radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Koshka Duff’s horrific strip-search is yet another example of rampant police misogyny

    It’s taken almost a decade for the Metropolitan Police to apologise to Koshka Duff for the language they used when they sexually assaulted her. Back in 2013, she was arrested after offering legal advice to a 15-year-old who was being stopped and searched. Her treatment that followed at the police station was disgusting. Female police officers handcuffed her and used leg restraints, pinned her to the floor, and cut her clothes off her while male officers were watching.

    Duff describes her experience in Novara Media:

    Imagine you are surrounded by an armed gang. They tie your hands and legs together, pin you to the ground, and cut off your clothes with scissors. While grabbing you all over, ripping out your earrings and hitting your head off the concrete floor, they crack jokes about the benefits of strapless bras. They call you childish for objecting.

    That was my experience of being strip-searched at Stoke Newington police station.

    CCTV, obtained by Duff and shown to the Guardian, shows the vile language the police used. A female officer comments on her having “a lot of hair” on her body, while the male officers make disgusting ‘jokes’ about a smell coming from her possessions (“oh, it’s her knickers, yeah?”). One of the men tells his female colleague that she needs “defumigating” after touching Duff. Then they comment on whether they find Duff’s body “rank”.

    One police officer is even caught on camera bragging about the size of his dick and how his former partner couldn’t keep all his sperm in her mouth.

    Misogyny is instrumental for the police to thrive

    It makes me feel sick to read that Duff was talked of like this. But at the same time, it doesn’t surprise me at all. In the UK, comments about women and teenage girls being “rank” is commonplace, as are comments about their body hair, or misogynist insults about the smell of women’s genitalia. Nothing ever improves, and this CCTV footage is one more example of what campaigners and activists have shouted time and time again: that the British police force is a misogynist institution.

    In fact, misogyny is key to the police thriving. Toxic masculinity, macho violence, and a desire for dominance over other human beings are traits that police officers need to do their job well enough to suppress the population. As is the ability to dehumanise people so much that either you get a kick out of treating them like scum, or you’re apathetic about their safety.

    As Duff points out, it doesn’t matter what gender the person is when they’re working for a structure that’s misogynistic to its core:

    In my experience, female officers can be cruel and vindictive with the best of them. They throw misogynist insults and impose the diktats of normative femininity just as readily as their male counterparts – in fact, they often take this as their distinctive prerogative.

    Punishment for refusing to cooperate

    It’s important to note that the police haven’t apologised to Duff for the strip-search itself, nor have any of the police officers been disciplined, even after this disgraceful footage was released.

    Back in 2018, the police officer who ordered Duff’s strip search was cleared of gross misconduct, saying that her treatment was “for her own safety”. It’s completely unbelievable that pinning someone down, hitting their head on the ground, cutting their clothes off, and then giving them injuries could ever be for their own benefit, and yet the officers involved got away with it, and they will continue to get away with it around the country.

    The police use their strip-search powers as a way to punish those who don’t comply with their questions, or who passively or actively resist their arrest. And they know that for those who aren’t cisgendered men, the experience is likely to be even more degrading and traumatic. The Canary’s Emily Apple says:

    I’ve been strip-searched several times by the police. On several occasions by force. And predominately, it’s been a punishment because I’ve refused to co-operate.

    Apple describes one of these incidents:

    I was dragged to a cell, pinned down by male officers, and only realised what was happening when other officers started removing my clothes. Other male officers, including the custody sergeant, watched from the corridor.

    Apple talks about the psychological impact that this misogynist, violent policing has had on her:

    writing the facts of what happened to me, or reading what happened to Duff doesn’t covey the physical sickness I feel. It doesn’t convey the pain I’m feeling in my arms, neck and back. It doesn’t convey the fact that I have to keep pausing this narrative due to flashbacks and waves of nausea.

    And this is important. Not because I want sympathy. But because I think it’s crucial that we recognise the impact repressive and vindictive policing has on mental health. Sometimes the mental scars take far longer to heal than the physical ones.

    Holding the police to account is almost impossible

    I myself am another woman who has been strip-searched by the police (for my own safety, of course). I also tried to take a civil case, but after a long, drawn out process, my solicitor didn’t think I had much chance of winning, and the case was dropped. It’s only Duff’s gruelling persistence that’s ensured she received her apology and the CCTV footage of her assault.

    Duff, Apple, and myself are in positions of privilege: we’re all white women, we know the legal system pretty well, and we know of lawyers who take cases against the police. But most people who have been arrested and strip-searched won’t realise that they can try to take a civil case. And so most incidents continue to happen behind cell doors, and police officers usually aren’t held accountable for what goes on. Even if people do realise that they can take a civil case, the whole system is rigged so that you can’t succeed.

    Duff says:

    The costs of a civil action against the police are prohibitive. …

    Legal aid is paltry and unavailable to most. The application procedure is so complicated that trained lawyers struggle to fill in the forms.

    If this is how they treat privileged people…

    After reading Duff’s account of how she was treated as a white woman, I can’t help but think about all the BAME women and gender-queer people who are strip-searched. We know that the police are institutionally racist and we know the way BAME people are treated behind cell doors is likely to be worse than anything we face as white women.

    And then there’s children. A 2019 report concluded that a “high proportion” of children were strip-searched by the Metropolitan Police. And we know of cases like Georgia Wood, who was strip-searched by South Wales Police at the age of twelve without an appropriate adult present.

    There are also all those in prison, the majority of whom are working class, who are subject to extensive strip-searches. We know that more than half of female inmates are victims of sexual or domestic abuse. Strip-searches will only re-traumatise people who have been abused by men.

    Duff’s case perfectly portrays the police force as an institution that isn’t willing to change its misogynist ways. This is a Met Police force with a staff member who murdered Sarah Everard, and with other staff members who took photos of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman’s bodies as they lay dead. So it’s perhaps no wonder that the Met can’t even be bothered to discipline its officers over Duff’s treatment. But make no mistake, it is yet another example of why the public should never put their trust in the rotten, violent institution that is the British police.

    Featured image via The Guardian / Screenshot

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The first Britain crypto “Chai Ada”.

    London,

    A young Pakistani-British businessperson, Tayyab Shafiq, 26, has become the first to start a “Chai Ada” café which accepts payments in multiple cryptocurrencies in Britain.

    He established the Chai Ada coffee shop outside Westfield in Shepherds Bush, West London, to sell a variety of Pakistani and Asian chai(tea), parathas, biryani, kebabs, and rolls.

    Chai Ada decorated with Lahori truck art and situated next to the White City Bus station, it has become an instant hit as colorful chairs outside decorated in Pakistani truck art and gain a public’s attention.

    Earlier, Shafiq had made headlines in UK after opened a Biryani center in London using the iconic red phone box. He had to sell the phone box business as the local council and the English heritage didn’t allow him to continue his takeaway service due to regulatory issues. Now Shafiq has come up with unique idea on a much larger scale.

    Customers can pay at Chai Ada using digital currencies like classic Bitcoin as well as Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, XRP, Verge, Litecoin, and Horizen. Shafiq has set up an mobile app which is connected to his new business and payments are made from crypto wallet accounts against the British pounds.

    While Speaking to Pakistan based News channel, Shafiq said

    The response is impressive, within a week of opening about 20% of the payments are in bitcoins and other digital currencies.

    While, the growing trend of crypto currencies, there are extreme risk while using Crypto currencies and several regularized international financial institutions have warned against the use of digital currencies.

    Shafiq said that he was aware about the risks but this is the future.

    “We have to look into the future. I honestly believe that crypto is the future. It’s here to stay and it’s already working well. It has become a reality. When establishing Chai Ada, I believed that the Crypto, NFT, Metaverse (digital world) are the future and I just wanted to play my little part to encourage the use of cryptocurrency.”

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Johnson’s latest alleged bash has ‘disgusted’ people who share his birthday

    People who share a birthday with Boris Johnson have said they are “disgusted” that a gathering to celebrate the day with the prime minister was held inside No 10 during the UK’s first national lockdown.

    Prem fandango

    No 10 has conceded staff “gathered briefly” in the Cabinet Room on the afternoon of 19 June 2020 following a meeting after it was alleged 30 people attended, shared cake, and sang “happy birthday” to the PM, despite social mixing indoors being banned.

    A single mother born exactly a year before Johnson spent that day at home in Winchester, Hampshire, with her 25-year-old daughter Kirsten, who was recovering from a thyroid cancer operation and had a “15-centimetre gash” across her neck. Donna Levermore told the PA news agency:

    It was terrible, absolutely awful… we’re sitting there holding each other – but hardly holding each other because she was so sore with her stitches… we pulled ourselves through it completely alone,”

    (Mr Johnson) has infiltrated and spoiled everything – literally stomped all over it… I’m disgusted. He’s tarnished my bloody birthday.

    My daughter lost her neck… and this bastard is dancing the fandango.

    Kirsten was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in December 2019. Her operation to remove the cancer was rescheduled six times before she finally underwent surgery on 9 June 2020.

    Kirsten Levermore
    Donna Levermore was with her 25-year-old daughter Kirsten, who was recovering from a thyroid cancer operation on on 19 June 2020 (Donna Levermore/PA)

    While Kirsten has made a full recovery, Levermore said the news of a gathering at No 10 on the same day is “cruel”. She said:

    He is not fit to govern. He has absolutely crushed the spirit of people – how are you supposed to believe in anything when this has happened?

    He will be remembered in history with the worst of the worst for what he’s done… it’s like dancing on someone’s grave.

    “Galling”

    Angus Proud from Barrowford in Pendle, Lancashire also shares a birthday with the prime minister and said it was “galling” to hear the allegations that Johnson had celebrated it while others were following restrictions. Proud tweeted a picture on of himself enjoying a quiet birthday drink on 19 June 2020, which he spent with his partner.

    Proud told PA:

    I was never a fan of Johnson, but I did think in March and April that year that he got the country on the right path. To find out now that he was leading his own life by his own rules is pretty galling.

    We had a pleasant enough day, but not the day we could have had. And that’s fine when you know we’re all in it together. But we weren’t, were we?

    Proud said that he “absolutely” believed he was doing the right thing by having a quiet birthday, and said “it felt like a national effort to us”.

    Downing Street said staff “gathered briefly” in the Cabinet Room after a meeting, in response to a report from ITV News which suggested up to 30 people attended what it described as a birthday party. The broadcaster suggested the prime minister’s wife, Carrie Johnson, had organised the surprise get-together complete with a chorus of “happy birthday” on the afternoon of 19 June 2020, when indoor social mixing was banned.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The seven words from a Tory MP that reveal how rampant Islamophobia is in the Conservative Party

    A Tory MP has revealed how rampant Islamophobia is in the Tory Party while trying to defend Boris Johnson.

    Speaking on LBC, Tory MP Michael Fabricant said that Nusrat Ghani’s accusations were a “lame excuse” for being sacked because she’s:

    hardly someone who looks like a Muslim.

    Ghani was told by a government whip that “Muslimness was raised as an issue” as a reason for her sacking.

    A politically vulnerable Johnson has now found himself forced to announce an inquiry into her sacking. It should come as little surprise that Johnson had to be under media – and therefore public – scrutiny to finally announce an inquiry. Ghani’s allegations of Islamophia were downplayed when they came to light two years ago. Instead, Ghani was told to go through the internal party complaints process.

    The very use of the term ‘Muslimness’ is yet another reminder of the institutional Islamophobia that runs through the veins of the Tory party:

    Racist politicians put BAME people in inherent danger

    The Canary’s Afroze Fatima Zaidi has pointed out that the Tory party’s multiple instances of Islamophobia and racism. She has also listed the racial slurs that Boris Johnson has made over the years, from calling Black people “flag-waving piccaninnies” to stating that “Islam is the problem” in the wake of the London bombings. These bigoted comments are repeatedly ignored by a party that is in itself institutionally racist and Islamophobic. And while we have racist politicians in power, people of BAME backgrounds are inherently at risk. After Johnson’s article describing Muslim women as looking like “letter boxes” and “bank robbers”, there were serious consequences for Muslim women. Zaidi said:

    In the week following the article’s publication, hate crime against Muslim women rose by an astronomical 375% – a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of racism from those in power. Johnson has repeatedly refused to apologise for these comments.

    Of course, Tory racism doesn’t stop at Johnson. It’s important to remember that Ghani herself is instrumental to a party that seeks to divide its population by bringing more and more fascistic legislation into law, and by continuing worldwide domination through bombing Muslim countries.

    Asim Qureshi, researcher at CAGE, argued:

    The announcement of the Ghani inquiry comes after a long line of disgraceful racist policies and actions since the Tories came back into power. Zaidi pointed out that:

    what’s also beyond doubt is the racism inherent in Tory policies over the last ten years. The Hostile Environment and Go Home vans, the mishandling of Grenfell, the Windrush scandal, the flourishing of the Prevent strategy, all happened under Tory rule.

    So we probably shouldn’t be surprised by Johnson’s handling of Ghani’s dismissal, nor should we be surprised by the comments being made by Tory MPs defending the prime minister.

    Statistics just published by Birmingham University have revealed that the Gypsy and Irish Traveller communities are  “least liked” in the UK, followed by Muslim people. With politicians like this having sway over the population, and with a mainstream media quick to parrot racist politicians, it’s tragically unsurprising.

    Featured images via Wikimedia Commons under Creative Commons licences CC BY 3.0 and CC BY-SA 2.0, resized to 770px X 3403px

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • PM uses the Tory-underfunded NHS to defend his insurance hike on working people

    The government looks set to plough ahead with its proposed national insurance hike after the prime minister said “we have to pay for” NHS improvements. The hike has been called out by politicians because it will impact ordinary working people more than it will the rich:

    While spending on the NHS has increased during the 12 years the Tories have been in power, for most of that time it increased by roughly half of what used to be the average. This underfunding has had numerous negative effects on the health service.

    Cross-party criticism

    Senior Conservatives, including former Brexit secretary David Davis, have called for the proposed increase of 1.25 percentage points to be scrapped in the face of cost of living pressures. Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg is understood to have called for the move, which is designed to pay for long-term social care reforms, to be abandoned, while former Brexit tsar lord David Frost quit his role at the tail end of last year in protest at government tax increases.


    Some Labour MPs have been very vocal on the hike:

    Chancellor Rishi Sunak, meanwhile, seems to be attempting to distance himself from the policy:

    The move has even provoked criticism from the sort of people who make a living defending the Tories’ worst policies:

    Official figures published last week showed that inflation soared to a near 30-year high of 5.4% in December, while an energy price cap rise in spring is set to stretch household budgets further.

    Using the underfunded NHS as a shield

    Boris Johnson said the “terrible strain” the coronavirus pandemic had put the health service under could only be alleviated with more funding as he defended the April tax bump. The £36bn that the Treasury forecasts the extra national insurance contributions will provide has been earmarked to clear the NHS backlog and then to fund social care improvements. Notably, 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.

    The prime minister, asked by broadcasters after a visit to Milton Keynes Hospital whether the rise would go ahead in the face of additional cost of living burdens, said:

    The NHS has done an amazing job but it has been under terrible strain. Listen to what I’m saying: We’ve got to put that money in. We’ve got to make that investment in our NHS.

    What I’m telling people is, if you want to fund our fantastic NHS, we have to pay for it – and this Government is determined to do so.

    Johnson did not explain why the burden should be place on those who are already among the most burdened.

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson walks with Chief Executive Professor Joe Harrison (left) and Divisional Chief Nurse Emma Codrington during a visit to Milton Keynes University Hospital in Buckinghamshire
    Prime minister Boris Johnson walks with Chief Executive Professor Joe Harrison (left) and Divisional Chief Nurse Emma Codrington during a visit to Milton Keynes University Hospital in Buckinghamshire (Adrian Dennis/PA)

    Would Labour tax the rich?

    Labour has voiced its opposition to the national insurance increase, with leader Keir Starmer pledging to take a different approach if elected to Downing Street. As is usual, Starmer has failed to flesh out what that different approach would be. He’s also drawn criticism for being less vocal than some Tory MPs:

    From a strategic point of view, making no hard promises means he can’t go back on them later like he has done with several of the pledges he made to become Labour leader. From a less strategic point of view, it makes Starmer look like he’s got no clue how he’d fix the problems in modern Britain.

    Starmer has actually made it sound like he wants to take over the mantle of being the ‘low-tax’ party. Given the amount of money that’s lingering in offshore bank accounts while Britain’s infrastructure crumbles, this is not the direction you’d hope from a Labour leader in 2022:

    Additional reporting by PA

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Julian Assange wins ruling in his battle against extradition to US

    Julian Assange has won the first stage of his bid to appeal against the decision to extradite him to the United States to the Supreme Court.

    Assange is wanted in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

    In December last year, US authorities won their High Court challenge to overturn an earlier ruling that Assange should not be extradited due to a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide.

    “Dangerous and misguided”

    Assange’s fiancee, Stella Moris, called the decision “dangerous and misguided” and said the WikiLeaks founder’s lawyers intended to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Julian Assange extradition
    Julian Assange’s fiancee Stella Moris (Kirsty O’Connor/PA)

    For a proposed appeal to be considered by the UK’s highest court, a case has to raise a point of law of “general public importance”.

    Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, for Assange, previously said the case raised “serious and important” legal issues, including over a “reliance” on assurances given by the US about the prison conditions he would face if extradited.

    On Monday, two senior judges ruled there was a point of law, but denied him permission for the appeal.

    However, lord chief justice Lord Burnett, sitting with lord justice Holroyde, said Assange could go to the Supreme Court itself and ask to bring the appeal.

    “Whether or not the issue needs ventilation in that court is a matter appropriately for its decision,” Lord Burnett said.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Hospital workers to stage two-week strike over pay

    Hundreds of hospital workers, including porters, cleaners, and catering staff, are set to go on strike in a dispute over pay.

    Workers united

    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 from 31 January. The union warned that further strike action will follow if the demands of the workers are not met.

    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 increase as that being received by people directly employed by the NHS.

    Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said:

    These workers face the same risks as NHS-employed staff but they are paid significantly worse and treated disgracefully. Barts Health NHS Trust have a golden opportunity to bring these workers back into NHS employment.

    It’s time to end the injustice of a two-tier workforce. Unite is 100% behind our members’ battle against low pay and exploitation.

    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.

    NHS pay
    Further strike action could also be on the cards (Peter Byrne/PA)

    ‘Wasted time’

    Taddy McAuley, Serco’s contract director for Barts Health, said:

    We are extremely disappointed with the notification of strike action from Unite as we recently increased the pay offer for our employees to a total of 3%, backdated to April 2021. This is the same percentage increase as that being received by people directly employed by the NHS.

    While the increase matches NHS staff increases, that would not bring the employees up to the same level of pay. Additionally, the increase to NHS staff pay has been criticised as being inadequate given cost of living increases and previous pay freezes. McAuley continued:

    Serco also recently announced a £100 ex-gratia payment for all of our 52,000 front line employees around the world, including all our colleagues at Barts Health. We look forward to further discussions with Unite and hope to work together to find a resolution that avoids the need for this unnecessary strike action.

    Unite regional officer Tabusam Ahmed said:

    Unite gave Serco and Barts over a month to consider their positions before the union announced strike dates. Instead of using that time wisely, they’ve dragged their feet and offered too little too late. Barts and Serco must now deliver a pay increase that addresses the poverty pay and the gross inequality of treatment compared to directly employed NHS staff in other hospitals in London.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Cameron’s 2013 promise to ‘cut the green crap’ could cost households £170 each next year

    David Cameron’s promise in 2013 to “cut the green crap” will cost millions of households around £170 each when energy prices spike this spring, a new report has claimed.

    Short-term solutions create long-term problems

    Analysis from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) showed that households could have saved a combined £1.5bn in the next financial year if insulation continued to be installed at the same rate as a decade ago. In 2012, around 2.3 million homes added new insulation, but since 2013 this has collapsed to just around 230,000 homes, ECIU said.

    Darren Jones, a Labour MP who chairs the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, said:

    The rate of insulating homes has crashed since 2012 through cut backs on helping households reduce energy waste.

    The true cost of this short-termist thinking is now coming home to roost for millions of families struggling to pay their bills.

    These homes installed either insulation and cavity or solid wall insulation, something which the group said was enough to slash gas usage by 20%.

    The UK has the worst insulated homes in Europe, according to a 2020 survey by thermostat maker Tado. If outside temperatures are at freezing, UK homes heated to 20 degrees will lose three degrees in five hours. In Norway, homes just lose 0.9 degrees in the same time under the same conditions, and even in warmer countries the insulation is better.

    Italian homes lose 1.5 degrees in five hours while Spanish homes lose 2.2 degrees, the data showed. In normal times this means that UK residents have to use more gas or electricity to heat their home than their European neighbours. This means more carbon emissions, and as gas prices are expected to soar for households from April, it could put severe strain on bank accounts too.

    The high cost of anti-green ‘savings’

    Dr Simon Cran-McGreehin, head of analysis at the ECIU, said:

    The legacy of David Cameron’s supposed ‘cut the green crap’ mantra is a short-term political decision leading to longer-term higher bills for millions.

    The simplest way to protect the UK, particularly less well-off households, against volatile international gas prices is to use less gas.

    Keeping a gas boiler chugging away has become much more expensive and may well lead many to consider making use of new Government support in April to switch to heat pumps that don’t produce air pollution and that run on electricity, the price of which thanks to British renewables has not shot up in the same way as gas.

    Featured image via World Economic Forum (CC 2.0) – image cropped to 770 x 403

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • This latest slaughter highlights Britain’s shameful role in the Yemen war

    On 21 January, air strikes from the Saudi Arabia-led military coalition were blamed for killing over 200 people in the “U.S.-backed conflict” in Yemen. One report said the bombings targeted a prison “holding mostly migrants”. The report says they also bombed and killed children as they played football. Following these attacks, the medical humanitarian organisation Doctors Without Borders said one hospital was:

    so overwhelmed that they can’t take any more patients

    As extensively reported by The Canary, the UK arms industry has a vested interest in this conflict. And this latest slaughter highlights Britain’s role in Yemen, as Labour MP Kate Osamor tweeted:

    The travesty unfolds

    The AFP News Agency reported on the attack and the extensive loss of human life:

    Meanwhile this human rights activist posted this video claiming to be of a bombing on a civilian home:

    British complicity

    Moreover, this image analyst service posted shocking “before” and “after” images. It claims these are images of a football field hit during the strike. And it listed the countries, including the UK, it felt were responsible:

    This protest in Huddersfield, which took place on Saturday 22 January, also pointed a finger at the UK and called on it to stop arming Saudi Arabia:

    And rapper and Mint Press News podcast host Lowkey drew attention to the UK’s overall responsibility in this war:

    Meanwhile, this twitter user called for the International Criminal Court to hold the UK responsible:

    How is the UK getting away with this?

    This war in Yemen has been raging for over seven years, with the death toll approaching 400,000 people. Yet it appears as if little pressure is being brought against the UK for its complicity. If the international community is actually serious about planning “a brighter future in Yemen”, then the UK’s role in supplying and benefiting from the war needs to be front and centre. And the UK needs to be held accountable.

    Featured image via Flickr – Alisdare Hickson cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CY BB 3.0.

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Keir Starmer beats war drums to support a government that’s soft on antisemitism

    Writing in the Telegraph on 21 January, Labour Party leader Keir Starmer beat the drums of war saying Britain must “stand firm against Russian aggression”. Starmer wrote this as tensions between Russia and Ukraine increase amid reports that Russia is amassing troops on the Ukrainian border. Even more worrying is the support he’s offering a government that voted against adopting the UN resolution to combat the glorification of Nazism.

    Under Starmer’s leadership, Labour suspended Jeremy Corbyn when he refused to retract his comment saying the scale of antisemitism in Labour was “dramatically overstated”. Yet he still wants the UK to stand in solidarity with a Ukrainian government that supports actual antisemites.

    Instead of using tokenistic diplomacy to call for solidarity with Ukraine, Starmer could use his position to deescalate the current crisis and call out western military expansionism. Unfortunately he doesn’t. So not only is this hypocrisy, but it’s rhetoric that risks all-out conflict between nuclear superpowers.

    “Dangerous claptrap”

    Starmer laid out his explicit support for Tory defence policy and called on the UK to stand in solidarity with Ukraine:

    I must commend the work of the Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, on this matter. He has worked hard to bring people together, written with moral clarity on the nature of Russian aggression and ensured that the UK continues to support Ukraine’s ability to defend itself through military aid.

    Former Labour MP Chris Williamson of the Resist Movement described Starmer’s position as “dangerous claptrap”.

    Meanwhile this Twitter user was among others who pointed out Starmer’s hypocrisy. He made reference to the Ukrainian National Guard’s Azov Battalion which has neo-Nazi links:

    Beating the war drums

    Parts of Starmer’s article read as if he was trying to pursue a diplomatic resolution to current tensions. But it wasn’t long before he mentioned the use of “allied troops”:

    We must continue to explore diplomatic routes to avoid conflict. But Russian demands that Ukraine give up its desires to join Nato and the EU should not be entertained. Nobody envisages British and allied troops being dragged into war. But we need to work with allies to use our collective resources, including sanctions, to show Russia the actions it takes will have consequences.

    Some called him out as a “warmonger” and made comparisons with Blair:

    Sorry, who’s the aggressor?

    Starmer’s article typifies the mood of Western mainstream media. That is, one which labels this build up of Russian troops as an act of “aggression”. However, this infographic highlights the global presence of the US and UK military. And it includes a US military presence near Russia’s borders. Yet that doesn’t seem to get the same coverage in that same media:

    (Left to right) US military bases (aljazeera.com) & UK Armed forces (forces.net)

     

    It could be that Starmer’s Labour sees this as its route to No.10 – out Torying the Tories – as they compete with the Conservative Party to face down ‘Russian aggression’. A dangerous game that could add to the thousands who have already died in Ukraine, and possibly further afield. Not only is diplomacy the obvious answer, but so too is an end to the tension caused by Western military expansion.

    Featured image via The Grayzone – YouTube Screengrab & PoliticsJOE – YouTube screengrab

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • State pension underpayments are ‘shameful shambles’

    The long-term underpayment of state pensioners, an unknown number of whom will have died without receiving what they were owed, is a “shameful shambles”, according to a public spending watchdog.

    Shambolic

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimates it has underpaid 134,000 pensioners over £1bn of their state pension entitlement. Most of them are women, and some errors date as far back as 1985.

    In January 2021, the DWP started an exercise to correct the errors. This was the ninth such exercise since 2018, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said. The errors mostly affect widows, divorcees, and women who rely on their husband’s pension contributions for some of their pension. Complex pension rules and a reliance on highly manual systems led to the underpayment of tens of thousands of pensioners.

    The committee of MPs said the underlying IT system used to manage millions of pensioner records dates back to 1988. Quality checks failed to identify the systematic underpayments and small errors added up over years to significant sums of money. The PAC said the department should consider whether there are cost-effective ways to upgrade its IT systems “as a matter of urgency”.

    There’s currently no formal plan for contacting the next of kin where a pensioner who was underpaid is dead, the committee said.

    The DWP is only paying those it has identified as having a legal entitlement to arrears, in some cases many years after the event. And it’s been inconsistent in paying interest, it added. It’s also shown little interest in understanding the further knock-on consequences, including on social care provision, for those it underpaid, MPs said.

    The cost of getting it wrong

    Fixing DWP’s mistakes is expected to cost £24.3m in staff costs alone by the end of 2023, the PAC added. Experienced staff have been moved away from business-as-usual for the job. And the department is experiencing backlogs in processing new applications.

    The risk remains that the errors that led to underpayments in the first place will be repeated in the correction exercise, if not also in new claims.

    Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the PAC, said:

    Departments that make errors through maladministration have a duty to put those it wronged back in the position they should have been, without the error.

    In reality DWP can never make up what people have actually lost, over decades, and in many cases it’s not even trying. An unknown number of pensioners died without ever getting their due and there is no current plan to pay back their estates.

    DWP is now on its ninth go at fixing these mistakes since 2018, the specialised staff diverted to fix this mess costing tens of millions more to the taxpayer and predictable consequences in delays to new pension claims.

    And there is no assurance that the errors that led to these underpayments in the first place will not be repeated in the correction exercise.

    This is a shameful shambles.

    ‘Quality’ checks

    Quality checks failed to identify the systematic underpayment of thousands of pensioners.

    The PAC said an absence of regular reporting on state pension inquiries makes it concerned that senior management “is not focused on designing a data strategy that detects errors in a more systematic way”. It also said the department should be treating state pension underpayments as seriously as overpayments.

    Additionally, the DWP hasn’t given people who are worried they’ve been underpaid enough information to find out what they should do, the committee said. Its communications strategy is to only contact those whom it finds have been underpaid. And its priority has been to focus on living pensioners rather than the dead, even though some of their next of kin may be financially vulnerable, the committee added.

    It said the DWP hasn’t been sufficiently transparent to parliament about the underpayments and should provide periodic updates.

    The MPs added:

    Despite a campaign by the former pensions minister, Sir Steve Webb and ThisisMoney.co.uk, from January 2020, the department did not consider underpayments to be a significant issue until August 2020, meaning that it missed opportunities to identify and resolve the problem sooner.

    Paying pensioners lump sums in arrears may also affect benefits entitlements. But the department has shown “little interest in accounting for financial consequences”, the committee said. It said the DWP should establish the full impact of receiving a lump sum. And it should make sure people aren’t being treated prejudicially compared with if they’d received the money when it was meant to be paid.

    A narrow scope

    There must also be a risk that similar unidentified errors exist elsewhere in the system, the PAC said. It added:

    Steve Webb has told us he believes the scope of the correction exercise is too narrow.

    Webb, who is now a partner at consultants LCP (Lane Clark & Peacock), said:

    The committee are right to be highly critical of DWP over this whole debacle.

    It is shocking that DWP’s regular checks regarded the level of error on state pensions as too small to be worth investigating when in reality many thousands of people have missed out on potentially life-changing amounts of money.

    Webb added:

    There are still far too many people missing out on the state pension to which they are entitled and DWP needs to track them all down as a matter of urgency.

    A DWP spokesperson said:

    Resolving the historical state pension underpayments that have been made by successive governments is a priority for the department and we are committed to doing so as quickly as possible.

    We have set up a dedicated team and devoted significant resources to processing outstanding cases, and have introduced new quality control processes and improved training to help ensure this does not happen again. Those affected will be contacted by us to ensure they receive all that they are owed.

    We are carefully considering the content of the Public Accounts Committee’s report and will respond formally in due course.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Yet another protest against Boris Johnson as banners fly over Premier League games

    Banners reading “Boot him out! – StopBoris.com” were flown over Premier League matches on Saturday 22 January. The banners flew over games held at Old Trafford in Manchester and Elland Road in Leeds.

    “BOOT HIM OUT!”

    Campaign group Open Britain told the PA news agency it had “booked the aircraft”. And the group added that it was taking its “campaign fighting to have Boris Johnson removed from power… to the skies”.

    The group said it had decided to:

    increase public pressure after the Prime Minister failed to step down this week.

    The website displayed on the banner links to a petition calling for Johnson to be “removed from power”. It currently has more than 77,000 signatures. Leeds United played Newcastle United at Elland Road, with a banner also seen at Old Trafford where Manchester United faced West Ham.

    Protests all over

    Other recent protests have made Johnson a focal point. A Scottish independence march on 22 January highlighted his recent scandals:

    Moreover, ‘Kill the Bill’ protests on 15 January saw accusations of Johnson making the UK increasingly repressive:

    And a protest the day before saw a swarm of Johnson look-a-likes descend on Downing Street to mimic one of the many parties he’s accused of having attended:

    In an attempt to save his position, Johnson is said to have given in to pressure from backbench MPs to remove coronavirus (Covid-19) restrictions from 26 January.

    Meanwhile, party whips are also facing scrutiny. This is due to them employing pressuring tactics against MPs to save Johnson, which the Commons Standards Committee chairman has described as illegal.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • No inquiry into Nusrat Ghani’s ‘Muslimness’ sacking claim

    Deputy prime minister Dominic Raab has said there will be no “specific investigation” into a Tory MP’s claim that she was told she’d been fired as a minister due to concerns about her “Muslimness”.

    Nusrat Ghani said a government whip told her that her faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”. This was when she lost her job as a transport minister in 2020.

    No investigation

    Raab said while Ghani’s allegation was “incredibly serious”, there would be no investigation by the Conservative Party unless she submitted a formal complaint.

    However, in her interview, Ghani said she had not pursued the matter at the time. This was after warnings that she’d be “ostracised by colleagues” and her “career and reputation would be destroyed”.

    Her explosive claim brought immediate condemnation from Conservative MPs and opposition parties alike. And Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi led demands for an inquiry.

     

    Nusrat Ghani
    Nusrat Ghani said she was warned her career would be destroyed if she pursued the matter (Christopher McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA)

    In her interview, Ghani, the MP for Wealden, said she was shocked when the issue of her background and faith was raised. It came up during a meeting in the whips’ office after the mini-reshuffle in February 2020. She told the paper:

    It was like being punched in the stomach. I felt humiliated and powerless…

    I was told that at the reshuffle meeting in Downing Street that ‘Muslimness’ was raised as an ‘issue’, that my ‘Muslim women minister’ status was making colleagues uncomfortable and that there were concerns ‘that I wasn’t loyal to the party as I didn’t do enough to defend the party against Islamophobia allegations’.

    It was very clear to me that the whips and No 10 were holding me to a higher threshold of loyalty than others because of my background and faith.

    In the following weeks, I was informed that if I persisted in raising this that I would be ostracised by colleagues and my career and reputation would be destroyed.

    Party whips leading by example

    In a dramatic move, chief whip Mark Spencer outed himself as the individual who spoke to Ghani. But he strongly denied using the words Ghani claimed:

    The row erupted at the start of a crucial week for Johnson. Sue Gray, the senior civil servant investigating lockdown parties in Downing Street, is expected to deliver her report this week.

    The conduct of the whips’ office has come under intense scrutiny recently. It’s following claims that tactics amounting to blackmail were used to pressurise Tory MPs seeking to oust Johnson.

    Raab told Sky News’s Trevor Phillips On Sunday programme:

    [Spencer] has categorically denied it in what can only be described as the most forthright and robust terms indeed…

    If there are any claims like this they should result in a formal complaint which allows a formal investigation to take place.

    As the Chief Whip has pointed out Nus hasn’t made a formal complaint. She was asked to do so. In the absence of doing so there will be no specific investigation into this.

    Featured image via Wikimedia/Chris McAndrew

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson is putting his political career ahead of people’s lives

    UK prime minister Boris Johnson has agreed to end ‘Plan B’ protection measures for England. Those measures include compulsory face coverings in many indoor venues, working from home if possible, and coronavirus (Covid-19) passes for certain settings.

    This is despite preliminary research from Israel suggesting that even with a fourth jab, there’s only limited defence against the Omicron variant. There’s also a new, albeit small, study that suggests the number of days people could remain infectious is higher than thought.

    Politics not science

    Wearing of face masks will become voluntary from 24 January, but there will be a price to pay:

    Independent SAGE member professor Christina Pagel argues that face coverings should be retained:

    Meanwhile the British Medical Association made it clear that by lifting protective measures, the UK government is placing “the public at greater risk”:

    Economy comes first

    On 17 January, the government issued the following ruling for England in regard to people testing positive from coronavirus:

    You can stop self-isolating at the start of day 6 if you get 2 negative rapid lateral flow test results on days 5 and 6 and do not have a temperature. Tests must be at least 24 hours apart. If either test is positive, wait 24 hours before testing again.

    It’s understood the reason for these changes is to help ensure that people return to work earlier, especially given staff shortages from sickness in the NHS.

    However, a published clinical study provides evidence that some people may remain infectious for much longer than five days. Researchers at Exeter University claim one in ten people are still coronavirus positive after five days, and infection can last beyond 10 days if not several weeks.

    They explain that PCR tests look for viral fragments, but the tests can’t confirm whether a person is still infectious. However the researchers applied a modified PCR in their study that gives a positive result if coronavirus is still active and capable of onward transmission.

    Professor Lorna Harries, one of the researchers, further explained:

    While this is a relatively small study, our results suggest that potentially active virus may sometimes persist beyond a 10-day period, and could pose a potential risk of onward transmission.

    Professor Lawrence Young of Warwick Medical School, another of the researchers, commented:

    This study reinforces concerns that reducing the self-isolation period to five days will increase the risk of highly infectious people spreading infection as they return to work or school.

    The researchers want to conduct larger trials and to investigate further.

    Questions about fourth jab

    In December 2021, it was reported that the third (i.e. booster) jab’s protection against the Omicron variant wanes after only 10 weeks and a fourth jab may be required. Though it appears the booster “is “more likely” to remain effective against the most severe hospital cases of Omicron”.

    However, preliminary findings in Israel suggest a fourth vaccine is only partially effective against Omicron. This resulted from a trial whereby patients who had previously had three jabs were administered a fourth jab – of either the Pfizer-BioNtech or the Moderna vaccine.

    Although director of Israel’s Health Ministry Dr Nahman Ash explained this doesn’t mean a fourth vaccine is of no value:

    [The fourth vaccine] returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster. That has great importance, especially among the older population.

    Meanwhile the European Medicines Agency recommends that a fourth booster should best be applied yearly at the onset of the cold season.

    Other concerns

    There remain negligible safety measures in primary schools, which might explain the rising number of children being hospitalised:

    And there are still no vaccinations available for primary school children, says Pagel:

    PM losing it

    Johnson’s determination to open the economy comes at a time when he’s under siege from the partygate scandal. So it’s not surprising he’s the object of ridicule:

    At the same time, the Tory party is facing accusations of blackmail and intimidation against MPs who seek a vote of no confidence in Johnson’s leadership:

    This is the opposite of ‘pork barrelling‘ and involves claims of threats to withhold finance to constituencies of MPs who won’t back the government.

    Labour MP Chris Bryant, chair of the Commons Standards Committee, commented:

    The allocation of taxpayer funding to constituencies should be according to need, not according to the need to keep the Prime Minister in his job.

    Punishing an MP for not toeing the party line is one thing, but allegedly punishing entire constituencies to keep the government in power is another. These alleged threats could amount to criminal conduct and the possibility of prosecutions.

    Ghost of Neville Chamberlain

    But in the end, it’s all about Johnson, says Pagel:

    Meanwhile, former Conservative cabinet minister David Davis tore into Johnson during Prime Minister’s Questions. Davis referenced a speech by Leo Amery in May 1940 in which he demands that Neville Chamberlain, who history portrays as an appeaser of Adolf Hitler, relinquish his position as prime minister:

    You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go

    Johnson is literally fighting to save his political life. Ordinary folk, meanwhile, are literally fighting off the virus to save their actual lives.

    Featured image via Pixabay – Tumisu / YouTube – ITV News

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • MP at Scottish independence rally says Boris Johnson ‘needs to go now’

    Prime minister Boris Johnson has been branded a “charlatan” by an SNP MP at an independence rally. The MP additionally said that Johnson “needs to go now”.

    Partygate

    Stephen Flynn was among those who marched from Glasgow’s George Square to Glasgow Green on 22 January, calling on the prime minister to quit over parties held at Downing Street during lockdown. The Aberdeen South MP said Scotland’s problems would not be fixed by Johnson’s resignation and only Scottish independence would be the way forward.

    He said:

    As you know, as I know, as everyone up and down Scotland knows, this Prime Minister is a charlatan, this Prime Minister is corrupt and this Prime Minister is a liar.

    The reality is, over the course of the last year or two, what we’ve seen is a Prime Minister who’s just taken £20 away from the poorest in society when we’re on the brink of a cost-of-living crisis.

    He added:

    This is a man who partied… whilst people across Scotland and across the UK were dying.

    Boris Johnson needs to go and he needs to go now.

    Pro-independence protestors march through Glasgow
    Independence supporters marched through Glasgow on Saturday (Jane Barlow/PA)

    “Not since 1955”

    Issues in Scotland with the UK government “don’t start and they don’t stop with Boris Johnson”, Flynn said as he touted the need for the country to leave the union. He added:

    Not since 1955 – some 70 years – have the people of Scotland endorsed the Tories at the ballot box, yet we have been the ones who have had to bear the brunt of their policies.

    Their policies hammer the poorest in society while they feather their own corporate nests, while they continue repeatedly to ignore the democratic views of the people of Scotland.

    So, Boris Johnson, doesn’t just need to go – the Tories need to go too.

    The SNP business spokesperson at Westminster went on to describe the UK Parliament as “an antique” which “doesn’t care about you or me or anyone else up and down Scotland”. He continued:

    Let’s be done with Boris Johnson, let’s be done with the Tories, let’s be done with Westminster and let’s be done with their union.

    Let’s build something better, let’s build something that’s got compassion at its heart, that’s got people at its heart, that’s got our values and our principles at its heart.

    Alba Party MP Neale Hanvey also addressed the march, calling on the Scottish government to call a constitutional convention “to chart our path to independence”.

    The Canary has reported on what Johnson’s latest barrage of scandals could mean for Scottish independence.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Unions accuse government of ‘bizarre micromanagement’ over classroom face mask row

    Boris Johnson has urged teachers who insist masks should still be worn in lessons to follow the rules which state that they’re no long required in classrooms. With the pandemic still ongoing, one union has branded the intervention as “utterly unnecessary, if not bizarre”.

    It comes as coronavirus (Covid-19) deaths in the UK are up, albeit very slightly. In the seven days up to 21 January there were 1,878 deaths, an increase of 0.5%. The seven-day average is more than double what it was on 8 December – the date when the government confirmed a “move to Plan B in England”.

    Johnson has been accused of ending the public safety measures to appease backbench MPs who otherwise might register a vote of no-confidence in him.

    “Bizarre”

    A spokesperson for the prime minister said that Johnson “believes it is vital that children are receiving face-to-face education and can enjoy a normal experience in the classroom”.

    He added:

    The Prime Minister also thinks that the schools should follow the latest guidance.

    We’ve been clear that we removed the requirement for face masks to be worn in classrooms and we will remove advice for face masks to be worn in communal areas from January 27.

    The news comes following an email from education secretary Nadhim Zahawi to MPs. It states that Zahawi will personally vet any plans to bring back masks in classrooms. But unions have condemned this as an example of Whitehall seeking to “micromanage” schools.

    In a letter to MPs sent on 20 January, Zahawi said he has agreed with directors of public health that in the event of “extraordinary” local coronavirus (Covid-19) spikes, they’ll consult with him before recommending the reintroduction of face masks in schools in England.

    Meanwhile unions have said the intervention from the education secretary is “utterly unnecessary, if not bizarre”.

    Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the NEU teaching union, told the PA news agency:

    Schools and colleges who take the decision to keep face coverings as a requirement in classrooms will have… done so following a risk assessment, and with the head using his or her professional judgment and knowledge about what’s best for the school to protect face-to-face education.

    This is a sensible precaution, particularly given we are now in the run-up to national examinations and the issues to education caused by staff and pupil absences.

    That Whitehall would seek to micromanage such decisions seems utterly unnecessary, if not bizarre.

    Confusion

    Geoff Barton is general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL). He said schools were “put in a potentially difficult position” with prime minister Boris Johnson’s announcement on 19 January that face masks would no longer be needed in classrooms from 20 January. Barton said:

    The Government’s own guidance says that directors of public health may advise that face masks are needed in classrooms in response to local circumstances. But schools are unlikely to have had any time in which to consult them, or in which to communicate the changes with parents and staff.

    It is therefore not surprising if some schools have continued to use face masks for the time being while they resolve these issues.

    Barton has previously accused the government of going against scientific consensus:

    Children in class
    The face mask requirement in schools in England was lifted earlier this week by the prime minister (PA)

    ‘Disappointment’

    Pepe Di’Iasio, a former ASCL president and headteacher at Wales High School in Rotherham, South Yorkshire spoke to PA. He said new safety measures for schools need to be carefully communicated with pupils. And he added that his school will tell pupils they should no longer wear masks in classrooms, while it will no longer be compulsory for them to be worn in corridors from next week.

    On Johnson’s announcement, he said:

    I was disappointed that we were suddenly working to dates and not data – all the way through this we’ve been talking about looking at data and all of a sudden, now we’re working to a date.

    He said his school isn’t seeing high coronavirus case rates, but the timing of the announcement made communicating changes with pupils more difficult. He said:

    We were all anticipating an announcement on the 26th and what we’ve now got is a difficulty with our students, because they will have heard the announcement at the same time as us, and so some of them will be saying: ‘I no longer need to wear my mask any more, do I?’ It’s about just having the clarity of those boundaries.

    Students are quite straightforward so some of them will think that if they don’t have to wear them there any more, ‘does that mean I don’t have to wear them anywhere any more?’ And that isn’t necessarily what the guidance is saying.

    He said the school will need to communicate with pupils that they might still need to wear masks on the private buses that take them to and from school, for instance.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Tory whips’ alleged coercion of MPs to save Boris Johnson slammed as illegal

    The senior MP who heads the Commons corruption watchdog has warned that government attempts to pressurise Tory MPs seeking to oust Boris Johnson are illegal.

    ‘Misconduct in public office’

    Chris Bryant is chairman of the Commons Standards Committee. He said threats to withdraw public funding from MPs’ constituencies amounted to “misconduct in public office”. And MPs should refer these threats to the police.

    He added that there were even allegations Johnson had been directly involved. It comes as he battles to save his job ahead of a keenly-awaited report into lockdown parties in Downing Street.

    His intervention came after William Wragg, the senior Tory MP who first raised concerns about attempted “blackmail” by No 10, disclosed that he is to meet police to discuss his claims.

    Bryant, a Labour MP, said he had spoken to “about a dozen” Conservatives in recent days. Government whips had either threatened them with having funding cut from their constituencies or promised funding if they voted “the right way”.

    Bryant told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme:

    I have even heard MPs alleging that the Prime Minister himself has been doing this…

    What I have said to all of those people is that I think that is misconduct in public office. The people who should be dealing with such allegations are the police.

    We are not the United States. We don’t run a ‘pork barrel’ system. It is illegal.

    We are meant to operate as MPs without fear or favour. The allocation of taxpayer funding to constituencies should be according to need, not according to the need to keep the Prime Minister in his job.

    ‘I am meeting the police early next week’

    Earlier, Wragg said he would be meeting a Scotland Yard detective in the House of Commons early next week. He’s planning to raise the prospect of the police opening an investigation.

    The disclosure came after Downing Street said it would not be mounting its own inquiry into the claims. That’s despite calls to do so by both Conservative and opposition MPs. But a No 10 spokesperson said it would only open an inquiry if it was presented with evidence to back up Wragg’s assertions.

    However, the MP, who chairs the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, said he believed an investigation should be for the “experts” in the police.

    William Wragg, chairman of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
    William Wragg will meet police to discuss his allegations of ‘blackmail’ by No 10 (Parliament TV/PA)

    And he told the Daily Telegraph that he would outline “several” examples of bullying and intimidation, in some cases involving public money. He told the newspaper:

    I stand by what I have said. No amount of gas-lighting will change that…

    The offer of Number 10 to investigate is kind but I shall leave it to the experts. I am meeting the police early next week.

    A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said:

    As with any such allegations, should a criminal offence be reported to the Met, it would be considered.

    Sue Gray’s report

    Wragg’s latest intervention comes as No 10 is braced for the expected delivery of Sue Gray’s report next week. Gray is the senior civil servant investigating lockdown parties in Downing St and elsewhere in Whitehall.

    It’s likely to lead to renewed calls from opposition parties for a police investigation if there is any evidence the prime minister and government staff broke coronavirus (Covid-19) rules.

    Meanwhile Wragg is one of seven Tory MPs to have called publicly for the prime minister to resign. He stunned Westminster with his allegations of a campaign of intimidation by No 10 amounting to criminal conduct.

    And Christian Wakeford, the Bury South MP who defected to Labour, later described how the Tory whips had warned him over funding for a new school in his constituency if he rebelled in a vote over free school meals.

    Ministers have sought to dismiss the allegations, insisting the whips had no role in the allocation of public funding.

    The latest disclosures will only fuel the febrile mood at Westminster, with Johnson’s political survival hanging in the balance.

    Moreover, the publication of Gray’s report could potentially trigger a fresh wave of letters to the Tory backbench 1922 Committee’s chairman Graham Brady.

    Under party rules, there will be a confidence vote in Johnson if 54 of the party’s MPs write to Brady calling for one.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Centrists are creaming themselves over Rory Stewart again

    It’s that time again. The time when arch-Tory Rory Stewart says something incredibly obvious that the left has been saying for years. The difference is that he does it in an incredibly posh voice, and thus centrists go absolutely wild about it.

    This time it’s due to him revealing that Boris Johnson is bad (wow, original), and that he should resign (you don’t say!?). Despite being extremely banal in every way, the interview clearly excited the following gentleman whose political views are “deep woke, mask-wearer, bunny hugger, hard centrist, 📷 girly swots, 📷📷anti Brexit, mountain biker, bookshop owner, hard remainer, anti fascist. EU citizen”:

    Twitter user ‘Kercle’ was quick to express their admiration for Stewart. Their notable error was suggesting Stewart’s Toryness is past tense, as if it’s somehow subsided since he left electoral politics:

    Edwin Hayward, author of a book on ‘Brexit unicorns’, celebrated this bad Tory’s “minimalist clarity”, whatever that means…

    Andy Sawers could barely contain himself on Twitter at the idea of Tory Rory pronouncing on things:

    Very Tory Rory

    To be fair, some people have cottoned on to Stewart’s enduring Toryness. Journalist Rebecca Wilks suggests we can 100% do better, “babes”.

    Scholar Peter Mitchell, who’s recent book Imperial Nostalgia positions Stewart as a colonial boy adventurer who somehow endured into the era of smart phones, questioned whether Stewart was, in fact, a real person:

    But Art Crunch probably captured the mood best when he pointed out that Stewart was merely pointing out what was pointed out years ago. Just not by the kind of posh, right-wing Tories whom centrists so adore:

    The Real Tory Rory

    So, let’s take a quick look at the real Rory, a Tory. On home affairs, he voted in favour of wonderful liberal policies like stricter asylum measures and harsher enforcement of immigration rules. He also voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications.

    On tax, he opposed a mansion tax and was in favour of stricter trade union laws. He also supported Royal Mail privatisation and legal aid restrictions.

    As a true blue Tory, he voted in favour of cutting housing benefits and welfare, and against using public money to create jobs for young people.

    Gory Rory

    On foreign policy, he was in favour of military deployments and nuclear weapons. For the hard Remainers in his fanbase, we should also point out he voted for the referendum, against membership of the EU, against the right to remain for EU citizens, and against further integration into the EU. That’s right, he’s Mark Francois but with Latin quotes.

    For those with an interest in the climate, he voted against measures to deal with the climate crisis.

    So, while we know some people will believe anything as long as posh, white bloke tells it to them, it’s worth taking a look at what that individual’s record actually is. Tory Rory might sound like a sensible managerial leader, but a five-minute poke through his voting record shows him to be about as progressive as, well, Boris Johnson.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Foreign and Commonwealth Office, cropped to 770 x 440, CC BY 2.0

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The centrists are still twisting the truth about the EHRC report. And people aren’t having it.

    The centrists are at it again! Right-wing Labour MPs love twisting the findings of a key report on antisemitism in the Labour Party. This time it was Rachel Reeves, during an interview on the BBC. The main discussion was the arrival in Labour of Tory defector Christian Wakeford MP.

    For some, a Tory joining your party might cause concern. Not Reeves though – she was “pleased” that Conservatives were joining Labour. She was then challenged on why an actual Tory was allowed in to Labour when former leader Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t.

    A flustered Reeves said:

    It’s very clear what Jeremy Corbyn needs to do. He needs to apologise for his response to the [EHRC] on the Labour Party, which found institutional antisemitism and mistakes made under his leadership.

    The facts

    Corbyn is not currently allowed to serve as a Labour MP. His suspension followed a statement he made after a major report on antisemitism in Labour was published:

    One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

    To many people this is stating the obvious. But Keir Starmer quickly suspended Corbyn. Many feel this move was less about antisemitism and more about purging the Labour left’s figurehead.

    “Flat-out lying”

    One twitter user tweeted the exchange. They accused Reeves of “flat-out lying” to distract from letting a literal Tory into the party:

    The findings of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report are hotly debated. And Reeves’ claim drew immediate criticism on social media.

    Incorrect

    Some people accused Reeves of vastly exaggerating “the scale of antisemitism for political purposes”:

    As someone pointed out, Reeves once highlighted the first woman MP Mary Astor’s political successes without once mentioning her rabid antisemitism In fact, as The Canary reported previously, many centrist figures lauded Astor despite her well-documented far-right political views:

    Revisiting

    Whether or not Reeves is ‘lying’ depends on how you interpret the findings of the EHRC report. It did find that:

    there were unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination for which the Labour Party is responsible.

    However, as Electronic Intifada reported:

    But despite its 17-month investigation, the EHRC failed to find Labour guilty of “institutional anti-Semitism,” despite being asked to do so by two pro-Israel groups – the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” and the Jewish Labour Movement.

    But the bigger issue in Reeves weaponising the report in this way is the serious shortcomings with the report in its methods and motivations.

    As The Canary’s Emily Apple wrote in October 2020,

    Any and all allegations of antisemitism must be taken seriously. And if the Labour Party is responsible for “harassment and discrimination” then this must be addressed. But here’s where there’s a fatal flaw. Because the report includes, quite rightly, “using antisemitic tropes” as an issue. But it then adds “suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears” as an issue in its own right.

    And she added:

    This is hugely problematic and a massive Catch-22

    Accepted uncritically

    She explains many of the other key issues with the report. And she argues that with Corbyn’s suspension:

    any whiff of this critical evaluation has been drowned out. The report’s headline findings are accepted uncritically and broadcast as fact, without nuance and closer examination. It’s marred by interference from the very lobby that the report says is antisemitic to accuse of involvement. This argument wouldn’t stand if the report had evidenced other examples of antisemitic behaviour. But it doesn’t.

    And this is the key point. There seems to be no space, or effort, to evaluate the EHRC report or its outcomes. The truth is this lack of critical thought does nothing to fight the very real threat of antisemitism. And it’s high time Labour MPs stopped weaponising the EHRC report for their own goals.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/BahrainRevolutionMC, cropped to 770 x 440, licenced under CY BB 3.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Model ‘pulled her hair out’ after being secretly filmed by Met officer

    A model who was secretly filmed by a senior Metropolitan Police officer using spy cameras has been left with bald spots after pulling out her hair, a court has heard.

    Another police pervert

    Detective inspector Neil Corbel, 40, posed as an airline pilot to book women for photoshoots before planting the gadgets in hotel rooms, flats, and Airbnbs. The cameras were hidden in everyday items, including tissue boxes, phone chargers, air fresheners, glasses, keys and headphones, to video his unsuspecting victims.

    Police found images of 51 women on Corbel’s hard drive, with 19 victims, including 16 models and three escorts, agreeing to make statements against him.

    Neil Corbel court case
    Corbel was suspended by the Met Police (Victoria Jones/PA)

    Corbel, a former counter-terrorism officer, who has been suspended by the Met where he was attached to the Continuous Policing Improvement Command, has pleaded guilty to 19 counts of voyeurism. Judge Martin Edmunds QC will sentence him at Isleworth Crown Court later on 21 January for the offences which took place across the London, Manchester, and Brighton areas between January 2017 and February 2020.

    Three of the women, who cannot be identified because they are victims of sexual offences, attended court to face the former counter-terrorism officer as they read their victim impact statements.

    High-level manipulation

    One model, who agreed to pose for a “fashion and artistic nude shoot”, was visibly angry as she told Corbel his crimes had “affected every aspect of my life”. She said, showing her scalp to the court:

    I have pulled so much of my hair out with stress I have bald spots and have had to turn down work.

    Women, especially models and sex workers, tend to struggle to report sex crimes to police.

    He knew we were potentially easy, quiet prey. So, how can I tell women to trust police when this man has shaken my beliefs?

    Another model said:

    The fact the defendant is a police officer has scared me and shocked me. He’s supposed to enforce the law, not break it. I expect he knows how to deal with people, and he’s used his knowledge, experience and training to manipulate me.

    He was so charming and believable in his role. I just ask myself what else was he capable of?

    A third woman, who went on a date with Corbel, said he came across as “genuine and charming”. She said:

    The way Neil lied and completely made up a different life still sticks in my mind a lot.

    A man with his intelligence would’ve known he could reach out for help rather than manipulate women for his own kicks.

    Other victims, who were not in court, mentioned the case of 33-year-old marketing executive Sarah Everard, who was snatched off the street before being raped and murdered by Met PC Wayne Couzens, 48. One said:

    The fact that he is a policeman is a huge deal.

    These people are meant to protect us. Following the murder of Sarah Everard this feels like a very frightening time to be a woman.

    Sex work can be dangerous, though I’m lucky in this is the first form of violence I have experienced at work.

    If you can’t trust police officers, then what are we supposed to do?

    Another said:

    Finding out about this was a total shock to the system. I don’t want to point the finger at all police officers, but they are meant to be there to protect you. Especially with the Sarah Everard case, it is difficult to know who to trust. I don’t feel protected right now.

    I was oblivious to his wrongdoing and I imagine the other victims were.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Even a cabinet minister thinks claims of ‘blackmailing’ MPs should be investigated

    A cabinet minister has said an investigation should be carried out into “completely unacceptable” allegations of Tory critics of Boris Johnson being blackmailed into supporting him.

    The “bottom of the matter”

    Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said ministers “need to get to the bottom of the matter” but that he believes it is “very unlikely” the claims made by colleagues are true. These “very unlikely” claims have elsewhere been described as the way “the whipping system has always worked”:

    Senior Tory MP William Wragg said critics considering triggering a no confidence vote in the prime minister were receiving threats to “withdraw investments” from constituencies, as well as “intimidation” from No 10 staff. Wragg, the chair of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, said the threats could amount to “blackmail” and urged colleagues to report them to the police. Wragg has been accused of attention seeking by culture minister Nadine Dorries:

    Boris Johnson
    Prime minister Boris Johnson is continuing to deny claims Tory critics are facing ‘intimidation’ which could amount to blackmail (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

    Christian Wakeford, the Bury South MP who defected from the Tories to Labour, said he was threatened with funding for a new school in his constituency being withheld if he did not vote with the government over free school meals.

    William Wragg
    Conservative MP William Wragg (Parliament TV/PA)

    Kwarteng claims he has “never heard anything like this” in British politics

    Kwarteng told Sky News:

    As far as the specific allegation about whips withholding funds, I think that’s completely unacceptable. Any form of blackmail and intimidation of that kind simply has no place in British politics.

    We need to get to the bottom of the matter. But I find it very unlikely that these allegations are true.

    The business secretary said Wakeford’s “very serious” allegation has so far been “unsubstantiated”. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

    I’m sure it will be investigated if it’s not being so already – after 12 years as an MP I’ve never heard anything like this.

    Having been an MP for 12 years I’ve never heard of anyone making a threat, certainly not to me or to anybody else of that kind, doesn’t mean it’s not true.

    He also described Wakeford, who was elected to Bury South in 2019 on a wafer-thin majority, of having “essentially turned coat” in switching to Labour. Labour MPs, meanwhile, have welcomed Wakeford’s arrival – even when that went against previous opinions they’ve expressed:

    Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves, meanwhile, has suggested that a democratic by-election would not be how “our democracy works”:

    Whether it’s allegations of blackmail or switching parties without an election – one thing is certain – this is not how a functioning democracy should work.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Voter ID: An attack on democracy

    The Tories’ Elections Bill aims to introduce mandatory voter ID. Curtis Daly explains how this could disenfranchise many of the most marginalised people.

    Video transcript

    House of Commons has passed the ‘Elections Bill’ – now in the House of Lords –  in which voter ID is mandated for elections. This is another assault on our democracy. Here’s why…

    On Monday evening, MPs voted in favour of the Elections Bill by 325 to 234. Within the bill, the government mandates the use of photo ID in order to vote in elections.

    This could not be any clearer of an example of voter suppression. Let me break it down for you.

    This is a tactic taken from the US for the government to cling to power – one that the Republican party pushed for decades. Many US states currently require photo ID to vote. However, Republicans want to go further.

    Since 2013, Southern States have cut 1,200 polling stations with the help of the Supreme Court which weakened a voting-discrimination law.

    The Civil and Human Rights conference found “that states with a history of racial discrimination have shuttered hundreds of voting locations since the court ruled that they did not need federal approval to change their laws.”

    Here we can see a picture forming. Voter ID laws affect those who are on lower incomes, or part of a minority group.

    Why do this? Simply put, higher turnout affects the Conservatives negatively, and those from a lower socioeconomic background are more likely to vote for Labour.

    But how does voter ID affect those who are poorer you ask?

    Passports cost money, driving licenses cost money. For many there are those who can’t afford holidays abroad so why would they have a passport? Driving is expensive, factor in learning to drive, buying and maintaining a car, and of course the ridiculous cost of insurance.

    It’s another case of more democracy for those with more money.

    People with a disability, those who are unemployed, a new voter, or those without qualifications are less likely to have any form of ID. 

    The FCA financial life survey report from 2020 found that 4% of those from a BAME background don’t have a bank account, compared to 2% of those people from a white UK background.

    So as we can see, the more marginalized you are, the less participation you would have under UK democracy when these ID laws come to fruition.

    The government has claimed that they would issue free voter ID cards. The issue we found ourselves in is that the government would need to successfully issue one to every single person in this country, that is not guaranteed. This means that people may still have to pay for traditional forms of ID.

    It is still another barrier to voting, and something that is not necessary.

    How can the government justify themselves? In the same way the US does. Voter fraud. I’m not gonna beat around the bush, the excuse of voter fraud is a load of baloney.

    In the 2019 general election, voter fraud is virtually non-existent with only 33 allegations. That’s 33 out of 58 million votes. Voter fraud makes absolutely zero difference to election outcomes.

    What’s more, these plans are set to cost a whopping £40m over a decade, or £20 million per election if you will.

    It’s money worth spending for the Tories if the working class, the poor, and minorities are shut out of elections, solidifying their grip on power.

    If they cared about democracy, why would they not extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds rather than actively voting against it? Unsurprisingly, the young don’t vote Tory.

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

    The threat to our democracy is not the tiny handful of people who attempt to engage in voter fraud; it is the capture of our elected representatives by businesses and the super rich, who buy their way to access our ministers and government contracts 

    Money knows no bounds, and this is another way of disenfranchisement, of smashing up what little democracy we have left.

    We need to resist this, and if we work together we can.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Devastating new pollution findings reveal a Tory-led Britain is life-threatening

    Chemical pollution is an immense threat to people, other animals, and the planet overall. Now researchers have calculated the true scale of the threat. Their findings reveal that such pollution, which includes plastics and pesticides, far exceeds the safe boundary that allows for the continued development of humanity, and indeed other life on Earth.

    News of this discovery landed just days after another related fact emerged in the UK. The Tory government has greenlit the use of a banned pesticide in England, meaning that it ensuring more of the same pollution that is already at sky-high and life-threatening levels. The pesticide is a neonicotinoid known for its bee- and wildlife-killing potential.

    Environmental organisations have called the government’s decision “shameful”. The scientists’ findings illustrate just how shameful and reckless it is for the UK’s inhabitants and the planet overall.

    We’ve been here before

    As The Canary previously reported, controversy over use of the neonicotinoid pesticide thiamethoxam started in early 2021. Following government promises that it would maintain an EU-wide ban on the chemical’s use after Brexit, it swiftly moved to approve its use after leaving the bloc. The government did so under an emergency authorisation, which is a mechanism also contained within the EU’s rules, and after lobbying by the National Farmers’ Union and British Sugar. The emergency authorisation was specifically for the pesticide’s application to sugar beet crops.

    By March of that year, the government had effectively u-turned on the approval. It didn’t allow the planned use to go ahead due to expected levels of beet yellows virus not reaching the threshold set within the emergency approval’s rules. Limiting beet yellows virus was ostensibly what the pesticide’s emergency authorisation was for.

    Against scientific advice

    Now the government has again approved an emergency authorisation for 2022, following an exemption application from British Sugar. The sugar producing company’s managing director Paul Kenward is married to the Tory MP Victoria Atkins. The Guardian reported that the approval comes despite the government’s own expert committee on pesticides and the Health and Safety Executive asserting that the application didn’t meet emergency authorisation requirements and that the resulting pollution would “damage river life”.

    Buglife’s chief executive Matt Shardlow commented:

    Neonicotinoids approved under the current pesticide approval process devastated populations of wild bees and heavily polluted rivers. It is shameful that no action has been taken to ensure that bee and wildlife destroying pesticides are properly assessed as being pollinator safe before they are approved or derogated for use.

    A matter of risk

    A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) insisted that the department hadn’t taken the decision lightly. They also said that it only grants such authorisations for “special circumstances” that meet “strict requirements”. They added:

    Last year the threshold was not met so the authorisation was never exercised. Strict criteria remain in place meaning this authorisation will only be used if necessary.

    The spokesperson further asserted that the decision is based on a “robust scientific assessment” and that Defra had evaluated “the risks very carefully”. However, environment minister George Eustice acknowledged that it “was not possible to rule out completely a degree of risk to bees” should they encounter “flowering plants in or near the field in the years after neonicotinoid use.”

    Planetary processes and boundaries

    The scale of risk couldn’t be clearer following the aforementioned findings by researchers on chemical pollution. An international group of scientists from Stockholm Resilience Center conducted the probe into so-called novel entities, meaning manufactured chemicals like plastics and pesticides.

    They assessed whether the levels of these entities surpassed the safe planetary thresholds laid out in a framework developed by the centre’s former director Johan Rockstrom and a team of scientists in 2009. That group identified nine processes that “regulate the stability and resilience of the Earth system” and established planetary boundaries for each. Crossing these boundaries furthers the risk of “generating large-scale abrupt or irreversible environmental changes”.

    Devastating findings

    In terms of chemical pollution, scientists concluded that it was essentially out of control, with chemical production increasing 50-fold since the 1950s. The University of Gothenburg’s Bethanie Carney Almroth was a co-author of the assessment, which the journal Environmental Science and Technology published. Carney Almroth warned:

    The rate at which these pollutants are appearing in the environment far exceeds the capacity of governments to assess global and regional risks, let alone control any potential problems

    She continued:

    Some of these pollutants can be found globally, from the Arctic to Antarctica, and can be extremely persistent. We have overwhelming evidence of negative impacts on Earth systems, including biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles

    The assessment very clearly indicated that the world has exceeded the safe planetary boundary for chemical pollution. It brings the total amount of safe planetary boundaries crossed to five out of the nine processes. The others are biodiversity loss, biogeochemical flows, land-system change, and climate change.

    Lethal impact

    Plastic pollution can cause immense damage, including in marine ecosystems. But the ecological carnage pesticides inflict is huge too. Studies released by the US Environmental Protection Agency last year, for example, found that almost 80% of the endangered species of plants and animals there are likely harmed by three neonicotinoid insecticides, including thiamethoxam. Biology professor Dave Goulson, meanwhile, has asserted that a single teaspoon of neonicotinoids is “enough to deliver a lethal dose to 1.25 billion honeybees”. Goulson clarified, however, that bees are not the only beings threatened by the pesticide. He wrote:

    any insect living on farmland or in streams that flow from farmland, and any organisms that depend on insects for food (e.g. many birds and fish) are likely to be affected.

    A matter of choice

    As Carney Almroth pointed out, the scale of chemical pollution is now so vast it’s beyond the capacity of governments to even assess the multitude of risks they pose, let alone control them. What is well within politicians’ capabilities, though, is to not actively add to the problem by greenlighting more and new uses of such pollution.

    But that’s exactly what the Tory government is doing. Against the advice of its own experts and environmental groups, and the will of much of the public, it is actively choosing to worsen the problem and drag us further beyond safe planetary limits.

    Featured image via Daily Mail / YouTube

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The BBC finally admits that Jeremy Corbyn is not an antisemite

    As The Canary extensively reported during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, figures from the Conservative Party, the Labour right, and the establishment media orchestrated a transparently politically-motivated smear campaign against him. Their weapon of choice was employing a litany of bogus accusations of antisemitism to paint the lifelong anti-racism campaigner as some kind of bigot.

    The purpose of the campaign was straightforward – they sought to derail his chances of becoming prime minister and distract attention from his (widely popular) policy proposals. Their motive was equally straightforward – they rightly feared the threat that a Corbyn-led government would pose to the status quo and their own political and economic interests. Now, one of the major players in this campaign has admitted that its whole underlying premise was false all along.

    From name-calling to contorted attempts to tar by association

    Canary readers will hardly need reminding that Corbyn’s time as leader as of the Labour Party saw him and his supporters come under a relentless attack from all the usual suspects. This included all the predictable childish name-calling about Corbyn belonging to the so-called ‘loony left’, taking part in ‘student union‘ politics, and acting like an ‘armchair revolutionary‘. It also involved desperate attempts to tie him to controversial organisations such as Hamas and the Irish Republican Army (IRA).

    All of these smears were transparently preposterous and easy to debunk. But they nonetheless pail in comparison to the prime weapon used to besmirch him. Namely, political opponents latched on to a tried and trusted tactic for attacking friends of the Palestinian people – the risible notion that those who criticize Israel’s human rights abuses are usually motivated by hatred of Jews.

    As would be expected, the right-wing gutter tabloid press played a leading role in utilizing this false premise to smear Corbyn. Again, these attempts, from the wreath laying controversy to the ‘muralgate‘ scandal (which even the nominally progressive Guardian joined in on), have been roundly debunked by journalists and scholars. But nonetheless, the antisemitism smear campaign has continued apace and, indeed, morphed into an all-encompassing attempt to attack anyone on the left more broadly.

    A stunning admission

    But now, in early 2022, over two years since the peddlers of the campaign succeeded in derailing Corbyn’s chances of becoming prime minister, one of the most flagrant offenders of all has now essentially admitted that the whole thing was a farce all along. Astonishingly, during a radio broadcast of BBC 5 Live, presenter Rachel Burden said matter-of-factly:

    there is absolutely no evidence that the leader of the Labour Party at that time [in 2019], Jeremy Corbyn, was or is antisemitic.

    Burden made the comments to clarify some of the comments made during an interview early in the show with the Conservative Party donor and ‘Phones4U’ billionaire John Caudwell. She acknowledged that Cauldwell had described Corbyn “as being an antisemite and a Marxist.” She added:

    I redirected him back on to the conversation, which was all about Boris Johnson. That’s what I wanted him to talk about. But I should have challenged him on the particular allegation of antisemite [sic].

    She reiterated:

    I apologize for not challenging that more directly, should have done, and I want to emphasize there is no evidence for that at all.

    An allegation that’s absurd to its core

    Burden’s apology should be welcomed (though it’s all rather a case of ‘too little, too late’). But the bigger point is that this admission exposes how the central underlying premise behind the smear campaign as a whole is, and always has been, completely false. As The Canary has argued on many occasions, the idea that most or even many critics of Israel are antisemitic is patently absurd. Indeed, many of Israel’s fiercest critics are themselves Jewish. This includes political scientist and expert on the conflict in Palestine Norman Finkelstein, who is himself not only Jewish but the son of Holocaust survivors, and Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, whose father fled from Nazi occupied Europe to Palestine.

    Finkelstein explained to The Canary during an exclusive interview how the British ruling establishment cynically and enthusiastically went along with, and indeed actively participated in, the antisemitism smear campaign because they had a common enemy in the form of Jeremy Corbyn. He said:

    The British elites suddenly discovered ‘we can use the antisemitism card in order to try to stifle genuine… leftist insurgencies among the population’. And so what used to be a kind of sectarian issue waged by Jewish organisations faithful to the party line emanating from Israel vs critics of Israel, now it’s no longer sectarian because the whole British elite has decided they’re going to use this antisemitism card to stop Jeremy Corbyn and the political insurgency he represents.

    Finkelstein went on to liken the smear campaign against Corbyn to the Salem Witch Hunts. He said:

    Except when you take the classic examples, the anti-communist hysteria, the Salem Witch Hunt hysteria, you really can’t come up with parallels.

    Another shot at Number 10?

    Such an admission from the BBC demonstrates perhaps better than anything else just how cynical the smear campaign was all along. It also raises some serious questions about the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2019 general election, and, indeed, the legitimacy of British democracy more broadly. After all, if one party leader was getting constantly attacked with false allegations then he can hardly be characterized as having had a fair shake at striving for the UK’s top job.

    This raises the question of whether Corbyn should be given another shot. And it seems that many in the public now think so. According to one poll, reported in the Express of all places, “Jeremy Corbyn is the preferred choice of Red Wall voters for Labour leader if Sir Keir Starmer was to step down.” Though Starmer’s position seems to have been saved for the time being by improved polling for Labour (likely due mostly to increasing dissatisfaction with the Tories), this might not even end up mattering.

    There are rumors swirling around social media that Corbyn might be on the brink of establishing a new party. This, of course, would free him from the ossified internal structures of the Labour Party, not to mention the constant backstabbing from the Labour right he experienced as leader. Perhaps there will soon be an opportunity to challenge the status quo and bring about radical change once more.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons and Flickr – Elliott Brown

    By Peter Bolton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Did the Sun cover up the government’s lockdown parties?

    Hundreds of senior politicians and civil servants are reported to have attended lockdown-breaching parties on government premises over the last two years. The revelation that people working at No.10 partied as the public cancelled weddings and had Zoom funerals was a new low for the government.

    It would also have been a huge scoop for a newspaper. So why did it take so long for the truth to emerge?

    Politicians and the press are too close.

    Now we know. One of the lockdown parties, on 16 April 2020, was organised in honour of – and attended by – James Slack, now the Sun’s deputy editor. The newspaper has long claimed that independent press regulation to protect the public (and part two of the Leveson Inquiry into the relationship between journalists and the police) would affect its ability to hold power to account. However, it did not reveal the fact that this party happened.

    The failure of the Sun to publish this story suggests that the newspaper cares more about protecting its deputy editor or their connections with senior members of the government, than exposing government wrongdoing. Either way, the suppression of the story shows how dangerously close our politicians and the national press have become.

    This follows the revelation a year previously that the Spectator’s assistant editor knew that Dominic Cummings had driven across the country while infected with Coronavirus (Covid-19), in breach of government guidance, yet did not include this detail in her own coverage of those events.

    The Sun and The Spectator may not be alone.

    On 27 November 2020, editors and executives from the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun, and the Sunday Telegraph all met with the prime minister. This was on the same date as a lockdown party is alleged to have taken place.

    Then on 17 December 2020, editors of the Daily Express and the Financial Times met with the prime minister on the date a party is reported to have occurred. What’s more, on the same day the Telegraph also met with the cabinet secretary Simon Case. The party is reported to have taken place in his office.

    None of the newspapers represented at these meetings reported on the parties at the time. Of course, there is no evidence that they were aware of these parties, and it may have been a coincidence that they had un-minuted meetings at No.10 on the same date. But what if they had been aware? The public would never know.

    The Sun’s hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    The Sun may have been slow to expose lockdown breaches in the government, but it is quick to attack the public for breaches of the rules. In December 2020 it labelled a series of well-known individuals as “Covidiots”, including Rita Ora, Kay Burley, Piers Morgan, AJ Pritchard, Kylie Jenner, Madonna, and Gordon Ramsay. Their offences included a hug and visiting a friend.

    That same month, it has since been reported, the Sun hosted its own staff party with “booze and food”. Despite this party, the Sun did not include itself among its list of “Covidiots”. Sun editor Victoria Newton responded to recent questions about the event from the BBC, saying:

    There was an investigation into that at the time, that’s all I’m prepared to say

    Even if an investigation was undertaken at the newspaper, any publisher genuinely committed to exposing wrongdoing would reveal what was going on in its own office. Instead, the editor still won’t divulge the full truth more than a year later.

    This is not what real journalism is about.

    Genuine public-interest journalism holds the powerful to account. If reporters are to be able to do their jobs right they cannot have close and friendly relations with the powerful. Editors of independent publishers like The Canary aren’t invited to dinners in Downing Street. And that’s how it should be.

    But it’s another story when it comes to the national press, which is so close to the current occupant of No.10 that it wouldn’t be surprising if Rupert Murdoch had a spare key. The way these lockdown parties were hidden from the public for so long is the tip of the iceberg.

    Just a few months ago it was widely reported, for example, that Boris Johnson left a climate change conference – by private jet – to attend a dinner with various Daily Telegraph journalists including its former editor and self-confessed climate change sceptic Lord Moore.

    Days after the Daily Mail was humiliated in court in litigation with Meghan Markle, the government announced plans to change the law to make cases like Markle’s less likely to succeed in the future. Hacked Off research has found that government representatives meet with the Murdoch media – on average – every other day that Parliament is in session. This isn’t a relationship of necessity. It’s a partnership. An alliance that, too often, puts the interests of the press and the government ahead of those of the public.

    Things must change

    That’s why Hacked Off has launched a petition, calling for such an investigation to take place – with almost 10,000 signatures already.

    We can’t trust the national press to investigate and report fairly on itself. We need a full, independent investigation to get to the bottom of the unhealthy relationships between the government and the media, in the form of a public inquiry like Leveson Part Two.

    Nathan Sparkes is the chief executive of the Hacked Off Campaign

    Featured image via – YouTube – The Australian & YouTube – Sky News

    By Nathan Sparkes

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • We must continue the fight against British complicity with the Israeli regime

    On Thursday 13 January, campaigners announced that – after years of campaigning and direct action – Elbit Systems will be closing its arms factory in Oldham. Three activists who took direct action against the factory are due to appear in court on 20 and 21 January. Campaigners are calling on allies to show their support outside the courtroom. And in London, campaigners are planning a Palestine solidarity protest against ongoing ethnic cleansing in Sheikh Jarrah on Friday 21 January.

    Facilitating war crimes

    As The Canary‘s Tom Anderson reported, Elbit has decided to close its arms factory in Oldham. This comes after years of local and international campaigns and direct action against the company.

    In order to appeal to repressive governments around the world, Elbit Systems markets its weapons and surveillance technologies as “battle-tested” and “field-proven”. Indeed, it is Israel’s largest private arms company, manufacturing 85% of the drones used to kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

    In 2013, a Palestinian man from Gaza whose daughter was killed by an Israeli airstrike told Anderson:

    Campaigners must prevent these Israeli war crimes that kill our dreams and kill our children. When will it stop?

    And in May 2021, while Palestine Action activists were campaigning to shut down Elbit factories in the UK, Israeli forces were engaged in an 11 day air strike on Gaza. According to the United Nations, these strikes killed at least 256 Palestinians. 

    Drawing attention to the ongoing escalation of Israeli apartheid, ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism, Palestinian writer Mohammed El-Kurd tweeted:

    Shutting down Elbit

    The closure of Elbit’s Oldham factory represents a symbolic victory in the fight to end British complicity and support for Israel’s violence against Palestinians.

    On Thursday 20 January, a judge dismissed the case of three Palestine Action activists who were on trial for occupying the landlord responsible for Elbit’s Shenstone factory. Celebrating the news, Palestine Action shared:

    However, three different Palestine Action campaigners are still facing criminal charges for their involvement in shutting down Elbit’s Oldham factory in 2021. Urging people to show their support, Palestine Action’s Manchester chapter tweeted:

    Meanwhile, campaigners plan to demonstrate against ethnic cleansing which continues unabated in the Palestinian village of Sheikh Jarrah on Friday 21 January. Sharing details of the upcoming protest, Shabbir Lakha tweeted: 

    The victories against Elbit in Oldham and Shenstone show that direct action works, so we must continue the fight against British complicity with Israeli apartheid, ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism.

    Featured image via Adli Wahid/Unsplash (edited to 770×403 pixels)

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Patel’s navy Channel threat once again exposes the Tory’s militarist populism

    The latest Tory threat to use the navy to stop refugees in the English Channel has been ripped to shreds. This week Boris Johnson, possibly to distract from his partying habits, signed off on a “cruel and inhumane” plan to hand control of the channel to the military. But two security scholars have pulled this pledge apart.

    Professor Timothy Edmonds and research associate Scott Edwards, both from the University of Bristol, published their critique in The Conversation. The pair looked at key Tory claims around the issue. But they weren’t particularly convinced.

    Key claims

    Home secretary Priti Patel then told the Commons on Tuesday 18 January, that she had “commissioned the MoD [Ministry of Defence] as a crucial operational partner to protect our Channel against illegal migration”. She spoke of a “blended approach” which – she said – the public would support.

    While the Ministry of Defence said:

    Unacceptable numbers of people continue to make the dangerous Channel crossings and last November’s tragic deaths serve as the strongest reminder of the need to stop them.

    The ships

    The Bristol academics debunking starts with the maths. They said that while on the face of it navy ships outnumber Border Force ships, this is itself deceiving. The Archer and River class ships which would be most useful are already in use as far away as the Indo-Pacific, Gibraltar, the Caribbean and the Falklands/Malvinas.

    They added:

    With so many vessels already in use elsewhere, it seems unlikely that the Admiralty will welcome new deployments to the Channel -– especially so soon after an announcement that Border Force is receiving money for an upgraded fleet of cutters.

    So it seems that the navy lacks the ships for the task, and the political will to do the job anyway.

    Leadership role?

    Secondly, the pair questioned how naval involvement would change anything – even if the capacity was found. They also tested the underlying motivations:

    Perhaps there is a hope that the Royal Navy will put some backbone into this policy, especially given that Border Force’s union has recently threatened strikes if pushbacks are implemented.

    But would the navy even have the authority to carry out the government’s “cruel and inhumane” anti-refugee operations? Legally, this doesn’t seem to be the case at all.

    Bound by law

    Edmonds and Edward warned that if the navy did start to push back small boats crossing the channel, they would breach long established maritime law:

    This is enshrined in Article 98 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and elsewhere. The Royal Navy is just as bound by the law of the sea as Border Force.

    They wrote:

    The navy has already indicated that it has little appetite for such pushbacks, and any extra capacity it can bring is most likely to be deployed in search and rescue tasks.

    The truth

    This leads to questions about what the navy can actually do in the Channel. As the authors point out, not much more than they already are. The authors registered surprise at the announcement of a “blended response”. Because “that is exactly what’s already happening”.

    They say the navy has been increasingly integrated into border operations since 2010. One recent expression of this ‘blended approach’ is:

    The Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2020, coordinates the UK’s maritime assets and helps different agencies to work together at sea. Hosted by the navy, it enables cross-agency information sharing through its Maritime Domain Awareness programme.

    So if this is already happening – and has been for a decade – we should question why Priti Patel is calling for it anyway.

    A grown-up response?

    Edmonds and Edwards proposed a different approach. They said:

    The UK needs to move beyond populist announcements on the small boat problem and develop a response along three lines.

    First, it should continue to develop better interagency operations. Secondly, it should “foster closer cooperation with France and Belgium to help manage this shared problem of human desperation and misery”. And thirdly, it should “recognise that policing at sea can only address symptoms rather than causes of increased Channel crossings”.

    They added:

    A long-term solution requires the reestablishment of humane and accessible refugee and migration routes into the UK.

    Populist distraction

    The Tories have made a habit of using refugee-bashing and the militarist populism to distract from their internal problems. This latest call looks much the same. But this time the incoherence of such callous inhumane plans has been laid bare.

    Johnson and Patel seem oblivious to the fact they’ve blood on their hands when it comes to refugees crossing the Channel and instead want to talk the talk. But even if the navy did have the capacity to intervene in the channel, doing so does nothing to address the root causes of the refugee crisis.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/LA Phot Nicky Wilson, cropped to 770 x 440, under Open Government Licence.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Cost of living jumps for two-thirds of UK adults

    Two-thirds of UK adults have seen their cost of living jump over the past month as energy bills soared and price rises filtered down to supermarket shelves. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that 66% of adults surveyed saw their cost of living increase.

    Its report also showed the impact of the Omicron variant of coronavirus on UK businesses last month, with the highest proportion of firms reporting falling monthly turnover since the height of the first lockdown in April 2020.

    The ONS said VAT returns revealed a net 6% of firms suffered declining sales in December.

    Hikes in food and energy prices

    Its household survey found that of those who saw their cost of living rise, 87% of people reported increasing food shop prices, while 79% cited rising energy bills. The poll – carried out between January 6 to 16 – showed nearly three-quarters (71%) said increases in the price of fuel had also driven up the cost of living.

    It comes after official figures on Wednesday showed that inflation soared to a near 30-year high of 5.4% in December. The leap came as households faced surging food prices on top of sky-high energy and fuel bills.

    More increases expected

    Experts have warned that the cost-of-living squeeze will get even tighter over the next few months as gas and electricity tariffs are expected to rise by around 50% in April.

    The Bank of England raised interest rates from 0.1% to 0.25% last month as it said inflation would hit 6% in the spring – and more increases are expected to rein in rising prices.

    An increased number of diners

    The ONS figures showed there was some respite for the battered hospitality sector in the face of the Omicron wave, with a rise in the number of restaurant-goers in the UK. It estimated a 5 percentage point rise in UK seated diners over the week to January 17, to 93% of the level in the equivalent week of 2020.

    This compares with just 88% of 2020 levels seen in the previous week, with cancellations rife across the sector. The ONS also said that retail shopper numbers were up 2% in the week to January 15. So-called footfall numbers were 79% of the level seen in the equivalent week of 2019, it added.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Concerns raised after a Black prisoner at HMP Long Lartin spends over a year in segregation

    Content warning: racism and prison mistreatment

    Campaigners have called for action to end the isolation of Shaqueille Plummer, who has been held in segregation at HMP Long Lartin for over a year.

    They claim that Shaqueille has also been denied access to his personal possessions, such as his books and legal paperwork for the last five to six months. However, the Ministry of Justice now claims that these have been given to him.

    Campaign group Anti-Carceral Solidarity (ACS) is calling for people to write letters demanding an end to his isolation:

     

    Advice says segregation should be no longer than 14 days

    In 2015, a ruling from the UK’s Supreme Court found that:

    The use of segregation in prisons should always be considered as a serious measure. Indeed, the Council of Europe’s Committee on the Prevention of Torture advises that for punitive purposes any stint should be limited to 14 days

    However, prisoners are routinely held in excess of 14 days. In fact it’s common for UK prisoners to be held in segregation for years.

    A 2021 Justice Inspectorates report found that “Prisoners were held in segregation for too long” at Long Lartin.

    Solitary confinement

    According to ACS:

    “Segregation” is a euphemism for solitary confinement – spending almost 24 hours alone in a cell every day, deprived of all sensory stimulation. Spending over 2 weeks in solitary confinement is reported to cause lasting harm.

    ACS says that the denial of Shaqueille’s access to property – coupled with his segregation – was “inexcusable”:

    Shaqueille has no books, no TV and no electric. He is confined to an empty cell on his own for almost 24 hours a day. Access to reading materials is vitally important to survive the brutal conditions of solitary confinement. Such degrading treatment, on top of solitary confinement, is inexcusable.

    When The Canary contacted the Ministry of Justice about why Shaqueille’s books were being withheld, we received this response, which may well show that the pressure from ACS has been working:

    Mr Plummer received books this morning and his property has been collected from Reception and is due to be issued today.

    “Inhumane treatment of Black prisoners” in segregation

    ACS has also pointed out that Shaqueille is a Black prisoner, and demands that the prison authorities “Stop the inhumane treatment of Black prisoners in HMP Long Lartin segregation unit”.

    ACS has described the regime Shaqueille has to go through to get unlocked from his cell. It claims:

    Shaqueille’s unlock level has been increased to 4 man unlock in the last week, meaning that he now has to have 4 officers with him to leave the cell, all wearing body cams. Before they enter the cell, he has to stand against the wall in a degrading and dehumanizing position (known as back wall unlock). These increased punitive measures are being used against Shaqueille because he is Black.

    The Canary contacted the Ministry of Justice for a comment about ACS’ allegations of racism at Long Lartin, we received this reply:

    We have a zero tolerance for discrimination in our prisons and will not hesitate to take action where necessary.

    All claims are investigated and there is no evidence of any racial discrimination in this case.

    Not the first time

    This isn’t the first complaint that a Person of Colour has been mistreated in the segregation unit at Long Lartin. In September 2021, The Canary reported on alleged racism and Islamophobia at the prison. One Muslim prisoner was allegedly disciplined by prison officers after an argument arose when officers tried to stop prisoners from carrying out a call to prayer.

    Segregation “used as a weapon against the vulnerable”

    According to long term prisoner Kevan Thakrar – a prisoner who has spent time in the UK’s segregation system:

    [segregation] is used as a weapon against the vulnerable, marginalised and all too often the minorities.

    This is backed up by statistics. A 2017 study by the Runnymede Trust – a racial equality thinktank – found that Black and Muslim prisoners were more likely to be subjected to segregation in prison.

    No impunity

    The reason why it’s so easy for prisoners to be held in segregation for so long is because it happens away from public scrutiny. It’s up to us not to forget about those inside.

    ACS conclude its call by saying:

    HMP Long Lartin believe the walls around their prison will mean they can torture our friend with impunity. We must show them that they cannot.

    Featured image via Flickr/miss_millions (cropped to 770 x 403 pixels), Creative Commons License 2.0

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • We couldn’t find anyone willing to accept responsibility for the expansion of a Welsh coalmine

    Following the UN climate summit COP26 in Glasgow in November last year, 190 countries and organisations, including the UK, agreed to:

    both phase out coal power and end support for new coal power plants

    So it’s somewhat hypocritical that Energybuild’s coal mine in Aberpergwm, near Glynneath in Wales, could soon get an extension licence. Environmental group the Coal Action Network (CAN) opposes this extension and it’s calling on both the Welsh and UK governments to block it.

    However, there appears to be confusion as to which government or department makes the decision to grant or reject the extension. The Canary reveals there is disagreement between the Welsh and UK governments over responsibility for granting this extension. We also highlight CAN’s rebuttal of Energybuild’s “clean” mining claims.

    Aren’t we phasing out coal?

    Britain has committed to phasing out coal from its energy system by October 2024. The UK government also wants to decarbonise steel production in the UK by 2035. According to CAN, granting a licence extension at Aberpergwm undermines this:

    The people we have spoken with are shocked that the UK is embarking on a new commitment to mine up to 40 million tonnes of coal until 2039, emitting around 100 million tonnes of CO2—as well as methane—into our atmosphere.

    It’s written an open letter to both the Welsh and UK governments demanding action. Additionally, over 4,000 people have written letters to Wales’s deputy climate change minister Lee Waters and Michael Gove, secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, to demand a block on this extension. CAN said it’s:

    seeking to directly engage with relevant Ministers such as Lee Waters and Michael Gove with our recent open letter demanding a response to the over 4000 emails sent to them by people dismayed that this climate wrecking project may slip through, in the shadow of COP26.

    A knock-on effect?

    CAN also believes the granting of this extension licence could have a knock-on effect:

    Aberpergwm coal mine extension could set a dangerous precedent. Bryn Bach Coal Ltd, which operates the Glan Lash opencast coal mine, is currently awaiting a planning permission outcome on its application for an extension. They each claim to be the only suppliers of high quality anthracite coal, so have a similar (if conflicting) platform, and permission for one could bolster the chances of the other gaining permission if Ministers don’t step in.

    So it believes the Welsh and UK governments need to put a moratorium on all new commercial coal mining. This, according to CAN, would send the message out that the UK really is “leading the world in phasing down coal”.

    Green mining?

    Energybuild claims the coal from its mine “fits seamlessly into the green economic revolution”. It adds that the mine is:

    the only producer of high-grade anthracite in Western Europe. The area’s geology contributes to the unique characteristics of the anthracite we produce – clean burn, low emission, low sulphur, high efficiency.

    The operation has vast in-situ resources of High-Grade Anthracite (HGA) – measured to international JORC 2012 standards. Unique characteristics, low impurities, ideal specific gravity for water filtration and other processes.

    The company also promises to move away from supplying the steelworks at Port Talbot. But CAN dismisses Energybuild’s claims as greenwash. It has also written to the Welsh government to rebut the company’s claims and to state that the UK already has a sufficient supply of coal to manage a coal-free steel transition. Additionally CAN wrote:

    Increasing the supply and likely reducing the price in the process, is likely to jeopardise decarbonisation as it acts as a disincentive for companies to invest in alternative equipment for lower-carbon steel, and if they make the decision to replace e.g. a basic oxygen furnace, they’re locked into using coal for many years to come due to the size of investment and longevity of the equipment.

    It added:

    Mining in the UK won’t reduce the same amount of mining in Russia, Canada, or Colombia – it will add to it, as explained by LSE Prof. Ekins (OBE) in this interview we conducted.

    It seems nobody wants to take responsibility

    The Welsh government appears committed to moving away from fossil fuels:

    The draft coal policy is part of the Welsh Government’s decisive shift away from the use of fossil fuels in order to tackle the climate emergency. The Welsh Government’s policy objective is to avoid the continued extraction and consumption of fossil fuels.

    And its deputy climate change minister Lee Waters said:

    We want to keep this coal in the ground

    However, while it told The Canary it opposes the fossil fuel extraction, it says it can do nothing about the Aberpergwm extension:

    We have been clear that we do not support the extraction of fossil fuels and are focused on the climate emergency.

    As the original licence here was issued before licensing powers were devolved, Welsh Ministers are not able to intervene in the licensing process and appropriately apply Welsh policy.

    The Canary also contacted Michael Gove’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Gove’s department is due to make a decision on a controversial coalmine in West Cumbria. But Gove’s department referred us to the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The BEIS then said it was a matter for the coal authority and that it was Welsh ministers who needed to give their approval to the application:

    The Coal Authority is responsible for licensing coal mines, including for Aberpergwm, and BEIS ministers have no formal role in the licensing process. The Coal Industry Act 1994 states, where a coal operator wants to mine in Wales, it must seek the approval of the Welsh Ministers as part of its application for a licence to do so.

    It then added its position on the future of coal:

    Our Net Zero Strategy makes it clear that coal has no part to play in our future power generation which is why we’re phasing it out of our electricity by 2024 – a year earlier than planned.

    When we contacted the Coal Authority, it said:

    Policy for coal mining in Great Britain is set by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments through planning policy and legislation and the UK Government through coal licensing policy and legislation.

    To operate a coal mine an operator needs relevant rights and permissions including planning permission, a licence from the Coal Authority and to notify the Health and Safety Executive.

    Under current legislation, when considering a coal licence application the Coal Authority needs to consider:

    • Whether the applicant can finance coal mining operations and related liabilities
    • The nature of the land or property that may be impacted by subsidence and that damage can be properly compensated by the operator
    • That the operation will be carried out by properly experienced people

    If these tests are met and the other permissions are in place then the Coal Authority has to issue a licence. In Wales additional powers were created in the Wales Act 2017 to enable Welsh Ministers to make the final decision on coal licensing matters.

    The process for determining the Aberpergwm licence applications has not yet been concluded. This means that we cannot comment further at this time.

    A just transition for the community

    However, it should also be noted that some people in Glynneath support the mine. They say their livelihoods depend on it. So, if we’re as serious about transitioning away from fossil fuels and tackling the climate emergency as we need to be, we need governments to stop delaying and act. They also need to support this community’s transition away from coal.

    Just as communities need to be consulted before we start mining, they also need to be consulted before we stop mining. The environment, income, and livelihoods of people living in these communities depends on it. As CAN said, the support for the mine from the local community comes from:

    a historical lack of support for creating alternative jobs that date back to the Thatcher era

    It added:

    Giving the local community a genuine choice means investment in infrastructure, retraining in desirable and viable jobs, and financial support for small and medium sized enterprises, particularly cooperative and social-interest companies that build and reinvest in their communities.

    Communities have already begun workable energy alternatives to help the transition to sustainable energy. So it’s time the Welsh and UK governments stopped the blame game and started organising a sustainable transition for Glynneath and the wider community.

    Featured image via Just The Job – YouTube Screengrab & Energybuild Screengrab

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.