The Starmer government has opened a “terrifying” ‘consultation’ on its plan to remove the need for medical training for classification as qualified by the General Medical Council (GMC).

The GMC, until recently, exclusively regulated doctors – those with full medical qualifications. The Starmer-Streeting axis has already – with the collusion of the GMC – started to erode that distinction by allowing the GMC to regulate ‘medical associates’ – people with far less training than an actual doctor.

A number of people have already died after misdiagnosis or wrong treatment by ‘associates’ they believed were doctors. The government knows using these roles to fill medical positions is extremely dangerous – and have been told the same repeatedly by doctors and academics.

Starmer making things much worse

But now, the government is going further. It has opened a ‘consultation‘ on:

the draft General Medical Council Order 2026, which would reform how the General Medical Council (GMC) regulates medical practitioners, physician associates and anaesthesia associates across the UK.

So far, so bland. But it’s not. As Doctors Association co-chair Dr Matt Kneale explains in a thread on X, it means allowing the GMC to “remove the guardrails” separating actual doctors from other people presenting in white coats in medical settings:

2/ Currently, under s34L of the Medical Act 1983, a CCT can only be awarded to a registered medical practitioner who has completed an approved specialist or GP training programme. This is one of the statutory foundations of the specialist register.

— Dr Matt Kneale (🦋drmk.link) (@mattster) March 26, 2026

4/ Article 26 governs GMC approval of education and training. It applies to all “regulated professionals” – which under this Order includes physician assistants (PAs) and physician assistants in anaesthesia (PAAs), not just doctors.

— Dr Matt Kneale (🦋drmk.link) (@mattster) March 26, 2026

6/ On top of this, the draft Order abolishes the specialist register as a distinct statutory entity. Under the new framework, GMC maintains a single register with separate parts for doctors, PAs and PAAs.

The statutory guardrails that limited CCTs to doctors are being removed.

Advertisement

— Dr Matt Kneale (🦋drmk.link) (@mattster) March 26, 2026

This then means the GMC can extend ‘CCTs’, until now only available to fully-trained doctors, to ‘associates’ with a fraction of the training. This is self-evidently dangerous – and all of us need to act now:

6/ On top of this, the draft Order abolishes the specialist register as a distinct statutory entity. Under the new framework, GMC maintains a single register with separate parts for doctors, PAs and PAAs.

The statutory guardrails that limited CCTs to doctors are being removed.

— Dr Matt Kneale (🦋drmk.link) (@mattster) March 26, 2026

Advertisement

10/ Eroding its statutory exclusivity to doctors would be a seismic change.

The consultation closes 23rd June 2026. Every doctor – and every patient who cares about who holds a CCT – should respond.

— Dr Matt Kneale (🦋drmk.link) (@mattster) March 26, 2026

Intervention needed

As one clinician said this morning:

EVERYONE (whether doctors or not) must contribute to this ‘consultation’

It states that the GMC will be able to decide whether a PERSON (not ‘a doctor’) can be put onto the Specialist Register. Not just PAs, I assume, but also ACPs, presumably having been assessed by other PAs or ACPs.

Advertisement

Also, the GMC wants to continue to appeal against tribunal decisions not to sanction/strike off doctors for things like protesting against genocide.

This organisation needs a total boycott and is certainly not fit for purpose in any way.

The Doctors Association will be submitting its own direct response. But everyone who cares about the NHS, or even just about their own safety and health, needs to do the same.

Featured image via the Canary

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

It might be spring, but the clouds are still winning their battle with the sun for top spot in the UK. So while it’s peak gardening season, cajoling yourself to get outside is not the most appealing of tasks.

Just like any dreaded task (think: hoovering, laundry, or taking the bins out), bringing a new tool or accessory into the mix could be just what you need to have you Julie Andrews-style leaping around your garden.

Whether you’re undergoing a complete garden makeover, or simply sprucing it up with some fresh shoots, what you use (and wear) can make the difference between a hard days’ work and cosying up inside.

So if you need a little push to get outside before the weather perks up, here’s everything you need for gardening inspo this (so far un-)sunny season.

The government’s ‘Rycroft Review’ report on foreign interference in UK politics has been confirmed as a sham immediately it was published, after it failed to mention Israel a single time. And this is only what Skwawkbox and others predicted, since Starmer minister Steve Reed is a die-hard ‘friend of genocide’ who also didn’t mention Israel once when commissioning it in December 2025.

Israel: those who will not be named

Russia gets seven mentions. Israel – so far ahead of other countries in terms of interference in UK politics that it’s (literally) out of sight – none at all. And Reed is ‘under fire’ for – oops – ‘forgetting’ to disclose just how tight he is with the Israel lobby. Or mention it at all. Just like he ‘forgot’ the massive donations he’s accepted from the Israel lobby:

NEW: A Labour minister is under fire after failing to declare his relationship with the pro-Israel lobby when he unveiled a report on foreign interference in the UK

Steve Reed failed to declare his affiliation with the influential Labour Friends of Israel group pic.twitter.com/nJGIUm6sFh

— Laura Webster (@LauraEWebsterr) March 26, 2026

Advertisement

In fact, its very absence from the report is as clear a demonstration as could be of the extent of its influence. The National describes Reed’s omission as “incredible”, but in the literal sense it’s the absolute opposite: totally believable and unsurprising. Just appalling.

The scale of the farce becomes even clearer when China and Iran get a special mention – just as Israel is looking to drag the UK into its illegal war on Iran. A section titled “How serious is the problem?” of “long-term strategic foreign interference” quotes a government briefing naming those two countries as the crux of the problem:

The UK is a target of long-term strategic foreign interference and espionage from elements of the Russian, Chinese and Iranian states which, in different ways, seek to further their economic and strategic interests and cause harm to our democratic institutions”.

But not Israel. Noooo. No no no no no. Who even is Israel?’, the uninformed reader might ask.

Beep boop

So, a minister superglued to the Israel lobby – which terrifies British politicians and broadcasters alike and believes it is entitled to demand special consideration at every turn – commissions a report that conspicuously omits, completely, any mention of the biggest foreign interferer in UK (and US) politics.

“This is not the droid you’re looking for. Move along, move along.”

Nothing to see here. Obvs.

Featured image via the Canary

The Animal Welfare Committee, which advises the UK government, has published a damning report condemning the animal suffering involved in the fur trade.

Its report on ‘the responsible sourcing of fur’ calls out the suffering inflicted on animals who are confined in cages on fur farms or caught in brutal traps in the wild. And it indicates support for legislative action, stating:

consumer and market forces currently do not and cannot provide sufficient pressure to adequately safeguard animal welfare.

Despite banning the farming of animals for their fur more than two decades ago, the UK imports millions of pounds worth of animal fur from overseas every year. This creates a double standard, says Humane World for Animals UK (formerly called Humane Society International UK), which leads the #FurFreeBritain campaign.

The charity is calling on the UK government to act on the report’s findings and deliver on its recent Animal Welfare Strategy commitment to ‘uphold high animal welfare standards in trade’ by banning the UK’s bloody fur trade for good.

Meanwhile, DEFRA has published responses to its 2021 Call for Evidence on the UK fur trade. The results show more than 96% of the almost 30,000 respondents strongly agreed that killing animals for their fur is wrong. Respondents:

overwhelmingly did not support the import, sale or export of fur or fur products.

Claire Bass, senior director of campaigns and public affairs for Humane World for Animals UK said:

It’s clear from the Committee’s findings that trading in fur from caged, tormented, diseased and injured animals is completely at odds with the UK government’s recent Animal Welfare Strategy commitment to ‘uphold high animal welfare standards as part of our approach to trade’.

The Committee states that fur should not be sourced from animals who have not had ‘a life worth living’ or a humane death and then explains all the ways in which the global fur trade fails to meet these criteria.

The previous Labour government rightly banned fur farming 25 years ago. We must now stop outsourcing that same suffering overseas. The government now has both formal evidence and a strong public mandate to end the UK’s bloody fur trade.

Advertisement

Animal Welfare Committee report quotes and conclusions

The Animal Welfare Committee states that:

Within a commercial setting it is not possible and is unlikely to ever be possible to farm species such as fox and raccoon dog without having a detrimental effect on their health and welfare, or in a way which meets their welfare needs.

It adds:

There are no species being farmed for fur whose welfare needs are being adequately met by current standards and safeguards.

The report’s concerns include:

• Criticism that cage sizes within industry ‘welfare assurance’ schemes are ‘insufficient to meet physical and psychological welfare needs’, and cage design is inadequate.
• The use of inhumane killing methods, including CO2 which ‘has been shown to be a highly aversive method of killing mink [which] fails to kill rapidly’, and anal electrocution.
• Criticism of fur industry assurance schemes for both farmed and trapped fur, including outdated welfare science and lack of: consistency, training, unannounced inspections, independent auditing and traceability.
• Lack of industry consideration of the experience and welfare of individual animals on fur farms, with welfare assurance schemes such as WelFur permitting a high threshold of allowance for animals with serious welfare problems (e.g 15% of foxes may have ‘severely bent feet’).
• Challenges with traceability of the country of origin, species and method of production of fur (farmed or trapped) imported into the UK, using available data from HMRC.
• Although over a third (37%) of fur imported to the UK over the last 10 years came from China, the Committee was unable to obtain any evidence about industry application of ‘welfare certification’ schemes in the country.
• Concern that trapping standards for fur subsequently imported into the UK are ‘not sufficient to prevent unnecessary suffering, and do not adequately protect animal welfare’. The standards permit lethal head/chest crushing traps that take five minutes to kill species including beavers and otters.
• Concern that “consumers are not currently able to accurately identify whether products are fur of animal origin (wild caught or farmed) or ‘faux’ fur, or a mixture of the two”.

Public opposition to the fur trade

The evidence released today, of animal suffering and also of strong public opposition to the fur trade, now puts the need for a fur import ban beyond doubt. Therefore, Humane World for Animals UK is calling on the government to act swiftly.

More than 200 MPs support the Fur Free Britain campaign. Ruth Jones MP led a Westminster Hall debate earlier in March which saw cross-party support for the issue.

There is also strong public support for a ban on fur imports and sales. 77% of UK voters believe that when a type of farming is banned in the UK for being too cruel, we should also ban imports of products produced the same way overseas.

Last year campaigners handed in a 1.5 million signature petition to the prime minister in support of a ban. Furthermore, the vast majority (93%) of the UK public reject wearing real animal fur, while only 3% wear it. The same poll found that the words 79% of people most closely associated with a fashion brand selling fur are ‘unethical’, ‘outdated’, ‘cruel’ and ‘out of touch’.

The Animal Welfare Committee’s findings echo the damning indictment delivered by the European Food Safety Authority’s 2025 scientific opinion on the welfare of animals on fur farms. It concluded that the cage systems used on fur farms fail to meet the basic welfare needs of mink, foxes, raccoon dogs and chinchillas. And this includes the industry’s so-called “high welfare” or “certified farms”.

Featured image via Kristo Muurimaa / Oikeutta eläimille / Humane World for Animals UK

1) Put your phone away at least half an hour before bed

2) Will yourself awake

3) Give the “military method” a go

4) Check your thermostat

5) Exercise four to eight hours before bed

6) Stick to a regular sleep routine

The Associated Press (AP) has finally used the word invasion to describe Israel’s illegal actions in Lebanon.

Of course, it could have used something far more accurate – like an “illegal invasion by a supremacist ethnostate” – but that’s probably pushing the boat out a bit too far.

Israel reported on with a crumb of accuracy

In true Western media fashion, it felt the need to publish a whole think piece on why it finally decided to tell the truth.

Such brave journalists, finally opening a dictionary.

Why are you so terrified of reporting basic facts?

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) March 26, 2026

It only took two and a half years for the journalists at AP to actually do their jobs.

BREAKING: AP uses word to mean what word means https://t.co/d3rsQAS5pU

— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) March 27, 2026

And, the article should indeed have been just one sentence.

This article coulda been one sentence: “We are calling Israel’s invasion of Lebanon an invasion because that is what you call it when a country invades another country”. https://t.co/0eoZFNVNGp

— Colter Louwerse (@ColterL) March 27, 2026

But instead, AP decided to quote ‘Israeli officials’, i.e. terrorists, in detail.

AP also decided to state that:

Israel has invaded Lebanon four times in the past 50 years: 1978, 1982, 2006 and 2024.

It did this without offering any context or mentioning that all four invasions were very, very illegal.

There is literally no other circumstance where an international news outlet would feel the need to justify such a basic editorial decision. But because it’s Israel…

Imagine the kind of iron control over the media that requires a full published explanation when a word is used correctly against Israel https://t.co/kIlUzWrtIr

— Sarayu Pani (@sarayupani) March 27, 2026

Jokes aside, this is actually really telling. In no other circumstance would AP feel it has to explain/justify reporting news accurately. They only feel the need to do this because they are constantly being hounded by pro-Israel orgs like CAMERA that demand a pro-Israel bias. https://t.co/ASdwGTKf4U

— Tariq Kenney-Shawa (@tksshawa) March 27, 2026

Israel could tell the right-wing media the sky was green and they would probably publish it, because… ‘antisemitism’.

‘Israel says the sky is green. Others say it’s blue. Here’s why we’re now calling it blue.’ https://t.co/RE80ZqFQyu

— Davide Mastracci (@DavideMastracci) March 26, 2026

Still minimising the truth

Yes, a Western news outlet is finally admitting that it doesn’t usually tell the truth.

“We’ve decided to tell the truth. Here’s why we usually don’t.” https://t.co/v2YK1FuWeV

— Omar Sakr (@omarsakrpoet) March 27, 2026

However, notice how no media outlets describe Russia’s invasion as an invasion of ‘Eastern Ukraine’. It’s simply an invasion of Ukraine – a sovereign nation which has the right to self-defence under international law.

To make matters worse, it took AP only two days to correctly name Russia’s invasion.

It took @AP two days to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine an invasion. I found the article.

It took four weeks of total destruction for them to call Israel’s actions in Lebanon an invasion, and they even felt the need to explain why.

That comparison is truly remarkable.…

— Abdullah Hassan (@8abdullahhassan) March 26, 2026

Advertisement

AP describing Israel’s actions as an ‘Invasion of Southern Lebanon’ is a precursor to one thing and one thing only. That is Israel annexing the south of Lebanon – and the media whitewashing it.

Only because it’s become untenable to deny manifest reality. Also though note how it’s still “southern” Lebanon and not just Lebanon. Whereas Russia of course is always referred to as invading Ukraine, not eastern Ukraine https://t.co/phkEZHTmcR

— Nate Bear (@NateB_Panic) March 27, 2026

Meanwhile, AP and the majority of other corporate media outlets still refuse to use the words genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and illegal occupation. I know that’s a lot of letters to get in the right order, but come on…

Ethnic cleansing too spicy? Land theft too onerous? Vandalism too old school? https://t.co/QAj1LFFK9v

— Robert Young Pelton (@RYP__) March 26, 2026

Advertisement

Allow me to congratulate myself for reluctantly telling the truth eventually.

We needed to wait until it was a full-blown ethnic cleansing and annexation to use “invasion,” which will now be used to minimize it. https://t.co/sLy9Ca5ee1

— Y Disassembler (@loomdoop) March 27, 2026

Next, they’ll tell us that naming an invasion an invasion requires a meeting at the Avengers compound with Tony Stark.

Since when does calling an invasion an invasion require analysis, deliberation, a newsroom vote, & an announcement?

— Hala Jaber (@HalaJaber) March 26, 2026

Advertisement

The essay is, no doubt, intended to preemptively address antisemitism claims. Because we all know that only Israel can be invaded by illegal terrorists.

The article is much like Israel’s ‘pre-emptive strikes’ – absolute bullshit.

The Associated Press has to write an essay pre-emptively defending themselves from “antisemitism!” shrieking after reaching the difficult decision to report accurately about even one thing israelis have done.

This agency controls almost half the news Western press contains! https://t.co/irGjKBPrTb

— Crixiv 2 🇵🇸 (@solzhenidiot) March 26, 2026

Advertisement

It’s a ten out of ten to the Associated Press for learning the correct definition of a word. Get them a Pulitzer Prize.

Maybe they’ll try genocide next? Or ethnic cleansing? We’ve linked the definitions, just in case you’re struggling, AP.

Of course, they won’t – because it’s only genocide or a war crime when it’s not Israel committing it.

This whole stunt by AP is nothing but a hilarious attempt to claw back any remaining credibility.

Featured image via Al Jazeera English/ YouTube

What does science say?

OK, but what about the word “reading”?

TBH – who cares?