purely a dedicated Prime Minister’s office. The structures that support the smooth operation of Downing Street, however, have not evolved sufficiently to meet the demands of this expansion. The leadership structures are fragmented and complicated and this has sometimes led to the blurring of lines of accountability. Too much responsibility and expectation is placed on the senior official whose principal function is the direct support of the Prime Minister. This should be addressed as a matter of priority.

    Conclusion

    The Gray report concluded:

    24. The gatherings within the scope of this investigation are spread over a 20-month period – a period that has been unique in recent times in terms of the complexity and breadth of the demands on public servants and indeed the general public. The whole of the country rose to the challenge. Ministers, special advisers and the Civil Service, of which I am proud to be a part, were a key and dedicated part of that national effort. However, as I have noted, a number of these gatherings should not have been allowed to take place or to develop in the way that they did. There is significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across Government. This does not need to wait for the police investigations to be concluded.

    Reaction

    It’s already being suggested that the Gray report leaves out the most “interesting” parts as a result of the Met’s intervention. Even the Mail‘s Dan Hodges didn’t seem impressed:

    It’s also being highlighted that some parties happened in Johnson’s flat:

    The issue is particularly problematic for Johnson who has denied the existence of such parties:

    Finally, some have pointed out that many people don’t need an expansive civil service report to know the difference between right and wrong:

    Additional reporting by PA

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • ‘You think it is a prison’ – inside the barracks used to house refugees

    Refugees housed in an ageing military barracks say they feel like they are in a “prison” at risk of coronavirus despite the Home Office claiming it has made improvements to the controversial site.

    People living in Napier Barracks in Kent – many of whom risked death in the English Channel to get to the UK – sleep in 20-bed dormitories separated by curtains.

    The military site in Folkestone dates back more than 130 years and its use to house refugees has been fiercely criticised by campaigners, particularly following a major outbreak of coronavirus last year.

    As the Home Office prepares to use another military base in nearby Manston to process asylum seekers, the PA news agency heard from a number of Napier residents who spoke of poor conditions and safety fears.

    Brexit
    Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, says the accommodation is ‘far from ideal’ (PA)

    “We are always at risk”

    One man who has lived at the barracks for six weeks said:

    I can tell you Napier camp it’s a very bad place for living.

    You don’t have a room alone, you can’t go outside for a long time. It’s very bad because you think it is a prison.

    He said he does not feel safe from Covid-19 at the barracks, adding:

    Every time, there are three or four buildings in the camp in quarantine.

    Another who had been there for five weeks said the site is old and unclean.

    He added:

    It is not safe because we have no doors – we are always at risk.

    One man who arrived at Napier Barracks in the past two weeks said staff and security were friendly and polite. But he added that bathrooms are “dirty” and said he does not feel safe in relation to Covid-19.

    Others spoke about difficulty sleeping in the busy dormitories.

    People coming to the UK for safety deserve better

    A Home Office spokesperson said:

    We provide safe accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, including 24/7 access to healthcare.

    We have made significant improvements to Napier Barracks in the last year and continue to do so, including more recreational and outdoor activities, additional coronavirus tests and reduced capacity.

    Our New Plan for Immigration will overhaul the broken asylum system. We will welcome people through safe and legal routes whilst preventing abuse of the system.”

    But Clare Moseley, founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, which has supported people living in Napier Barracks since it opened, said:

    Institutional accommodation that is set far from local communities can never be the right place for people who have come to the UK in need of safety. It is essential that they can access healthcare, faith centres and other amenities, and integrate within society.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Hospital workers will take strike action over Serco pay injustice

    Hundreds of hospital workers including porters, cleaners and catering staff, will launch strike action from Monday in a dispute over pay.

    Members of Unite employed by outsourcing company Serco at London hospitals St Barts, the Royal London and Whipps Cross, will walk out for two weeks.

    Unite claimed that the mainly Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority staff are paid up to 15% less than directly employed NHS workers.

    Serco said it had recently increased its pay offer to a total of 3%, backdated to last April, adding it was the same as that being received by people directly employed by the NHS.

    “It’s time to end this injustice”

    Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said:

    The NHS workers taking strike action have their union’s unwavering support. They face the same risks as NHS-employed staff. Why on earth are they being paid significantly worse while being treated disgracefully?

    It’s time to end this injustice. It’s time to bring these workers, employed by Serco not the NHS, back into NHS employment.

    Unite regional secretary Peter Kavanagh said:

    Our members have worked tirelessly through the pandemic, they deserve better. Serco and Barts need to deliver a pay increase that addresses the poor pay and the inequality of treatment compared to directly employed NHS staff at other hospitals in London.

    Shane DeGaris, deputy group chief executive at Barts Health NHS Trust, said:

    Over the next 13 months we will be considering future arrangements of the facilities management contract, which could include bringing some services back in-house.

    We are hopeful that this matter can be resolved but are working with Serco to put the appropriate measures in place and ensure hospital services are supported if strike action does go ahead.

    A rally will be held outside the Royal London Hospital on Monday and later in the week at St Barts and Whipps Cross.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Partygate isn’t the only scandal the PM is facing today

    The government has been accused of “negligence on an industrial scale” after it emerged it has spent in the region of half a billion pounds on useless personal protective equipment (PPE). It comes as a reminder that regardless of how Boris Johnson fares in the Sue Gray report, ‘partygate’ is far from his only ongoing scandal:

    Waste

    The Liberal Democrats warned against waste at a time when “pockets don’t run deep” after a parliamentary written question revealed that billions of PPE items in government stocks either cannot be used or are not currently needed. While you should always be wary of Liberal Democrats talking about ‘waste’ given their role in the disastrous austerity government, it’s unarguable that we shouldn’t be throwing money at personal ‘protective’ equipment that fails to protect. To make matters worse, this is all being revealed as the Tories prepare to raise national insurance on working people to improve the NHS’s financial situation:

    The question on waste, tabled by Lib Dem chief whip Wendy Chamberlain, asked for the amount of PPE purchased by the government that has not been put to use because it is unwanted or unusable, along with its total cost.

    Wendy Chamberlain
    Lib Dem chief whip Wendy Chamberlain (Aaron Chown/PA)

    In response, health minister Edward Argar said the PPE programme has ordered over 36.4 billion items since March 2020, of which 3.4 billion units are currently identified as “potential excess stock”, with a purchase price of roughly £2.2bn. In addition, a total of 6.96 billion items are not currently provided to frontline services.

    Argar said:

    This can be for a variety of reasons, including new stock that has not yet cleared assurance processes or where a different product is preferred.

    Of these 6.96 billion items, the health minister said 1.2 billion – purchased for an estimated £458m – are “deemed to be not fit for use”. Quite what they are fit for or why we bought them is unclear. Perhaps we use them for comparison when buying stuff that works?

    Chamberlain said:

    This is extreme negligence on an industrial scale. The Government is burning a hole in the pocket of the taxpayer through its wastage of personal protective equipment, at a time when those pockets don’t run deep.

    As people are noting in response to the government’s ongoing fiscal fiascos:

    PPE
    The government has blown around half a billion pounds on PPE that is unfit for use (Victoria Jones/PA)

    Scandals galore

    A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said:

    We have been working tirelessly to deliver PPE to protect our health and social care staff on the frontline, with over 17.5 billion PPE items delivered so far.

    Where we have surplus stock of PPE, we have a range of measures we can take, including sales, donations, re-use and recycling or recovering costs from the supplier. In addition, we are working on plans to extend shelf life where appropriate.

    The eagle-eyed among you will notice this gives no clue as to how we ended up with so much unusable PPE.

    Among the other scandals trailing behind Johnson like toilet roll from a buffoon’s trousers is the ‘VIP lanes’ affair:

    Some of these PPE contracts have infamously gone to Tory donors. And as Angela Rayner said earlier this month:

    The Government’s VIP lane for PPE procurement wasn’t just dodgy, it was actually illegal. That was not my opinion, but the judgment of a High Court yesterday.

    Another ongoing scandal revolves around the billions in pandemic fraud that the government chose to write off:

    The Gray report might claim that Johnson had no clue that the string of parties he allegedly attended were parties. Others might argue he had no idea about the ‘industrial scale negligence’ his government oversaw. If either of those things are true, however, then why the hell is this literal no-nothing being allowed to run the country?

    Additional reporting and featured image via PA

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Keir Starmer just betrayed the Bloody Sunday victims

    It’s been 50 years since British troops murdered 14 unarmed civilians in the north of Ireland. Some former Labour leaders have properly acknowledged the massacre. But Keir Starmer managed to whitewash the British state’s responsibility for it. And his position sums up that of the establishment towards Bloody Sunday 1972 and Ireland more broadly.

    Bloody Sunday 1972

    British forces committed the Bloody Sunday massacre on 30 January 1972. It was when British paratroopers entered the Bogside in Derry and shot and ultimately killed 13 civil rights protesters. One victim died four months later. British paratroopers injured another 14 people. The massacre, in some respects, is fairly clear cut: British soldiers killed 14 unarmed civilians. But justice for the victims and their families has never happened. You can read more on Bloody Sunday here. 

    In 2010, the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday cleared the 14 dead of any wrongdoing. Since then, the UK government and judicial system has not given the victims and their families justice. As The Canary previously reported, in 2019 the British state said that just one of the 17 surviving soldiers who committed the killings would face prosecution. Soldier F was allegedly responsible for the murders of William McKinney and James Wray.

    In July 2021, however, the north of Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service dropped the case. The brother of McKinney, who was killed by British troops, can appeal the ruling. Those in the army who gave the orders to the paratroopers, and their colleagues in the UK government who oversaw the operation, have still not faced any form of inquiry or prosecution.

    The British government: the “catalyst in the war in Ireland”

    In the days leading up to 30 January 2022, people were paying tribute to the victims. People took part in a remembrance walk on the day. They then gathered at the Bloody Sunday Monument in Rossville Street, where the annual memorial service and wreath-laying ceremony took place.

    McKinney’s brother Michael said in a speech:

    The British government intend to announce an end to all legacy investigations. They intend to announce it because they’re scared. Scared that their soldiers, spooks and civil servants will be exposed, and that their role as a combatant and catalyst in the war in Ireland will be highlighted around the world. They are trying to deny us justice because they are scared to face justice.

    But we want to send a very clear warning to the British government. If they pursue their proposals, the Bloody Sunday families will be ready to meet them head on.

    Starmer: omitting the state’s involvement

    As The Canary‘s Peadar O’Cearnaigh tweeted, much of the commentary and coverage failed to mention who killed the 14:

    One of those people absolving the British soldiers and the state of any responsibility was Starmer.

    He tweeted his tribute for the victims. And it failed to mention anyone as a perpetrator:

    So, as Young Labour rightly summed up:

    Meanwhile, on Saturday 29 January, former Labour leader and MP Jeremy Corbyn was in Derry. He was giving the annual Bloody Sunday lecture. Corbyn said:

    it’s an outrage that nobody has been prosecuted for the deaths of 14 innocent civilian protesters. And it’s a double outrage that the British government is now planning legislation to make it even harder for such an effort to succeed.

    Nothing changes

    But Corbyn’s view is in isolation. The British establishment and state’s attitude to Irish people has been vile throughout history. As The Canary‘s Peadar O’Cearnaigh previously wrote:

    A recorded telephone conversation between two British army officers on Bloody Sunday, where they make light of the numbers killed, gives an insight into their thinking.

    And:

    The Black and Tans were the paratroopers’ predecessor. They were responsible for part of the previous Bloody Sunday in Dublin in 1920. That day they murdered 13 Irish civilians watching a football match. After the Irish rebels defeated them, some of the Black and Tans served in the British Palestine Gendarmerie.

    And as The Canary also reported, the attitude by the British establishment towards Irish suffering during the famine in the 1840s has changed little.

    So, why would former director of public prosecutions and knight of the realm Starmer behave any differently?

    “Planned” and “calculated”

    As LibCom noted, ex-British Army intelligence officer Fred Holroyd said that the establishment often paints Bloody Sunday 1972 as:

    an act of undisciplined slaughter perpetrated by blood-crazed Paras. This assumption though is wrong and to a large extent lets the British establishment off the hook. By assuming that soldiers “ran amok” it puts the blame on individual soldiers who pulled triggers and killed people. Bloody Sunday was a planned, calculated response to a demand for civil rights, designed to terrify organised protestors away from protesting. It fits easily into the catalogue of British involvement in Ireland as a quite logical and even natural event.

    Starmer is the British establishment. Therefore, his attitude to the victims and their families is also “quite logical” – even if it utterly betrays them in the process. Meanwhile, these families are still fighting for justice after half a century. Sadly, given the British state’s history, it seems that fight will continue for many years to come.

    Featured image via Joseph Mischyshyn  – Geograph, resized to 770 x 403 pixels under CC BY-SA 2.0, and Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Universal Credit rule changes are more DWP dystopia

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has made another change to Universal Credit. Some people have already branded the move “callous”. Behind the headlines, the DWP’s new rule is a complex issue. The move also shows a continuation of a DWP approach that’s often failed to support claimants. And it’s part of the Tories’ wider, dystopian agenda that’s been brewing for years.

    Universal Credit: the three-month rule

    BBC News reported that the DWP is changing the rules for Universal Credit. It noted that:

    Jobseekers on Universal Credit will have to look for jobs outside their chosen field more quickly or face sanctions under new government plans.

    Currently, Universal Credit rules state that:

    A claimant who has previously carried out work

    1. of a particular nature or

    2. paid at a particular level

    must have their work search requirement and work availability requirement limited to work of that nature or level of pay

    This was for a period of three months. For example, take a teacher who lost their job and then claimed Universal Credit. The DWP would in principle have to let them look for another teaching job for three months. After this, the teacher would have to look for any kind of work. But the DWP had discretion over this. The three-month rule was allowed if a DWP advisor thought that:

    the claimant has reasonable prospects of getting paid work with those limitation(s)

    We don’t know how often DWP advisors ignored the three-month rule. And now, the government is changing it anyway.

    DWP: toughening the rules

    As BBC News reported:

    people will have to look outside their sectors after just four weeks, rather than three months.

    If they fail to make “reasonable efforts” to get a job, or turn down employment, they could see their benefit payment reduced.

    Ministers want 500,000 jobseekers in work by the end of June.

    As part of the jobs push – called “Way to Work” – claimants will have to widen their job search outside their previous occupation or sector.

    So the DWP would now only let that same teacher search for a teaching job for a month. After that, they’d have to look at a much broader selection of work.

    “Helping people”

    Work and pensions secretary Thérèse Coffey said that Way to Work was a “step change”. She noted that:

    Our new approach will help claimants get quickly back into the world of work while helping ensure employers get the people they and the economy needs.

    Coffey also said that the idea was that:

    Helping people get any job now, means they can get a better job and progress into a career.

    For claimants, all of this will be under a DWP threat of sanctions if they “do not engage” with Way to Work. And people have already been criticising the policy.

    “Callous”

    The Lib Dems’ Wendy Chamberlain called Way to Work a “callous move”. Labour’s Alison McGovern said it was “tinkering at the edges”. The policy also ignores the fact that in-work poverty is at a record high of 17.4%. But it was think tank the Resolution Foundation’s Hannah Slaughter who got to the heart of the issue. She told BBC News:

    those claiming Universal Credit are already flowing off the benefit and into work quickly. This package is therefore poorly targeted at the actual problem our labour market now faces – which is people not looking for work at all.

    And the DWP’s own data backs this up.

    Unevidenced policy?

    It shows that as of December 2021, just over 179,000 people who were “searching for work” had been on Universal Credit less than three months. So the new rule would mostly hit these people. But there were over 1.5 million claimants who had been “searching for work” for three months and over – Way to Work won’t affect any of them.

    The largest group was of those who had been searching for work for between one and two years – nearly 670,000 people. Then, between September-November 2021, around one million people who were searching for work left Universal Credit. In other words, the number of people leaving Universal Credit was far greater than those who were on it for less than three months.

    But the policy will affect new claimants. It could force people out of industries for which they’ve trained for years. And for some people, the process could have career-ending consequences.

    Career-ending implications

    As a parliamentary briefing noted, the pandemic hit the creative industries hard. One estimate in July 2021 put the job losses at 110,000. In the music industry alone, there was a 35% drop in employment from 2019 to 2020. 69,000 jobs were lost in 2020. Employers furloughed 55% of creative industry jobs. And more than 80,000 claims were made to the Self Employment Support Scheme (SEIS).

    We don’t know how many people from the industry claim Universal Credit. But the creative arts union Equity found that in October 2021, 65% of its members relied on Universal Credit. This would equate to around 30,000 people. Now, any people from the creative arts who claim social security will have just four weeks to get a job in the industry. Otherwise, the DWP will force them to do anything. People in the creative arts ‘gigging’ in other fields between work is not knew. But the DWP forcing them to, in return for social security entitlements, could potentially be career-ending. This is because the DWP may force them to keep these jobs or face sanctions.

    Moreover, the DWP has already been a nightmare for some people in the creative arts who are self-employed. 

    ‘Pushing creatives to the edge’

    London-based MIRI is an independent musician. She’s an ambassador for female music organisation the F-List and creatives group Women in CTRL. MIRI also does a lot of work for LGBTQI+ groups.

    MIRI is very aware of the effect that the pandemic, coupled with the DWP, has had on creatives. She told The Canary:

    Self employed people who’ve lost work due to the pandemic are being asked to attend appointments to prove that they are gainfully self employed. Universal Credit no longer takes into account that we’re still in a pandemic. For creatives like me, that has meant a loss of performance income for two years as well as other work cancellations. The job coaches are just there to tick boxes.

    Between December 2021 and January 2022 I lost around £600 of income due to cancellations. Part of my work includes co running music sessions in mental health units. Due to an outbreak in the wards I haven’t been able to do that; I probably won’t be able to until the end of February.

    It’s important that music organisations are aware of what creatives are being put through by the system. They obviously didn’t know what would happen when advising people to on to Universal Credit at the start of the pandemic. Creatives need a voice from those organisations because this treatment isn’t ok.

    We’re already in a mental health crisis. Now, the DWP’s treatment of creatives I’ve spoken to is pushing them to the edge mentally, emotionally and physically. There’s enough stresses with national insurance, energy and food prices going up without adding to the pressure.

    Punitive and regressive

    The thinking behind the DWP’s latest move is nothing new. Forcing people to accept any work under the threat of sanctions was pioneered by the Labour governments of 1997-2010. Meanwhile, while in opposition, the Tories were already planning Universal Credit. As I wrote in 2018:

    Central to this was ‘dynamic modelling’, the idea of creating a system that changed people’s behaviour to get them into work… Essentially, this meant cutting people’s money so they had no choice but to get a job. Or, in the case of in-work benefits like tax credits, cutting them as people started earning more.

    This thinking was based on behavioural economics. And when the Tories came to power in 2010, they put it into practice. Behavioural science (basing policy on how you think people will react to it) was central to how the DWP worked. It was also heavily used during the government’s pandemic response. On both counts, it failed. DWP sanctions failed to get people into long-term work. And behavioural science’s failed approach to the pandemic may have cost countless lives.

    Business as usual at the DWP

    For Coffey to call Way to Work a “step change” is somewhat disingenuous. Yes, it represents a shift in what the DWP expects claimants to do. But the overall approach is the same as it’s always been. The department is acting out wider plans for the Tories. As I previously wrote, Universal Credit sums up their mindset:

    It sanctions low paid workers who aren’t doing enough to get more work; penalises lone parents; cuts free school meals; reduces support for disabled people with severe impairments. And, by design, it encourages people’s reliance on charity – note the rise of food banks.

    Now, the pandemic has given the Tories an opportunity to entrench all of this. Their latest DWP policy shift will further resign claimants to insecure, poverty-causing work. I previously called Universal Credit and the Tories’ wider agendas “dystopian”. That’s only becoming truer with time.

    Featured image via Video Blogg Productions/The Canary and UK government – Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Met police pay compensation to Spycops victim, but justice is yet to be served

    On 25 January, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) ordered the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan Police to pay just under £230k, including payment of legal costs, to political activist Kate Wilson. This was for the breach of five of her human rights.

    But justice is far from being served.

    In her own words

    The perpetrator of this abuse was married police officer Mark Kennedy, who used the undercover name ‘Mark Stone’. Kennedy formed a long-term and intimate relationship with Wilson in order to spy on other activists.

    Here is what happened to Wilson in her own words.

    She also explained what happened in this video:

    The police described the sexual relationships formed by Kennedy as “abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong”, and a “gross violation of personal dignity and integrity” that “caused significant trauma”. The Met admitted that relationship abuse by undercover officers equated to torture.

    Kennedy also had a long-term intimate relationship with ‘Lisa Jones’, another activist.

    Kennedy is known to have spied on several protest groups, most of which were environmental groups. As well as England, his undercover work took place in several other countries including Scotland, Northern Ireland, Germany, Denmark, France and Iceland.

    Guilty parties

    Wilson believes the compensation awarded was also in regard to “how complicit Mark’s managers were, and the role of 5 other undercover officers in violating my political rights”.

    Police Spies Out Of Lives (PSOOL) states how Wilson was also spied on by other undercover officers (UCOs): Jim Boyling, Jason Bishop, Rod Richardson, Lynne Watson and Marco Jacobs.

    Known UCOs are also listed by the Undercover Research site and Powerbase. Names and photos of some of the UCOs are given in this video:

    In 2015 the Met apologised to eight women for their abuse by UCOs and the violation of their human rights.

    Role of the police supervisors

    The tribunal ruled [pdf, p3]:

    (i) Undercover police officer (“UCO”) Mark Kennedy (“MK”) … grossly debased, degraded and humiliated [Wilson] and interfered with her bodily integrity;

    (ii) MK’s sexual relationship with the Claimant was conducted with the knowledge of his principal “cover officer”;(iii) MK’s deployment manager, who had the rank of Detective Chief Inspector, knew or turned a blind eye to the sexual relationship;

    (iv) Other senior officers of the rank of Detective Chief Inspector or above who had operational and managerial responsibility within the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (“NPOIU”) for MK’s deployment either knew of the relationship, chose not to know of its existence, or were incompetent and negligent in not following up on the clear and obvious signs that MK had formed a close personal relationship with the Claimant which might be sexual in nature;

    (v) There is no evidence to support a finding that UCOs having sexual relationships was a deliberate tactic of the NPOIU. The true position is closer to being one of “don’t ask, don’t tell’. [Emphasis added]

    In September 2018, journalist Rob Evans had reported that:

    In papers lodged with the IPT, the police admitted that Kennedy’s cover officers and line manager “were aware that he was conducting a close personal relationship” with Wilson. They added that Kennedy’s “sexual relationship with [Wilson] was carried out with the acquiescence of his cover officers and line manager”.

    Also in September 2018, The Canary revealed the names of Kennedy’s supervisors, derived from confidential police files which it had seen.

    It’s believed that from 1968 to 2010 more than 1000 mainly left wing groups were spied on by “at least 144” undercover police officers (UCOs).

    Not just history

    The UCO scandal is not about history but is ongoing. As The Canary‘s Eliza Egret pointed out:

    Despite the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry, and despite Wilson’s tribunal, the state passed the sinister Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act in 2021. The act legalises the criminal activities of undercover officers and agents working for the police, MI5, and other state agencies.

    She adds:

    And if that isn’t horrific enough, the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is passing its final phases in parliament, will give the state extensive new powers.

    Furthermore, in May 2019, the Crown Prosecution Service reportedly decided that no UCO would be prosecuted for “having non-consensual sexual relations with any member of the public”.

    More cases

    The Met previously admitted that undercover officers had “abusive and deceitful” relationships with at least 12 women, including Wilson.

    As previously reported by The Canary, “over 30 women were deceived into having relationships with undercover police officers. These spies also fathered, then abandoned, children with some of the women”.

    As well as Kennedy (‘Mark Stone’), Wilson’s claim named other UCOs. And more ‘spycops’ who used sex to gather intelligence have been named.

    Meanwhile, PSOOL points out there are a number of civil claims are currently being brought “against The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis“. Other cases are expected.

    Wider context

    Wilson also commented on the wider context to the ruling:

    The Tribunal has gone some way towards recognising how deep the abuses run. We need to tackle the misogyny and institutional sexism of the police and there needs to be a fundamental rethink of the powers they are given for the policing of demonstrations and the surveillance of those who take part.

    Also on how the police are institutionally sexist:

    I am one of many dozens of women deceived into this kind of relationship by deployed undercover police officers. They used sex with women to gather ‘intelligence’. The evidence suggests a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach by senior officers embedded in a culture of misogyny and mission creep. I have no doubt that the police are institutionally sexist.

    Meanwhile, the official inquiry into undercover policing will likely drag on for years, despite parallel legal actions.

    In July 2018, 85 non-state core participants to the inquiry, including Wilson, demanded:

    full disclosure of all names – both cover and real – of officers from the disgraced political police units, accompanied by contemporaneous photographs

    Justice will only be served when that and their other demands are fully met, as well as naming the supervisors who oversaw the abuse.

    Feature image via YouTube

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Over-65s may go without food or heat to cope with energy price rises

    Nearly a quarter (24%) of older people believe they’ll be forced to choose between heating their home and buying food if their energy bills increase substantially.

    Inflation jumped to a near 30-year high of 5.4% in December. And the energy price cap is due to rise in the spring, possibly increasing bills by 50%, according to predictions.

    Only ‘bad choices’

    An Age UK survey found that more than half (54%) of those surveyed said they’d have to heat their home less.

    And just over two-fifths (43%) said they’d have to cut back, go into debt or simply won’t be able to afford to pay their bill, according to the research among over-65s.

    One 69-year-old woman told Age UK:

    I am currently in bed keeping warm today as it’s so cold and I can’t afford to have my heating on for the whole day.

    I’m reduced to showering on alternate days, which I hate, and I’m eating food that’s microwaveable to avoid heating my oven.

    Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said:

    Many older people are reliant on the state pension as their main source of income and simply do not have the flex in their finances to cope with such enormous price rises.

    At Age UK, we are being contacted every day by desperate older people in this position, people for whom there are only ‘bad choices’ – ration your energy use, cut back on food or other essentials, or go into debt.

    Missing out on vital support

    Age UK warned that many older people are missing out on extra income as well as vital support. That’s because they’re not receiving Pension Credit, despite being eligible. And as a result, they don’t have access to Cold Weather Payments and the Warm Home Discount Scheme.

    It said many older people on low incomes are unaware that they qualify for Pension Credit. Moreover, a successful claim opens the door to a wide range of other support, including help with energy bills.

    Therefore Age UK is urging any older person on a low or modest income to have a full benefits check. This is as part of its campaign ‘The Cost Of Cold’.

    People can call the charity’s advice line on freephone 0800 169 65 65. They can also contact their local Age UK office, or visit www.ageuk.org.uk.

    Abrahams said:

    Any older person who is finding it difficult to pay their bills, or who is worried about staying warm, can call us today – if we help you to submit a successful claim it could make all the difference.

    There really is no downside to checking you are receiving everything you are entitled to, so please come forward and let us help you make sure.

    A government spokesperson said:

    We know this has been a challenging time for many people, which is why we’re providing support worth around £12 billion this financial year and next to help households across the country with the cost of living.

    Our winter fuel payments are supporting over 11 million pensioners with their energy bills and we are continuing to encourage those eligible for Pension Credit, and the wide range of other benefits it can provide, to make a claim.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • No 10 and Met Police accused of a ‘stitch up’ over last minute partygate intervention

    Scotland Yard’s intervention to urge Sue Gray to limit the publication of her investigation into allegations of lockdown-breaking parties in Number 10 has faced widespread criticism and fury. It’s also sparked accusations of corruption at the highest levels:

    The Met scratching the PM’s back?

    The Metropolitan Police asked the senior civil servant to only make “minimal reference” to the events that are now subject to a criminal investigation, throwing her report into disarray and potentially buying more time for Boris Johnson as he faces a threat to his leadership. The force argued the constraints on the Cabinet Office report are necessary to “avoid any prejudice to our investigation”, meaning it faces being watered down or a lengthy delay.

    Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions (DPP), said the move seems “disproportionate” in the face of “very powerful” public interest in the report’s swift publication, unless there is “more serious conduct” being investigated. Others have also questioned the situation:

    Veteran Tory MP Roger Gale, one of the Conservatives to call for Johnson’s resignation, described it as a “farce” which could buy more time for the “lame duck” prime minister. Gale described the police intervention as “ridiculous”, saying:

    Unless there is a legal barrier to Sue Gray publishing her report then I believe that it should be published now and in full.

    The Tory argued the soaring cost of living and Russian aggression towards Ukraine require Johnson’s “full and undivided attention”, but instead he is “a lame duck Prime Minister that is soldiering on”.

    Opposition politicians warned of a “stitch-up” amid growing calls for the official report into potential coronavirus (Covid-19) breaches in Downing Street and wider government to be published in full, with it having the potential to trigger a vote of no confidence in Johnson.

    In a statement on the morning of Friday 28 January, Scotland Yard said:

    For the events the Met is investigating, we asked for minimal reference to be made in the Cabinet Office report.

    The Met did not ask for any limitations on other events in the report, or for the report to be delayed, but we have had ongoing contact with the Cabinet Office, including on the content of the report, to avoid any prejudice to our investigation.

    The statement indicates Gray will either have to make significant changes to her report before publication or delay it until after the police inquiry concludes.

     

    Cressida Dick
    Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick’s officers have opened a criminal probe (Victoria Jones/PA)

    Cressida Dick

    In 2021, Dick denied the Metropolitan Police Force was “institutionally corrupt” following an eight-year probe that found the force to be institutionally corrupt. Johnson has also been accused of “corruption”, and in 2021 backed Dick to remain in her position despite considerable backlash. Labour leader Keir Starmer has also come out in support of Dick:

    At the point when Johnson defended her continued position, Starmer said:

    Cressida Dick is fit to continue

    This was after the probe found the Met to be institutionally corrupt under Dick (and before her). Starmer added:

    I’ve worked with Cressida over many years in relation to some very serious operations when I was director of public prosecutions. I was pleased that her contract was extended and I support her.

    “A bit of a mystery”

    Lord Macdonald said there is a “very powerful public interest in the speedy publication” of the Gray report, arguing that although it could “tip off” potential suspects or witnesses, they are likely to be issued with fixed penalty notices not requiring a trial. He told BBC Radio 4’s the World at One programme:

    I very much doubt that anything that Sue Gray says is going to come as any great surprise to any of the protagonists so it’s all a bit of a mystery

    He conceded that if she found, for example, the “co-ordinated deletion of emails or text messages, this could raise the stakes” requiring the police to have more space. He concluded:

    But absent of that sort of factor – and that’s pure speculation – this does seem to be a very cautious, perhaps overly cautious, move by the Met in the face of a very powerful countervailing public interest for publication.

    Unless there is some other more serious conduct in play here that we’re not aware of, I do think the police approach this morning has been surprising and in many ways quite unhelpful.

    The risk of the police intervention this morning is that this leaves things hanging in the air for weeks and months and that seems obviously not to be in the public interest.

    Sources close to the inquiry have previously indicated Gray was concerned about the prospect of releasing a report that was shorn of some of its key findings, raising the likelihood of a significant delay. Officers have not confirmed how many events they are investigating, but reports have suggested it could be as high as eight.

    “A circus”

    Government minister Chris Philp said “between Sue Gray’s report and the police investigation, everything will be fully covered”, insisting to broadcasters that “the Government aren’t interfering with it”.

    Labour leader Starmer, another former DPP, called for the full report to be published “as soon as possible” but failed to criticise the Met, saying “any issues of prejudice have got to be worked through”.

    Fran Hall, whose husband served in the police for more than three decades before dying with coronavirus, accused the Met of letting bereaved families down as the Gray inquiry becomes “a circus”.

    Sue Gray
    Sue Gray’s report remains awaited (Gov.uk/PA)

    “Painful”

    The spokesperson for the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice said:

    It’s incredibly painful and they have let families like mine down. My husband was completely committed to justice, and he would have been appalled by this.

    SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford called for the report to be published “in full and undoctored without further delay”. He added:

    People are understandably concerned that this increasingly looks like a cover-up.

    Nazir Afzal, a former chief Crown prosecutor for the North West, said:

    Downing Street said it had not had any conversations with the Met or the Cabinet office over what can be published.

    So far seven Tory MPs have publicly called for Johnson to quit, but others are believed to have done so privately in letters to the chairman of the Conservatives’ 1922 Committee. If the number of letters received by Graham Brady hits 54, representing 15% of all Tory MPs, then a vote of no confidence in the prime minister’s leadership is triggered.

    Johnson would have to then win the support of half of Conservative MPs in order to stay in No 10.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Deaths in prisons in England and Wales reached record highs last year

    On 27 January, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) released its quarterly statistics on deaths and self-harm in prison in England and Wales. The data shows that 2021 had the highest number of deaths in prison ever recorded. INQUEST – a charity supporting bereaved people impacted by state related deaths – argues that these figures demonstrate it’s time to rethink prisons as the solution to crime.

    Highest annual number of deaths in prison

    The data shows that 371 people died in prison in 2021, the highest recorded annual figure to date. This amounts to more than one death per day. There are currently 78,324 prisoners in England and Wales, and 121 prisons.

    According to INQUEST analysis of the MoJ data:

    • 250 deaths were recorded as ‘natural causes’ – a 13% increase from 2020. However, INQUEST states that its own “casework and monitoring shows many of these deaths are premature and far from ‘natural’”.
    • “86 deaths were self-inflicted, an increase of 28% from the previous 12 months”. Younger people in prison custody “were most likely to die self-inflicted deaths”. INQUEST analysis highlights that 69% of all deaths of imprisoned 18-39 year olds in 2021 were self-inflicted.  
    • 4 deaths were categorised as ‘non-natural’.
    • “30 await classification”.
    • There was one case of homicide.
    Coronavirus not entirely to blame

    HM Prison and Probation Service statistics published in December 2021 show:

    258 prisoners and supervised individuals have died having tested positive within 28 days of death or where there was a clinical assessment COVID-19 was a contributory factor in their death.

    177 of these people were inside  prison and 81 were under the supervision of the probation service. But these deaths occur against a backdrop of people being kept in highly restrictive regimes, and with some people placed in indefinite solitary confinement. Such measures could have cost prisoners their physical and mental health. 

    In the wake of the pandemic, INQUEST urged the MoJ to take action to mitigate the consequences of “extreme conditions” in prisons. Yet the government ignored expert advice calling for an urgent early release programme and a reduction of the prison population. 

    INQUEST argues that the number of deaths in prisons in 2021 cannot be blamed on the pandemic alone.

    INQUEST director Deborah Coles said:

    This time last year we said: we fear the worst is yet to come. Sadly, we were right. Despite what could have been learned from the first wave of the pandemic, the Government allowed yet more people to die in prison. But the pandemic alone cannot explain away this record level of deaths.

    Time for alternatives

    INQUEST asserts that these figures demonstrate it’s time to rethink prisons as the solution to crime. The organisation is calling for a move away from the prison system, towards radical alternatives. In the meantime, it states that improvements to prison conditions and a reduction in the prison population are necessary to reduce the number of deaths in prisons.

    Coles said:

    These statistics represent the serious consequences of highly restrictive regimes on people’s mental and physical health. They also reflect the continuation of a harmful and dangerous prison system, and criminal justice policies which use prison as the response to social problems. 

    INQUEST is calling for urgent action “to ensure people in prison have access to healthcare and adequate support” in the short term. In the long term, the organisation seeks “a dramatic reduction of the prison population and more investment in radical community alternatives”.

    In spite of campaigners’ calls for the contrary, the government seeks to expand England and Wales’ prison estate. As set out in its 2021 prisons strategy white paper, the MoJ is working towards creating 20,000 more prison places and introducing tougher sentencing rules.

    Featured image via Fakurian Design/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Prominent Jewish members stonewalled by Labour over MP’s antisemitic tweet

    Prominent Jewish Labour members say their complaints about a centrist Labour MP’s antisemitic tweet is being stonewalled by the Labour Party. In July 2021, Neil Coyle MP approvingly quote-tweeted an article about four left-wing groups being purged by the party’s National Executive Council at the direction of Keir Starmer. Coyle said this didn’t go far enough, adding that 350 Jewish members of the Labour Party who are members of Jewish Voice for Labour are “Communists” and should also be expelled en masse from the Party.

     

    The groups named in the article were Resist, Labour Against the Witchhunt, Labour In Exile and the Socialist Appeal. The Daily Mirror article reported that members of these groups would be expelled from Labour if they were also members of the party.

    Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, Professor Avi Shlaim and Harold Immanuel lodged complaints with Labour in September 2021 about what they argue is a clearly antisemitic comment from Coyle. But the trio said that four months later nothing has come of their complaints despite the Labour Party’s obligations to complainants.

    Bindman is a British solicitor specialising in human rights law. He founded the human rights law firm Bindmans LLP and served as Chair of the British Institute of Human Rights. Additionally, he is a visiting professor of law at University College London and London South Bank University.

    Shlaim is an Oxford professor of history and author of several books on Israel and Palestine.

    Judeo-Bolshevism

    In his complaint, Harold Immanuel detailed Coyle’s tweet before stating:

    I am a Jewish member of the Labour Party. His call for the mass expulsion of Jewish members of the Labour Party who are also part of JVL (Jewish Voice for Labour) is an antisemitic slur on Jewish members of the Party.

    Immanuel highlighted the particular rule he claims Coyle broke:

    It breaches Labour Party rule 2.1.8 which requires the NEC to regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race religion or belief as conduct prejudicial to the Party. In my submission no other view is credible.

    “Antisemitic lexicon”

    Immanuel said that Coyle’s tweet drew on a long-standing antisemitic conspiracy theory that conflates communism, Judaism and other anti-Jewish tropes.

    The antisemitic character of Mr Coyle’s tweet is reinforced by its identification of JVL members as “outright Communists”. As you know, this is a well authenticated antisemitic trope or slur rehearsing the myth of “Judaeo-Bolshevism” (Judaeo-Communism for the uninitiated) which dates at least from the Russian revolution of 1917 and has been a central part of the antisemitic lexicon ever since.

    Oppression

    Immanuel said this form of conspiracy theory went beyond simply framing Jews as part of a plutocratic (wealthy) plot by combining different anti-Jewish tropes.  And that these became fundamental to the oppression suffered by Jews in the 20th Century:

    It is not simply on a par with accusing Jews of being manipulative financiers and plutocrats but forms an equal part of the same conspiracy theory which is that Jews are both communists and plutocrats at the same time, two ways by which they seek a single objective of world domination. The trope played a fundamental role in the justification of the most murderous atrocities committed against Jews in the 20th century. In short, Mr Coyle’s tweet comes directly out of the world Jewish conspiracy playbook.

    He did not find it credible that Coyle was unaware of the meaning and history of such language:

    It is simply not credible that Mr Coyle didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews is antisemitic; or that he didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews by alleging that a whole group of them are communists is antisemitic; or that he didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews because they are allegedly communists is a classic antisemitic trope.

    Open and shut?

    Professor Avi Shlaim’s complaint said this was a “crystal-clear” case of “racism”. He felt Coyle’s expulsion should follow as a result of the tweet. He said Coyle’s “diatribe against Jewish members” was “outrageous hate speech by any standards”:

    This is surely an open and shut case of racism which calls for the severest censure. If this is not a crystal-clear case of racist antisemitism, I don’t know what is. Just compare what Mr Coyle said with the comments that led to Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension from the Labour Party. There is no comparison.

    The only appropriate censure in my view is expulsion from the Labour Party.

    Shlaim said that he was entitled to updates about the progress of his complaint:

    Finally, as a victim of this complaint, I assert my right to updates on the progress of your investigation. Please note that data protection and confidentiality do not cancel this right.

    He added that the comments were “disgustingly anti-semitic” and were the kind of thing said about Jews in Nazi Germany:

    Mr Coyle’s call for the mass expulsion of all JVL members from the Labour Party is unmistakably, crudely, and disgustingly anti-semitic. By calling me and my JVL colleagues “outright Communist”, Mr Coyle adds insult to injury. This is the kind of thing that was said about Jews in Nazi Germany. It is shocking to hear it in this day and age and in the Labour Party of all places.

    Procedural failures

    The complainants say they have heard nothing back since they submitted. Harold Immanuel detailed what he felt were Labour’s failings in terms of their own complaints procedure. And he said that the Party claims it will keep complainants updated if they are the victims. And that matters will be dealt with “in a prompt, transparent and fair manner”.

    Immanuel told The Canary:

    Since none of us have heard anything in over four months, it follows that they have been neither prompt nor transparent. Nor, by any reasonable measure, have they been fair to the complainants.

    The hope is that the Labour party will now take disciplinary action against Coyle. Then, maybe, this would be a step towards Labour becoming the safe, respectful place for Jewish members that the party claims it wants to be.

    However, JVL Co-Chair Jenny Manson highlights a recent article by Rachel Reeves MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that article, according to Manson:

    Reeves applauds the reduction in membership, including the many who have left horrified by the unjust investigation of false allegations of antisemitism; these investigations have involved at least 44 Jews. At the same time, a sitting Labour MP who has called for the expulsion of a Jewish organisation and has aligned Jews with communists, a long-standing and very threatening form of antisemitic abuse, has faced no action by the Party.

    Neil Coyle MP and the Labour Party were contacted for comment but did not respond.

    Featured images via Wikimedia Commons/Chris McAndrew cropped to 770 x 403, licenced via CC BY 3.0 and Jewish Voice for Labour website, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Prominent Jewish members stonewalled by Labour over MP’s antisemitic tweet

    Prominent Jewish Labour members say their complaints about a centrist Labour MP’s antisemitic tweet is being stonewalled by the Labour Party. In July 2021, Neil Coyle MP approvingly quote-tweeted an article about four left-wing groups being purged by the party’s National Executive Council at the direction of Keir Starmer. Coyle said this didn’t go far enough, adding that 350 Jewish members of the Labour Party who are members of Jewish Voice for Labour are “Communists” and should also be expelled en masse from the Party.

     

    The groups named in the article were Resist, Labour Against the Witchhunt, Labour In Exile and the Socialist Appeal. The Daily Mirror article reported that members of these groups would be expelled from Labour if they were also members of the party.

    Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, Professor Avi Shlaim and Harold Immanuel lodged complaints with Labour in September 2021 about what they argue is a clearly antisemitic comment from Coyle. But the trio said that four months later nothing has come of their complaints despite the Labour Party’s obligations to complainants.

    Bindman is a British solicitor specialising in human rights law. He founded the human rights law firm Bindmans LLP and served as Chair of the British Institute of Human Rights. Additionally, he is a visiting professor of law at University College London and London South Bank University.

    Shlaim is an Oxford professor of history and author of several books on Israel and Palestine.

    Judeo-Bolshevism

    In his complaint, Harold Immanuel detailed Coyle’s tweet before stating:

    I am a Jewish member of the Labour Party. His call for the mass expulsion of Jewish members of the Labour Party who are also part of JVL (Jewish Voice for Labour) is an antisemitic slur on Jewish members of the Party.

    Immanuel highlighted the particular rule he claims Coyle broke:

    It breaches Labour Party rule 2.1.8 which requires the NEC to regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race religion or belief as conduct prejudicial to the Party. In my submission no other view is credible.

    “Antisemitic lexicon”

    Immanuel said that Coyle’s tweet drew on a long-standing antisemitic conspiracy theory that conflates communism, Judaism and other anti-Jewish tropes.

    The antisemitic character of Mr Coyle’s tweet is reinforced by its identification of JVL members as “outright Communists”. As you know, this is a well authenticated antisemitic trope or slur rehearsing the myth of “Judaeo-Bolshevism” (Judaeo-Communism for the uninitiated) which dates at least from the Russian revolution of 1917 and has been a central part of the antisemitic lexicon ever since.

    Oppression

    Immanuel said this form of conspiracy theory went beyond simply framing Jews as part of a plutocratic (wealthy) plot by combining different anti-Jewish tropes.  And that these became fundamental to the oppression suffered by Jews in the 20th Century:

    It is not simply on a par with accusing Jews of being manipulative financiers and plutocrats but forms an equal part of the same conspiracy theory which is that Jews are both communists and plutocrats at the same time, two ways by which they seek a single objective of world domination. The trope played a fundamental role in the justification of the most murderous atrocities committed against Jews in the 20th century. In short, Mr Coyle’s tweet comes directly out of the world Jewish conspiracy playbook.

    He did not find it credible that Coyle was unaware of the meaning and history of such language:

    It is simply not credible that Mr Coyle didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews is antisemitic; or that he didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews by alleging that a whole group of them are communists is antisemitic; or that he didn’t know that calling for the mass expulsion of Jews because they are allegedly communists is a classic antisemitic trope.

    Open and shut?

    Professor Avi Shlaim’s complaint said this was a “crystal-clear” case of “racism”. He felt Coyle’s expulsion should follow as a result of the tweet. He said Coyle’s “diatribe against Jewish members” was “outrageous hate speech by any standards”:

    This is surely an open and shut case of racism which calls for the severest censure. If this is not a crystal-clear case of racist antisemitism, I don’t know what is. Just compare what Mr Coyle said with the comments that led to Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension from the Labour Party. There is no comparison.

    The only appropriate censure in my view is expulsion from the Labour Party.

    Shlaim said that he was entitled to updates about the progress of his complaint:

    Finally, as a victim of this complaint, I assert my right to updates on the progress of your investigation. Please note that data protection and confidentiality do not cancel this right.

    He added that the comments were “disgustingly anti-semitic” and were the kind of thing said about Jews in Nazi Germany:

    Mr Coyle’s call for the mass expulsion of all JVL members from the Labour Party is unmistakably, crudely, and disgustingly anti-semitic. By calling me and my JVL colleagues “outright Communist”, Mr Coyle adds insult to injury. This is the kind of thing that was said about Jews in Nazi Germany. It is shocking to hear it in this day and age and in the Labour Party of all places.

    Procedural failures

    The complainants say they have heard nothing back since they submitted. Harold Immanuel detailed what he felt were Labour’s failings in terms of their own complaints procedure. And he said that the Party claims it will keep complainants updated if they are the victims. And that matters will be dealt with “in a prompt, transparent and fair manner”.

    Immanuel told The Canary:

    Since none of us have heard anything in over four months, it follows that they have been neither prompt nor transparent. Nor, by any reasonable measure, have they been fair to the complainants.

    The hope is that the Labour party will now take disciplinary action against Coyle. Then, maybe, this would be a step towards Labour becoming the safe, respectful place for Jewish members that the party claims it wants to be.

    However, JVL Co-Chair Jenny Manson highlights a recent article by Rachel Reeves MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that article, according to Manson:

    Reeves applauds the reduction in membership, including the many who have left horrified by the unjust investigation of false allegations of antisemitism; these investigations have involved at least 44 Jews. At the same time, a sitting Labour MP who has called for the expulsion of a Jewish organisation and has aligned Jews with communists, a long-standing and very threatening form of antisemitic abuse, has faced no action by the Party.

    Neil Coyle MP and the Labour Party were contacted for comment but did not respond.

    Featured images via Wikimedia Commons/Chris McAndrew cropped to 770 x 403, licenced via CC BY 3.0 and Jewish Voice for Labour website, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The BBC whitewashed the national insurance hike

    The BBC whitewashed the Tory hike to national insurance on its Politics Live show. But when the government itself is doing the same thing, why should the BBC be any different?

    The national insurance sting

    As The Canary previously reported, the Tories are upping the rate of national insurance. Boris Johnson said the rise is coming because “we have to pay for” NHS improvements. It will also theoretically pay for long-term changes to social care. The Treasury reckons that this tax hike will raise £36bn. But as The Canary wrote:

    the idea that this amount will be anywhere near enough to fix the problems that the Tories claim they will has been called into question.

    So, how much will national insurance be going up by? Well, on Thursday 27 January, not even the BBC could get the figure right.

    Fudging the maths

    During its Politics Live show, the BBC said on a graphic that the Tories are putting up national insurance by “1.25%”. But as journalist John Stratford tweeted, this is not true:

    10.4% sounds (and is) a lot more than 1.25%. So, the public knowing this difference is crucial. On Friday 28 January, the BBC did a similar thing. This time, an article on the hike did say it was going up by 1.25p in the pound. But the BBC failed to say this was a 10.4% increase. Also, not once during the show did host Jo Coburn even mention this. Nor did she correct the 1.25% figure on screen.

    The difference is that the rise is 1.25 percentage points – not 1.25%. Other media outlets like the Guardian and Sky News managed to get this right. But they also failed to say the hike is 10.4%.

    Aping the Tories

    Of course, why should the BBC bother to get the maths right when the Tory government itself doesn’t? Because its own website states that:

    From 6 April 2022 to 5 April 2023 National Insurance contributions will increase by 1.25%.

    The government's own website states that the national insurance rise is 1.25%

    The hike comes amid a cost of living crisis. As the Mirror reported, 2.5 million families are struggling to pay rent and utility bills. Inflation could hit 7% in the spring. So, the Tories’ national insurance rise could see countless families’ finances spiral further out of control. Meanwhile, the BBC can’t even get its facts straight.

    Featured image via BBC iPlayer – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Britain has an Islamophobia problem

    The stain of Islamophobia goes right to the core of the British establishment. Curtis Daly explains how widespread this is.

    VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

    Britain has an Islamophobia problem. After former cabinet minister Nusrat Ghani accused the Tories of sacking her over her faith, it’s clear that the stain of Islamophobia goes right to the core of the British establishment.

    In a Cabinet reshuffle in February 2020, Nusrat Ghani lost her job as transport minister.

    According to Ghani, she was dismissed because ministers felt uncomfortable about her “Muslimess”.

    Unfortunately, none of this feels particularly surprising; after all this scandal is just one example among many of Tory Islamophobia.

    56% percent of Conservatives voters say that Islam is a threat to the British way of life, a report by former equalities and human rights commissioner Swaran Singh found that anti-Muslim sentiment ‘remains a problem.’

    It’s actually not hard to understand why voters and grassroots members of the Conservative Party hold such views, when Islamophobia comes directly from the top.

    Remember when Boris Johnson wrote a deeply offensive article in the Telegraph back in 2018, describing Muslim women as ‘letterboxes’ and ‘bank robbers’?

    Those comments fanned the flames which contributed to a 375% spike in hate crimes against Muslim women.

    Just two years prior to that we witnessed one of the most heinous dog-whistle campaigns in British politics in recent years.

    Zac Goldsmith’s mayoral campaign included offensive material against opponent Sadiq Khan.

    Goldsmith tried to sow doubt and fear by linking Khan to extremists, claiming that he gave cover to them.

    It was a desperate attempt to recover a dud campaign in which Khan was leading the race, and despite Goldsmith losing, the damage was done.

    Boris Johnson has called for an investigation into Tory Islamophobia, although it doesn’t necessarily mean that he supports Ghani, but rather he had no choice. The integrity of this report will be questionable if it doesn’t acknowledge his personal comments against Muslims, and the fact that Johnson was a big supporter of Goldsmith’s mayoral campaign.

    Islamophobia is rife at all levels of the Conservative Party. A dossier containing vulgar social media posts from 25 former and current councilors has been uncovered. These posts include texts in which followers of the faith are referred to as “barbarians”.

    One councillor, Paul Marks, called Sadiq Khan a “vile creature” and liked a post claiming Khan “will always lobby against anybody or anything which finds itself in direct conflict with Islam”.

    Under the surface of Muslim bigotry lies the true, ugly face of Islamophobia. It runs much deeper than comments made in articles or social media posts. It is a fundamental policy of neo-conservatism and imperialism. After 9/11 the West embarked on a reactionary yet vague fight against terrorism. How do you fight against terror?

    The answer is to use Muslims as scapegoats for justifications of war and repression. It was easy to use religion as the West’s enemy. It allowed complex geopolitical narratives to be pushed aside in favor of weaponizing a faith in order to attack Muslim communites of colour around the world. Little has changed, even though the debate around foreign policy and its effects have moved into the mainstream. Islamophobic policies have become commonplace in many countries, and here in the UK the policies of the two big political parties continue to enable an Islamophobic status quo.

    From the hostile environment, to Prevent – neither political party has seriously tackled the structures which make life difficult for British Muslims.

    The increased surveillance, illegal rendition and the treatment of refugees, is at odds with what ministers say about Muslims.

    Despite the promises to investigate Islamophobia and take it seriously, all we hear is rhetoric. Behind the veneer, the structure of racist policies that have led to millions of Muslims bombed, displaced, and targeted by dodgy surveillance practises, are very much still in tact.

    With Islamophobia present across the whole political establishment, Labour is in no way innocent, with one in four Muslims experiencing Islamophobia in the party. The Labour Muslim network has briefed MPs over the last two years with concern about anti-Muslim rhetoric, but its warnings seem to have been ignored.

    Kay Burley: Survey done by the Labour Muslim Network back in 2020, 60 percent there abouts of Muslim members and supporters didnt feel well represented by the party and 25 percent felt that they had directly experienced Islamophobia in the party.

    Chris Bryant: The Labour party has been investigated over anti-Semitism, I know more about that Kay, I’m afraid I wasn’t uh um, expecting to be asked questions about this so I’m not very well briefed on what you’re asking about this at the moment.

    It looks like Islamophobia hasn’t been taken very seriously by Labour at all. The silence from Keir Starmer was noted when Zarah Sultana expressed that she received a barrage of abuse because of her faith. For the leader of the Labour Party to not say a single thing in support of one of his own MPs is disgraceful.

    Instead of sending solidarity to his MPs, Starmer thought it was appropriate to quietly reinstate Trevor Phillips – a man who was suspended for…. You guessed it, Islamophobia.

    The biggest spotlight shone on Labour Islamophobia came during the Batley & Spen by-election. Despite the seat having a high Muslim population, many in the party thought it was wise to blame Muslims for Labour’s poor performance.

    Rather than acknowledge that Muslim support has been deteriorating due to the party’s complete abandonment of the Muslim community, instead it seemed campaigners decided to double down.

    Labour strategists were claiming that the pro LGBTQ stance of the Labour Party, put off the Muslim vote, essentially tarnishing them as homophobic. They’ve also pitted ethnic minority groups against each other, claiming that fewer Muslims are likely to vote Labour because of Keir Starmer’s perceived strength on antisemitism.

    It’s not just Keir Starmer causing the problems, although they do seem to have been exacerbated under his watch. Labour has had a long history with Islamophobia. The Henry Jackson society is a deeply problematic think tank that historically have been associated with some Labour MPs.

    The Muslim Council of Britain decided to publish it’s findings into Islamophobia in the media. Over 10,000 articles were assessed, and it was revealed that a review found that “59% of articles covering Muslims published by mainstream British outlets were negative in nature”.

    ‘A study from 2016 found that just 0.4 percent of British journalists are Muslim showing that representation is a huge issue’

    It’s not surprising then that the most established journos at the top hold some vile views towards Muslims. Melanie Phillips claimed that Islamophobia is a bogus label. Rod Liddle famously wrote that his choice of an election date would be a day “when universities are closed and Muslims are forbidden to do anything… that there must be at least one day like that in the Muslim calendar, surely would deliver at least 40 seats to the Tories.’’

    What an extremely normal man.

    Islamophobia is everywhere, from the two major parties, to our media. This is not a partisan issue. Labour may use the recent scandal to attack the Tories, but they have plenty of skeletons in their closet.

    The media may call out the Tories on Islamophobia, but they’ve played a major role in peoples negative perceptions of Islam and Muslims.

    These are not isolated cases, and the story of Nusrat Ghani is no different. These are institutional problems, and if they are not addressed, then the stain of Islamophobia and all forms of racism will remain in our society.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Lawyers question how publishing partygate report could prejudice police probe

    Lawyers have questioned how publishing the findings of Sue Gray’s inquiry could prejudice the police investigation into allegations of lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street.

    Scotland Yard has asked for the Whitehall inquiry to only make “minimal reference” to the events it is investigating as it seeks to avoid any prejudice to its probe. But it insisted it has not asked senior civil servant Gray to delay her report or place any further restrictions on other events.

    The Metropolitan Police’s statement indicates that Gray will either have to make significant changes to her report before publication or delay it until after the force’s inquiry concludes.

    “This is absolute nonsense”

    But some legal figures have questioned why publishing the report would prejudice the police investigation.

    Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor for the North West, said on Twitter:

    This is absolute nonsense from the Met Police. A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation.

    They just have to follow the evidence, of which the report will be a part.

    Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, who has spent the pandemic interpreting complex coronavirus laws and explaining them to the public on social media, added:

    I am not a criminal lawyer so perhaps I am missing something. How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating ‘prejudice’ their investigation?

    The anonymous lawyer and author known as The Secret Barrister then added:

    I am a criminal lawyer, and I too must be missing something, because there is no reason I can see as to why an independent police criminal investigation would in any way be influenced by, or would seek to influence, a civil service report.

    There’s little risk of prejudice

    But Nick Aldworth, a former Metropolitan Police chief superintendent and counter-terrorism national co-ordinator, said the report could prejudice the police investigation “by disclosing the evidence that they will gather and thereby giving the potential defendants an opportunity to conceal or alter evidence”.

    Publication of official reports and other inquiries can often be delayed until a police investigation and any subsequent court case or inquest is concluded, typically to avoid the risk of prejudicing a jury if a criminal trial was to take place.

    But in this instance, if police investigate under the provisions of the coronavirus regulations then there would be little risk of prejudice as the penalty for breaching lockdown rules is a fixed-penalty notice and it is highly unlikely to result in a prosecution.

    Serious misconduct?

    Some lawyers have questioned whether the incidents in Downing Street may be examples of malfeasance or misconduct in public office or neglect of duty. If police consider such offences, that could lead to a prosecution on more serious charges which may result in a prison sentence.

    There is also speculation over whether the probe could open the door to possible action for perverting the course of justice, if officers discover those involved lied or tried to conceal evidence.

    Featured image via – The Telegraph – YouTube screengrab

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Retired Metropolitan Police officer charged with rape and indecent assault

    A former Metropolitan Police officer has been charged with rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault, the force has said.

    Stephen Kyere was charged in relation to an incident when he was off-duty in Teddington, South-West London, in April 2004. At the time, Kyere was an officer attached to Hammersmith and Fulham police. He retired in March 2021 and was charged in January this year.

    A spokesperson for the Met said:

    A former Metropolitan Police officer has been charged with rape, attempted rape and indecent assault.

    Former Pc Stephen Kyere will appear at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday February 1.

    The charges relate to an incident in Teddington in April 2004 when he was an officer, then attached to Hammersmith and Fulham police, and was off-duty. Former Pc Kyere was charged by postal requisition following an investigation by officers at the South West Command unit.

    He retired from the Metropolitan Police on March 19 2021. Misconduct matters will be considered following the criminal process.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Retired Metropolitan Police officer charged with rape and indecent assault

    A former Metropolitan Police officer has been charged with rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault, the force has said.

    Stephen Kyere was charged in relation to an incident when he was off-duty in Teddington, South-West London, in April 2004. At the time, Kyere was an officer attached to Hammersmith and Fulham police. He retired in March 2021 and was charged in January this year.

    A spokesperson for the Met said:

    A former Metropolitan Police officer has been charged with rape, attempted rape and indecent assault.

    Former Pc Stephen Kyere will appear at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday February 1.

    The charges relate to an incident in Teddington in April 2004 when he was an officer, then attached to Hammersmith and Fulham police, and was off-duty. Former Pc Kyere was charged by postal requisition following an investigation by officers at the South West Command unit.

    He retired from the Metropolitan Police on March 19 2021. Misconduct matters will be considered following the criminal process.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Probe ordered into ‘crippling’ insurance for residents stuck with flammable cladding

    The insurance market is not working properly for residents stuck in buildings with unsafe cladding, and many have seen their premiums double in just a year, communities secretary Michael Gove has admitted.

    Gove has previously drawn criticism for what some have said is a narrow focus on cladding:

    The government has also drawn criticism for taking so long to fix the issue (and for the fact that “combustible materials” were still being used in new schools and hospitals as of May 2021).

    Almost 5 years since Grenfell

    In a letter to the Financial Conduct Authority asking the watchdog to investigate the sector,  Gove said he is “extremely concerned” about a situation that is leaving customers with “crippling costs”. He claims the government has been trying to ensure dangerous cladding is removed from all medium-sized blocks of flats since the Grenfell disaster.

    Insurance costs have rocketed for residents in the buildings, and some insurers are “unwilling” to offer new policies, leaving customers with less choice. Gove wrote in his letter to FCA chief executive Nikhil Rathi:

    Since I took office, I have been extremely concerned to hear from innumerable leaseholders about the pressure they face from rapidly escalating building insurance premiums on high and medium-rise blocks of flats.

    I have been particularly concerned to hear of cases where insurance premiums have escalated by over 100% year on year, leaving residents with crippling costs. It is clear to me that the insurance market is failing some leaseholders.

    Understandably, many policyholders do not view the market as effectively delivering accessibly priced, widely available insurance. I share that view, and do not consider this an acceptable situation.

    Investigation

    The letter, which was also copied to the Competition and Markets Authority, asked for an investigation by the FCA into the insurance industry’s practices.

    Gove tasked the regulator with finding out why prices have risen so much year on year and why cover is being restricted for customers in multi-occupancy buildings. He said helping those affected is urgent, and therefore asked the FCA to submit a final report within six months with initial feedback in three.

    Gove met building companies last week to discuss how to pay for the removal of the dangerous cladding from buildings around the country – cladding which is still there nearly five years after the Grenfell fire. The Home Builders Federation said it does not believe leaseholders should foot the bill to have the cladding taken down, but called for “proportionate” solutions.

    The government has asked developers to set out a fully funded plan of action by the beginning of March.

    Building safety

    Writing on 21 January, Caroline Lucas said:

    When Michael Gove stood up in the Commons and announced that leaseholders in lower-rise blocks would no longer have to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding themselves, it seemed like the beginning of the end of a long nightmare for them.

    Responsibility for the building safety crisis lies with a multitude of companies and agencies from developers to contractors to manufacturers. Leaseholders are innocent victims in this and it was outrageous that they were being left to pick up the cost.

    So half a cheer to Michael Gove for saying he would sort this out by requiring the sector to come up with £4bn to help address the cladding crisis.

    But Mr Gove ignored a key point. This is not a cladding crisis, it is a building safety crisis. Yet the Minister’s initial statement had nothing to say about the thousands of people whose homes are unsafe because of fire risks unrelated to cladding.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Two Post Offices a week have closed in the past two years, say Citizens Advice

    More than 200 Post Offices have closed in the last two years – the equivalent of two a week, according to new research.

    British decline

    Citizens Advice said its study also found that 1,291 Post Offices are currently deemed “temporarily closed”, but more than half of these have been shut for more than two years. One in three rural Post Offices is now offered as a part-time outreach service, open for an average of just five-and-a-half hours a week, said the consumer watchdog.

    The Post Office said it does not accept the report accurately reflects its network of 11,500 branches which it says has been stable for a decade.

    Citizens Advice said people have reported they now spend more time and money accessing Post Office services, feel a loss of independence, and increased isolation since their local office was shut. They help many small businesses thrive, stop already isolated communities being cut off entirely, and enable people to carry out essential tasks

    One woman, who was reliant on the Post Office for paying bills and topping up her energy meter, reported moving house after the local office closed and she was unable to afford the bus journey to the new one. Shortly after moving house, the Post Office in her new village shut.

    One man contacted Citizens Advice as the 90-minute journey to his closest open Post Office meant he could only travel once a week. As a result he had to save up all his post and bills for one journey, meaning bills became overdue and he was fined by his utility companies.

    Loss

    Clare Moriarty, chief executive of Citizens Advice, said:

    Post Offices sit at the centre of our communities.

    They help many small businesses thrive, stop already isolated communities being cut off entirely, and enable people to carry out essential tasks, like paying bills, but they’re at breaking point.

    We’re currently losing two Post Offices a week, and outreach services often aren’t an adequate replacement. Maintaining Post Office investment is crucial or the service will never keep pace with the needs of the communities it’s intended to serve.

    In response to a report that documents the lived experience of the Brits interviewed, a Post Office spokesperson said:

    Post Office does not accept that this report accurately reflects our network of 11,500 Post Offices that has been stable for a decade.

    Whilst banks and traditional retailers have reduced their presence on the high street and in towns and villages, Post Office is sustaining and strengthening its network across the UK.

    In 2019 alone, Post Office opened over 200 branches across the network and last year we responded to the pandemic with the fastest net growth in the network for decades.

    From the end of March 2021 to end December 2021 the net growth in the network was 181. Sometimes branches do close, for example if a Postmaster has decided to retire after many decades of service.

    We are grateful to nearby Postmasters who step up to help and will always seek to find a permanent replacement whilst the original branch is recorded as temporarily closed.

    In many locations, an existing nearby Post Office or another new branch will open to serve that community and meet the access criteria, with 99% of the public living  within three miles of a Post Office and 90% within one mile.

    Some of our branches, including many outreach post offices, are supported by a dedicated subsidy from the government to ensure a sufficient service for the number of customers in those communities.

    Post Office – formally Royal Mail – was part-privatised by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government in 2013. It became fully privatised in 2015.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Why has the Sue Gray report been delayed?

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Cleaners are suing Great Ormond Street Hospital over alleged racist pay

    Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) cleaners from racialised minority backgrounds are taking their employer to court claiming indirect racial discrimination over pay inequality. A group of 83 GOSH cleaners are claiming indirect racial discrimination within the NHS

    A dispute over pay and conditions

    The United Voices of the World (UVW) union is supporting the group of mostly Black, Brown and migrant workers. The litigation comes after GOSH cleaners won a case against their outsourcing in 2021. The workers originally worked for private contractor OCS Group UK. The case forced GOSH to bring its cleaners’ contracts in-house.

    But the group alleges that GOSH is still not giving them the same pay and benefits as other NHS workers, who are predominantly white.

    Memuna Kabia, a cleaner for GOSH and a UVW member said:

    GOSH has been robbing us for a long time, and finding excuses not to treat us fairly. They are meant to look after us, but they left us in the hands of private companies who bullied us and denied us our right to NHS pay and other benefits. GOSH knew about it and did nothing. So we need to take them to court to get justice.

    Institutional racism

    In 2021, UVW supported outsourced Royal Park attendants in a similar case. In a landmark judgement, an employment tribunal ruled that the Royal Park’s outsourcing of contracts was unlawful as it amounted to indirect race discrimination.

    The litigating GOSH cleaners are demanding the same pay and conditions as other NHS staff. They also seek compensation for the years spent working under inferior private contracts.

    UVW general secretary Petros Elia said:

    This lawsuit will be a permanent stain on the already tarnished reputation of GOSH. And it should also send a strong message to other NHS Trusts out there, that if you outsource your facilities workers and don’t give them NHS contracts, then we’ll be coming for you in the courts and on the picket line.

    GOSH security guards – who are gearing up to strike – are also considering bringing the same legal claim against their employer on the grounds that their outsourcing is race discrimination. 

    GOSH responds

    Addressing the claims, a spokesperson for Great Ormond Street Hospital told The Canary:

    Our cleaning and domestic services colleagues are valued members of our team and we welcomed them directly into NHS employment in August 2021. Since then, we have been working to bring the multiple sets of terms and conditions of this team in line with NHS frameworks. All staff, irrespective of role, are on NHS contracts.

    They added:

    On transfer we aligned sick pay, maternity and paternity pay, holiday pay and provided access to the NHS pension scheme. All staff also received a 3% pay rise, with the lowest paid staff receiving an extra 4%, to ensure alignment with their NHS counterparts. In line with other NHS staff, all staff are on standardised pay rates based on role.

    They concluded:

    This has been a complex process because staff had so many different contractual agreements which were protected by law on transfer. These have to be unpicked carefully to ensure no-one is accidently disadvantaged. We are committed to full-scale harmonisation of terms and conditions across all areas and continue to work towards this in partnership with the domestic services.

    Anyone looking to support the litigating cleaners can sign their petition or send a letter to GOSH trustees. People can also sign up to join the campaign in solidarity.

    Featured image via Ashwini Chaudhary/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Refugees are being housed in infested hotels by the Home Office’s slum landlords

    This article is part of a joint investigation with anti-capitalist research group Corporate Watch

    Refugees in London are being housed by the Home Office in run-down, insect-infested hotels. Meanwhile, private housing providers are raking it in.

    Corporate Watch spoke to an Iraqi Kurdish family who arrived in the UK in November 2020. Since then, the family – who wish to remain anonymous – have been put up by the Home Office in disgusting conditions in several hotels in London with their six children. They told Corporate Watch that – aside from the insect infestation – they have had to deal with the ceiling caving in; water pouring in from the apartment above them; insufficient food, a lack of electricity, and – when there has been power – dodgy and dangerous electrics.

    Mother of the family Rojda (not her real name) told Corporate Watch:

    I’m a mother of six kids, our life is very hard here, and we have no rights.

    When we arrived here [in 2020] we had two rooms for all of us… all of our accommodations have been very bad

    Rojda described how she often had to take the family to see another friend living in a different hotel in order to take showers because of the lack of hot water. Rojda said that it was a “shame” that despite living in a rich capital like London she didn’t even have electricity or hot water.

    The adults in the family have not been given permission to work in the UK and are completely dependant on the Home Office for accommodation.

    They are currently living in a hotel in just three rooms for a total of eight people. The hotel is infested with bed bugs which are causing skin irritation. They provided Corporate Watch with these shocking photos:

    Skin irritation on the back of a baby's head
    Skin irritation on the back of a baby’s head
    Skin problems caused by the insect infestation
    Skin problems caused by the insect infestation
    Skin irritation from insect bites in a Home Office Hotel
    Skin irritation from insect bites in a Home Office Hotel
    Insect bites on one of the children
    Insect bites on one of the children
    Dead insects in a child's cot
    Dead insects on a child’s cot

    The family were temporarily moved to new accommodation after a housing officer intervened, but Rojda told us that within weeks they were forced to return to the bug-infested hotel.

    Heartbreakingly, Rojda told us that the staff at the hotel had denied her son food, after he complained about the state of the family’s accomodation.

    Rojda said that it’s not just her family who are suffering. She doesn’t have a common language to communicate with the other families at the hotel, but she can see that the conditions are just as bad for them

    The Home Office’s slum landlords

    Nearly 55,000 refugees are currently housed in the Home Office’s ‘contingency accommodation’ waiting to find out if their asylum claim will get approved. The UK’s asylum housing contracts have been wholly privatised since 2012.

    The company that provides the accommodation Rojda’s family is housed in is believed to be Clearsprings Ready Homes. This company reported a massive jump in profits in its last set of accounts – to £4.5m. Its surging profits have led to a seven-fold increase in dividends to the parent company. Clearsprings handles the asylum accommodation contracts for the Home Office in the south of England.

    Clearsprings also runs Napier, an ex-military barracks which is being used to house refugees in Kent in conditions described as “squalid” by lawyers of the residents.

    In other parts of the UK, the Home Office has awarded contracts to Serco and Mears Group. Outsourcing giant Serco reported £180m in profits in 2019, while Mears reported over half a million worth of profits from its housing business alone.

    We’ve decided not to name the Central London hotel because of fears that fascists will target the residents.

    “Imagine coming to school with that”

    Rojda suggested that we speak to the children’s teachers so they could tell us about the effect living in these conditions has on the wellbeing of the children and their education

    The school provided a statement which says that it has had to get “more and more involved” with helping children in “temporary accommodation”, including providing support with practical things like travel and uniforms, as well as “navigating the bureaucracy”. Its statement reads:

    Living in these difficult conditions obviously impacts the children. They tell us about how overcrowded it is, how noisy, and how they have trouble sleeping.

    Imagine coming to school with that. They are trying to learn a new language, integrate into a new school, adapt to a new culture when at the same time they have to deal with great uncertainty about how long they will be staying for.

    Passing the buck

    The Canary contacted the Home Office about the conditions at the hotel. They passed the buck to Clearsprings, saying:

    We are dealing with unprecedented pressures on the asylum system, but despite this we continue to ensure the accommodation provided is safe, comfortable and secure.

    However, we expect high standards from all of our providers, and any asylum seekers who have problems can get in touch with Migrant Help 24/7, every day of the year.

    We also contacted Clearsprings Ready Homes. A spokesperson said:

    Clearsprings Ready Homes works closely with its delivery partners to ensure that safe, habitable and correctly equipped accommodation is provided. Whenever issues are raised, or defects are identified Ready Homes will undertake a full investigation and ensure that those issues are addressed.

    The Home Office also said:

    The Nationality and Borders Bill that we are introducing will deliver the most comprehensive reform in decades to fix the broken asylum system.

    However – far from making the situation better for refugees – the Nationality and Borders Bill will make the situation even worse by introducing endless reviews of people’s asylum claims, which stretch out the asylum process. This means that people are reliant on Home Office accommodation for even longer. In general, the bill is designed to make claiming asylum in the UK even more difficult.

    “Not an isolated experience”

    Rojda’s family’s situation is not unique at all. The Home Office’s private contractors routinely provide dirty and dilapidated accommodation to those seeking asylum. Earlier this month, Clearsprings was forced to make improvements to flats it’s using to house refugees in Uxbridge after they “were found to be rife with damp, mould, water leaks and pest infestations”. Last year, six men won a high court legal challenge. The court ruled that their accommodation at the Napier Barracks in Kent – which is managed by Clearsprings – failed to meet a “minimum standard”.

    We spoke to Maddie Harris, director of the Humans for Rights network. She said:

    The experience of this family is utterly appalling and shows a clear disregard for their health, well-being and rights. It is also, not an isolated experience. We have spoken to hundreds of people seeking sanctuary in the UK who are accommodated in hotels throughout England and it is clear from the testimonies shared with us that there is no attention paid to upholding even the most basic of rights. People often spend well over a year in cramped, overcrowded hotels, run by private contractors who surveil their every move.

    Medical care is limited

    Harris continued:

    Medical care is often limited or restricted by staff who refuse to assist people in registering with GP surgeries. Food is nutritionally poor and small in quantity and often lacks consideration for faith, cultural or dietary requirements. Access to solicitors and legal advice is severely lacking and little to no information is provided to people. These hotels and accommodations such as Napier Barracks, are for many experienced like quasi-detention and we have heard from numerous people that their mental health is severely effected by isolation, lack of information and complete uncertainty as to the progress of their asylum claim. These accommodations are run by private companies, who profit from and are responsible for much of this harm.

    “Ultimate accountability lies with the Home Office”

    Harris concluded that, although private companies are profiting from running the accommodation, the Home Office bears the final responsibility. She said:

    Ultimate accountability lies with the Home Office who are responsible for these contracts and the welfare of asylum seekers in the UK, yet there is a complete lack of oversight for how these contracts are managed, resulting in untold harm to many thousands of people seeking sanctuary in the UK.

    Solidarity

    Refugees living in the Home Office’s slum accommodation can be found in many of our communities. These are people who are new to the UK, and they are bearing the brunt of a racist state which is colluding with ruthless private companies out to make a fast buck from the suffering of others. We need to be ready to stand in solidarity with people in the Home Office’s slum accommodation, and to struggle alongside them for better conditions.

    Featured image via Alisdare Hickson/Wikimedia Commons (resized to 770×403 pixels), all other images used in this article were provided to Corporate Watch by Rojda’s family (with permission)

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Rape offences recorded by police hit new annual high

    Police forces in England and Wales have recorded the highest number of rapes and sexual offences in a 12-month period, figures show. There were 63,136 rapes recorded in the year to September, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), up 13% from the previous period (56,119).

    This was the highest recorded annual figure to date and included 17,419 offences between July and September – the highest quarterly figure.

    “Truly shocking”

    Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said:

    These damning figures show the Conservatives have no grip on law and order, with more criminals being let off, more victims being let down, and a shameful failure to tackle violence against women and girls.

    It is truly shocking that there has been a further drop in the rape prosecution rate to just 1.3%.

    The highest number of sexual offences was also recorded in the 12 months to September (170,973), a 12% increase compared to 152,620 in the same period the previous year. This is driven by “noticeable increases since April 2021”, the ONS said. Rape accounted for 37% of all sexual offences recorded by police.

    It comes as separate figures showed the proportion of suspects being taken to court has fallen to a new record low and remains the lowest for rape cases. The ONS said the latest figures may reflect a “number of factors”, including the “impact of high-profile incidents, media coverage and campaigns on people’s willingness to report incidents to the police, as well as a potential increase in the number of victims”, and it urged caution when interpreting the data.

    The figures cover the months following the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard in March.

    Sarah Everard
    Sarah Everard was kidnapped, raped and murdered by police officer Wayne Couzens last March (family handout/CPS/PA)

    The 33-year-old was attacked and killed by Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens, prompting a national debate about sexual violence, the safety of women and the response from government, police and prosecutors. The ONS added:

    The overall trend is also currently difficult to disentangle from the impact of lockdowns. Offences recorded by the police dropped noticeably during the spring 2020 lockdown before rebounding to previous levels in the July to September 2020 quarter.

    The winter 2020 to 2021 lockdowns saw a smaller reduction in the number of sexual offences recorded by the police but a greater level of increase in these offences in the subsequent quarters.

    Some offences are exceeding pre-pandemic levels

    While many types of crime decreased during lockdowns, police records show “indications that over the last six months, certain offence types are returning to or exceeding the levels seen before the pandemic”, the ONS said, adding that an increase in fraud and “computer misuse” offences during the pandemic “more than offset the reductions seen for other types of crime.”

    Police recorded 5.8 million crimes in England and Wales in the 12 months to September, a 2% increase compared with the previous year (5.7million). Excluding fraud and computer misuse, the figure falls 1% (to 4.9 million).

    There were 872,911 offences (not including fraud crimes) flagged as domestic abuse-related for the 12-month period, representing a 5% increase from 835,319 offences in the previous year. Stalking and harassment also rose by 21% from 539,586 offences recorded by police in 2019/20 to 655,322 in 2020/21.

    The ONS said it “cannot conclude whether there has been an increase in the number of victims of domestic abuse” because of changes in the way the crimes are reported and recorded, but added:

    Data from victim services suggests that experiences of domestic abuse may have intensified during periods of national lockdown and that victims faced difficulties in safely seeking support under these conditions.

    Stalking and harassment also rose by 21% from 539,586 offences recorded by police in 2019/20 to 655,322 in 2020/21.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Bloody Sunday families say battle for justice goes on after 50 years

    Families of those murdered by the British army’s parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday in Derry, have vowed they’ll continue to fight for justice ahead of the 50th anniversary. Bloody Sunday was one of many dark days in the north of Ireland’s history. It happened in the early part of that 30-year conflict and its bloodiest year. It’s also one of many atrocities committed by the British state against Irish Catholics and republicans.

    And while relatives of several of those shot in the Bogside area of Derry city have expressed doubts that they’ll ever get convictions, the fight for justice goes on. On January 30 1972, fourteen civil rights protesters died as a result of the actions of British soldiers that day and 15 were injured.

    (L to R) Tony Doherty, son of Patrick Doherty, Jean Hegarty, sister of Kevin McElhinney, John Kelly, brother of Michael Kelly, Margaret Wray, brother of Jim Wray, and Joe McKinney, brother of William McKinney, hold images of their loved ones killed on Bloody Sunday (Liam McBurney/PA)

    “Innocent people shot dead”

    The bereaved families will gather on Sunday morning to recreate the route of the civil rights march which ended in tragedy 50 years ago. A number of the families told the PA news agency that the anniversary is a fresh opportunity to press for convictions, while also remembering the poignant events of 1972.

    John Kelly, whose 17-year-old brother Michael was shot dead, said the families will never give up campaigning until they achieve justice. Kelly said:

    The 50th anniversary is important because of the injustice of it – the fact that innocent people were shot dead, and no-one was ever brought to justice for what they did.

    We have been campaigning for all of these years. It took us years through the Saville Inquiry, to show the world that our people were innocent, and we achieved that.

    We are now trying to see justice for our people, and it is important to keep it going until we do achieve justice.

    The Bloody Sunday Memorial in Derry (Liam McBurney/PA)

    Justice needs to be done

    Tony Doherty’s father Patrick, a civil rights activist, was shot dead on Bloody Sunday. Doherty said:

    The whole issue of truth and justice is still there to be done.

    We would like to further those twin causes of truth and justice over the course of this week.

    It is also about basic civic remembrance, remembering what happened here which was always wrong, time doesn’t take care of that, it doesn’t really heal in that sense.

    Doherty said the Bloody Sunday families are angry at plans by the Conservative government for what would effectively be an amnesty on Troubles-era (30-year conflict) prosecutions. he said:

    It is never too late (for justice) but the signs aren’t good at this present moment in time,

    With the amnesty legislation that the Tory Government appear still intent on pushing through, it appears that the chances of people achieving justice over these next number of years are getting slimmer and slimmer.

    Margaret Wray’s brother Jim was 22 when he was shot dead on Bloody Sunday. Wray said:

    My father for years fought the cause, even if nobody would listen to him, he fought and he passed it on to us.

    My brothers and sisters will keep fighting.

    However, she added:

    I don’t think we are going to get any more than what we have, but if there is a fight to be had, we will be there, because Jim was an innocent victim.

    About 15,000 people gathered in the Creggan area of Derry on the morning of 30 January 1972 to take part in a civil rights march, which was banned by the Stormont government of the time. After Army barricades blocked the march, there was rioting before soldiers from the Parachute Regiment opened fire, leading to 14 deaths.

    An immediate inquiry, led by then Lord Chief Justice Lord Widgery, was labelled a whitewash  after it largely cleared the soldiers of blame. After years of campaigning by victims’ families, then-prime minister Tony Blair ordered a new inquiry in 1998.

    The Bishop Edward Daly Garden of Reflection beside the civil rights mural in Derry’s Bogside (Liam McBurney/PA)

    Little changed with Saville

    The Saville Inquiry concluded in 2010 that none of the casualties were posing a threat or doing anything that would justify their shooting and then-prime minister David Cameron apologised in the House of Commons, saying that the killings were “unjustified and unjustifiable”.

    The Police Service of Northern Ireland subsequently began a criminal investigation, but last year it was announced that a prosecution against a veteran, Soldier F, for the murders of Jim Wray and William McKinney would not proceed amid concerns that the case could collapse in light of a separate court ruling on the admissibility of evidence which caused the collapse of another Troubles murder trial involving military veterans.

    A number of families of Bloody Sunday victims are legally challenging decisions by the Public Prosecution Service not to prosecute veterans for murder over Bloody Sunday. Judgments in the challenges have not yet been delivered.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Details are scarce on Australia-UK critical technology deals

    State and federal governments have declined to disclose details of recently signed international agreements purported to boost emerging industries and cross border trade with the United Kingdom. Last week, both Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne and South Australia Premier Steven Marshall spruiked new agreements signed with UK foreign secretary Elizabeth Truss during her visit to…

    The post Details are scarce on Australia-UK critical technology deals appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Even the Daily Mail is now calling out Boris Johnson’s serial lying

    Ministerial officials said that the prime minister “authorised” for a charity and its animals to be evacuated from Afghanistan despite Boris Johnson calling suggestions he intervened “complete nonsense”.

    In written evidence published by the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, an official working in lord Goldsmith’s office said the “PM has just authorised” Nowzad “staff and animals to be evacuated”.

    Johnson, asked by reporters on 7 December if he had intervened in the evacuation last summer, called the suggestion “complete nonsense”.

    Even the Daily Mail was unequivocal in its assessment of Johnson, and clearly thinks Johnson is a serial liar:

     

    “Lying”

    Labour has accused the Prime Minister of “lying” over the incident, and reiterated its call for him to resign, with his government also dogged by the partygate controversy.

    Former Royal Marine Paul “Pen” Farthing, who ran the Nowzad shelter, launched a high-profile campaign to get his staff and animals out of Afghanistan after the fall of Kabul, using a plane funded through donations.

    The UK government sponsored clearance for the charter flight, leading to allegations that animals had been prioritised over people in the rescue effort.

    Pen Farthing, founder of animal rescue charity Nowzad
    Pen Farthing, founder of animal rescue charity Nowzad (Nowzad/PA)

    Evidence

    The evidence published on 26 January shows lord Goldsmith’s official in the Foreign Office emailed colleagues working on the “special cases team Bronze”, saying that other animal welfare charities were looking for assistance after Nowzad had been approved for evacuation.

    The official in the minister’s private office wrote on 25 August:

    [animal charity – name redacted] are a [details redacted] animal charity operating in Kabul and seeking to evacuation their [details redacted] members of staff (no animals).

    Equivalent charity Nowzad, run by an ex-Royal Marine, has received a lot of publicity and the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated, [animal charity – name redacted] are hoping to be treated in the same capacity.

    The evidence was submitted to the committee by Raphael Marshall, who worked for the Foreign Office at the time and has claimed that the animals were evacuated following a direct instruction from Mr Johnson.

    Deputy political editor of the Telegraph Lucy Fisher said it was “difficult to see how this can be explained away”:

    Downing Street attempted to distance Johnson from involvement in the decision on evacuating the Nowzad animals, when asked about the claims on 26 January.

    The Prime Minister has been accused of helping animals before people in the Nowzad evacuation
    The Prime Minister has been accused of helping animals before people in the Nowzad evacuation (LPhot Ben Shread/MoD/PA)

    The PM’s official spokesperson said:

    It remains the case that the PM didn’t instruct officials to take any particular course of action.

    But Dominic Dyer, who led the political lobbying campaign from the UK for Nowzad to be evacuated, said the prime minister’s refusal to acknowledge his role in the evacuation had “tarnished” the campaign.

    Dyer said the emails published by the committee “vindicated” what he had previously said and argued Johnson could be “very proud of giving support to this as a humanitarian rescue mission”.

    He told PA news agency:

    I’m not certain why he didn’t feel he could explain his involvement in August at the end of this operation.

    I don’t know why, and I don’t know why this was allowed to turn into such a big political football, for the Ministry of Defence to fall out with the Foreign Office and for Downing Street to say it had no role in it.

    It has tarnished what has been a very important operation that had huge public support, and I think that’s a sad indictment of our political system at the moment, which the Prime Minister presides over to be quite frank.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Public are ‘very angry’ over MPs thinking they can ‘get away with things’

    The Commons standards tsar has said the public is angry over MPs’ second jobs as she called for changes to transparency rules. Meanwhile, Private Eye editor Ian Hislop has said the public are “sick of being taken for fools” over MPs’ second jobs.

    “Very angry”

    Kathryn Stone said her office had received “an awful lot of letters” containing the views of “very angry” members of the public, who have voiced concern about MPs attracting outside paid work and that they are “getting away with things”.

    The Commons standards commissioner said it was “bonkers” that MPs had to be more transparent about their activities than ministers, as she set out why she was unable to probe the renovation of Boris Johnson’s official Downing Street residence.

    Giving evidence to the Commons Committee on Standards on 26 January, Stone also called for more clarification on the use of MPs’ offices after she chose not to investigate former attorney general Geoffrey Cox for offering legal advice while using parliament facilities.

    The commissioner and her team have come in for criticism in recent months, with former speaker John Bercow likening the experience of being investigated for bullying to a “kangaroo court”.

    Last year, the government attempted to reform the standards system in a bid to delay former Cabinet minister Owen Paterson’s suspension for paid lobbying, a move which backfired, leading to Paterson quitting Parliament and sparking a series of sleaze allegations.

    Stating that it had been a “really challenging time”, Stone told the committee:

    Members of the public are really angry, they are really angry about the ways in which they see members of parliament exploiting opportunities to make additional money, there is no prohibition on that but members of the public are very angry about that. They are very angry about what they see as conflicts of interest – or perceptions of conflict of interest.

    Owen Paterson resigned following a botched attempt to delay his suspension from the Commons
    Owen Paterson resigned following a botched attempt to delay his suspension from the Commons (Victoria Jones/PA)

    Stone said there was a lack of understanding in the public sphere about when she could and could not investigate, with claims of ministerial code breaches outside of her remit. She said that was why she could not investigate the so-called “wallpapergate” saga in Downing Street surrounding the £112,000 revamp of the prime minister’s flat, with the probe left to Johnson’s ethics adviser lord Geidt.

    Stone said:

    To build on the point Lord Evans (chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life) yesterday, in a very articulate and very elegant way, described this process as bonkers – I couldn’t agree more with him about that.

    It seems inconsistent to us, and the public, and we need to ensure that ministers are at least subject to the same scrutiny as backbench MPs when it comes to the registration and declaration of gifts, hospitality and so on.

    “I think the public is very sick of being taken for fools”

    Ian Hislop, the editor of Private Eye magazine told the Commons Committee on Standards on 25 January that MPs “need to redefine the term lobbying” and that current proposals for change need to be “harder”.

    Speaking about some MPs’ second jobs, Hislop said:

    What do you think these companies are paying the money for? Do you think they are chucking it away?

    When politicians declare their interests, why do they think businesses are paying them this money?

    I think the public is very sick of being taken for fools at the moment on all sorts of levels, and it is very sick of being taken for fools on this level.

    Hislop told the committee:

    I think we have to admit that the system failed in that Owen Paterson had obviously no idea he was breaking the code, and a large number of his fellow MPs decided that they had no idea either, and that the whole system wasn’t working.

    We have to redefine the term lobbying, and we have to incorporate some of the proposals you have made, and instead make them harder.

    During the hearing, Hislop clashed with Tory MP Bernard Jenkin, who suggested more rules are not enough to change MPs’ attitudes towards breaking them.

    Hislop said:

    Why do you have to explain to a new MP why he shouldn’t lobby for a company taking government contracts? Why isn’t that blatantly obvious?

    Richard Brooks, another journalist at Private Eye, told the committee that current definitions of lobbying are not wide enough. He said:

    By restricting what you band to lobbying, you narrow it down too much because lobbying is open to a very legalistic technocratic interpretation that doesn’t include all kinds of behaviour – a quiet word in the ear, expressions of opinion without formally lobbying – all those sorts of things that are just as important.

    The problem is that a lot of what goes on that distorts public decision-making doesn’t qualify as lobbying and I think you perhaps need to look a little bit further and say ‘OK, what sort of jobs do we need to ban’.

    When asked specifically which second jobs should be banned, he said:

    Any job that is given to a member of parliament because they are a member of parliament, rather than because they have some other qualification for it. For example, if they’re a doctor, teacher, lawyer, nurse, that sort of thing.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • No amount of money will ever be enough to compensate the survivors of police spying

    Activist Kate Wilson has finally won compensation after winning a tribunal case against the Metropolitan police for breaches of five of her human rights. The compensation amount granted is £230,000, including payment of legal costs.

    In 2003, Wilson was tricked into a relationship with an undercover police officer who called himself Mark Stone. They lived together as lovers for two years. He deceived her and numerous others he became friends with, hiding his real identity as a police spy. In fact, he had relationships with as many as ten other women in the seven years he was undercover. Wilson was also spied on by at least five other undercover police officers, emphasising the terrifying lengths that the police will go to in order to keep tabs on their population.

    In 2010, Wilson discovered Stone’s true identity. He was a married police officer called Mark Kennedy who had been sent to spy on activists. Kennedy infiltrated a number of protest groups and gatherings in the UK and across Europe, including Climate Camp, Earth First, and animal rights gatherings.

    Wilson previously said:

    Over 30 women now know that they were deceived into intimate, sexual relationships with undercover officers. Many more people were subjected to similar infiltration by undercover officers. What happened to me was by no means unique, and hundreds of people will have had their rights violated in this way.

    Of course, Wilson’s case is yet another example of misogyny that is rife in the British police, and their complete disregard for women as they go to any lengths to spy on activists.

    Spying on activists all over the country

    Hundreds, if not thousands, of activists and campaigners have been spied upon by the British police over the years, including the family of eighteen-year-old Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered while waiting for a bus in Eltham. An inquiry into undercover policing is ongoing. There are more than 200 participants who were spied upon taking part in the inquiry.

    The police have been doing all that they can to obstruct the inquiry while protecting the anonymity of police spies. The inquiry started in 2015, yet seven years later, the majority of core participants have not seen a single shred of evidence over why they were spied on. For some, it may be another two years before they finally get to see their files.

    Wilson is keen to stress that her compensation was awarded because the police breached her political rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association. This was never just about institutional misogyny: it’s also about the basic rights of the whole population being violated. Wilson said:

    It is compensation for the parts of the claim that the police denied right up to the end: how complicit Mark’s managers were, and the role of 5 other undercover officers in violating my political rights, and the fact that they dragged out those denials for 10 years.

    She went on to say:

    The finding that these operations breached the rights to freedom of expression and assembly and were unlawful amounts to a long overdue recognition that spying on protest movement is political policing and has no place in a democratic society. It is important, because it goes beyond the scandal of undercover officers deceiving women into intimate relationships. Violating our political rights was the entire reason for these deployments and thousands of people will have had their political rights violated in this way.

    ‘Jane’, who was also spied upon by Kennedy, said:

    For over 50 years, movements such as those against apartheid, racial injustice, and climate change have been infiltrated with impunity, with undercover officers sent in on long-term fishing expeditions. The rights to freedom of expression and assembly and the right to a private life, of anyone taking political action, was considered fair game.

    She continued:

    As an environmental campaigner, I did not think it possible that my close friend, and sometimes housemate of seven years could be an undercover police officer. It felt instinctively abusive, and a big step too far for the state to do this to us. We have now been vindicated by the IPT which recognises this abuse of our human rights, and our democracy.

    Spy cops act and police bill

    Despite the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry, and despite Wilson’s tribunal, the state passed the sinister Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act in 2021. The act legalises the criminal activities of undercover officers and agents working for the police, MI5, and other state agencies.

    Human rights organisations have pointed out that:

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

    And if that isn’t horrific enough, the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is passing its final phases in parliament, will give the state extensive new powers. Campaign group Police Spies Out Of Lives argues that Wilson’s win is extremely important, as the tribunal found that the police breached Wilson’s political rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association. The group says:

    With protest rights under attack by the introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, these findings have enormous contemporary significance.

    Indeed, when the police bill becomes law, a raft of new protest measures will be introduced. Offences such as tampering with a statue could lead to prison sentences of up to ten years. Additionally, the prospect of up to a decade in prison for causing “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience, or serious loss of amenity” will come into force. We’re likely to see a big change in the policing of protests, much more harassment by the police, especially around stop and search. Potentially more serious charges for protest offences could also lead the police to try to justify more undercover cops in our movements.

    So let’s celebrate Wilson’s win, but be under no illusion that this will stop the state from continuing to pass its draconian new bill, or stop it from spying on members of the public.

    Featured image via David Mirzoeff/Police Spies Out of Lives

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.