Following its operation to torch and destroy the joint venture between Elbit Systems and LPP Holding in the Czech Republic, a newly launched group has threatened to release restricted documents in an ultimatum.

The Earthquake Faction has released its second communiqué, where it threatens to release restricted documents taken from the site in Pardubice, Czech Republic. The group says it will do this unless LPP Holding releases a statement cutting ties with Elbit Systems and denouncing the occupation of Palestine.

The group gave a limited view of one of the documents, and set a deadline for 20 April for LPP Holding to respond.

LPP Holding has been publicly in partnership with the Israeli company since October 2023. Its COO stated, in relation to the Pardubice site, that:

one of the projects we are preparing with Elbit involves the Israeli army.

Elbit Systems is Israel’s largest weapons company. It manufactures 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet and land based equipment. And it describes its drones as the “backbone” of the Israeli military.

The Earthquake Faction also took aim at all companies that work with Elbit Systems, demanding public statements they have cut ties and threatening action at their sites.

The full communiqué:

Communiqué #2

As the roof of Elbit and LPP Holding’s facility collapsed, with it went their partnership.

Advertisement

LPP Holding has spent the length of a live streamed genocide boasting about their collaboration and support. They collaborated with Elbit Systems as our comrades in Palestine were murdered and maimed, while children were obliterated in fractions of a second by precision technologies made in factories like this Pardubice site, operated by cowards in air conditioned offices.

Underlining their sniveling cowardliness is the sudden public back-stepping, spin and panic only when they realize their power to take life can be shattered by a few people with conscience. Your panic and embarrassment flaps around in the wind for the world to see; after all what kind of “defense” company doesn’t have an alarm?

They know there is no safe corner of this earth for collaborators in the genocide of our comrades in Palestine. We live in the belly of this wretched beast, across continents, countries and cities that these companies operate in. Every company that works with Elbit Systems is a target, and we will target you where and when we choose.

To LPP Holding: we have taken your restricted documents and burned the rest to the ground. You have until 20th April 07:00 UTC to publicly cut all ties with Elbit Systems, and denounce the barbaric occupation of Palestine, or will we release these documents to the public.

Advertisement

For all others who work with Elbit you have two options: wait for us, or release a public statement with proof that you have cut ties with Elbit Systems.

About Elbit Systems and LPP Holding

Elbit Systems is Israel’s biggest weapons producer, which manufactures 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet and land based equipment. It also supplies the Israeli military with munitions, missiles and electronic warfare.

LPP Holding is “a proud weapons supplier to the Zionist state”, says the Earthquake Faction, marketing its array of companies as “powered by Artificial Intelligence”. The holding, and its subsidiaries, is a key strategic partner of Elbit Systems in the Czech Republic. It receives funding from the Czech government for the development of AI-guided unmanned aerial and ground vehicles.

About The Earthquake Faction

The Earthquake Faction describes itself as:

an internationalist underground network that targets key sites critical to the Zionist entity. We aim to destroy all limbs of the Empire from within, by any means effective.

Featured image via the Earthquake Faction

James Starkie is Founding Partner at communications consultancy 5654 & Co. He worked on Vote Leave in 2016 and was a Special Adviser in Government during Theresa May’s and Boris Johnson’s premierships.

Over the past few months more than one person has brought up the story of the Canadian right to me, specifically the rise of a party in the 90’s called Reform and the demise of their more longstanding party of the right, the Progressive Conservative’s.

It has been cited in various conversations, particularly ahead of the last Canadian election when the leader of the party created out of the merger of these two parties, Pierre Poilievre, went into the election as favourite but ended up losing, the election and his seat.

I was therefore interested to understand more about the history of the Canadian right, as well as what are the similarities and differences when it comes to UK politics given the rise of our own Reform Party. As well as speaking to several people who have worked in Canadian politics I found the book  Full Circle: Death and Resurrection In Canadian Conservative Politics by Bob Plamondon incredibly insightful and a very good overview of the Canadian right and would highly recommend this book.

At this point I would also like to caveat this and set out my own view.

One of the differences, as a quick glance at Canadian politics will tell you, is that the history of the Canadian right is one of division and a terminal life in opposition. Whereas the British Conservatives can call themselves the party of Government in our sceptered Isle that role in Canada is occupied by the Liberal Party, which is a party of the centre left and one much more practical than our own Labour Party.

This is an important difference to me.

The Tories here in the UK have weathered many a storm and I personally believe they will endure, furthermore I do not therefore see a merger as inevitable, as some may do. This is not to ignore the challenges they face, nor ignore the reasons why some traditional Conservative voters may be unhappy or angry but rather to believe that trust can be rebuilt.

Division on the right is relatively new in the UK and historically the Tories have had to build out election winning coalitions from this point with little opposition to their right, combining traditional centre right voters with a broader coalition more often than not through hard economic competence and pragmatism.

In Canada meanwhile this has not been the case.

The rise of Reform in Canada arose around the end of a period of government for the Progressive Conservative’s [PC’s] although this was more in response to an anger over economic handling. Specifically the failure, in the eyes of Reform Canada founder, Preston Manning, to tackle the national debt.

Manning, seen as a charismatic populist leader, rode a wave of discontent among parts of the Canadian right hungry for real economic reform at a time when Mulroney’s PC government was failing to replicate  major economic reforms of Reagan and Thatcher in the USA and UK respectively.

This was seen as a real missed opportunity and blew open a division in the PCs among the more economical liberal wing of the party, blue Conservatives, and those with a more social democratic bent, the red Conservatives.

This had been simmering for some time and as with any insurgent political movement, had hit upon the right time. Manning wrote in a thesis that ‘present national party leaders and federal politicians, especially those affiliated with the PC’s, should recognise that if the Canadian political situation continued to degenerate, and if the cause of conservatism continues to suffer and decline, not for the lack of merit or a willingness on the part of the Canadian people to support modern Conservative principles or policies, but rather because of unnecessary dissension among politicians and parties, the idea of establishing a wholly new political party committed to the social conservative positions will find an ever increasing number of advocates and supporters amongst concerned and aroused Canadian public.’

Written before the creation of the party, this is insightful as it lays the argument that Manning didn’t see the creation of a new party of the right desirable but rather necessary because of a lack of one in existence. That is the PC’s had become too much like the existing Liberal Party and therefore leaving a vacancy.

What’s more, and to some degree contradictory, according to the author of Full Circle: Death and Resurrection In Canadian Conservative Politics, Bob Plamadon, Manning though ‘did not accept that Reform was really another Conservative party, because he did not want to debate an inherent and obvious strategic floor flaw: that the Reform party was splitting voters with the Tories and thereby electing Liberals. This was to be a tension and live issue for the next decade.’

The Reform breakthrough came in the 1992 Canadian election, when from nowhere, they won 52 out of 295 seats leaving the Tories, who had been in Government, on just 2 seats. However while they improved on this performance in the subsequent election, gaining 60 seats and becoming the official opposition, the PCs came back winning 18 seats while also nearly matching the Reform vote share [19.3 per cent to 18.8 ]. The 2000 Federal elections saw this division repeat itself and, ultimately, led to the events under which the new Reform party, now called the Alliance, and the PC’s would join under Alliance leader Stephen Harper. Harper is the man who would go on to lead the right back into Government after more than a decade of Liberal power in 2006.

There are clear similarities to me in terms of the split on the right the Canadian’s experienced during this period and that which the UK is seeing now. Reform Canada picked up disaffected traditional Conservative voters, though these were very specifically located geographically in the west of the country. The PC’s struggled to cut through during this period and failed to recover from the 1992 election drubbing. However, even this party of the right that had experienced far more opposition than government historically could not be completely quashed. The ‘thin blue line’ of staunch PC voters refused to desert the party, and it was by no means inevitable that they had to join with Reform.

They also, largely, lacked quality leadership. Kim Campbel, who fought the disastrous 1992 election was ill-suited to leading a national party and almost certainly hastened the collapse in support. Meanwhile one of the last PC leaders was Joe Clark, who had failed at leading the party in the 80’s and likely didn’t demonstrate a party with fresh ideas by turning to a leader from two decades prior. Indeed this is where the admirable Stephen Harper stood out, the man who would eventually lead the right back into power. At heart a true Conservative, a deep thinker and man of principle he alone shows the importance of strong, principled and very clear leadership.

There are clearly reasons why you can compare the two situations however my own view is that there are fundamental differences in the situations. Many of the big issues in Canada differ from our own, the issue of free trade, particularly with the United States, how provinces with very specific identities are treated by the federal government as well as things like gun laws don’t apply here. Indeed geographic differences loom large and are crucial to gaining a majority in Canadian elections. What’s more, the Canadian Conservatives had nothing like the history their British counterparts do, and the Canadian right has been split far more often than it has been divided.

I would though recommend this book to anyone who is thinking about how the next few years of the British right might play out. It is a reminder that events and personalities often dictate what happens – making predictions a fools game.

The eighth edition of the Bristol Radical History Festival is just a month away. The event takes place over two days: at the M Shed on Saturday 25 April, before it moves on to The Cube Microplex on Sunday 26 April.

The two days will encompass talks, panel discussions, films, history walks, an exhibition and more.
One of the four themes of this year’s event is Propaganda. This is, of course, not a new phenomenon. From the Bayeux Tapestry to social media, one could argue that only the technology has changed to mould and shape public opinion.

The Saturday at the festival will see Steve Poole from Bristol UWE tell us how state propaganda played a crucial role in staving off the threat of revolution in Britain in the 1790s. Meanwhile Riley Linebaugh will bring things forward into the 20th Century and focus on the ways the UK government covered its back when the colonial administrations in East Africa systematically destroyed and removed documents from colonies in the run up to independence.

Dr Lucy Goodison and Colin Thomas will visit more recent history. Specifically, the 1970s when successive governments tried to stymie BBC criticism of policy, especially in relation to Ireland. Both Goodison and Thomas worked for the corporation at the time and give us the lowdown on what happened and how BBC journalists fought back.

And Nicholas Jones (a former BBC correspondent) and ex Head of Channel 4 News Dorothy Byrne will talk about propaganda in the media in today’s news and the increasing presence of journalistic self-censorship.

From history to the present day

Finally, Ghada Dimashk and Barney Cullum will bring us right up to date. They’ll look at how, in the recent Gaza conflict, citizens became the primary producers of historic record, though via social media that is ultimately controlled by US tech giants, and how ordinary Palestinian archivists have managed to preserve endangered digital records.

All of these events take place on the first day of the festival, Saturday 25 April, at the M Shed.
The Bristol Radical History Festival, like all Bristol Radical History Group events, is free and is organised by local people from Bristol. It doesn’t have funding from universities, political parties, business or local government.

To break even we rely on our members giving their labour for free and sales from our publications.
And most importantly: whether you are an academic or curious first timer, a lifelong Bristolian or just down for the day, all are welcome.

For more information and the full programme of the Radical History Festival go to the website at brh.org.uk

Featured image via the Canary

A reviews hub built on process, not promotion

Evidence you can verify

Real player feedback informs the model

Responsible gambling beyond a checkbox

Global scale, UK focus

The bottom line for UK casino players

The government is ordering its MPs to vote against changes that would enable victims to access court transcripts for free. (Alamy)

2 min read1 hr

Three clauses were added to the legislation by the House of Lords, including “a clause that would enable victims to have access to free transcripts of court proceedings”. MPs are set to vote on them on Wednesday afternoon.

Costs for victims requesting transcripts of trials, including those who are victims of rape or sexual assault, can run into the tens of thousands, which critics say leaves many unable to pay the fees and therefore unable to access transcripts of trials in which they are the victim. 

Last year, the government accepted an Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) recommendation to make permanent a pilot allowing victims of rape and sexual offences to apply for a transcript of the sentencing remarks free of charge, when the defendant has been found guilty.

PoliticsHome understands that while the government remains fully committed to implementing the ISR recommendation, it considers amendments tabled by peers to go far beyond that commitment.

In the letter to Labour MPs ahead of votes on Wednesday, seen by PoliticsHome, minister Alex Davies-Jones cites government concerns around preparedness and the affordability of what the amendment seeks to introduce, as well as warnings that it could affect reporting restrictions on trials.

A Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesperson told PoliticsHome: “No victim should ever be in the dark about decisions reached in their case. 

“That’s why the government is working hard to improve victims’ access to information, and we remain committed to providing all victims with free Crown Court sentencing remarks on request by Spring 2027. 

“We will carefully consider the implications of these amendments and set out next steps in due course.” 

However, PoliticsHome understands that the instruction to oppose the amendments caused upset among some Labour MPs, with some having meetings with the MoJ to discuss the government’s position.

The push to make transcripts free was the subject of a Westminster Hall debate on Monday, after a petition seeking to “make all court and tribunal transcripts available free of charge” reached over 200,000 signatures. 

Last year, now Victim’s Commissioner for England and Wales, Claire Waxman, told the BBC that victims being unable to access transcripts acted as a “real block to recovery”, and that victims had told her transcripts “should come as a part of them being able to see justice being done”.

“It’s really difficult for them to understand why there was an acquittal, especially if they haven’t come back into the court process, which many of them won’t have done,” said Waxman. 

Yesterday’s passing of the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) regulations in the Senedd is a major moment for the UK-wide DRS. It confirms that October 2027 will be the date the scheme becomes operational across all four nations.

But it’s still not plain sailing. While the regulations passing give us much-needed certainty, the continued inclusion of glass creates complexity, confusion and a risk of fraud. There is still time for the next Welsh government to make the tweaks that will make it a success.

Building a well-designed and fully interoperable DRS

We at Suntory Beverage and Food GB&I (SBF GB&I) – the makers of Lucozade and Ribena – recognise that drinks containers can often be found littered in communities and the environment. That’s why we see a well-functioning DRS as the most effective route to tackling that challenge at source – creating a clear incentive for containers to be returned and recycled.

The evidence from across Europe is clear. Where DRS is already in place, collection rates for drinks containers often exceed 90 per cent,¹ compared to an estimated 70 per cent in the UK today. It dramatically increases high-quality recycling, tackles litter at source and supports the transition to a circular economy.

Getting the scheme right

The progress made by the Welsh government towards a DRS launch date of October 2027 is welcome, but we can’t look past the misalignment still present that will undermine this generational circular economy opportunity.

With glass bottles still in scope and reuse expectations distracting from day-one delivery, the next Welsh government must focus on making the scheme work for citizens, businesses and the environment.

The post-election priority for all parties must be to amend the regulations to align the Welsh DRS with the rest of the UK. For industry to be able to deliver an effective scheme on day one, the new administration must:

Advertisement
1. Remove glass bottles from the DRS scope
2. Delay the inclusion of reuse requirements until the scheme is operational and a full impact and environmental assessment has been carried out.

Industry stands ready to deliver a circular economy

This is not just a matter of public policy; it’s a vital way to boost the UK domestic supply of recycled plastic and reduce carbon emissions. It’s also a core part of our own long-term sustainability ambition.

Through our Growing for Good vision, we’re committed to delivering positive change by supporting communities and reducing our environmental impact. Our global ambition is to achieve 100 per cent sustainable^* plastic bottles by 2030 and net-zero across our value chain by 2050.

We’ve already invested more than £11m to make our packaging more circular and moved Ribena and Lucozade Sport bottles to 100 per cent recycled PET. In addition, we’ve committed £6.5m towards internal DRS readiness and helping set up the UK Deposit Management Organisation – Exchange for Change. Industry is playing its part; now the political parties of Wales can play theirs.

Let’s make it happen

The next five years will shape Wales’ next chapter on recycling. By making two seemingly small, yet consequential, tweaks to the regulations in the next Senedd, we can deliver the straightforward and effective Deposit Return Scheme that will revolutionise the circular economy in the UK.

^*recycled or plant-based materials

References

1. https://www.reloopplatform.org/resources/global-deposit-book-2024/

(UK MoD)

4 min read8 min

The strong cross-party attendance spoke volumes. Phil Bricknell MP, Liz Saville Roberts MP, Vikki Slade MP, The Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, and Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle were just some of those who joined us to explore why this frozen frontier matters to Britain’s future. Their presence reflected growing parliamentary awareness that the High North is central to UK and Nato security, and how, as part of the Hybrid Royal Navy, the UK Commando Force is rising to meet that challenge.

Why the High North matters

For an island nation built on maritime trade, the Arctic and High North is vital. This is the only place where Russia, through its formidable Northern Fleet, can directly threaten the lifelines that sustain and protect us: food, energy, undersea data cables, and the sea lines of communication that connect the US to Europe.

It is the gateway to the Atlantic and the Northern Sea Route. And it is where Russia bases some of its most strategic military capabilities. Our national prosperity and defence depend directly on what happens here.

Climate change is accelerating competition. New sea routes are opening and military activity is increasing. As this environment becomes more contested and Russian aggression continues, the ability to defend and deter in the High North has become essential to wider Euro-Atlantic security.

Nato expects its leading members to bring credible capability and leadership to this region. Through our deep relationship with Norway, strengthened by the 2025 Lunna House Agreement and our longstanding leadership of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), the UK has longstanding experience here.

The Alliance and our allies want us to exert that leadership to strengthen deterrence and counter hybrid threats.

Rapid Modernisation

Five years into its transformation programme, the UK Commando Force is highly modernised, specialising in warfighting, crisis response and maritime special operations. Building on lessons from contemporary conflict, we integrate dispersed and highly trained commando teams with advanced targeting sensors, uncrewed systems, and electronic warfare to enable precision strikes, not least from Royal Navy platforms like the Carrier Strike Group. We practised exactly this with our allies during Exercise TALISMAN SABRE in Australia last summer.

We are a key element of the UK and Nato’s Special Operations Forces. Operating both on land and sea we’re conducting deterrence operations now and ready to respond rapidly in crisis and conflict to counter threats and set the tactical conditions for larger conventional forces to bring their strength to bear. For ministers, this provides something rare and invaluable: strategic flexibility, military optionality across the spectrum of competition to conflict, and affordability.

High Value and Affordable

Arctic warfighting readiness cannot be generated overnight. Operating at -30C, across frozen terrain, in conditions that degrade people and equipment requires years of specialist training. We are the only UK brigade capable of it and one of very few in Nato. It is a point of national comparative advantage.

The Commando Force’s persistent presence in the High North is greatly valued by the US and our regional allies. We are the tip of the spear for the First Sea Lord’s ATLANTIC BASTION, SHIELD and STRIKE operations – constructs which tie land, sea, air, space, and cyber capabilities together and put the UK at the centre of a sophisticated defence and system that allows allies to persistently work together. It is driving defence industrial cooperation, technological innovation, and opportunity for our economy. 

Ready now

We maintain a very high readiness posture, continuously tested through Arctic deployments and global crisis response tasks. The force deploys quickly, integrates seamlessly with allies, and operates independently when required.

Strategic Awareness

In an era of instability and acute power competition, our Westminster visit underscores Parliament’s recognition of the importance of the High North to both our defence and strategic interests. It is the gateway to our own backyard, and our partners welcome our leadership there. The UK Commando Force is rising to the challenge and in the past month alone, we have been visited in Norway by the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and over thirty of the UK and Nato’s most senior military officers.

The ice may be shifting, but Britain’s commitment to the Arctic and delivering against Nato’s commitments there remains rock solid.

Brigadier Jaimie Norman DSO OBE Royal Marines, Commander 3 Commando Brigade

FIFA has announced that no action will be taken against the Israeli Football Association (IFA) over the participation of clubs based in illegal settlements in Israel’s leagues.

In March 2024, the Palestinian Football Association (PFA) called for the exclusion of settlement clubs. There are at least six clubs based in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) currently playing in Israeli leagues.

However, in its response on 19 March 2026, the football governing body said FIFA would not take action, declaring that the “legal status of the West Bank remains an unresolved and highly complex matter under public international law”.

This is in contradiction with Article 64.2 of FIFA’s statutes, which states that:

Member associations and their clubs may not play on the territory of another member association without the latter’s approval.

FIFA’s pattern of hypocrisy

Steve Cockburn, Head of Economic and Social Justice at Amnesty International, said:

By refusing to take action against clubs based in Israeli settlements, FIFA has failed to enforce its own rules and is blatantly flouting international law. FIFA had a clear opportunity to stand up for Palestinians’ rights and international law – with this decision it has shamefully chosen to abandon both.

The International Court of Justice has unambiguously declared that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, that settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) are illegal and that Israel’s presence in the OPT must rapidly end. FIFA’s own statutes are clear that its members cannot play games in the territory of another association without permission.

By continuing to condone the presence of clubs based in illegal settlements in the OPT in Israel’s league, the Israeli Football Association is indirectly legitimizing Israel’s unlawful occupation and its severe human rights violations against Palestinians, including the crime against humanity of apartheid. FIFA must not continue to ignore the International Court of Justice’s 2024 Advisory Opinion. FIFA has an unequivocal responsibility to act. It must also ensure full transparency and publish the legal advice FIFA received on this matter and provide the full rationale for its unjust decision.

Other human rights organisations have previously put pressure on FIFA to act in accordance with its own statutes.

The governing body has been swift to act in suspending the participation of other nations, like Russia, from international sporting events. Israel remains an exception to the rule.

Fines without Exclusions

In the same complaint submitted in March 2024, the PFA called for sanctions against the IFA over anti-Palestinian racism in Israeli football.

FIFA’s disciplinary committee have now fined the IFA 150,000 Swiss francs ($190,700) for “multiple breaches” of its anti-discrimination obligations. The Canary’s Alaa Shamali called the penalties “shockingly light.”

FIFA and UEFA have both provided funding for the IFA, meaning they may also be contributing to the expansion of illegal settlements, and therefore Israel’s human rights violations.

Featured image via the Canary