15 year old Mohammad Suleiman Hamed, was detained by genocidal Israel. Because he suffered no previous health conditions, his family was surprised by a call from Physicians for Human Rights, informing them their son would undergo surgery in the hospital. Hamed is now unconscious, on life support in the intensive care unit of the “Israeli” Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, in occupied Jerusalem.
In April he contracted scabies. Due to intentional denial of medical treatment his condition deteriorated significantly. By July, he developed a severe fever and was transferred to the prison clinic. Examinations showed he had developed a urinary tract infection, and was suffering from high levels of blood sugar.
According to the Palestinian Prisoners Society (PPS), Hamed was transferred to the “Israel’s” Shaare Zedek Medical Centre on 20 July. This is because Ramla Prison Clinic had refused to admit him because he had scabies. Despite his serious condition, occupation prison authorities returned him to Ofer Prison, where he was given antibiotics. He stayed there for four days, but his condition continued to deteriorate.
Advertisement
Spreading infection
Hamed was then transferred back to Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, where examinations found the infection had spread to several organs, including his heart and brain. On 27 July, the 15 year old underwent open-heart surgery, without his parents present, and suffered neurological damage. Several parts of his body were affected, including his right foot, which doctors say may require amputation.
The Palestinian Prisoners’ Club is urging international bodies to intervene and ensure medical care for Palestinian detainees in Israeli prison.
15-year-old detainee underwent open-heart surgery while in Israeli custody without his family's permission.
Since 30 July, following intervention from Physicians for Human Rights, family visits have been permitted for Hamed. This comes after occupation authorities decided to release him, because of his extremely critical condition. According to the PPS, they did this to evade any responsibility for their crimes. Hamed remains unconscious in the intensive care unit, and doctors are waiting for him to stabilise before they can assess the extent of damage caused to his body.
Mohammed Hamed’s case is not unique. It is one of the thousands faced by Palestinian political prisoners. In March 2025, 17 year old Walid Ahmad became the first Palestinian under the age of 18 to be martyred by the occupation in its prison system. He had scabies, and likely died from extreme malnutrition caused by starvation. He was arrested during a night time raid on his home in Silwad, and spent six months in detention without charge or trial.
Advertisement
Walid Ahmad died after just six months in detention
Ahmad also had no prior health issues before his arrest on 30 September 2024. He lost consciousness while in Megiddo Prison, on 22 March 2025, and was declared dead when he was transferred to the prison clinic. He had been denied family and lawyer visits.
It's been reported that an Israeli court ruled Walid Ahmad, a Palestinian child who died while detained in an Israeli prison, was 'likely starved'. He was held for six months without charge.
Sadly, such ill-treatment is not unusual. It is unconscionable that any child should be… pic.twitter.com/6bTuLXVkK2
Malek Hani Jibril, 30, is also from the town of Tuqu. He was shot and arrested by Israeli occupation forces (IOF) at the “300” military checkpoint in July. Subsequent surgery resulted in the amputation of his right foot. He remains in detention.
Prisoners fear requesting treatment
Israeli occupation authorities have systematically targeted Palestinian political prisoners by starving and torturing them, and denying them healthcare until they reach critical or irreversible stages. They are then released in an attempt to evade legal and criminal responsibility for the abuses they have committed against them. This has led to an unprecedented spread of diseases and injuries among them.
There are huge challenges when it comes to monitoring the health conditions of prisoners and obtaining their medical files. Not only is this due to inaction and procedures imposed by the “Israeli” authorities. It is also down to the reluctance of many prisoners to request treatment, due to fear of being subjected to further attacks and abuse.
Advertisement
The PPS says limb amputations have become one of the most serious issues currently being experienced by prisoners. Many detainees are shot before being arrested, which can then lead to amputation. In addition, some Palestinians have experienced a limb amputation and are then arrested later on. They too are deprived of the necessary healthcare and medical support to meet their basic needs inside prison.
More than 100 Palestinian prisoners have been killed in “Israeli” custody since October 2023. The occupation currently holds approximately 9400 Palestinian prisoners, including 350 Palestinian children.
Chi Onwurah following a reverse select committee Credit: Sense About Science
4 min read
“They don’t speak for us.”
Advertisement
Again and again we hear the public complain that MPs are out of touch, that they don’t represent the public interest, that Parliament is just a game for careerists. It’s not only the public making these claims, of course: we hear colleagues making similar statements to crowd-pleasing effect. The fact that such claims please the crowd should give us all cause to pause.
However, while those claims might be true of individuals, they’re certainly not my experience of Parliament. As Chair of the Defence Select Committee, I can see for myself how much time and attention not only goes into formulating policy in all areas, but also into scrutinising it. Nobody does this work on a whim, as the naysayers might have us believe, or because it lines their pockets: they’re putting the hours in to make our country a better, stronger, safer place to live and work.
Advertisement
Nonetheless, while we Parliamentarians enjoy the benefit of seeing all the work that goes on behind the scenes – the weeks and months of effort before the headlines land – that same privilege is rarely afforded to the public.
To be sure, the government rightly insists on transparency. “There should be no power without accountability, and true accountability requires transparency,” wrote former Prime Minister Keir Starmer back in 2020. And indeed the public rightly has access to a raft of statistics and data on what’s being done, where and how decisions have been reached.
Advertisement
But transparency isn’t the same thing as visibility. It’s one thing to have access to information about Parliament, it’s another to experience it.
That’s why I agreed to participate in this year’s Evidence Week in Parliament, a week-long series of activities organised by the charity Sense about Science to champion the public interest in sound evidence use, and in the process help demystify the workings of our democracy.
Evidence Week opened with a unique ‘Reverse Select Committee’ hearing: 20 members of the public, selected to represent as wide as possible a range of interests and backgrounds, assembled in a Committee Room to each put a question to a panel of Select Committee Chairs and Members, alongside other expert advisers.
Advertisement
Chaired by Sense about Science’s Chief Executive Tracey Brown, it followed the form of an authentic select committee hearing and challenged us panellists to explain our work.
“How does Parliament stay informed of the realities of defence technologies, when they are rapidly developing?”
“Given the rising number of 16-24 year olds not in education or employment, how does Parliament make sure that government is implementing AI technology in a way that addresses this issue, rather than exacerbates it?”
“How can Parliament keep track of the social value created by sports groups?”
Advertisement
These questions – just a handful of those asked and answered – are intelligent, incisive and deserve attention. But in what other forum would members of the public normally get to ask them?
Having the opportunity not only to address their queries, but also to explain how we were able to address them – to describe the workings of a select committee, to outline the Parliamentary process to people who would otherwise never have an opportunity to see inside the Palace of Westminster, let alone observe a committee meeting – was both humbling and empowering.
My fellow panellist Lord Clement-Jones noted that the experience was “both of interest and reassuring to those who came – that’s democratic engagement for you.”
And isn’t that the antidote to “they don’t speak for us”? A window into Parliament. Direct, democratic, public engagement. The participants, I hope, left with a deeper understanding of how policy is formed and scrutinised, and a greater awareness of the accountability that the select committee process enforces. Most of all, they saw that the great Westminster machine is intended to work for them. And you can bet they’ll tell their friends.
Jason Arday, the Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism and of exaggerating his backstory, has achieved in a very short period of time something of a Falstaffian ideal. If not himself visibly witty, since he seems to have intended his lavish claims to be taken seriously, he has certainly been the cause of wit in others.
More remarkable still, like the hero of one of his own apparently tall tales, the Cambridge don has kept going, scaling an even higher cumulonimbus of credulity with every new claim.
Advertisement
To give just one well-known example, Arday has boasted of having run 30 marathons in as many days (give or take) and covered 600 miles in six days – a feat that would, if true, put him in the absolute elite of endurance athletes. Some have seen fit to ruthlessly mock the claim as Baron von Munchausen-tier confabulation.
But Arday outpaced all scepticism when it emerged that merely completing these tasks in these times was the least of it. He had, it seems, run the last nine of these marathons after sustaining a hairline fracture in his leg – demonstrating character far beyond mere fitness and determination.
To run over 200 miles with a hairline fracture would require the kind of indifference to personal comfort that is normally only found in Victoria Cross citations: John Cruickshank, for example, who, as a badly wounded pilot in the Second World War, refused morphine so that he could continue to at least supervise his plane’s landing.
Advertisement
Reading tales like these, my traditional reaction has been to wonder at such heroism emerging under such awful conditions, and muse that such people simply no longer exist. Does the Arday case force me to reconsider this? His marathon feats may well be true, but my very, very strong suspicion – as strong as I can state it without attracting the attention of notorious law firm Farter-Fuck – is that, if anything, the Arday case only further deepens my despair, to have been born at a time when the human race is so degraded.
The resort to gleeful mockery of Arday’s seemingly more improbable claims is, I think, the healthiest reaction, and one that has a proud history. It has been encouraging to see that Britain, in particular, especially after the meekness with which we accepted Covid restrictions, can still at least mount a decent response when confronted with such apparently lurid displays of self-aggrandisement.
Advertisement
But laughing alone is not good enough. After the laughter dies away and the thing gets stale, we have to stay focussed on the rot that’s developed in our most treasured institutions.
Oxford and Cambridge are, for now, still regarded as among the very best universities in the world. Their global ranking is almost invariably in the top five, and often top three. They cannot allow their reputation to be undermined by seemingly appointing people on the basis of DEI priorities rather than merit. In this case, the Cambridge education faculty may well have failed in its duty to enforce the highest standards in awarding professorial chairs to an alleged plagiarist and fantasist.
The idea of a university has been discussed by many great men and women over the years. Cardinal Newman wrote a famous book of that title – which, in the spirit of this article, I will now plainly state I have not read. But Newman’s idea has been interrogated and distilled by many others before and since. And on the very short list of non-negotiables to which the university must aspire, truth sits at the very top.
Advertisement
The quest for truth is not merely an affectation of academics, an abstract ideal for be-gowned dreamers. The excellence of Harvard, Princeton et al is arguably the rock on which America’s entire project – and certainly its dominance since the world wars – has been built. Britain’s continued ability to maintain a genuine rivalry to US universities’ otherwise unchallenged eminence is a small, soft-power miracle. Oxbridge is one of the very few British institutions that has – unlike the BBC, Church of England and police force – not yet become an international laughing stock nor lost the dressing room at home. Not least because it is quite naturally regarded by most of us to be above our pay grade to judge.
But not anymore. Anyone scrolling through their newsfeed can now see that yet another long march through our institutions has reached the vital organs. They have something seemingly close to academic sepsis, and serious measures may be required if they are to survive with their reputations intact.
Advertisement
I am reminded of two examples of showing the threat to the university’s core tenets. One involves a famous little book by philosopher Harry Frankfurt, entitled On Bullshit. There he explored the idea that more harmful than liars to the intellectual health of a nation, or its subdivisions, are ‘those who are almost entirely unconcerned with the truth’. Liars are at least actively aware that the truth exists and are trying to conceal its whereabouts. Bullshitters just don’t care.
Everyone loved that little book and knew exactly the sort of thing Frankfurt was talking about. Yet like intellectual knotweed, this indifference to the truth has proved not only resilient but anti-fragile. It has a few dauntless foes, but from every bloody stump of neck, two or three new heads seem to spring every day.
The second is a quote from 2022 attributed to Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR and former head of the Wikimedia Foundation: ‘Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.’ I say attributed to – I saw her say it and you can, too. It’s from her TED Talk and she seems to be in no hurry to distance herself from it. She might, of course, argue that the context was important, and she was not talking about the criteria by which we appoint professors to one of the great seats of learning in the history of the world. And maybe she’s right. But honestly, why should I care?
Advertisement
Stay focussed. Demand action in our universities. If not heads, then mortarboards at least must surely roll. And if that suggests an impossibility, given their geometrical properties – well, then I think we know just the man for the job.
Simon Evans is a spiked columnist and stand-up comedian. Tickets for his tour, Staring at the Sun, are on sale here.
Lucy Powell is taking a wrecking ball to England’s schools. Labour’s newly appointed education secretary is determined to erode academic standards and diminish the status of traditional subjects, in order to turn schools into employability factories where children are made workplace-ready. She must be stopped.
Writing in The Times on Monday, Powell takes aim at one of her Conservative predecessors, Michael Gove. Pushing children into learning maths, English, history and science has turned education into a ‘straitjacket’, she moans. Rather than what she derides as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, Powell wants teachers to lower their expectations, free up more room for ‘creativity’ on the curriculum, and allow pupils as young as 14 to focus on vocational skills training. Given that so many of her assumptions about the current state of schooling are plain wrong (14-year-olds can already study for technical qualifications and GCSE passes require shockingly little knowledge), it is hard not to conclude that Powell is determined to ensure every child leaves school as dumb as she is.
Signs of the Philistinism about to be unleashed were there last week when Andy Burnham set out his ambition for a society that values ‘the hard hat as much as the graduation cap’. It’s a worthy aspiration: too many in the graduate class treat manual workers and skilled craftsmen with contempt. But Burnham seems unable to conceive of education as being about anything other than preparation for the world of work. His plan is for teachers to act as intermediaries in negotiating local jobs for local people, beginning with work experience for teenagers. This means sorting children into academic and vocational streams aged just 14, with subject knowledge the preserve of some and the rest consigned to – let’s be honest – low-level, basic skills. This is hardly likely to be a great leap towards levelling up.
Advertisement
Lucy Powell shares the same conviction that the shamefully high proportion of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) is all down to failings in our education system. Putting the number of NEETs at one million, she finds it far easier to point the finger of blame at a former Tory education secretary than to unpick a decades-long, cross-party consensus on deindustrialisation, mass migration and overly generous and easily obtained sickness benefits. Burnham and Powell prefer tearing up the national curriculum to admitting that increasing both the minimum wage and employers’ national-insurance contributions has cut the number of jobs for young people. They would rather gear school around work experience than question the debilitating impact of the countless mental-health initiatives children routinely experience.
Powell’s Times column exposes her inability to conceive of education as being important in its own right. ‘Education should be a passport’, she writes, ‘A passport into work, into life, on to the next stage.’ In other words, there is no point in knowing stuff just for the sake of it. There is no literature so inspiring, no art so beautiful, no science so fascinating that knowledge alone is worth revelling in. Rather than introducing children to the best that has been thought and said, Powell wants schools to prepare children for ‘the modern economy, or societal demands’.
Advertisement
Powell may think she’s socking it to the Conservatives and coming up with a radically new agenda, but her aim of gearing schooling around ‘societal demands’ harks back to the origins of the so-called progressive education movement. Since the 1920s, educationalists such as John Dewey have been associated with the idea that teaching should be guided by children’s own curiosity. But this was always disingenuous. Behind the child-centred rhetoric lay Dewey’s view that the role of teachers was to ‘shape the experiences of the young so that instead of reproducing current habits, better habits shall be formed, and thus the future adult society be an improvement on their own’. In other words, the role of the teacher is not to pass on to children their intellectual birthright, but to mould them into politically desirable and economically useful future citizens.
This approach to education has been tried and tested for a century. The idea that schools should sort children into future ‘brains’ and ‘hands’ workers, and give them academic or vocational qualifications as appropriate, has meant that working-class children in particular have been patronised with low expectations and denied access to knowledge, whether through secondary modern schools in the 1960s or GNVQs in the 1990s (General National Vocational Qualifications, or, as they came to be known, Generally Not Very Qualified). This reinforced social inequality at every turn. By contrast, Michael Gove’s determination that every child should have the opportunity to engage with a knowledge-rich and intellectually demanding curriculum meant social class no longer needed to limit educational success.
Advertisement
Powell’s derision for the ‘straitjacket’ of academic study and her sneering at the backwardness of ‘pen and paper exams’ reveal her contempt for education itself. Rather than striving for a nation where all children know about the richness and beauty of the world they have been born into, she wants local employers to dictate the curriculum, and a generation of school-leavers who can hit play on a PowerPoint presentation but know nothing about their country’s past.
A desperate US government has asked junior analysts to brainstorm ways to beat Iran. The Trump administration is refusing to accept defeat despite having been locked into a stand off with the country.
CNNdescribed what it called a “crowdsourcing” effort in a report this week:
“We are looking for new creative and unconventional ways to pressure and punish Iran,” an officer in US Central Command’s intelligence branch wrote in a message sent Wednesday to a broad group of military analysts, according to a source familiar with the message.
Adding:
A second source also said that a senior US military officer sent the message last week soliciting new ideas for how to deal with Iran.
The US and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February without provocation. Iran was offering unprecedented concessions in negotiations at the time.
Advertisement
The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran. Plus, the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
The US has achieved none of its original war aims. Iran predictably closed the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil channel, once attacked, creating a global energy crisis.
Far from being defeated, Iran has said the war will continue until “the enemy’s inevitable and permanent humiliation, disgrace, regret, and surrender”. Donald Trump came to power on an anti-war ‘America First’ ticket. He now faces worldwide humiliation.
US seeks novel ways to win a war it needlessy started
U.S. Central Command has a long history of thinking and working in innovative ways.
Admiral Cooper, in particular, reaches out to members of our great team, regardless of rank, to achieve the highest levels of operational performance possible.
It seems that the US, faced with defeat, is scraping the barrel for ideas. Trump, meanwhile, is touting various ideas to escalate the war.
Trump has considered expanding the military operation, including renewed strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Two people familiar with the planning said the U.S. military had prepared options targeting Pickaxe Mountain and other locations believed to contain nuclear material or equipment.
Advertisement
And added:
Trump has also considered highly visible strikes resembling a “fireworks” display, according to another source. Such an operation could target sites struck previously and provide a symbolic victory, allowing the president to reduce U.S. involvement without eliminating Iran’s nuclear program.
Iran currently has the Trump regime by the balls. The US’ desperation to extract itself in a way it can portray as a win is apparent. A war built on hubris and miscalculation has led to yet another catastrophic defeat for the US.
So far, Andy Burnham has not revealed who funded the Makerfield campaign that precipitated his rapid ascent to Prime Minister. However, on the same day as his by-election victory, upon which he automatically vacated his previous post as mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham registered £27,000 in “mayoral campaigning donations”. One of the donors was ex-Blairite Minister and now life peer David Blunkett.
Burnham and Blunkett
In 2023, Blunkett, a long-standing supporter of Labour Friends of Israel, proclaimed that MPs calling for a ceasefire in Gaza were engaging in “gesture politics” and should “grow up”. He added that Keir Starmer was right to reject such calls.
After Burnham served as his private parliamentary secretary, Blunkett says that the two “became close”. Like Burnham, Blunkett was a key supporter of Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq. In 2016, the former Home Secretary said that, even though the British public would never “get over Iraq”, he stood by his decision. Burnham consistently voted against an inquiry into the Iraq invasion.
In 2002, Blunkett warned against schools being “swamped” by the children of families seeking asylum in Britain. At the time, Labour MP Diane Abbott responded by saying:
Advertisement
We are talking about children here, not raw sewage.
In 2025, Blunkett wrote the foreword to a report on “Islamist Antisemitism”. The paper was produced by Daniel Allington, Head of Online Monitoring for the Campaign Against Antisemitism, on behalf of the Counter Extremism Group, of which Blunkett is a senior advisor.
Campaign Against Antisemitism
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) was formed after a local theatre in London refused to host a film festival whilst it was funded by the Israeli Embassy. It is led by lobbyist Gideon Falter, who has previously been seen with a bodyguard from the SQR Security Group. SQR is headed by two former Mossad agents.
Falter is also vice-chair of the Jewish National Fund’s UK branch, a charity which gave £1 million to “Israel’s largest militia”. Honorary patrons include Benjamin Netanyahu and Tony Blair.
On the same day as Burnham took office as Prime Minister, Falter wrote an open letter demanding that he make combating antisemitism a “central priority” of his government, adding that CAA had their own “plan”, which they were willing to “discuss … with you directly”.
Advertisement
Burnham is one of the MPs who “flocked” to join Labour Friends of Israel in 2015. At that time, he described boycott, divestment, and sanction (BDS) efforts against the settler state as “spiteful”. He also said that the Balfour Declaration, in which the British government promised the land of Palestine to the Zionist movement, was “an example of British values in action”.
Burnham believed that the centenary anniversary of Arthur Balfour’s letter to banker Walter Rothschild should be marked with events in schools to celebrate, in his words, how Britain:
played a role in the establishment of a democracy in the region.
Burnham has never withdrawn these statements.
Israeli lobby continues to pressure Burnham
So confident has the pro-Israeli lobby become in Britain, even the mildest comments from Burnham are met with consternation. When the new Prime Minister said, “we’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government” – a meaningless statement repeated ad nauseam by British politicians – the Board of Deputies expressed “significant concerns”.
Advertisement
This follows a pattern. In September 2024, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis denounced the British government’s decision to suspend some arms export licenses, lamenting that it would boost arguments that the Israeli state was breaching international law, which he described as a “falsehood”.
In April, Labour’s Courts Minister, Sarah Sackman, said that she agreed with Mirvis’ assessment of antisemitism in Britain. What she did not mention is that Mirvis’ son has served in the Israeli military, which he described as “our incredible heroic soldiers”.
Last month, Mirvis congratulated Burnham on his coronation. Behind the faux outrage, the new Prime Minister is seen as a safe bet.
Last Friday, at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Trump wore his signature red cap, this time reading “Trump 2028,”, announcing his intention to run for president for a fourth time, which would break the USA’s two-term constitutional limit. He also insisted he had already won three elections, continuing to deny he lost the 2020 election to Biden.
Trump is going to be president in ’28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that.
When pressed for details, he offered only the following statement:
at the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is, but there is a plan.
In 2025, when Zelensky explained in a public meeting with Trump that Ukrainian law makes wartime elections difficult, Trump laughed and said:
So you’re saying if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections?
This is how the 21st-century right normalises anti-institutional politics: performing it as a joke first.
Trump didn’t invent the impulse to break institutions, but he has innovated doing it with a wink, and now European radical-right figures are running the same play.
Advertisement
Meme as Method
Twentieth-century fascism performed solemnity, which allowed for it to be satirised by figures like Chaplin. Contemporary reactionaries instead beat satirists to the punch by pre-emptively satirising themselves.
Trump’s White House, for instance, reworked the viral travel-ad meme into “When ICE books you a one-way Jet2 holiday to deportation,” soundtracked over people being loaded onto a removal flight. The situation becomes laughably ridiculous – whether you think the meme is funny or absurd.
The meme then becomes the method. Whether entertained or outraged, it becomes almost impossible to tackle the situation with the due solemn discourse. ICE’s transgressions against American institutions are then scrolled past.
ICE’s constitutional violations
For example, the Fourth Amendment stipulates law enforcement need judges to issue warrants before entering people’s homes, but a DHS memo told agents they can enter homes to make arrests using “administrative warrants” signed by ICE’s own supervisors. Footage of these violations has since spread across social media.
Advertisement
Ohio State law professor Ric Simmons claimed the practice is “essentially authorizing a violation of fundamental rights we’ve had as Americans since the Bill of Rights was passed” in 1791 for citizens and non-citizens alike. The material for the meme is then fundamental violations of century-old legal rights, proving how unconservative the radical-right has become.
Of course, pointing out constitutional violations seems stuffy, humourless, and is a lot harder to fit into meme-format. The pearl-clutching critic then embodies the solemnity of the dysfunctional establishment, which is exactly what the right’s transgressive joke was designed to short-circuit.
Who is ‘in’ on the joke?
There’s a deeper social implication to refusing the joke too. If you laugh, you’re in. Objecting means you’re out.
Humour efficiently and implicitly delineates the in-group and out-group, who the joke is for and who it is against, who will go along with things and who will resist. That is the exact frame and information necessary for far-right politics. The left’s universalist politics cannot quite replicate that same tactic without undermining its own values.
Advertisement
The right also builds broad-based solidarity through this practice. Nearly everyone has told an off-colour joke and been corrected for it. When a politician gets hammered for “just a joke,” plenty hear an echo of that same telling-off, and side with the joker against what looks like the same finger-wagging authority.
American Wrongs for the European Right
The European right is replicating the Trumpian play. Rupert Lowe, leader of Restore Britain, offers the clearest case of the joke as cover. In a leaked recording, Lowe commented on a camera:
In days gone by, you’d call it a Jewish camera because it’s so small.
When Lowe received backlash, he trotted out the routine defence:
The British people have no idea that this is happening.
Presumably, of course, the British people who are Jewish, who eat kosher meat, are very aware this is happening. Here then, Lowe might be delineating Jews, whether British or not, as an out-group that the “British” in-group should no longer tolerate. His leaked joke then disguised a belief he would later state openly.
German humour, extra dry
Maximilian Krah, a leading figure in Germany’s far-right party AfD, replicates this posture on Al Jazeera‘s Head to Head with Mehdi Hasan. Throughout the interview, Hasan was trying to nail Krah on whether the AfD is an extremist organisation or not.
The stakes behind that label come from a German intelligence agency classifying the party as extremist. If accepted, the designation would open the door to surveillance powers, affect its state funding and the party’s standing before elections. For now, those consequences are suspended as a Cologne court has paused that classification pending appeal.
With respect to this situation, Hasan pressed Krah on whether the AfD was committed to remigration – a fringe far-right concept of ethnic cleansing via mass deportation. To do so, Hasan brought up a statement by Krah’s AfD colleague Björn Höcke – who has been twice convicted for using a banned Nazi slogan – suggesting that Germany could lose “20 to 30% fewer people” without problem.
Advertisement
When asked how you’d get there without deporting people with German citizenship, which arithmetically would have to happen for that kind of drop, Krah laughed it off:
I don’t know. He’s a sports teacher, not a math teacher. Ask him.
The joke meant the crowd laughed, Krah never answered the question, and Hasan had to move on.
Hasan built his name on an interviewing style that has caught out plenty of public figures, but Krah’s slippery posture helped him avoid answering questions that might incriminate his party in German courts.
The Sinner Who Repenteth
Lowe and Krah are still practicing their material out of office, and for their followers it’s still just fun. Nick Fuentes, the young online right’s closest thing to a spokesperson in Trump’s America, indicates how those followers might react when these far-right humourists get into power.
Advertisement
In a Channel 5 interview with Andrew Callaghan, Fuentes described how his white supremacist edgelording prior to Trump’s second term was a reaction to an America where, according to him, anybody “to the right of John McCain” got “no-platformed, censored, banned.” Now, however, Fuentes has dropped that posture, admitting:
Now that my kind of humor has become mainstream and popular, I don’t even think that’s funny anymore.
Fascist humour turns out to be a phase. Once the position it was smuggling in has arrived, there seems to be nothing left to laugh at anymore.
The Your Party (YP) exodus continues in the wake of the several suspensions and Jeremy Corbyn having rejected the no-confidence vote in the central executive committee (CEC) chairperson and secretary.
Noor Jahan Begum has resigned as YP’s elected spokesperson citing “serious concerns” over the party’s standards and legal compliance.
In a resignation statement dating back to about three weeks ago, but which just leaked, Begum wrote:
Dear All,
I am saddened to inform you that, with immediate effect, I have resigned from my position as a member of the Officers Group.
Advertisement
I was elected to serve as your spokesperson, and I accepted that responsibility with high hopes for what we could achieve together.
Over recent months, a number of serious concerns relating to legal, compliance, data protection, governance, liability, insurance, and organisational standards have been repeatedly raised. In my view, these concerns have too often been ignored or dismissed. I have also found the culture, lack of effective leadership, and perceived double standards to be deeply disappointing.
Noor Jahan Begum’s Your Party profile picture.
On 12 July, I supported a vote of no confidence in the Chair, Secretary, and Membership Officer. That motion was passed by a clear majority. The subsequent refusal to recognise the outcome of that vote, together with continued manoeuvring, negative briefings, and pressure to disregard the democratic will of members, has further eroded my confidence in the current leadership.
Although I have resigned from the Officers Group, I remain committed to this party, its members, and the values that brought us together. As a CEC member, I continue to believe our party has enormous potential—but only if we are prepared to uphold transparency, accountability, and democratic principles.
I therefore call on all members of the CEC to move swiftly to elect a new Officers Group that can provide the leadership needed to unite the organisation and enable it to achieve its full potential.
Advertisement
It is clear that the current status quo is failing to provide the leadership, direction, and progress that our members deserve.
Thank you.
Kind Regards
Noor
Your Party red flags
No-confidence votes in the CEC’s chair, secretary and membership officer were carried unanimously or near-unanimously by outraged CEC members.
Advertisement
However, Corby, YP’s parliamentary leader, rejected the outcome. Chairperson Jenn Forbes then told the CEC that the vote had been invalid and the unwanted officers simply stuck to their seats.
CEC members told Skwawkbox that the committee has been reduced to a puppet status with figures close to Corbyn issuing instructions they are expected to rubber-stamp. One quipped, bitterly, that:
There are red flags everywhere, but not socialist ones.
Anti-Zionism is a legally ‘protected belief’ under UK equality law, a tribunal reiterated in the case of Professor David Miller, who was dismissed by Bristol University after an Israel lobby pressure campaign.
The university’s own lawyers had twice found there was no evidence of antisemitism against Miller. His landmark 2024 tribunal victory against the university set the legal precedent that anti-Zionist beliefs are legally protected.
The university appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), which confirmed this morning that the precedent is legally binding.
Anti-Zionism is now a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. Full stop.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal finally handed down its judgment this morning. The University of Bristol’s attempt to overturn my 2024 Employment Tribunal victory has been comprehensively dismissed. We won on every single count.
This is a public humiliation for the genocidal Zionist regime, whose assets in Britain bullied the University into sacking me and then dragged them into this futile appeal. Their legal strategy has collapsed. Their pressure campaign has spectacularly backfired.
Advertisement
Thanks to everyone who believed in me and supported me. This is a victory for the whole anti-Zionist movement.
A full statement will follow shortly.
From the River to the Sea
Palestine will be free!
Miller has been a prominent target of the state war on anti-genocide and anti-occupation speech. He has said he will release further information on the decision in the course of the day and you can read the full judgement here.
Coca-Cola Great Britain has unveiled its new ‘Counter Cultures’ campaign, which celebrates the generations of families behind the pubs, cafés, takeaways, manufacturing sites and local businesses that help make, distribute and serve Coca-Cola every day.
Building on last year’s ‘Bosses campaign’, which recognised the role of independent convenience retailers, ‘Counter Cultures’ shines a spotlight on the local businesses that continue to create jobs, develop skills and support communities across Great Britain.
The stories of each business involved in the campaign, which will launch on social media channels, and large scale murals in Leeds, Birmingham, Wakefield and Manchester, speak to generations of families who have helped make, distribute and serve Coca-Cola, while also being at the heart of their local communities.
At the centre of the campaign is a hero film, connecting Coca-Cola’s Wakefield manufacturing site with local businesses, tracing the journey from production to the community counters where Coca-Cola products are served.
Advertisement
New research from Coca-Cola Great Britain to support the launch of ‘Counter Cultures’ shows that Britain’s family businesses could be well placed to attract the next generation of talent.
The research found growing support for vocational careers among both younger and older generations. Seven in ten (70%) adults now say they would encourage younger family members to pursue a vocational career, while almost half (47%) of millennials say they would choose that route if they were starting their careers again.
Among Gen Z, the trend is already taking shape. Nearly three in five (58%) are considering vocational career opportunities, while more than half (52%) would consider following in the footsteps of a family member by joining a family business or learning a trade that runs in their family.
Advertisement
The findings highlight a growing opportunity for independent retailers many of whom have traditionally provided practical career pathways and passed skills from one generation to the next.
And they reflect growing interest in vocational careers among younger people, highlighting the important role retailers continue to play in developing place-based skills and creating long-term career opportunities.
Half of adults (50%) believe giving more young people the choice to stay in, or return to, the communities they grew up in would have a positive impact on both local communities and local economies.
Celebrating the businesses at the heart of local communities
Advertisement
One business featured in the campaign is Ocean Fish Bar in Monk Bretton, a family-run business owned by Pindy Kaur and Bill Singh. Open for more than 25 years, the business has grown around family tradition, with the next generation continuing to support the business behind the scenes, reflecting the growing interest among younger people in following family career paths.
Pindy Kaur, co-owner of Ocean Fish Bar, said: “Ocean Fish Bar has always been a family business. We opened in Barnsley more than 25 years ago after following in my brother-in-law’s footsteps, and our children grew up around the shop too – they still support us behind the scenes today. Over the years, our customers have become part of our story. People come in for their usual order, stay for a chat and know they’ll see a familiar, friendly face. That’s what makes a local business so special.”
Across Great Britain, the Coca-Cola system supports more than 31,000 jobs and works with thousands of independent retailers, hospitality businesses and wholesalers. Producing 97% of the diverse portfolio of Coca-Cola drinks sold in Great Britain, Coca-Cola Europacific Partners (CCEP) supports customers across the country through a dedicated team of 750 field sales representatives, while also investing in future talent through more than 100 apprenticeships, including 65 early-career roles.
An Vermeulen, Vice President and General Manager at Coca-Cola Europacific Partners GB, said: “Strong local communities are the beating heart of Great Britain, and as a company that employs thousands of people who make and deliver our products to customers across the country every day, we’re proud to be a part of that.
Advertisement
“Working with customers in every corner of the country gives us a close connection to the local retailers, pubs, cafés and other independent businesses where, for generations, people have taken their first steps into the world of work, building skills, confidence and careers and our research brings to life just how important these kind of businesses are.
“That’s why we’ve created Counter Cultures, to celebrate businesses and families like Pindy and Bill Singh at Ocean Fish Bar, recognising the vital role they continue to play in creating jobs, strengthening local communities and supporting Britain’s high streets. Like us, these are businesses that are rooted in their local communities, and together we have a unique opportunity to inspire young people, develop future skills and create careers that span generations.”
As part of the initiative, each business involved will receive a five-figure sum to support a local initiative or cause of their choosing, reinforcing Coca-Cola’s commitment to supporting the local causes it serves.
Far-right Reform UK have re-hashed a failed plan to use the navy to stop channel migrants. The scheme was tried and discredited years ago, yet leading Reform figures are trying to promote it. Another day, another batshit fascist idea. And they even based it on recent events in Morocco.
The Guardian reported on 3 July that Farage had claimed:
his party would launch the “largest military operation in the English Channel since world war two” to prevent small boat crossings.
Needless to say, Farage and co are currently under the hammer about massive, shady donations. Internal crises are usually when dubious UK politicians start invoking A) racism and B) World War Two.
Advertisement
The Royal Navy is there to protect this country from invasion and that is what I intend to use it for. pic.twitter.com/jbvTUTEzZR
Ever cynical, Farage cited a recent incident in Ceuta, Morocco:
Pointing to unrest at the Spain-Morocco border, he said the Royal Navy would be sent to the Channel to intercept all dinghies carrying asylum seekers should his party win power at the next general election.
You can read about that incident, which saw tens of thousands of migrants enter the Spanish colony, right here.
Advertisement
Naturally, Farage gave this a ridiculous name: “Operation Fortress”.
Operation Fortress? More like Operation Dumbass
For their party, the UK military seem to have absolutely no intention of basing what they do on an opinion Nige has pulled out of his arse.
that navy offshore patrol vessels (OPVs), instead of the Border Force’s fleet of five cutters and six patrol ships, would “close on and shadow” dinghies in the Channel.
an incredible waste of a military asset, to do a Border Force or ferrying job with a specialist warship.
In fact, the navy HAS been called in before. The result was a failure. The Guardiansaid:
In 2022, Boris Johnson’s government launched Operation Isotrope, which the then home secretary, Priti Patel, said would attempt to make crossing the Channel “unviable”.
A tentative plan for “pushbacks” – where ships are used to force small boats to turn around back towards France – was abandoned after concerns from military figures that it would be impractical, dangerous, and leave naval officers open to legal action.
One problem is that maritime law demands people in need are rescued from the water, and the rescuers must not “create conditions for putting them in distress.”
the French government would be expected to accept the returned asylum seekers, claiming he had spoken to unnamed French politicians about the plans.
He presented no evidence he had spoken to anyone.
Reform: war with France anyone?
Actual experts did not seem to agree that Farage’s plan could work. Oxford University’s Migration Observatory researcher Peter Walsh said:
If the UK returned asylum seekers to France without its permission, one plausible scenario is that this would have major diplomatic consequences, prompting France to suspend existing cooperation such as intelligence sharing and beach patrols in northern France.
The [French] government would clearly not expect a key ally such as the UK to infringe on territory or waters without consent.
Once again Reform UK have managed to look like weird racists and massive grifters at the same time. Funny that. The correct response to channel crossings is a mix of proper safe routes and a genuine response to the crises which cause people to flee to the UK. Like with the rest of the UK’s problems, Reform have nothing to offer.
Business6 days ago
Fashion4 days ago
Politics4 days ago
Crypto World3 days ago
Politics6 days ago
Business6 days ago
Crypto World3 days ago
News Videos5 days ago
Crypto World7 days ago
Politics5 days ago
Sports5 days ago
News Videos7 days ago
Crypto World2 days ago
Crypto World3 days ago
Business7 days ago
Business4 days ago
Politics2 days ago
Tech6 days ago
Tech2 days ago
You must be logged in to post a comment Login