Father’s Day gifts are often chosen based on emotion, but without long-term practicality. As a result, the thing looks nice at the moment they are given, but quickly loses its purpose in everyday life. That is why more and more people are turning to practical solutions – tools that are not just given but actually used for years.

Why Most Father’s Day Gifts End Up in a Drawer

Most gifts fail not because of quality, but because they lack a practical function. They either duplicate items they already own or do not fit into daily routines. Even items from the wood carving store often look appealing but are rarely used.

Another problem is durability. When a thing does not stand the test of time, it automatically moves into the category of temporary things. Against this background, Sharky Forged Steel Tools (FST) stands out because they are not created as souvenirs, but as working resources. These are the things you are more likely to find at a woodcarving store near me or a specialized wood carving shop when people are looking for something real, not decorative.

Typical reasons why gifts end up unused:

• no practical everyday use;
• poor durability or short service life;
• duplication of existing things;
• emotional-driven, but impractical choice;
• lack of regular use.

Why Hand-Forged Tools Hit Different as a Gift

Hand-forged tools are perceived differently because they are immediately associated with work rather than decoration. These are things that are made for use, not display.  Tools from Forged Steel Tools are often just that—they remain in use for years.

Such tools do not become outdated because their value lies in function rather than design. They become part of daily work – from minor repairs to creative projects. And that’s what makes it a meaningful gift.

Which Tool Fits Your Dad Best

The right choice starts with how a person actually spends their time, not what looks impressive in the box.

If he likes to work with wood, basic carving tools or small knives for details will do.

If he works more in the yard, it’s better to choose durable universal tools for gardening or household tasks.

If he constantly repairs something, you should look at tools with high durability and versatile use.

If he’s just starting a hobby, simple starter kits will be the best option.

How to Turn a Tool into a Memory

A tool, on its own, is a practical item, but its meaning changes with context. If you add a personal element, it ceases to be just a thing.

A short note or phrase inside the package can tie the tool to a specific moment. The idea of sharing works even more strongly: when the first project is done together, even a simple tool can take on a story that stays with you for a long time.

By Nathan Spears

Source link

The right security door is not the same for every building. A terraced home, detached house, workshop, garage, and commercial unit all have different risks, access points, and practical requirements.

Before comparing steel, composite, timber, or uPVC, it helps to understand what the door actually needs to do. A front door on a residential street may need to balance security with kerb appeal. A rear workshop door, on the other hand, may need to prioritise forced-entry resistance, frame strength, and durability above appearance.

In most cases, the best choice comes down to four things: threat level, property type, durability, and any planning or heritage restrictions.

The 4 Things That Should Decide Your Security Door Choice

1. Threat Level

Most residential break-ins are opportunistic. Someone may try a handle, look for a weak frame, or choose a door that appears easy to force open quickly and quietly.

That means not every property needs the most heavy-duty door available. A standard home front door has a different risk profile from a workshop storing tools or a commercial unit left empty overnight.

For higher-risk locations, the door material alone is not enough. The frame, lock, hinges, and certification matter just as much. Look for recognised standards such as PAS 24, which tests the full doorset, including the leaf, frame, hardware, and glazing. Secured by Design, the police-backed security initiative, is another useful benchmark because it shows the product has been tested to a recognised standard.

2. Property Type and Door Position

Where the door sits on the building is one of the biggest factors.

A front entrance is visible and usually needs to look right. A side or rear door is often less visible, which can make it a higher-risk access point. Garage side doors, basement entrances, utility doors, workshops, and commercial service entrances are frequently weaker than the main front door.

This is where many people make the wrong decision. They spend heavily on the front door but leave the back door, garage, or side entrance under-protected. From a security point of view, those overlooked doors are often the ones that matter most.

3. Durability and Maintenance

A security door should not only perform well on day one. It should still close properly, lock cleanly, and resist attack after years of weather, use, and impact.

Steel doors are strong, low maintenance, and resistant to warping, swelling, and rot. Composite doors are also stable, secure, and well insulated, making them a strong choice for residential front entrances. Timber doors can look excellent on period properties, but they need regular maintenance. uPVC doors are usually the lowest-cost option, but they are not normally the strongest choice when forced-entry resistance is the priority.

4. Planning or Heritage Restrictions

If your property is listed, replacing an external door may require listed building consent. Unauthorised changes to a listed building can be a criminal offence, even if the new door is more secure or energy efficient.

Conservation areas may also have restrictions, especially where Article 4 directions remove permitted development rights. Before ordering a new door for an older or protected property, check with your local planning authority.

A practical compromise is often to keep the front door sympathetic to the building’s appearance, while improving security on less visible side or rear access points.

Steel vs Composite vs Timber vs uPVC

Steel Doors

Steel is the most practical choice when security, durability, and heavy use matter more than traditional domestic appearance. It is especially suitable for side and rear doors, garages, workshops, outbuildings, commercial units, and service entrances.

A good steel doorset combines a reinforced steel leaf with a strong steel frame. This matters because a strong door fitted into a weak frame will not deliver the level of protection people expect.

For residential, commercial, and industrial settings, Latham’s steel security doors range is a relevant example because it includes single and double doors, stock sizes, and options for different levels of security.

Composite Doors

Composite doors are often the best all-round option for standard residential front doors. They offer strong security credentials, good insulation, multipoint locking, and a wide range of styles and colours.

They are ideal where appearance and domestic performance matter. However, they are not usually designed for the same level of abuse as a commercial or workshop door. If a door will be used heavily, kicked shut regularly, or exposed to higher theft risk, steel will often be the better long-term choice.

Timber Doors

Timber is best where appearance and authenticity are important. Period homes, listed buildings, and conservation areas may need a timber door to preserve the character of the property.

A well-made hardwood door can be secure, but it needs proper care. If timber moves, warps, or deteriorates, the locks may stop engaging cleanly and the door may no longer sit properly in the frame. For exposed rear doors, workshops, or high-use entrances, timber is not always the most practical option.

uPVC Doors

uPVC is usually the budget option. It can work for lower-risk properties, internal porch doors, or utility entrances where cost is the main concern.

However, when forced-entry resistance is the priority, uPVC is rarely the best choice. Even if the lock is reasonable, the material and frame are usually weaker than composite or steel alternatives.

Which Door Is Best for Each Property Type?

Terraced Houses

For most terraced homes, a composite front door is the safest default recommendation. It offers strong security, good insulation, and enough design options to suit the street.

The rear door deserves just as much attention. Rear alleys, yards, and basement entrances are often less visible and more vulnerable. If the property has a poorly lit or shared rear access, a steel door may be a better choice for that part of the building.

Detached Houses

Detached homes usually have more access points. Side entrances, garages, utility rooms, and rear doors can often be reached without being seen from the street.

A sensible approach is to use composite for the main front entrance and steel for garage side doors, utility access, plant rooms, or rear entrances. Detached garages are a common weak point, especially when they contain tools, bikes, or provide access to the main house.

Commercial Units

Commercial properties need doors that can handle regular use, deliveries, staff access, and higher forced-entry risk outside business hours.

Steel is usually the most practical choice. It offers strength, durability, low maintenance, and better suitability for heavy-use environments. For commercial doors, the frame, lock quality, and hardware are especially important.

Workshops and Outbuildings

Workshops and outbuildings are often targeted because they contain valuable tools, machinery, or materials. They may also be isolated or left unchecked for long periods.

For these buildings, steel usually offers the best cost-to-security ratio. A domestic-style composite door may look better, but that appearance adds little value to a workshop. A steel doorset is usually stronger, more durable, and better suited to the risk.

What Matters More Than Material Alone

The door leaf is only one part of the system. The frame is often where forced entries succeed. A strong door in a weak timber frame is a false economy.

Locking systems also matter. Multipoint locking helps distribute force across the door rather than relying on one lock point. Anti-snap cylinders, strong hinges, secure handles, and reinforced hardware should all be considered.

Certification is another important factor. PAS 24 and Secured by Design provide more confidence than general marketing claims. If security is the main reason for buying the door, ask whether the full doorset has been tested.

Thermal and acoustic performance may also matter, especially for attached garages, workshops close to homes, or external doors connected to heated spaces. Check U-values, insulation, and acoustic ratings where relevant.

Cost-to-Security Ratio

The cheapest door is not always the best value.

uPVC is the lowest-cost option but best suited to lower-risk situations. Timber can be expensive over time because of maintenance. Composite is a strong middle ground for domestic front doors. Steel often offers the best value where risk, durability, and low maintenance matter most.

The biggest mistake is spending most of the budget on the door that looks best, while ignoring the door that is most likely to be targeted.

The Best Security Door Depends on the Building

There is no single best security door for every property.

Composite is usually the best choice for residential front doors. Timber suits heritage properties where appearance is controlled. uPVC works for lower-risk, budget-sensitive situations. Steel is the strongest practical option for side doors, rear entrances, garages, workshops, outbuildings, and commercial units.

The most important rule is simple: do not only protect the door people see. The door that gets overlooked is often the one that gets targeted.

By Nathan Spears

Source link

Zack Polanski has slammed the government for banning Twitch streamer Hasan Piker and news anchor Cenk Uygur from entering the country. As we reported, it follows a pattern of this Labour government using any means at its disposal to clamp down on the civil liberties of those who oppose Israel. And we’re far from the only ones to make this argument:

Shabana Mahmood, we’re told will get a senior position in an Andy Burnham government.

She needs to explain this strange and worrying decision, and Andy Burnham needs to make his view clear.

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) June 1, 2026

Advertisement

Polanski was set to be interviewed

Piker was due to spend seven days in the UK, and planned to speak with Polanski in addition to Jeremy Corbyn and Yanis Varoufakis. Piker said the following in response to the ban:

ironic because a year ago, i delivered a speech at oxford union about the dangers of conflating judaism and zionism & how this foments antisemitism. since then the government has arrested pensioners for protesting against israel and let iof war criminals roam free! https://t.co/C6f9poXFR3

— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) June 1, 2026

Advertisement

Uygur, meanwhile, said this:

It's an honor to have made Israel's enemies list. I'm very proud to have fought against their genocide.

The mighty United Kingdom is afraid of speech that shows you who's responsible for those war crimes. But no amount of censorship will get us to stop telling the truth.

Advertisement

— Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) June 1, 2026

We go into the decision to ban Piker in much further detail here. Back to Polanski, he’s absolutely correct to call out Shabana Mahmood and the Home Office. This is the government department which labelled Palestine Action a terrorist group. This action led to the mass arrests of activists who refused to be bowed by the government:

BREAKING: Police move in to arrest action takers from People Against Genocide, who were blockading an Israeli military drone factory in Staffordshire.

The factory, UAV Engines, is owned by Israeli weapons firm Elbit Systems, manufacturers of 85% of Israel's killer drone fleet. pic.twitter.com/1Wr4PIxi95

— The Aftershock (@The_Aftershock_) June 1, 2026

Police have made 2100 arrests under terrorism laws in the UK for protesting peacefully against the banning of Palestine Action. This cannot go unchallenged. The UK’s chief prosecutors must now decide whether to prosecute them. We need to urge them not to. Add your name to the…

— Andrew Feinstein (@andrewfeinstein) November 11, 2025

The government has also used duplicitous tactics to criminalise members of Palestine Action:

Four of the Palestine Action protestors have been convicted by jury of criminal damage.

At no point was it put to the jury that the judge may sentence them as terrorists.

This is unprecedented move and could set a further dangerous precedent for future cases relating to…

— Apsana Begum MP (@ApsanaBegumMP) May 28, 2026

Wider response

Ash Sarkar of Novara Media is among those who have spoken out against the decision:

I was supposed to chair the [Piker] discussion at SXSW this week, who’s been banned from entering the UK by Shabana Mahmood.

First of all, [SXSW] must facilitate a way for Hasan and Cenk to contribute remotely, as a bare minimum refusal to comply with government censorship. Secondly, it’s abundantly clear that the UK government has put Israel at the heart of its policymaking around free expression.

Whether it’s proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist group, arresting hundreds of people for holding signs supporting it… or banning [Uygur] and Hasan Piker from the UK for speech acts *which would not be unlawful in this country*, what we’re witnessing is an authoritarian turn motivated by Labour’s fear of being called antisemitic, and fear of being called out for their position on the genocidal war on Gaza.

Sarkar added:

So, with Cenk and Hasan having their visas revoked, what are people gonna do? They’re going to look at things which are absolutely true – e.g. that those who served in the IDF, and may have been participants in or witnesses to war crimes, can travel to the UK freely.

SXSW, meanwhile, issued the following mealy mouthed response:

SXSW London has released a statement regarding speakers Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur being barred from entering the U.K.:

“Decisions on entry to the U.K. are a matter for the Home Office and the individuals concerned. SXSW London’s role is to convene a broad range of diverse…

— Variety (@Variety) June 1, 2026

Advertisement

Jeremy Corbyn also spoke out:

Banning Cenk Uyghur and Hasan Piker from entering the UK is an absurd and cowardly decision from an increasingly authoritarian government.

Let us call this what it is: an attack on the freedom to criticise Israel, as well as the UK government’s own complicity in genocide. https://t.co/c6jUrF3prA

Advertisement

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) June 1, 2026

Declassified UK said:

The UK has barred Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur from entering the country, with both saying it's in response to their criticism of Israel.

Yet Brits who have fought for the IDF can return home without any investigation.

Our campaign seeks to change that:https://t.co/ctAGZEmANW

— Declassified UK (@declassifiedUK) June 1, 2026

Piers Morgan has often hosted Uygur, and was duly appalled at the decision to ban him from the country:

WHAT? This is ridiculous. https://t.co/V2IoENnqY4

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 1, 2026

Morgan further said:

Not true. I only support banning people who advocate violence or who spew hateful bigotry against people based on their ethnicity/religion.
Where has Cenk done that?
His rage has been against the Israel govt and its policies.
Free speech should protect that. https://t.co/4xtjStFCsa

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 1, 2026

Centrist commentator Lewis Goodall had this to say:

The Kanye case was far more borderline but the idea of this becoming more routine was exactly my fear when I spoke/wrote about my unease at his prohibition from the country a few months ago. https://t.co/nHWyi6cItK https://t.co/DJ9zQmBIQZ

— Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) June 1, 2026

In defence of

Standing alone as ever, Starmer cheerleader Paul Mason celebrated the clampdown:

Britain is becoming a #MilitantDemocracy – bad for the grift business, good for us! pic.twitter.com/BlD0Nzbtal

— Paul Mason (@paulmasonnews) June 1, 2026

Although Mason was a prominent voice on the British left during the Corbyn years, he went on to become a wannabe spook. In aid of his spookery, Mason produced the following (allegedly) – a notorious work of conspiracism that’s seen him ridiculed for years:

Paul Mason's cocaine binge mind map has two Left/Over guests, all my mutuals and the nation of China as different nodes pic.twitter.com/Eysx3rREmt

— Ghostface Kafka (36 Chambers) (@thekafkadude) June 5, 2022

As Aaron Bastani of Novara pointed out, this unfathomable spider diagram included some very odd connections:

Disagreeing with Paul Mason on twitter is now evidence of…antisemitism?

Do you actually believe that @tom_belger?

The ‘bile’ is partly because the man himself made conspiratorial flow charts (including a line between Novara Media and the ‘black community’). pic.twitter.com/pW7ACdkKXq

Advertisement

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) June 20, 2023

Double standards

While Piker is barred from the UK, US politicians are posing with Bezalel Smotrich in New York:

Why is it controversial for Zohran to skip a parade bc of his principles but not for Democratic politicians to march with a fascist bigot like Smotrich? https://t.co/wWA72Ewym8

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) June 1, 2026

This is what HG reported for the Canary on Smotrich:

Smotrich is the leader of the far-right Religious Zionist party and an illegal settler who lives in the Occupied West Bank. His Ministry of Finance owns an arms factory in the UK, which has recently been awarded contracts with the UK government.

Smotrich has repeatedly called for Israel to completely ethnically cleanse all 1.8m people from Gaza, so it can ‘be settled’.

Advertisement

Piker’s ‘crime’, meanwhile, is pointing out that guys like Smotrich deserve universal condemnation.

Featured image via Kris Connor (Getty Images) / Jon Rowley (Getty Images) / Martin Sylvest Andersen (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

Communities, activists and civil society organisations from Africa, Europe and North America staged coordinated protests, community dialogues, cultural events and public forums this week to coincide with TotalEnergies’ Annual General Meeting.

Meanwhile, police arrested activists in New York during an action targeting JP Morgan Chase over its support for fossil fuel projects. This includes the controversial East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

Spotlight on TotalEnergies

The protests coincided with the TotalEnergies AGM, where shareholders gathered. Organisers used the occasion to spotlight projects such as EACOP, Mozambique LNG and other fossil fuel developments associated with TotalEnergies.

Organisers in New York temporarily shut down the headquarters of JP Morgan Chase. They called on the bank to end support for TotalEnergies and EACOP, before police arrested several of the activists.

StopEACOP campaign coordinator Zaki Mamdoo said:

In a profound show of solidarity that embodies the spirit and meaning of internationalism, protesters in New York were arrested shutting down JPMorgan Chase HQ – the world’s biggest fossil fuel funder over the past five years – to call out its support for TotalEnergies and the destructive EACOP.

In South Africa, hundreds gathered to challenge the social, economic and environmental costs of fossil fuel extraction. Alongside demonstrations, participants hosted public education sessions exploring alternatives to fossil fuel-dependent energy systems, including community-owned renewable energy.

In Uganda, activists gathered outside TotalEnergies’ offices carrying placards opposing EACOP and expressing solidarity with communities facing displacement and land-related grievances.

Organisers dispersed after about 48 minutes when police vehicles arrived, citing concerns over recent arrests. There were no reports of arrests or injuries. Ugandan activist, Bob Barigye said:

Our intention was to remain outside TotalEnergies’ offices for 102 minutes to symbolise the 102 years of total mess but when the police showed up, and knowing the prolonged detention of environmental defenders in Uganda, we decided to disperse peacefully.

This action followed community-led activities elsewhere in Uganda, including a tribunal in Hoima where project-affected people shared testimony about the impacts they say the pipeline project has had on their lives and livelihoods.

In Kijumba, residents staged a peaceful road blockade highlighting concerns over infrastructure damage linked to heavy EACOP-project traffic.

Balach Bakundane, one of the EACOP project affected people, and coordinator of the EACOP-Host Communities (EACOP-HC) organisation, said:

Today the ongoing EACOP project has greatly contributed to human and environmental rights violations. The people of Kijumba Village continue to depend on dirty water after community water sources were destroyed during project development.

Communities cannot continue to suffer while corporations profit.

Advertisement

Public discussions and community projects

In Tanzania, communities in Tanga participated in public discussions. These examined the impacts of large-scale extraction projects and the promises made to affected communities.

Participants discussed land access, livelihoods and compensation. Meanwhile, community members in Muheza hosted a cultural dialogue featuring storytelling, poetry and discussions on land rights and environmental protection.

In Kenya, nearly 100 residents attended a community dialogue in Siaya County focussed on a proposed nuclear energy project. Members of the Social Justice Movement organised discussions. They centred on public participation, land rights, environmental concerns, safety and community involvement in development decisions.

In Nairobi, campaigners, students, artists and faith groups gathered at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa for a Climate Artbuild Concert as part of Afrika Vuka Week. The event explored energy affordability, access to electricity and alternatives to fossil fuel-dependent development through music, art and public discussion.

In Edinburgh, Scotland, activists targeting investors linked to TotalEnergies were prevented from carrying out a planned action inside a building and instead held their demonstration outside. No arrests were reported.

Additional actions took place in Colombia and other countries where campaigners highlighted concerns about oil, gas and mining companies that operate with impunity.

Ferron Pedro, senior campaigner with 350 South Africa, said:

People across the Global South are facing rising fuel prices, rising living costs and worsening climate impacts while major fossil fuel companies continue reporting record profits.

Communities are increasingly demanding energy systems that serve public needs rather than corporate interests.

Advertisement

Organisers estimate that more than 1,000 people participated in protests, community forums, cultural events, tribunals and educational activities throughout the week.

No violent incidents were reported during the Global Week of Action. Police made arrests in New York and their presence in other cities may have altered or restricted some planned activities in Uganda and Scotland. But organisers said actions remained peaceful throughout.

TotalEnergies has not issued a direct response to the Kick Polluters Out Global Week of Action.

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

In a newly released letter, Peter Mandelson told David Lammy he would “never regret” making him ambassador to the US. While this ended up being catastrophically incorrect, Mandelson did at least get it right when he predicted the role would be “the last thing I do in public life”.

Mandelson: Petering out

As you can see, Mandelson’s handwriting is somewhat difficult to decipher:

As far as we can tell, this is what Mandelson wrote (emphasis added):

Dear David,

As today (and all week) is polling day in Oxford and I am returning to London, I wanted to drop you a line, privately, about Washington.

Advertisement

Thankfully, the media speculation has gone away and I hope this was not too irritating to you. I just wanted you to know that if you were minded to appoint me I would make sure you never regret it.

They’re calling it the least true statement of all time.

The disgraced Epstein associate continued:

I fear that navigating Britain’s interests through the Trump administration will require super-human skills and luck and a massive team effort.

Was there a superhero whose special ability was being best friends with Jeffrey Epstein? If there was, no doubt they based him on Peter Mandelson.

Mandelson continued:

There is so much riding on it, on security and defence, on trade and economy and on EU relationships, not to mention China. If we all put our best minds and energy to it, I think we can pull it off but we have to be realistic.

Oh yes, we have to make “realistic” decisions – decisions like hiring a twice-disgraced politician to be our ambassador to the US, and expecting no controversy to result from that.

To be fair to old Peter, he did get this next bit spot on:

For me, it would be the last thing I do in public life.

If the police do their job, this could be the truest words ever spoken.

He finished:

it would be a huge honour to serve you and the government in this role. So if you are up for it, so am I.

Very best,

Peter

We think he wrote “huge honour”, but it would be more accurate if his squiggly handwriting actually reads “huge horror”.

Warning signs

As we reported on 8 February, Lammy claims he ‘warned’ Keir Starmer not to appoint Peter Mandelson:

That’s odd because here is David Lammy describing Peter Mandelson as a “man of considerable expertise” and the “right man” to be the US ambassador.

Looks like he is trying to save his own skin. https://t.co/V1vIlscNws pic.twitter.com/Ve8AoJLdMX

— Chris Rose (@ArchRose90) February 7, 2026

Advertisement

With far more letters set for release, we’ll soon find out if this story holds up.

Featured image via Anna Moneymayker (Getty Images) / WPA Pool (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union have highlighted the creation of a “two-tier workforce” as Govia Thameslink Railway enters public ownership.

Govia Thameslink Railway is the UK’s largest train operator, encompassing Southern, Thameslink, Great Northern and Gatwick Express.

Labour has begun the public ownership process as part of its manifesto commitment to nationalise the majority of train companies after their contracts expire.

The Department for Transport Operator Limited already manages West Midlands Trains, Greater Anglia, c2c, South Western, Northern, TransPennine Express, Southeastern and LNER under the same commitment. Chiltern Railways and Great Western Railways will follow in September and December, respectively.

Govia Thameslink Railway nationalised on 31 May

Transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, said:

Bringing Britain’s largest train operator into public ownership is a defining moment in our reform of the railway. It gives us an opportunity to tackle the bread and butter issues people want, like driving down cancellations and improving the frequency of services to Gatwick Airport.

Those “bread and butter issues” are a real grab-bag, from the genuinely important to the painfully mundane. Nevertheless, Labour crammed the whole lot into its press release.

The plans include:

• Doubling services for Gatwick Express services and increasing Saturday and Monday morning trains from December onwards. They’ll also additional Great Northern services around the same time.
• Continuing Govia Thameslink Railway’s recruitment of 75 more drives between Thameslink and Great Northern, and 40 drivers at Southern and Gatwick Express this year.
• Training 110 ‘Travel Safe Officers’ to “support revenue protection” (i.e. check more tickets) and increase security.
• Upgrading secondary signalling between Farringdon and Blackfriars. The government expects this to prevent as many as 1,000 cancellations per year.
• Providing more online payment options and a customer support channel on WhatsApp.
• Cleaning the graffiti in the Thameslink train toilets and resurfacing the toilet interiors. (Did we really need government intervention for that one?)

‘Two-tier workforce’ risk

Whilst at least half of those plans sound very worthy, the unions have been less than enamoured with one aspect of the endeavour.

TUC general secretary, Paul Nowak, explained:

This could be one of the great success stories of the Labour government.

But it is undermining its own efforts to deliver nationalised rail by leaving contracts in the hands of third-party providers who line their own pockets at the expense of the workforce and passengers.

We need a fully integrated national rail service which works for passengers and the rail workforce.

That means tackling outsourcing in the sector and ensuring all rail workers enjoy decent terms and conditions.

Govia Thameslink Railway contracts its cleaning services to private provider, Churchill. TUC analysis highlighted that Churchill makes £2.53 million gross profit annually from this tender alone. That’s the equivalent of 160,000 additional hours of cleaning or 83 extra cleaners.

This outsourcing diverts money from the public, workers and services into the pockets of private shareholders. The unions are urging that the cleaning services should instead be brought in-house.

Eddie Dempsey, general secretary of the RMT, explained:

We want to see all our members on the railway receive the same benefits of public ownership and this includes outsourced workers.

The Labour government needs to follow through on its commitment to undertake a mass wave of insourcing.

Nationalisation — in spirit or in name?

It’s not like Labour’s nationalisation doesn’t have form for continuing to enrich private interests, either.

The Canary previously reported that energy secretary Ed Milliband handed lucrative contracts to London-based firms, Deloitte and Baringa Partners. Now, the two companies will handle day-to-day operations of GB Energy, nominally Labour’s flagship publicly-owned energy corporation.

The National revealed that these contracts promise the firms up to £10 million each to be responsible for “organisational set up support”, “operational design and delivery”, market strategy and “technical support”.

Likewise, GB Energy was also supposed to create 1,000 jobs, mostly in the north of England. However, GB Energy only employes 30 staff on permanent contracts. The rest are on temporary or contingent, i.e. far less secure, government-sponsored contracts.

Don’t get us wrong, the Canary advocates for the nationalisation of public services. However, that process needs to be more than public ownership in name only. This, in turn, means spending public money on the public good, not further enriching private shareholders.

As the unions pointed out, Labour isn’t set to achieve that aim with Govia Thameslink Railway — and if its performance with GB Energy is anything to go by, that fact is a feature, not a bug.

Featured image via Charlotte Coney/ Getty Images

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

US Democratic Party Leader Chuck Schumer joined far-right Israeli Minister Bezalel Smotrich and other far-right Israeli lawmakers and American politicians in the annual Israel Day Parade in New York City over the weekend.

Smotrich, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court,  is openly genocidal and has repeatedly called for Israel to completely ethnically cleanse all 1.8 million people from Gaza, so it can ‘be settled’. Smotrich also called to annex the entirety of the West Bank during a speech at a Jerusalem Day rally last month.

Chuck Schumer is marching in NYC alongside a genocidal maniac wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. https://t.co/AHlUhOWfXQ

— Mohammad Alsaafin (@malsaafin) May 31, 2026

A “record-size” delegation of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, attended the parade, Haaretz reported.

They have to ethnically cleanse us and steal our land so multi millionaire Chuck Schumer can have a just-in-case fascist state to flee to? https://t.co/XbeD00bZz7

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) June 1, 2026

American-Lebanese journalist Rania Khalek posted a speech by Schumer at the parade, in which Schumer was lauding Israel as a state standing for the Jewish people.

That’s the Israel that Schumer is lauding — one that ethnically cleanses Palestinians and Lebanese people alike.

Israel and Isaac Accords

Smotrich is reportedly also travelling to Washington to meet with leaders of Latin American countries to expand the Isaac Accords.

Smotrich traveled to Washington in order to meet with leaders of Latin American nations and expand the Isaac Accords, the new diplomatic-economic initiative with Latin American countries, Walla reported.https://t.co/i7EX8VK4uO

— The Jerusalem Post (@Jerusalem_Post) May 31, 2026

The Isaac Accords, which started last year and are funded by money from the Genesis Prize that Argentina’s Milei received in Jerusalem. They are meant to increase ties between Israel, Uruguay, Panama, and Costa Rica.

The Jerusalem Post reported that:

The minister is scheduled to return to Israel as early as Wednesday, after conducting an intensive marathon of meetings in the United States with key Latin American figures.

So there’s Schumer parading with Smotrich, who’s busy making business deals while calling for genocide. The bi-partisan American dream.

Featured image via Getty/Erik Marmour

By The Canary

Source link

Source link

Source link

The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium (RMCC) has spoken out against government plans to access asylum seekers’ age using AI.

On Friday 29 May, the Home Office announced plans to use AI in cases when an asylum seekers’ age is in dispute. However, the RMCC warned that the scheme could lead to yet more wrongful detentions of vulnerable children in adult facilities.

The news follows April’s revelations from the independent Humans for Rights Network, which exposed the fact that the Home Office routinely detains so-called “age-disputed children” as adults. Of the 76 age-disputed detainees at the time, 26 had been — or were in the process of being — reassessed as children by Social Services.

Just get an AI to do it…

Most of the unaccompanied children who brave the journey to the UK in search of asylum are 16-17 years old. The Home Office’s own data shows that social workers are more than twice as likely to confirm that these individuals are minors compared to assessments carried out by immigration officers.

Ultimately, over two-thirds of the age-disputed individuals are confirmed to be their stated age. Nevertheless, Labour choose to focus on the ‘threat’ of the perceived adult migrants.

Alex Norris, the minister for border security and asylum, argued that:

For too long, adult migrants making false age claims have exploited the system and diverted vital support away from children at risk.

That is why we are rolling out AI technology to put a stop to this, ensuring those who game the system are identified, detained and removed without delay, and those who deserve support and protection are given it.

That now-familiar appeal to AI is part of Labour’s massive push to use the technology across vast swathes of public life – including policing and the court system.

Private sector enrichment

Of course, that AI-push has also seen massive amounts of public money pad the pockets of tech-sector CEOs. One company alone – genocide-linked Palantir – currently holds over £500m in public contracts, from the NHS to law enforcement.

The government’s machine-learning obsession was championed by Tony Blair and his eponymous think-tank, which just happened to take a £250m donation from AI-specialist CEO Larry Ellison.

With regard to refugee age verification, the Home Office handed a 3-year, £322,000 contract to Akhter Computers Ltd for testing and development.

But what exactly is the AI technology that Labour is aiming to deploy in this particular case? Friday’s Home Office announcement explained that:

Facial Age Estimation (FAE) uses machine learning technology to estimate an individual’s age within seconds by analysing a facial photograph without further information about the individual. […]

FAE is not the same as facial recognition technology. While both use artificial intelligence, they serve different purposes and use different algorithms. Facial recognition compares an image against a database to identify a person. FAE does not identify individuals and does not search any databases. It only estimates an age from an image.

The Home Office isn’t using FAE at the present moment in time. However, the department plans to spend the remainder of the year testing the technology ahead of a rollout in 2027.

‘Problems with bias and inaccuracy’

However, the plans have met with strong opposition from organisations representing young refugees. Kamena Dorling, co-chair of the RMCC, stated that:

The government’s proposals are deeply concerning. AI cannot account for the factors that can significantly affect a young person’s appearance after fleeing conflict and persecution and undertaking dangerous journeys, including trauma, malnutrition, and exhaustion.

Existing evidence also shows that AI faces the same problems with bias and inaccuracy as human decision-making, with similar patterns of errors.

Advertisement

Whilst it may seem intensely obvious, the fact that children fleeing active warzones might look older than their years apparently escaped Labour’s notice.

Likewise, as Dorling said, AI has a tendency to replicate human errors, rather than eliminating them. Meanwhile, it obscures those errors in a cloak of cold, algorithmically-determined ‘fairness’.

‘A false sense of certainty’

Senior policy analyst and consortium member Kama Petruczenko, of the Refugee Council, said:

The government’s own figures already show that hundreds of children are being wrongly treated as adults following flawed visual assessments at the border, with devastating consequences for their safety and wellbeing.

AI and facial age estimation technology are not a simple or risk-free answer to these longstanding problems. Poor image quality and bias in datasets can also affect accuracy.

Advertisement

There is a real danger that this technology creates a false sense of certainty in decisions that are already extremely difficult to get right. If flawed assessments are simply automated, more children could end up wrongly placed in adult accommodation, detention centres or even prisons.

The government has already shown an awareness of these biases. However, beyond vague statements about trying to minimise errors, it simply doesn’t care. The Home Office announcement stated that:

There is evidence in testing data that FAE performance can vary depending on ethnicity, skin tone, gender, place of birth and quality of input image. NIST [The National Institute of Standards and Technology] found that error rates were almost always higher for female faces, although it didn’t find out why as testing was purely on performance rather than how algorithms work.

Vendors take bias seriously and commercial FAE technology is trained to be representative of the broadest possible demographic range of potential users.

‘The technology is racist and sexist, but we’re sure the people selling it to us are doing their best’. Well that’s all fine then, please carry on.

The RMCC will release its full report, titled ‘Benchmarks and Borders: the use of facial age estimation to assess the age of unaccompanied young people seeking asylum’, in June this year. If the current state of Labour’s AI policy is anything to go by, the consortium will have no shortage of criticisms to fill its pages.

Featured image via Leon Neal / Getty Images

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link