Category: UK

  • Earlier, we shared the results of an investigation into allegations of antisemitism at The Canary and Skwawkbox. This confirmed that we have always upheld the IMPRESS Standards Code and have neither discriminated against Jewish people, nor incited hatred against this group, of which I am personally a part. The government report that sparked the investigation was just another tactic employed in a clumsy attempt to harm our reputation, destroy our business, and silence the socialist Left. It failed.

    Many of you, our readers, have been with us from the start. We are so grateful to you for that support, which we continue to appreciate as we all deal with the emotional and financial impact of this sustained campaign of five and a half years and counting. For others, this might not be an issue you’re familiar with. Either way, I felt it important to lay out a brief history (there is actually way too much to include in a single article, but you can read our many articles on antisemitism, if you wish) and also acknowledge the impact that this has had on our business and the wellbeing of individual members of our team.

    Where did all this start?

    The Canary launched in October 2015 and already by February 2016, the Telegraph was calling us “the maddest Left-wing website in the world”. This was a beautiful example of the old trope of ‘no such thing as bad publicity’. Our traffic immediately spiked and we continued to grow our audience at a rapid rate. We were proud of our achievement and took this as an indication that our intention to be a disruptive force in the media landscape was being realised, and quickly. But we were about to enter the Twilight Zone.

    Many will never believe that the coincidence of our launch and Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour Party was purely that – a coincidence. Either way, The Canary and Corbyn’s leadership were striving for many of the same socialist, environmentalist, and humanitarian goals for the UK and beyond: Then, and now, peace and justice for all. And that meant that if there were elements gunning for Corbyn, they were gunning for us too.

    It was never Telegraph readers who wanted to silence us (though Eric Pickles and Conservative Friends of Israel were somewhat complicit in what unfolded), it was the centrists whose interest was in maintaining a status quo that is beneficial to them, regardless of the impact on those who aren’t part of their in-crowd.

    Our co-founder, former editor, and my wife, Kerry-Anne Mendoza, wrote in April 2016:

    It appears that enemies of Jeremy Corbyn’s progressive plans for the Labour party have discovered some common ground. Blairites within the party and the media, along with their conservative peers and the pro-Israel lobby, all lose out if Corbyn succeeds. So, in short, they are seeking to take him out of play by hitting him where it is mutually beneficial – his long-standing criticism of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine.

    Conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism

    And so it began. Early efforts in this campaign deliberately confused opposition to the actions of successive Israeli governments, which have systematically oppressed Palestinians, with antisemitic hatred of Jewish people. This has been a theme throughout, and, as I see it, the only way anyone could possibly say that The Canary is antisemitic; we have always been willing to criticise the Israeli government and military in their treatment of Palestinians and Jews of colour.

    Because the creation of Israel in 1948 was the culmination of a Zionist project that began at the turn of the last century, but had been framed as reparation for the Shoah (the Hebrew name for the Holocaust), it was relatively easy to create and capitalise on confusion about whether criticising Israel is an example of antisemitism. Despite this, there was eventually, in 2018, a doubling down on this tactic, via the British Board of Deputies and the IHRA definition of antisemitism. This effort is ongoing, despite the fact that the author of the IHRA definition has warned that it is open to abuse.

    The witch hunt’s first victims: Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone

    Naz Shah’s social media comments, made prior to her election as an MP, were undoubtably offensive to many in the global Jewish community but her apology was thorough and effective and her resignation as Parliamentary Private Secretary for John McDonnell appropriate. Corbyn accepted both, and Shah was not suspended from the Labour Party.

    The fact that these historic comments made front page news in April 2016 was, on the face of it, totally absurd. But the mainstream media had already joined the anti-socialist, anti-Corbyn campaign and was happy to oblige. Meanwhile they were ignoring what was actually going on in Israel and Palestine at the time, as well as endemic racism and Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.

    Shortly after Shah’s vilification, came the suspension of Ken Livingstone for antisemitism. Say what you like about ‘Red Ken’ Livingstone – I don’t necessarily agree with the guy on everything – but he was the second victim of what was already, clearly, a McCarthy style witch hunt.

    Livingstone had made a statement that gave a historical fact about Hitler’s early plans for European Jews and was immediately set upon. He may have shown poor judgement in raising this in the context of a media interview, but he was giving an accurate historical fact that ended in him being the witch hunt’s first really high profile victim.

    Chakrabati inquiry

    In June of 2016, human rights activist, Shami Chakrabati published a report following her inquiry into racism in the party. The findings should have been good news for Corbyn, demonstrating that aside from a very small handful of repugnant individuals, there was no evidence of systemic racism – including antisemitism – in the party. Unfortunately the mainstream media managed to spin the report’s content into oblivion and continued to bash Corbyn with gay abandon.

    Five more years of smears

    The campaign against Corbyn and socialist members of the Labour Party has continued in earnest. Everywhere from the Oxford University Labour Club to the NEC elections, the Labour Party conference, and the Parliamentary Labour Party, there are people who have been affected.

    In April 2017 a group of 145 predominantly Jewish Labour members wrote to Corbyn, warning of the dangers of silencing them as critics of Israel. This followed the expulsion of Jewish Labour member and former co-chair of Momentum, Jackie Walker, for supposed antisemitism.

    This was the time that Corbyn should have stepped up to support Jews on the left of the party. After all, we had been supporting him from the moment he announced his leadership bid and had been fighting hard to counter all the misinformation, spin, and outright lies being put out by mainstream media, including our state-funded broadcaster, the BBC. In my mind, this was actually his single biggest mistake. Instead of joining with, and backing up those dedicated to getting him elected as prime minister, he attempted to appease the centrists who were hell bent on getting rid of him and apparently had no interest in the facts of the matter.

    Since Keir Starmer took over the Labour Party leadership in 2020, the witch hunt has focused in on the left of the party again. Now it is clear that left wing Jews are no longer welcome in the party and that is probably the worst antisemitism we’ve ever seen from Labour. In today’s Labour Party there are the right kind of Jews – Zionists who support the Israeli government – and the wrong kind of Jews – people like Jackie Walker and Graham Bash, as well as me and The Canary‘s Senior Editor, Emily Apple, who are willing to speak out against the actions of Israel.

    The extent of corruption and underhanded tactics employed from within the Labour Party and by supporters of Israel is astonishing. It’s so unbelievable that we are accused of being cranks and conspiracy theorists. But the thing is, the receipts are all there, whether it is the fake social media accounts set up to discredit Corbyn or the Israeli diplomat and UK civil servant working together to bring down anti-Israel politcians in the UK, and build up those who are supportive, there is evidence and it is solid.

    Stop Funding Fake News and Rachel Riley

    Never in a million years did I think that the numbers woman from Countdown (Channel 4) would be trying to get my business shut down! But Rachel Riley was one of the most vocal supporters of a shady campaign calling themselves ‘Stop Funding Fake News’.

    Stop Funding Fake News aimed to discredit The Canary and other left wing, pro-Palestinian outlets through bad faith claims that we had published so-called fake news. They also directly lobbied our advertisers to withdraw. To a degree they succeeded but continued to hide their funding and which individuals were actually running the campaign.

    It took a lot of work but regular contributor and good friend of The Canary, John McEvoy, got to the bottom of Stop Funding Fake News, uncovering the campaign’s links to the right wing of the Labour Party. You can read the report of his investigation here.

    The impact

    There is the impact on our reputation. The smear campaign against us has succeeded in making The Canary synonymous with antisemitism in the minds of some. This is unjust and undeserved but also tells us that we have continued to punch vastly above our weight, as we have done since the word go. But it has really taken something for us to stand firm in the face of these attacks.

    We run on a shoestring budget so there is no room for big PR campaigns or expensive legal battles. Our opponents have access to millions of pounds and some of the most effective spin doctors out there. They have mainstream media firmly on their side as well. Some might say it’s a bit of a David and Goliath situation.

    Some of our advertisers decided we were too much of a risk for them and withdrew their adverts from our website. Thankfully, our readership responded by stepping up to fund the gap through a monthly membership scheme. Though, sadly, with the impact of Coronavirus and rising cost of living, we have lost a lot of those supporters in the past year and we find ourselves needing to make up a shortfall again (this is me shamelessly begging for your support if you can possibly afford to help us with as little as £3 per month).

    The cost to our mental health

    Here at The Canary we are a team of people dedicated to fighting racism and fascism wherever it occurs. Most of us have literally put our bodies on the line to protect vulnerable and oppressed people at one time or another. So being accused of antisemitism is a big deal and it hits right at the core of our identities. That hurts us.

    For those of us who are Jewish there is another layer to this, which is that we know what genuine antisemitism looks and feels like. I wrote about some of my experiences and how the witch hunt has only succeeded in diluting the impact of calling something out as antisemitic. Our senior editor, Emily Apple, has also written from her perspective as a Jewish person and called out the right-wing press for hijacking our lived experience for political gain.

    Like Graham Bash – a Labour activist and 50+ year veteran member of the party who was recently expelled for antisemitism – who speaks about his early experiences in the following video, my early experiences of antisemitism are part of why I grew up to be an activist.

    Listening to Graham’s account reminded me that my grandfather was beaten so badly by antisemitic bullies at school that he lost a testicle. To me, that hardly compares to calling out human rights abuses against Palestinians.

    I know that our opponents want to break us down and make us back off because staying in the fight is intolerably painful, so I’m hesitant to admit that they have come close to succeeding with me. I live with Complex PTSD and I am autistic, both of which contribute to making me an extremely sensitive person. I’ve had a lifetime of bullying so all of this is massively triggering to me and I’ve been in a pretty much constant state of fight or flight throughout. This has exacerbated my chronic physical health conditions and to be honest my whole nervous system has basically been in meltdown.

    I asked our Senior Editor, Emily Apple, to tell me about her experience throughout the witch hunt and this is what she said: “There’s always a price when you successfully take on the establishment. Previously in my life this has manifested itself in police violence and repression – threats of serious charges and prison.

    “But in the case of The Canary and pro-Palestinian elements of the radical left more generally, in recent years, it has been the accusation of antisemitism.

    “The first protest I went to that turned into a riot was the Anti-Nazi league demo in Welling against a BNP bookshop when I was a teenager; I’ve spent years on the streets opposing the far-right and was proudly Antifa many years before it became a household name.

    “I’m not saying this to impress with my anti-racist credentials. I’m saying it because militant anti-fascism is deeply ingrained in me. Like many people on the left, it is a core part of who I am.

    “And it’s why this attack has had a massive impact on my mental health and on the mental health of many others who’ve been targeted by this witch hunt. It is an attack on what fundamentally defines us.

    “It’s also why I cried when I read the IMPRESS report. I know I’m not publishing and writing hate speech. But having that backed up by our regulator is a massive step in countering the absurd accusations made by John Mann in his blatant vendetta against us.

    “Like many people targeted by the witchhunt, I’m Jewish. I have family members who are Zionists. And it’s one of the reasons why I’ve always felt a real need to campaign on behalf of the Palestinian struggle – I feel a duty to say ‘not in my name’.

    “I also find it particularly frightening that these attacks have happened at a time when we’ve seen the biggest shift to the far right in generations. Both in the UK, US and across Europe, genuine fascism is on the rise. In the UK, a combination of bills, including the policing bill, are taking away our fundamental rights. Now more than ever we need to fight the threat of fascism before it’s too late. Smearing those who are at the forefront of this battle is disgraceful and utterly unforgivable.”

    Many of you will already know that my wife, Kerry-Anne, who was, until recently, our Editor-in-Chief, had to resign to tend to her mental health. The disgusting campaign against her invitation to give the NUJ’s annual Claudia Jones Memorial Lecture was what eventually pushed her into a breakdown, in 2018, which she is still recovering from. When it comes to PTSD, in Kerry-Anne’s case there are numerous other factors, but having to go to battle virtually every time she set foot in the office has not helped.

    Moving on

    It really has been good for us to see that IMPRESS have only confirmed what we already know – The Canary does not, and never will discriminate against or incite hatred of Jewish people. As human beings, we sometimes need that kind of validation.

    I hope that for any readers who have had doubts about our credibility as an anti-racist and anti-fascist outlet, you can now feel more sure that we are who we say we are.

    We know the witch hunt is not going away, at least not any time soon, and we will continue to stand in solidarity with those who have been unfairly treated and accused of antisemitism because they are willing to criticise Israel.

    This little yellow bird continues to be a thorn in the side of the establishment. We will stand strong against these bad faith, politically driven misinformation campaigns for as long as our readership needs us to stand for them.

    Solidarity to you all, and a thousand thanks for sticking with us.

    Featured Image: Roger Harris/The Canary

    By Nancy Mendoza

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Anti-arms trade campaigners had strong words for the British government over Yemen. Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) blasted UK arms sales and cuts to aid as the UN announced deaths would hit 377,000 by the end of 2021.

    But the report also says that recovery is possible within a generation if the war is stopped now. As it stands, many of the deaths are a result of disease and hunger. While others are from air raids and combat. The war has raged since 2014 and, during this time, UK ally Saudi Arabia has constantly bombed its poorer neighbour.

    Horrifying

    In a press release, CAAT’s parliamentary officer Katie Fallon said:

    This horrifying report is a reminder that while the war in Yemen may have fallen off the news agenda, its devastating impact on the people of Yemen is as bad as ever.

    Fallon also directly criticised US President Joe Biden and the UK arms trade:

    Promises by President Biden to end support for the Saudi coalition’s role in the war have not been fulfilled, despite a welcome halt to a few arms sales. Meanwhile, the UK government continues to supply arms to Saudi Arabia without restraint.

    Blockade

    Fallon called for a halt to sales of military equipment to the Saudi regime:

    The UK, the US and other leading powers must immediately halt the arms sales that are prolonging and exacerbating the war, press hard for an end to the Saudi blockade that is one of the main contributors to the humanitarian catastrophe, and engage in sustained and meaningful diplomatic efforts to bring the war to an end.

    Finally, Fallon said the UK’s cuts to humanitarian aid had compounded Yemen’s problems:

    The UK must also reverse its cruel cuts to humanitarian aid to Yemen, which have only
    increased the war’s appalling toll.

    UK-backed

    As well as providing material support, the UK has had troops embedded with Saudi forces throughout the conflict. In July 2021 it emerged that up to 30 military personnel were training Saudi troops inside Yemen. In 2019 it was reported that 11 UK military personnel were embedded in Saudi headquarters. CAAT has estimated that the UK has licensed £20bn in arms sales to the Saudis since 2015.

    Featured image – Wikimedia Commons/Fahd Sadi.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Two police officers who took “shameful” crime scene photos and described murdered sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman as “dead birds” on social media have been sacked following a tribunal.

    Sackable offences

    PC Jamie Lewis, 33, and former officer Deniz Jaffer, 47, used the offensive term when sharing messages on WhatsApp groups after straying from their cordons to take pictures of the two women, who were found dead in bushes in Fryent Country Park, Wembley, North-West London. They also used a racially derogatory term for Pakistanis in messages about other, unrelated police matters.

    Fryent Park deaths
    Sisters Bibaa Henry (left) and Nicole Smallman were murdered by Danyal Hussein (Family handout/PA)

    Assistant commissioner Helen Ball, chairing an accelerated tribunal in West London on 24 November, decided both men committed gross misconduct. She said:

    This was hurtful, dishonest and unprofessional behaviour of the utmost seriousness. I am sorry that our officers behaved in such a hurtful, disrespectful and criminal way. Their actions are shameful.

    Lewis will be dismissed from the Metropolitan Police immediately, and Jaffer, who has already quit the force, would have been dismissed without notice if he was still a serving officer. The pair have been warned they face “lengthy” jail terms when they are sentenced next month for misconduct in a public office.

    Neither Lewis nor Jaffer attended the misconduct hearing, and neither disputed the evidence.

    Fryent Park deaths
    Deniz Jaffer had already resigned from the Metropolitan Police (Victoria Jones/PA)

    The tribunal ruled that the two officers breached six established police standards, including confidentiality, and honesty and integrity, as well as authority, respect and courtesy. PC Helen Tierney, outlining the case against the men, said the pair were placed at a cordon to protect the crime scene in the early hours of June 8 2020. Both left their posts to take unauthorised pictures of the bodies on their phones. Subsequently they shared them with colleagues while Jaffer also sent them to members of the public.

    The tribunal heard that Lewis sent a picture message of the dead women in a police WhatsApp group shortly before 4am, writing:

    Unfortunately I’m sat next to two dead birds with stab wounds.

    Jaffer made a similar reference to being “with two dead birds” in a separate WhatsApp group which included members of the public.

    Less than an hour later, Lewis sent a superimposed selfie-style photo of himself with the victims visible in the background to Jaffer. Neither man reported the other’s behaviour to bosses.

    Fryent Park deaths
    PC Jamie Lewis will be dismissed from the Metropolitan Police immediately (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    Racism

    The hearing was told that Lewis separately “responded with approval” to another officer who stated he was going to be posted to new location which had fewer Asian people in, who he referred to as “P***s”. Lewis, who did not use the term himself, replied: “Exactly.”

    Jaffer also used the same racist term in a separate message to the public on another matter. PC Tierney said:

    They behaved in a manner that discredits the police force and undermines the public confidence in it.

    The hearing opened with a minute’s silence in memory of the victims and their families. Jaffer, of Hornchurch, east London, and Lewis, from Colchester in Essex, are due to be sentenced at the Old Bailey on 6 December.

    Satanist Danyal Hussein, 19, was jailed for life with a minimum term of 35 years for murdering Henry and Smallman.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson defended his record in office as he faced questions about his leadership and political future. The Labour Party and others are accusing the prime minister of breaking several promises that he made in his 2019 manifesto. The SNP has described him as “simply unfit for office”.

    “Is everything OK, Prime Minister?”

    In a rowdy session of Prime Minister’s Questions, Johnson was cheered by Tory MPs as he rejected claims he was not fit for office. It comes in a week when Tory MPs have allegedly been saying that Johnson is no longer fit for his position.

    The PM’s appearance in the Chamber also followed criticism from within his party in a series of hostile briefings since a chaotic speech at the Confederation of British Industry on 22 November. Labour leader Keir Starmer highlighted Tory divisions over Johnson’s style and rumours of a rift with chancellor Rishi Sunak.

    Prime Minister’s Questions
    Prime minister Boris Johnson leaves 10 Downing Street, London, to attend Prime Minister’s Questions (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

    The chancellor sat next to Johnson in the Chamber as Starmer said:

    The Prime Minister’s routine is falling flat. His Chancellor is worried that people are getting wise, his backbenchers say it’s embarrassing… and senior people in Downing Street tell the BBC ‘it’s just not working’.

    Echoing the question asked by a journalist on 22 November, Starmer said:

    Is everything OK, Prime Minister?

    Johnson responded:

    I’ll tell you what’s not working, it’s that line of attack.

    The Labour leader accused Johnson of breaking a promise that no one would have to sell their home to pay for social care under his reforms for England, on top of a pledge he had already abandoned on not raising taxes. Starmer said:

    Who knows if he will make it to the next election. But if he does, how does he expect anyone to take him and his promises seriously?

    The Labour leader branded the social care cap a “working class dementia tax” because poorer families face losing proportionally more of their assets than wealthier ones. Johnson defended his record and attacked Labour, saying his social care plan “does more for working people up and down the country than Labour ever did”. He also claimed:

    There are now more people in work than there were before the pandemic began, that’s because of the policies this Government has pursued.

    There was more support for Johnson at Prime Minister’s Questions than there had been last week, although some gaps were still visible on the Tory benches. At one point, as Conservatives barracked Starmer, the Labour leader said:

    I see they have turned up this week, prime minister.

    SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford speaks during Prime Minister’s Questions
    SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford speaks during Prime Minister’s Questions (House of Commons/PA)

    ‘Incoherent’

    The SNP’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford said the prime minister “can’t even give a coherent speech to business” adding:

    Officials have lost confidence in him, Tory MPs have lost confidence in him – the letters are going in – and the public have lost confidence in him. Why is he clinging on when quite simply he isn’t up to the job?

    The PM avoided answering the question and instead asked Blackford “what on earth he is doing talking about party political issues” when the people of Scotland wanted to know about the “manifold failures” of the SNP government in Edinburgh.

    ‘Great form’ for Johnson

    The Commons exchanges came after Cabinet minister Dominic Raab insisted the prime minister “is on great form” and dismissed “Westminster tittle tattle” about his position. Downing Street was forced to insist that the prime minister was physically “well” and “focused on delivering for the public” following questions about the CBI speech on 22 November which saw him lose his place in his notes, impersonate a car, and talk about a visit to Peppa Pig World.

    Rumours have swirled about strained relations between Johnson’s No 10 and Sunak’s No 11 since a “senior Downing Street source” told the BBC “there is a lot of concern inside the building about the PM” and “it’s just not working”. Allies of Sunak denied the Treasury was involved in the briefing.

    The anonymous source of the incendiary briefing to the BBC has been dubbed the “Chatty Pig” in Westminster, as the comments emerged following the prime minister’s CBI speech.

    Justice secretary Raab told BBC Breakfast:

    It’s the job of Westminster commentators to pick up on one anonymous source from wherever they found it to criticise the Government of the day, that’s fine.

    He said Johnson was “focused on the job at hand”, adding:

    The Prime Minister is an ebullient, bouncy, optimistic, Tiggerish character and he livens up his speeches in a way that few politicians past and present have done, but actually there is a steeliness to him as a Prime Minister and indeed his team, and we work as a team.

    “Angst”

    One Tory MP told the PA news agency that Johnson was “losing the confidence” of his backbenchers and should quit in the new year. The MP would not say whether they had submitted a letter to the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers calling for Johnson to quit. Meanwhile, the Telegraph quoted a Tory whip as saying it was an “assumption” that some MPs had sent no-confidence letters to the 1922 Committee.

    If 15% of sitting Conservatives submit letters then there would be a vote on his leadership, although the whip said “it will not get anywhere near the 50 letters you would need, but it does cause angst”. Asked about the suggestion that letters had been sent to the 1922 Committee, Raab told LBC:

    There is the usual Westminster tittle tattle and I’m not aware of that.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • According to new research, care home residents are dying alone and their everyday needs are being “neglected” because staffing levels are at such a “dangerously low” level.

    People in residential care are being denied a dignified end to their lives as there are not enough staff to sit with them during the final hours, according to a survey by Unison.

    The union found that 31% of care workers said that staffing levels are dangerously low, getting worse and negatively affecting care quality, which is leaving carers feeling “exhausted, angry and upset”.

    And two thirds (67%) are considering leaving the sector, which Unison says is a “disastrous but inevitable” consequence of years of low wages and morale and underfunding.

    “Unsafe” staffing levels

    The union surveyed 1,637 employees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland between October 13 and November 4 who work in care homes, or help people at home or in supported living.

    Respondents told of how people are not getting regular washes, some are not getting dressed until the afternoon and others are being put to bed early so staff can attend to other residents.

    They described care as “depressingly rushed” and said its quality is declining, with “unsafe” staffing levels on both day and night shifts.

    One respondent said:

    The dying aren’t dying with dignity because there’s not enough staff to sit with people in their final hours.

    Residents are being neglected, not having baths, meals are late, and staff are exhausted.

    Another said:

    The level of care is declining as there aren’t enough carers to do the job. People are being left in wet, dirty beds.

    Suzanne, a residential care worker, described staff levels as “dangerously low” at times, with care “well below acceptable standards”. She continued:

    I’ve had to leave residents in tears because I had to care for someone else who also needed me.

    Burnt out, overworked and under paid

    Almost all respondents (97%) said their employer is experiencing staffing shortages, with burnout, overwork and low pay among the main reasons cited.

    Some 47% agreed with the statement that shortages are having a negative impact on care, and 31% agreed staffing levels are also dangerously low and getting worse.

    A fifth (20%) said their workplace is managing despite the shortages, while 1% said their workplace is fine and is experiencing no serious staffing shortages.

    Unison general secretary Christina McAnea said a pay rise announced by the government would bring some “early festive cheer” to care workers and persuade many on the verge of quitting to stay.

    She said:

    Care workers are leaving in their droves – burnt out from the pandemic, exhausted from covering under-staffed shifts and fed up with low wages.

    This is nothing short of a nightmare for families worried about the care of their loved ones, overworked employees struggling to cope and employers concerned they won’t have the staff to stay open.

    The care sector is desperately short of workers and can’t wait months for the Government to come up with a solution.

    “Very tough reading”

    Vic Rayner, chief executive of the National Care Forum, said the Unison survey “makes for very tough reading”, with staff doing an “incredible job” as they face increasing pressure.

    She said:

    It is not good enough that the Government continues to ignore this very real crisis.

    Last month Unison and the NCF provided a joint call to Government outlining a call for an immediate retention bonus for staff and increase in pay.

    By ignoring this call and refusing to take action, the very real risks to people and communities are laid bare.

    A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said:

    Everyone deserves high quality and compassionate care, and we are grateful for the dedication and tireless work of social care staff throughout the pandemic.

    They said as well as the £162.5 million workforce fund, the Government would invest at least £500 million to develop and support the care workforce as part of its £5.4 billion to reform social care.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Priti Patel’s Home Office should be stripped of responsibility for the Windrush compensation scheme, MPs said after a “litany of flaws” was identified in the way it operates.

    ‘Fear, humiliation, and hurt’

    The cross-party Commons Home Affairs Committee said the scheme should be transferred to an independent organisation to increase trust and encourage more applications. The MPs said the design of the scheme contained the same “bureaucratic insensitivities” that led to the Windrush scandal in the first place, which was a “damning indictment of the Home Office”.

    The scheme was set up to compensate members of the Windrush generation who were wrongly denied their lawful immigration status as a result of Home Office policies. The MPs found that, as of the end of September, only 20.1% of the initially estimated 15,000 eligible claimants had applied, just 5.8% had received any payment, and 23 individuals had died without receiving compensation.

    The committee said:

    The treatment of the Windrush generation by successive governments and the Home Office was truly shameful.

    No amount of compensation could ever repay the fear, the humiliation and the hurt that was caused both to individuals and to communities affected.

    It was “deeply troubling” that the Home Office’s handling of claims “has repeated the same mistakes which led to the Windrush scandal in the first place”.

    Maintained nursery school funding
    Home Affairs Committee chairwoman Yvette Cooper said the situation was ‘truly shocking’ (Kirsty O’Connor/PA)

    Claimants face a “daunting application process”, “unreasonable requests for evidence”, and were “left in limbo in the midst of inordinate delays”, the committee’s report said.

    “Too often, injustice has been compounded rather than compensated,” the MPs said. “This is unacceptable and must not continue.”

    “Truly shocking”

    A Home Office spokesperson said:

    The Home Secretary and the department remain steadfast in our commitment to ensure that members of the Windrush generation receive every penny of compensation that they are entitled to.

    The Home Secretary overhauled the scheme in December to ensure more money is paid more quickly – since then the amount of compensation paid has risen from less than £3 million to over £31.6 million, with a further £5.6 million having been offered. There is no cap on the amount of compensation we will pay out.

    We are pleased this report welcomes the changes made to the scheme in December and we continue to make improvements, such as simplifying the application process, hiring more caseworkers and removing the end date.

    We firmly believe that moving the operation of the scheme out of the Home Office would risk significantly delaying vital payments to those affected.

    The MPs behind the report argue the reforms have not gone far enough. The committee’s Labour chairwoman Yvette Cooper said:

    It has been four years since the Windrush scandal emerged and it is truly shocking how few people have received any compensation for the hardship they endured at the hands of the Home Office.

    It is particularly distressing that 23 individuals have died without receiving any compensation.

    Urgent action is needed to get compensation to those who have been so badly wronged.

    She said it was ”staggering, given the failures of the Windrush scandal, that the Home Office has allowed some of the same problems to affect the Windrush Compensation Scheme too”.

     

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 26 October, The Canary reported that campaigners had occupied a site at Northern Meadows near Cardiff:

    to stop what they say is an illegal attempt to start building works that will destroy the popular public green space

    This site is to be developed into a cancer care centre. Local campaigners want better cancer services but say Northern Meadows is the wrong location. Furthermore, they want to shed:

    light on the human impact of 10 years of delays and £20 million in spending by Velindre [an NHS Trust].

    On 17 November, the High Court upheld the decision to refuse a campaigner’s application for a judicial review into the decision to build the cancer centre. Campaign group Save the Northern Meadows believes:

    Velindre have violated the trust of patients – past, present, and future; failing to cooperate with other health boards to create a cancer centre fit for the future, and suitable for patients, staff, and students.

    Campaign to save Northern Meadows

    The campaign to save this part of Cardiff has the support of environmentalists and people campaigning for better cancer services support. Velindre Cancer Centre plans to build a stand-alone centre on the Northern Meadows site. One campaign group argues it’d be better if they co-located the new cancer centre with the University Hospital of Wales.

    Campaigner Tessa Marshall spoke to The Canary on 26 October. Marshall explained this space consists of three large meadows with a wide array of biodiversity. She said there’s also a wood that’s part of a public right of way and it’s a biodiversity site with species such as bats, hedgehogs, grass snakes, door mice, and owls that’s right next to a nature reserve.

    Katrina Sullivan, who’s undergoing chemotherapy treatment, supported the judicial review application and opposes a stand-alone cancer centre. She said:

    I am really scared for my future if the current plan goes ahead as it is just not safe.

    I am really lucky to have been able to get a place at The Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr Tydfil for my chemotherapy, as having no A/E on site at Velindre is and will be terrifying for patients.

    I am safer having my chemotherapy in Prince Charles hospital, knowing that if I have a bad reaction to any of my treatments, emergency care is there for me.

    I will be needing continuing cancer care from Velindre in the coming years, and I don’t understand why my life and safety is worth less to [the] Welsh Government and Velindre than a vanity project which is not fit for purpose.

    Without access to the best current research I and other patients will be excluded from potentially life extending treatments and trials. Research cannot take place without having on site access to A and E at the new Velindre site, so this excludes from opportunities available elsewhere in the UK.

    This is such a backward step by all to pursue this outdated and unsafe model for the new Velindre site.

    Judicial review

    It was local campaigner Cat Lewis who applied for the judicial review. The court denied Lewis’s appeal application on 17 November having rejected the first request in September. Following the court’s decision, Cat Lewis had this to say:

    I lost.

    I’m sorry –

    to all of you who gave time , gifts and money,

    to all of you who stood strong and said no,

    to the wildlife now more in peril,

    to the patients present and future who won’t get the best model of treatments,

    for the patients who will die,

    for the ministers and planners who know this is wrong in their hearts but don’t have the courage to say so.

    The judge believes that even if presented with all the additional things we have found out and linked, all that the judicial review would clarify – that the senedd ministers would still have come to the same decision: that they need to build a short term fix to a space issue, as fast as possible.

    and fuck the future.

    Campaign group Save the Northern Meadows slammed the court’s decision saying it was:

    a failure of the legal system to hold the Welsh Labour Government accountable for decisions which are not in the best interest of the public, the climate, or future generations.

    The decision made today ensures the people of South East Wales will always receive worse cancer care than what is provided in England, and slapped with a higher economic, clinical, and personal cost for it. As children’s cancer services in London are held responsible for failing to colocate their centres, Wales is pushing forward with what we know is a highly dangerous and backwards model of care, that leaves patients receiving palliative care in the back of ambulances to die. We do not accept this future for us, our families, and our communities.

    The decision shows how weak Welsh environmental law really is. It shows that politicians – regardless of the Environment (Wales) Act and the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act – will not be held accountable or responsible for environmental destruction, and do not have to consider sustainable development in all they do. Regardless of what Mark Drakeford told world leaders at COP26, the Welsh Labour Government is not a leader on climate. In fact, their policies amount to greenwashing, and the lacklustre language will spell tragedy for biodiversity across Cardiff and the whole of Wales.

    A Welsh Government spokesperson told The Canary:

    We note that the judicial review has been refused and the previous judgement has been upheld.

    We are committed to ensuring people affected by cancer in South East Wales have access to the care they need at a new cancer centre.

    The Canary also contacted Velindre for comment. A Velindre University NHS Trust spokesperson said:

    Velindre Cancer Centre was established over 65 years ago and all our staff play their part in treating, supporting and caring for over 5,000 new referrals and around 50,000 outpatients each year. Growth in demand for cancer services in Wales is expected to grow at approximately 2% per annum and by 2040 there will be 300,000 people in Wales living with cancer. The need for a new Velindre Cancer Centre to manage this increase and support cancer patients is more urgent than ever.

    Alongside our colleagues in the University Health Boards across the region, we are implementing an ambitious programme of work to ensure that the services and care patients, their families and their carers receive across the whole of South East Wales are safe, provide the best possible patient experience and supports them all throughout their cancer treatment.

    Co-location is the solution?

    But many healthcare professionals disagree with Velindre’s plans. Campaign group Co-locate Velindre:

    is a healthcare professional action-group fighting for the best cancer care in South East Wales. Its members are appalled that a new cancer centre for the region is actually planned to be ‘stand-alone’.

    It published a November 2020 letter on its campaign site from the Wales Cancer Research Centre External Advisory Board that said:

    Cancer units services which have had general services withdrawn from their campuses have been baldy disadvantaged, both for patient care and research. Although there are specialist cancer centres in England, they are large centres. Crucially, they have substantial medical and surgical support services on site. … In this regard Velindre is very much out of step with the prevailing thinking about patient care

    It also coordinated a letter signed by 163 senior clinicians. It states that they:

    agree that co-location with an acute hospital would provide safer acute in-patient care, improve support from other specialties, create a better base for research and be in line with best practice elsewhere.

    And they:

    strongly doubt this will deliver the best service for patients, and whether it is the best use of public funds.

    The campaign goes on

    Campaigners told The Canary they will “hold out” and added:

    Patients and clinicians are angry, and are facing significant uncertainty for the future due to the serious, life threatening delays to the delivery of this poorly conceived and dangerous project. …

    7 years on from the decision not to pursue the building of the new cancer centre on the grange site at Whitchurch Hospital, Velindre and the Welsh government continue to put the people of South East Wales at risk. As ambulances spend hours waiting outside A&E, we know there’s a human cost to the decade of delay by Velindre.

    Featured image via – Save the Northern Meadows

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

  • Boris Johnson has seemingly admitted that his watered down manifesto commitment could mean some people have to sell a home to pay for social care costs. The situation has been labelled a “betrayal” by some.

    Narrow margins

    The prime minister narrowly succeeded in getting the Commons to back his new policy to cap care costs in England as his majority was slashed by Conservative rebels and those who chose not to vote for the move. Backbenchers criticised the change to the £86,000 cap to only include individual payments and not the contributions of local authorities because it will cost poorer recipients more in assets than the wealthy.

    Ahead of the vote on 22 November, Downing Street declined to say whether the reforms would fulfil a Tory pledge at the last general election to guarantee “nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it”. Johnson apparently downgraded the commitment by telling his Cabinet that “no one will be forced to sell a home they or their spouse is living in as it will not be counted as an asset”, according to No 10’s account of the meeting on 23 November.

    The prime minister’s official spokesman insisted the policy was the “correct approach” when asked if the remark was an admission some may have to sell their homes to pay for care. He also said there is “no intention” to change the policy with another U-turn as it stoked backbench resentment further following the Owen Paterson affair.

    Boris Johnson answers questions during the CBI annual conference
    Boris Johnson answers questions at the CBI annual conference (Owen Humphreys/PA)

    Ministers staved off a potential defeat in the Commons when MPs backed the government’s amendment to its reforms with a majority of 26. That was a major cut to the prime minister’s working majority of around 80 MPs, as 19 Conservatives including former Cabinet minister Esther McVey and ex-chief whip Mark Harper rebelled to oppose the plans.

    Senior Conservative William Wragg and NHS doctor Dan Poulter were also among the Tories to vote against the change, as were Christian Wakeford and Mark Jenkinson, two MPs who seized former Labour strongholds in the North for the Tories.

    Moving the goalposts

    In September, the government announced that a £86,000 cap on lifetime care costs will be put in place from October 2023. However, a policy paper last week showed that only personal contributions will count towards that cap for people who receive financial support from a local authority for some of their care.

    Experts said that means poorer individuals will reach the cap faster than those who are wealthier and will therefore see more of their assets eaten up by care costs. The Resolution Foundation think tank warned that people in the North and in Yorkshire are most at risk from having their “wealth wiped out by care costs”, and said the changes approved on 22 November would make the reforms worse.

    Harper said it “potentially disadvantages the less well-off and those of working age with life-long conditions”.

    Bury South MP Wakeford said he was uncomfortable with the change “to move the goalposts” while Basildon’s John Baron highlighted concerns from the Tory benches “about the distribution of the relative losses and the worry that those less well-off are going to be hit hardest from the government’s amendment tonight”.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A Conservative councillor has agreed to pay “substantial” damages and legal costs to Jeremy Corbyn for a tweet containing a fake photograph of the former Labour leader at the scene of the Liverpool terrorist attack.

    “Wrong”

    Paul Nickerson, a councillor on East Riding of Yorkshire Council, has apologised and taken “full responsibility” for the doctored tweet, which showed Corbyn laying a poppy wreath at the burning taxi outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital, and was captioned with the word “unsurprisingly”. Nickerson said the post gave the “completely untrue impression” that the Islington North MP supports terrorist violence and said the tweet was “wrong”.

    Corbyn said the tweet “did a disservice to all those affected by the attack and their loved ones” and said he would use the settlement to support charities close to his heart. Nickerson, who has been suspended by his council’s Conservative group, tweeted his apology on 23 November.

    Nickerson said in his apology:

    The tweet targeted Jeremy Corbyn and included a fake photograph of him laying a poppy wreath at the site of a burning taxi outside the Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where a terror attack had taken place on Remembrance Sunday, killing a suicide bomber and injuring others.

    The false photograph, captioned by the word ‘unsurprisingly’, gave the completely untrue impression that Jeremy Corbyn supports terrorist violence, including suicide bombings, which, without any hesitation, I wholly accept he does not.

    Without reservation, I fully withdraw any suggestion or inference that Jeremy Corbyn is a supporter of terrorist violence. The tweet was wrong and I retract it.

    I unreservedly and sincerely apologise to Mr Corbyn for the hurt and distress that has been caused to him by the tweet.

    I entirely accept that the posting of the message the day after Remembrance Sunday aggravated the hurtful nature of the defamatory tweet.

    “Horrific”

    Corbyn instructed his solicitor to bring legal proceedings for libel following the publication of the original tweet. On 23 November, he said:

    The bomb attack on Liverpool Women’s Hospital on Remembrance Sunday was a horrific crime, which could have killed or maimed countless victims, including new mothers and their babies. Councillor Paul Nickerson’s Photoshopped Twitter post about me failed to understand the seriousness of the threat and did a disservice to all those affected by the attack and their loved ones.

    So I welcome his decision to apologise for his defamatory post, to agree not to repeat the tweet, which he has deleted, and to pay substantial damages and legal costs.

    This substantial settlement will be used to support charities that are close to my heart, including one in Liverpool and one in my constituency.

    In a statement last week, Jonathan Owen, leader of the Conservative group on East Riding Council, said “inappropriate remarks” would not be tolerated. Owen said:

    Following an inappropriate and offensive message, which appeared on councillor Paul Nickerson’s Twitter feed, I have suspended him from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council Conservative group with immediate effect and an investigation will now take place.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • In September and October this year, The Canary published stories of alleged racism and Islamophobia in UK prisons. One of the prisons we mentioned was HMP Wakefield. Now prison solidarity campaigners have made further allegations of racist violence being committed by prison staff.

    On 21 November, prison solidarity campaign group Anti-Carceral Solidarity (ACS) protested outside HMP Wakefield:

    to demand an end to racist and inhumane treatment of prisoners kept in the segregation unit.

    ACS alleges:

    In the last month, prison guards have physically assaulted Black and Jewish prisoners, denied them access to food and letters, and encouraged one prisoner to attempt suicide.

    Allegations of abuse

    ACS says:

    Michael Peters, a Black Jewish prisoner at HMP Wakefield, was assaulted by guards at least three times in his cell in segregation in October. As a result of this violent treatment, his mental health deteriorated and he became suicidal, making at attempt on his life on 25 October.

    On 29 October, Peters was taken off close medical supervision, though he had told officers that he was still suicidal. Prison guards destroyed Peters’ possessions, including a television and kosher food that he requires as a practising Jew, and denied him access to the canteen, in what friends are calling acts of punishment for his suicide attempt.

    ACS report that Gary, a campaigner and friend of Peters, said:

    There is a clear pattern of medical neglect and abuse in the segregation unit at HMP Wakefield, targeted at Black and Jewish prisoners. Staff at HMP Wakefield are not only subjecting prisoners to the torture of solitary confinement, but also pushing them to suicide. This racist and inhumane abuse is not only wrong, it’s illegal.

    The solidarity campaign group claims:

    The prison has also denied Peters, Shaqueille Plummer and Dwayne Fulgence – all Black prisoners – access to books and letters sen[t] to them, which campaigners have said [is] an attempt to isolate these men and take away materials vital to survival in the conditions of solitary confinement.

    Anthony Snow also made a suicide attempt in the segregation unit at HMP Wakefield in September and too has experienced severe medical neglect from the prison.

    This appears to be common

    Allegations of such attacks on minorities in UK prisons are not uncommon. On 8 September, The Canary’s Tom Anderson wrote:

    Muslim prisoners are subjected to systemic violence within the prison system. Just this year, The Canary has reported several alleged racist attacks on Muslim prisoners – coupled with the mistreatment and abuse of another – at HMP Full Sutton and Long Lartin. CAPE [Community Action on Prison Expansion] allege that one individual prison officer has carried out three attacks on Black prisoners who are practising Muslims at HMP Long Lartin over the past nine months.

    According to CAPE, 15% of the UK’s prison population is Muslim despite Muslims making up just 5% of the total population. In Close Supervision Centres where prisoners face the “most restrictive conditions” seen in the UK prison system, around half of prisoners are Muslim.

    34% of those who died in police custody – the majority of whom died in prison – are of Middle-Eastern or Asian origin.

    ACS also highlighted an alleged attack by prison staff at HMP Belmarsh:

    In September, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) denied the initial allegations of racism and Islamophobia at its prisons. It then refused to comment any further. The Canary contacted the MOJ for comment on these more recent allegations. A prison service spokesperson denied the allegations made about Belmarsh, though did say whilst restraint had been used in two cases, its use was proportionate. In relation to the allegations made about Wakefield, they stated:

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

    Prison conditions at Wakefield

    The chief inspector of prisons carried out an unannounced inspection of HMP Wakefield in June 2018. And while It found “HMP Wakefield to be an essentially respectful prison, with many examples of good relationships and interactions between staff and prisoners”, it also found:

    that black and minority ethnic prisoners had a poorer perception of their treatment and conditions than their white counterparts. These negative perceptions needed to be understood. Until this happened there would be no way of knowing whether the negative perceptions were justified or not, and even if they were not, the negative perceptions themselves needed to be taken seriously and addressed.

    In relation to use of force, the inspection found it “had increased” and in one case was “disproportionate”:

    Use of force had increased since our previous inspection and was comparatively high, although one prisoner accounted for a disproportionate number of incidents. Over a third of incidents had taken place in the segregation unit. Documentation was reasonably well completed and gave a good account of what had happened, but was not routinely reviewed by senior managers.

    That report noted that the segregation unit “was clean and cells contained adequate furniture and little graffiti”. However, it felt some people remained there too long:

    Six prisoners had been segregated for more than seven months, with the longest for over 14 months. Exit plans took too long to implement and prisoners’ physical and mental well-being was negatively affected, especially if they had pre-existing mental health problems. Prisoners requiring transfer to hospital under the Mental Health Act also waited too long to be transferred and some very acutely ill prisoners had faced excessive delays.

    Additionally, it found the frequency with which people could shower to be “unacceptable”:

    While the number of those segregated had reduced, a considerable number of prisoners remained in the unit for too long, for an average of more than five months. While it was positive that an hour of exercise was offered every day, showers were generally provided only every three days, which was unacceptable.

    Hear our voice

    ACS and others help to amplify the voices of those suffering on the inside. This is what one of those voices in the segregation unit wanted to say:

    The world needs to hear about what’s happening to us in here.

    Featured image via – Anti-Carceral Solidarity

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The number of weekly registered deaths involving coronavirus (Covid-19) in England and Wales has passed a thousand for the first time in eight months, figures show.

    Deaths rising

    There were 1,020 deaths registered in the week ending 12 November where coronavirus was mentioned on the death certificate, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said. Coronavirus accounted for around one in 12 of all deaths registered over the seven-day period. The number is up 3% from the previous week when 995 deaths were registered.

    It’s the first time the weekly total has passed a thousand since the week ending 12 March during the 2021 national lockdown.

    (PA Graphics)
    (PA Graphics)

    People aged 80 and over accounted for 44.6% of the deaths registered in the week to 12 November – the lowest proportion for this age group since the week to 27 August, according to analysis by the PA news agency. The figure is down from 46.2% in the previous week and 50.4% two weeks earlier.

    The drop might reflect the impact of booster doses of the coronavirus vaccine, which began to be rolled out in late September to all over-50s who were at least six months on from their second dose. People aged 80 and over would have been one of the first groups eligible for a booster, as they would have received their second dose early in the year.

    By contrast, 60 to 79-year-olds accounted for 44.3% of deaths registered in the week to 12 November – the highest percentage for this age group since the week to 28 May.

    In the latest week, there were 12,050 deaths from all causes registered in England and Wales. This is up 500 from the previous week and 16.6% higher than the average number of deaths for this time measured over five years.

    Registered deaths involving coronavirus increased in six of the nine English regions and fell in Wales. Some 101 care home resident deaths involving coronavirus were registered, down from 111 in the previous week. In total, 44,107 care home residents in England and Wales have had coronavirus recorded on their death certificate since the pandemic began.

    The ONS figures cover deaths of care home residents in all settings, not just in care homes. A total of 169,767 deaths have occurred in the UK where coronavirus was mentioned on the death certificate, the ONS said.

    The figures also show more than 77,000 extra deaths – or “excess deaths” – have taken place in private homes in England and Wales since the pandemic began. A total of 77,379 excess deaths were registered between 7 March 2020 and 12 November 2021.

    Of this number, only 8,998 – 12% – were deaths involving coronavirus.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Web Desk:

    Rolls-Royce ‘Spirit of Innovation’, an electric aircraft has claimed three new world records and clocked up a top speed of 387.4mph, which makes it the world’s fastest all-electric vehicle.

    Photo Courtesy: Twitter/Rolls Royce

    Rolls Royce in its Press Release said that at 15:45 (GMT) on 16 November 2021, the aircraft reached a top speed of 555.9 km/h (345.4 mph) over 3 kilometers, smashing the existing record by 213.04 km/h (132mph). In further runs at the UK Ministry of Defense’s Boscombe Down experimental aircraft testing site, the aircraft achieved 532.1km/h (330 mph) over 15 kilometers, 292.8km/h (182mph) faster than the previous record, and broke the fastest time to climb to 3000 meters by 60 seconds with a time of 202 seconds, according to our data.

    Rolls Royce claims that “During its record-breaking runs, the aircraft clocked up a maximum speed of 623 km/h (387.4 mph) which we believe makes the ‘Spirit of Innovation’ the world’s fastest all-electric vehicle”.

    Rolls-Royce CEO Warren East said: “Following the world’s focus on the need for action at COP26, this is another milestone that will help make jet zero a reality and supports our ambitions to deliver the technology breakthroughs society needs to decarbonize transport across air, land, and sea.”

    Photo Courtesy: Twitter/Rolls Royce

    Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: “Rolls-Royce’s Revolutionary Spirit of Innovation aircraft is yet more proof of the UK’s enviable credentials when it comes to innovation. This record will show the potential of electric flight and help to unlock the technologies that could make it part of everyday life.”

    The ‘Spirit of Innovation’ is part of the ACCEL or ‘Accelerating the Electrification of Flight’ project. Half of the project’s funding is provided by the Aerospace Technology Institute (ATI), in partnership with the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, and Innovate UK.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Boris Johnson faces pressure within the Tory party to re-establish his grip following a chaotic speech to business leaders and a revolt over social care.

    “Serious issues”

    Former PM contender Jeremy Hunt said it had “not been a great month” for the government, “not just on trivial issues like speeches going wrong but on much more serious issues like parliamentary standards”.

    The prime minister’s address to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) on 22 November saw him lose his place in his notes, talk about Peppa Pig, and impersonate a car. While the speech was arguably in line with how Johnson has always presented himself, it’s certainly the case that what’s been ‘business as usual’ for the prime minister is being viewed differently by the media.

    The government also survived a rebellion over its social care reforms, with 19 Tories opposing the plans and dozens more not voting at all in response to the cap on costs being less generous than expected. Hunt, the Commons Health Committee chair, was one of the Tories who abstained over the social care reforms.

    It followed a bruising few weeks which have seen Johnson’s judgment being questioned over his handling of the Owen Paterson row on parliamentary standards and Tory criticism of scaled-back plans for rail upgrades in the North.

    Former Cabinet minister Hunt, who stood against Johnson for the Tory leadership in 2019, said the CBI speech “wasn’t a great moment and it hasn’t been a great month for the Government”.

    In a sign of the questions being asked about Johnson, a senior Downing Street source told the BBC:

    there is a lot of concern inside the building about the PM…. It’s just not working.

    The source added:

    Cabinet needs to wake up and demand serious changes otherwise it’ll keep getting worse. If they don’t insist, he just won’t do anything about it

    Care less

    Johnson narrowly succeeded in getting MPs to back his new policy to cap care costs in England on the evening of Monday 22 November.

    The government won the vote by 26, a major cut to the prime minister’s working majority of around 80 MPs. 19 Conservatives – including former Cabinet minister Esther McVey and ex-chief whip Mark Harper – rebelled to oppose the plans. 68 Tories did not vote for them, either because they abstained or could not attend.

    Hunt told the BBC:

    I was conflicted, I actually ended up abstaining because it is a big disappointment that they changed the way the cap is calculated.

    Not including council support in calculating whether the cap on care costs has been reached means it “won’t protect the assets of as many people as we had hoped for”, he said.

    The scale of the revolt could encourage peers to seek to amend the legislation when it reaches the Lords. Crossbench peer baroness Finlay of Llandaff said an impact assessment of the reforms – which was not available to MPs – will be “very important”.

    She told the BBC’s Today programme:

    It may be that we will say to the Commons, ‘can you think again?’, it may be that we come up with constructive amendments to improve what is on the table at the moment because, clearly, there’s a lot of disquiet.

    Despite the open and not-so-open rebellion in his party, some maintain that the PM is actually being very clever:

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The UK is facing a higher chance of a wetter winter in the next few months, experts said, as households are urged to be prepared for the risk of flooding.

    A Met Office outlook shows there is an above-average chance of the winter being wetter than normal over the three months from November to January, with the wetter conditions most likely in January next year and beyond.

    With the potential for more wet weather and impacts from rainfall and winds, the Environment Agency is urging people to check their flood risk online, sign up for flood warnings and, if they are at risk, know what to do if flooding hits their home.

    The call comes at the start of Flood Action Week, as the agency disclosed findings from a survey which suggested three-fifths (61%) of households in flood-risk areas did not believe their property could be affected.

    While 70% of households in at-risk areas had taken some steps to prepare for their home flooding, 30% had done nothing – which if replicated across England could mean as many as 1.5 million homes at risk of flooding are unprepared.

    A stark warning
    In February, the chief executive of the Environment Agency, James Bevan, issued a stark warning about the impact of the climate crisis:

    “We can’t prevent all flooding – climate change is only increasing that risk – and today’s figures show that while some people are prepared, many are not. Much higher sea levels will take out most of the world’s cities, displace millions, and make much of the rest of our land surface uninhabitable or unusable. Much more extreme weather will kill more people through drought, flooding, wildfires and heatwaves than most wars have.

    The net effects will collapse ecosystems, slash crop yields, take out the infrastructure that our civilisation depends on, and destroy the basis of the modern economy and modern society.

    If [this] sounds like science fiction let me tell you something you need to know. This is that over the last few years the reasonable worst case for several of the flood incidents the EA has responded to has actually happened, and it’s getting larger.

    That is why our thinking needs to change faster than the climate. And why our response needs to match the scale of the challenge.

    An increasing risk

    Caroline Douglass, executive director of flooding at the Environment Agency, said that its previous investment programme protected 314,000 properties from flooding, defences helped protect nearly 200,000 properties during floods since 2019 and the organisation was investing millions in building new schemes and making repairs to keep communities safe.

    But she warned:  “Now is the time for us all to be vigilant, not complacent, about flooding.”

    She further warned that climate change was happening, increasing the frequency and intensity of storms, pointing to Storm Christoph and other recent storms in the past few years which broke records for rainfall or river levels, as well as the deadly flooding in parts of Europe this year:

    We can’t prevent all flooding – climate change is only increasing that risk – and today’s figures show that while some people are prepared, many are not.

    It’s vitally important for the public to go online and check if they are at risk, sign up for Environment Agency warnings, and know what to do if flooding hits.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A number of concerns related to trophy hunting have come to the fore recently. South Africa has faced criticism for releasing killing quotas that lack scientific evidence to back them up. At the same time, the US authorities have come under fire for failing to take action against the trade, and the UK is dragging its feet over proposed legislation to limit the trade.

    Pro-killing lobbyists, meanwhile, are on the charm offensive.

    Opaque killing quotas

    As the Daily Maverick‘s Don Pinnock recently reported, environmentalists have criticised officials in South Africa over hunting plans. In October, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment announced its draft hunting and export quota for elephants, black rhinos and leopards. It gave the public a 30-day window to object to the plans. But it apparently offered no meaningful evidence regarding the scientific basis for the proposed killings. Such evidence would speak to the impact of the killings on the species’ populations. This is important as, according to International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), black rhinos are critically endangered, elephants are endangered, and leopards are vulnerable.

    The EMS Foundation called the process “procedurally unfair”, saying that the quota “contains no information in relation to how [it’s] been determined”. As such, the organisation argued that the draft plan offers no information “whatsoever to enable the public to meaningfully comment” on it.

    The draft plan would potentially see 150 elephants, 10 leopards, and 10 black rhinos killed by trophy hunters. It comes after the same department recommended a “new deal” for wildlife in South Africa earlier in 2021. That deal promised to close the country’s captive lion industry, among other things.

    Leopard legal action

    Relatedly, the import of dead African leopard ‘trophies’ to the US is the focus of a recently launched legal action in the country. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Humane Society International, and the Humane Society of the United States are behind the action. They are suing the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for not imposing stricter conditions on hunters bringing leopards’ body parts into the country, in light of the species’ precarious position.

    The groups say that the US accounted for over half of the global trade in leopard ‘trophies’ between 2014 and 2018. So they want the USFWS to use the Endangered Species Act to provide further protections for the species. The CBD’s international legal director Tanya Sanerib explained:

    The Endangered Species Act’s full protections could ensure that the gruesome trophy trade doesn’t drive leopard decline. To defeat the extinction crisis, we need to use every weapon in our arsenal. But after trophy hunting was identified as a threat to African leopards, U.S. wildlife officials sat on their hands. The failure to help conserve these iconic cats is unacceptable.

    Charm offensive

    Meanwhile, pro-trophy hunting lobbyists have recently taken action to pressure the US government. In defiance of voters’ wishes, Joe Biden’s predecessor Donald Trump opened up vast tracts of wildlife refuges to hunting and fishing. Now the hunting advocacy organisation Safari Club International (SCI) has launched a ‘no net loss’ campaign. It effectively demands that Biden commit to at least maintaining the levels of access to lands that hunters currently have.

    The SCI Foundation, an arm of SCI, recently held its annual African Wildlife Consultative Forum in Botswana. At this event, hunting advocates liaise with governmental wildlife officials from African countries, amongst others. The journalist and author Adam Cruise has previously described the forum as “SCI persuading African governments… to adopt policies incorporating the conservation ‘benefits’ of trophy hunting”.

    SCI has revealed that USFWS official Mary Cogliano attended the latest forum virtually. She confirmed that the department is processing a backlog of hundreds of import permit requests from US hunters for killing abroad. They include 126 applications for lions and 323 for elephants.

    The IUCN classifies lions as vulnerable. Conservationists have raised concerns that this listing, however, doesn’t reflect the dire situation for lion populations. LionAid has calculated that there are potentially less than 10,000 wild lions left in Lion Conservation Units across Africa.

    Limitations

    Pro-trophy hunting lobbyists claim that the practice is a form of conservation. Proponents argue that revenue from hunting benefits communities co-existing with wild animals and increases tolerance. However, some surveys and studies suggest funds don’t ‘trickle down’ to communities to any meaningful extent.

    Overall, the pro-argument revolves around the doctrine that people will only conserve other animals if the latter are of ‘use’. But SCI’s own actions provide an illustration of how these concepts fail to stack up. Trump removed protections for wolves in 2020, which allowed trophy hunters to target them. SCI celebrated this as a major win. But in 2021, SCI lobbied against hunting fees going towards the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado. It argued that hunters should not “foot the bill for the high cost of premature wolf introduction”. Wolves in the US only occupy around 15% of their historic range.

    A startling story

    There are deep concerns about the damage trophy hunting can and is doing to communities of wild animals, and the impact it’s having on their potential for long-term survival. As Pinnock pointed out, the numbers themselves tell “a startling story”. He highlighted that in South Africa alone between 2016 and 2019:

    190,468 wild creatures were “bagged” as trophies — that’s 171,748 wild mammals, 15,233 birds, 742 reptiles and 2,745 non-indigenous animals. It works out to 130 kills a day.

    Numbers for the killing of threatened species – i.e. those at risk of disappearing – tell a similar story. In the book Trophy Leaks: Top Hunters & Industry Secrets Revealed, Eduardo Gonçalves asserted that:

    In 2018, the most recent year for which full data is available, trophy hunters from 77 countries shot 35,000 animals from more than 150 threatened species. This equates to 100 supposedly protected animals every day.

    The wolf massacres in the US, meanwhile, paint a particularly excessive picture. Earlier this year Wisconsin set a quota for hunters of 119 wolves over a week-long period. They killed 216 wolves in just 60 hours.

    The scale of killing amid an extinction crisis has led to countries considering or implementing bans on the import of body parts attained through hunting. The UK is currently considering imposing such a ban. But, as it’s done in the past, the government is dragging its feet on the issue. Wildlife campaigner Dominic Dyer says that lobbying by trophy hunting proponents is likely responsible for the ban’s delay.

    Featured image via Benjamin Hollis / Flickr

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Jersey has a housing crisis. The Channel Island, known for its tax avoidance and wealth, is seeing its politicians presiding over chaos in the housing sector. The story is one of the have’s and have not’s. And so far, politicians have failed to tackle the issue.

    Jersey: a housing crisis?

    Jersey is one of the richest places on the planet. In 2019, its gross domestic product (GDP) per person was £45,320 – that’s how much the countries’ total economic value divides out per person. This is compared to just over £32,500 for the UK.

    Currently, the island has major housing problems. The average property price has rocketed by £100,000 in just a year to £634,000. Bear in mind this is far higher than even London (£507,253) and way above the England average of £287,895. Jersey has also had house prices increasing more than earnings for many years. It’s a similar story in the private rental market. In 2019, for example, average rents increased by 9%. This was more than the increase for the whole of the UK between January 2015 and December 2019.

    Social housing rents are capped at 90% of the market rate. This is in stark contrast to England, where the figure is around 50%. In Jersey, around 14% of households live in social housing, “housing trusts” or on “parish rents” (2011 figures). This is lower than in England, which is 17% (2016-18) but higher than neighbouring Guernsey, which is under 10%.

    The situation has led one politician to deem Jersey’s housing situation a “crisis”.

    “Totally inadequate”

    As ITV News reported, the government says only 15% of the properties on two new developments need to be affordable housing (this is not the same as social housing). On one development this would mean that 23 out of 150 homes will be affordable housing. This led the social democratic Reform Jersey Party leader senator Sam Mézec to say:

    Jersey currently has around 2,000 applications on our first-time-buyers waiting list, and a further 1,000 waiting for social rental housing. For the government to propose building just 173 new affordable homes in these massive developments is clearly totally inadequate.

    Mézec tabled a motion in Jersey’s parliament in June, calling on it to declare a housing “affordability crisis”. Parliament rejected this. Furthermore, according to some politicians, there is no housing crisis.

    Crisis? What crisis?

    As the Jersey Evening Post reported, treasury minister Susie Pinel was at a Chamber of Commerce lunch. She’s part of the right-wing Jersey Alliance Party. When someone questioned her about the housing crisis, Pinel said:

    Having travelled quite a bit, you can see in places like Africa and India a crisis and poverty. We do not have that here. We might have a challenge.

    The one in four people in poverty on the island might beg to differ. But Pinel is not the only Jersey politician who thinks there’s no crisis. The Jersey Evening Post reported that assistant treasury minister and fellow Jersey Alliance Party politician Lindsay Ash said:

    My view is the same. People seem to be using the word ‘’crisis’’ for everything. If England lose the World Cup, they would say that is a crisis. We have a big problem with housing in the Island, I have no doubt about that, but I do not think it is a crisis like in places like Calcutta, where [people are] lying in the street. We have a problem but we are addressing it already by building a substantial number of houses over the next few years

    Clearly Ash is unaware of over 100 homeless people in Jersey, including an unclear number of rough sleepers. If she is unaware, it’s of little wonder. Because unlike the rest of the UK, Jersey has no legal definition of homelessness. This means that there’s currently no reliable way to gather statistics on the homeless population.

    “Disconnect”

    Not everyone at the Chamber of Commerce lunch failed to recognise the housing crisis. The Jersey Evening Post noted that one anonymous “business leader” said:

    It is very sad that there seems to be such a disconnect between politicians and the reality of people’s lives in our Island. There are families in one-room apartments with sinks screwed to the wall in St Helier… but we are not as bad as Africa.

    Solutions to the crisis seem few and far between. Even the left-wing Reform Jersey Party doesn’t appear to be going far enough. It recently proposed bringing the rent cap on social housing down to 80% of market rates – which is still way above England. The party also tried to introduce a policy that would ban above-inflation rent increases. But other politicians rejected it.

    Jersey’s government is doing little. It plans to build 1,000 affordable homes by 2025. But with 3,000 households either on first-time buyer or social housing waiting lists, the numbers don’t add up.

    A “strategy”

    Meanwhile, an independent panel published a report in January for the government on homelessness. It made eight recommendations:

    1. Understand and define homelessness by providing a statutory definition and clear messages to promote a shared understanding of the issue.
    2. Evidence the scale and nature of the issue so that we can plan how to prevent and address it.
    3. Create a housing advice hub so that everyone knows where to go to get help.
    4. Establish a complex needs team to take responsibility for resolving the housing issues of the most vulnerable.
    5. Provide a housing safety net for all which is appropriate, flexible and able to meet the needs of everyone.
    6. Commissioning and regulation to ensure that housing-related support services are consistent and sustainable.
    7. Strengthen the role and supply of social housing to ensure that it is better able to meet housing need.
    8. Support private sector tenants and landlords to promote positive relationships.

    The government has responded. It appears to have partly listened, and will be implementing some of the report’s recommendations. These include creating a legal definition of homelessness. But this is just one aspect of Jersey’s housing crisis. And the government still appears to be doing little to address the overall situation.

    Jersey: a microcosm of society

    Jersey’s position is a microcosm of society more broadly. On the one hand, the island has some of the wealthiest people on the planet living there. On the other, there’s homelessness, a lack of social and affordable housing, and one in 14 children sleeping in mouldy bedrooms. And of course, you have politicians pretending there’s no crisis. So, it seems that like with the rest of the capitalist world, very little will be done in the short term to fix Jersey’s housing crisis.

    Featured image via Copernicus Sentinel-2, ESA – Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson stumbled through a major speech in which he lost his place in his notes, talked about a day trip to a Peppa Pig theme park and imitated a car, before insisting: “I thought it went over well.”

    “Is everything OK?”

    The prime minister’s keynote address to business leaders saw him struggle with his papers, at one point muttering “blast it” before shuffling sheets and begging the audience to “forgive me” as he tried to find the right point to resume.

    The speech to the Confederation of British Industry was an attempt to set out how pursuing green policies could help in the “moral mission” to “level up” the UK. It will likely be remembered more for Johnson’s reflections on his trip to Peppa Pig World, comparisons with Moses, a reference to Lenin, and the spectacle of a prime minister of the United Kingdom making car noises.

    Following the speech in South Shields, Johnson was asked: “Is everything OK?”

    He told ITV:

    I think that people got the vast majority of the points I wanted to make and I thought it went over well.

    Labour mocked Johnson online, saying “the joke’s not funny any more”, while Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said:

    Businesses are crying out for clarity. Instead, all they got was Boris Johnson rambling on about Peppa Pig.

    It is a perfect metaphor for Johnson’s chaotic, incompetent Government as it trashes our economy, but it is not worthy of a British Prime Minister.

    “Daddy pig”

    Johnson told the audience how he spent 21 November at Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, describing it as “very much my kind of place” but “they are a bit stereotypical about Daddy Pig”.

    Praising the ingenuity of the private sector, Johnson said “no Whitehall civil servant could conceivably have come up with Peppa”, which had become a £6bn global business with theme parks in the US and China. The argument has been criticised online.

    Johnson’s admiration of the fictional pig trended on Twitter for a large part of the afternoon:

    Johnson also mimicked the sound of a roaring car as he said electric vehicles, while lacking the characteristic noise of a high-powered petrol engine, “move off the lights faster than a Ferrari”.

    He additionally quoted Soviet leader Lenin as he said electrification will be the key to the new “green” industrial revolution:

    Lenin once said the communist revolution was Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country

    The coming industrial revolution is green power plus electrification of the whole country. We are electrifying our cars, we are electrifying our rail.

    The prime minister additionally compared his 10-point plan for a green economy with the 10 commandments in the Bible. It was “a new Decalogue that I produced exactly a year ago when I came down from Sinai”, he said.

    CBI annual conference
    Prime minister Boris Johnson covering an unexpectedly broad range of topics during the CBI annual conference (Owen Humphreys/PA)

    Back-tracking

    Johnson defended his levelling-up agenda following criticism of scaled-back plans for new railways in the North and Midlands. Ministers announced last week that the eastern leg of HS2 between the Midlands and Leeds would be cut, while a promised Northern Powerhouse Rail link between Leeds and Manchester would run partly on existing tracks.

    Tony Danker, director-general of the CBI, said the decision had “upset” businesses in the north of England. Johnson defended the rail proposals, describing the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) as “transformatory”. He also argued that achieving his goal of addressing imbalances in the UK would help it become a bigger economy than Germany, saying:

    It’s a moral thing but it’s also an economic imperative.

    The prime minister said there would still be “massive gains” by a mixture of investing in new lines and upgrading existing track. He told the conference:

    I must say that I thought, as a lesson in what happens when you tell the British people we’re investing £96 billion in the biggest railway programme for 100 years, some of the coverage was missing the point, let me put it that way.

    So, Birmingham to Newcastle is 40 minutes quicker under the IRP; from Newcastle to London will have 20 minutes shaved off because of the upgrades to the East Coast Mainline.

    You are mad as a railway enthusiast, which I am, to think that you always have to dig huge new trenches through virgin countryside and villages and housing estates in order to do high-speed rail.

    He added that chancellor Rishi Sunak wanted to cut the tax burden for businesses but the government had to be “prudent” following £407bn of pandemic spending that had been “extremely tough for the taxpayer”. The PM also announced in his speech that new laws will see new homes, supermarkets and workplaces compelled to install electric car charging points.

    The announcement on charging points is another step towards the banning of the sale of petrol and diesel cars in the UK by 2030.

    Pig World

    James Mancey, operations director at Paultons Park, where Peppa Pig World is based, said the attraction was “delighted” Johnson attended on 21 November. He said:

    The fact that Mr Johnson has chosen to speak at length about his visit during today’s CBI conference, positively endorsing the creativity and innovation showcased by Peppa Pig World and encouraging others to visit, is testament to the hard work of everyone at Paultons Park who create the wonderful experience our millions of guests enjoy each year.

    Others suggested the shambolic speech may have been an attempt to draw attention away from the multiple scandals the PM has embroiled himself in:

     

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson faces a backbench revolt over his social care plans as a minister claimed the reforms would mean “fewer people” would have to sell their homes to meet the cost of being looked after. This is a step down from a 2019 manifesto promise that social care reforms must “guarantee that no one needing care has to sell their home to pay for it”.

    Open rebellion

    The PM has been warned that some Conservative MPs will not support the new policy to cap care costs, which critics argue has been watered down since it was first announced. Ahead of a vote on the night of 22 November, government minister Paul Scully was unable to guarantee the reforms would mean no one would be forced to sell their family home to meet the cost of adult social care in England. He said:

    There will be fewer people selling their houses and hopefully none

    Red Wall Tory Christian Wakeford had warned that it “shouldn’t be taken for granted that we’re just going to walk through the same lobby” while former justice secretary Robert Buckland has suggested the government should “look again” at the issue.

    In September, the government announced that an £86,000 cap on care costs would be put in place from October 2023. But in a policy paper last week, the government said that for people who receive financial support for part of their care from their local authority, only the share they contribute themselves will go towards the £86,000 cap. That will mean that wealthy people who do not qualify for support will reach the cap threshold faster than poorer ones who have part of their care funded by their council.

    Economist Andrew Dilnot, architect of the original plans for a care cap, said it would mean poorer recipients of care, including those in the North of England and in areas with lower house prices, will be hit hardest.

    Business minister Scully told Sky News:

    If you hit the cap you will not have to pay any more money for your personal care – I think that is a fair, balanced approach for taxpayers and people who are having to pay for what is a really expensive, at the moment, form of care through social care.

    Pressed on whether some would have to sell their homes to pay for care, despite the prime minister’s pledge that his policy meant they would not, Scully replied:

    I can’t tell you what individuals are going to do.

    What I’m saying is the social care solution is all about getting a cap above which you do not need to pay – that gives people certainty.

    A broken promise?

    The Tory manifesto in 2019 said social care reforms must “guarantee that no one needing care has to sell their home to pay for it”. Under the plans, people with assets of less than £20,000 will not have to contribute anything to their care – up from the current level of £14,250 – while those with assets worth up to £100,000 will be eligible to receive some local authority support, up from £23,250.

    (PA Graphics)
    (PA Graphics)

    Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi told LBC:

    You have got to get to a place where we can have a system that doesn’t end up with one-in-six people having a catastrophic financial crisis, that is wrong.

    He said “you get help up to £100,000, that’s a massive difference for people who have the least amount of money or assets available”. He also claimed that the richest people “pay the most in” as a result of the hike in National Insurance coming into force in April to help pay for the reforms.

    The Commons showdown comes amid lingering ill-feeling on the Tory back benches over Johnson’s handling of the Owen Paterson standards row. Bury South MP Wakeford warned it was not a foregone conclusion that Tory MPs would back the government.

    He told Times Radio

    What I wanted to see was a plan and it feels like we didn’t have one then, I’m not fully sure we’ve got one now, but then to change, to move the goalposts after we’ve already been introduced this, it’s not something I’m particularly comfortable with it.

    Especially when one of the main messages for introducing this levy was ‘you won’t need to sell your house for care’, to get to a point where unfortunately you might need to and (it’s) arguably our least well-off in society, our least well-off voters, again it’s not something I’m particularly comfortable with.

    “Daylight robbery”

    The change has caused uproar with experts who said it would mean households receiving less protection than expected, and that they could still face catastrophic costs that would eat up a far greater share of their assets compared with wealthier recipients. Labour said its analysis had shown the changes would mean the average homeowner in two thirds of northern areas will have to pay more towards their care. In the Midlands a third would be worse off, it said.

    Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth told Sky:

    If you live in a £1 million house, perhaps in the Home Counties, 90% of your assets will be protected if you need social care. But if you live in an £80,000 terrace house in Hartlepool, Barrow, Mansfield or Wigan, for example, you lose nearly everything. That is not fair, that is not levelling up, it is daylight robbery.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has won an award in London for her bravery, as her detention in Iran continues. The West Hampstead mother received the Courage Under Fire prize at this year’s Magnitsky Human Rights Awards. For more on this award, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/48a2fd20-eb63-11e8-a208-f9dcc4e84560

    Redress, an NGO campaigning for the return of Nazanin, says the award “recognises the injustice Nazanin has suffered as a pawn of international diplomacy”.

    It comes after ended his second hunger strike, this time for 21 days, to try and break the political impasse to bring Nazanin home.  

    Nazanin was very pleased to hear of this award, for herself but also for all the others detained in Iran that you don’t get to hear about,” her husband Richard Ratcliffe said. The Iranian regime gets away with terrible crimes that thrive in darkness where accountability should be.” 

    He added: “All our family are very proud of this award.”

    Since Richard’s hunger strike, Boris Johnson has said it is “worth considering” paying a £400m historic debt to Iran by sending a plane full of cash to Tehran.

    Nazanin, 43, mother of a seven-year-old girl, was arrested in Tehran in 2016 after being accused of plotting to overthrow the Iranian government – charges always denied and widely refuted. 

    William Browder, head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign, said: “Nobody should ever be put in a situation like this, but in spite of the pressure, she has proven how powerful she can be even in the most powerless situation.  Her hostage takers should understand that their crimes won’t go unpunished.” 

    Accepting the “courage under fire” award on her behalf at the event in London on Thursday evening, Gabriella read her mother’s words.

    https://www.impartialreporter.com/news/national/19727498.nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffes-daughter-makes-award-speech-behalf/

    https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-wins-bravery-award-8500754

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • York council has caused anger, upset, and uproar over its decision to ban sick and disabled people from parking in the city centre. The council claims it’s due to anti-terrorism measures. A campaign group, meanwhile, has branded the move a threat to people’s “human rights, independence and dignity”.

    York: banning vehicles…

    During the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic in summer 2020, York city council stopped people parking and driving into the area around York Minister. The ban included sick and disabled people with Blue Badges, and it was due to social distancing needs. It was in an area called the “footstreets” – York’s pedestrianised part. Now, the council has voted to make the ban public. This time, the reason is terrorism.

    As York Press reported, police superintendent Mark Khan said:

    It’s not so much if a terrorist attack happens but when. It is reasonably foreseeable to see someone coming to York, if there wasn’t any hostile vehicle mitigation, at something like the Christmas market and driving that vehicle to kill as many people as possible.

    The Lib Dem and Green Party-run council obviously listened to voices such as Khan’s. Because on 18 November, it voted to keep the vehicle ban in place.

    … permanently

    As York Disability Rights Forum tweeted:

    The council’s decision will impact around 7,500 sick and disabled people in York who have Blue Badges. As York Press wrote, the Labour Party objected. Its MP for York Central Rachael Maskell tweeted she was “sickened” by the decision:

    The council, as York Press noted:

    voted to put in place a series of mitigation measures, including dropped kerbs, the employment of an access officer and a feasibility study into an accessible shuttle service.

    A spokesperson told the Guardian:

    The council has a duty to protect the lives of residents and visitors, but we know that doing so as effectively as the police advise will have a significant impact on some blue badge holders.

    A disabled Liberal Democrat described themselves as being “distraught”.

    Sick and disabled people: second class citizens?

    Amy Fortnam said on Twitter she had quit the Lib Dems over the move:

    Another user pointed out that York council was effectively stopping sick and disabled people going where non-disabled people can go. And some Green Party members were angry with the decision too.

    The council reportedly also ignored a report by a human rights advisor saying that the plan “risked being significantly discriminatory”. So, as York Disability Rights Forum tweeted, it’s not like the council didn’t know the impact its decision would have on sick and disabled people:

    Another group, York Accessibility Action, said there’s “no suitable parking” for sick and disabled people within 150 metres of the city centre. So the group is planning legal action against the council.

    A twisted irony

    Its crowdfunder has already raised over £5,000. York Accessibility Action said:

    All attempts at communication and constructive consultation with the Council have met with no positive outcome and have failed to provide practical and meaningful alternatives to the ability to park close enough to the city centre.

    We believe the City of York Council is disregarding the Equality Act 2010 and the human rights of disabled residents and visitors.

    You can get involved online using #ClosedToUs.

    The twisted irony of York city council making this decision at the start of Disability History Month probably isn’t lost on many sick and disabled people. Now, York’s sick and disabled people, and their advocates and supporters, will have to wait and see if the threat of legal action will make the council back down.

    Featured image via York Accessibility Action

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 22 and 23 November, parliament will debate a bill that threatens the very future of our NHS. Our health service needs our support against the bill. So, a campaign group has organised a major protest with a clear goal: to #SaveOurNHS and #ScrapNHSBill.

    The health and care bill

    The Health and Care Bill is a piece of Tory legislation. It’s changing the way the NHS is organised. At the minute, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are tasked with control of healthcare in different areas of England. But the bill will scrap these and replace them with Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). This is where the NHS and providers of its services will come together to deliver health care. The bill will make ICSs look at health and social care needs at a local level. It also aims to integrate health and social care fully. The bill further puts power with the health secretary to make decisions about local NHS services.

    But of course, this is a Tory piece of legislation. So what it says on paper won’t necessarily be the reality – as one doctor previously wrote for The Canary.

    ‘Levelling down’

    Dr Phil Bevin said that ICSs:

    will ensure that NHS England will share the responsibility of health service provision with councils and, most worryingly, private companies. The legislation will also further dilute our legal right to healthcare. It will do this by removing the NHS’s “statutory duty” to arrange hospital medical services.

    He also said the changes will:

    level down our NHS so that it comes to resemble the disastrous social care model that’s presently failing our most vulnerable populations.

    And as Bevin noted in his article, overall the bill is effectively the ‘self-privatisation’ of the NHS – with, as Gill said, ICS boards “dominated by corporate interests”. This all means the Tories are making privatisation of the NHS even easier.

    So what can we do about it? The first thing is to protest.

    Keep Our NHS Public and #ScrapNHSBill

    Campaign group Keep Our NHS Public and Unite the Union have organised a demo. It will take place 5pm Monday 22 November at Parliament:

    Speakers include MPs such as Labour’s Richard Burgon, the currently independent MP Jeremy Corbyn, trade union reps, and campaigning frontline NHS staff such as Bob Gill and NHS Workers Say No’s co-founder Holly Turner. You can get involved online on the day using the hashtags #ScrapNHSBill and #SaveOurNHS. Along with the protest, Keep Our NHS Public was running a petition calling on the government to scrap the bill. It got over 112,000 signatures.

    Also on 22 November, writer Dominic Minghella has organised #BooTheBill. Much like the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic ‘clap for carers’, he wants people to go out on to their doorsteps at 7pm. But instead of clapping, you need to boo the Tories and their bill:

    The Health and Care Bill is a clear and present danger to the NHS as we know it. By its very nature, the health service is something that belongs to all of us. Therefore, it’s up to all of us to protect it.

    Featured image via Keep Our NHS Public

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Jennifer Arcuri has agreed to hand over her diaries to investigators, according to reports. It’s a move which could prompt a fresh probe into Boris Johnson’s links to the American businesswoman.

    The Observer reported that Arcuri had agreed to let the monitoring officer at the Greater London Authority (GLA) inspect parts of her diaries which detailed her dealings with the prime minister while he was mayor of London.

    Complaint from Rayner

    The GLA confirmed to the PA news agency that it had received a complaint from Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner. It came after some of Arcuri’s diary extracts were published by the newspaper last week.

    A spokesperson said:

    The GLA’s monitoring officer has received a complaint from Angela Rayner MP relating to the conduct of Boris Johnson (when he was mayor of London and occupant of the mayor’s office for policing and crime) and has recorded it in line with the GLA’s procedures.

    Recording a complaint does not mean that there has been any assessment or consideration of the merits of the complaint…

    The monitoring officer is seeking further information in order to assess the complaint.

    The former mayor’s extra-marital affair

    Arcuri’s links with Johnson came under public scrutiny last year. It was over allegations she received favourable treatment for her business ventures during his eight-year stint as mayor.

    Arcuri alleged earlier this year in the Sunday Mirror that she and Johnson had a four-year affair when he was mayor. Johnson was married at the time to lawyer and author Marina Wheeler.

    Jennifer Arcuri
    Jennifer Arcuri gives evidence via video link to the London authority’s oversight committee (Victoria Jones/PA)

    Johnson avoided a criminal investigation at the time. The Independent Office for Police Conduct found no evidence he had influenced the payment of thousands of pounds of public money to Arcuri, or secured her participation in foreign trade trips that he led.

    The police watchdog only said it “would have been wise” for the former mayor to have declared their “close association” as a conflict of interest.

    The GLA’s oversight committee is investigating whether Johnson conducted himself in a way that befits people in public office.

    “We need a full investigation”

    The Observer reported that Arcuri had now agreed to be interviewed for the first time, and share notes she made in her diaries of their telephone calls and conversations.

    A government spokesperson told the Observer last week:

    As mayor, Boris Johnson followed all the legal requirements in the Greater London Authority’s code of conduct at the time.

    The Observer reported that Arcuri told the GLA:

    I am prepared to show you or your investigators copies of the relevant pages.

    Johnson has previously said his dealings with Arcuri were “with complete propriety”. He previously welcomed the IOPC findings, as he criticised the “vexatious claims” against him.

    The GLA’s monitoring officer will now review the complaint. The officer will try to establish whether it’s a “serious complaint”, and therefore whether the IOPC should investigate it again.

    Rayner tweeted:

    If Boris Johnson made promises of support to Jennifer Arcuri because of his personal relationship with Ms Arcuri it is vital that the GLA refers this new evidence to the IOPC and that the IOPC reviews its decision to rule out a criminal investigation.

    We need a full investigation into whether the processes behind the public funding for Ms Arcuri’s business and her presence on publicly-funded trade visits was the result of misconduct in public office by Boris Johnson.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Police have arrested 30 climate activists after they blocked a bridge in central London with a sit-down protest.

    The arrests on Lambeth Bridge came after Public Order Act conditions were imposed on the protest. It had been held in support of nine Insulate Britain campaigners who were jailed on Wednesday 17 November.

    “Hope lies in the streets!”

    The sit-in caused the bridge to be shut down to traffic for a number of hours on Saturday 20 November. The protest initially involved up to 250 people who had marched from the Royal Courts of Justice.

    The demonstrators made speeches, sang songs, ate lunch and chanted slogans.

    Insulate Britain protests
    Supporters of the nine jailed Insulate Britain climate activists (Dominic Lipinski/PA)

    Cheers had broken out earlier as campaigners told the crowd that the nine jailed Insulate Britain climate activists are “political prisoners” and won’t be the last to be locked up. Insulate Britain posted a tweet thanking supporters after the protest:

    ‘The only thing that is going to serve us is civil resistance’

    The nine protesters were jailed this week for breaching an injunction designed to prevent road blockades.

    Extinction Rebellion later said Saturday’s sit-down protest was to break the injunction granted to National Highways. It was in solidarity with the at least 34 people who have broken these injunctions so far, including those who were jailed this week.

    Gabriella Ditton, 27, an animator from Norwich, Norfolk, was among those who took part in the Saturday’s demonstration. She said she’s been arrested six times with Insulate Britain, including once for breaking the injunction.

    She said:

    I expect to go to prison at some point for at least six months because I am not going to be apologetic about this.

    I have known for a couple of years that the only thing that is going to serve us is civil resistance. I have faith in people coming together.

    Solutions to this crisis exist, we just need the political will to do it.

    30 arrests

    Referring to Public Order Act conditions imposed on the protest, the Metropolitan Police said:

    Lambeth Bridge has now been reopened, 30 arrests were made for breach of S14 conditions.

    Earlier, uniformed officers had stood on Lambeth Bridge as traffic was diverted. The Metropolitan Police said this was “for the safety of all”.

    Insulate Britain protests

    Uniformed officers were at the scene as traffic was diverted (Helen William/PA)

    ‘Power to the people’

    Zoe Cohen, 51, said she had travelled from her home in Warrington, Cheshire, to take part in the demonstration. Cohen said she’s “angry, distraught and grieving for the huge amount of nature that we have already lost”.

    She said that “ordinary people should not have to do this and risk prison”. And she added that “any disruption is microscopic to the suffering of millions of people who are dying now across the world due to this crisis”.

    Insulate Britain began a wave of protests in September. Since then, supporters have blocked the M25, roads in London including around Parliament, roads in Birmingham and Manchester and around the Port of Dover in Kent.

    In a warning directed to police at the protest, Gully Bujack said:

    These streets are ours and we will put one foot in front of the other, and dare you to stop us.

    She added:

    You can jail the resistor but not the resistance.

    Insulate Britain protests
    Campaigners told the crowd the nine jailed Insulate Britain climate activists are ‘political prisoners’ (Helen William/PA)

    The group, watched closely by uniformed officers, then set off towards Westminster, chanting “power to the people”.

    Cheers rang out as one campaigner told the crowd that “good people have a duty to disobey bad laws”.

    Insulate Britain said it did not set up the event. Those who took part described the event as community-led.

    The nine protesters were sentenced at the High Court on Wednesday after they admitted breaching an injunction by taking part in a blockade at junction 25 of the M25 during the morning rush hour on 8 October.

    Insulate Britain has said it intends to continue the protests until the Government agrees to insulate homes.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Coronavirus (Covid-19) cases are soaring across parts of Europe, with Austria now in lockdown and a warning Germany could follow.

    In contrast, the UK government has held back on imposing more restrictions, despite coronavirus cases still remaining high. Its de facto approach appears to be that of ‘herd immunity’, relying on further uptake of the first, second and booster vaccine doses.

    Meanwhile continuing coronavirus misinformation or disinformation is likely contributing to vaccine hesitancy.

    The dirty dozen

    Earlier this year the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) identified that “up to 65%” of false coronavirus information, published via social media, is attributable to individuals described as the “Disinformation Dozen”.

    CCDH says:

    The Disinformation Dozen are twelve anti-vaxxers who play leading roles in spreading digital misinformation about Covid vaccines. They were selected because they have large numbers of followers, produce high volumes of anti-vaccine content or have seen rapid growth of their social media accounts in the last two months.

    Huffington Post described these “disinformation peddlers” as

    anti-vaccine advocates, alternative health entrepreneurs and physicians, some of whom run multiple accounts across the platforms and profit by selling supplements and books.

    Case study 1: Joseph Mercola

    One of the “Disinformation Dozen” identified by the CCDH is Joseph Mercola, who sells diet supplements via his wife’s website. Mercola also runs the so-called National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) together with Barbara Loe Fisher.

    CCDH describes Mercola as: “a successful anti-vaccine entrepreneur, peddling dietary supplements and false cures as alternatives to vaccines”. His social media accounts have “around 3.6 million followers”.

    Mercola claimed that hydrogen peroxide can treat “most viral respiratory illnesses, including coronavirus”.

    According to an article in the blog Science Based Medicine, Mercola is:

    a physician whose nearly quarter-century of promoting quackery and antivaccine misinformation has garnered him a net worth north of $100 million. It is therefore not surprising that in the age of the pandemic, he has pivoted to fatten his bottom line promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and the COVID vaccines.

    The article adds that Mercola: “promoted the false idea that these [coronavirus] vaccines can “permanently alter your DNA“ and that they… were “experimental gene therapy”. In July, the Guardian reported that Mercola remains on Facebook.

    Case study 2: Ivermectin

    Covid Legal USA (CLU), which describes itself as a “a paralegal, legal writing and technology firm”, promotes Ivermectin as a cure-all for coronavirus, saying there are currently:

    at least 126 studies, with 82 being peer-reviewed (as of October 28, 2021), showing that Ivermectin is highly effective in treating COVID-19 in early stages, late stages, and as prophylaxis (preventative measure).

    In support of its claim, CLU provides an extensive list of clinical studies, as well as a meta-analysis of 66 of those studies which references 203 papers. However, the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) did not recommend its use; nor did the World Health Organization (WHO), apart from in clinical trials.

    Despite FDA and WHO criticisms, the meta-analysis concludes that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19. It adds:

    While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection

    Nevertheless, CLU makes it clear that it supports vaccine hesitancy and skepticism.

    And one meta-analysis said something very different, concluding that Ivermectin “is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19”. It said:

    Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM [Ivermectin] did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS [length of hospital stay], or viral clearance in RCT [randomised controlled trials] in patients with mostly mild COVID-19.

    And a September systematic review and meta-analysis stated that Ivermectin was “not efficacious at managing COVID-19”, but advised further clinical trials.

    Coronavirus cases soaring

    Coronavirus cases across Europe are soaring, with lockdown imposed in Austria and possibly Germany too. As for the UK, cases have risen to 9,766,153 and there have been 143,716 deaths.

    The UK now has the fourth highest number of cases in the world. University of Warwick virologist and professor of molecular oncology Lawrence Young commented:

    Less mask wearing, more mixing indoors due to colder weather and waning immunity are also contributing to the high case levels across Europe.

    Gains and losses

    As previously reported by The Canary, Independent SAGE issued a 9-point plan in September to deal with the pandemic over the winter. Doctors also called for a Plan B to be implemented in England, which would at least see mandatory face masks in certain settings, vaccine passports, and more working from home.

    Meanwhile, further mass vaccination will help reduce the number of cases and hospitalisation.

    However, hesitancy appears to be a hallmark of Boris Johnson’s government, as October’s damning report on its handling of the pandemic showed. That, together with ongoing disinformation, especially by anti-vaxxers, will likely negate any gains in beating the pandemic.

    Featured image via Wikimedia/U.S. Secretary of Defense

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • According to a new report, the government was not “fully prepared” for the “wide-ranging impacts” that coronavirus (Covid-19) had on society, the economy, and essential public services. The report found that the government lacked detailed plans on shielding, job support schemes and school disruption.

    Lack of preparedness

    The report from the National Audit Office (NAO) looked at the government’s preparedness for the coronavirus pandemic. It also found that time and energy spent preparing for Brexit both helped and hindered planning for future crises.

    The NAO said preparations for leaving the European Union enhanced some departments’ “crisis capabilities”, but they also took up significant resources. This meant the government had to pause or postpone some planning work for a potential flu pandemic.

    The report said:

    Some work areas of the Pandemic Flu Readiness Board and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Programme Board, including scheduling a pandemic influenza exercise in 2019-20, were paused or postponed to free up resources for EU exit work

    The NAO found that the emergency planning unit of the Cabinet Office allocated 56 of its 94 full-time equivalent staff to prepare for potential disruptions from a no-deal exit. This ‘limited its ability’ to plan for other crises.

    The report went on to say:

    This raises a challenge for the Government as to whether it has the capacity to deal with multiple emergencies or shocks

    The watchdog found that, overall, the pandemic “exposed a vulnerability to whole-system emergencies”.

    Although the government had plans for a pandemic, many of these were “not adequate” for the challenge at hand, it said.

    Lessons not implemented

    It added that there was “limited oversight and assurance” of the plans in place. And some lessons from “previous simulation exercises” – that would have helped with Covid-19 preparations – were “not fully implemented”.

    For example, the report said that Exercise Winter Willow, a large-scale pandemic simulation exercise carried out in 2007, warned that business continuity plans needed to be “better coordinated” between organisations. This was “not evident” in most of the plans which the NAO reviewed.

    It also said that following Exercise Cygnus, another pandemic simulation held in 2016, the government noted that “consideration should be given to the ability of staff to work from home, particularly when staff needed access to secure computer systems”.

    However, when coronavirus hit, “many departmental business continuity plans did not include arrangements for extensive home working”, the watchdog said.

    According to the report, the government had prioritised preparations for “two specific viral risks”. These were an influenza pandemic and an emergency high-consequence infectious disease.

    The latter typically has a high death rate among those who contract it, or has the ability to spread rapidly, with limited treatment options – like Ebola and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

    The NAO said that this meant the government did not develop a plan specific to a disease with characteristics like coronavirus, which has an overall lower death rate than Ebola or MERS and widespread asymptomatic community transmission.

    The watchdog said that, according to the Cabinet Office, scientists considered such a disease “less likely” to occur.

    Absence of detailed plans

    The report said the government was able to use some mitigations it had in place when coronavirus hit – for example, the personal protective equipment (PPE) stockpile.

    However, it was “not fully prepared” for the “wide-ranging impacts” that the disease had on society, the economy, and essential public services. And it lacked detailed plans on shielding, job support schemes and school disruption.

    This was despite the fact that the government’s 2019 National Security Risk Assessment recognised that a flu-like pandemic could have:

    extensive non-health impacts, including on communications, education, energy supplies, finance, food supplies and transport services

    Dr Mary Bousted, joint-general secretary of the NEU teaching union, said that “successive governments’ failures to plan properly for an expected pandemic” had “obviously contributed to the Covid crisis”.

    She added:

    The bigger problem, however, has been the litany of failings on the part of this Government once the pandemic struck.

    This started with the failure to lock down quickly enough and continued through the premature lifting of restrictions to the current situation where simple measures such as face coverings in secondary schools and other measures to control the spread of the virus from schools into the community are still being resisted.

    Recommendations

    The report went on to make a number of specific recommendations for the Cabinet Office on risk management and preparedness.

    These include:

    • Establishing who is in charge of whole-system risks.
    • Helping departments to take stock of how funding is prioritised and managed.
    • Working with departments to ensure plans are “comprehensive, holistic and integrated”.
    • Strengthening oversight of emergency planning.
    • And ensuring lessons from simulation exercises are put to use.

    A government spokesperson claimed in a statement that “preparations for flu… prevented the NHS from being overwhelmed”. That’s despite widespread reports of the NHS being overwhelmed during the first wave of the pandemic as well as more recently.

    The spokesperson added:

    We have always said there are lessons to be learned from the pandemic and have committed to a full public inquiry in spring.

    We prepare for a range of scenarios and while there were extensive arrangements in place, this is an unprecedented pandemic that has challenged health systems around the world.

    Thanks to our collective national effort and our preparations for flu, we have saved lives [and] vaccinated tens of millions of people

    ‘They failed the public’

    Fleur Anderson, Labour’s shadow cabinet office minister, said the report showed that:

    Conservative ministers failed to prepare and they failed the public.

    Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said:

    This pandemic has exposed the UK’s vulnerability to whole-system emergencies, where the emergency is so broad that it engages all levels of government and society. Although Government had plans for a flu pandemic, it was not prepared for a pandemic like Covid-19 and did not learn important lessons from the simulation exercises it carried out.

    For whole-system risks, government needs to define the amount and type of risk that it is willing to take to make informed decisions and prepare appropriately.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Nine activists from Insulate Britain were jailed for breaching High Court injunctions. They must now pay £5k each for National Highways’ claim for legal costs, judges have ruled. This amounts to a total of £45k to go towards the “excessive” legal bill.

    The protesters were sentenced on Wednesday 17 November. It came after they admitted to breaching an injunction by taking part in a blockade, during morning rush hour on 8 October, at M25’s junction 25.

    Sentences

    Ana Heyatawin and Louis McKechnie were jailed for three months. Meanwhile Ben Buse, Roman Paluch-Machnik, Oliver Rock, Emma Smart, Tim Speers and James Thomas received four-month sentences.

    Smart is currently on hunger strike whilst in prison:

    Ben Taylor was given a longer sentence of six months “to deter (him) from committing further breaches”. It came after justice Victoria Sharp described his submissions to the court on Tuesday as “inflammatory” and a “call to arms”.

    The judge, sitting with justice Martin Chamberlain, said there was no alternative to custodial sentences given that the group’s actions were so serious and they had made it clear they intended to further flout court orders.

    Insulate Britain protests
    Protesters from Insulate Britain block Great George Street in Parliament Square, central London (James Manning/PA)

    Exorbitant legal costs

    Myriam Stacey QC, representing National Highways, previously said the legal costs of the proceedings were just over £91k. And she had asked the court to order the protesters to pay.

    But in a written judgment after the hearing, the two judges ruled while it was fair to get the jailed activists to pay some legal fees, National Highways’ claimed costs were “excessive”.

    They found National Highways’ fees included sums for advice from two senior barristers, four junior barristers and extra fees for three barristers.

    Sharp said:

    Even bearing in mind the need to consider relatively extensive evidence… we consider that these costs were excessive

    The two judges also said it was not “reasonable” for three solicitors to attend the High Court hearing.

    Sharp and Chamberlain ordered each of the activists to pay £5k towards National Highways’ costs, making a total of £45k. The judges concluded:

    We would expect the claimant to enter into a dialogue with the defendants about how this liability is to be discharged

    Insulate Britain has said it intends to continue the protests, which have sparked anger among motorists and others affected by the blockades, until the government agrees to insulate homes.

    Preventing protest

    The High Court has so far issued five injunctions to prevent protesters from blocking roads.

    They include one injunction granted to Transport for London (TfL) and four to National Highways, banning demonstrations on the M25, around the Port of Dover and on major roads around London.

    The High Court granted TfL a civil banning order aimed at preventing protesters from obstructing traffic on some of the London’s busiest roads.

    Those who breach the injunctions could face a maximum penalty of two years in prison or an unlimited fine.

    Further committal proceedings are expected to be issued against other Insulate Britain protesters relating to protests on 27 October.

    A protest is planned at noon on Saturday 20 November to show solidarity with the activists in prison:

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Senior Tories want to create an “official history” of the military occupation of Ireland.

    The plans were first reported in the Telegraph on 13 November. Whitehall officials told the paper that the:

    official history would be independent of ministers and would involve historians being appointed to produce a balanced historical record.

    But critics say it will airbrush out British atrocities. Former Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams spoke out about the proposals. He stated:

    This group of historians, appointed by the government, will they claim, be independent of the government. Mar dhea! Censorship and bias in the reporting of events and the interpretation and analyses of those events is a powerful weapon in any government’s arsenal.

    Ex-Sinn Féin publicity director Danny Morrison told Irish News the move was a response to recent revelations. In particular, he said a rule change on suppressing particular groups being on television in the Republic of Ireland had rattled the British. The now removed Section 31 was a rule that effectively denied hardline Republican voices a platform on some Irish media. According to Morrison:

    This is a reaction to the fact that certainly across Ireland, now that Section 31 is gone, that suppressed news in the 26 counties, they are now following the situation much more closely.

    Revisionism

    Morrison also said that the Tory plan is linked to documentaries like Unquiet Graves. The film looks at British collusion with murderous Loyalist gangs:

    For example RTÉ put that film on by Sean Murray (Unquiet Graves) – documentaries like this and exposure of collusion upended the narrative that the IRA was the driving force behind the conflict.

    Adams also argued that this “official history” is in response to the increased exposure of Britain’s actions in the north of Ireland:

    They are also worried that the historic narrative is increasingly exposing Britain’s illegal and violent actions during those years.

    Collusion

    Morrison said the history of collusion had already been buried, including in the Stevens Report into collaboration between Loyalist groups, British state forces and the police:

    We have had the Stevens report into collusion suppressed, we were told it would be public and he was only allowed to publish 17 pages out of 3,000 pages in his report.

    He said recent reporting showed a different story to the official narratives:

    If you were to look at the killings by the loyalists, the RUC, the UDR and the British army under the rubric of killings on behalf of the state, in support of the state and the status quo, the statistics of the conflict then look a lot different.

    But as Adams pointed out:

    However hard the British government seeks to do this; however many revisionist historians they employ to bolster Britain’s view of history, the case of Pat Finucane; the importation by British intelligence of South African sourced weapons for Loyalist groups; the three reports by John Stevens; the role of state agents like Brian Nelson, and of the Glenanne Gang; the deaths of hundreds of victims; and the countless official reports by the Ombudsman and others into state collusion, will continue to haunt the British government. No amount of historical revisionism will change this.

    No justice, no peace

    The British state’s urge to rewrite it own history is hardly new. The underhandedness of the Tory plan will compound the sense of unfairness and trauma for those in Republican communities. And without justice, no meaningful peace is likely.

    Featured image – Wikimedia Commons/DColt

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • This is Matt Broomfield. He’s a professional journalist from the UK, banned from 26 European countries, just for doing his job.

    Earlier in 2021, Broomfield was detained at the Italian border while on holiday in Greece, thrown into a Greek detention centre, and imprisoned for two months. He was subsequently banned from the 26 countries that make up the Schengen Area for ten years.

    While imprisoned, he had a taster of what life is like for refugees trapped in European detention centres. Broomfield said:

    My two months in detention were just a brief taste of what many refugees, political activists and journalists from the Middle East and beyond must spend a lifetime enduring. My case provided a window into the violence, squalor and farce of day-to-day life in the EU’s detention-deportation machine.

     

    Schengen map
    The blue area marks the Schengen countries that Broomfield is banned from. The amber countries are due to join Schengen. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

    You can read his account of his experiences here.

    A threat to European ‘democracy’

    Broomfield hasn’t been given any reason as to why he has been banned from most of Europe, but it is almost certainly because he volunteered as a journalist in North and East Syria (NES), more commonly known by its Kurdish name of Rojava. A region of around 3 million people, the people of NES organise themselves using a model of direct democracy, attempting to give power to the grassroots. It is a society that centres on women’s liberation, religious tolerance, and minority protection as key.

     

    European countries see democracy, in the true sense of the word, as a threat, because they rely on their populations believing in a façade that is labelled as such. NES’s model of grassroots organising has inspired a whole generation of Leftists around the world, so even though the region has been a key ally with the US in fighting Daesh (ISIS/Isil), it is still seen as a grave danger to capitalist countries.

    Turkey’s influence

    Broomfield suspects that Turkey has been instrumental in him being banned from the majority of Europe. He says:

    Since I have never had anything to do with the German authorities, and given Germany’s strong trade ties and strategic relationship with Turkey, it appears likely Turkey asked Germany to issue the ban.

    Turkey has massive sway over the Schengen countries. Turkey is the largest host of refugees in the world, with some 3.7 million refugees within its borders, trying to find a passage into Europe. Broomfield continues:

    [Turkish president] Erdoğan is able to use the millions of Syrians now resident in Turkey to tacitly or openly threaten Europe with another influx of refugees if they do not accede to his demands.

    Turkey has done its utmost to destroy the revolution in NES. It has attacked and occupied parts of the region, backing militias to torture and rape residents. It has carried out bombings and drone strikes on inhabitants, and attacked NES’s water supplies. Women are continually murdered by Turkey and affiliated groups. In 2019, Hevrîn Xelef was murdered by a “jihadist gang allied with Turkey”, while in June 2020, Zehra Berkel, Hebûn Mele Xelîl, and Amina Waysî were murdered by a Turkish drone strike in Kobanê. On top of this, Turkey has been accused a number of times of funding and arming Daesh and other extremists in Syria, and yet it still continues to be a key ally of both Germany and the UK.

    Alistair Lyon, a solicitor at Birnberg Peirce, spoke to The Canary about Broomfield’s ban. He said:

    It is speculation at this stage as to who is involved beyond Germany, but the decision is certainly in accordance with Turkey’s view of the conflict and it is known to lobby extensively within Europe to promote its views.

    A decision made in secret

    Lyon went on to say:

    The particularly concerning feature here is that a highly controversial political decision, dressed up as a decision in relation to national security, has been made, in secret and without notice or possibility of prior challenge. This immediately calls into question its legitimacy.

    Broomfield isn’t the only person from the UK who has been banned from the Schengen area because of his stay in NES. Meanwhile, the British state has attempted to prosecute some of those who have fought for the very same forces that defeated Daesh.

    Kevin Blowe, coordinator of Network for Police Monitoring, told The Canary that Broomfield’s case:

    highlights the concerted efforts by European nations to suppress dissenting voices who support or sympathetically report on the Kurdish struggle in Rojava.

    He continued:

    The lack of British government assistance for Matt Broomfield sends a message that solidarity with the Kurds, where no laws are broken, is liable to place campaigners outside of basic human rights protections expected by citizens in Britain and in EU states.

    It escalates the already disturbing use of terrorism laws to criminalise those who have travelled to resist the Islamic State in any manner in northern Syria, by a British government that has happily sold arms to the Turkish state that killed British citizens like Anna Campbell.

    The Canary contacted the Foreign Office for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.

    Featured image of Matt Broomfield in Deir ez Zor, Syria, with permission

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Guards come and laugh at me through the bars of my cell.

    “You’re the English, right?”, they ask me. “What are you doing here?”

    “You tell me,” I say, for the hundredth time. But they just laugh and wander off.

    I am the only Westerner in a detention centre full of thousands of refugees. I am also the only inmate waiting to be deported to the UK – though of course, I am pretty much the only person here who would not do anything for a one-way plane ticket to London. In a similar irony, the Greek police who run the facility make it very plain they do not want any of my fellow inmates (Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis, North Africans) in their country. And yet it’s the same police force which violently arrested them and prevented them leaving.

    Earlier this year, while on holiday in Greece, I was detained at the Italian border, arrested, thrown into the Greek detention and migration system for two months, and informed I was banned from the Schengen Area for the next ten years. Though I still haven’t been provided with any documentation about the ban, it appears likely that I am being targeted as a result of my reporting and media advocacy from North and East Syria (NES), the democratic, women-led, autonomous region built around Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava), which the Turkish government is hell-bent on destroying. Chillingly, it seems the autocratic Turkish government now has the power to impose a unilateral ban from Europe on a British citizen, professional journalist, and media activist like myself.

    My two months in detention were just a brief taste of what many refugees, political activists, and journalists from the Middle East and beyond must spend a lifetime enduring. My case provided a window into the violence, squalor, and farce of day-to-day life in the EU’s detention-deportation machine. But it also illustrates the complicity of European states and the Turkish regime in suppressing journalistic freedom, political dissent, and democratic movements.

    Inside the Greek migrant detention system

    While travelling from Greece to Italy with a friend earlier this year, I was met off the ferry at the Italian border by a group of armed, balaclava-clad police. I was banned from the Schengen Area for ten years, they told me, at the request of the German government. Thus began my whirlwind tour of the Greek migrant detention system. The port where I was arrested, Ancona, lies on a popular route for people without papers trying to travel through Greece on to Western Europe, and so the Greek police simply dealt with me as they would deal with any irregular migrant pushed back from Italy by the Italian police.

    I was variously detained in Patras police station, the notorious Migrant Pre-Removal Detention Center at Korinthos which was condemned by the Committee to Prevent Torture, and another Pre-Removal Center in Petrorali, Athens. Conditions were as you might expect. The police station in Patras only has small holding cells, but I spent a week here sleeping on the bare stone. Others were held in the same conditions for a month or more. For days at a time, I was locked in my cell and not allowed to mix with other inmates, passing the time squashing cockroaches and playing chess with myself on a contraband paper set. Most of my fellow inmates were cut and bruised from the beatings they’d received upon arrest, trying to smuggle themselves on to ferries at the port. On one occasion, the police violently beat a petty drug dealer on the floor outside my cell.

    One day myself and a group of my new friends – Afghan migrants – were handcuffed and bundled into a windowless van. To keep us quiet, the police implied we were soon to be released, but instead we found ourselves issued with new prison numbers and lined up along the wall at Korinthos, a massive, police-run prison facility officially known as a ‘Pre-Removal Detention Center’. This name, we soon learned, had become a farce, since there were virtually no ‘removals’ (deportations) taking place due to the coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis.

    Officially, people here should have exhausted all possible legal routes to remain in the EU, or else have voluntarily accepted deportation. In practice, they are held for six to eighteen months, or even more. before suddenly being released – sometimes with the assistance of the shadowy lawyers who circle the centre like vultures demanding huge cash payments for unclear forms of ‘assistance’ – sometimes seemingly at random. People are interviewed about their asylum cases, but these days everyone is being rejected, regardless of the validity of their case. Some people are released, re-arrested days later, and placed back in the detention centre for another undetermined spell.

    In Korinthos, as elsewhere, the system is totally opaque. All NGOs are banned from entering. Particularly Kafkaeseque is the way some guards will tell you whatever you want to hear; some will say they know nothing, and some will tell you to fuck off, with added racist abuse, where applicable. But they are all simply trying to make their own lives easier. It’s impossible to know how your case is going, where you will be sent next, when your interview will be, whether the lawyers (who never actually visit their clients in the detention facility, only occasionally shouting at them through the barbed wire) really can speed up your release. The conditions are squalid, with frequent water outages, and up to forty men sharing each cell.

    The result is desperation. In the cell where I stayed, one Kurdish refugee had recently killed himself in desperation, hanging himself with two phone chargers woven together. The lights are kept burning 24 hours a day, and yet when the residents need a doctor, or the water runs dry, no-one comes. I see one long-term inmate climb up the prison building and threaten to throw himself off just to get access to a dentist.

    Another slashed himself all over with a razor after being consistently denied access to the doctor for his agonising kidney problems. There are hunger strikes, fights, and clashes with the guards with stones, and burning mattresses. For the final two weeks, I am transferred to a higher-security facility in Petrorali, Athens, where we once again spend most of the time in isolation. Here, more troubled inmates kept in isolation thrash against the bars, screaming, cursing, begging, fighting.

     

     

     

    Rumours fly through the bars as frequently as the cigarettes and teabags passed around via cardboard chutes. Transfers occur in windowless vans. On arrival at a new facility, we are stripped and cavity searched, have our blood taken and are given injections, but not told what the injection is for, fostering a dangerous paranoia among the migrant population.

    When I arrive at Petrorali the medical staff tell me, laughing, that I have somehow contracted multiple forms of hepatitis: that I will never be able to have children: and that there’s nothing to be done about this. They send me back to my cell, untreated. It’s only after many weeks of worry later, back in England, that my doctor tells me I have nothing to worry about, and what the Greek tests picked up were my vaccinations against the disease. Whether this was done through malice or oversight, I don’t know.

    I see much comradeship and joy too. In Patras, a brace of Hells’ Angels held on drug charges make the migrants and I laugh by breaking wind. They also share the festal food brought in by their wives for orthodox Easter, and advise the young Afghans on how to handle the guards.

    In Korinthos, we organise language classes, legal training ahead of the migrants’ admissibility interviews, work-out sessions where we leg-press the fattest guy in the cell, and hold a clandestine livestream where we relay conditions in the prison to the outside world. We play ludo, chess, football, run out into the yard in the rain, and belly-flop on the flooded concrete. I write poetry on the cell wall, Blake, Milton: the mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. We laugh a lot, debate politics and religion, comfort one another as best we can.

    When I am woken at dawn for the last time and put on a plane back to the UK, my overriding emotion is guilt that I cannot bring all my new friends and comrades with me. It’s all I can do to dish out my last remaining cigarettes before I am handcuffed and swept away.

    A cause worth defending

    Six months later, back in the UK, I am still trying to get my hands on any official paperwork to explain exactly what has happened. Since I have never had anything to do with the German authorities and given Germany’s strong trade ties and strategic relationship with Turkey, it appears likely Turkey asked Germany to issue the ban. This was done via an opaque institution known as the Schengen Information System, which has been the target of sustained criticism by academics, EU bodies and civil rights organisations since its inception.

    But why should the Turkish government care so deeply about a British journalist on holiday in Greece? You will have seen the world-famous images of ‘Kurdish women fighting ISIS’ broadcast around the world, as Kurdish-led forces spent years pushing back ISIS from strongholds like Raqqa before totally eradicating their caliphate in March 2019 – as the main partner force of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, led by the US but including the UK, Germany, and most Schengen Area member states. You will probably also have seen footage from the two Turkish invasions of the region, including the October 2019 assault green-lit by Donald Trump. Turkish warplanes and tanks backed radical militias, including scores of former ISIS members, to take over swathes of NES, looting, raping, pillaging and murdering as they conducted forcible ethnic cleansing against the region’s Kurdish, Yezidi, and Christian minorities.

    And beyond the frontlines, the political project in NES has endured. Several million people now live in a system of direct, grassroots democracy, with guaranteed female participation and women’s leadership at all levels of political and civil life. The project is not flawless, but in a region beset by war, poverty, and a total breakdown of infrastructure, NES continues to guarantee remarkably high standards of human rights, rule of law, and due process. The three years I spent living and working in NES were an education in both utopic thinking and practical action, as I witnessed refugees coming together around cooperative farming projects to beat the Turkish-imposed embargo on the region, and the women of Raqqa taking control of their own autonomous council in defiance of ISIS’ continued presence. The revolution is very much alive.

    You may also be aware that a number of Westerners have travelled out to join the ‘Rojava revolution’. At first, many joined the military struggle against ISIS, with scores sacrificing their lives in the process. But these days, the majority of Western volunteers work in the burgeoning civil sphere, in women’s projects, health, education – or, in my case, media.

    I am a professional journalist, and during my time in Syria, I filed reports for top international news sources like VICE, the Independent, and the New Statesman, as well as hosting a documentary series for a Kurdish TV channel. But my main role was as a co-founder of the region’s top independent news source, Rojava Information Center (RIC). As RIC, we worked with all the world’s top media companies and human rights organisations, including the BBC, ITV, Sky, CNN, Fox, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, the US Government, and many more, to help them cover the situation on the ground.

    Our raison d’etre was connecting these news sources with people on the ground, to help them understand the reality of NES, without propaganda. I never sought to hide my presence in Syria, or what I was doing there. On the contrary, I was proud to lend my voice to advocate for a political project I wanted the international community to recognise, understand, and engage with.

    Political repression

    Working in Kurdistan as a journalist is enough to incur political repression from Turkey. Turkey is the world’s number one jailer of journalists, has the highest incarceration rate in Europe, and in recent years has dismissed or detained over 160,000 judges, teachers, civil servants, and politicians – particularly targeting Kurdish politicians and members of the pro-Kurdish and pro-democratic HDP party. Turkey’s actions reach far beyond Turkey and the regions it invades and occupies in Syria and Iraq, with Turkish intelligence going so far as to assassinate three female Kurdish activists in Paris in 2013, while fascist ‘Grey Wolves’ paramilitaries linked to Recep Erdoğan’s AKP party regularly carry out violent attacks in Europe.

    The EU must turn a blind eye to these abuses because it relies on Turkey to host millions of refugees who would otherwise travel to Europe. Turkey uses these refugees as leverage to threaten Europe, even while its invasions of NES and military interventions in Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and elsewhere force hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes in the face of ethnic cleansing. Absurdly, even Kurdish refugees in the EU must prove that Turkey is not safe for them, with almost all applications being rejected.  If Turkey was shown to be unsafe, after all, that would mean the EU admitting it was refouling migrants into life-threatening danger, in defiance of international law.

    The issue is not Turkey alone. EU and Western governments regularly target, harass, and detain their own nationals for lending support to the democratic project in NES or the Kurdish rights movement. Volunteers who fought against ISIS have been charged and jailed in Denmark, Australia, Italy, Spain, France and my own home country, the UK. Danes and Australians can be jailed simply for setting foot in NES – something the UK has threatened but not yet enacted.

    Fighting for women’s rights, democracy and freedom should not be a crime. But as my case illustrates, this repression is not limited to combatants. In the UK, even members of ecological delegations have been detained under terror laws and prevented from travelling to the region. Facing intense, targeted police harassment, unable to find work as a result, feeling isolated and alone, several former volunteers have killed themselves. At least one other British volunteer in NES has been handed the same ten-year ban from the Schengen Area as myself, and we suspect other peaceful activists have also been listed on the SIS.

    Turkish pressure, therefore, contributes to Western governments’ own desire to stop the spread of the decentralised, transformative vision of society put forward by NES. (Turkey, of course, knows they incur much more negative press when their bombs kill British or European citizens than when they are simply wiping out Kurdish and Arab locals – one reason why continued Western engagement in NES is so important.)

    Erdoğan is able to use the millions of Syrians now resident in Turkey to tacitly or openly threaten Europe with another influx of refugees if it does not consent to his demands. The UK is particularly close to Turkey as a key trading partner, the more so post-Brexit, and accordingly takes a much harder line against NES than, say, France or the USA, both of whom have welcomed NES’ political leaders to the White House and the Champs-Élysées. Notably, in the UK, repressive moves have come in response to high-level meetings between Turkey and the UK, in particular when arrests targeted not only former volunteers in NES but even their family members in the days following Erdoğan’s 2019 visit to London.

    The same shared interests lie behind my own, relatively brief, detention. The political movement in NES resists borders and the violence inherent in the capitalist nation-state. These ideas are anathema to Erdoğan, but they also constitute a challenge to the EU border regime. Little wonder, then, that Turkey and the EU work together to stifle legitimate journalism and political advocacy.

    Outside the law

    As the British novelty act in the Greek detention centre, I was of course spared the racism, the violence, and the worst of the uncertainty. I knew it would only be so long before I was back in the UK, where, though I had to sit through a ‘Schedule 7’ interview on my return, the police assured me that I was not facing charges and had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. It is an immense frustration to be summarily banned from Europe, but then I FaceTime with friends still detained in Korinthos or playing the dangerous ‘game’ trying to jump onto lorries at Patras ferry port, and I remember how incredibly free I am.

    The effect of repression against Western volunteers, activists and journalists who have worked in NES is to place us, temporarily, outside the normal protections afforded to UK or EU citizens. Millions of civilians in NES, like millions of migrants in Europe, exist in this vacuum as their constant condition. Turkey feels it has impunity to rape, murder, bomb and ethnically cleanse in NES, which remains unrecognised by any government or international organisation, despite its leading role in defeating ISIS.

    The Greek police can beat, humiliate, and dehumanise the migrants in Patras, Korinthos, or Petrorali as much as they please, knowing no lawyers or NGOs are able to enter the detention centres to monitor their behaviour. The inmates of the Greek migrant detention system and the free people of NES are both victims of the same system, which sacrifices peoples’ lives in the name of bilateral trade agreements, arms sales, and ethno-nationalist state politics. But this is precisely why I, and other international supporters of the political movement in NES, have chosen to make our voices heard, even in the face of imprisonment and police repression. This is why I hope my ban will be overturned, and that I can continue my peaceful journalism and advocacy in support of this vital cause.

    The vision being promoted in NES, of local, decentralised, grassroots democracy, is the only way to resolve not only the Syrian conflict but also a global crisis occasioned by capitalist extraction overseen by neo-imperialist states. Only in this way can we provide people with what they want most – a safe home they have no need to flee.

    Featured image and all other images via the author

    By Matt Broomfield

    This post was originally published on The Canary.