Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe recently claimed that immigrants are “colonising” the UK. Critics – and anyone with a brain in their nut – quickly condemned the remarks as racist and deeply out of touch with Britain’s own colonial history.

Unsurprisingly, Reform MPs and figures on the far right quickly jumped on the bandwagon. While admitting Ratcliffe’s statistics were “mistaken,” Reform leader Nigel Farage maintained that the underlying argument holds up when judged against the dictionary definition of “colonise.”

Spoiler alert: No, it really fucking doesn’t.

Bro Farage literally just approved the term “colonised” to your face and you STILL softball him.

The mainstream media is complicit in the rise of the far right. https://t.co/iSGrPACvak

Advertisement

— JimmyTheGiant (@jimthegiant) February 13, 2026

Distraction tactics from the real ‘colonisers’

The Oxford Learners Dictionary definition of ‘colonise’ is:

to take control of an area or a country that is not your own, especially using force, and send people from your own country to live there.

It’s clear that immigrants have precious little control over their rights and freedoms in the UK, so it’s objectively clear that this statement is false. That’s even after disregarding the fake-news figures Ratcliffe and fellow racists are distributing.

Another mask falls as we hear #ManchesterUnited owner Jim #Ratcliffe showcasing his #racism. He has all that money and power and he still has to punch down. Too many on #socialwelfare too – by his reckoning. Too many rich #parasites by mine.
https://t.co/r5vWOgo0yy

— Kevin Doyle (@kevidoyle) February 13, 2026

Advertisement

As the Canary reported yesterday:

Sir Jim Ratcliffe, co-owner of Manchester United, has come under heavy criticism for saying that immigrants are “colonising” the UK. He said:

“You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in. I mean, the UK has been colonised. It’s costing too much money.

The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn’t it?”

The racist shithead also claimed that the UK’s population grew by 12 million people in 5 years. That’s bollocks too, as BBC Verify reported:

Advertisement

“it’s actually increased by 2.7 million.”

And, that statistic doesn’t take into account the economic benefit of immigrants doing all the shitty jobs white people don’t want. And that, in turn, doesn’t take into account that we’re talking about people – people who have a right to safety and welcome.

Rich racists: the actual ‘colonisers’

Reform MPs are, of course, eagerly amplifying what can only be described as barely veiled racism.

Man Utd boss Sir Jim Ratcliffe is right on immigration and UK is being ‘colonised,’ claims Reform UK’s Nadhim Zahawi https://t.co/0gPS34NQ0u

— LBC (@LBC) February 13, 2026

Advertisement

In January, we reported on Oxfam’s latest research, which identified a direct correlation between shrinking civil liberties and rising billionaire handouts aimed at buying political influence:

In the UK specifically, the wealthiest 56 individuals hoard more money than 27 million ordinary people. In fact, in the UK:

The UK’s billionaires have seen in the last year their average wealth grow five times faster than inflation-adjusted earnings.
56 people in the UK – all billionaires – have a combined wealth greater than 27 million other people, 39 per cent of the population. The average growth of a UK billionaire’s wealth was £231mn in the last year.
The average UK billionaire will gain more wealth than the value of the UK’s average annual salary in less time than it takes to watch a premier league football match
On average a person in the richest 1% in the UK owns 456 times more wealth than a person in the poorest 50%. The poorest half holds just 4.6% of the wealth, while the richest 1% own 21.3%. In 2024 the wealthiest 1% of UK adults had wealth of at least £2,317,452 […]
This year, the total wealth of the UK’s billionaires grew by 11bn, an average of £30.3 mn a day. Meanwhile one in five people in the UK live in poverty.

Yet the far-right rarely highlight who profits from soaring costs in food, defence, and healthcare – areas Advance UK Ben Habib argues are making life harder for ordinary people.

Nor do they acknowledge how increased defence spending often destabilises other countries. In turn, worsening conditions that force people to migrate in the first place:

‘@Sir_Ratcliffe in a 14 minute interview with @SkyNews explained how policies being pursued in the UK and EU are destroying our ability to feed ourselves, defend ourselves and medically treat ourselves.

He set out how western civilisation is killing itself.

On the other hand…

— Ben Habib (@benhabib6) February 12, 2026

Another Reform cheerleader and former Tory MP Nadine Dorries delighted in coming to Ratcliffe’s defence:

Nadine Dorries of Reform UK defends Jim Ratcliffe’s disgraceful immigration remarks.

His statistics were wrong, the substance was wrong and the language was wrong- but he was RIGHT.

Errrh?

Complete and utter gibberish. #bbcqt pic.twitter.com/BkBcRsM874

— Deirdre Heenan (@deirdreheenan) February 12, 2026

Advertisement

Thankfully, ordinary people are seeing right through it:

Can there be more of a traitor to the UK than Jim Ratcliffe? He offshored enough tax money to fund 120,000 nurses. People like him are the reason life has become so difficult for so many Brits.

— Robert M. (@3drm) February 13, 2026

Reform keep telling us immigrants are the problem and that billionaires are the good guys who create wealth.
Genuinely think this narrative was the plan Farage Sky & Ratcliffe intended to push and instead it’s exposed tax dodging billionaires as the parasite ruining the country

— Sarah (@kokeshimum) February 12, 2026

What is it that first attracted you to billionaire, Jim Ratcliffe?

Reform UK – wealthy elites, cosplaying as working class, for the benefit of billionaires. https://t.co/iRtYHpZicp

Advertisement

— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) February 12, 2026

If the UK is being ‘colonised’, it’s by super-rich billionaires who have bent politics to their will and are now cashing in on the consequences.

Featured image via Arne Musseler

One product featured was part of a colourful stationary kit designed to look like a flower – but far from being the “cute gift for kids” advertised, these products contained hidden blades which could cause lethal injuries in the hands of children. 

Investigators were able to buy the same product again from sellers on Amazon Marketplace only a fortnight after it was originally reported and taken down. It is difficult to square Amazon’s vast resources and technical capabilities with this abject failure to keep potentially deadly products off its platform. BBC Watchdog’s investigation into Amazon Marketplace is only the tip of the iceberg: our research has found similar issues many times from other online marketplaces such as eBay, AliExpress, and Temu. 

It is also hard to understand how the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) has allowed Amazon to keep the product on sale, claiming it did not qualify as a children’s product, despite “great for school” references in the product listing. This is yet another example of the inadequate safety controls over online marketplaces – both in terms of the responsibility taken by the marketplaces and the wider regulation of online marketplaces in the UK. Last year’s Product Regulation and Metrology Act provides the framework for tougher regulation of the sector – and the government now needs to introduce measures to facilitate this as soon as possible. 

Which? investigations have exposed the same pattern time and again: we report a dangerous product to an online marketplace, they take it down, and it gets re-listed within a matter of weeks. This reactive approach to product safety has become an all too common pattern for online marketplaces over the years. It’s time for these platforms to stop dragging their feet and get serious about tackling dangerous products. 

Online marketplaces should be taking a more proactive approach to ensuring that products listed on their sites are safe. Dangerous items should not be allowed to reach consumers in the first place. By the time a product has been flagged and taken down it may be too late. 

At the moment, online marketplaces do not have clear legal responsibilities that incentivise them to proactively check and monitor their sellers and the products that they sell. It can also be unclear to consumers who they are buying from and whether they can be trusted. 

Dodgy sellers can all too easily make up a new brand name whenever their products are reported. This creates exasperating situations where items that are almost certainly dangerous can flourish unchecked due to a different label or perhaps a change of colour. Stronger regulation can help close this gap and ensure that the OPSS can hold online marketplaces to account for such products.

Which? researchers were easily able to find 33 near-identical saws sold under different brand names across several marketplaces. These saws matched almost exactly a product flagged by the OPSS as posing a risk of fire and electrocution. It beggars belief that the biggest online platforms, with all their tech and engineering knowhow, cannot seem to deploy similar tactics but on a bigger and more effective scale. The logical conclusion is that they could, but nothing is compelling them to put safety first.

Online retail is big business and the potential for consumer harm from online marketplaces that do not have adequate checks is correspondingly huge. Based on our survey work conducted in November 2025, Which? estimates that at least 8.8 million consumers have experienced harm from faulty, unsafe, or fraudulent products bought from online marketplaces. What’s more, today’s budget-conscious shoppers are naturally tempted to look for bargains on online marketplaces, which makes them vulnerable to sellers peddling cheap but dangerous knock-offs. Online marketplaces must not sit idly by while sellers on their platforms put lives at risk. 

It’s time for the government to step in and force online marketplaces to get their act together. The government must urgently prioritise the secondary regulations it has promised following the Product Regulation and Metrology Act to impose a clear legal duty on online marketplaces for ensuring the safety of products sold through their third party sellers. 

Consultations on product safety have been delayed for months while consumers are being exposed to life-threatening risks. Meanwhile, responsible businesses are also harmed by irresponsible rivals. This in turn undermines the government’s key missions to drive economic growth and tackle crime.

The government has no excuse for further delay: it’s time to hold the feet of Amazon and other online marketplaces to the fire and put a stop to the ‘wild west’ state of online marketplaces.

As we’ve reported, the latest Epstein files have shown the degeneracy of former prince Andrew Windsor. Now, it’s alleged Andrew had a victim flown in on Epstein’s infamous ‘Lolita Express.’

Nick Watt, “The headline in The New Stateman is: Gordon Brown, the police need to interview Andrew”

“Gordon Brown has been looking at all the e-mails, the Lolita express flights, Jeffrey Epstein’s place used for trafficking”

“He says British girls were on 90 Epstein flights… pic.twitter.com/3P86nf7BJJ

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) February 12, 2026

Advertisement

Andrew’s in trouble again

Ex Prime Minister Gordon Brown claimed Epstein flew victims from UK airports on the ‘Lolita’ over 90 times:

The Epstein emails, which record the visas issued, payments made and transport organised for girls and women trafficked across the world, suggest a number of British girls were on 90 Epstein flights organised from UK airports on what was called his “Lolita Express”. Among the many aspects that should sicken anyone looking at the emails is that 15 of these flights were given the go-ahead after his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. How the flights were allowed to continue should have been fully investigated.

Brown also wrote:

The emails tell us in graphic detail how Epstein was able to use Stansted Airport – he boasted how cheap the airport charges were compared to Paris – to fly in girls from Latvia, Lithuania and Russia. His messages link at least one to Britain and the former Prince Andrew. One email, headed “the girl”, described her as “just turned 18, 179cm, very cute, speaks English, I saw her in real 3 years ago… i will send you the video in next email”.

This is how the Sun reported on it on 13 February:

Tomorrow’s front page: Andy girl ‘flown to UK on Epstein’s Lolita Express’ https://t.co/9p3T9e91GF pic.twitter.com/VOJTzUmuUl

— The Sun (@TheSun) February 12, 2026

Advertisement

This story is building on previous accusations. As reported in the Guardian on 3 February, US lawyer Brad Edwards said of an alleged victim:

We’re talking about at least one woman who was sent by Jeffrey Epstein over to Prince Andrew. And she even had, after a night with Prince Andrew, a tour of Buckingham Palace.

Former staff at the palace claim this was a frequent occurrence:

Now we know why myself and my colleagues were forced to allow the unknown females i have frequently spoke about into Buckingham Palace.
If this story is true then along with my evidence it could prove crucial to the Thames Valley Police investigation. https://t.co/sEQxS3TgwP

— Paul Page EX Royal Cop : Son of an Abuse Survivor. (@PaulPag46852754) February 13, 2026

Another blow for the royals

King Charles has said he will cooperate with any police investigation. However, this comes in sharp contrast to the fact that he loaned his brother £1.5m to bury his case with Virginia Giuffre.

Regardless, it appears that the walls may finally be closing in on Andrew. But will we really see this man hauled in front of a judge?

We hope so.

For more on the Epstein files, please read:

Featured image via Ben Brooksbank (Wikimedia) 

3 min read7 min

This week, the charity Action Against Heartburn released data showing that the proportion of oesophageal cancer cases diagnosed at stage 4 has risen from around a quarter to just over a third of all cases over the course of a decade. Sadly, I know from personal experience that this rise in late-stage diagnosis is catastrophic for patient survival.

I lost both my wife and father to oesophageal cancer within just a few weeks of one another. It’s a devastating disease that claims too many lives because patients are often diagnosed too late for treatments to be effective. 

Action Against Heartburn, which aims to raise awareness of the connection between ongoing heartburn and oesophageal cancer, analysed the latest available data on the proportion of oesophageal cancers diagnosed at each stage in England and found that diagnosis at stage 4 increased from 25.1 per cent in 2013 to 36.6 per cent in 2022. 

Stage 4 cancer is an advanced stage of the disease, and it means it has spread from its original site. It is serious and often incurable at this stage. 

Thanks to improved treatments, all UK cancer survival rates have generally increased in recent years, but progress for oesophageal cancer has been much slower. 

There are around 9,200 new cases of oesophageal cancer in the UK each year, and fewer than 20 per cent of people diagnosed will survive for more than five years. It is one of the ‘less survivable cancers’ and is often forgotten when it comes to awareness campaigns and research funding. 

The poor life expectancy of oesophageal cancer is largely due to late diagnosis. One-year survival for oesophageal cancer is 89 pr cent if it’s diagnosed at stage 1, but this drops to 26 per cent if it’s diagnosed at stage 4. 

To improve survival rates, we must see increased public awareness of key symptoms as well as faster routes to diagnosis, better use of innovative screening technologies, such as capsule sponge technology and biomarker testing, and more research into oesophageal cancer.

We also need to back research and development of breath, saliva and blood tests to improve the diagnostic tests available. Pharmacists should be able to give advice, and even simple diagnostic tests, to regular consumers of over-the-counter heartburn medication who have not yet seen their GP. Equally, GPs should be given the tools to be able to give these relatively easy diagnostic tests at their surgeries.     

Oesophageal cancer may be difficult to diagnose and treat at the moment, but the same could have been said for other cancers a couple of decades ago that have shown remarkable improvements. It is now time that we also showed this same determination to reduce cancer deaths from oesophageal and other less survivable cancers.

I am pleased to see that improved access to diagnostic tests for oesophageal cancer was included in the National Cancer Plan, which was published on World Cancer Day. It’s a step towards hope for the thousands of people who will be diagnosed with this brutal disease.

Patrick Hurley is Labour MP for Southport

Dr Daniel Pitt is an Honorary Fellow at the University of Buckingham. 

Conservative statecraft is an old idea, the time for which has come again.

Taking a long view of our present discontents can help us understand them. Reflecting on historical events and great figures of our past can provide us with a map of sorts to move forward.

Deep reading and reflection were foundational to the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury’s political action. To be a bit more philosophical here, diving into our history can provide that metaphorical bridge between the generations. Indeed, building and restoring such a bridge is at the heart of conservative statecraft. This excavation of the past can build trust and form a type of social membership, and of course, the repudiation of it can and does create distrust and social alienation, which is why the woke left attacks our history.

The past is not a dead weight to be liberated from.

The Conservative Party’s history is a long and adventurous story that is punctuated by great success and, yes, failure. Or to quote a former Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour, history “is of blood and tears, of helpless blundering, of wild revolt, of stupid acquiescence, of empty aspirations.” This can be said about our party too. Conservative statecraft must draw from the party’s failures and successes. The late Joan Hall, a former Conservative MP for Keighley, said, “I can cope with failure and come back fighting.”

Indeed, Hall was a fighter and was nicknamed ‘the Yorkshire Valkyrie’; her sheer force of personality ensured that she came back fighting, but this can also be said of her party. The secret to the party’s success, I suggest, is its ability to come back fighting after failure. This is sometimes articulated as the party’s willingness to change and adapt to the times.

The party benefits greatly from the body of thought that shares its name. As the great Edmund Burke noted, in order to conserve, there needs to be some change. The dilemma for conservative intellectuals, as well as statesmen, is to discern the permanent from the transitory or the vital from the trivial. To assist in this dilemma, as Sir Winston Churchill suggested, we should ‘study history’ because ‘in history lie all the secrets of statecraft’. In my view, a conservative statesman is a person who has discernment on such matters and understands when the party needs to go through renewal and revitalisation. Now is such a time.

The core fundamental of conservative statecraft is about renewing the party whilst in Opposition to win elections and to be ready for government. Spending the party’s political capital on defending one’s record in Government, whether it is positive, negative or a mixed bag, is not the best way to spend it. Stephen Sherbourne, now Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, in a letter to Maraget Thatcher, hit the nail on the head: “there is no gratitude in politics”.

People want to know what the party will do in the future. Conservative statecraft is about surveying the past to enable current and future prosperity.

A conservative statecraft of revival should focus on five key things:

1. Replenishing the party’s ideational stance;
2. Reorganising the party machinery;
3. Updating policy;
4. Rethinking presentation and party branding;
5. Updating personnel and recruiting new candidates

Kemi Badenoch is well on her way to achieving these five key areas of renewal, but there is still work to do. T.S. Eliot believed that we as a party “must have a political philosophy”. Badenoch, in her podcast phase, quoted conservative thinkers such as the American economist Thomas Sowell and the late Sir Roger Scruton, which revealed that she is more than willing to express ‘authentic’ conservatism and to replenish the party’s ideational stance. She does need to go that bit further and deeper in expressing this. There are useful examples of renewal to draw on from Sir Robert Peel’s Tamworth Manifesto, Benjamin Disraeli’s Crystal Palace speech, and David Cameron’s Big Society concept.

For inspiration for the reorganisation of the party machinery, one can look at successful reforms by Disraeli and John Eldon Gorst in the Victorian era to ensure the party was competitive in urban areas, Neville Chamberlain’s and Stanley Baldwin’s setting up of the Conservative Research Department in the interwar years, and the Earl of Woolton’s elimination of payments by parliamentary candidates in the post-World War II years, which widened and deepened the pool of talent available to the party.

We can learn lessons for updating party policy from Churchill, Ted Heath and Thatcher’s time as Opposition leaders. The stratagem here is to demonstrate to the public (and to the media) that the party has sound policies that answer current issues, but the policies cannot be too detailed, as they could be held hostage to events. Kemi and her team are doing an excellent job here, and they are also overcoming the dilemma that the Government might pinch the policies by actively saying the Government should pinch them.

We can learn about how to rethink presenting the party from the past, too. There are many examples of logo change, such as Cameron’s tree, change of the style and content of advertising, such as Saatchi & Saatchi during the Thatcher years, and image building such as Seldon Man during Heath’s leadership, even if your opponent assists you in creating that image.

Conservative statecraft and party renewal are old ideas that are now back in fashion, and there is much to learn from them

Keir Starmer’s Home Office has blown nearly £700,000 on court and lawyer fees to oppose Palestine Action co-founder, Huda Ammori’s judicial review to overturn the government’s ban on the anti-genocide direct action group. Starmer has used the ban to arrest thousands of mostly elderly and disabled protesters for opposing it.

Human rights groups have condemned Starmer’s police-state action, with Amnesty International describing it as a:

disproportionate misuse of the UK’s terrorism powers [that] should be overturned.

The court’s decision on the judicial review will be announced tomorrow, 13 February 2026.

This cost is nothing compared to the millions spent, since the ban began in July 2025, on arresting the activists who opposed the ban. Then-home secretary Yvette Coooper was caught in repeated lies to justify the ban, which UK security and intelligence experts had recommended against.

Featured image via the Canary