In a new interview, Green leader Zack Polanski has shown why a remake of past antisemitism smears won’t stop his party’s surge in popularity.

Polanski has been an outspoken Jewish voice against Israel’s genocide in Gaza. He has highlighted the recent increase in Jewish support for his party, which now has the backing of around a fifth of the Jewish population. In particular, he said many Jewish people thanked him for representing their views in the media realm.

Perhaps the most important point he made, though, was that there is no single ‘Jewish community’. In reality, there are many communities with differing viewpoints. And no single figure, he said, can rightfully claim to speak for all of them.

"I think it's important that I make sure that my Jewish identity isn't weaponized by other people in the community who claim that all Jewish people support the Israeli government or the genocide because it's absolutely not true.":

Green Party leader Zack Polanski rejects the… pic.twitter.com/JbOUN6eiaa

— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) April 22, 2026

Polanski stressed in the interview with Haaretz that:

at no point have I ever claimed to speak for the entire Jewish community, because it would be impossible for anyone to speak for the entire Jewish community

He also directed criticism at groups and people who have cynically tried to take on that role, explaining that:

before I was leader of a political party and a more public Jewish figure, there were organisations like the Board of Deputies who were claiming to speak for the entire Jewish community, or indeed the Chief Rabbi…

And he hopes his leadership will help to open:

a more broad conversation about people claiming to speak for a community when we know there isn’t a single Jewish community – there are Jewish communities, who believe different things and have different views and different nuances.

The importance of ending weaponisation of identity on Israel’s behalf

The right-wing Board of Deputies has been one prominent organisation that has long sought to smear critics of Israeli crimes as antisemitic. But Polanski has resisted that as Green leader, correctly insisting that:

Conflating Antisemitism with criticism of the Israeli government is dangerous.

A key danger is that conflating ordinary Jewish people and Israeli war criminals can contribute to or even increase antisemitic views in society. And this is doubly dangerous at a time when the far right – which is often very supportive of Israel – is on the march. Reform UK, for example, has already had numerous antisemitism scandals.

This is why Polanski told Haaretz that:

as a Jewish politician, I do think it’s important that I both make sure that my Jewish identity is not weaponised by other people in the community who claim that all Jewish people support the Israeli government or… the genocide, because that absolutely, categorically is not true.

His strong position of principle — along with the fact that he and his party are increasingly popular — has made him a key target for attacks from the right-wing media, pro-Israel lobbyists, and the far right.

But he has learned from the smears against longstanding anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn. And his stance appears uncompromising. As a prominent Jewish figure, Polanski’s position against cynical antisemitism smears matters.

I’s a cause for real hope that, this time, the smears won’t work.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

The post The terrorist who claimed asylum appeared first on spiked.

Source link

PoliticsHome revealed that Travelodge had been handed almost £70m by councils since 2022 (Alamy)

4 min read8 min

The government could bring in stipulations for companies that receive public money to house vulnerable people, like Travelodge, PoliticsHome understands.

Advertisement

It is one measure being considered by ministers as they look at how hotel security can be improved after a woman was sexually assaulted in one of the hotel chain’s rooms in 2022, with a government source telling PoliticsHome that “nothing is off the table”.

It comes after PoliticsHome revealed at the start of this month that Travelodge had been given almost £70m of taxpayers’ money via local authorities since a woman was sexually assaulted in one of its rooms in 2022.

In February, Kyran Smith was jailed for seven-and-a-half years for sexually assaulting a woman in a Travelodge in Berkshire in December 2022. Smith had attended the same party as the woman and had later acquired a key card to her room after falsely claiming to hotel staff that he was the victim’s boyfriend.

Advertisement

The case, which has led to intense scrutiny of Travelodge and calls for its CEO to be more accountable to MPs, has triggered a debate about whether the company should continue to receive taxpayers’ money, especially to temporarily house vulnerable people.

Public money is often given to hotel chains to house homeless or vulnerable people, to support councils facing a lack of social housing or council-owned housing.

PoliticsHome understands that a cross-department roundtable in the coming months will discuss what measures are needed to make sure vulnerable people in these settings are protected. A government source said “nothing’s off the table” and that “we just need to make sure the right safeguarding practices are being followed to keep vulnerable people safe”.

Advertisement

One possible step that ministers are expected to explore is new stipulations or guidelines for any company using public funding, to provide reassurance that the vulnerable are going to be looked after.

This could include regulation or policy guidance, for example, looking at procurement guidelines, in the same way that there are guidelines around modern slavery.

In March, Prime Minister Keir Starmer criticised Travelodge CEO Jo Boydell for not attending a meeting with MPs to discuss issues of room security.

Last month, PoliticsHome reported that Labour MP Matt Bishop was working on a new law to improve hotel security following the Travelodge assault.

Advertisement

The proposals, set to be introduced as a Ten Minute Rule Bill, would introduce industry standards to ensure the safety of individuals staying in hotels, and it was understood that the government is willing to work with the backbench MP on the plans.

Travelodge has previously apologised to the victim and said that the chain had done an internal review of its security policies, making “immediate changes to ensure that an additional or replacement room key is only issued with explicit permission from the person, or people, staying in the room”.

Boydell said: “The safety and security of guests is extremely important to me and our whole team. Our colleagues care deeply about safety, and we want everyone to be safe and feel safe in a Travelodge hotel.”

She added: “We have offered that all MPs interested in this important issue can feed into the independent review in writing so their contributions can be fully taken into account. My focus now, as the CEO, is ensuring that this important work progresses thoroughly and at pace, and that we learn from the independent review and further strengthen our processes.

Advertisement

“We also welcome the opportunity to work with Matt Bishop and MPs, and UK Hospitality, the body for the hotel sector, on his proposed ten-minute rule bill to help strengthen hotel security for Travelodge and also the wider sector. We have written to Matt to confirm that we want to work with him and MPs on his ten-minute rule bill.

“We have a long-standing relationship with a number of local authorities who choose to use Travelodge hotels, and we want to ensure that everyone feels safe when staying with us.”

 

Source link

It’s St George’s day. Thousands of far-right racists are using this as an excuse for ranting about foreigners and the sanctity of ‘patriotism’. A few might attend pro-Israel demos — not that they like Jews, of course. However, they like the way Israel discriminates. And, of course, rags like the Daily Express are railing on about the “ST GEORGE’S DAY FURY” of patriotic Englishmen at the very idea they might be racist:

Hijacked Saint

Wonder how many of them would be mortified to find out that England’s patron saint was a Palestinian martyred by the Romans for his faith. He was buried in Palestine and his veneration first began there.

They might also hate that his martyrdom was another example of the brutality of occupiers. Rather than executing him, the Romans subjected him to twenty forms of torture over seven years to make him recant. He was then brutally beheaded by a Roman occupation eager to make an example of him. This was intended to deter resistance. Sound familiar? It should, we’ve been watching it play out in Israel’s Gaza genocide and its war on its innocent neighbours for years.

They would presumably not appreciate that, rather than suppressing resistance, Rome’s martyrdom of Saint George drove tens of thousands into the very Christianity it was trying to stamp out. There is a lesson there for the ‘friends of genocide’ lobby, no doubt.

Who’s the patriot?

And the same folk might not realise or appreciate that, while right-wing politicians from Farage to Keir Starmer like to exploit the ‘English’ saint for racist-pandering, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn outdoes them. Starmer can’t resist a bit of flag-shagging as he tries to out-Reform by boasting about how many people he’s deported.

He also boasts about his ‘hostile environment‘ for immigrants. But only Corbyn said he’d make it a national holiday. This may actually do ordinary people (and flag-wavers) a bit of good.

Who’s the ‘patriot’ again?

Featured image via the Canary 

By Skwawkbox

Source link

On 22 April, Unite announced that workers are ramping up their strike action at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust.

The industrial action began back in January, centering on issues of privatisation and pay protection. Staff staged eight days of strikes over the course of February and March.

Both the pathology and clinical engineering staff at Romford’s Queen’s Hospital are taking part. They’ll gather for their latest demonstration outside the hospital from 27 April to 1 May.

Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, said:

The trust’s pathology and clinical engineering workforce are absolutely right to take strike action. The trust is failing to offer fair pay protection to pathology workers and there are serious questions to answer about outsourcing in both the clinical engineering and pathology departments. These workers have their union’s total backing.

Outsourcing and neglect

The two branches of staff are taking part in the strikes for slightly different reasons.

For their part, the clinical engineering staff have recently been forced to transfer their roles from the NHS to Siemens Healthineers, a private medical technology company based in Germany.

Likewise, the NHS trust also plans to outsource the clinical engineering department to the company.

The clinical engineers themselves are demanding an independent investigation into the issues. Unite, meanwhile, asserts that Siemens offers neither value for money, nor the best home for the staff members.

In fact, Siemens has already been forced to fork over a £1.3 million reimbursement to the NHS trust. Unite stated that it:

understands this payment is for the failure to service critical medical equipment, including MRI scanners, for more than a decade.

However, whilst Siemens apparently couldn’t find the money to maintain vital equipment, it could spare the cash to send NHS CEO Michael Trainer to a Healthineers conference in Munich in January 2025.

In fact, the clearly struggling company was generous enough to pay for Trainer’s hotel, food and flight expenses. Definitely more mission-critical than the MRI machines, that lot.

Pay protection

Meanwhile, the pathology staff are fighting against the trust’s failure to provide proper pay protection.

Bosses recently hit the department with a new shift system, which will leave some workers between £400 and £1,000 worse off a month. Whilst the trust gave senior managers enhanced pay protection, it didn’t see fit to extend the same grace to the staff members who keep the department running on a day-to-day basis.

However, the workers’ misgivings with the trust don’t end there.

During negotiations, Unite voiced staff fears that the bosses may choose to privatise the pathology department in much the same way as their clinical engineering co-workers. If this were to happen, the workers’ lack of adequate pay protection would be all the more ruinous.

The union reported that the trust failed to offer a response. This, in turn, only served to heighten concerns on the outsourcing of the pathology department.

Unite regional officer Sujata Virdee added a warning:

The trust must come clean about its plans for pathology, offer its workers proper pay protection and allow an independent investigation into the outsourcing of the clinical engineering department.

The union has already vowed that the industrial action will intensify if the trust doesn’t resolve the workers’ issues. In the meantime, the bosses have five days of strikes to consider whether their plan to prioritise negligent private companies and senior managers over and above the workers is working out.

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

Mobile contracts were once considered essential. Regardless of whether your needs changed, you chose a provider, signed a long-term contract, and remained with them. However, such a paradigm is becoming less and less popular.

Mobile users in the UK today are much less inclined to stick to strict plans and are more knowledgeable and adaptable. Transparency, control, and value-driven services are now in greater demand.

This is where ASDA Mobile comes into play.

Why Traditional Contracts Are Losing Their Grip

Long-term agreements used to make sense. They provided steadiness and, occasionally, more affordable prices. However, such advantages began to seem less applicable as technology and human behavior changed.

Nowadays, consumers want the flexibility to upgrade, downgrade, or switch without facing any consequences. Instead of the other way around, they want plans that adjust to their consumption.

This change is directly addressed by ASDA Mobile’s model.

A Service Built Around Real Usage Patterns

ASDA Mobile’s emphasis on practicality is one reason it appeals to consumers. Plans are built around how users actually use their phones rather than ideal circumstances.

This entails providing simple pricing, adaptable data packages, and easy plan modification.

Although the difference is small, it greatly enhances the user experience.

The Role of Cost Efficiency in Today’s Market

Affordability is now a major factor for many households due to the UK’s rising cost of living. Mobile plans are now part of a broader budgeting approach rather than just about connectivity.

ASDA Mobile presents itself as an affordable choice without compromising necessary features.

Because of this balance, those who wish to cut costs without sacrificing quality will find it especially appealing.

Reliability Without Premium Pricing

There is a widespread misperception that cheaper providers are inherently of inferior quality. ASDA Mobile, however, uses well-established network infrastructure to refute this notion.

This guarantees continuous performance and dependable coverage for users throughout the United Kingdom.

This mix of price and dependability is exactly what many people are searching for.

The Importance of Simplicity in Telecom

Telecom services are frequently overly complicated. Plans have complicated pricing systems, hidden conditions, and several tiers.

ASDA Mobile adopts an alternative strategy.

It eliminates the friction that frequently deters users by streamlining its products. This simplicity not only facilitates plan selection but also lowers the possibility of unforeseen problems down the road.

Adapting to a Digital-First Lifestyle

Digital habits have a big impact on how people use mobile devices today. Users’ data consumption is influenced by social media, streaming, online purchasing, and remote work.

ASDA Mobile provides adaptable data solutions that can be changed as needed to meet these needs.

This flexibility guarantees that consumers are not battling with inadequate allowances or overpaying for unnecessary data.

A Practical Choice for Multiple User Segments

One of ASDA Mobile’s greatest advantages is its adaptability.

It provides flexibility and affordability for students. It offers families a simple way to manage several connections. Professionals can use it as a primary plan without long-term commitments or as a dependable backup alternative.

Its user-centric design is shown in its broad popularity.

Accessibility and Ease of Use

Accessibility is more than just cost. It also takes into account how simple it is to begin and carry out your plan.

In this regard, ASDA Mobile shines by providing simple account administration, easy top-ups, and uncomplicated onboarding.

Even people who are less tech-savvy can easily access the service thanks to its user-friendly design.

Why the Timing Is Right

Users in the UK telecom market are actively looking for alternatives at this stage. More flexible carriers now have a chance due to rising costs, shifting usage habits, and discontent with established contracts.

ASDA Mobile is well-positioned to benefit from this change.

Its emphasis on cost, flexibility, and simplicity is exactly what modern consumers want.

The Psychological Appeal of Control

There is a psychological component to consider in addition to the practical advantages. It gives you a sense of freedom to be in charge of your cell plan and to know you can change it whenever you want.

Conventional contracts frequently lack this feeling.

By allowing consumers to make choices based on their present needs rather than previous commitments, ASDA Mobile takes advantage of this.

A Sustainable Approach to Mobile Usage

Long-term usability is just as important to sustainability as the environment. Flexible plans cut down on waste, including wasteful spending and unused data.

ASDA Mobile encourages a more effective approach to mobile usage by letting users customize their plans.

Both the user and the market as a whole gain from this efficiency.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Mobile Plans

It is doubtful that the trend toward flexibility will change. Users will demand even greater control over their services as technology advances.

While providers that stick to antiquated models might struggle, those who adjust to this demand will prosper.

This future is already in line with ASDA Mobile.

Conclusion: A Service That Matches Modern Expectations

Mobile plan selection is evolving, and for good reason. These days, simplicity, affordability, and flexibility are necessary rather than optional.

All three are met by ASDA Mobile.

It provides a useful substitute for conventional contracts that blends in perfectly with contemporary lifestyles. It is a timely and wise option for UK customers who want to stay connected without needless hassles.

By Nathan Spears

Source link

Israel has assassinated a journalist in Lebanon, after threatening her and then hunting her down.

The genocidal terrorist state murdered Amal Khalil, a journalist with Al-Akhbar newspaper, in a double-tap attack in al-Tayri, Southern Lebanon, on Wednesday, April 22.

Khalil and Zeinab Faraj, a freelance photojournalist, were both reporting on the recent attacks on the village of Bint Jbeil. Faraj was also severely injured in the attack, but remains in a stable condition after undergoing emergency surgery, which highlights the ongoing danger faced by journalists covering Lebanon’s conflicts.

Double-tap attack

At 2:45pm on Wednesday, an Israeli drone targeted the car they were driving behind, killing the two men inside. Khalil and Faraj took shelter in a nearby house within Lebanon as events unfolded.

The car the journalists were driving behind was hit by an Israeli drone at 2:45 pm killing 2 men inside; Zeinab, Amal took shelter in nearby house; At 2:50pm Amal called her editors, family; President Aoun called on Red Cross, army to rescue them; 4:27pm Israel bombed house https://t.co/w8UNIqTedn

— Zeina Khodr (@ZeinakhodrAljaz) April 23, 2026

At 2:50pm, Khalil called her editors and family, and news of the attack quickly reached Lebanese President, Joseph Aoun, who put out a statement calling on the Red Cross to rescue them in coordination with the Lebanese Army and the United Nations.

The Lebanese President says the Israeli killing of journalist Amal Khalil is a ‘crime against humanity’ and urges the int community to take action. He describes the Israeli action as ‘aimed at concealing the truth of its aggressive acts against Lebanon’ https://t.co/yIXtzByqnA

— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 23, 2026

Then, at 4:27pm, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) bombed the house where the two journalists were taking refuge. The mounting violence in Lebanon against media workers continues to shock observers.

To make matters worse, Israel then ignored requests for access to conduct a rescue operation. Eventually, the IOF granted the Red Cross limited access to the site, but the site remained under active fire within Lebanon’s border.

According to Drop Site News:

They were able to evacuate Faraj, who reportedly sustained critical head injuries, and to recover the bodies of two other civilians who were killed. But they were forced to withdraw before finding Khalil because of continued shelling and the direct firing on rescue crews and vehicles. The Red Cross vehicle that transported journalist Faraj to Tubnin Governmental Hospital was hit by Israeli gunfire, with bullet marks visible on the vehicle, according to the state-run National News Agency.

The Red Cross was eventually able to return to the area after which Khalil was pronounced dead.

So not only is Israel purposefully targeting journalists, but it is also targeting the rescue workers and vehicles attempting to save their lives. Such incidents should be condemned, especially given their impact on Lebanon.

Amal Khalil was not just a a friend and a colleague, she was a mentor to me and to other journalists. She was an inspiration. She also sought to keep us inspired to report the news in an accurate and truthful manner, far from the sensationalism and narcissism that dominates our… pic.twitter.com/S4APdOp0Do

— courtneybonneauimages (@cbonneauimages) April 23, 2026

Premeditation

In an interview before the attack, Khalil received “direct threats” to her phone from both Mossad and the Israelis, threatening to kill her. She said:

They were literally saying they would sever my head from my shoulders if I didn’t leave south Lebanon.”

One of the Israelis who threatened Khalil was Gideon Gal Ben Avraham. He is a retired military officer who continues to “help” Israeli intelligence, threatened Khalil. He also claims to be a media commentator – but by Israel’s own standards, that means terrorist. Clearly, such threats are not uncommon for journalists reporting from Lebanon, especially those challenging powerful interests.

Importantly, international humanitarian law protects journalists. Under the Geneva Convention [Article 79], journalists should be treated as civilians and protected as such. This means targeting them is illegal under international and Lebanon’s domestic law.

Obviously, Israel has no regard for international law. But the international community continues to turn away as Israel murders journalist after journalist in Lebanon and elsewhere.

The IOF has always had one goal: silencing voices that expose its war crimes. As Nour Mahmoud, from Al-Akhbar, wrote:

The Israeli occupation army deliberately works to silence any voice that exposes its actions. The crime did not begin with the missile that hit Amal Khalil’s car in the town of Al-Tiri, nor did it end with the shell that followed her to the house where she had taken refuge

In this context, the systematic targeting of journalists is no longer a mere incidental detail, but rather part of a broader strategy: to rid the field of its eyes and voices. Here, the journalist is not seen as a neutral civilian, but as a direct threat because they possess something that cannot be easily erased: evidence

Since October 2023, Israel has assassinated at least 15 journalists, including Khalil, in Lebanon. Additionally, in Gaza, the IOF has murdered over 260 Palestinian journalists. These figures make it the deadliest ever war for journalists – but we all know that this is not a war — it’s a genocide.

The systematic targeting of journalists is Israel’s attempt to erase the evidence, and the silence from the majority of the international journalism community is deafening. Meanwhile, the suffering of Lebanon’s people and journalists is ongoing.

Feature image via the Canary

By HG

Source link

In the cavernous theatre of the House of Commons on 20 April 2026, amid two and a half hours of choreographed indignation and procedural deflection, a single sentence cut through the fog:

Why didn’t the Prime Minister ask?

Diane Abbott’s question hung in the chamber for a moment and was then, with practised establishment efficiency, allowed to evaporate. The press and broadcasters moved on. By the evening bulletins, the discourse had reverted to its most comfortable ruts: was the Prime Minister a liar, or was he merely, as the Conservative leader suggested, “grossly incompetent”? The nation was invited, once again, to choose between flattering explanations of its own government.

A question unanswered

Abbott’s question does not belong to that debate. It does not accept either of its premises. It points, with the clarity only outsiders retain, at something both parties of the Westminster duopoly have an interest in not examining too closely: the possibility that the Prime Minister appointed, to the most important diplomatic post in the world, a man under active criminal investigation for having passed sensitive government data to a convicted to a convicted sex offender – and simply did not bother to ask whether his security clearance had gone through.

There is an answer to Abbott’s question, though it is not the one the Prime Minister offered. It was supplied the following day, in much plainer language, by the very civil servant Starmer has publicly undermined. Olly Robbins, the recently-dismissed permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that he would “absolutely not” have considered it appropriate to inform Starmer that the United Kingdom Security Vetting service had recommended Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance. He had not considered it, he explained, because decisions of that kind “must remain confidential.” This sentence received no attention. 

What Robbins described – and one suspects he described it honestly, which is precisely why Number 10 briefed against him so briskly – was not a breakdown in communication. It was the system functioning exactly as designed. The British security-clearance architecture is constructed so that Prime Ministers are not told which of their appointed have failed security vetting.

The stated purpose is to insulate the clearance process from political interference, thereby preserving the impartiality of a system that ought, in theory, to stand above the ordinary churn of ministerial preference. The effect, however, is to create an institutional mechanism for the manufacture of prime-ministerial ignorance. In a governing culture that has refined the passive voice into a form of statecraft, ignorance has become the sovereign’s most reliable alibi. 

Unanimous silence

This is what makes Abbott’s question so incisive, and why it was received with unanimous silence by the media establishment: it rewrites the entire structure of the scandal. In doing so, it also withdraws from the Prime Minister the last plausible defence he has left to give.

If the question is ‘did Starmer know?’, then his account can at least be entertained within its own terms. ‘Nobody told me’ is, at a stretch, a statement capable of being true. Within the narrow framing that the broadcasters and mainstream press have consented to adopt, it is also at least a defence that can be dressed up and sent into battle. But if the question is ‘why did he not ask?’, there is no defence remaining to him at all. There is only a judgement, and a judgment of a particularly damning kind. 

A Prime Minister who appoints an ambassador already known, and known for years, to have been the intimate friend and longtime defender of a convicted serial child-rapist; who had been handed a report flagging his appointee’s “reputational risks” and “numerous conflicts of interest”; who had been warned that his nominee’s closeness to Jeffrey Epstein ran deeper and more incriminatingly than Mandelson had ever been willing to disclose — such a Prime Minister does not, in the ordinary course of things, simply forget to ask whether the developed vetting has come back clean.

He declines to ask, because the answer was never information he required in order to make the appointment. It was information he feared might prevent him from making it.

A deeper scandal

It fell to Gillian Keegan, of all people, to articulate on national television the moral conclusion that the Labour front bench has lacked either the honesty or the courage to reach. Starmer did not ask because, quite simply, he did not want to know. When a former Conservative education secretary is supplying the moral clarity absent from the governing party, the Prime Minister has a problem that no reshuffle can resolve.

The deeper scandal, however, lies not in the appointment itself, but in the factional machinery that produced it. Mandelson was not a rogue choice imposed upon a reluctant Prime Minister; he was the natural product of a governing project assembled, over several patient years, by Morgan McSweeney and the Labour Together operation — the same operation that installed Starmer in the leadership, purged the membership of its inconvenient dissenters, and reshaped the Parliamentary Labour Party in its own image.

An administration built by that faction was always going to appoint a Mandelson to Washington, because a Mandelson is precisely the kind of figure the faction exists to elevate: ideologically reliable, donor-friendly, and possessed of the right enemies. The failure to ask about the vetting was not a lapse of judgement within the system; it was the system producing exactly what it was designed to produce.

This is why the scandal cannot be contained by Starmer’s carefully staged contrition at the despatch box. The question he refused to ask in early 2025 is the same question that now hangs over every other appointment made under the same factional logic — the peerages, the advisers, the quiet sinecures distributed to men whose reputational baggage was known to everyone in Westminster long before the documents forced the issue into the open. The vetting architecture is merely the most convenient laundering mechanism. The factional architecture behind it is the real story.

The question itself will not go away. It cannot be withdrawn by a reshuffle, absorbed by a review, or buried by a press operation of the customary kind. It hangs, now, over everything this Prime Minister says and, more tellingly, over everything he does not.

Why didn’t the Prime Minister ask? Because he already knew the answer.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rares Cocilnau

Source link

Journalist Sangita Myska and former First Minister of Scotland Humza Yousaf were among those enraged by the rape and Islamophobic abuse of a Sikh woman, whom her white supremacist attacker, John Ashby, wrongly assumed to be Muslim, as well as the lack of mainstream accountability for him.

John Ashby: where’s the coverage?

Yousaf said the attack in Walsall, which took place last year, did not happen in a vacuum, arguing that this is what happens when hate is mainstreamed and when “cowards in suits pretend their words have no consequences.”

“Bloody Muslim bitch.”

That is what John Ashby shouted at his victim as he raped her

And while doing it screamed anti-Muslim abuse

Advertisement

This did not happen in a vacuumthe

This is what happens when hate is mainstreamed

When cowards in suits pretend their words have no consequences pic.twitter.com/C0LAcEGWU0

— Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) April 21, 2026

Advertisement

Myska decried the lack of coverage of the crime on front pages and the ” hateful rhetoric pumped out online and normalised by hard right politicians.”

This is John Ashby, the racist monster who raped a Sikh woman because he believed her to be Muslim. This image should be on the front page of every newspaper and online platform. His actions will have been fuelled by the hateful rhetoric pumped out online and normalised by hard… pic.twitter.com/e4yWBSKLEp

— Sangita Myska (@SangitaMyska) April 21, 2026

Narinder Kaur, broadcaster & social commentator, also asked why there was “no mainstream TV channel covering” the crime and trial.

I’m wondering why no mainstream TV channel are covering this? Or where the protests are ?
A Sikh woman was followed home and raped in a racially motivated attack because the predator thought she was Muslim.

The problem is men not religion. pic.twitter.com/t8PBXKbBL1

Advertisement

— Narinder Kaur (@narindertweets) April 21, 2026

In October 2025, in Walsall, John Ashby followed a Sikh woman home after she got off a bus. Armed with a two‑foot stick he picked up from the ground, he entered her property without her knowledge.

The Mirror reported that Ashby shouted “Bloody Muslim bitch” at his victim during the rape. The woman told him she was Sikh, but he did not care.

The BBC reported that Ashby ordered his victim to call him “the master.” After raping her, he made her lie on the bed and said he was there “to have fun,” while describing his genitals as “white British.”

He is going to be sentenced on Friday, April 24.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Fan group London Solidarity Football did an action over the weekend of 18-19 April. The group placed anti-Reform posters in bus stops outside football grounds around London. These included Millwall, Charlton, Crystal Palace, Arsenal, Leyton Orient and West Ham.

The posters carry an image of Reform’s grifter-in-chief Nigel Farage signing one of his ridiculous ‘football shirts’. He’s wearing a MAGA-style red cap that says: “Make my chums rich again”. The poster carries the text:

SCRAPPING WORKERS RIGHTS

SELLING OFF PUBLIC SERVICES

MAKING FAMILIES POORER

BLAMING IT ON IMMIGRANTS

All with a tick. Followed by:

DECLARING HIS INCOME

With a cross after it.

Then in large letters above the image of Farage, it says:

THIS TRANSFER WINDOW, DONT SIGN THIS FRAUD

The message ahead of the local elections on 7 May couldn’t be clearer. Reform has nothing to offer to football fans. Or anyone else. Except maybe the super-wealthy.

London Solidarity Football issued a statement:

We are a group of football fans from different clubs united in solidarity. We reject right wing influence in society and specifically in football.

Nigel Farage has made some pathetic attempts at using football to sanitise his image and endear himself to working class people. He sells ‘Reform FC’ shirts and recently went on a stadium tour at Ipswich Town.

This is the same man who said ‘politics has no place in football’ when players took the knee in support of Black Lives Matter. Nigel is no football fan and is more regularly seen at fox hunts.

We took this action ahead of the local elections on May 7. We encourage all football fans to reject the anti-immigration politics of the 1% and stand together with the fans and players from different races, religions and cultures that make their clubs what they are.

Advertisement

London Solidarity Football was referencing Farage’s visit to Ipswich Town’s Portman Road ground. That turned into a PR nightmare for everyone involved with a mess of contradictory claims. Local rivals Norwich City were quick to suggest the Reform bandwagon wouldn’t be welcome at their house:

Book a stadium tour of Carrow Road – new dates now available.

Terms and conditions will most definitely apply

— Norwich City FC (@NorwichCityFC) March 24, 2026

And when Farage hinted at attending a Sunderland match, fans were quick to let him know what they thought. It seems that many footy fans want nothing to do with Reform’s politics of division, fear and hate. They’d much prefer it if Farage actually did what he once said and kept politics out of football.

Featured image via London Solidarity Football

By The Canary

Source link