A ‘rival’ World Cup could become the latest weapon against Gianni Infantino. UEFA and its allies are reportedly considering the idea as part of a wider challenge to FIFA’s leadership and direction.

According to the Times, UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF are weighing a series of measures to pressure FIFA. These include reviving the “World Nations League” concept as leverage in their dispute with Infantino.

The proposal wouldn’t immediately create a rival to FIFA’s flagship tournament. Moreover, there is no indication that a launch decision has been made. But its revival shows how far opposition to Infantino has escalated. Critics are now willing to challenge FIFA’s control over the world of football.

Challenging FIFA’s World Cup dominance

The “World Nations League” was first proposed in 2017 as a new competition featuring leading national teams. According to The Times, the idea could be revisited if efforts to change FIFA’s leadership fail.

A competing tournament would strike at the centre of FIFA’s power. The World Cup is not only the organisation’s most prestigious event, but also the foundation of its commercial strength and global influence.

The possibility of a rival competition shows that the dispute has moved beyond individual decisions. In fact, it has become a wider battle over who controls the future of international football.

Inside FIFA, Infantino rivals close in

The threat of a rival tournament is not the only pressure facing Infantino.

According to the Times, critics within FIFA are discussing boycotting Council and committee meetings and refusing to approve decisions. These moves could create political deadlock inside the organisation.

Such action would intensify pressure on Infantino ahead of the 2027 presidential election. It would also deepen the divide between FIFA’s leadership and some of football’s most powerful governing bodies.

UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF represent major centres of football’s sporting and commercial influence, giving their opposition significant weight.

The dispute that sparked the showdown

The current confrontation began with FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE), a proposal to sell a stake in the World Cup’s commercial rights to private investors.

The plan triggered opposition from national and continental federations, forcing Infantino to abandon it. However, the fallout has since grown into a broader dispute over FIFA’s direction and decision-making.

According to the Times, Infantino has secured only 15 declarations of support from FIFA’s 211 member associations. With the 2027 election approaching, the fight is no longer only about one commercial proposal. Instead, it is about whether FIFA can maintain control over the future of world football.

Infantino’s Trump card cannot stop FIFA revolt

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Gianni Infantino’s FIFA presidency is facing perhaps its most serious challenge since he took charge in 2016. Federations are turning against him, with former allies withdrawing support, UEFA openly challenging his decisions and critics questioning the way he runs FIFA.

The immediate trigger has been the fallout over plans to privatise part of the World Cup’s commercial rights. What began as a dispute over a business proposal has grown into a wider challenge to Infantino’s authority and his bid to secure a fourth term as FIFA president.

Until recently, Infantino’s path to another term appeared secure. However, the alliances that sustained his power are now beginning to unravel.

European support begins to collapse

The first major setback came from the Football Association of Wales, which withdrew its support for Infantino’s candidacy, citing:

recent failures in good governance, processes, leadership, values, stakeholder management, communications and sound judgement have led us to a position where Mr Infantino has lost the confidence of the FAW to remain at the helm of world football.

The association said it no longer had confidence in Infantino’s ability to lead world football.

Wales’ decision could have wider consequences. The Times reported that the English Football Association is also preparing to withdraw its letter of support for Infantino, a move that could encourage other federations to reconsider their backing.

UEFA has emerged as one of Infantino’s strongest critics, rejecting the proposed commercial plan and threatening legal action to secure the release of documents relating to the project. The dispute has now moved beyond a disagreement over FIFA’s finances and become a broader confrontation over how the organisation is run.

CONCACAF has also criticised FIFA’s approach, arguing that the reversal of the plan exposed deeper problems in the federation’s decision-making process.

Infantino’s Trump-card

The struggle over FIFA’s future has also taken on a political dimension.

French President Emmanuel Macron has intervened in support of UEFA’s opposition to the commercial plan, while reports suggest Infantino has sought support from US President Donald Trump’s administration as he attempts to contain the fallout.

The developments highlight the wider influence attached to the FIFA presidency. The role extends far beyond football, with the World Cup tied to major commercial interests, investment opportunities and international political relationships.

Rumbles of dissent inside FIFA

The pressure on Infantino is not limited to external opposition. Discontent has also grown within FIFA itself.

According to current and former officials, dissatisfaction has increased over Infantino’s management of the organisation. One executive said many staff members feel increasingly removed from decision-making, with their role reduced to implementing decisions made at the top.

Some employees believe FIFA’s culture has changed significantly, with commercial priorities taking precedence over the wider interests of football. The use of private jets and the lifestyle of senior officials have also drawn internal criticism over the image FIFA presents to supporters.

The unrest has coincided with the departure of several senior figures, including Infantino’s chief adviser Carlos Cordero and Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour. Their resignations have added to concerns about instability within FIFA’s leadership.

Infantino’s World Cup commercialisation push hits a brick wall

Germany joins the critics

Germany has become the latest major football nation to raise concerns over Infantino’s leadership.

Andreas Rittig, managing director of the German Football Association, said relations with FIFA had reached an “impasse” and described the situation as an “insurmountable loss of trust”.

Rittig criticised FIFA’s decision-making process, saying key decisions were being made behind “closed doors” and without sufficient transparency. He also warned against the growing influence of financiers and business figures around Infantino, arguing that commercial interests should not become the main driver of world football’s future.

Could this be the end for Infantino?

Infantino’s fourth-term bid, which appeared almost inevitable only months ago, is now facing its biggest challenge.

With federations withdrawing support, UEFA challenging his decisions and criticism growing within FIFA, the contest for the organisation’s future has already begun.

The next FIFA presidential election will not take place until March 2027 in Rabat, but the coming months will determine whether Infantino can rebuild his support base — or whether the opposition gathering around him becomes a decisive challenge to his leadership.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Illegal Israeli settlers have intensified their campaign of harassment, intimidation and terror across the occupied West Bank. Recent episodes mark a significant ratcheting up of attacks against Palestinian civilians. Supported and protected by Israeli occupation forces (IOF), settlers have been assaulting residents, seizing land, and vandalising or torching property.

Settlers desecrate Palestinian cemetery

In Tal, southwest of Nablus, armed settlers returned a week after the deadly shooting that killed four Palestinians and two “Israelis”. They raided the village and its surroundings several times.

They were accompanied by IOF soldiers who arrested several residents. In the same week, settlers vandalised a Palestinian cemetery in al Juneid, while the military fired live ammunition and tear gas at the unarmed residents. A 32-year-old man was evacuated to hospital after being shot in the abdomen.

Settlers terrorise village, open fire on children

In al Mughayyir village, 10-year-old Salim Abu Rahmah was shot in the shoulder by a settler inside his home. After the shooting, the military raided the village and fired repeated volleys of tear gas.

One day later, settlers attacked the passengers in a car travelling between Abu Falah and al Mughayyir. They assaulted the three occupants with clubs and pepper spray before ramming the vehicle with a government-supplied all-terrain vehicle.

There are now 10 outposts surrounding the village, some situated only a few hundred metres from the homes of Palestinians.

Settlers ramp up land grabs

In Beitillu, Northwest of Ramallah, settlers assaulted Mahmoud Radwan and his wife Nahil Yousef, as they worked on their land.

In the Eastern edge of the village of Idhna, West of Hebron, settlers armed with clubs, handguns and rifles descended from a nearby outpost, and attacked a Palestinian home. The settlers targeted the occupants, and targeted a car parked in the driveway. Soldiers arrived at the scene, and fired tear gas at residents who had arrived to help the family.

Destroying Palestinian livelihoods

Just two months before the olive harvest, settlers have been setting fire to olive groves in Burin, South of Nablus. They have then obstructed Palestinian Civil Defense crews attempting to reach the burning trees. The flames devoured olive groves tended by families for generations. Cultivated for thousands of years, the Palestinian olive tree has become a symbol of resilience and a vital source of income for generations of families.

In Bethlehem, settlers assaulted Yahya ‘Elian in the Abu Njei area southeast of the city, when he was working on his land. He was severely beaten and had pepper spray directed into his face, causing breathing difficulties. Residents in this area have been repeatedly attacked, and their vehicles and property vandalised.

These are just a few of the settler attacks which have taken place recently against Palestinians. Every day, across the West Bank and  East Jerusalem illegal settlers, accompanied by the IOF, use intimidation and violence against Palestinians. Due to the current climate of impunity, attacks are increasing in frequency and violence.

Commenting on the situation, the UN reported in July 2026 that:

Fatalities linked to settler attacks in 2026 have already surpassed the total recorded during all of 2025, with 18 Palestinians killed as of 20 July compared with 17 throughout 2025.

The escalation in the West Bank is part of a wider assault on Palestinians across the occupied territories. In Gaza, where a so-called ceasefire is supposedly in place, 152 Palestinians were killed in July alone, according to the Ministry of Health — the highest monthly death toll so far in 2026.

But Palestinians remain rooted in their land. After every attack, every displacement and every attempt to drive them away, they remain.

The occupation has failed.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charlie Jaay

Source link

Right-wing newspapers are blaming Europe’s blazing wildfires on anything but climate change and its human-made causes. As almost every scientist (>99%) agrees, fossil fuels primarily cause climate change.

But that doesn’t stop the likes of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Times, Telegraph, or Daily Mail from deflecting beyond parody. (As a reminder, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp owns the first two of these.)

Europe is burning, badly

As wildfires spread across Europe, hundreds of thousands are evacuating homes. We’re on track to see 500,000 hectares burned within weeks. The fires have killed at least 32 people, but the heat is the real killer.

In Britain, some 2,700 died early from excess heat. The heat has also created drought conditions, dry forests and critical pre-fire vegetation loss. This will likely see some over 20 million tonnes of CO₂ pumped into the atmosphere. It’s been called the “worst wildfire year on record” for the EU, but not by the Murdoch press.

Climate change missing from most UK media reports on June heatwave

Murdoch press shifts the blame on climate change

Dr Simon Evans at Carbon Brief won the Press Gazette‘s Energy and Environment Journalist of the Year award in 2022. His work exposes the corporate press’s role in facilitating climate breakdown. More recently, he has highlighted how right-wing media are shifting attention and blame away from fossil fuels.

Evans highlights how the WSJ ran a dramatic front-page recently, depicting the horrific scenes in Europe. Meanwhile, however, its six-figure-salaried editorial board ran a psy-op around the same time, titled:

How green policies fuel fires in Europe

Its reasoning for the latter article? Simply that:

Burned areas are disproportionately nature-protected lands.

Their answer to nature-destroying wildfires, apparently, is to rail against protecting nature in the first place. As if that’s somehow better. How are we to make sense of such an absurd position?

Evans highlights the Times as another example, with a recent front page reporting on a wildfire in Suffolk near a nuclear plant. This was joined by a comment article arguing, bizarrely:

Wildfires suggest rewilding needs a rethink … Green enthusiasm for ignoring the old-fashioned thinning and clearing of land does create habitats – and kindling.

Except that we know how grouse moors – playgrounds for the hunting elite – dry and drain peat bogs, which ought to be wet moorland.

Murdoch’s Times doubles down on anti-Green smear campaign

Right-wing media will kill us all

Evans continues his analysis with the Daily Telegraph. It ran this front-page story, same as the Times:

Wildfires close in on Sizewell [nuclear plant]

Also in the paper was this article, accurately titled:

As wildfires rage, Britain isn’t ready for its boiling hot future

But the same publication also ran a recent string of fossil fuel agitprop pieces:

Rewilding blamed for Suffolk wildfire …

Net-zero crackdown on farming ‘raises risk of wildfires’ …

Disappearing villages leave Europe in era of fire – The emptying countryside means land is unguarded and becoming vulnerable to blazes

None of these articles takes aim at the root of the problem: human-made climate change and global heating. Nor, of course, do they articulate the cause of that: overwhelmingly, fossil fuel combustion. Instead, they try to paint the solutions to climate change – regrowing nature and cutting emissions – as the problem.

We truly live in a topsy-turvy era, spoon-fed to us by these destructive right-wing rags.

Reality inversion

Next comes the Daily Mail – without which no corporate reality-inversion would be complete. The Mail ran this double-page spread, dramatically (if somewhat goofily) titled:

Evacuate! ‘Out of control’ wildfire triggers holidaymaker exodus amid fears for Sizewell

In typical Mail fashion, the paper also hosted this op-ed in its lead comment slot:

Why the flames of Britain’s wildfires have been fanned by the Green agenda as much as the weather

This was authored by none other than Matt Ridley, described by Global Energy Monitor as a

a coal baron, science writer and AGW denier (lukewarmer variety) on the Academic Advisory Council of the denialist Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Ridley is a landed aristocrat who earns an estimated £4.1 million each year from opencast coal mines on his Blagdon Estate with income guaranteed until 2020.

Polanski slams climate inaction as heatwaves cost us billions

Corporate media vs actual science

Matt ‘King Coal’ Ridley isn’t alone in possessing blatant, conflict-of-interest links to the fossil fuel industry. In fact, almost the entire corporate media world is up to its neck in filthy oil.

Murdoch himself was labelled a “climate villain” for using his mass-media empire to sow climate division and doubts over decades. Naturally, he has investment ties to Genie Energy, which produces oil and shale gas. His Talk Radio aired anti-climate attacks a whopping six times in a day in 2025.

Likewise, GB News owner and bankroller Paul Marshall co-founded a hedge fund firm, Marshall Wace, which has investments in fossil fuel industries. His show frequently hosts climate sceptic voices and has panels led by fossil fuel lobbyists like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage. The former has fossil investments through his Somerset Capital Management; the latter’s Reform PLC is bankrolled by the industry.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the right-wing media bullshit, is hard scientific data. Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate chief, has made clear what science tells us about the actual causes of wildfires:

The science on the cause is unequivocal: global heating, driven by humanity burning colossal amounts of coal, oil and gas, is making protracted heatwaves, severe floods and violent mega-storms more frequent, more intense and more costly.

The awful costs of this climate crisis – both human and economic – are now reaching national emergency levels. What needs to be done is equally clear: leave coal, oil and gas behind faster, scale up renewables and protect people where the impacts are already hitting hardest.

Advertisement

Polanski backs Fire Union as climate-stoked wildfires ravage UK

Featured image via @drsimevans

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Japan is the largest foreign holder of US Treasuries, and its currency – the yen – is in trouble. The yen recently hit a 40-year low against the US dollar.

The US Treasury had joined Japan’s finance authorities in an intervention last week ​to prop up the yen.

Japanese investors collectively own about $1 trillion in Treasuries – so preserving them means preserving the world’s biggest buyer of U.S. debt. Because if Tokyo dumps U.S. debt, the U.S.’s $40 trillion borrowing problem just got a whole lot more expensive.

So, the US is basically just avoiding a sell-off in US Treasuries by its vassal state – Japan. Some of this Treasury sell-off has already happened, though.

Japan tied to US

As the Canary reported central banks now hold 27% of their reserve assets in gold, surpassing US dollar Treasuries at 22%, and just a year ago this was 20% gold versus 25% Treasuries, according to the latest report by the European Central Bank.

The Hill said:

The Iran war’s impact on the yen could threaten the stability of the yen-carry trade investment strategy where traders borrow Japanese yen at low interest rates to buy higher-yielding foreign assets, risking sharp market liquidations when the yen strengthens.

Another fallout of the immoral war on Iran that Trump is raging.

Yen – a weak link

Philip Pilkington took to X to write an 11-point post on the U.S. buying of yen, saying Japan is the weakest link in the global dollar system. The Treasury’s intervention, complete with a conveniently “leaked” memo, is just fighting gravity, he said:

1/ It is becoming increasingly clear that the weakest link in the global dollar system is Japan and that the meltdown of the Japanese financial system might cause the unwinding of the whole system. pic.twitter.com/Yon5co3i1a

— Philip Pilkington (@philippilk) August 3, 2026

He said that, however, Japan can’t raise rates without triggering zombie defaults, which would force Tokyo to dump its $1 trillion in Treasuries and send American borrowing costs soaring to levels that could spell endgame for the dollar system.

3/ Bessent really is fighting gravity here. The markets are convinced that the yen has entered a doom spiral and are heavily short. pic.twitter.com/fRSwwadmfr

— Philip Pilkington (@philippilk) August 3, 2026

China has created a deterrence against US bombs by building an industrial base and dominate critical minerals. However, US is using coercive economic actions against other states as it tries to counter China. pic.twitter.com/l9CB2FlKQ9

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) May 28, 2026

Broken promises

Reuters said that the US bond market has:

long had a dark cloud hanging over it: the threat that one of America’s biggest creditors, most likely China or Japan, might liquidate some of their enormous Treasuries holdings, driving up borrowing costs and triggering an economic and market crash.

That cloud just got a little darker.

By Nandita Lal

Source link

Ecocidal oil companies are raking in so much money that even the most corrupt American president in history – Donald Trump – has to make a public show of disapproval at least.

US-based Chevron reported its largest quarterly net profit ever, at $12.1 billion; ExxonMobil’s $14.5 billion second-quarter income and Shell’s $10.8 billion in net earnings represented their most profitable quarters spince 2022, when they previously benefited from the Russia-Ukraine war.

Trump pipes up

Trump told reporters on Monday:

I don’t like it. Chevron, too much money. ExxonMobil, too much. Too much money.

Let’s hope this fake outrage from Trump isn’t fooling anyone. Just earlier that morning, he posted on Truth Social that he had helped Chevron get back into Venezuela. He also claimed that without him, the entire oil industry would be dead, and he was upset that he wasn’t being credited for the fortunes of the oil companies.

Big Oil did spend a lot on getting Trump re-elected. Fossil fuel interests poured $96 million into Donald Trump’s re-election campaign and affiliated political action committees.

You going to stop taking their money then, Trump? Of course not!

Redistribution for the worse

Corporate America’s profit frenzy

The Financial Times reported that US companies are off to a “blistering start in second-quarter earnings season, reporting double-digit profit growth despite higher energy costs, elevated interest rates and cautious spending by consumers.”

America’s biggest companies report ‘rock solid’ profits as consumers face higher costs https://t.co/2GPbec4Z3F

— Financial Times (@FT) August 2, 2026

S&P 500 earnings are on track for 47.4% year-on-year growth, their strongest quarter in five years.

Defence companies and tech companies are also cashing in, the FT said. Lockheed, General Dynamics, and Raytheon are all reporting higher profits as the US shifts to a “war footing.”

Google’s net income quadrupled to $112 billion, thanks to a little help from its SpaceX investment, just casual billions. Amazon’s profits more than tripled. 

As Weber said:

War kills. War makes life unaffordable for the many. But war is great for profits.

By The Canary

Source link

Academic David Miller’s explosive win this morning against Bristol University’s attempt to overturn an employment tribunal finding has shown how comprehensively the university’s appeal was defeated.

The university sacked anti-Zionist professor Miller after an Israel lobby pressure campaign. To do so, it ignored two separate investigations by its own lawyers that concluded Miller had said nothing antisemitic in his critiques of Zionism and Israel lobby pressure.

Comprehensive failure

But to justify its appeal, the university put together a Byzantine document. It contained nine ‘grounds of appeal’, most of which were subdivided into smaller grounds – and some of those divided again. Yet every single one was rejected this morning by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The win enshrines anti-Zionism as protected belief under equality law – and as legal precedent in future court cases.

A new statement by Miller’s lawyers Rahman Lowe reveals just how far the university went to try to rescue its right to sack employees for opposing Israel – and how badly it failed (emphases added):

The EAT upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal and concluded that Dr Miller was discriminated against because of his philosophical belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial, and ought to be opposed. The EAT held that his anti-Zionist beliefs constitute a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA); he was dismissed because he manifested those beliefs and as the dismissal was tainted by discrimination, he was unfairly dismissed.

This means that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they hold those beliefs. The successful appeal outcome reinforces that controversial beliefs are not excluded from protection under the EqA simply because they generate complaints or public controversy.

Background

Dr Miller is a renowned sociologist, specialising in state and corporate propaganda, public relations and lobbying. He was employed by the University as a Professor of Political Sociology, and he continued working for the University until he was unfairly dismissed on 1 October 2021 for alleged gross misconduct.

…

Advertisement

Dr Miller believes that the Zionist movement comes at the expense of equal rights for Palestinians. He strongly believes that political Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist and ought to be opposed.

He appealed against his dismissal, but the appeal did not succeed. He then brought claims in the Employment Tribunal of:

• direct philosophical belief discrimination contrary to sections 10 and 13 of the EqA;
• harassment related to belief contrary to section 26 EqA;
• unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”); and
• wrongful dismissal at common law.

Employment Tribunal decision

Having heard evidence over seven days in October and November 2023, the Tribunal concluded that Dr Miller was dismissed because of his philosophical beliefs that were protected under the EqA. His dismissal was found to be discriminatory and unfair, as well as wrongful, because it was without notice.

The University appealed the decision and advanced nine grounds of appeal, which the EAT referred to as being “very lengthy because the majority of them contain multiple sub-grounds (and, in some cases, sub-sub-grounds) each of which alleges a separate error of law”.

Advertisement

Employment Appeal Tribunal decision

The EAT dismissed the University’s appeal and held that Dr Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief under the EqA. In particular, the EAT held that the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the expression of his beliefs about Zionism had a “material impact” upon the decision to dismiss, and he was thus dismissed “because of” the manifestation of his beliefs.

The EAT confirmed that an important free-speech principle that any court or tribunal must have at the forefront of its mind in considering a case involving the expression or manifestation of belief is that: the protection of freedom of speech is particularly important in the case of ‘political speech’- that is, expression of opinion on matters of public and political interest.

Zionism ‘coherently’ confirmed as racism

The EAT continued by confirming that to describe Zionism as racism is not merely opinion, but a “coherent” belief – a finding that is sure to have Israel’s ‘friends of genocide’ supporters frothing at the mouth. And the university was reminded that it had already admitted Miller had done nothing antisemitic:

The EAT rejected the University’s argument that David Miller’s beliefs were political and merely opinions. On the contrary, the EAT found that “it is coherent to describe as “racist” an ideology [Zionism] that promotes the establishment of a state [in this case, Israel] for only one race of people [Jewish] in a territory that formerly contained a large number of people of a different race [Palestinians]. Such an ideology, which supports the migration of members of the first group into the territory with the support of an imperial power to dislodge an indigenous population, could also coherently be described as colonial and imperialistic”.

The University’s attempts to re-litigate factual issues and assert that Dr Miller’s true beliefs were something entirely different, were also dismissed on the basis that the University had agreed at the Tribunal that it was not its position that anything Dr Miller said or done was antisemitic.

The EAT slapped down the university’s attacks and legal arguments against the original Tribunal’s decision amounted to nothing more than, basically, being a bad loser – “no more than expressions of disagreement”. And it rejected entirely Bristol’s attempt to have Miller’s compensation for wrongful dismissal cut to zero – an argument described as “not competent”:

The EAT also upheld the finding of the Tribunal that Dr Miller “did not oppose or hold antipathy towards Jews or Judaism”, and that he was not supportive of or “open to” the use of violence as a means of opposing Zionism.

With respect to the University’s contention that the Tribunal had failed to apply the correct proportionality test as set out in the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] ICR 1072, the

EAT strongly rejected this argument and stated: “The litany of criticisms levelled by the appellant at the Tribunal’s decision on proportionality (comprising seven “headline” points and thirty separate sub-points) are ultimately no more than expressions of disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and an attempt to re-try the issue of proportionality.

Advertisement

The University also argued that any compensation awarded for the direct discrimination claim should be reduced by 100%. The EAT rejected this ground as “not competent”, because the Tribunal had expressly reserved the issue of compensation in the discrimination claims to a later remedy hearing which is yet to take place.

The only issue on which the university received a reprieve on its total humiliation was its claim that Miller might have been lawfully sacked later because of his social media posts. The EAT did not agree – and said it couldn’t see how Bristol had worked it out – but sent the issue back to the Tribunal to think about during the decision about what remedies the uni must make to Miller for its unlawful conduct:

The only ground of appeal that was allowed to proceed was in relation to the Tribunal’s findings that there was a 30% chance that Dr. Miller’s employment may have terminated in or around October 2023 with respect to Tweets he had posted in August 2023. The EAT found that it was not clear to them on what basis the Tribunal concluded that there was a chance of a lawful dismissal as a result of the August 2023 Tweets or, if there was, that the degree of that chance was 30%.

This issue has therefore been remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration during the remedy hearing.

Miller’s lawyer Zillur Rahman congratulated his client for his “comprehensive victory” and noted the precedent it set:

This is a comprehensive victory. Dr Miller’s belief that Zionism is inherently racist, has now been recognised by a binding appellate authority as a protected philosophical belief. We are proud to have played a part in securing recognition of the legal right to hold that belief and hope this judgment will provide reassurance and guidance for others in the future.

I am once again delighted for our client, David, who has now been vindicated for a second time. We look forward to assisting him in the next stage of the proceedings and in securing the maximum compensation to which he is entitled to, and which has been delayed because of the University’s appeal.

Miller, in turn, thanked his legal team and the many people who had supported his fight.

Implications after Miller

The statement then concludes by outlining the legal significance of the win:

Implications

The case has implications for every employer dealing with religion and belief issues at work. The judgment reinforces the principle that equality laws exist to protect unpopular beliefs just as much as popular ones, and protects workers from discrimination because of those beliefs.

Advertisement

Anti-Zionism is now a protected philosophical belief under the EqA, and therefore protected in the workplace. Employers should ensure that employees are not bullied, harassed, or subjected to any detriments because of their beliefs, even if their views are offensive or disturbing, so long as they have good reason for expressing them and their beliefs are worthy of respect. As the EAT (Choudhury P) observed in Forstater [2021], “beliefs that are offensive, shocking or even disturbing to others, and which fall into the less grave forms of hate speech would not be excluded from the protection”.

Both the Tribunal and EAT found that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the many statements Dr Miller made about Zionism. The case demonstrates that beliefs that may be considered offensive to others may nonetheless be protected under the EqA , and therefore, employers and regulators must take care to be even-handed. They must also ensure that they do not bow to pressure from third parties, including lobby groups, who wish to stifle free speech, academic debate and human rights issues.

The UK Israel lobby will, of course, have no regard to the law against its war on those who expose and oppose Israel’s genocide and endless crimes. But employers and other organisations it tries to bully into obedience against humanitarians will now face far clearer legal consequences if they cave and collude.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Andy Burnham has said that the debate on assisted dying shouldn’t happen until palliative and social care are improved.

Speaking to Sky News reporter Sam Coates after delivering a speech on adult social care in England, he said:

I take the view that that debate, and I don’t say that there shouldn’t be a debate at some point about those issues, personally I think there’s something that needs to happen first, and that’s the fixing of the funding of palliative care and social care.

I think it is very challenging to introduce that wider debate in a context of people not receiving that care and having the piece of mind about that care, and that’s a position that I will stick to.

The prime minister yesterday pledged to tackle adult social care, with plans to finally launch a National Care Service (NCS). Burnham plans to nationalise care through improving the workforce.

While the NCS is much welcomed, many are worried that it will be carved up and sold for parts to privateers like the NHS was.

Burnham also announced that Louise Casey will be bringing forward her social care review by a year to 2027. The report will outline how the government can deliver the NCS. The prime minister also confirmed that his approach to tackling the care crisis will be cross-party.

This was backed by Lib Dem leader Ed Davey, who shared on X that he’d had a meeting with Burnham. Davey said he raised the issue “closest to my heart “, which is unpaid carers — but which was absent from Burnham’s address.

Assisted dying: The legal history

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was originally voted through by MPs after Kim Leadbeater used every bullshit weapon in her arsenal to stop those concerned about coercion and disabled people voicing opposition.

In the Lords, so many Peers wanted to speak that the debate had to be spread over two days, with two-thirds of speakers being against the bill. It progressed to committee stage, where the corrupt committee restricted evidence.

After that it went back to the lords, where Charlie Falconer casually said that both poor people and pregnant people would be allowed assisted deaths. The bill eventually ran out of time as so many peers wanted to scrutinise it, which again was criticised.

However, ironically, the Assisted Dying Bill just won’t f*cking die and is due to come back to parliament in August.

MP Lauren Edwards is attempting to push assisted dying through parliament again using dirty tricks.

As I wrote at the time:

Under the Parliament Act, if the same bill is passed by MPs in two consecutive parliamentary sessions, peers have no power to stop it. While Lords can suggest amendments, there’s also no requirement for the Commons to pass them.

And here’s the worst part: if the Lords don’t agree to pass the bill and it gets talked out by the end of the parliamentary session, it becomes law by default.

Edwards, who is apparently as bloodthirsty as Leadbeater, told BBC Radio 4:

Laws passed in the House of Commons are then refined by the House of Lords, but they don’t have the opportunity to block them.

It’s perfectly reasonable for us to ask the House of Lords to finish the job.

Advertisement

Yes, she used the words ‘finish the job’ about euthanising disabled people.

Lauren Edwards on Burnham’s stance

Of course, the ghoul had something to say about the prime minister’s comments, but it appears she’s trying to get on his good side.

Her statement read:

We all want to see better social, palliative and hospice care in every part of the country. The government has already made better palliative care provision a priority and it is very welcome that the new Prime Minister wants to take that even further.

The evidence from around the world is that this can happen alongside providing the choice of an assisted death to that small minority for whom even the very best palliative care cannot relieve their suffering.

Advertisement

She continued:

Improving social and palliative care and offering choice in the last weeks of a dying person’s life can and must go hand in hand. The bill that has been before parliament and thoroughly debated since October 2024 provides for a four-year implementation period. That means if my current bill becomes law next year, we would have until 2031 to fix the status quo that Andy Burnham rightly says is broken and has let people down for too long

However, advocates against the bill have pointed out how misleading Edwards’ statement is.

Dan Hitchens pointed out on X that the bill’s remit will include far more than “a small minority”. It also has no provision to ensure those seeking it consider palliative care first.

Hitchens wrote:

In fact, when Labour MPs proposed an amendment to guarantee a meeting with a palliative care specialist, Kim Leadbeater et al voted it down.

He also highlights that experts warned the committee that the two cannot go hand in hand and assisted dying would hinder the further development of palliative care.

Finally, he points to the fact that the four-year implementation plan Edwards references was described by Leadbeater as “a backstop”, with campaigners worrying it could be ignored and pushed through.

Burnham could still kill disabled people

Whilst it’s clear that some ghouls in the Labour Party are trying to push this murderous bill through, it’s a relief to hear that Burnham wants to commit to fixing the care system first.

However, it’s still concerning to disabled people that alongside this, he’s still very much supportive of the DWPs plans. It seems he may still kill disabled people one way or another.

Featured image via Kwaku Griffin/ Pexels

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link

Ever-alert Wings readers will be aware that for the past three and a half years or so I’ve been the target of a campaign by disgraced former policeman Lynsay Watson, who has tirelessly attempted to get me arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for knowing – and saying – that human beings can’t change sex.

(As we’ll learn over this article, I am far from unique in that regard.)

Watson has made numerous ludicrous, vexatious complaints to various police forces about me – a particularly memorable one being when he reported me last September for “perverting the course of justice” because I’d tweeted a link to a fundraiser for someone being persecuted by another transactivist – as well as trying to extort tens of thousands of pounds from me with threats.

Yesterday, though, he finally found some police officers gullible enough to listen.

Advertisement

The first I heard of it was in mid-April this year, when I was away catsitting and got a phonecall one morning from a woman claiming to be an officer of “Bath Police”, which immediately made me suspicious because the local force is called Avon & Somerset. The woman explained that she was investigating a complaint of harassment against me and wanted me to come in for a voluntary interview, although she said that if I declined I’d be arrested.

I said I’d need to verify who she was first, so asked her to send details by email or text so I could be sure she was the police and arrange things with my solicitor. She agreed, but then hours turned into days turned into weeks and I heard nothing, so I assumed it had been some sort of twisted “prank” by Watson or one of his associates like “Sophia” Brooks or “Freda” Wallace, who notoriously love to troll gender-critical people.

Then in the middle of last month I got another phonecall from an unfamiliar number, this time at 1.30am. It was someone else claiming to be a police officer – this time a male – demanding that I submit to being arrested and hauled off to Keynsham Police Centre about 10 miles away, right there and then, in the middle of the night. He was most insistent that it couldn’t wait for a less absurd time.

Once again I said I’d have to verify his identity first, and a short while later sent me an email. I was still in the process of checking it when people started ringing and battering on my door (I didn’t know who, you can’t see who’s at the front door from inside my house), at what was by now 2.15am.

Advertisement

Fortunately a couple of fellow Watson targets were still up at this unsociable hour, some of whom were lawyers and former police officers, and by happy chance so was my crime-fighting associate Roddy Dunlop KC, as he happened to be several time-zones away that week, where it was still a civilised hour.

Fortified by wise counsel from such experts, I ignored the hammering on the door until it went away, and immediately contacted the Free Speech Union (pretty much the last bastion of civil liberties in the UK – please join up if you can, you never know when you might need them), who by later that day had set me up with a solicitor, Daniel Berke, with extensive experience of dealing with malicious transactivists.

Daniel got in touch with the male officer, secured an apology for what he admitted had been “inappropriate” and “not ideal” behaviour the previous evening, and set about arranging a voluntary interview – though not before the officer lied to him that I’d “misled” him about previously refusing one, which I hadn’t done, and which they’d been using as justification for arrest and seizing all my internet devices.

(By doing a voluntary interview, and admitting that I was the editor of Wings, we were able to forego device seizure. The last time I was arrested on the basis of an utterly ridiculous complaint from someone opposed to my political views the Metropolitan Police had taken every desktop PC, laptop, tablet and phone from my house, kept them for three months before deciding there was no case to answer, and then refused to bring them back. I had to spend over £5,000 replacing them all in order to keep doing my job in the meantime.

Advertisement

Transactivists know this is police procedure, and deliberately make malevolent reports in the hopes of causing victims huge amounts of trouble and expense even if they’re not charged. And it works – to all intents and purposes I’d been “fined” five grand, not to mention months of living in absolute dread, even though I’d done nothing wrong. It was years before I’d answer the doorbell again if I wasn’t expecting someone.)

So at 3pm yesterday I met Daniel, not outside the only “police station” in Bath I knew about (actually a small unit inside some council buildings), but in Redbridge Business Centre, a rundown unmarked office building round the back of a Ford and Kia dealership on the outskirts of town, shared with a community salvage organisation, which I’ve walked past a hundred times without the slightest inkling it was Bath’s central law-enforcement hub.

Single-sex toilets, though, so that’s something.

An officer came out to meet us, who turned out to be the one who’d called me in April – a slightly-built, bespectacled young woman of maybe 24-25. We went in and I waited in the grubby hallway outside the Share & Repair office, with a small library of books and jigsaw puzzles to pass the time, while Daniel went through “disclosure”, which is when the police tell your solicitor what you’re going to be questioned about, at which point Daniel appears to have read her the Riot Act, for reasons we’ll get to in a moment.

Advertisement

Then I was called in, we went through all the preliminaries, and the officer brought me some water in a cute Cadbury’s Mini Eggs mug (“We don’t have any glasses, sorry”). She read me the standard caution, which now comes with an interactive questionnaire whereby they read you the caution, explain what the caution means, and ask you three questions to see if you’ve understood it.

OFFICER: “Do you have to say anything in this interview?”

YOU: “Um, no?”

OFFICER: “Correct.”

Advertisement

(I swear I’m not making that up. I was so weirded out by the question I had to actually think for a couple of seconds before answering.)

Then it was time to get down to business. She told me the complaint was that I’d published a number of “false and demeaning” articles about Watson, and that I’d “repeatedly misgendered” him.

At this point Daniel interjected to get on tape the fact that I was attending the interview under protest – having been told that I would definitely be arrested otherwise – that misgendering someone was not an offence and was in fact a legally protected right, that reading articles about yourself that upset you did not make those articles criminal, and that if you felt someone had written something about you that was untrue the correct remedy was a civil claim for defamation, not calling the police.

He said that nothing he’d been shown in disclosure came even remotely close to the threshold of a crime, and that any attempt to charge me would result in a lawsuit. Daniel is quite fierce.

Advertisement

Nevertheless the officer then began her questioning, asking me how I’d come to be aware of Watson. I gave her the highlights of his life story, starting with reading about his sacking for gross misconduct in 2023 (on my birthday, trivia fans) and then learning that by that point, unbeknownst to me and while still a serving police officer, he’d already been trying to get me arrested for six months.

As I then ran through his extensive track record of dodging harassment complaints, filing baseless crime reports, frequently calling for the murder of gender-critical figures, repeated doxxing of JK Rowling, social media bannings, arrests and all the other unpleasantries Watson fills his tragic life with – and I must confess I went on at some length – I could see her facial expression slowly imploding. It seemed very clear to me that she knew absolutely nothing about Lynsay Watson before yesterday.

(She visibly winced when near the end I noted that Watson had made at least 300 police complaints and the only one that had resulted in anyone being taken in for questioning before me was the one he made against Graham Linehan – the outcome of which, just last month, was the Metropolitan Police issuing Graham a grovelling apology accompanied by a cheque for £25,000.)

She asked a few questions to clarify some of the stuff I’d said, and then said she was going to show me some things I’d published online and ask me about them. I’d expected to be quizzed on some of the extensive articles we’ve published about Watson, and had detailed and comprehensive responses ready for anything I thought the police might even remotely be able to consider in some way objectionable. (Though of course all of it was in fact wholly legitimate journalism about significant news events.)

Advertisement

But hold onto your bunnets, readers, because that wasn’t how it went.

She started off by showing me this tweet.

What was its purpose, she enquired. “It’s a joke”, I said, explaining that one of the excuses police had used for their being unable to locate Watson when people made harassment complaints about him and he was evading arrest was that the police thought he was living in a caravan or campervan somewhere.

Oddly, she seemed a lot less concerned with a fugitive repeatedly evading the police on serious allegations than with someone making a joke about it.

Advertisement

(I pointed out that my Twitter bio does contain a “possible humour” warning.)

Then she asked about this one:

which is fairly plainly the same joke again, but using a satirically-edited version of the image that someone had tweeted or sent me in response to the first one. (The “AC-DC PC” line is taken from an old Daily Record headline about Watson being sacked from another police force in 1997.)

She then showed me this tweet, which I’ve censored very heavily partly out of sensitivity but also because I don’t want to identify the person who posted it and have transactivists send over-excited constables to hammer on their door in the early hours.

Advertisement

It’s an AI-edited version of one of the pics taken on the day of Watson’s arrest in February over harassment allegations from at least two people (one of whom was me), made to look like Watson had turned up at Manchester Civil Justice Centre wearing only a filthy nappy.

It’s pretty horrible, but humour is subjective, it doesn’t break any laws that I know of and more to the point, it wasn’t posted by me, it wasn’t retweeted or quote-tweeted or linked to in any way by me, it wasn’t a reply to any tweet of mine and I have no idea who the person who posted it is.

I duly explained that to the officer, who offered no explanation whatsoever as to why she’d apparently thought the tweet was anything to do with me (presumably the answer was simply that Watson had said so), and… the interview was over.

She told us she had no more questions, and Daniel and I looked at each other with “What?” expressions on our faces. Avon & Somerset Police had apparently just spent 10 months – Watson had complained at the end of September, in revenge for my complaint against him – investigating two innocuous, near-identical jokes about a caravan, and a completely unconnected tweet by someone else entirely.

Advertisement

The only possible explanation for the inclusion of the third tweet that makes ANY sort of sense is as a tool to extend the deadline for a harassment case. Ordinarily those have to reach a charging decision within six months, but that period can be extended if the “course of conduct” continues after the initial complaint.

(“An information” there means “presenting the charge to a magistrate or JP”.)

The caravan tweets were made on 3 October 2025, which means the six-month limit expired on 2 April 2026, days before even the initial mid-April phonecall from the female officer, let along the July one from the male officer. Including the February tweet from someone else altogether would give them – by whatever twisted logic they were using to connect it to me – up to next Friday to charge me.

(I haven’t yet been notified of any official decision.)

Advertisement

Readers may have noticed the somewhat stark contrast in the way that numerous police forces have adopted a “can’t-be-arsed” approach to at least six legitimate complaints from different people against Lynsay Watson, and yet – and despite his astonishing track record of literally hundreds of obviously malicious and baseless complaints BY him – still leap to act as his personal goon squad to terrorise innocent people for entirely lawful beliefs and comments.

Is it misplaced all-cops-together solidarity/empathy for a former colleague? Is it merely staggering incompetence and jaw-dropping ignorance of the law? Is it professional indoctrination? (It may be pertinent that Avon & Somerset has a particularly woke imbecile for a Chief Constable whose main driving focuses appear to be diversity and inclusion rather than, y’know, fighting crime.)

We don’t know. What we CAN be sure of is that Lynsay Watson will continue to spend every waking moment of his life spewing out hopeless malign complaints in the hope that once in every few hundred attempts he’ll get lucky and find a gullible cop who’ll bang on someone’s door in the middle of the night and terrify the bejesus out of them.

It is absurdly overdue that someone in a position of authority sits down and examines the simply astounding amount of taxpayers’ money and police time he’s wasted on his vicious, demented vendetta against everyone who knows what biology is, and his long string of incitements to murder, and either labels him a vexatious litigant, puts him in the dock, or preferably both.

Advertisement

In a country where Lucy Connolly, a mother who’d never been in trouble with the police in her life, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for a single intemperate tweet that was visible for less than four hours, Lynsay Watson is allowed to explicitly incite murder and violence for political reasons over and over again, and to lodge endless harassment complaints against people he himself has been arrested for harassing, while he’s still on bail for harassing other people, after he was sacked by the police for harassment.

And if his victims (or as he calls them, “key propagandists” and “Nazis”) talk about it, the police will go out to arrest them.

As Daniel and I left the police station, we struggled to find words for the absurdity of what had just happened (and as an experienced solicitor, Daniel’s been party to some pretty damn absurd cases). When I tell lawyers and cops and legal types about it and show them what got my door battered on at 2.15am, most of them struggle to manage more than “WTF? FFS!”

Even as we speak, though, you can be certain that Watson is simply doubling, tripling and quadrupling down, making more spurious complaints, filing more doomed judicial review applications, and whipping up more hatred and death threats. Like a rampaging bull in a china shop, his blind, hateful, furious thrashing and bellowing results in a trail of civic destruction, loss of faith in the forces of law and order, public expense and damaged lives, and he proudly boasts that he’ll “never, ever stop”.

Advertisement

Despite the events of this week, Wings will continue to report on his activities until hopefully, one day, the relevant authorities finally tire of his ruinous, uncontrollable rage and do something to give innocent people some peace.

Source link

Disabled campaigners have written to Andy Burnham to demand he immediately establishes a new autistic-led Autism Strategy ahead of the Autumn Budget.

Deliver for Autism, a newly formed advocacy group, has published an open letter calling on the prime minister to not let autistic people down.

The letter was created by autistic campaigner Chelsea Webster, and backed by well-known disabled campaigners and allies, such as Elle McNicoll, Lou Chandler and Sally Phillips.

Autistic people left in limbo

Webster says in the letter:

I am asking you to support autistic people by committing to a working group made up of diverse people, who can develop a new Autism Strategy, in line with the Autism Act 2009 and recommendations in the 2025 Time to deliver report.

The current Autism Strategy ran out in July, and there has been no timeline or publicly available plan around creating a new one or the failures of the 2021-2026 strategy.

As the letter says, this means autistic people are left in limbo, being continuously failed by the government.

As the House of Lords Autism Act Committee said:

The Committee recommends that the government must develop the new autism strategy now, so it is ready to launch when the current one expires in July 2026. The government must identify priority outcomes, produce a costed, deliverable plan to achieve them, and make clear who is responsible and accountable for delivery.

Too often, decisions about autistic people’s lives are made for them, not by them. This must change. Autistic people and those who support them must be meaningfully involved in every stage of the development and delivery of the new strategy.

Advertisement

This was, of course, completely ignored and no new strategy was created, meaning the last one just ran out.

Time to Deliver raised the alarm on shortcomings

The Time to Deliver report assessed the extent to which the Autism Act 2009 and Autism Strategy had met the needs of autistic people in England. It concluded that successive national strategies have consistently “failed to tackle the key barriers that stand in the way of improving outcomes” for autistic people.

On this, Chelsea Webster told the Canary:

The 2021-2026 Autism Strategy failed to deliver the support autistic people need. Without a new Autism Strategy to address the deficits in care and support, thousands of autistic people are left facing inequalities in life expectancy, health care, education, employment and other areas of life.

It’s unacceptable. The government needs to act immediately and provide support that removes these inequalities.

Advertisement

Drawing on findings in Time to deliver, the open letter highlights particular crises for autistic people:

Autistic people face unacceptable inequalities in health outcomes and life expectancy.

The autism assessment system can become a bottleneck, giving overstretched services a means to ration access to support.

Autistic children and young people do not have equal access to education.

Most autistic people are not in work, but many would like to be.

Advertisement

Autistic people are at higher risk of falling through the cracks in systems of support.

Autistic people often fall into gaps between mental health, social care services and other systems of support.

Autistic people are at risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system, as victims, witnesses, or offenders.

The government’s response lacked any substance or accountability. Despite a record number of responses for a House of Lords inquiry, the government gave a “flimsy” response, Canary writer Charli Clement wrote.

In direct contrast to the careful recommendations of the committee, the government’s response lacks any real substance at all. It commits to almost nothing, apart from the existing 10 Year Health Plan for England, which does not mention autistic people once in its entirety, and to the existing commitments of work.

Clement continued:

The response is flimsy, and says it welcomes the recommendations without any real intention to act upon them. There is seemingly no commitment to any timelines for a new national strategy. It would be a breach of statutory process if there is no follow-up action.

Burnham must act now

The letter also points to Burnham’s history of autism advocacy. As health secretary, he played an integral role in bringing the Autism Act 2009 into law. He also supported two Greater Manchester Autism Strategies whilst mayor.

Burnham also successfully piloted WorkWell, which received positive feedback in Manchester, but has recently said he would cut benefits.

Webster added:

We’re asking, as Prime Minister, for Burnham to finish what he started and deliver support that genuinely does improve our lives, starting with an autistic-led working group developing a new Autism Strategy, before the Autumn Budget. Anything less puts lives and wellbeing at risk.

You can sign the open letter here.

Featured image via Sóc Năng Động/ Pexels

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link