Politics
Sudan children murdered in yet another attack
A Saudi official has attacked ‘foreign actors’ for fueling the war in Sudan. Their comment came after a Rapid Support Forces (RSF) drone killed 24 in Kordofan province. Fighting has displaced millions and killed up to 150,00 people.
The war is now in its third year. And the UK and others have played their part in letting the carnage run on.
The Sudan Doctors Network said RSF targeted:
a vehicle transporting displaced people fleeing South Kordofan State. The vehicle was traveling from the Dubeiker area in North Kordofan when it was attacked near Al-Rahad city.
Two infants died in the attack:
The attack resulted in the deaths of 24 people, including 8 children—two of whom were infants—and several women.
Sudan Doctors Network: 24 Killed, Including 8 Women and Children, in Rapid Support Forces Attack on Vehicle Transporting Them from the Dubeiker Area to Al-Rahad in North Kordofan
The Rapid Support Forces carried out another massacre in North Kordofan State by targeting a vehicle… pic.twitter.com/jDmZxJaZnr
— Sudan Doctors Network – شبكة أطباء السودان (@SDN154) February 7, 2026
The Sudanese foreign ministry said on 8 February:
This attack does not represent an isolated incident, but rather a continuation of a pattern adopted by the militia to obstruct humanitarian work and use deprivation of food as a means of pressure against civilians.
RSF are an Arab supremacist militia given to carrying out massacres of the indigenous population of Sudan. They have also been used by the UAE as mercenaries in Yemen. Despite the UAE’s denials, Emirati military support is substantial, traceable, and decisive.
RSF and UAE
The Saudi foreign ministry also commented, thought it did not name the offenders. They said:
The Kingdom affirms that these acts are unjustifiable under any circumstances and constitute flagrant violations of all humanitarian norms and relevant international agreements.
In a clear swipe at RSF’s main backer, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), they added:
foreign interference and the continued actions of certain parties in supplying illicit weapons, mercenaries, and foreign fighters—despite their stated support for a political solution.
They said this foreign influence:
constitutes a primary factor in prolonging the conflict and exacerbating the suffering of the Sudanese people.
This is the latest development in the two oil-rich, Western allied Gulf states’ failing relationship.
UAE/Saudi confrontation
The UAE and Saudi relations are are uneasy, to say the least. The two are traditionally allies – and recipients of US and other Western support – but their falling out is being felt throughout the Gulf and the Horn of Africa.
As the Times of India has it:
For more than a decade, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi appeared virtually inseparable. They crushed Islamist movements, dictated oil markets, blockaded Qatar and presented themselves as the ultimate power brokers in the Arabian Peninsula. The two kingdoms were often described as strategic siblings, bound by shared vision, capital and a mutual obsession with stability on their terms.
But that alliance has ruptured. Yemen is one point of contention:
Riyadh seeks a unified Yemen under its influence: manageable, stable and friendly to Saudi security interests. Abu Dhabi, however, is pursuing a different vision through its backing of the Southern Transitional Council.
But that disagreement has also played out in Sudan – with deadly consequences.
Proxy war in Sudan
The Sudan war “amplified the stakes” offering:
both Gulf states an opportunity to project influence in Africa.
For the UAE:
Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces, controlling gold mines, smuggling routes and borderlands, became a direct conduit to resources. Gold, logistics and influence could be secured without the bureaucracy of formal state structures.
The Canary discussed the role of Sudan’s gold mines here. The Saudi regime “backed the Sudanese Armed Forces”:
not out of friendship, but fear. Saudi Arabia recognised that paramilitary backed fragmentation could set a dangerous precedent, threatening its own southern flank and regional ambition
Three years in, the war in Sudan has undoubtedly been exacerbated by Gulf interference. But other regional and global powers bear responsibility too.
Israel and Britain
Israel has backed both RSF and the Sudanese government at different times. Turkey, Egypt, and Russia have a role too. And British-sourced equipment has been seen in RSF hands, presumably a result of UK arms sales to UAE.
On October 2025, Labour foreign office minister Stephen Doughty admitted:
We are aware of reports of a small number of U.K.-made items having been found in Sudan, but there is no evidence in the recent reporting of U.K. weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan.
However he resisted calls for an embargo on UAE and said the UK would use its UN security council role:
to call for an immediate end to this violence [and] ensure that international humanitarian law is respected and upheld.
This mealy-mouthed response is typical. Not least because Campaign against the Arms Trade (CAAT) have reported:
The third largest recipient of arms export licences was the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with £172m of military equipment.
CAAT added:
Of particular concern is the £1,966,582 of exports in the military vehicles and components category, given that UK-made engines have been found in armoured personnel carriers used by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in its genocide in Sudan.
The British Labour government is deeply implicated in the killing in Sudan. And it is aligned with both sides in the Saudi/UAE proxy war. The British will likely continue to prevaricate while people die. But as long as UK arms firm CEOs and shareholders get their new yacht or third home, that seems to be fine by Keir Starmer’s Labour.
Featured image via the Canary
James York is a member of the Beaconsfield Conservative Association and a policymaker in the insurance industry.
Nothing is more pressing in our national politics right now than the plight of the absurd, inconceivable, illogical, baffling and frankly suspicious Chagos Islands “deal”. We must find Sir Keir (Sucker?) Starmer an off ramp. A democracy that treats non-binding advice as binding, perpetuates the conversion of sovereignty into ritual.
Trumps acquiescence was caveated by the admission he’d use force to protect his interests. Did you catch the deep breath of irony? It was negating by its nature! Loathe, respect or love Trump – it’s pretty evident that he is playing the game of international relations poker as a realist.
He knows it’s all about power, but one fears our “regulation oriented” barristercrats don’t. They quietly rock, mumbling about “international law”, whilst power across the world does what it wants until it meets the equal and opposing force of other power. There’s really only two states that matter right now.
We all know, in Texas Holdem’ terms, this Chagos move is quit literally “a flop” of bad, bad cards, and very expensive “blinds”!
Let’s take a stock check of why we’re doing this Chagos deal. Firstly, there’s “legal” obligation. It doesn’t take a barristercratic Cambridge alum to spot that the “ruling” behind which Starmer hides is merely advisory.
If the police “advised” you to pay a fine, you might think it in your best interests to, thus avoiding future ire. But if your neighbour did because a bamboo plant had snuck under their fence. Would you? Well, only would if their demand was backed by, say, those police. But the world has no such police force. No state is bound by anything but power. It’s a long-standing thing we call sovereignty. It’s telling that so many on the left scoff at the word.
This ruling is the equivalent of a neighbour demanding compensation, with no police force to enforce it if you don’t comply. Just the dirty looks of other neighbours – many of whom have their skeletons in the windows and feral kids hacking your wifi.
Are you seriously going to change their future behaviour just by “doing the right thing”?
Equivalently, are we noticing British actions being ruled upon by a Chinese and a Russian judge? Something about it doesn’t track. Roughly 50 per cent of the ICJ advisory ruling’s judges could be considered as originating from democracies! This is not an outright accusation of bad faith. Rather, a recognition of the potential that legal cultures formed in non-democratic systems cannot help but interpret consent, legitimacy, and the actions of ideological counterparts differently.
There is the question of personal conflicts of interest, too. Whether or not any impropriety exists is not the point. The appearance of overlapping professional, ideological and reputational incentives would be unacceptable in most other public-decision making domains. Doesn’t Labour’s pursuit of Baroness Mone indicate their instincts on such appearances?
It could be understood, even empathised with that Sir Keir Starmer feels the unconscious tug of approval from a peer in the bar circles to which he cleaves (although, of course, his father was a toolmaker!). His own Attorney General, Lord Hermer was a close colleague of Sands’ at Matrix Chambers – that would suggests professional admiration by proxy, at least. Hermer’s Recusal, while procedurally proper, has the perverse effect here of removing precisely the institutional challenge that democratic accountability would require. A system in which proximity necessitates withdrawal rather than scrutiny is not neutral — it is structurally self-disarming. One wouldn’t wish to be the second in command, asked to approve this deal.
Before we risk the embrace of tin-foiled suspicion, let’s be logical.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, said Holmes.
We have already established that it is impossible to insist the decision is beyond legal challenge, and those who made it beyond reproach. It is impossible that this deal is in our national interests. We also have a black hole, don’t we? You can’t spend £35bn when you’re in a black hole! It is impossible that the Chagos islands were threatened by force – Mauritius is all but unarmed. It is also impossible to argue there’s any kind of mandate for this. Starmer is using sovereignty, without even an indicative mandate.
So what is the off ramp? In this instance, democratic mandate has been voluntarily displaced for international law. For there can be no compulsion in an advisory decision. Parliament remains sovereign, even in light of international law. It comes to the root of the Chagos, and even Brexit debates. Just how much sovereignty can an executive spend without a direct mandate? We have neither a mandate from the Chagossians – who appear all but forgotten by the UN and our lawmakers – nor is there a mandate from the British people to give away this land and rent a slice back.
Consider that the “turn” on our little game of international relations poker. The card is the tactical insistence that Chagossians have franchise and agency – just as we did in the Falklands. Secondly, the strategic demand to give it suit. That no longer can any executive use the sovereignty credit card as if it has no limits.
Let’s lastly give this deal a strategic stress test? Hypothetically, two months following this deal, Mauritius (defenceless as it is), signs a security compact for a small but potent naval and air defence package. The natural destination would be China, of course. Mauritius is credit worthy, too! Flush with £35-47bn of British fun money. This deal includes training, a classic Western tactic. Mauritius, seeking to defend its new hundreds of thousands of square miles, contracts China to build it a new naval base in the Chagos. China is rather good at building atoll bases – see the Spratley islands for details – and it despatches a civilian fleet, as well as a non-threatening training contingent of under 500 PLA professionals.
Remember, it’s a political decision to follow the advisory ruling without an express mandate from Chagossians or the British people. How does the deal look through that hypothetical lens?
What of the truth, then? It must lie somewhere between personal bias, corruption and outright ideological capture. Whether that capture is the rules-based order or another more insidious possibility. This policy is quite literally marquee for Sucker Starmer, a man who u-turns more than a forklift truck cleaves to it like a winning lottery ticket. History indicates that when decisions repeatedly contradict interest, threat and mandate, analysts are forced to look beyond error.
Regardless, if we lay down the democratic card we may yet avoid folding. Why does it feel like we’re being sold down that river regardless?
The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Anas Sarwar, has moved first.
Declaring that he had to do “what is right for my country”, Sarwar called on the prime minister to resign in a scathing statement.
In a press conference this afternoon, Sarwar proclaimed: “It is not easy and not without pain, but my first priority and first loyalty is to my country… The distraction has to end, and the leadership in Downing Street has to change.”
Sarwar’s sensational intervention marked a massive moment for the politics of the Labour Party and the nation.
MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’
Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court
Sarwar has felt the blunt force of the Labour brand’s toxicity in his campaign for the upcoming Scottish Parliament elections. That he has chosen to strike now would suggest that the Scottish Labour leader’s estimation of his party’s chances in May is dismal. The intervention is an effective admission that the Scottish Labour Party cannot win an election with Starmer as prime minister.
In July 2022, Sajid Javid, the health secretary, was the first senior party figure to call for Boris Johnson to stand down as prime minister. His resignation was followed mere moments later by that of Rishi Sunak, the chancellor. Javid and Sunak sparked an all-consuming torrent of departures, accompanied by letters lambasting Johnson’s character, judgement and conduct.
In the 24 hours that followed Sunak and Javid’s resignations, 36 MPs stepped down from their roles in government. At the time, Starmer referred to Johnson as a “pathetic spectacle” and mocked those who remained on the frontbench as the “charge of the lightweight brigade”.
Sunak’s resignation was integral in triggering the ministerial stampede that ultimately trampled Johnson. When the herd moves, the outgoing prime minister observed, it moves.
In this regard, the news that Eluned Morgan, the first minister of Wales, would follow Sarwar in calling for Starmer’s resignation initially seemed significant. Like Sarwar north of the border, Welsh Labour is facing a possible routing on 7 May – courtesy of an insurgent Reform UK. But reports have since clarified that Morgan will not be commenting on Starmer’s future today.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
And so the spotlight now swings back to Westminster.
Sarwar’s statement, together with Tim Allan’s resignation this morning and Morgan McSweeney’s resignation on Sunday, strengthens the prevailing impression of a government in freefall.
But in a strictly processual sense, the Scottish Labour leader has no say in Starmer’s future – that is up to the prime minister himself and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). A leadership contender needs 81 MPs to trigger a contest; meanwhile, Starmer continues to insist that he will not resign.
Responding to Sarwar’s intervention, a Downing Street spokesperson said: “Keir Starmer is one of only four Labour leaders ever to have won a general election.
“He has a clear five-year mandate from the British people to deliver change, and that is what he will do.”
Even more significantly, Sarwar’s declaration has awoken the cabinet from its collective slumber. Downing Street, notwithstanding recent resignations, has been successful in securing public statements of support from secretaries of state.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has insisted that with “Keir as our prime minister, we are turning the country around.”
Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, has called on his colleagues to “get behind the prime minister”.
Steve Reed, the housing secretary, has said that Labour needs to “stay the course”.
Douglas Alexander, the secretary of state for Scotland, has said he “respects” Sarwar but that Starmer has his support.
Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, has called for “calm heads and seriousness of purpose”.
Peter Kyle, the business and trade secretary, has said he backs Starmer as prime minister, adding: “The economy is growing, let’s focus on delivering for the British people.”
In his first tweet in almost a year, Alan Campbell, the leader of the House of Commons, stated: “The only change we need to be talking about is the change we were elected to deliver for the British people.”
And what of possible leadership contenders?
Ed Miliband, the energy and climate secretary, declared that Starmer has “earned the right to deliver the change he has promised and do what he cares about.”
Wes Streeting, the ambitious health secretary, has conceded that it has “not been the best week for the government.” But speaking to Sky News, he added: “Give Keir a chance.”
On top of this, Angela Rayner has issued a statement saying Starmer has her “full support.” The former deputy prime minister said that the worst possible response to the Peter Mandelson affair would be “to play party politics or factional games.”
These expressions of support, from the enthusiastic to the somewhat strained, matter. So far, Sarwar’s intervention has not provided a springboard to collective action at Westminster; no one has been willing to give a lead at Westminster to an anti-Starmer campaign.
The clean sweep of cabinet support is reminiscent of the reaction to previous Labour coup attempts. In June 2009, after James Purnell resigned as work and pensions secretary and called on Gordon Brown to step down, the rest of the cabinet swung to the prime minister’s defence. David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and Alan Johnson, the health secretary – Brown’s most likely heirs – rowed in behind the Downing Street incumbent.
Purnell’s putsch failed.
In January 2010, two former cabinet ministers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, called for a leadership contest to resolve Brown’s future. The Hewitt-Hoon coup was summarily dismissed by a chorus of cabinet ministers.
There is another possible parallel in recent political history. In January 2022 – some months before Javid and Sunak moved at Westminster – the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Douglas Ross, called for Boris Johnson to resign as prime minister.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the then leader of the House of Commons, responded that he did not think Ross was a “big figure”.
Less than two months later, Ross was forced to walk back his call for Johnson to resign.
Then as now, it would seem that the parliamentary party is not ready to depose the sitting prime minister – at least not like this.
Josh Self is editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here and X here.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
Nigel Farage and his fellow Reform MPs are in in Birmingham to deliver a ‘Time for Reform’ rally. Broadcaster Jeremy Kyle is the host. Expect Farage to jump on the chaos that is embroiling Downing Street…
Your Party’s leadership elections have opened on the afternoon of 9 February. The vote closes at 5pm on 23 February.
Your Party – a tale of two ‘slates’
In the ‘endorsements’ phase, during which Your Party members could endorse candidates they wished to see on the ballot, Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘The Many’ was leading in 12 seats, while Zarah Sultana’s ‘Grassroots Left’ led in another 10, alongside two Independent candidates.
The Canary previously spoke to a number of the candidates.
There are 24 seats up for grabs on Your Party’s Central Executive Committee. This will serve as the Party’s collective leadership following a narrow vote at the start-up party’s founding conference. Candidates from ‘The Many’ slate have announced they will elect Corbyn as the party’s parliamentary leader if they win. Sultana has also expressed interest in taking this role [in an interview with Laura Kuenssberg – transcript here].
In the ‘Public Office Holder’ section, Corbyn topped the poll with 6,740 endorsements, and Sultana placed second with 5,124. Fellow MPs Shockat Adam and Ayoub Khan are standing with Corbyn as part of ‘The Many’.
The ‘Grassroots Left’ slate has focused on the need for “maximum member democracy”, as well as opposition to NATO and the monarchy. ‘The Many’ has emphasised the need for Your Party to face outwards and “campaign on the big issues” such as the cost-of-living and public ownership.
Over 350 candidates
Candidates in the English regions and Scotland and Wales had to gather 75 endorsements from fellow members in their area to pass to the ballot. Those in the public office holders’ section such as MPs required 150.
In line with the Party’s constitution, there are two seats for each of the nine English regions, alongside one each for Scotland and Wales (in addition to their own national structures). Members in the relevant region or nation may vote for candidates in that region / nation.
There are also four places for public office holders (Councillors, MPs etc), open to voting by all members. There are a total of 24 seats up for election.
11,414 members took part. Over 350 members put themselves forward as candidates. More than 80 progressed to the next stage, the majority of which are Independents.
The endorsements won’t, however, be a straightforward guide to voting patterns. Members were able to cast endorsements in a different process to votes in the election.
Hustings for most membership positions took place on the weekend of the 7-8 February. You can see them on the party’s YouTube channel. Details of the public office holder hustings, including the Party’s four MPs, will appear here.
The elections come after a founding conference for Scotland Your Party, in which members voted to support Independence and stand candidates in the 2026 Holyrood elections.
A Your Party spokesperson said:
Labour have failed the country. To get Britain back on its feet and prevent the threat of a far-right government requires more than just a new face – it requires a new politics. That’s what Your Party’s leadership elections are all about.
Members from all walks of life have put themselves forward, a testament to the depth and diversity of our mass movement. From today, our members will vote on who leads Your Party into its next phase.
Featured image via the Canary
A non-binary co-star of John Lithgow has admitted to having mixed feelings about his decision to accept a role in the Harry Potter TV series.
The Australian actor Aud Mason-Hyde shares the screen with John in the movie Jimpa, which was filmed in early 2024, around a year before the news that the Conclave star would be playing Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore in the new TV adaptation of the JK Rowling novels.
While the Harry Potter series isn’t expected to premiere until next year, it has already faced some backlash due to the involvement of Rowling as an executive producer, in light of her ongoing commentary about transgender people.
This has included – but is not limited to – deliberately misgendering trans public figures on several occasions, and donating tens of thousands of pounds to the campaign group which raised the initial legal challenge that led to the UK Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling that the legal definition of a woman should include only those who were assigned female at birth.
While promoting Jimpa in a recent interview with Out magazine, Aud hailed John as a “beautiful human to make work with”, claiming that he became “a mentor” in “some capacity” to them during the making of the film.
“I never felt invalidated or questioned or doubted in my identity or in my transness by him,” they continued. “I consistently felt that he was a very loving and a very guiding co-star. And so there’s an element of [him being in the Harry Potter series] that feels vaguely hurtful.
“But also, I think that he’s making this decision after we had made the film and after we had premiered the film, can’t take away from what we had and the time that we spent together and the beautiful work that he does in this movie and actually how incredibly authentically he played the role.”
Shortly after his casting was announced, John admitted he was “absolutely not” expecting the backlash he received for accepting the role of Dumbledore, pondering: “I wonder how JK Rowling has absorbed it. I suppose at a certain point I’ll meet her and I’m curious to talk to her.”
More recently, the two-time Oscar nominee told The Hollywood Reporter of the controversy: “I take the subject and the issue extremely seriously.
“JK Rowling has created this amazing canon for young people, young kids’ literature that has jumped into the consciousness of society. Young and old people love Harry Potter and the Harry Potter stories. It’s so much about acceptance. It’s about good versus evil. It’s about kindness versus cruelty. It’s deeply felt.”
He added that, because of this, he found Rowling expressing “such views” on transgender people both “ironic and somewhat inexplicable”.
The Harry Potter TV show will dedicate one season to each of Rowling’s novels, with the likes of Janet McTeer, Paapa Essiedu and Nick Frost also playing key characters at the wizarding school.
After raising eyebrows with his own casting Nick Frost insisted last year that his and Rowling’s views on the trans community are markedly different.
“She’s allowed her opinion and I’m allowed mine,” he insisted. “They just don’t align in any way, shape or form.”
Help and support:
- The Gender Trust supports anyone affected by gender identity | 01527 894 838
- Mermaids offers information, support, friendship and shared experiences for young people with gender identity issues | 0208 1234819
- LGBT Youth Scotland is the largest youth and community-based organisation for LGBT people in Scotland. Text 07786 202 370
- Gires provides information for trans people, their families and professionals who care for them | 01372 801554
- Depend provides support, advice and information for anyone who knows, or is related to, a transsexual person in the UK
In politics, readers, evil and stupidity aren’t the same thing.
But nor are they exclusive.
Before we ask you to consider which of the terms applies to the Scottish Government led by John Swinney, we’d like you to read this letter sent to Wings by the auntie of two women imprisoned in Scottish jails.
“I have two nieces who have had to share prison space with men. I used to visit niece 1 in Saughton in Edinburgh and Greenock where men were housed, including Paris Green, Melissa Young and Alex Stewart. She got released in 2024 but then her sister (niece 2) was imprisoned and I would visit her in Polmont (Scotland closed Saughton for women and sent them all to Polmont in Falkirk (although Alex remains in Greenock). She was released last week. Both nieces gave testimony to FWS in their current court case against Scot Gov.
The first time I visited my niece in Saughton in Edinburgh I was wearing my WOMEN DON’T HAVE PENISES sweater. I had no idea she was sharing the estate with men. My sweater was something I would wear around town on a daily basis. As I was in the waiting area with other visitors, a guard told me I would need to take my sweater off if I wanted to visit my niece.
I asked him where is the lie in stating women don’t have penises. He told me, ‘that’s a matter of opinion’. I turned to the room and asked, ‘hands up, all the women here who have penises’. They all laughed, but I still had to take my top off in order to go visit my niece. That’s when I realised she was sharing the estate with men.
She told me of Melissa Young (Google him). He has had the operation, but my niece said his room was always ‘stinking’. Presumably because of the vinegar douche he needs to use, and because of the fact that the intestine is used to replicate a vagina.
She also said that he made the female inmates perform humiliation rituals in order to access his codeine tablets. He would make one woman, Mary, suck on his breasts, and my niece said he would show people his ‘vagina’ at every opportunity. He also battered a woman, and it was the woman who got sent to a different prison so that he wouldn’t be inconvenienced.
Paris Green would walk around with stretchy leggings on, showcasing his penis. Both he and Melissa have been guilty of assaulting prison guards (google it). Paris Green also entered niece 2’s cell and started stroking her hips. This was ten years ago (my nieces have had a very violent and abusive upbringing and have been in the system since the ages of 15).
Both of my nieces are caught in a cycle of poverty, crime and addiction. When this happened, years ago, it was the case that trans prisoners had to sit at the door of their cell. They were not allowed to mingle freely because the prison recognised that they were a risk. But when the ‘screw’ wasn’t looking, Paris made her way into my niece’s room and started stroking her.
In Greenock, in order to take a shower, females have to go through Nyomi Fee who killed her child. Inmates are given jobs, and it’s Nyomi’s job to hand out towels. Nyomi is in love with Alex the trans man. My niece hates a ‘beast’ and so she would wipe herself down in her room rather than have to go through a man, Alex, in order to get a towel. Alex and Nyomi are inseperable. Nyomi was in charge of distributing towels for women to enter the communal shower area.
Niece 2 is a lesbian, and in Greenock it is communal showering. I imagine most women don’t want to see a man in their washing area, but for lesbians it is particularly relevant.
The prison guards do not allow lesbian relationships. My niece’s lover was also in jail and they separated the two of them by putting them in different jails, but with Alex and Nyomi the guards allow them to freely interact with each other. My niece said the guards would often hang out in their rooms, laughing it up with the both of them.
Laws changed and most of the women were put in Polmont. Alex stayed at Greenock. My niece said Paris was always on a ‘rule’ (locked in his room) because he was always flashing his cock to the guards and the women. She also said that he is a very tall man, and can look over the cubicle when women are showering. She also said that she had to sit in the waiting area with him when waiting for a doctor’s appointment, unsupervised.
Both nieces were battered and abused by their father, but niece 1 went on to have a relationship with an abusive man who would hit her and handcuff her naked to a radiator. In her own words he ‘kicked babies out of me’. She miscarried twice because of the severity of the beatings he gave her. And yet Scot Gov are putting her in an estate with men guilty of the most violent crimes.
Lastly, there is a woman who is living as a man in Polmont. She has had top surgery and takes testosterone and has a beard and looks like a man. When she was charged, she was sent to a man’s prison. But when she got there they discovered she is a biological female and so they returned her to a women’s prison.
Women’s prisons are a dumping ground for the gender confused. If men who think they are women are allowed to be in the female estate, why can’t women who think they are men be housed in the men’s estate?”
Readers will doubtless already have their own opinions about the merits or otherwise of the Scottish Government’s apparent desperation to ensure that men like those described above continue to be housed among vulnerable women. But we’d also like you consider something else.
Because even if you think that putting violent men in women’s prisons is a simply super idea, you must be aware that the majority of Scots do not.
And so even if you agreed with the policy, you would presumably still be able to understand that there was a less moronic way to try to achieve it than the one the Scottish Government is currently pursuing.
Because the government’s core argument in the case heard at the Court Of Session last week is that it HAS to continue to allow the Scottish Prison Service to flout the Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case, because if it doesn’t it might find itself sued by a hypothetical transwoman who murdered or raped someone and then found himself locked up in a men’s jail.
Such a man, the Scottish Government’s counsel argued last week, might kill himself in such circumstances, which a great many people might consider no great tragedy but which would apparently upset the government sorely.
The First Minister was therefore faced with a choice between two options:
OPTION 1
– continue to house male prisoners in the female estate if they say they’re women.
– spend a bucketload of public money fighting for that position in court against For Women Scotland, causing the vast majority of the Scottish electorate to think you’re a bunch of scumbags who have lost their minds.
OPTION 2
– obey the Supreme Court ruling and immediately ban all males from women’s prisons.
– wait and see if at some point in the future, a transwoman prisoner assigned to a male prison did indeed bring a court case about it. (If they don’t, problem solved and it didn’t cost you a penny!)
– fight that case in the court, arguing for the Supreme Court ruling, with the backing of the vast majority of the Scottish electorate.
And here’s the thing, readers – it makes no difference to the eventual outcome. Whichever side you fight, the court will make the decision.
If you choose Option 1, almost everyone thinks you’re sewage whether you win or lose. If you choose Option 2, you win either way – you get all the benefits of taking the position that voters want you to take, and if you lose and the court rules in favour of the murderers, you’ve got someone else to blame it on.
(And if that’s the outcome you secretly want, you can always choose an idiot for your KC and send him in to throw it.)
Try as we might, even assuming the worst of motivations, we can think of no sane or sensible reason for doing as the Scottish Government has done and choosing Option 1. It’s not only evil, it’s also political suicide. The level of staggeringly obvious stupidity it requires stretches the bounds of credibility even for an administration as packed full of utter boneheads as this one.
Option 1 guarantees wasting yet more taxpayers’ money, enraging voters and getting terrible headlines in the months immediately preceding a general election. Option 2 not only gets you a lot more support, but it almost certainly kicks the issue down the road beyond the election where it can’t do you nearly as much hard.
Literally the ONLY halfway-logical explanation we can think of for what they’ve done is if the First Minister wants to make absolutely sure he doesn’t win a majority in May. And the reasons he doesn’t are rather easier to discern.
Making sure Swinney doesn’t have to try to secure independence in the next five years is just the latest in a long list of reasons why the SNP are willing to throw women under the bus, and subject people like our reader’s nieces to the grotesque suffering they’ve been made to endure at the hands of the state.
We don’t know about you, folks, but it makes us sick to our stomachs.
Cabinet ministers have pledged their support for Keir Starmer as the prime minister fights for his political survival.
In a clearly co-cordinated operation, a succession of senior government ministers took to social media to make clear they do not want the PM to resign.
It came as Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar was calling on Starmer to quit over the Peter Mandelson scandal engulfing No.10.
The UK’s former ambassador to Washington is facing a police investigation over allegations he passed market sensitive information to the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he was business secretary between 2008 and 2010.
Sarwar said: “The distraction needs to end and the leadership in Downing Street has to change.”
The incendiary move led to speculation that cabinet ministers could resign in order to force the PM out.
But one after another, they posted messages on X making clear they believe he should stay in his post.
Angela Rayner, who was forced to resign as deputy PM last year and is seen as a frontrunner to replace Starmer if he goes, also called on Labour MPs to back him.
Another MP who has been mentioned as a potential replacement for Starmer, armed forces minister Al Carns, also backed the PM.
A launch date has now been set for the arrival of the streaming platform HBO Max in the UK.
HBO Max launched across the pond in 2020, and in the years since, its original shows have traditionally debuted on Sky and Now for British viewers.
Last year, it was confirmed that the service would finally be coming to UK shores in 2026, with bosses announcing plans for its British premiere on Monday.
Here’s what we currently know about HBO Max’s UK debut…
When is HBO Max coming to the UK?
HBO Max will be coming to the UK in around six weeks, on Thursday 26 March.
An official press release towards the end of last year claimed that when the platform launches in the UK, existing Now users would “receive bundled access to the ad-supported version of Max, seamlessly integrated into the Now experience alongside other premium content”.
For those without Now access, there’ll be four payment options.
Of these, the two cheapest will be ad-based at either £4.99 or £5.99 a month, depending on whether users want to pay to be able to download content from the platform to watch on mobile.
The first ad-free package begins at £9.99 a month, while a £14.99 a month option includes 4K Ultra HD with Dolby Atmos.
Which shows will be on HBO Max when it comes to the UK?
As is already the case in the US, HBO Max users will have on-demand access to some of HBO’s most popular original series ever including Sex And The City, The Sopranos, Succession and Game Of Thrones.
Some of HBO’s original shows, which will also be readily available, are the hit comedy Hacks, the award-winning medical drama The Pitt and the now-defunct Sex And The City revival And Just Like That.
As for what’s coming up, the platform will premiere just in time for the third season of The Comeback, while a third and final season of Euphoria is also coming later in 2026.
Crucially, HBO Max is also expected to be the new UK home of Friends, after the much-loved sitcom disappeared from Netflix at the end of last year.
Fotos International via Getty Images
The Israel lobby, its political allies and its media actors have been pushing a farcical narrative that last week’s acquittal of six anti-genocide activists from the Filton 24 was unsafe. The supposed ‘reason’ for this unsafe verdict was ‘jury-tampering’. The supposed jury-tampering? Placards near the court that reminded jurors of their legal right to ignore the trial’s biased judge and acquit.
Filton acquittal to be challenged?
It’s nonsense, and recent legal precedent shows it’s nonsense. But nonetheless, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced that it will seek a retrial of the six who dared to defeat its first attempt to criminalise and imprison them for trying to stop Israel’s Gaza genocide.
It’s nonsense because this is not the first time the UK government has tried it – and it was laughed out of court. The dying Sunak government tried to prosecute pensioner Trudi Warner for holding up a placard outside the trial of climate activists. The placard read:
Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.
The government’s barrister Aidan Eardley KC told the judge that the prosecution needed to go ahead “to maintain public confidence” in the independence of the jury system. He added that if Warner wasn’t punished for holding up the sign, actions to remind juries of their rights were “likely to propagate”.
The judge threw the prosecution case out of court, saying it was ridiculous to prosecute someone for reminding someone else of their legal rights. He also pointed out that the same reminder is on a placard on a wall inside the Old Bailey courthouse (emphasis added):
Overall, in my judgment, the claim is based on a mischaracterisation of what Ms Warner did that morning and a failure to recognise that what her placard said outside the court reflects essentially what is regularly read on the Old Bailey plaque by jurors, and what our highest courts recognise as part of our constitutional landscape.
Holding up a sign reminding juries of their right to acquit is not just legal. It is a right that “our highest courts recognise as part of our constitutional landscape”.
If it’s legal, it can’t be jury-tampering – because jury-tampering is a crime. Case closed, except for the tame corporate media like Murdoch’s Times.
Show trials
But the reason that the Israel lobby in and out of Parliament and the CPS is trying to have it ruled as jury-tampering is that jury-tampering is one of the grounds that allows people to be prosecuted for an alleged offence despite being found not guilty. And the lobby – from Number 10 down – is desperate to get a conviction, both to cement Palestine Action as ‘terrorists’ and to deter future resistance to genocide. Canary CEO Steve Topple did an explainer video on how the double-jeopardy exception works:
Based on legal precedent, the government/lobby (same difference) case is bollocks. But will the judge deciding whether to grant a re-trial care?
Featured image via the Canary
Politics
Politics Home Article | Scottish Labour Leader Anas Sarwar Calls For Keir Starmer To Resign
Anas Sarwar has called for Keir Starmer to resign as Prime Minister (Alamy)
3 min read
Scottish Labour Leader Anas Sarwar has called for Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign.
Sarwar made the intervention in a press conference on Monday afternoon, in the latest blow to Starmer’s premiership.
PoliticsHome understands that Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan could follow Sarwar in calling for Starmer to step down.
Speaking at an unscheduled press conference on Monday afternoon, Sarwar said: “The distraction needs to end and the leadership in Downing Street has to change” and “the situation in Downing Street is not good enough”.
Sarwar said the decision to speak out against Starmer “is not easy and “not without pain” as he has “a genuine friendship with Keir Starmer”.
But he said his “first priority” had to be to his country.
Sarwar said: “We cannot allow the failures at the heart of Downing Street to mean the failures continue here in Scotland, because the election is not without consequence for the lives of Scots.
“The situation in Downing Street is not good enough. There have been too many mistakes. They promised they were going to be different, but too much has happened.
“Have there been good things? Of course there have many of them, but no one knows them and no one can hear them because they’re being drowned out.
“That is why it cannot continue.”
Sarwar said he had spoken to Starmer earlier on Monday and “it’s safe to say that he and I disagreed”.
His call for Starmer to quit comes after the Prime Minister lost his director of communications, Tim Allan, and his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, in less than 24 hours, with both resigning in quick succession.
McSweeney announced his resignation on Sunday over his role in the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.
The pressure on Starmer has been growing since his admission at PMQs on Wednesday that he knew about the ongoing friendship between Mandelson and paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein when the former was appointed as US ambassador.
Labour is expected to suffer significant losses at Scottish Parliament elections in May, with the party trailing both the Scottish National Party and Reform UK.
A Scottish Labour source told PoliticsHome that Sarwar wanted to be the first to make the call for Starmer to go to gain the maximum electoral advantage among the devolved leaders ahead of the Holyrood elections.
The source confirmed there have been conversations between Sarwar and allies of Health Secretary Wes Streeting, widely seen as a leading candidate to succeed Starmer, in the run-up to the decision to call for Starmer to quit, though the electoral factor was the key reason for his announcement.
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy posted on X in support of Starmer, saying he “won a massive mandate 18 months ago, for five years to deliver on Labour’s manifesto that we all stood on”.
He added: “We should let nothing distract us from our mission to change Britain and we support the Prime Minister in doing that.”
Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Defence Secretary John Healey and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Steve Reed have also posted online in support of the Prime Minister.
A Downing Street spokesman said: “Keir Starmer is one of only four Labour leaders ever to have won a general election.
“He has a clear five-year mandate from the British people to deliver change, and that is what he will do.”
More follows…
Additional reporting by Sienna Rodgers
McDonald’s fans are ‘mind-blown’ after learning correct way to use sauce pot
Consumers seek fiber but lack knowledge
ETH Movements Hit Peak Levels Since Last August
-
Video7 days agoWhen Money Enters #motivation #mindset #selfimprovement
-
Tech5 days agoWikipedia volunteers spent years cataloging AI tells. Now there’s a plugin to avoid them.
-
Politics23 hours agoWhy Israel is blocking foreign journalists from entering
-
Sports3 days agoJD Vance booed as Team USA enters Winter Olympics opening ceremony
-
Tech3 days agoFirst multi-coronavirus vaccine enters human testing, built on UW Medicine technology
-
NewsBeat18 hours agoWinter Olympics 2026: Team GB’s Mia Brookes through to snowboard big air final, and curling pair beat Italy
-
NewsBeat6 days agoUS-brokered Russia-Ukraine talks are resuming this week
-
Business23 hours agoLLP registrations cross 10,000 mark for first time in Jan
-
Sports13 hours agoBenjamin Karl strips clothes celebrating snowboard gold medal at Olympics
-
Politics1 day agoThe Health Dangers Of Browning Your Food
-
Sports2 days ago
Former Viking Enters Hall of Fame
-
Sports3 days ago
New and Huge Defender Enter Vikings’ Mock Draft Orbit
-
Business1 day agoJulius Baer CEO calls for Swiss public register of rogue bankers to protect reputation
-
NewsBeat3 days agoSavannah Guthrie’s mother’s blood was found on porch of home, police confirm as search enters sixth day: Live
-
Business4 days agoQuiz enters administration for third time
-
NewsBeat8 hours agoResidents say city high street with ‘boarded up’ shops ‘could be better’
-
NewsBeat4 days agoStill time to enter Bolton News’ Best Hairdresser 2026 competition
-
NewsBeat3 days agoDriving instructor urges all learners to do 1 check before entering roundabout
-
Crypto World6 days agoRussia’s Largest Bitcoin Miner BitRiver Enters Bankruptcy Proceedings: Report
-
NewsBeat7 days agoImages of Mamdani with Epstein are AI-generated. Here’s how we know