Politics
Wings Over Scotland | All The Dirt From My Eyes
So, having made a statement on Monday morning which asserted that she wouldn’t make any further statements, then making another statement on Monday afternoon, Nicola Sturgeon and her solicitor issued a third statement in 36 hours last night.
And while we acknowledge that this is a very high bar to clear, it contained one of the most troubling and blatant lies she’s ever told.
The above is a claim so jaw-droppingly obviously completely false that we had to read it several times to check it really said what we thought it said. Because for a whole raft of reasons it was ABSOLUTELY Nicola Sturgeon’s role to sign off the SNP’s accounts in 2020, when the money stolen by Murrell became indisputably noticeable, and for several years thereafter.
Section 42(2)(b) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) requires a party’s accounts to be signed off “by the management committee of the party, if there is one, and otherwise by the registered leader of the party”.
In the SNP’s case that means by the “Party Officers”.
(Indeed, Sturgeon herself was the treasurer in the period in 2021 between Douglas Chapman resigning because he wasn’t allowed to see the books and the hapless obedient stooge Colin Beattie being reappointed to replace him.)
And the SNP’s financial filings throughout Sturgeon’s reign make clear that she, as one of those three party officers, did indeed approve the accounts personally, and that throughout the period in question they clearly show hundreds of thousands of pounds missing in the shape of the “ringfenced Independence Referendum Campaign Fund”, which should have stood at around £670,000.
Sturgeon is not only morally but legally responsible for those accounts. It was her job as party leader to notice that they only had £97,000 in the bank when they’d just raised nearly £700,000 that they weren’t allowed to have spent.
But as we know, she not only failed to do so but lied threateningly to both the Scottish public and her own National Executive Committee that there was no missing money and that the finances were the healthiest they’d ever been, even at the very moment the party’s treasurer and half of its Finance Committee publicly resigned in protest to draw attention to the problem.
There’s a big difference between not knowing something, and actively and stridently insisting to everyone in sight that the exact opposite thing is definitely true. And the statement from last night then says something even more extraordinary.
Hold on a moment. If you don’t know anything, how much of a “detailed written response” can you actually give? What would that look like?
“Dear The Police,
I know nothing. Not anything. No things. Zero things. None of the things. 0% of the things. Out of all the things, I don’t know any of them. The things are unknown to me. You know those things? Not me, I totally don’t. I categorically deny all knowledge of the things. Me? Know the things? No sir! I quite simply cannot emphasize strongly enough that I don’t know the things. I wasn’t aware the things existed. Do they even exist? It’d totally be news to me, Nicola Ferguson Sturgeon, former First Minister of Scotland, if they did. Because I don’t know any of them. What things are you even talking about? If I was to hold up a finger, of which I have eight plus two thumbs, for each of the things I knew, I’d be holding up no fingers. Or thumbs. At all.”
(Carries on for 17 more pages.)
We’re also fascinated by the use of the word “insisted”. Who was she insisting to? Were the police going “No, please don’t send us a detailed written response! We’re begging you!”, but she was all “No, I’m flipping well going to, whether you like it or not!”? Is that how we’re being asked to believe it went?
And if she was so insistent on answering their questions, why not just answer them in the seven hours she spent staring silently at a police station wall instead? It must have been an awfully boring day. Why wait until some unspecified later date and write them a letter? She was arrested by prior arrangement, five weeks after Murrell, so she had plenty of warning that she might be questioned and time to have the answers ready.
(We wonder what Sturgeon and Murrell discussed at dinner over those five weeks.)
There is of course a very easy way to prove that she sent that “detailed written response” – release it. There’s no possible reason not to. Murrell has already admitted his guilt and Sturgeon is no longer under investigation, so there’s no live case to prejudice. The full list of things Murrell bought with the stolen money (many of which she’s been personally pictured with) is already public, so there’s no danger of new embarrassment. And all it says is that she knows nothing anyway. What’s to fear?
She tells us she’s got nothing to hide. So show us. Show us how convincing your denials were. Show us just how fully you, as a responsible innocent citizen, member of Parliament, role model and key witness, co-operated with a police enquiry, beyond blanking all their questions for seven long hours.
The only reason we can think of is that every time Sturgeon opens her mouth about this case, she digs herself a deeper hole by telling more and more easily-provable lies. She lied about not being responsible for signing off the accounts. She lied about “co-operating fully” with the police. It looks like she lied about the campervan, the biggest single piece of Murrell’s booty.
Practically the only thing she’s told the truth about in the whole sordid business is that “Peter does most of the shopping in our family”.
Over the coming weeks and months Sturgeon is going to have to face some very awkward questions, particularly around the serious crime of reset.
So she may as well get ahead of the game and tell us now.
Or as the investigating officer might put it:
“And you say way too much
But still I need an answer, love
Still I need an answer, loveKindly be kind, wipe all the dirt from my eyes
I need an answer
I need an answer.”
What’s worse: cracking a lame joke about women being bad drivers or forcing women to live cheek-by-jowl with violent rapists? We all know the answer to this question. Yet the phoney moralists of the media classes are pretending they don’t. Hence, they’re gunning for Robert Kenyon while giving Andy Burnham the easiest, most obsequious ride a modern politician has ever had.
This is the latest storm to swirl around the Makerfield by-election. The offence archaeologists of the bourgeois press have unearthed the old digital ‘banter’ of Reform UK’s candidate up there, Mr Kenyon. In a rugby league online forum in 2019, he posted a comment saying women can’t ‘ref, drive or give directions’. He also said women have abortions for ‘vanity purposes’ so that they can ‘shag anyone they want’. In 2021, he responded to a twat on social media who said he wanted to ‘smell and lick’ Carol Vorderman’s ‘arsehole’ with the words: ‘He’s only saying what we’re all thinking.’
Bernard Manning called – he wants his routine back. Everyone knows this is crass blather, including a no doubt squirming Mr Kenyon. But there’s something about the digital inquisition of Reform’s man that is getting on my wick. It’s because his rival in Makerfield is Mr Burnham, a leading light in a party – Labour – that drank so deliriously from the Kool-Aid of crackpot gender ideology that it ended up actively endangering the women of Britain. When will the media’s self-styled warriors for womankind grill him?
Burnham was once a devotee of the most misogynistic idea of our time – that women should throw open their spaces to any cock in a frock who wants entry. The Manchester mayor, at a meeting in 2022, said: ‘I am going to make it really plain: I support trans rights.’ He said he’s sick of the ‘terribly hateful debate’ over trans issues. He graciously said we cannot ‘completely ignore’ those women who have ‘experienced male violence’ and hence might not fancy seeing a 6’4” lesbian with bollocks in their bathrooms. But the idea of single-sex spaces is a ‘minority view’, he said. Shorter version: let the fellas in, ladies.
There was no crude language. He made no mention of any celebrity’s anus. And yet to me, his comments were far more chilling than Kenyon’s digital joshing. The consequences for women of the post-truth mania Burnham bought into were dire. Women were flashed at, forced to undress with men, even raped. They were rounded on by mobs of feral sexists calling them ‘bitches’ and ‘cunts’ if they dared to dissent from those so-called ‘trans rights’ Burnham loved. Give me a boozy forum joke over such real-world savagery any day of the week.
Are we meant to forget the atrocities that were committed in the name of the trans mantra Burnham himself was chanting as recently as 2022? Rapists were placed in women’s prisons, where they raped more women. Women’s sports were invaded by selfish pricks hell-bent on nicking their medals. Nurses were made to undress in front of men who fantasise that they are women, and they were called bigots and even suspended from their jobs if they complained. At least Kenyon only said women can’t ‘ref, drive or give directions’ – this bourgeois mob said women can’t enjoy dignity in the workplace and shall be severely punished if they dare even to ask for it.
No doubt Burnham will say he was against these ‘excesses’ of the trans ideology. Yet every one of these horrors, every one of these cruel assaults on the privacy and dignity of women and girls, was birthed by the ideology he supported. He even favoured ‘self-ID’, that truthless, creepy policy that gives any old Tom, Dick or Harry the ‘right’ to be treated as a woman. And woe betide the actual women who might feel tempted to tell these big lads in boob tubes to piss off out of their spaces – under ‘self-ID’ those uppity broads would stand accused of denying us fellas our God-given right to be ladies if we like.
Burnham has recently called for the implementation of the new guidance on single-sex spaces, which says entry should be on the basis of biology rather than the hocus-pocus of ‘gendered souls’. And yet is he ever going to account for his previous cosiness with the cultish belief that so savagely upended women’s dignity? Is he ever going to ask for forgiveness?
Seeing Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 – and the Guardian, the Independent and all the rest of them – rage against Reform for running a ‘sexist’ in Makerfield is too much to take. All these people gave their nod to the pathological misogyny of saying women aren’t even real. That womanhood is such a thin, naff thing that anyone can join, even yer man with a beard and a perverted taste for the sound of women urinating. I’m praying that the next Reform person who gets grilled about Kenyon’s old posts by one of these plummy media hypocrites turns around and says: ‘Wait, didn’t you support the right of men who masquerade as women to expose their estrogen-shrivelled knobs to actual women?’
There is a rank class animus in the shaming of Kenyon. The blue humour of a plumber in a forum for rugby fans horrifies them, whereas the dulcet sophistry of people with PhDs who think women should put up with saggy balls in their changing rooms washes over them. The truth is misogyny has a new guise. Its primary manifestation is no longer braggarts telling mother-in-law jokes but men with fake boobs saying: ‘I’m a woman, bitch.’ The problem for the Kenyon bashers is that the people of Makerfield are not as dumb as they think. They know a political class that would even force a nurse to disrobe among men is a far greater menace to their daughters than a fella who made a dumb joke seven years ago.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. His latest book – After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation – is available to order on Amazon UK and Amazon US now. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy.
On 27 May energy regulator Ofgem announced that it will raise the energy price cap for 1 July to 30 September 2026 by a massive 13%. That’s the sharpest hike in household energy prices of any summer in the past four years.
Bill-payers under the cap will now pay the equivalent of £1,862 a year from 1 July to 30 September for gas and electricity. That’s up from the current equivalent of £1,641 a year – an increase of around £18 a month, based on typical use.
The cap applies to anyone on the default payment plan, rather than a fixed-rate tariff. The latter accounts for some 40% of all accounts.
Cat Hobbs, director of nationalisation campaign group We Own It, told the Canary:
Today’s announcement shows one thing: when governments fail to show the ambition and creativity needed to fix big problems, it is ordinary households that pay.
‘Continued volatility in global energy markets’
Ofgem blamed the war in Iran for the price increase. Tim Jarvis, the watchdog’s CEO, said:
Today’s price change reflects continued volatility in global energy markets. This means higher wholesale gas prices, driven by ongoing conflict in the Middle East, is impacting the price we pay for energy.
The price of oil and gas surged following Trump and Netanyahu’s attack on Iran on 28 February. In response, Iran, and later the US, almost completely closed the Strait of Hormuz to shipping traffic. Around 20% of the world’s oil and 33% of its liquid natural gas would usually pass through the narrow sea channel.
Of course, that increase in oil and gas prices has been passed straight to bill-payers. Meanwhile, oil majors like Shell saw their first-quarter profits surge by 115% as they profiteer from the excuse of the war in Iran.
Likewise, UK food prices are predicted to reach 50% higher than the start of the 2021 cost-of-living crisis, driven by climate and energy shocks, along with supermarket profiteering.
As per usual, Ofgem was quick to suggest methods for households to keep their bills down. These include switching or fixing your tariff, or swapping from standard credit to direct debit. Likewise, customers on smart meters can also take advantage of cheaper electricity at the weekends.
Owing to the increasing level of renewable sources in the UK’s energy mix insulating us somewhat from the oil crisis, electricity bills won’t suffer too much of an increase. However, gas bills will see a far steeper rise over the coming months. While electricity bills will increase by around 5%, gas bills will instead shoot up by 24%.
North Sea oil isn’t the answer
Shamelessly, however, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch tried to blame green initiatives for the rising prices. Following the UK right in looking to Trump for its answers, she instead urged drilling for North Sea oil:
Energy bills are rising again. Labour will blame Iran, but you’re paying more because of Ed Miliband’s net zero taxes and refusal to drill our own oil and gas. Our Cheap Power Plan would cut bills by 20% by scrapping the green taxes, scrapping VAT and drilling in the North Sea.
As the Canary has to report every time right-wing fanatics trot out this tired talking point — North Sea oil is not the answer.
The two largest oil and gas fields remaining in the UK-controlled North Sea are the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields. However, they’re already 90% depleted. As such, we’d have to use extraction methods that are both energy-intensive and extremely costly.
On top of that, research estimated that both fields would produce just 3% of the gas that the UK currently imports. As government advisers have already stated:
Any increases in UK extraction of oil and gas would have, at most, a marginal effect on the prices faced by UK consumers in future.
We Own It
Meanwhile, Labour energy secretary Ed Miliband was about as useless in the face of rising bills as we’ve come to expect, stating:
To help people facing higher costs, we’ve frozen fuel duty and made bus travel free for children across England in August. We’ve also taken £150 of costs off energy bills for the years ahead, on top of extending the Warm Home Discount to around 6 million families.
That £150 discount refers to the last Ofgem price cap review, which saw a fall of 7% from 1 April. Labour claimed that it was funded by asking the rich to “pay their fair share” in the Autumn budget. However, mentioning it now — after Ofgem announced a 13% rise — is a remarkable display of mealy-mouthed ineptitude.
Instead, We Own It director Cat Hobbs has a more radical plan than sitting back and watching the bills rise. She stated that:
The window of opportunity to bring down our energy bills, as the government promised to do at the last election, is not yet closed.
The government can create a publicly owned energy retailer as a low-cost option for households. A publicly owned supplier can cut energy bills by relying on homegrown renewable energy as well as reinvesting profits into cutting bills.
It is also time to rethink the private ownership of our energy grid. Across the sector, energy companies made £23.1 billion in profits last year, at a time when household energy bills were going up, and families were being squeezed on all fronts. Reinvesting profits that are currently being paid out to shareholders into cutting bills could go a long way to cut our energy bills and save people from falling further into fuel poverty.
As Hobbs points out, in spite of Ofgem’s feeble attempts at regulation, privatised energy companies have continued to rake in massive profits. Meanwhile, households have suffered under massive energy bills.
It’s high time that we end the failed experiment of energy privatisation. Politicians and the regulators currently split their loyalties between bill-payers and the energy companies — and the companies have far deeper pockets. Just imagine what bills could look like without the lure of the private sector to distract our government.
Featured image via Jack Taylor/Getty Images
On Thursday morning, the former glamour model told The Sun that Lee had phoned her from a prison in Dubai, where he lives.
She said: “I have found him – he is alive, and he is OK. I told him how worried I had been and told him I loved him.”
The Celebrity Big Brother winner went on to say the phone call from her husband was “rushed”, but that he’d told her authorities in Dubai feared he was a “spy” which led to him being taken into custody.
“I don’t know much more than that right now,” she added.
In mid-May, Lee had been due to join Katie in the UK for the first time since they tied the knot, where they were due to make a joint appearance on Good Morning Britain, although he ultimately didn’t turn up.
Days later, on 16 May, Katie told her YouTube followers that Lee had been “missing” in Dubai for the last three days, his location services had been switched off his phone and that when they’d last spoken via video-chat, he was in the back of a van wearing a hood with his hands bound.
She also expressed concern that Lee may have been kidnapped or held ransom, but clarified in a subsequent update that if that were the case, she’d not received any ransom note.
If you’re reading this in the office to distract from how swelteringly hot you are, we may have good news for you. The Green Party is calling for workplaces to have maximum temperature caps:
Climate justice is social justice. https://t.co/b2I31KSLWf
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) May 26, 2026
Beat the heat
As the Greens have noted, those calling for caps include the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the Trades Union Congress (TUC). Of the former, the CCC has published a report, which notes:
Set maximum temperature regulations for workplaces. Maximum working temperature regulations would address the increasing risks that high temperatures pose to workers’ safety and incentivise the deployment of the necessary cooling. Businesses are largely responsible for investing in their own adaptations but must ensure that workplaces and working practices are safe for employees, including for those working outside.
The report adds:
We propose a target indoor temperature range of 16°C–25°C, informed by existing minimum workplace temperature regulations and guidelines on upper limits for comfort and cognitive performance in school spaces with normal levels of activity.
Maintaining cool temperatures would require air conditioning. This would have made the policy difficult for the Greens to get behind in the past, because air conditioning is energy intensive. Renewables have progressed so much, however, that we can realistically expect to hit net zero in the coming decades.
Cooling isn’t the only solution either, with the report noting “flexible staffing” can allow businesses to remain open without turning the air con up to 11. As Polanski has said, insulation can reduce temperatures too:
We could have seen a nationwide programme of home insulation, going door to door, making sure every home can keep in the heat, so no-one would risk getting sick or dying because they can’t afford heating in the winter.
Why is this Government running from crisis to crisis? https://t.co/YqJSz4Kiqj
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) May 27, 2026
Insulation keeps homes cooler too!
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) May 27, 2026
If we’re installing air conditioning, we should use this opportunity to mandate adequate Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, which prevent the spread of airborne illnesses like coronavirus. Such systems would obviously represent a cost to businesses, but this would balance out in the long run through decreased sickness. It would additionally enable us to better weather any future pandemics.
Workers rights
The TUC has also spoken out on maximum workplace temperatures, writing in December 2025:
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 say that your employer must maintain a reasonable temperature where you work, but they do not specify a maximum temperature.
They add:
The TUC has called for the introduction of an upper limit on workplace temperature so that employers would be forced to act when the temperature inside reaches 24°C. It would mean that staff could be sent home, and their employers prosecuted, if temperatures at work reach 30°C (or 27°C for those engaged in physically demanding work). The TUC has set out the case for a legally enforceable maximum temperature.
Said legal case covers the negative health impacts that the heat can have on people, including:
- Dizziness.
- Delirium.
- Fatigue.
- Rashes.
- Collapse.
- Cramps.
- Exhaustion.
- Stroke.
- Death.
While most people don’t want to be disgustingly hot at work, you have to remember that many Britons treat misery as a national duty, and as such have responded like this:
With air conditioning and buildings built to get heat out of them quickly, most buildings here have no air conditioning and sre built to trap heat in and prevent it leaving
— Jackson Macmanus
(@JacksonMacmanus) May 26, 2026
They're also calling for it to be cooler outside – that's why they're opposing climate change
— Willem Moore (@willem_moore_uk) May 27, 2026
Thankfully, not everyone reacted with misplaced fury:
People being wilfully dense here and ignoring the fact this is *obviously* about ensuring proper safety standards are met (aircon, water availability, breaks, not expecting strenuous work in extreme heat) on the part of employers – not having the day off every time it hits 20. https://t.co/q79oYcXLzK
— IN THE 80s PETER MANDELSON WENT MAD
(@ABU_N3RVEGAS) May 26, 2026
The battle
Because the Green Party is supporting something that will make people’s lives better, we’ve no doubt the establishment media will soon come out against it. We’ll have columnists telling us they worked in 75°C kitchens when they were a student, and it never did them any harm; we’ll have others arguing Polanski is clamping down on our God-given right to die of heat stroke in a Slough-based HQ of a regional insurance broker.
When the backlash hits, ignore the noise and remember that things can and should get better.
Featured image via Jon Rowley (Getty Images) / Dan Kitwood (Getty Images)
By Willem Moore
Former Conservative attorney-general Michael Ellis KC has suggested that US tech giant Palantir could have grounds to sue London mayor Sadiq Khan. The news follows Khan blocking a £50m deal between the shady AI firm and the Metropolitan police.
Back on 22 April, the Guardian reported that Palantir was negotiating the supply of AI tools to the Met police for use in criminal investigations. The talks sparked fears within both the public and the force itself over allowing the US company access to sensitive data.
However, on 21 May, Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) exercised its power to block the deal. The mayoral department has the power to scrutinise any public procurement contract over £500,000.
MOPAC pointed out that the Met committed a “clear and serious breach” in failing to present its procurement strategy for approval. A spokesman for the mayor explained that:
given the tight budgetary constraints the police and all public services are operating under, it is even more important that robust processes are followed when awarding contracts as large as £25 million a year. The public would expect full and proper scrutiny of whether contracts like this provide value for money.
In this case, the Met only engaged with one potential supplier, Palantir. It also did not present their procurement strategy to the deputy mayor for approval as required. The process followed by the Metropolitan Police Service for the award of the contract has not adequately ensured, or demonstrated, value for money.
But the other fascist tech companies do it….
Following the Khan’s veto, the genocide-linked tech company was quick to lash out publicly. Palantir’s chief for the UK and Europe, Louis Mosley – coincidentally, the grandchild of renowned fascist Oswald Mosley – told Times Radio that:
I think the mayor is putting politics over public safety. He talks about values but I think what Londoners’ value is not being mugged, not being raped by a serving police officer, and that’s really what the focus here should be.
Here, the Palantir boss appears to have forgotten that his company’s contract to investigate Met officers is an entirely separate deal. Conveniently, he’s also overlooked the 1,000 members of the public who emailed Khan to ask that he block the contract. Mosley also stated that:
We may work with Israel, but so does Amazon, and so does Microsoft. We may work with the Trump administration supporting the immigration enforcement arm of his government, so does Amazon, so does Microsoft … why do we get singled out?
Mosely makes good point here – a rarity for the Palantir chief. The UK’s public services should also drop Amazon and Microsoft as soon as possible. After all, both of them work with genocidal Israel and the bloody-handed Trump administration.
‘Values and ethics’ is it now?
Following Mosley’s public tirade, ex-attorney general Michael Ellis decided to throw his unwelcome hat into the ring. On 24 May, he characterised MOPAC’s move as:
an extraordinary intervention, which may be susceptible to judicial review.
By way of explanation, he told the Times that:
according to Khan’s own office, his decision appears to be based, at least in part, on Khan’s political sensibilities, namely how he views the values and ethics of this American company.
As a reminder, Khan’s office based its decision on the Met’s failure to follow procurement procedures. However, it would be perfectly correct to call out Palantir’s (lack of) basic morality. Karp, for example, has already admitted to his company’s involvement in Israel’s murderous pager attacks in Lebanon.
Ellis added that:
Bedfordshire police, the NHS and other UK public bodies already have contracts with Palantir, which is said to have far superior technology than others in the security space.
This is perfectly true. However, the fact that the Labour government already is in deep with the amoral tech giant is hardly reason to keep digging. Palantir, as a reminder, already holds £600m in contracts with UK public bodies.
Not that the Tories are off the hook here either. Byline Times calculated that – between 2014 and 2023 – the UK blew £244.5m on Palantir products for its public bodies.
Oh, please don’t reduce officer numbers…
Ellis also argued that:
even the Met Police themselves have said that they may now have to reduce officer numbers as a consequence of Khan blocking this contract, so the safety of Londoners may be adversely affected by a political intervention. If I were Palantir, I would be seeking legal advice as to whether Khan’s actions could be overturned by the courts.
Hold on a second there. Palantir’s own tech already flagged hundreds of ‘rogue’ cops within the Met. Their crimes reportedly ranged from corruption to fraud, and even sexual offenses. Maybe we reduce the number of officers and wait to see if Londoners are, in fact, safer without them before we acting too hastily?
Of course, once one Conservative’s had a go at a public complaint, they all want a turn. Ex-police minister turned shadow home secretary Chris Philp chimed in to state he had:
no doubt [that] Palantir has an extremely strong case for judicial review of Khan’s decision, to get it overturned. I strongly encourage Palantir to do that.
Philp also accused the London mayor of having:
engaged in juvenile political posturing instead of allowing the Metropolitan Police to get on with using a system which they have chosen because it would help catch criminals and keep London safe.
Quite the contrary, we’d argue that blocking an opaque £50m deal between the Met and a company that’s actively aiding Trump’s fascism in the US makes Khan one of the few Labour bigwigs who’s actually doing his damn job.
Quick, someone tell the rest of the absolute shower that is the PLP – taking a stand against an openly authoritatian, anti-democratic surveillance company might even make them look a little bit left wing. Failing that, it’d at least save the penny-pinchers a few hundred million quid.
Featured image via the Canary
Full time GMB branch secretaries, working for the UK’s third largest trade union, will be on strike on 29 May and 5 June. Unite the Union, which represents GMB staff, has called the action.
The strikers accuse GMB of hypocrisy, as the union campaigns against exploitative two-tier workforces by companies like Uber and Deliveroo, but GMB itself refuses to offer employment rights for part of its own, full-time workforce. Equivalent roles in Unison and Unite receive employment status.
GMB denies employment status to full time branch secretaries, even though they work at a very high level, control budgets and manage other people. In particular, GMB branch secretaries are excluded from GMB’s gold-plated final salary pension scheme. Instead they’re in the government’s NEST pension scheme, which is the statutory bare minimum.
GMB full time branch secretaries also lack job security, as GMB insists that the regional office can close their branch, and throw them out of office at any time.
Alex Mitchell, spokesperson for the strikers said:
These full-time GMB branch secretaries tell me that their employer takes them for fools, denying them the respect that they are due as experienced and highly expert trade union officials.
It is outrageous that GMB locks them out of the final salary pension scheme, even though these individuals work full time for GMB, and have done for many years.
Unite members working as full-time branch secretaries for GMB have been trying to negotiate a settlement to this dispute for over a year behind closed doors, but are being met with a stone wall. They therefore feel that they have no alternative other than to take industrial action themselves.
GMB must stop this disgraceful practice of a two tier workforce, and to acknowledge full time branch secretaries as employees, with secure status, a fair wage, and a decent pension.
GMB branch secretaries – a two tier workforce
Several GMB branch secretaries have very large branches of several thousand members, and work full time for the union. They have no other employment. The income of these branch secretaries depends upon the size of the branch, and this is negotiated between the branch secretaries and GMB. Secretaries are elected by the members of their branches.
These full time branch secretaries work at a very high level. For example:
- Advising and representing members about their workplace issues.
- Negotiating with employers.
- Leading industrial action.
- Leading campaigns for trade union recognition.
- Mentoring and training shop stewards.
- Talking to the press.
- Representing GMB as witnesses in litigation.
They work on a peer to peer basis with regional organisers, who are employed by the GMB region. The work of both GMB full time branch secretaries and GMB regional organisers involves high-level representation, negotiation and strategic thinking.
The full time branch secretaries also manage a budget, and supervise and manage other branch officers and shop stewards. Because these full-time branch secretaries are very experienced, they often mentor and support new, less experienced, regional organisers.
Despite the key role these branch secretaries play, GMB treats them with disrespect and denies them security of employment:
- The full time branch secretaries are denied employment status.
- Because they are not acknowledged to be employees, they are vulnerable if a GMB staff member makes a complaint about them. Their livelihood can be threatened.
- GMB regional secretaries claim to have the power to close down branches at any time, without any process, and therefore deny branch secretaries their livelihood.
- GMB branch secretaries often feel that the organisation regards them as disposable, because they are not acknowledged as employees, and GMB does not consider that it has any welfare responsibility towards them.
- GMB branch secretaries are excluded from GMB’s gold-plated final salary 1961 pension scheme. Instead they are put in the government’s NEST pension scheme, which is the statutory minimum that GMB can get away with.
- The GMB 1961 Pension scheme extends final salary benefits not only to staff, but also to some individuals who are not staff, but full time branch secretaries are excluded.
- They earn around half as much as GMB regional organisers. Full time branch secretaries earn up to about £30k to £32k per year on average, compared to around £50k to £56k range for regional organisers (excluding London weighting).
- They are unable to bring grievances if they are mistreated.
- Disabled branch secretaries have been denied occupational health referrals, and denied reasonable adjustments.
History
In 2006, two GMB branch secretaries, Hughes and Beaumont, won a case at the employment appeal tribunal that they were in fact employees. The facts are almost exactly the same today for current full-time branch secretaries.
As recently as about five years ago, a full time branch secretary in GMB Southern Region did have the status of an employee, before his retirement. His situation was almost exactly the same as current GMB full-time branch secretaries.
In GMB’s rule book, Rule 18(b) includes the category of “employees without a contract of employment”, which has in the past been used for these full time, elected branch secretaries.
Previously, GMB full time branch secretaries were enrolled in the final salary “stakeholder pension” that was broadly equivalent to the staff 1961 pension scheme. GMB closed this down, denying current branch secretaries a decent pension.
Featured image via Getty Images
By The Canary
Reform UK’s candidate for the Makerfield by-election’s unearthed social media posts have stunned the general public over the last week.
The right-wing party announced last Tuesday that Robert Kenyon, a supposed “plucky plumber” and Wigan councillor, was going to be taking on Labour’s Andy Burnham in the race to win next month’s crunch contest.
Reform and Labour are locked in a two-horse race for the seat with Kenyon hoping to win over the support of the pro-Brexit constituency.
However, Burnham’s reputation as Greater Manchester mayor has given him an early lead according to polling – and he is hoping to oust Keir Starmer as prime minister if he wins the by-election.
With all eyes on the contest, Kenyon’s historic online presence has been dredged up – revealing some deeply problematic views.
Even so, Reform has stood by its candidate, even trying to market his outspoken comments as a positive.
Here’s what has been uncovered so far:
1. Attacks On Women
An account uncovered by The Independent and linked to Kenyon wrote women can’t “ref, drive or give directions” on an online rugby fan forum in the 2010s.
He said women presenting rugby games on TV “aren’t up to the job and only there to tick a box”, adding: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.”
He also objectified European women’s bodies, saying English women “don’t care” and “just walk around with their fat bellies and odd shapes pushing a pram at 16 in their PJ’s”.
A spokesperson said: “These comments, which are little more than locker room banter, were made more than a decade ago – well before Rob was in politics.”
Reform’s spokesperson said: “We simply don’t care about establishment hit jobs. We fully back Rob and are confident he will be an excellent MP for Makerfield.”
2. Anti-Abortions Comments
The i paper unearthed 2019 comments sent on a rugby league forum which claimed women who have abortions get them for “vanity purposes” and so they can “shag anyone they want”.
Hope Not Hate campaigners also found that Kenyon also called abortion a “cowardly act of murdering a defenceless baby”in a series of now-deleted tweets from one account.
He also suggested women falsely claim to have been raped to terminate a pregnancy.
A spokesperson said: “Cllr Kenyon is perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions on abortion. In this country, this issue has always been a matter of conscience, regardless of which party a politician represents.”
3. Attacks On The LGBTQ+ Community
The Mirror reports Kenyon described gay people as “poofs” on a 2009 forum, and in 2010, described them as “mincing about” on TV.
In one post, he wrote: “You can’t call her ‘The Queen’ anymore because it offends the poofs.”
The next year, he wrote: “People who want to make a stand for homosexuals need not combat the throwaway comments of a sportsman on twitter but need to do something about the way homosexuals are perceived in the mainstream media, for instance having Julian Clarey [sic], Graham Norton, 4 poofs and a piano and Paul O’Grady mincing about on TV does a lot more damage to the reputation of homosexuals and causes greater insult in my opinion.”
In 2020, he wrote: “If LGBT just want acceptance then stop making a big song and dance about it, attention seeking and taking over other events because that’s turning people against you”.
He also called Labour the “party for trannys”, according to the Observer.
A spokesperson said: “Many of these comments were made nearly 20 years ago – well before Rob was in politics. We simply don’t care about establishment hit jobs. We fully back Rob and are confident he will be an excellent MP for Makerfield.”
4. Anti-Covid Vaccines Comments
Kenyon cast doubt on the Covid vaccine on X while using an account which has since been deleted.
Archived webpages uncovered by the Guardian revealed Kenyon said: “It’s not making people sicker, I’ve no booster and had covid last week asymptomatic.”
When pressed on why his opinion was based on his own anecdotal experience, he said: “At the same time I had it, four other people on the course I was on caught it all the same as me, no symptoms.”
He claimed his 70-something mother-in-law with chronic ung disease also experienced it as a “cold”.
Kenyon advised someone else who was ill with Covid: “Wait longer, take vitamins, stop having boosters.”
He also replied to a Sky News post about England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty urging Brits to get booster jabs, saying Whitty can “fuck right off”.
He also claimed worries about a new variant in January 2022 were designed to “scare parents into getting their kids jabbed”. He wrote: “I smell a rat.”
“Robert had all his Covid jabs during the pandemic and his children are fully up to date on every vaccination,” a party representative said.
“These comments were made long before Rob was in politics. He isn’t a polished, professional politician and doesn’t speak like one. That’s precisely why he’ll be a straight-talking, effective voice for normal working people in Makerfield.”
5. Questions Over Brexit
The Times reported that Kenyon may not have voted for Brexit, even though that is a core policy of Reform UK.
In a social media post dating from March 28, 2019, he claimed he was not the typical right-winger.
“So anyone who thinks I love Trump, voted Brexit, read the Daily Mail, live in the 1950s, a Tory and 103 is wrong. I’m none of the above,” he said.
In another post, including a discussion called ‘Brexit Anyone?’, he wrote: “I woke up the day after Brexit shitting myself to what was voted for”, though he later said the EU’s treatment of Britain made him “glad we voted out”.
Kenyon also appeared to praise the principle of European free movement – one of Reform’s greatest qualms with the bloc – writing: ” “Free movement of people is great when they are natives of the EU countries and not people from outside Europe seeking a Greek passport that will allow them into any country in the EU.”
A representative said Kenyon “voted Leave in 2016 and is a proud Brexiteer, unlike Andy Burnham who will drag the UK back into the EU by any means possible”.
6. Carol Vorderman Remarks
Hope Not Hate also revealed that in 2021 Kenyon interacted with a social media message sent to the Countdown host, which read: “Happy birthday Carol, my God I would love to smell and lick your arsehole.”
Kenyon replied, “he’s only saying what we’re all thinking,” along with a thumbs up and a laughing emoji.
Vorderman has called Kenyon a misogynist, and told the Daily Mirror that she wanted “apology from Rob Kenyon, to me, and to all the other people he’s abused online.”
Danny Kruger defended Kenyon’s comments on Vorderman on Monday, telling BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: “The great challenge for social media for private people is that they use it as if they are chatting to their friends in the pub.
“It was a clearly inappropriate thing to say. I’m not going to judge people for what was intended as private conversations. Clearly that is not the kind of comment you would want an elected politician to say.”
7. Interacting With The Far-Right
Campaign organisation Searchlight said Kenyon was friends with fascist campaigner Gary Raikes on a now deleted Facebook page.
Reform has not disputed this claim. Party leader Nigel Farage said: “When he [Kenyon] campaigned here at the general election, hundreds of people joined as friends, and one of them turned out to be unsavoury.
“I am utterly confident that in Rob, we’ve got somebody who’s done his bit for his country, done his bit for himself, does his bit for the community.”
8. Weighing In On Ukraine And Russia
Kenyon claimed Russia was “within its rights” to invade the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea back in 2014, according to The Telegraph.
In an online forum, he agreed with a post which called the annexation “democracy in action”, writing: “Russia are well within their rights to do what they have done as we did with the Falklands.”
“At no point did Rob explicitly support or endorse Russia’s actions in Crimea,” a spokesperson said. “He is fully opposed to Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. We fully back Cllr Kenyon. He is an excellent local candidate, who we are confident will be a superb MP for Makerfield.”
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.
Euphoria star Chloe Cherry has shared her take on working with its creator Sam Levinson.
Chloe is best known for portraying Faye Valentine in seasons two and three of the award-winning US drama, the latest finale of which is due to premiere in the UK next week.
During a new interview with Glamour magazine, the Roommates star was asked if she’d be up for coming back to Euphoria if a fourth season were to be made, and confirmed that she would.
“I love working for Sam Levinson so much,” she enthused, acknowledging that while “a lot of people don’t”, she likes him “a lot”.
Asked about why people might have issues with him, Chloe suggested: “I think it’s because he is so specific about how everything needs to be. And there’s some people that I guess just don’t like how he’s so specific with how he imagines everything in the show.”
She added that while she enjoys how Sam is prone to the way he can “randomly changing his mind” on set and be “so sure of everything that the characters wear and say”, other actors could “find that to be too much”.
In 2022, unconfirmed reports of a clash between cast member Barbie Ferreira and the show’s boss emerged in the press.
After Barbie announced her exit from Euphoria in the lead-up to season three, she insisted that her departure was a mutual decision.
More recently, The Hollywood Reporter published a piece alleging that the friendship between the show’s lead actor Zendaya and its creator had “cooled”, leading to supposed “resentment” between them.
Neither party has addressed this speculation publicly, and declined to comment when contacted by The Hollywood Reporter.
Elsewhere in her Glamour interview, Chloe defended the third season’s portrayal of women, which has become a contentious issue over the last few weeks.
She insisted: “I think Sam is using these young women as a vessel to show how society currently sees young women.
“I don’t believe that he’s trying to say that it’s these young women’s fault that all the world wants from them is for them to just be hot and be sexy and be young. I think Sam’s trying to say: ‘Look where we have got to in society’.”
Before being cast in Euphoria, Chloe worked in the porn industry, even appearing in an adult parody of the series, and recently weighed in on the show’s depiction of OnlyFans modelling in its most recent season.
The proscription of Palestine Action was sold to MPs and the media on the basis of a deliberate campaign of lies, fronted by Yvette Cooper, then Home Secretary, and Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Both have deep commitment to Israel. Cooper is owned by the Israel lobby.
What is worse, they then attempted to reinforce these lies by fitting up young activists with false charges and corrupting all principles of justice in an effort to obtain false convictions. This was brought home to me most forcefully in examining thousands of pages of documents released to me by the Home Office as disclosure in the Scottish judicial review of the legality of the proscription of Palestine Action.
Redacted documents and lies
I am not allowed to reveal these thousands of pages to you, even though they have already been redacted, with large sections blacked out, and in some instances gisted, or given in precis, removing “sensitive” information.
But I shall reveal one single paragraph of one single document because I think it is overwhelmingly in the public interest to do so. It is an essential illustration of the appalling behaviour which our Israeli controlled Establishment has been exhibiting throughout this attack on Palestine Action – an organisation which, I would remind you, is trying to prevent the provision of arms to a genocide:
The criminal offences of Aggravated Burglary (s.10 Theft Act 1968) and Violent Disorder (s.2 Public Order Act 1986) have been applied to the majority of offenders identified as being directly involved in each of these incidents, while more specific criminal offences have been applied to individual subjects for: Administering a Noxious Substance (s.24 Offenes against The Person Act 1861); Threats to Kill (s.16 Offences against The Person Act 1861); Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) (s.47 Offences against The Person Act 1861); Grevious Bodily Harm (GBH) with intent (s.18 Offences against The Person Act 1861); and Participating in Activities of an Organised Crime Group (s.45 Serious Crime Act 2015).
That paragraph is from the Proscription Advisory Group, prepared by the Counter Terrorism Police, recommending proscription. It is part of a narrative they seek to build of an “escalating pattern of violence”. The claim is in essence that Palestine Action has moved from violence against property to violence against people.
The problem is, it is not true.
The Filton 25
In the Filton trial, the attempts to convict activists of violence against people – the aggravated burglary and violent disorder charges – all failed before a jury. There were twelve charges between aggravated burglary and violent disorder – and twelve acquittals. In the other incident referenced in the above paragraph – the Sandwich action – the charges of personal violence have all quietly been dropped.
So let us go through the extremely alarming list of serious charges involving violence given in that essential paragraph, from the internal Home Office documents arguing for proscription. And let us mark up the actual truth.
Aggravated Burglary – no convictions
Violent Disorder – no convictions
Administering a Noxious Substance – no convictions
Threats to Kill – no convictions
Actual Bodily Harm – no convictions
Grievous Bodily Harm – no convictions
Participating in Activities of an Organised Crime Group – no convictions
The only footnote to this is that there is one single conviction of GBH, but the jury specifically found not guilty of intent, in relation to the melee that developed at Filton after the security guards attacked the activists.
This is an astonishing, lengthy list of fabrication – offences in which the jury found as a matter of fact against the Crown. Non-existent offences were listed by the Police to recommend the proscription.
The proscription was based on an entire litany of offences that never happened.
Enforcing convictions under false pretences
But much worse than this is the attempt to enforce convictions under false pretences in the Filton trial. The catalogue of how this was done is now well known:
- Judge Johnson ruled that the defendants were not permitted to refer to their motives. He ruled that the jury may not be informed of their absolute right to acquit.
- He attempted to have the leading defence barrister, Rajiv Menon KC, prosecuted for contempt of court for informing the jury of their rights.
- He ruled that terms including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” may not be used in court.
- He ordered that the notebooks and other writings of the accused be redacted to withhold from the jury any information related to Elbit’s supply of weapons to Israel.
- He enforced the concealment from the jury of the nature of the weapons and equipment that had been damaged.
- He granted anonymity to senior Elbit staff and admitted their evidence without the defence being able to cross-examine.
- He ruled that the trial had not been prejudiced by the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stating the offences as fact throughout national media.
- He allowed the release to the media of highly edited and selective prosecution video footage during the trial, which gave a false impression of events.
- He permitted the admission of Metropolitan Police video evidence, which they had given over to Elbit’s sole custody for an entire year.
- He ruled that the jury must not be told of his stated intention to consider adding a ‘terrorist’ aggravation to any convictions.
That is an astonishing list of nefarious actions by Judge Johnson. Read it again. Many people will surely conclude that it is Judge Johnson who should be in jail.
Crown failures further undermine proscription
Despite all of Johnson’s attempts to rig the trial, despite the state trying the defendants twice when it failed to achieve convictions the first time, the Crown failed to attain its convictions on Aggravated Burglary, Violent Disorder and GBH with Intent.
But my God, they tried. How they tried!
Yvette Cooper specifically relied on the specific police litany of lies in her article for the Observer to promote the proscrpition, where she wrote:
Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for – and promoted on its website – attacks that have seen those allegedly involved subsequently charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary. Charges that include, in the assessment of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection.
The “independent” Crown Prosecution Service is of course a joke – the independence of both the prosecutor and of judges like Johnson being a polite fiction of the British Establishment. The executive does not issue direct orders to judges like Johnson nor to the Director of Public Prosecutions. They don’t have to issue direct orders. Those people are only in their positions because they know what is expected of them.
The one thing they cannot reliably control is a jury, however much they may try to manipulate the information available to them. The charges in the Filton trial of aggravated burglary (which means going equipped with a weapon intending to use it against a person), of violent disorder and of GBH with Intent were always massive, politically motivated overcharging.
They were never likely to be got through a jury – given the total lack of evidence for them – no matter how much Judge Johnson attempted to manipulate the trial.
Yvette Cooper was prepared to disregard legal advice that her article would prejudice the trial, safe in the knowledge that Johnson would only ever bring contempt of court charges against the defence and not against the State.
Deproscription in Scotland
Our hearing in the Scottish Court of Session tomorrow will hear our motion that the proscription in Scotland should be suspended pending the Scottish judicial review, because in the meantime hundreds of people are having their civil liberties restricted, are facing possible arrest, and scores are facing charges for terrorist offences merely for exercising their right of free speech.
The UK government is opposing with a counter-motion to sist (postpone) the entire Scottish judicial review until all English proceedings are concluded, including a probable eventual Supreme Court decision. Their key argument is that it is constitutionally undesirable for English and Scottish courts to reach opposing decisions in a matter of “national security”.
That Scottish courts should respect English decisions they present not as colonialism but as “comity“.
They state that the constitutional argument is so important that the Advocate General herself, Catherine Smith KC, will represent the UK government in person. Indeed, this hearing was delayed two weeks to fit her diary.
Their argument is, of course, disingenuous. They are not seeking to postpone the Scottish hearing; they are seeking to stop it altogether. If it is constitutionally unacceptable to reach a different decision from the English court, then what would be the point of a Scottish judicial review at any stage?
Furthermore, they are entirely illogical because the status quo is that the government has lost to Palestine Action in England at the High Court. It is the government that is appealing there. So if they really believed in “comity”, they would drop the government case in Scotland to achieve the same position as England!
An establishment stitch-up?
Most of the argument we have submitted to court consists of analysis of the effects of the proscription and the impact of suspending it.
The government, by contrast, have not addressed the proscription at all. They are depending entirely on the constitutional argument that the court should not be hearing the case. But these exact arguments were already dismissed by the court at the permission stage. They do not become any more compelling just because a UK government minister is stating them.
Why is the government so confident it will win on the constitutional point and does not need to address the proscription?
I fear the appearance of the minister is evidence of an establishment stitch-up. My hackles rise particularly at the remarkable fact that, while the permission hearing was livestreamed and in Court No 1, this much more important hearing is not being livestreamed and is relegated to court No 6, with a much smaller public gallery. If the case is, as the government itself states, of such constitutional importance that the minister must appear in person, why is it being hidden from the public gaze?
Unfortunately, I can’t think of any answers to that question which are not deeply troubling.
Support the campaign
We desperately need more money to continue this legal case. Each stage of hearing like this costs about £30,000 and the eventual judicial review will cost much more.
Again, please contribute if you can, but do not contribute if it causes you difficulty. If you know people who are able to afford to help and likely to be sympathetic, please do contact them and ask their assistance. We are trying to keep a lot of very good people out of prison.
You can donate through the link via Crowd Justice, which goes straight to the lawyers, or through this blog.
Featured image via the Canary
By Craig Murray
The following is a statement from umbrella group Kirklees Stop the Cuts regarding Kirklees Council. Following the May elections, Reform is now the largest party on the council but doesn’t have a majority. And so far, the Reform group has suggested it doesn’t even know how councils work.
Kirklees Council – take 2
On Thursday 28 May, Kirklees Council faces a second chance to form another administration. This meeting is not about who understands the standing orders or constitution, it is about the future of
our town and our services.
We expect and look forward to the new council committing to reverse the decade of decline and austerity ushered in by Labour. Labour was rightly punished on 7 May for presiding over the cruellest of cuts and closures.
They were resisted by determined community campaigns which came together to try and protect our public services. Now we expect all the parties to stop playing politics, and carry out their promises. Our campaigns set out their priorities below:
Dewsbury Sports Centre (DSC)
DSC was ‘temporarily’ closed nearly three years ago. Labour lied about the roof of DSC being ‘riddled’ with RAAC. They commissioned an independent surveyor’s report which stated the Centre could be reopened immediately at minimal cost.
Labour chose to ignore that report and kept DSC closed to this day. The closure has had a dire impact on the health and wellbeing of Dewsbury residents and has contributed to the decline of the town centre.
We expect the incoming administration to commit to immediately reopen DSC along with Deighton Sports Centre.
Dementia Care Homes
Relatives have waged a three year campaign to save Castle Grange in Newsome and Claremont House in Heckmondwike. They successfully pushed back the appalling plan to close the homes but disgracefully, Labour then imposed privatisation of our last two dementia care homes.
The campaign group took out legal action to stop them but lost the case on a technicality. The proposed private provider, Mulberry Care, runs one other home which is rated ‘inadequate’ by the Care Quality Commission.
However, contracts have not yet been exchanged and we expect councillors to instruct officers to suspend the privatisation of these homes and keep them in-house.
Cleckheaton Against Harmful Development
This development process requires urgent scrutiny. Residents were left facing uncertainty and potential exposure risks for months before proper testing began, while asbestos was confirmed in multiple residents’ gardens.
This raises serious concerns about delays, lack of transparency, and whether community safety was truly prioritised. Existing residents have endured unnecessary stress, disruption, and concern for their wellbeing while development interests appeared to take precedence.
There must be accountability, a full independent review of how this was handled, and ideally the development should be halted until these concerns are properly investigated.
Kirklees Council – sort yourself out
Kirklees residents and voters will be watching how this council performs. We have been promised change and a new approach. Stop the Cuts is demanding:
- Reopen the Sports Centres.
- Halt the privatisation of our dementia homes.
- Suspend harmful development in Cleckheaton.
- No more cuts or council tax rises.
- Defend our services and communities.
Kirklees Stop the Cuts was formed four years ago. We stopped the closure of several sports centres, the dementia care homes and some libraries. We are demanding the new council commits to saving our services.
Featured image via Getty Images
By The Canary
Are we getting tired of superheroes? The evidence might surprise you
Paysign, Inc. (PAYS) Presents at 20th Annual Barrington Research Virtual Spring Investment Conference – Slideshow
Top Wall Street Names See NVIDIA Stock at $330, But Buyers Just Walked Out
-
Crypto World6 days agoBlockchain.com files with SEC for U.S. IPO
-
Fashion5 days agoHoliday Weekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin Accumulation Weakens as BTC Realized Losses Hit $600M
-
Business5 days agoDell Technologies DELL Stock Surges 15% on AI Server Momentum and Analyst Upgrades in 2026
-
Crypto World4 days agoRobinhood crypto COO Tanya Denisova exits
-
Politics5 days agoMakerfield: a tale of two social-media histories
-
Business3 days agoNYT Strands Answers May 24 2026 Revealed for Puzzle No. 812 Theme Summer Essentials
-
Crypto World5 days agoSpace X IPO Is ‘Bad News’ for Tech Stocks: But What About Bitcoin?
-
Tech2 days agoMicrosoft’s quiet Claude Code retreat and the real cost of enterprise AI
-
Crypto World5 days agoMicroStrategy’s Saylor Says Miners No Longer Set Bitcoin Price, Another Force Has Taken Over
-
Tech6 days agoWhatsApp ads could make Irish debut after discussions with DPC
-
NewsBeat6 days agoCharity run by Reform leader Malcolm Offord accused of ‘law breaking’ over Scottish registration
-
Tech5 days agoA 0.12% parameter add-on gives AI agents the working memory RAG can’t
-
Crypto World5 days agoAI infrastructure race heats up as IREN pitches full-stack strategy, WhiteFiber lands $160M deal
-
Crypto World2 days agoNvidia (NVDA) CEO Calls on Super Micro to Strengthen Export Controls Amid Smuggling Probe
-
Tech1 hour ago
The Samsung pay deal is the moment Korean unions changed register
-
Tech5 days agoYou Can Now Add ChatGPT To PowerPoint
-
Business5 days agoTrump Invests $1M-$5M in Kura Sushi USA Chain With 27 California Locations
-
Tech2 days agoWestone Audio and Etymotic Acquired by Fidelity Collective in Major IEM Market Move
-
Sports6 days ago2026 CJ Cup Byron Nelson leaderboard: Brooks Koepka finds putting stroke in Round 1
You must be logged in to post a comment Login