Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Politics

Mandelson piece published by Murdoch rag despite scandal

Published

on

Mandelson piece published by Murdoch rag despite scandal

Here at the Canary, we’ve long criticised Rupert Murdoch and his grotty tabloid (the Sun) and his grotty broadsheet (the Times). We’ve got to admit, though; even we didn’t think they’d publish a puff piece on Peter Mandelson in the middle of his Epstein-stoked mega downfall:

Just when you think the British media can’t sink any lower, the floor falls out from under your feet.

Mandelson — Good lord, what now?

To quickly get you up to speed:

Digitally, we’ve had access to the Mandelson interview since the 2 November. We also had access to the pictures. And while the interview seemed ill-judged at the time, it’s so much fucking worse to publish a printed copy several days later.

Advertisement

Just look at this cunt:

People have tried to give a more honest impression of who Mandelson is:

When we say the interview was ‘ill advised’, what we mean is it provided the notorious liar Mandelson with yet another opportunity to lie to the public:

Advertisement

We detailed Mandelson’s slimy excuses here.

As we also reported, Mandelson sent a notice out to media outlets on 6 Feb begging the press not to hold him to account. And yet a day later:

Advertisement

Stop giving him oxygen

The only further opportunity Mandelson should have to lie to the public is in court, where he will be put on trial for the soon-to-be-unveilled crime of ‘Mandelsoning with intent‘.

Oh, and also for misconduct in public office (a crime which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison 🤗):

Featured image via Times scan

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Iran mocks Trump’s batshit Hormuz plan

Published

on

Iran mocks Trump's batshit Hormuz plan

Iran are mocking Donald Trump’s claim he is planning to impose a blockade on ships leaving or entering the Strait of Hormuz if Iran doesn’t give up its own control of who can pass along its coastline. Trump made the threat after his ‘three stooges’ team of amateur negotiators failed to bluster Iran’s diplomats into accepting the US’s demands for capitulation in talks in Pakistan.

The Iranian embassy in Thailand, for example, referred to Iran’s total victory in the online propaganda war and its hugely viral ‘Lego’ style videos. The embassy’s X account said Trump’s plan is “so comical we don’t even have a meme for it”:

Iran’s embassy in Zimbabwe chipped in with a reminder who’s really in charge of Trump’s administration:

Advertisement

China and Russia have free access to the Strait because they have supported Iran rather than those waging criminal war against it. Trump may well be ridiculous enough to think he can get away with attacking their ships trying to go about their lawful business – but he would soon get an education in reality.

Toxic clown says what?

Featured image via X

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

The House Article | “Expertly told”: Emma Foody reviews ‘Margaret Bondfield’

Published

on

'Expertly told': Emma Foody reviews 'Margaret Bondfield'
'Expertly told': Emma Foody reviews 'Margaret Bondfield'

1910: Emmeline Pankhurst (left) listens as Margaret Bondfield (right) makes a speech | Image by: Mirrorpix / Alamy


3 min read

Nan Sloane has produced a fascinating biography of an extraordinary working-class woman

Advertisement

There are two Labour women who have shaped my political life – and indeed the lives of many of my colleagues – more than any others: Margaret Bondfield and Nan Sloane. Bringing them together in Nan’s new biography of Bondfield feels like a Labour Party version of Avengers Assemble.

Most of us know Nan as the driving force behind the Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme. She has guided more women toward the green benches than I could possibly count. That she has used her formidable skills to shine a light on the pioneers who came before us, ensuring the stories of Labour women aren’t just remembered but heard, is a testament to her.

Margaret Bondfield’s list of ‘firsts’ is remarkable, but her life before Westminster was arguably even more radical. She was a powerhouse in the trade union movement, famously going undercover to expose the shocking conditions women faced on and beyond the shop floor.

Advertisement

 She rose through the ranks of the predecessor to today’s Usdaw, rising to the senior leadership team, becoming the first woman delegate to the TUC Conference and eventually the first woman to chair the TUC.

Her parliamentary career was a series of broken glass ceilings – the first woman to speak from the despatch box, the first female Cabinet minister, and the first female privy counsellor.

Her parliamentary career was a series of broken glass ceilings

Advertisement

Yet this book isn’t just a dry tally of milestones but rather a testimony to the grit it took to get there. My favourite story in the book captures this perfectly, where Bondfield joined the shopworkers’ union after spotting an advert for it in the newspaper her chips were wrapped in during a lunch break. 

It’s such a brilliantly ordinary moment, but it sparked a life of extraordinary public service.

Nan expertly shows how Bondfield’s politics were rooted in the precariousness of working-class life. Growing up with the very real fear of the workhouse, she understood how quickly a life could be upended by low wages or uncertain employment. That sense of insecurity stayed with her throughout her career. Her politics were never academic – they were grounded in the material realities of working families and, specifically, working women.

Advertisement

Margaret Bondfield coverShe was a fearless risk-taker, though she doesn’t always fit a neat “feminist” mould. She wasn’t a suffragette; she believed that extending the franchise to all – including the working class and not just middle-class property owners – was the only way to truly serve the interests of working-class women. Certainly she made mistakes and took positions that don’t always hold up a century later, but her impact is undeniable.

I do wonder what she would make of today’s landscape – particularly our New Deal for Working People. To see us finally delivering on the issues she was campaigning for a 100 years ago shows that while times change, the fault lines remain the same.

It’s been a century since Margaret Bondfield first represented my constituency. As her successor, and as a proud member of both the shopworkers’ union and the Co-op Party, I feel a deep responsibility. Our movement is the most important vehicle for change we have, and I’m going to work every single day to make sure I live up to the standard she set.

Emma Foody is Labour ( Co-op) MP for Cramlington and Killingworth

Margaret Bondfield: The Life and Times of Britain’s First Female Cabinet Minister

By: Nan Sloane

Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Streeting monstered in new row with Polanski and the Greens

Published

on

Streeting monstered in new row with Polanski and the Greens

On Sunday 12 April, we reported that Wes Streeting is once again gearing up for a leadership challenge. Should Streeting become PM, he would have two key opponents: Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski. If you’re wondering how well Streeting would do against the latter, please see the below:

Polanski and titnotherapy

When Zack Polanski became the Green Party leader, the Labour Party immediately launched what they believed would be a devastating line of attack. According to them, Polanski had once tried to hypnotise women into have larger breasts. As Ed Sykes reported for us in September 2025, Polanski:

clarified that he never believed he could enlarge breasts with hypnotherapy, that he never charged people to try and do it, that the Sun misrepresented him, and that he had apologised a day later. He even got a few laughs by saying “lots of men got in touch with me asking if I could help with other body parts”.

Since Labour launched this attack, Polanski has more than quadrupled his party’s membership; he’s also pulled ahead of Labour in the polls.

Advertisement

How have Labour responded to this new reality?

As you can see above, by repeating the same smear which has had zero impact on Polanski’s standing:

When Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour leader, there was a popular meme which told the following story:

Advertisement

Tony Blair: You should be more right-wing.

Jeremy Corbyn: You should be in prison.

Tony Blair: *HANGS HEAD IN SHAME*

We’re seeing something similar with Streeting.

Advertisement

He knows he has to take the fight to the Greens, but his record in office means he’s fighting with both arms tied behind his back and a handgun in his mouth.

Clearly, being connected to Peter Mandelson is much, much worse than anything Polanski has ever done. Mandelson literally referred to himself as the Prince of Darkness and as a practitioner of the ‘Dark Arts’, which is a big step up from hypnotherapy, no?

It doesn’t end with Mandelson, either. Streeting is up to his eyeballs in donations from private health vultures, as James Wright reported for the Canary on 1 April 2025:

Health secretary Wes Streeting accepted over £50,000 from a company with links to private healthcare recruitment on 3 February. Not long after on 18 February, Streeting announced he was abolishing NHS England and cutting 9,000 public jobs. This raises the question of whether the private sector would replace the public sector job cuts, with the Labour Party already increasing private provision of NHS services under Keir Starmer.

Oh, and there’s also this:

Advertisement

Red hands or Green fingers

Keir Starmer’s Labour operation is one of the most hated governments we’ve ever had, and Streeting is a key cog in that machine.

He’s delusional if he thinks there’s some clever attack line which will make voters forget who he is or what he’s done. He’s not delusional to think he could replace Starmer, however, as Streeting is precisely the sort of slug who does well in the Labour Party.

This is why they’re about to get wiped out in the local elections.

Advertisement

Featured image via Barold

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Katy Perry And Justin Trudeau Enjoy Justin Bieber’s Coachella Set Together

Published

on

Another candid snap of Katy Perry at Justin Trudeau together at Coachella

Katy Perry has treated her social media followers to fresh photos of herself enjoying the Coachella music festival with her new boyfriend, Justin Trudeau.

Last year, the Grammy-nominated singer and former world leader made headlines the world over when it was reported that they’d been pictured on a date while she was on a Canadian stop on her world tour.

Since then, Katy and the ex-Canadian prime minister have been sighted together on a number of occasions, and over the weekend, she proved things were still going strong between them with a carousel of pictures and videos taken at Coachella.

One clip showed the two watching the headlining set from another Canadian Justin – that’d be The Biebs, who performed at Coachella on Saturday night – while in another candid snap, the two were seen enjoying a drink and some noodles together.

Advertisement

Katy’s post also included more clips from Justin Bieber’s headlining set, as well as footage of herself sporting a t-shirt emblazoned with the message: “Please do not give me a rip off your vape no matter what I say.”

Another candid snap of Katy Perry at Justin Trudeau together at Coachella
Another candid snap of Katy Perry at Justin Trudeau together at Coachella

After months of speculation, the unexpected couple went Instagram official with their romance towards the end of last year, with Katy later sharing a picture of herself planting a kiss on her new beau while they were on holiday together in January.

The new couple were first rumoured to be dating in the summer of 2025, just weeks after Katy and her long-term partner Orlando confirmed they had parted ways after around a decade together.

Katy and Orlando insisted at the time that they would remain in one another’s lives, and shortly afterwards, they remained true to their word when they shared pictures of themselves on holiday together with their daughter Daisy, as well as Orlando’s two children Daisy and Flynn.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, before his new relationship, Trudeau had been single for around two and a half years, following the announcement in August 2023 that he and his wife of 18 years, Sophie Grégoire, had separated.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Keir Starmer Rejects Donald Trumps Iran Blockade Plan

Published

on

Keir Starmer Rejects Donald Trumps Iran Blockade Plan

Keir Starmer has rejected Donald Trump’s plan to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and insisted the UK will not be “getting dragged in” to the Iran war.

The US president announced on Sunday that America and “other countries” will stop ships going in and out of the vital waterway.

The US military later clarified that while it will blockade of Iranian ports from 2pm on Monday UK time, it will “not impede” ships using the strait to get to or from other countries.

But regardless of the finer details of Trump’s plan, Starmer made clear that the UK will not be getting involved.

Advertisement

He told BBC Radio 5Live: “What we’ve been doing over the last few weeks – and this was part of what I was discussing with the Gulf states last week – is bringing countries together to keep the strait open, not shut.”

The PM added: “We’re not supporting the blockade and all of the marshalling diplomatically, politically and capability – we do have mine-sweeping capability, I won’t go into operational matters, but we do have that capability – that’s all focused, from our point of view, on getting the strait fully open.”

Starmer’s comments are further evidence of the breakdown in relations between Britain and America over the war.

Trump has repeatedly attacked the prime minister over his decision not to initially allow US jets to launch bombing missions from RAF bases.

Advertisement

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Remember Wearing Dresses Over Jeans? It Was More Feminist Than You Realised

Published

on

An illustration from 1851 that shows a woman wearing "bloomers" — named after Amelia Jenks Bloomer, a women's rights proponent who did not invent the costume but advocated for it as a more comfortable and practical style of clothing for women.

When talking about early 2000s style trends, you’d be remiss not to mention the reign of “jeans and a going-out top.”

This outfit staple allowed people to show off designer jeans while experimenting with a variety of tops from fast-fashion retailers. But a related trend brought this two-piece look to another level: dresses over jeans.

Between 2002 and 2005 in particular, celebrities paired an array of dresses with denim during public appearances. The dresses ranged from colourful halters to neutral minis to those classic strapless terrycloth numbers from Juicy Couture. In 2019, actor Jessica Alba poked fun at the look when she posted a Instagram roundup of photos of herself wearing it, writing in the caption, “In the early 2000s – Apparently, I loved to wear dresses w jeans … you’re welcome.”

Turns out, this type of outfit is more of a throwback than you might think. It goes far back in history and even has roots in the women’s rights movement.

Advertisement

The Appeal Of The Combo

As is often the case with style trends, the dress-over-jeans look wasn’t confined to red carpets. Non-celebrities embraced this pairing for their everyday lives in the early aughts as well.

“That was definitely one of my go-to looks when I was in high school. I can remember wearing sneakers and bootcut jeans with knee-length frilly dresses, which were often embellished with lace and glitter,” said Sara Idacavage, a fashion historian and researcher in the textiles, merchandising and interiors department at the University of Georgia.

“I think I was attracted to this style because it allowed me to be dressy, but not too dressy,” she added. “I loved wearing party dresses to school, but I don’t think it would have been seen as ‘appropriate’ without the jeans underneath. The dress-and-jean combo helped me look like I wasn’t trying too hard, which is actually why I think the look was popular with female celebrities at the time.”

Advertisement

Besides balancing between dressy and casual, the juxtaposition of super feminine dresses with denim pants also offered “a cheeky way of playing with gender norms,” Idacavage said, adding that the trend coincided nicely with the third-wave feminist movement and allowed women to channel a little rebellious spirit.

On a practical level, wearing a dress over jeans allowed for more freedom of movement since it erased fears of accidental flashing or Marilyn moments. It also allowed Disney stars such as Ashley Tisdale and Miley Cyrus give their outfits a more wholesome vibe at the time.

The History Of The Look

Today, we might chuckle at old photos of celebrities wearing dresses over pants — but back in the mid-19th century, this combo was downright scandalous.

Advertisement

“In 1850s America, women’s rights activists such as Amelia Jenks Bloomer and Elizabeth Cady Stanton horrified polite society with their controversial pairing of what at that time were two distinctively gendered garments,” said Cassidy Zachary, a fashion historian and co-creator of the podcast “Dressed: The History of Fashion.”

The dress reform movement, aka the rational dress movement, took off in the United States and parts of Europe during the Victorian era when women wore heavy dresses and restrictive corsets, which led to overheating, difficulty breathing, tripping down the stairs, crushed organs and other medical issues. The goal was to liberate women from attire that directly harmed their health and limited their freedom.

“These early suffragists intended their adoption of a calf-length dress worn over a pair of loose-fitting ‘Turkish trousers’ or ‘pantaloons’ to be a comfortable and practical alternative to the cumbersome floor-length skirts then in vogue,” Zachary said, adding that the controversial choice was perceived as a direct assault on the strict gender norms that divided women from men and regulated their lives.

“Dress-and-pant-wearing women became the subject of international ridicule, with innumerable satirical prints mocking a farcical world where gender roles were reversed: Women smoked cigars and proposed to men who stayed home, cooked, and took care of the children,” she continued. “It is amazing to consider how many social anxieties were embodied in this one garment.”

Advertisement

The ensemble of trousers gathered at the ankle under a loose dress was often referred to as a “bloomer” costume, named for the aforementioned activist, who popularised the look with her enthusiastic articles on its benefits in her newspaper, The Lily.

An illustration from 1851 that shows a woman wearing "bloomers" — named after Amelia Jenks Bloomer, a women's rights proponent who did not invent the costume but advocated for it as a more comfortable and practical style of clothing for women.

Library of Congress via Getty Images

An illustration from 1851 that shows a woman wearing “bloomers” — named after Amelia Jenks Bloomer, a women’s rights proponent who did not invent the costume but advocated for it as a more comfortable and practical style of clothing for women.

“Bloomer costumes echoed the full silhouette that was popular in Western fashion at the time, but allowed for greater comfort and ease of movement by swapping layers of heavy petticoats for loose pants,” Idacavage said. “Aside from the obvious differences in materials and silhouettes, I think the bloomer costume is actually quite similar to the dress-over-jeans look of the early 2000s!”

Ultimately, the hoopla around this ensemble made activists like Bloomer concerned that their bid for comfortable attire was distracting from the bigger cause of women’s rights, so they eased away from the rational dress aspect of the movement.

While the dresses-with-pants trend was a notable moment in the West during the mid-19th century, women were actually wearing dresses and tunics over trousers long before that era and in many other parts of the world.

Advertisement

“As the term ‘Turkish trousers’ suggests, women in pants found precedent well beyond Euro-American society, including in nomadic horse cultures of Central Asia,” Zachary said. Similarly, Idacavage pointed to the salwar kameez in Central and South Asia.

Back in the West, American and European women wore trousers with dresses to costume parties for many years before suffragists adopted the combo for their everyday wardrobes.

“You can find fashion plates from the 1810s that depict women wearing full trousers called ‘pantalets’ or ‘pantaloons’ underneath calf-length dresses. The style wasn’t extremely popular or considered appropriate for daily dress, but it did exist,” Idacavage said.

The historian added that 19th-century childrenswear for both boys and girls often consisted of short dresses over pantalets as well. Additionally, American women often wore pant-and-skirt ensembles at swimming and water-cure establishments.

Advertisement

“Dresses over pants were also worn by women living in certain religious and utopian communities in the U.S. long before Amelia Bloomer popularized the look,” she continued. “It was also accepted as proper attire for women participating in sports throughout the 19th century, although wearing it outside of gymnasiums is a very different story!”

The Future Of Dresses Over Pants

As with the “going-out top” and other early 2000s style trends, the dresses-over-jeans look faded over time. But it seems this pairing may be making a comeback in the 2020s.

Lately, many runway shows and style influencers have sported long tunics and dresses over pants, including jeans. But these looks have an updated vibe with long shirt dresses unbuttoned at the bottom, monochrome combos, minis with volume, layered looks and more.

Advertisement
The dress-over-jeans look is reappearing in 2021 street style.
The dress-over-jeans look is reappearing in 2021 street style.

But Zachary believes the more pertinent conversation right now is less about the way women style their dresses with pants and more about how those who don’t identify as female might do the same.

“My question is this: With women flaunting their right to wear both garments by the 2000s, when will the same be said of her male or nongender-conforming peers?” Zachary said.

“It’s 2021, and while the pant has inarguably lost its gendered status, the same cannot be said of the skirt and dress, although we are seeing promising strides,” she added. “From actor Billie Porter’s crinoline tux gown at the 2019 Oscars to nongender-conforming artist and activist Alok Vaid-Menon’s #DeGenderFashion movement, I hope the next resurgence of the dress-pant trend will be one worn and enjoyed by all.”

The original version of this story was published on HuffPost at an earlier date.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home | Housing insecurity is not inevitable: here’s how social impact investment can help tackle it

Published

on

Housing insecurity is not inevitable: here’s how social impact investment can help tackle it
Housing insecurity is not inevitable: here’s how social impact investment can help tackle it

Drew Ritchie, Investment Director



Drew Ritchie, Investment Director
| Better Society Capital (BSC)

Advertisement

The UK’s housing crisis costs English councils £2.8bn annually, affecting 134,000 households. Social impact investment offers proven, cost-effective alternatives, with existing models saving £140m in taxpayer funds while keeping thousands out of temporary accommodation

Temporary accommodation (TA) is no longer a stopgap – it is the fastest growing housing tenure in the United Kingdom, with councils in England spending £2.8bn a year on TA.1 The cost to families is higher still, with more than 134,000 households, including circa 176,000 children,2 living without a stable home and the conditions needed for good health, steady work, or financial security.

New findings from our Better Society Index, a nationwide audit of housing insecurity, show that instability affects far more people than official figures reflect. More than one in four people (27 per cent) report that they or someone close to them has experienced housing insecurity in the past five years, rising to 41 per cent among young people. Public understanding of funding streams – and the limits of current resources – remains low.

Advertisement

Yet over the past decade, evidence has emerged that better, more cost-effective alternatives exist. Social impact investment brings in capital from outside the public purse, including from pension funds, trusts and foundations, and financial institutions, giving councils access to funding they would not otherwise have. Critically, it also funds the wraparound support that statutory budgets do not cover – mental health services, tenancy support, and the practical help that keeps people housed and out of crisis. This money is channelled into proven models led by housing associations and charities, expanding the supply of safe and stable homes.

These models are already working at scale. Homelessness property funds run by Resonance, Social and Sustainable Capital, and Bridges have kept more than 3,300 people out of TA, generating £140m in savings for taxpayers from reduced costs in healthcare, mental health services and the criminal justice system.3 Strong evidence also comes from the MHCLG backed Social Investment Pilot (SIP), delivered during Covid-19. The pilot combined a £25m government grant, matched by Better Society Capital, with £215m of additional investment, including £85m from Local Government Pension Schemes (LGPS).4 Independent evaluation by Manchester Metropolitan University showed improvements in tenancy sustainment, wellbeing and service efficiency, and substantial cost savings to taxpayers compared to private rented or TA provision. 

A complementary model, social outcomes partnerships (SOPs), sees government and/or local authorities commission outcomes for people with complex needs before they reach crisis point. Charities or social enterprises can receive upfront working capital from socially motivated investors to deliver services supporting these individuals. Government outcomes payments are only made once independently verified results are achieved, meaning the financial risk sits with investors rather than the public purse. Successful programmes such as Greater Manchester Better Outcomes Partnership (GMBOP) and Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership (KBOP) demonstrate that outcomes-based commissioning improves service quality and reduces long-term public costs; independent research shows every £1 spent generates £9 of public value.5 The £500m Better Futures Fund, announced by the Chancellor and due to launch in the coming months, creates the conditions to scale these approaches. MPs have a role to play in ensuring the Fund delivers for their constituents by championing local engagement and raising awareness.

Advertisement

Housing insecurity on this scale is not inevitable, with proven models increasing the supply of safe, stable homes and supporting people before instability becomes crisis. If government wants to reduce housing insecurity and spend public money more effectively, the path forward is to scale models already working and bring social impact investment into the mainstream of UK housing policy.

To find out more about BSC’s work on homelessness, please visit www.bettersocietycapital.com/our-approach/housing or reach out to [email protected].

Better Society Capital is a social impact investor, deploying capital through fund managers, social banks and intermediaries, and working with government and social sector organisations, to tackle the most pressing social challenges facing the UK.

References

1. Shelter; Bill for homeless accommodation soars by 25%, hitting £2.8 bn. 18 Sept 2025

2. MHCLG; Statutory homelessness in England: July to September 2025. 26 Feb 2026

3. Resonance; Better Society Capital & Alma Economics Report

4. Better Society Capital; Study finds Social Investment Pilot continues to increase support for people with experience of homelessness. 03 April 2025

5. Better Society Capital; New research shows how outcomes contracts can save the NHS. 11 June 2024

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Sabrina Carpenter Apologises After Insulting Fan’s Zaghrouta Celebration At Coachella

Published

on

Sabrina Carpenter Apologises After Insulting Fan's Zaghrouta Celebration At Coachella

Sabrina Carpenter has apologised after insulting one fan who performed an Arabic vocal celebration during her Coachella set.

On Friday night, the Espresso singer delivered her first headlining performance at the Coachella music festival, where she whizzed through all of her biggest hits and was joined on stage by a number of surprise guests.

During a quieter moment of the set, Sabrina was seemingly taken aback when she heard someone in the crowd doing a zaghrouta, a vocal trill often heard at Arabic celebrations.

“I think I heard someone yodel,” she responded. “Is that what you’re doing? I don’t like it.”

Advertisement

When the fan in question shouted back that the gesture was part of their “culture”, the Grammy winner retorted: “That’s your culture? Yodelling? Is this Burning Man? What’s going on? This is weird.”

Footage of the incident was then circulated online, with one since-deleted clip racking up 30 million views on X alone.

Responding to one critic accusing her of being “insensitive and Islamophobic”, Sabrina wrote back on Saturday night: “My apologies, I didn’t see this person with my eyes and couldn’t hear clearly. My reaction was pure confusion, sarcasm and not ill intended.”

She then conceded that she “could have handled it better” now that she knows “what a Zaghrouta is”.

Advertisement

“I welcome all cheers and yodels from here on out,” Sabrina added.

my apologies i didn’t see this person with my eyes and couldn’t hear clearly. my reaction was pure confusion, sarcasm and not ill intended. could have handled it better! now i know what a Zaghrouta is!
I welcome all cheers and yodels from here on out https://t.co/f3KuT8sggH

— Sabrina Carpenter (@SabrinaAnnLynn) April 11, 2026

Joining Sabrina as headliners at Coachella this year were Justin Bieber – who raised eyebrows with his own low-key set ending with him scrolling YouTube and singing along with some of his own hits on Saturday – and Karol G.

Sabrina’s set featured elaborate performances of hits including Espresso, Manchild and Taste, as well as on-stage appearances from Will Ferrell, Susan Sarandon and her former Disney Channel co-star Corey Fogelmanis.

Advertisement

Coachella will return for its second weekend of 2026 later this week.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

People Who ‘Convinced’ Their Partners To Open Their Relationships Share How That Went For Them

Published

on

The decision to open up your relationship to others shouldn't be taken lightly, but it doesn't necessarily need to be a scary thing.

For some couples, the most terrifying conversation isn’t “Where is this going?” but “What if we didn’t do this the way everyone else does?”

For people who suggest opening a relationship, the motivation is rarely casual curiosity. It often comes at moments of emotional reckoning. Typically it’s brought up when something feels unsustainable, unspoken or untrue in the relationship. And while non-monogamy is often framed as either getting to have “more sex” or a guaranteed disaster, the reality tends to be far more complex.

Unlike swinging, where sex with others is usually limited to parties and purely physical, or polyamory, where people pursue multiple committed relationships, open relationships fall somewhere in between — allowing sexual freedom while keeping a primary partnership intact.

Research shows open relationships aren’t as uncommon as you might think. About 1 in 5 adults has tried some form of non-monogamy, and surveys suggest younger adults are more open to it than older generations. While only a small percentage are currently in open relationships, growing acceptance and less stigma in media might explain why more people are willing to explore them.

Advertisement
The decision to open up your relationship to others shouldn't be taken lightly, but it doesn't necessarily need to be a scary thing.

Medioimages/Photodisc via Getty Images

The decision to open up your relationship to others shouldn’t be taken lightly, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be a scary thing.

Like most relationships, open relationships are not without its challenges — and rewards.

Below, relationship experts and coaches share what really happened when they suggested opening their relationships and what they learned along the way.

‘I thought non-monogamy might save my marriage.’

Clinical sex and relationship expert Courtney Boyer suggested opening her marriage after nearly two decades together.

Advertisement

“On our 17th wedding anniversary, I was the one who suggested opening our marriage,” she said. “I believed it was the only way to save our marriage.”

From the outside, her life appeared stable. “On paper and online, my marriage looked wonderful,” she explains. But internally, she felt “incredibly empty and unfulfilled,” carrying the emotional labor of her family while “slowly disappearing from my own life.”

At the time, an open relationship felt less like a lifestyle shift and more like survival. “I saw it as a lifeline,” Boyer said. “I wanted to feel wanted, desired and alive in my body again without blowing up my family.”

The decision itself wasn’t immediate. “It was a long, painful conversation that unfolded over six months,” she explains. What ultimately moved things forward wasn’t logic but the visible change her husband noticed in her: “Every time I talked about non-monogamy, I came back to myself in a way I hadn’t in years, and my husband could not deny the light he saw in my eyes when I did.”

Advertisement

Once the relationship opened, Boyer said, the hope that it would fix everything disappeared. “The fantasy that opening the relationship would fix what was broken fell apart quickly. Instead, everything percolated to the top: resentment, avoidance and emotional distance. Opening didn’t create new problems; it removed the buffers that had kept us from facing the old ones. We could no longer ignore the problems that had led us to where we were.”

She was surprised by the guilt that followed. “Being the one who wanted this, who was dating while my husband wasn’t, triggered so much shame. I also didn’t expect how hard it would be to ask for what I wanted or admit disappointment. Purity culture had taught me to be grateful for crumbs and call it love. My poor relationship with my body also emerged as I began dating and wondering if I was even desirable.”

Over time, their boundaries evolved. “Early on, we relied on distance that gave my husband a sense of safety, predictability and control. He wanted few details and to keep things separate (often referred to as parallel polyamory). Over time, I realised that silence wasn’t safety. Real boundaries required honesty, repair and the willingness to sit with discomfort instead of managing it away.”

“Every time I talked about non-monogamy, I came back to myself in a way I hadn’t in years, and my husband could not deny the light he saw in my eyes when I did.”

Advertisement

– Courtney Boyer, clinical sex & relationship expert

There were benefits too: “Well, our sex life exploded. The erotic energy I carried from being able to live authentically overflowed into all facets of my life. This allowed me to connect with my desire, my voice, without feeling shame. I stopped seeing myself only through the lens of being chosen or approved of. Even when it was painful, I felt more alive and more honest than I ever had inside monogamy.”

Opening the relationship also clarified her needs and values. “It showed me how deeply I had been conditioned to self-abandon in order to be loved. I learned that I need emotional presence, curiosity and accountability, not just longevity. I also learned that hoping someone will change is not the same as asking for what you need.”

Looking back, Boyer has no regrets, and said she would choose to do it again. “Yes. A million times, yes. Not because it was easy or because it led to a tidy outcome — but because it brought me back to myself. Opening our marriage cracked open the life I had been enduring and forced me to confront who I actually was. Whatever happens next, I’m no longer living inside a cage I mistook for safety. My husband has also completely transformed because he was finally forced to face his own fears. I’m so proud of the life we’ve created and the chapter of life we’re writing.”

Advertisement

Opening our relationship showed me what was already broken.’

For Ally Iseman, an ICF-certified relationship coach and founder of Passport2Pleasure, the relationship she opened wasn’t a marriage — but it was deeply formative.

“I was two years into an exclusive monogamous relationship,” she said. “I brought it up.”

Her partner traveled often, and the idea of him connecting with others excited her. “What I thought was jealousy I now know to be compersion,” she said, describing joy derived from a partner’s pleasure. “I was wanting to further explore the erotic potential of those feelings in a secure relationship.”

Advertisement

But while the idea felt expansive to her, the conversations, she said, were lacking: “We had a few surface-level conversations that never went particularly well. We didn’t talk about enough specifics, and we both could have done a much better job trying to understand each other.”

When they finally acted on the agreement, the emotional fallout was immediate. “He had the opportunity to connect with someone else while on a work trip, with my full blessing and excitement. They ended up staying up all night talking. I had an opportunity later on while he was away on another trip. … My partner gave me what he called his ‘green light,’ and I had a wonderful time with my friend.”

When Iseman called to check in afterward, she was met with silence — and then anger. “When I called him after leaving my friend’s place, as we had discussed doing, I was overflowing, filled and bursting with love for my partner, but I was met with dead silence on the phone. And then all he said was, ‘I can’t believe you did it.’ He had some pretty serious anger-management issues already, so it was not a fun conversation, nor were the next few weeks.”

An open relationship can make some partners feel closer, but it can also help reveal cracks you weren't necessarily acknowledging.

Sergio Mendoza Hochmann via Getty Images

An open relationship can make some partners feel closer, but it can also help reveal cracks you weren’t necessarily acknowledging.

Outside reflection helped clarify boundaries. “We sought counsel from the friends who had introduced us, a monogamous married couple. Their reflection was a HUGE catalyst for me, both enabling me to leave what I now know was an abusive relationship, in order to explore my own needs, desires, and sexual and relational identity. They said that even though they could never open up their own marriage in that way, that I was acting within the agreement we had made together. And because of that, they said my partner didn’t have the right to make me wrong for wanting to explore something we agreed to.”

Advertisement

The relationship ended a few weeks later. “That initial partnership ended a few weeks after opening up, and it was very much the right thing to do. It did not end because we opened up; we were not compatible, and there were unhealthy emotional patterns as well.”

Today, Iseman has continued exploring consensual non-monogamy. “I feel much more secure knowing what’s going on, even if it makes me feel uncomfortable or hurts. Knowing I’m in a dynamic with someone(s) who are committed to being with me through uncomfortable discussions gives me such a deep sense of security.”

She emphasises the importance of autonomy and choice and how “grounding” it can be to know her relationships are built on all parties choosing to be there, not “obligation.”

“If my partners are interested in being with someone else, they are welcome to be. They don’t need to leave me in order to do so,” she said. “The only reason they would ever have to leave is because either or both of us no longer want to be with each other. Our relationship has nothing to do with what we do or don’t do with others.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Critics Pounce After Trump Posts ‘Blasphemous’ New Image Of Himself

Published

on

Donald Trump on Truth Social

President Donald Trump on Sunday night took a break from his new feud with Pope Leo XIV to apparently offer Christians an alternative: himself.

The president posted an image on Orthodox Easter depicting himself as Jesus Christ, or someone very much like Christ.

Trump in the image is decked out in white robes with a red sash as light emerges from his hands. One of those hands is on a man sick in bed, who in turn glows with an apparent healing light as a woman gazes at the scene with her hands locked in prayer.

There are also silhouettes of military figures in the sky above as well as eagles, fighter jets, fireworks, a giant flag, and more in the image. The post has some of the hallmarks of AI including distorted fingers, the incorrect number of stars on the U.S. flag and gibberish text on a man’s hat:

Advertisement
Donald Trump on Truth Social
Donald Trump on Truth Social

Trump and his team have a long history of posting over-the-top images of the president, with past pictures depicting him as Superman, on Mount Rushmore, and as the pope.

But showing himself as Christ or a Christ-like figure crossed a line for many.

“It’s more than blasphemy,” former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a one-time Trump supporter who has since turned critic, wrote on X. “It’s an Antichrist spirit.”

Others across the political spectrum also slammed the president for posting the image:

This is blasphemous

Trump portraying himself as Jesus Christ, descending from the clouds, healing the sick, with people praying to him, is reprehensible.

Advertisement

If only there was a qualified leader of the White House Faith Office, and not a heretic, so this wouldn’t happen or at… pic.twitter.com/cGAJZn3E1o

— Jon Root (@JonnyRoot_) April 13, 2026

There is behavior that’s so self-evidently deranged that merely seeing it should lead to fury and disgust. I’m concerned, however, that some evangelicals are so influenced by Trump that they won’t unite with their Catholic brothers and sisters in response to Trump’s blasphemy and… pic.twitter.com/Cd3s3ovb3t

— David French (@DavidAFrench) April 13, 2026

I’m not sure it has broken through to the general public that the president is a megalomaniac crazy person. Hopefully posts like this help. pic.twitter.com/7diVJG0hyo

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 13, 2026

Advertisement

I don’t know if the President thought he was being funny or if he is under the influence of some substance or what possible explanation he could have for this OUTRAGEOUS blasphemy. But he needs to take this down immediately and ask for forgiveness from the American people and… https://t.co/scsXaj6Rey

— Megan Basham (@megbasham) April 13, 2026

This evening, the president posted this, literally presenting himself as Jesus. He’s not doing anything to stave off the anti-Christ allegations. If any Democrat president did this, Evangelical Christians would implode. But will they speak out against this? I highly doubt it. pic.twitter.com/c6vpE68M1d

— Rev. Benjamin Cremer (@Brcremer) April 13, 2026

I assume someone has already told him, but it behooves the President both spiritually and politically to delete the picture, no matter the intent.

— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) April 13, 2026

I’m not religious, but I respect the importance that faith plays in people’s lives. Posting an image of yourself as God is literally blasphemy. It shows a disregard for sacred imagery and, by extension, for the very concept of the divine. Trump should apologize.

— derek guy (@dieworkwear) April 13, 2026

Advertisement

Trump doesn’t see this as blasphemy because he actually believes he is God.

Liberals were right. https://t.co/CzRi51bz7D

— 𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐮𝐬 (@ImperiumFirst) April 13, 2026

To be clear, the Iranian mullah regime, which I hate, has never, ever posted anything this offensive to Jesus Christ and his most pure Mother.https://t.co/a0gfy0grZI

— John Schindler (@20committee) April 13, 2026

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025