Andy Burnham is planning to finally implement the much-needed National Care Service (NCS). While it’s undeniable that we need this service, the question is what the NCS will be: a privatised mess like the NHS of today or a nationalised treasure like the NHS of the past?

With the finer details yet to be decided, now is the time for people to make their opinions known.

Andy Burnham has promised to bring in a new system of social care. But the government needs to address the desperately important issue of who owns and runs it.

Privatisation has been a failed — we’re paying more for worse care while private equity sharks walk away with huge… pic.twitter.com/FRY6naDOM9

Advertisement

— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 28, 2026

Burnham is keeping his promise so far

The Morning Star is among those calling for a fully nationalised care service, noting:

ANDY BURNHAM was urged today to prove to keep his vow to abandon 40 years of neoliberalism by legislating for a national care service before the end of this parliament.

Those calling for a fully public NCS also include Labour MP Clive Lewis, who said:

The extractive state vs the productive state:

The real litmus test for any essential public service is simple: who owns it?

Social care reform that ducks this question will repeat the mistakes of privatised water, haemorrhaging billions into management consultants, shareholder returns and financial extraction instead of frontline care.

The same story is playing out in children’s services. In just two years, care costs have risen by 37% to £3.7 billion. Private equity now dominates much of the sector. Firms buy up children’s homes, strip out costs, drive up prices and extract ever greater profits, while too many children’s needs go unmet.

That is the difference between an extractive state and a productive one. One channels public money into financial returns for the 1%. The other invests it in the 99% the service exists to support.

Advertisement

The New Economic Foundation has commented on the issues with private companies:

Rather than being used to improve services, this money is extracted.

We found that private care companies in three English regions had taken more than £250m in profits in just three years. Company directors earn 60 times more than the average wage. 2/3https://t.co/xqBLUvJ8GW

— NEF (@NEF) July 29, 2026

Advertisement

The Green Party is pushing for the full nationalisation of vital utilities and services, but Burnham has frozen them out of the cross-party discussions on care.

"Given our consistent engagement on the adult social care crisis and willingness to work together to solve it, it's deeply disappointing that the Greens weren't invited to today's cross-party talks.

We need all hands on deck to tackle this issue – the Greens remain ready to work… pic.twitter.com/5yICMR6whz

Advertisement

— The Green Party (@TheGreenParty) July 29, 2026

The privatisation nightmare

Covering the problems that have arisen from NHS privatisation, We Own It has noted the following:

"The GP records of more than half the country sit on a system controlled by a firm whose business model is returns for investors, not care for patients, and the public found out after the fact."

And you thought Palantir's involvement in our healthcare was pretty dodgy…… pic.twitter.com/Rcg7O46nYx

— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 27, 2026

The new US-UK pharma deal could lead to 229,000 preventable deaths.

How? It will divert £45 billion from patient care to pharma corporation profits.

Can you help keep the pressure on Andy Burnham to rip it up?

Sign the petition: https://t.co/hIihU2FFwH pic.twitter.com/hHrn3rgUV7

— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 16, 2026

Advertisement

We Own It has also spoken out about Burnham’s stance on nationalisation:

The man set to be our next Prime Minister has gone on record as saying he wants to bring key utilities like energy and water into ‘public control’. But Andy Burnham hasn’t yet clarified what he’s proposing.

It’s certainly true that he hasn’t clarified what he has planned, but it seems almost certain it won’t be full re-nationalisation. Here’s what he said in June (emphasis added):

On utilities, we will ensure all parts of the UK are able to take greater public control of essential services like water, housing, energy and transport, learning from the model that has transformed our bus networks here in Greater Manchester.

The eagle-eyed among you will have spotted that ‘greater’ public control is not the same as ‘full’ public control; it’s privatisation with more oversight. As privatisation and regulatory oversight have repeatedly failed, we’re not optimistic that more of the thing which doesn’t work will solve anything.

Useless Burnham has sacked off renationalisation

We Own It continued:

Here’s the truth about public control that not enough people know about:

1) Public control is not public ownership. When it comes to water and energy, the ’public control’ that Burnham is promising already exists. It’s another word for regulation which has been failing households since water was privatised in 1989.

Advertisement

2) Privatisation is a waste of your money. Burnham can afford to deliver public ownership. How? He can force the companies – water, energy, Royal Mail – to deliver massive investment out of their own pockets or go bust. When they fail there is legislation he can use – the special administration regime – to protect the public interest and take them back without compensating shareholders. The truth is that bringing public services and assets into public ownership will save money and deliver a better deal.

Nationalisation is also massively popular with the public, as a YouGov poll showed.

‘Real control’

We Own It concluded:

Why should your household be a revenue stream for shareholders around the world? Andy Burnham’s popularity won’t last long unless he’s crystal clear that he will end the scam and deliver permanent public ownership for all our key public services and assets, including the NHS and care as well as our key utilities and infrastructure.

We deserve to own our public assets whether at the local, regional or national level, because owning is better than renting; ownership is the only way to get real control of our essential services.

Advertisement

Andy Burnham must pick a side and he can’t bring down your bills and improve your services unless he does.

The National Care Service is badly needed, sure, but so is full ownership of our sovereign assets. If Andy Burnham founds the NCS and it turns out to be yet another extractive nightmare, people won’t remember him as fondly as he hopes they will. And that’s the choice he has: becoming the new Clement Attlee or the new Margaret Thatcher.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Campaigners from Fossil Free London dressed as firefighters during a protest outside Shell HQ on 29 July. Meanwhile others poured a black liquid resembling oil over their heads.

Behind them placards read: “Shell Fuels Wildfires,” “Oil Fuels Wildfires,” and “Stop Pouring Oil on the Flames”.

The protest comes as Shell is announcing its quarterly profits on Thursday 30 July.

Meanwhile, more than 300,000 people have been forced to leave their homes as wildfires rage across Spain and France. Record-breaking heatwaves across Europe this summer are fuelling the fires.

A recent study found that the climate crisis enabled 55 out of the 213 global heatwaves that would have otherwise been impossible to occur between 2000 and 2023. Fossil fuels made all of these more likely and more intense.

They also found that just pollution from Shell alone made almost a quarter of these heatwaves 10,000 times more likely, and 51 of these heatwaves possible.

Robin Wells, spokesperson for Fossil Free London, said:

Fire needs fuel. And as we witness fires rage across Scotland, France and Spain, we all know those red and yellow flames are turbocharged by Shell’s oil.

For decades Shell covered up the science and continued to drill for the oil that makes wildfires more intense, last longer, and burn further. However the first ember hit the undergrowth in each place, it is Shell, and corporations like it, who set the tinder in place.

Advertisement

And as we witness one of the biggest evacuation efforts on the continent since World War Two, the heavy weight in our heart is the knowledge there’s so much more to come.

Stop pouring Shell’s oil onto this house, torn down by fire. People need to stop the harm and rebuild.

Andy Burnham and Miatta Fahnbulleh [Energy Security and Net Zero secretary] need to make clear now that protecting people from wildfires, drought, crop failures and heatwaves means stopping new oil. It means they must stop Rosebank.

Featured image via Fossil Free London

By The Canary

Source link

Another politician linked to Reform UK has become embroiled in a financial scandal. The MP had already self-suspended, though, so that should at least save Reform some time if things don’t go in his favour:

EXCL by @GeorgeGreenwood

Suspended Reform MP was blocked from winding up two companies — as they failed to repay *still* unexplained taxpayer-backed Covid loans.

James McMurdock has lashed out at scrutiny since Sunday Times posed Qs, but never explained pandemic debts.

Advertisement

— Gabriel Pogrund (@Gabriel_Pogrund) July 28, 2026

Reform Covid loans

James McMurdock suspended himself in 2025 after questions emerged about the Covid loans. Now, the Times have revealed that the Department for Business and Trade blocked McMurdock from winding up the two companies linked to Covid loans. As they reported:

The “dissolution objections process” was introduced by the business department to reduce losses from misuse of bounceback loans by preventing borrowers from avoiding repayments by striking off their companies with outstanding debts.

Giving you an idea of why this was possible, a Covid counter fraud commissioner report from 2025 found:

around 70,000 businesses with outstanding Covid-19 loans placed in the dissolution objections process, many of whom would have committed fraud, possibly worth £0.9 billion, have since either repaid their loans or withdrawn their applications to dissolve

In this case, the Department for Business and Trade has confirmed that the issue was McMurdock not paying back his bounceback loans. In other words, if the department hadn’t blocked the winding up processes, McMurdock may have gotten away with not repaying the loan.

McMurdock responded to the Times with the following statement:

It is now a matter of public record that my businesses have been closed. I owe nothing. Not a penny. Not a bean. All former statements made by me relating to this matter remain true and correct. I would like to thank The Times and all other parties for giving me the opportunity to be vindicated… again.

This is far from the only financial scandal Reform is linked to anyway, with others including:

• Multiple investigations into a £5m ‘gift’ Farage received from a crypto billionaire.
• Accusations Farage is shilling for crypto on behalf of his donors.
• Questions over three houses Farage seemingly failed to declare.
• Failure to declare financial support from convicted fraudster Posh George in the run-up to the 2024 election.

McMurdock

The Covid bounceback loans aren’t the only scandal that McMurdock is linked to either, with the Times reporting:

The MP, who narrowly won his seat in 2024, came to national prominence when it emerged he had been convicted of assaulting his ex-girlfriend in 2006.

He had not publicly disclosed the conviction before he was elected, and played down the attack as a “teenage indiscretion” when details emerged in the weeks after the election.

Advertisement

In the same article, the Times suggest that McMurdock becoming an MP shows a problem with Reform’s vetting. As we’ve suggested elsewhere, however, we’re not sure that Reform’s vetting process is ‘failing’; it actually just seems like the party is willing to ignore certain things.

Reform candidate suggests ‘melting Nigerians’ to fill potholes

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Donald Trump has suffered a huge and potentially crippling legal blow in his lawsuit against the BBC.

A US court has ordered Trump’s ‘revocable trust’, through which he owns most of his properties and businesses, to hand over more than three-and-a-half years’ of documents, including financial information.

The US president has only 10 days to comply.

Trump’s hubris has backfired

Commentators warned Trump, when he launched the lawsuit, that his attempt to sue the BBC for billions was likely not just to fail but to be colossally embarrassing. The BBC apologised for editing a Trump speech connected to the 6 January riots in Washington DC, but Trump wants cash.

Few would dare contend that the edit materially misrepresented Trump’s links to and incitement of the rioters. This made a legal victory for Trump unlikely. However, it meant that the BBC could demand full disclosure of Trump’s financial affairs for assessment of his claim to have suffered $10 billion in financial losses.

Unsurprisingly, Trump wasn’t listening. Having f*cked around, he’s now found out after the judge rejected his lawyers’ attempt to replace disclosure with bought ‘expert testimony’. The likely result was summed up neatly by one social media commenter on Threads:

View on Threads

However, just as with the US’ disastrous war on Iran for Israel, Trump’s pride is unlikely to allow him to admit defeat unless he can find an ‘off-ramp’ to salvage some of what passes for his ‘dignity’.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

A major row has erupted between football’s governing bodies after FIFA confirmed plans to seek private investment in commercial rights linked to the world cup. UEFA reacted sharply, accusing FIFA of crossing a line and warning that European nations are prepared to discuss a potential boycott if Gianni Infantino pushes ahead.

FIFA announced on Tuesday that it intends to launch FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), a new commercial company that would combine the sale of FIFA’s commercial rights. This includes broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing. All in line with the operational delivery of its tournaments. Under the proposal, FIFA aims to raise up to $4.2bn from external investors through minority, non‑controlling stakes in FFE, valuing the entity at around $20bn.

The governing body says the structure could generate more than $10bn in football development funding over the next four years. but UEFA issued a statement saying the plan “crossed a line”, arguing that the “soul and governance of football are not assets to trade”.

FIFA face threat of boycott

UEFA nations are expected to hold an emergency virtual meeting this week. It looks as though there is a willingness among some European associations to use the threat of a boycott if Infantino continues with the proposal.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham criticised the proposal, saying on x that football “does not belong to investors” and belongs to supporters who fill stadiums and stand on touchlines “week in, week out, rain or shine”.

Relations between FIFA and UEFA were already under pressure. UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin did not attend the World Cup final in protest at FIFA’s handling of governance issues, including the Folarin Balogun case. The emergence of the investment plan, without discussion during meetings with football associations in New York on the eve of the World Cup final, intensified European frustration.

UEFA said the proposal lacked transparency and warned that stakeholders, including leagues, clubs, players, supporters and governments should take the matter seriously. the organisation reiterated that “none of us are the owners of football” and insisted it is not FIFA’s to sell.

European concerns

UEFA’s statement emphasised that governance and the soul of football should not be traded, particularly without transparency over who would benefit financially. European associations fear that private investment could influence decision‑making, even if FIFA insists control would remain entirely with the governing body.

The manner in which the proposal surfaced, without prior discussion in New York has contributed to European frustration. UEFA argues that major structural changes should be openly debated among stakeholders rather than introduced through media reports.

FIFA says the proposed structure would allow the commercial side of the game to operate more efficiently, with dedicated focus on revenue generation and distribution. the organisation believes this could support long‑term development, particularly in regions with fewer resources.

FFE would consolidate commercial rights and operational delivery, creating a single entity responsible for major revenue streams. FIFA argues that minority stakes would not compromise governance, as investors would have no control over sporting decisions.

What happens next

FIFA will present the proposal to member associations and the FIFA council. European nations will hold emergency talks, and the possibility of a boycott remains part of the discussion. the outcome will depend on whether FIFA adjusts the proposal and whether member associations believe the structure protects governance and transparency.

The row highlights ongoing tension between FIFA and UEFA and raises questions about how global football should be governed in an era of increased corruption, the fans need to stand up to the evil that is Gianni Infantino and FIFA.

Featured image via Al Jazeera

By Faz Ali

Source link

FIFA’s announcement of its new project was not merely a passing commercial move. Within days, it had become one of the most controversial issues in the history of the game.

Whilst FIFA insists the project aims to increase financial resources and expand support for national associations, European stakeholders believe it paves the way for investors to be brought into the heart of the management of football’s most important tournaments, foremost among them the World Cup.

The crisis has escalated rapidly, with European federations threatening to boycott the World Cup as a means of pressure.

Meanwhile, UEFA is preparing to examine legal and political options to counter the project. The dispute threatens to redraw the balance of power within football.

FIFA considers an unprecedented investment project

The project involves the creation of a new commercial company, FIFA Forward Enterprise, which will manage the commercial rights to FIFA’s tournaments, including the men’s and women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup.

According to details revealed by the Times, FIFA is seeking to sell minority stakes in the company to private sector investors in exchange for raising around $4.2 billion, with the company’s valuation set to reach around $20 billion.

FIFA would retain full majority ownership to ensure it retains control over all sporting and organisational decisions.

The newspaper also noted that the project could pave the way for FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, to take up an executive role in the new company after his term ends, a prospect that has sparked further controversy. FIFA has denied that any decision has been made on this.

‘We are not selling the World Cup’

FIFA has rejected the project being described as it ‘selling the World Cup’ or the privatisation of football, with the main aim being to boost finances so they can be reinvested into developing the game.

It also aims to raise the value of the FIFA Forward programme to more than $10 billion over the coming years.

Investors will have no authority over tournaments, regulations or the international calendar, FIFA has emphasised. Their role will be limited to holding minority stakes in the commercial company.

Europe responds and a boycott is on the table

On the other hand, the proposal has been met with widespread European opposition. The Telegraph revealed that a number of European federations are preparing to hold an emergency meeting to discuss options for escalation, including boycotting the World Cup should FIFA proceed.

UEFA is also considering taking legal action against the proposal, amid anger across the continent over the failure to involve many national associations in discussions before the plan was announced.

The newspaper quoted sources involved in the consultations as having described the proposal as “a nuclear bomb in the world of football”, whilst other officials stressed the need to act swiftly to prevent its adoption before it becomes a fait accompli.

UEFA fears that the entry of investors will lead to constant pressure to increase the number of tournaments or expand them to generate greater financial returns. This could threaten the balance of the international calendar and affect domestic and continental competitions.

A battle that goes beyond money

Despite FIFA’s assurances that the project will keep sporting decisions in the hands of the world governing body, its critics argue that investors will not pour in billions of dollars without seeking the highest possible return, which could affect the format, dates and venues of tournaments in the future.

Analysis by the Guardian suggests that European concerns are not so much about the sale of shares in a commercial company as they are about a shift in the philosophy of football governance.

Many fear that investment considerations will become the main driver of decision-making, including the expansion of the World Cup, an increase in the number of tournament editions, and a focus on the most profitable markets at the expense of sporting considerations.

Observers believe that the current crisis is similar in scale to the upheaval caused by the European Super League project in 2021, but it may have a greater impact, as it affects the very institution that governs world football.

Crucial weeks ahead

The proposal still requires the approval of a majority of FIFA’s national member associations, making the coming weeks crucial in determining its future.

Meanwhile, the sporting world is watching to see what the European response will be, and whether it will be limited to legal and political objections, or whether it will escalate to more drastic measures.

The confrontation that could shape the governance of world football for decades to come.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

4 min read11 min

When I first arrived in Manchester, Andy Burnham said to me: “Duncan, it’s great that you’re here, and we love the University, but two-thirds of our young people don’t go to university, so how are you going to help them?”

Advertisement

Many people are asking what ‘Manchesterism’ means and if it has any relevance for the rest of the country. Part of the answer lies in the question Andy asked me. He wasn’t saying, “you’re not doing a good job”, but rather, “help me help those who aren’t coming through your doors”.

The premise of his question offers a deep insight into what I think Manchesterism ultimately means: it’s a way of working that is deeply collaborative, combined with a long-term political vision, policy stability, and shrewd investments in the city-region’s unique strengths and assets.  

It’s an approach developed in Manchester over many years, across generations of leaders, in both the public and private sectors. The core insight is this: starting with the politics of place offers one of the most powerful ways of getting things done collectively, which in turn helps address the growing cynicism and sense of despair about politics.  

At a time when people’s living standards are stagnant or going backwards, we need to focus on delivering the basics well: better housing, transport, public safety, education and training. People want to feel heard, respected and engaged. Successful city-regions operate at a scale where delivering the basics effectively is more likely to happen – but only if given the tools, freedom and opportunity to do so. 

Advertisement

The default in Manchester has been to collaborate with anyone who shares our desire to improve the quality of life in our city. Whether in relation to health, education, skills, economic growth, or culture, Manchesterism is a mindset of shared responsibility – where universities, colleges, hospitals, businesses, schools, councils and the combined authority see each other’s challenges as part of their own, and work together to address them.

The results speak for themselves. Greater Manchester, over the last decade, has been the fastest growing economy in the UK, and has attracted more foreign direct investment than any region outside London. 

That is no accident. Private investment craves stable and visionary political leadership and a public sector willing to turn ambition into delivery. That confidence creates jobs, prosperity and a city where, now, almost two thirds of our university graduates choose to stay after graduation and build their lives here. 

Advertisement

Of course, things are far from perfect. Manchester still lags behind comparable cities in Europe when it comes to improved productivity and investment. And there is still too much entrenched social and economic disadvantage in our community that we need to tackle. However, it does show what can be achieved through new forms of collaboration. 

But Manchesterism only works if institutions are prepared to change how they behave. In his first major speech after winning the Makerfield by-election, Burnham argued that universities should sit at the heart of local economies, alongside innovators, employers and local government. He is right. But that requires universities to reimagine their role in the politics of place. 

This doesn’t mean being less ambitious. The UK’s best universities are amongst the very best in the world, and we should continue to aspire to that standard. But a great university should also be judged by the local ecosystems it helps build and sustain, and the contribution it makes to improving the wellbeing of the communities it serves.

This way of working is a necessary condition of what Manchesterism means, but not a sufficient one. Getting growth going in every postcode will require not only devolving power and building up the institutional and collaborative capabilities of our regions, but structural reforms to finance, policy-making, and public-private investment, well beyond what any single region can accomplish on their own. This is what will transform the politics of place into a truly national vision.

Advertisement

 

Duncan Ivison is President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester

Source link

Labour MP Clive Lewis is calling for a referendum on nationalising the water industry.

Lewis, who is MP for Norwich South, links to a web form which will send a request to your MP, asking them to attend the debate. The form contains the following message:

I need your help to clean up our water system.

Over 160,000 people have signed a petition demanding a referendum on public ownership of water. That forced a debate in Parliament – on Monday 14th September.

This is a rare chance for MPs to hear what the public really thinks about our broken water system. Privatisation has failed, and 82% of the public agrees.

Advertisement

It’s no wonder why:

In 2024, sewage was discharged into our rivers for more than 3.6 million hours. Over 80% of all sewage spills into England’s waterways in the last two years may have been illegal.

Every single water company in England is under investigation for sewage spills.

Meanwhile since privatisation, £85 billion has been siphoned out of the system in dividends.

Advertisement

Almost a third of our water bills goes not into fixing pipes or protecting rivers, but into servicing debt and paying shareholders.

MPs need to hear this – and speak out for their constituents.

Water shouldn't be a commodity. It should be a public good.

Over 160,000 people have signed a petition demanding a referendum on public ownership of water – enough to force a debate in Parliament on Monday 14th September.

Advertisement

Help me fill the room: https://t.co/izO7Olfuj1 pic.twitter.com/CunkSsVENL

— Clive Lewis MP (@labourlewis) July 28, 2026

Clive Lewis wants what’s in the public’s best interest

We’ve reported extensively on the issues around privatised water, with recent stories including the following:

• London families told to refill water bottles despite having no running water during heatwave
• Thames Water issues massive bonuses to bosses… despite the ban on water bosses’ bonuses
• Water failure now top threat to UK – where’s the institutional panic?

Thames Water shareholders desperate to keep hands on cash cow monopoly

It’s also the case that nationalising water and other utilities is popular with voters.

You can contact your MP here.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Content warning: This article contains descriptions of sexual assault, abuse and grooming

Jared Leto has been accused of sexual offences, including rape, and inappropriate behaviour by 10 women when they were teenagers.

The BBC documentary, Jared Leto: Hollywood’s Dark Secret, hears from 10 women who allege that the US musician and singer assaulted them, threatened them with rape or harassed them between 2002 and 2016. Leto would have been in his thirties and forties at the time.

All the women were under the age of 18.

Despite repeated attempts to contact Jared Leto, he has not responded to the allegations put to him by the BBC.

Leto lured teenagers to hotels for abuse

Isabel* told the BBC that she was sexually assaulted by Leto in a “dingy gross motel” in 2002, when she was 17.

She assumed they would be going somewhere else so waited for Leto in the room while he took a shower, he then called her into the bathroom.

Isabel said:

I don’t think there was many words exchanged and he opened the shower curtain and started kissing me

She told the BBC that he forced her to masturbate him by grabbing her hand. She stopped him and asked to leave, the actor put on a towel and checked the corridor before letting her out. It was only later, when she looked up the actor online, that she realised he was in his forties.

‘Age is just a number’

Alex* was lured to Leto’s hotel under the pretence of an after-party, but was instead threatened with sexual assault. She was 19, but Leto thought she was 17, she said.

This happened in 2013 when his band, Thirty Seconds to Mars, played at the O2 Arena in London. Leto was 41 years old at the time.

Alex was offered free VIP tickets as many female models were, and was taken to a backstage room only for the models. Brad*, a crew member claimed that request was “direct from Jared”.

After the gig, Leto’s female assistant invited Alex to an after-party at Shoreditch House, a private members’ club in east London. Alex told Leto she was 17, as she “felt the need” to pretend to be younger around him. She says he replied:

 Age is just a number, and anyway, we’re in Europe.

After being taken to his hotel room, Alex asked him for a phone charger or cash so she could go home. When he refused, she asked to sleep on the chaise longue in the room. Leto told her that if she did, she would wake up “with a dick in her ass”.

Alex is in no doubt that this was a calculated plan to sexually assault her, aided by the people around him.

The assistant knew what to say, to lure me into his hotel room

Leto didn’t care about age of consent

Taylor*, then aged 14, met the musician at a signing after Thirty Seconds to Mars performed at a festival in 2005. She held out a t-shirt to sign, but Leto insisted on signing her breasts. She said it would’ve been “very obvious” she was a teenager.

He then instructed his security to take her backstage without asking her consent. Luckily, her mother intervened.

She told the BBC:

He looked at her and said, “It’s still a nice rack”. He just did not care.

Another victim, Clara*, said she first had sex with Leto in 2006, when she was 17 and he was 34, at his house in California. This was after a man close to Leto approached her on his behalf and asked for her phone number, while backstage at a Thirty Seconds to Mars gig.

Clara recalled a conversation with Leto about the age of consent. In California, sex with someone below the age of consent, which is 18, can be convicted of statutory rape.

Clara said:

He just kind of shrugged it off, like it wasn’t a huge concern for him.

Clara said they had sex three or four times, with age play being a part of it.

He told me, “I would like you to call me daddy”. And it was either pretend to be a little girl or “my little girl”.

There is no well-adjusted man in his 30s who’s going to look at a teenager and think…she would be a great partner.

Etta’s story

Etta* said Leto groomed her when she was 16, with him “abusing his celebrity status” to get her email address and phone number, which he then used to harass her with sexually explicit phone calls.

Leto knew she was 16, Etta told the BBC, which led to him asking questions about her being a virgin and having sexual “kinks”.

She said:

He did at least once mention him and I having sex at some point.

Leto then supposedly passed her number on to his friend ‘Christian’ under the guise of it being good for her modelling career. This man would call her and ask her to make porn, telling her it didn’t matter if she was underage. Etta now says she “would not be surprised” if Christian was, in fact, Leto.

Two years after the incidents, Leto asked Etta to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). When she refused, he “chuckled” about his lawyer’s concerns, she said in the documentary.

Four other women told the BBC that they were also subjected to sexual calls from Leto when they were underage. Two of the women say they also received calls, supposedly from other men, but who they also believe could’ve been Leto.

A long history of abuse in plain sight

These are the latest in a very long line of allegations about Leto. The BBC reported that journalists counted more than 120 “separate allegations made online relating to his behaviour towards women, some of them historical”.

Last year, allegations from Los Angeles DJ, Allie Teilz — who said Leto had assaulted her backstage at a gig, aged 17 — prompted others to speak out.

The post was a screenshot of her Facebook status from 2012 which read:

You’re not really in LA until Jared Leto tries to force himself on you backstage at an M83 show.. In a Kilt.. And a snow hat

Further to this, another nine women told US media outlet Air Mail last year about the inappropriate behaviour they had experienced or witnessed from Leto. He denied all the allegations.

It’s clear from reading these accounts that many people who worked for Leto allowed these abuses to happen. Much like Johnny Depp and other abusers, Leto is someone who has been operating in plain sight for years and who Hollywood protects.

*All names were changed to protect their identities

Featured image via Pearl & Dean

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link

Source link