The Public Office (Accountability) Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday 14 July, and is now moving through the next stages of the legislative process. Also referred to as the Hillsborough Law, it will drastically improve the ability of ordinary people to get justice and accountability from those in power.

In short, its purpose is to ensure the government is accountable for its actions and the very real human impact those actions can have, drawing its nickname from the Hillsborough disaster.

Despite multiple attempts in the courts, none of the police officers or the former chief superintendent Duckenfield have faced justice for their cover-up and negligence, which caused the death of 97 people and injured over 1000.

Decades of campaigning by the Hillsborough families have finally pushed this law into place, giving people a way to challenge those in power when they try to hide their wrongdoing and escape accountability.

This has subsequently been welcomed by the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance (COPS), survivors of abuse committed by Spy Cops, who say this law:

marks a significant moment in the long struggle to ensure that the state can no longer evade accountability when it harms the people it claims to serve.

The number 96 has been tattooed on my wrist since 2015.

It reminds me every day that I was one of the lucky ones who came home from Hillsborough.

Today, standing in Parliament to speak as the Hillsborough Law passed was one of the proudest and most emotional moments of my life.… pic.twitter.com/IXUn3juYdz

Advertisement

— lan Byrne MP (@IanByrneMP) July 14, 2026

COPS: Hillsborough Law “has the potential to effect real change for us”

COPS have campaigned for years against the police’s track record of spying on political groups, trade unions and justice campaigns, and effectively working as an arm of the state to prevent accountability and justice for ordinary people.

The law, COPS say, honours the perseverance of the Hillsborough victims and their families. Those affected fought for decades to bring it into force despite facing “institutional denial, concealment and abuse”. In a press release, they say they “recognise these patterns all too well”, adding:

For decades, police officers operating undercover deceived women into intimate relationships as they unlawfully spied on political groups, trade unions and justice campaigns.

They stole the identities of deceased children, acted as agent provocateurs, hoovered up personal information on thousands of people, kept illegal employment blacklists and lied in their intelligence reports; while Special Branch commanders avoided discipline for their officers and kept everything in house to cover up corruption.

Those abuses are now being investigated and evidence is coming out. We are ‘core participants’ in the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), but the Inquiry itself has become an illustration of why this law is so badly needed.

More than ten years since the inquiry was announced, many of us are still waiting for answers, and progress is constantly hampered by institutional resistance, incomplete disclosure and police witnesses who have shamelessly lied, treating the inquiry process with the same contempt they showed the criminal and civil courts during their operations, leading to dozens of miscarriages of justice.

However, as we see with the wilful ignorance of those in government regarding the flagrant breaches of international law by Israel and the US, these laws only have the power to secure justice if the political will is there to make it so. Up to now, the political will has clearly been to shield institutions from reputational damage or real accountability, leaving victims angry and with no closure or remedy for their rage and grief.

Nevertheless, those affected have courageously refused to give up or be fatigued out of making this bill a reality. Now, it will be essential to watch how the government respond to upcoming inquiries and whether they see powerful people held accountable for their abuses against ordinary people that they “claim to serve”.

One thing is certain: anyone who lies or tries to obstruct justice will now face the threat of criminal liability.

Hopefully this will make those in power think twice:

“Under the Hillsborough law public officials are going to have to tell the truth and if they don't they risk going to prison… It's about the first step in changing culture within big organizations, especially public bodies.”

Speaking in London, human rights lawyer Elkan… pic.twitter.com/zFOdIRvCph

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) July 15, 2026

Deborah Coles, executive director of INQUEST, spoke yesterday, saying it was a “momentous day” and pointed out how this finally works to address the huge power imbalance between the state and the British public:

“Bereaved families who are going along to inquests where the state is represented will have access to non-means tested public funding so that they can be represented at those inquests. And that is going to rebalance the power dynamics… where historically all the resources and… pic.twitter.com/ceiWL03f1Q

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) July 15, 2026

Spy Cops inquiry shows “institutional secrecy has continued right up the chain”

COPS, core participants in the UCPI, spoke further about the ongoing inquiry into the use of spy cops:

Having heard from many former undercover officers, and those who they spied upon, the Inquiry has now turned its attention to the senior officers and government departments who authorised, supervised and oversaw these operations, but the drive to conceal police misconduct behind a wall of institutional
secrecy has continued right up the chain.

As a result, this inquiry gives the public the opportunity to see if the new law will be worth its weight and thus, capable of holding governments, institutions and powerful people accountable so that victims can finally get real justice.

COPS finished their press release stating:

Over the next two weeks the Inquiry will hear from former Metropolitan Police leaders, including former Commissioner Lord Paul Condon, and the key question is no longer what undercover officers did, but who knew, who approved, who benefited from the intelligence gathered on political campaigners and community organisations, and who helped to conceal the truth?

No law can undo the harm already caused, but the Hillsborough Law would make obstructing and lying to this inquiry a criminal offence.

By creating meaningful consequences for those who deliberately mislead or frustrate investigations, this law has the potential to effect real change for us, as the Undercover Policing Inquiry rumbles on. The search for truth should never depend on the persistence or resources of victims and bereaved families.

Advertisement

This legislation strikes a blow against the culture of cover-up and impunity that has characterised so many public scandals, and we congratulate the Hillsborough families on their historic achievement and thank them for the example they have set. Their determination will have lasting consequences for us all.

The next few weeks will show whether those in power are simply using this law to win over voters — or whether they have the courage to enforce it, even when it puts powerful people in the firing line.

Featured image via Linenhall

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

The post The silencing of Great Britain appeared first on spiked.

Source link

“It’s a soccer match. Nothing more to it. Period.”

That’s how Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni described his team’s upcoming World Cup semifinal against England to journalists.

No one believes him, least of all Argentinians themselves.

For many in the South American nation, the match is more than a stepping stone toward the World Cup title. It is a long-awaited chance to restore their national pride, over four decades after the British established de facto control over a cluster of islands in the South Atlantic.

For Argentina’s President Javier Milei, the timing couldn’t be better. Unpopular at home over multiple corruption scandals and rampant inflation, yet buoyed by his close alliance with U.S. President Donald Trump, he has sought to rally Argentinians around the flag by breathing new life into the dispute which claimed 649 Argentine and 255 British lives.

“Argentina is a very polarized country, like so much of the Americas. But this is an issue that unites everyone,” said Rebecca Bill Chavez, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for western hemisphere affairs under former President Barack Obama.

“It doesn’t matter in Argentina: Left, right, center — you’re all for the Malvinas, as they call it,” Bill Chavez adds, referencing the name Argentinians use for the Falklands.

On Saturday, five days before the match, Argentina’s Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno came out swinging with a lengthy opinion piece in the conservative daily “La Nación.”

The Malvinas, he argued, were Argentinian “by history, by right, and by conviction” and the Brits guilty of an “illegal occupation.”

On the eve of the game, the country’s vice president, Victoria Villarruel, amped up the rhetoric in a post on X that referred to England as “invaders” and “usurping pirates.”

It is the latest in a series of jabs at Westminster, marking a notable shift for the government of Milei, who distinguished himself from his predecessors by taking a relatively moderate — and domestically sensitive — stance on the Falklands.

He has openly praised Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister who sent troops to the islands in 1982. And he seemed to accept the results of a 2013 referendum in which 99.8 percent of the Falklands’ residents voted to remain under British rule (only three people voted against).

One day, Milei fantasized in a speech on Veterans Day in April just last year, the islanders might find Argentina so attractive that they’d “vote for us” voluntarily.

But that was then.

This April he announced on X that the Falklands “were, are and will always be Argentine.”

The jingoistic post came hours after Reuters reported that an internal Pentagon memo had suggested Washington could review its diplomatic support for the British position on the Falklands in retaliation for its foot-dragging on Iran.

Milei’s brashness, and the absence of a U.S. response, is evidence of his close relationship with the White House under Trump, notes Bill Chavez.

“In the past, if an Argentine government had made such a statement, I think it would have caused real tension in the U.S.-Argentine relationship,” she said.

But she cautions that neither the leaked memo nor American support for Argentina’s acquisition of F16s in 2025 under the Biden administration indicates an actual shift in U.S. policy on the Falklands.

For Milei, the Falklands issue is not straightforward either.

If the topic becomes too central, “Milei loses,” said Andrés Gilio of Opina Argentina, a pollster.

In a survey it conducted in April, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 79 percent, argued the country should pursue sovereignty over the islands “without concessions.”

“Either Milei ‘Malvinizes’ his discourse, aligning himself with public opinion but straining relations with the United States and blurring his ideological profile, or he remains faithful to his ideas, downplaying the sovereignty claim, at the risk of going against most of society’s wishes,” said Gilio.

So far, Milei has pressed the Falklands issue in international forums while refraining from a real confrontation.

The Argentinian Foreign Ministry declined to comment in time for this article’s publication.

Argentina has faced England five times at the World Cup, rarely without drama. Seared into Argentina’s national memory is the 1986 quarterfinal, just four years after the Falklands war, when Diego Maradona scored two historic goals.

“Although before the match we kept saying that football had nothing to do with the Falklands War,” Maradona would later write in his biography, “we knew that many young Argentine boys had died there, that they had been killed like little birds.”

This time around, Argentina’s players and fans have been anything but subtle, invoking the conflict long before they were drawn to face England. After winning against Egypt, the team’s players were filmed belting out a song calling for an Argentine World Cup victory, “for Malvinas,” in a video since gone viral.

Off-pitch, there have been skirmishes between British and Argentinian fans even as jubilant Argentine supporters have celebrated victories by singing “Whoever doesn’t jump is an Englishman.” As a precaution, FIFA has barred two of its English referees from officiating any Argentina matches.

Asked about the flaring tensions, a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said this week that “The Falkland Islanders are British with the right to determine their own future.” Starmer, he said, was “solely focused on the semi-final and securing a spot in the final.”

But perhaps the strongest plea for restraint has come from Argentinian veterans.

“Sport is not war,” the April 2 veterans group wrote in a statement widely circulated by Argentinian media on Monday.

“The World Cup semifinal is a sporting event of global significance, not an armed act of revenge or historical compensation.”

Source link

The House of Commons was exercised on Wednesday about the prospect of England beating Argentina in tonight’s World Cup semifinal.

Ahead of Keir Starmer’s last Prime Minister’s Questions as premier before he exits the top job, Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle — the normally impartial chair — said he hoped the PM will be “bringing home” World Cup victory to widespread cheers.

Starmer, a huge soccer fan who cheers for Arsenal in the Premier League, opened PMQs by stressing his “important appointment with the television” this evening to watch the match live.

Opposition Conservative MP Graham Stuart compared the prime minister to England superstar Jude Bellingham by “scoring the winning goal, leading our team to victory,” though Starmer had “now been handed a red card by the 400 dodgy referees behind him,” referring to the 2024 election win before a Labour rebellion that helped topple him.

The PM continued on the subject of red cards by saying “I can’t tell him how much incoming I had … to get the England red card adjusted,” after President Donald Trump’s intervention to help overturn the suspension of U.S. striker Folarin Balogun.

Starmer said he didn’t follow the U.S. president’s example, after Jarell Quansah was sent off against Mexico and suspended.

Source link

How about we start again and do it all like that? The party leaders had come in their most deceptive disguise – as amused, ironic, decent British civilians. With occasional flashes of feline tooth and claw, they conducted their business in a language we could all understand. We were included. We were part of a…

Source link

The silence of politicians and mainstream media on Islamophobic attacks continues with a secondary school in Birmingham.

After a string of attacks on mosques and family homes, Hamd House School in the Bordesley Green area of the city, had to be evacuated after a bomb threat on Tuesday.

But apart from an article in Birmingham Live, the frightening incident has been ignored by government and state-corporate media.

Birmingham school pupils evacuated

It was reported that 450 pupils had to flee the building while police with sniffer dogs swept it for explosives.

Israr Khan, boss of the independent school, rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, said it has been repeatedly targeted.

He told Birmingham Live that the threat had come as children celebrated their last day before the summer holidays.

Khan said:

School was full and pupils were celebrating the last day before summer, we were giving out awards and having a day of celebration and fun on this special day, and this was hugely disrupting.

At this stage the matter remains an open police investigation. An unusual and bizarre quirk to this situation is that the threat was also sent to Ofsted. The police have logged this incident as harassment. We will continue to cooperate fully with the authorities and follow any advice they provide.

Advertisement

We appreciate that today’s events were upsetting and disappointing…our end of year celebrations, leaving activities and awards ceremonies had to be brought to an abrupt end.

Yet again, the UK media-political axis makes clear that it values the lives and safety of Muslims far less than those of others.

Featured image via Birmingham World

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Our solicitor has this afternoon written to the Deputy Chief Constable.

We’ll await his response with interest.

Category
corruption, investigation, scottish politics

Trackback: trackback from your own site.

Source link

It’s win or bust for England and Argentina in Atlanta tonight.

But in one area of global affairs — in a part of the world very familiar to leaders in London and Buenos Aires — both are about to lose.

As first reported by the Financial Times, developers are prepping to drill the Sea Lion oil field north of the Falklands, the tiny archipelago and British Overseas Territory over which Argentina and Britain went to war in 1982.

Any windfall from an oil boom — and developers reckon revenues could run to hundreds of millions of pounds a year — would be directed to the Falklands government, much to the annoyance of Argentinian President Javier Milei, who insisted any resources “belong to Argentina.”

Not that Brits will look on particularly happily. Oil field cash flowing into Falklands’ coffers (and not to the British state) will be a reminder that the fossil fuel economy in the North Sea, once a powerhouse for jobs and Treasury income, is dwindling fast.

By 2034, according to Navitas Petroleum, co-owners of the Sea Lion field, its revenues could be worth £280 million to the island. By that point, the FT noted, its annual value to the Falklands would outstrip U.K. oil and gas revenues, which are set to dip to just £100 million by 2031.

The Falklands’ government is likely to use the money to rebuild knackered energy infrastructure. Meanwhile, lobby group Offshore Energies UK says, the decline of the North Sea is already costing a thousand jobs a month.

Source link

England will face Argentina in the World Cup 2026 semi-final in Atlanta, a meeting loaded with history, jeopardy and one last hurdle between Thomas Tuchel’s side and the final.

Opta’s model calls it almost a coin toss: England at 52.5% to progress versus 23.4% to win the whole thing.

This is where it can be won or lost: superstar collisions, width, set‑pieces, midfield control, defensive discipline and late‑game execution.

England’s Bellingham to collide with World Cup giant

Jude Bellingham and Lionel Messi arrive as the defining forces of their respective campaigns. Sixteen years separate them, but both have carried enormous attacking responsibility.

Bellingham, operating as an advanced No. 10, has become England’s most explosive outlet. He has scored twice in successive games, taking his tournament tally to six, and his shot map shows a player willing to strike from anywhere in and around the box.

Messi, 39, has returned after seemingly bowing out as a world champion four years ago. He shares the Golden Boot lead with Kylian Mbappé and continues to shape Argentina’s entire attacking rhythm. His heat map shows the familiar drifting patterns: deep touches, right‑side overloads, and sudden accelerations into the final third.

Both sides know the game can tilt on a single moment from either man.

England’s width

Tuchel’s England has leaned heavily on width throughout the tournament. The structure is designed to stretch opponents, create crossing lanes and isolate defenders in wide channels.

Against Argentina, that becomes even more important. Their defensive block is compact, and their full‑backs can be drawn into uncomfortable positions when forced to defend repeated wide deliveries.

England’s wingers, whether Noni Madueke, Marcus Rashford or Anthony Gordon, will be tasked with driving at the outside shoulder, forcing Argentina’s midfield to shuffle and opening pockets for Bellingham to attack.

The width that England has is one of the clearest paths to destabilising Argentina’s shape.

England’s quiet World Cup advantage

Set‑pieces have been a reliable source of control for England. Tuchel’s staff have drilled detailed routines, and England’s aerial profile gives them an edge.

Argentina defend set‑pieces aggressively but can be exposed by second‑phase movements. England’s centre‑backs, plus Bellingham’s timing, create multiple threats.

With a semi-final likely to be tight, dead‑ball situations could become decisive.

The battle that decides everything?

The midfield duel is central. England needs to dictate tempo, compress transitions and prevent Argentina from feeding Messi in comfortable zones.

Tuchel’s structure relies on disciplined spacing: the pivot screening Messi’s receiving lanes, Bellingham pressing forward triggers, and the wide players collapsing inside when possession is lost.

The dossier stresses that England must avoid chaotic exchanges. Argentina thrives when the game becomes stretched and stop-start.

If England can slow Argentina’s build-up and force them into predictable patterns, they tilt the match in their favour.

Defensive discipline

Stopping Messi is not a single assignment. The analysis makes clear England will not man‑mark him. Instead, they need a collective plan: controlling zones, anticipating his drifting, and preventing him from receiving between lines.

Messi’s defensive work is minimal, meaning England can exploit the spaces he leaves when Argentina defend with nine outfield players. England’s left‑back should not track Messi everywhere. Instead, England should use that freedom to progress possession.

The flip side remains. Messi has scored eight goals and added two assists this tournament. Any lapse, any loose touch, any broken structure can be punished instantly.

Exploiting Argentina’s defence

Argentina’s defensive vulnerabilities are clear. The team defends with intensity but can be exposed when opponents move the ball quickly across the pitch.

England’s best route is through rotations: full‑back overlaps, inside‑forward runs, and Bellingham arriving late. When England commits numbers-wide, Argentina’s midfield can be dragged out, leaving central channels open.

It is important to note that England should not only try to stop Messi but also exploit his defensive absence. When England has the ball, the team effectively plays against nine defenders. That numerical advantage must be used.

What is England’s pattern of play?

England has developed a habit of scoring late. The team’s fitness, squad depth and Tuchel’s in‑game adjustments have repeatedly shifted matches in the final 20 minutes. Any late goals could decide this semi-final.

England’s bench with Gordon, Madueke, Rashford — fresh midfield legs — gives Tuchel options to change tempo and stretch Argentina’s tiring block.

Argentina, meanwhile, has relied heavily on Messi for late-game inspiration. England must be prepared for the final 10 minutes becoming a duel of decisive moments.

The psychological layer

The semi-final carries weight. England has not reached a World Cup final in 60 years. Argentina are defending champions, accustomed to high‑pressure knockout games.

Tuchel’s side must manage the emotional load: stay patient, avoid forcing transitions, and maintain structure even when the game tightens. The reality is that England’s discipline will be tested, not just their talent. This will determine whether they reach the final.

Argentina will be attempting every dark trick in the book to destabilise the England players.

Key tactical pillars

• Width: Stretch Argentina’s block, create crossing lanes, isolate full‑backs.
• Set‑pieces: England’s aerial strength and rehearsed routines offer a clear advantage.
• Midfield control: Prevent transitions, deny Messi comfortable zones.
• Defensive discipline: Collective responsibility, zonal control, no chaotic exchanges.
• Exploiting Messi’s defensive gaps: Use the extra space when Argentina defend with nine.
• Late-game execution: England’s bench and fitness give them a closing edge.

What England must do to reach the final

England needs to deliver a complete, controlled performance. They must stretch Argentina wide, dominate set‑pieces, and manage the midfield battle with precision.

Players must restrict Messi’s influence without obsessing over him and they must exploit the spaces he leaves when England has the ball.

Tuchel’s side has the tools, including Bellingham in peak form, a wide structure built for big knockout games, and a bench capable of changing the match late.

The semi-final is delicately balanced, almost a coin toss. England has a clear tactical roadmap. If we execute it, we will reach the World Cup final.

Featured image via the Canary

By Faz Ali

Source link

On 14 July, the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) published a shocking – but sadly unsurprising – report into the stark Islamophobia on display at the Spectator, the UK’s oldest political magazine.

The CfMM is an independent non-profit organisation which monitors the representation of Islam in the mainstream media. For its latest report, entitled ‘No Mere Spectator’, it presented comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis:

of 3,733 articles published by The Spectator between January 2018 and December 2025 relating to Islam, Muslims, Muslim communities, Muslim-majority countries, or issues in which Muslims were a central subject of discussion.

From this analysis, it concluded that the magazine:

does not merely comment on Muslims and Islam but consistently constructs them as a problem, and that it does so while invoking the language of free speech to place that coverage beyond criticism.

Spectator dismissing and perpetuating Islamophobia

The CfMM study found that just over 57% of the Spectator’s articles were either ‘biased’ or ‘very biased’ against Muslims. Meanwhile, it rated just 11.6% as ‘not biased’.

This effect was even more pronounced for articles which specifically centered on the subject of Islamophobia. A massive 72.8% were either biased or very biased, whereas just 2% were unbiased. In particular, the report stated that: 

Rather than treating anti-Muslim prejudice as a form of discrimination requiring serious consideration, articles frequently characterise concerns about Islamophobia as attempts to suppress criticism, restrict free speech, obstruct counter-extremism efforts or shield Islam from scrutiny. The effect is to recast protections against discrimination as threats to liberal values.

This bias was notably visible in the magazine’s treatment of the topic of terrorism and political violence. The report observed a “persistent tendency” to conflate Islam, Islamism, and extremist movements. It also added that:

The Conflict and Terrorism coverage presents acts of “Islamist” violence not as the product of specific extremist ideologies but as expressions of Islam’s inherent character, while consistently minimising and relativising far-right terrorism. This includes its response to the Christchurch massacre, where the murder of 51 Muslims in their places of worship was used primarily as a vehicle to attack those who raised concerns about anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Complicity with the far right

Meanwhile, the Spectator repeatedly framed Muslim political advocacy and campaigning as evidence of extremism or ‘disproportionate influence’. What for any other community would be perfectly ordinary participation in democracy instead became sinister, sectarian and “uniquely problematic” for Muslims.

The magazine also displayed a deeply alarming ideological complicity with the narratives of the far right. This included presenting ‘great replacement’ arguments alongside mainstream political commentary, and even framing Muslims’ participation in society as invasion.

The CfMM stated that this repeated pattern went far beyond “isolated editorial lapses”, and that its relationship to the far right was well past the mere “toleration of editorial opinion”. The report held that this relationship was:

cemented by the political affiliations of The Spectator’s new owner, hedge fund manager Sir Paul Marshall. Marshall bought the magazine for £100 million in September 2024 and is co-owner and founder of GB News as well as owner of UnHerd. Marshall’s media titles are highly influential vehicles for the circulation of right-wing and anti-Muslim content. According to the Media Reform Coalition, GB News and The Spectator have regularly been found in breach of broadcasting and editorial standards by Ofcom and the press regulator IPSO.

In the pockets of billionaires

The CfMM’s work in general, and ‘No Mere Spectator’ in particular, is important precisely because it provides robust, evidence based backing for what Muslims in the UK have recognised for decades: this country’s mainstream media outlets emit a distinct and longstanding bias against Islam and its adherents.

Our attitudes as a society are shaped by the things we read about our communities and others. That’s why, as the Canary has previously reported, a handful of billionaires have pumped more than £170 million into the UK’s populist right-wing ecosystem over the last five years. Alex/Rose Cocker wrote that:

The £170 million was split between populist-right MPs and political parties, alongside their aligned media organisations and thinktanks. Of that, more than £130 million came from just four sources: crypto investor Chris Harborne, financier Jeremy Hosking, hedge fund manager Paul Marshall, and investment firm Legatum.

The UK’s media, and our society’s opinions along with it, are being bought wholesale by the ultra-rich right. They profit from our hatred and division, and use Islamophobia as a tool of distraction and influence – to the ongoing devastation of the Muslims in the UK and around the world.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link