When the Israeli occupation recently announced a tender for the E1 settlement project, UK foreign secretary Miliband spoke out strongly. He called it “an unacceptable and destructive act”, adding that settlements are a “flagrant breach of international law.”

The warning he issued was clear; E1 would separate the West Bank from East Jerusalem and threaten the viability of a supposed two-state solution.

Noise from the UK-based Israel lobby

Despite current talks that the UK may introduce some sort of ban on UK trade with ‘Israel’s’ illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as of yet we have no idea if Miliband plans to take effective action. But pressure is mounting from lobby groups and criminal ‘Israeli’ officials, to twist the UK’s arm into abandoning the touted trade ban.

‘National security minister,’ Itamar Ben-Gvir, took to X to say:

Someone should update Ed that the British Mandate for the Land of Israel ended in 1948 and that Israel is an independent state.

Perhaps instead of playing make-believe about the Mandate era, he ought to look out of the window at his London, which is rapidly turning into an… https://t.co/C6ZaCm9NA5

— איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) August 20, 2026

Pro-Israel lobby group, UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a pro-Israel lobby group which operates closely with the ‘Israeli’ government, said in a statement, that it has:

Warned the UK Government that introducing a ban on trade between the UK and Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem and the West Bank (which it calls Judea and Samaria) would breach several binding international obligations.

Trade deals trump international law

It has now sent what it calls a 24-page “briefing paper” to Miliband, similar to those threatening legal letters it sends to anyone who criticises the criminal state of ‘Israel’, or shows the slightest support towards Palestine.

The organisation, which by the way is a registered charity here in the UK, argued that if the trade ban is implemented, it:

“would be liable to breach the UK’s legal obligations”

under various trade agreements. The message from UKLFI, is that imposing a settlement trade ban could expose Britain and British businesses to legal challenges. But those agreements are not the only relevant source of international law.

In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion concerning the Israeli occupation’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory. It concluded, amongst other things, that states must not recognise as lawful the situation created by ‘Israel’s’ unlawful presence, nor assist in maintaining it.

This ruling has implications for countries such as the UK, especially where economic relationships could contribute to sustaining the illegal settlement system, which is built on stolen Palestinian land.

Because the opinion was advisory, instead of a binding judgment, UKLFI is arguing it does not create a legal obligation to stop trade with businesses operating in the occupied West Bank. But this is only the UKLFI’s interpretation of the law.

Settlement goods enter the EU

Major human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch take the opposite view. They claim states should prohibit trade and business activity with these ‘Israeli’ settlements because of their obligations resulting from the ICJ opinion.

Just because UKLFI has constructed a legal argument for why the UK should not act against settlements, it does not mean it is correct. It also does not make the UK’s responsibilities, as defined by the ICJ, disappear. International law should not be optional just because it is politically inconvenient for those supporting the criminal state of ‘Israel.’

The UK government states that ‘Israeli’ settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal. It already distinguishes between ‘Israel’ and its settlements, for trade purposes. Settlement-produced goods do not receive preferential tariff treatment under Britain’s trade arrangements, and the government advises British businesses against economic and financial activity in settlements. But, as yet, it has enforced no ban.

One of UKLFI’s arguments is that goods produced in settlements, which are built on stolen Palestinian land in occupied territory, cannot be distinguished from those coming from ‘Israel.’ But recent evidence from Global Echo has indicated this isn’t the case. Their investigation found that a significant proportion of shipments from ‘Israel’ to the EU actually originated in settlements.

If settlement goods are being wrongly declared as Israeli goods, the system for establishing origin should be improved. And as ‘Israel’ wants products made inside the 1948 borders to benefit from trade arrangements with the UK, it should be the one responsible for establishing where exports come from.

Who knew upholding international law could upset investors…

The UK should not have to unravel the occupation’s supply chains. A ban would put the responsibility on those producing and exporting goods from illegal settlements, where it should be, on ‘Israel.’ And, importantly, this needs to be rigorously enforced.

UKLFI also claims:

Such a ban might discourage US investment in the UK, since companies operating in the UK that comply with it would be exposed to potential sanctions under US Federal and State laws. It would also have the effect of further promoting antisemitism in the UK.

This is outrageous, and is an attempt to let the illegal Israeli occupation and the US dictate UK policy through fear tactics and intimidation. The UK’s duties under the ICJ advisory opinion, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN Charter do not go away because a pro-Israel lobby group says US investors may not approve.

And while UKLFI warns of “antisemitism”, the group itself is increasingly under scrutiny for “lawfare”, and using tactics of intimidation. Its complaints  against doctors, teachers, charities, and human rights organisations, its campaigns to cancel various events, and its legal threats, have led to accusations it is using the law to silence legitimate speech on Palestine. Several of its high-profile cases have already collapsed at tribunal, with independent judges finding no basis for its claims.

UKLFI presents itself as a defender of law and ethics, but this is far from the truth. It fully supports the Israeli occupation- an enterprise built on land theft, forced displacement, and systemic violence. And, similar to the Israeli occupation government itself, UKLFI uses a biased approach to international law and norms, which it applies only when convenient to do so.

This is all part of its strategy, treating trade rules as absolute, but dismissing laws concerned with human rights and the occupation as optional. The result is a legal framework that protects ‘Israel’s’ interests and ignores Palestinian rights.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charlie Jaay

Source link

The UK claims its new cruise missile programme will be low cost. We’ll just have to take their word for it because they haven’t disclosed the cost. Despite this Forces News led with the headline “What is Stratus? Inside UK’s low-cost cruise missile as first tests planned for 2028″.

Okay, then…

The MOD-funded outlet reported on 24 August:

The first Stratus missile is scheduled for testing in 2028, a defence minister has said, as the UK Armed Forces look to improve their deep strike precision capability.

Defence Readiness and Industry Minister Luke Pollard said that the missile has finished testing on various elements of the missile, including its airframe design, engine, warhead and seeker performance.

Advertisement

Despite the bold headline, the military news network also noted:

The cost of a single missile has not been disclosed.

They added that according to the Defence Investment Plan (DIP), the programme would cost around £3bn. Which rather negates the idea the missiles will be low cost. If £3bn is cheap, what does an expensive missile programme retail for?

Defence minister Dan Jarvis said in July 2026:

We are building the weapons of the future to keep the UK and Nato secure for decades to come, backed by billions of pounds and working with our closest European allies.

A number of other nations are involved in the project. The overall cost is £37bn.

The Great British War Machine

UK PM Andy Burnham is currently in Ukraine for a state visit. A government press release said the new PM had gone to the country with missiles in mind:

To underline the strength of this commitment, the Prime Minister is set to announce that the Government has agreed that defence firm MBDA can release classified information on UK components for the long-range missile, SCALP, as Ukraine and France look to establish local assembly lines in Ukraine.

The missile is the French-produced version of the UK’s Storm Shadow, with both using shared French and British technology.

Adding:

The move follows the UK being the first to gift long-range strike weapons for defensive purposes to Ukraine in 2023 and will allow the French and Ukrainians to move forward with the Ukrainian assembly of the missile.

It also complements the major UK effort to rapidly develop low-cost advanced long-range strike weapons for Ukraine through Project Brakestop.

Advertisement

Typical of the UK government to make grand claims about the costs of missiles without disclosing what those costs will be. As with so much of UK military and foreign policy, the public are being kept in the dark. It helps keep the Great British War Machine rolling along.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

President Donald Trump is using a bit of his mostly untapped $400 million MAGA Inc. warchest to boost Sen. Darline Graham in South Carolina — the first significant expenditure his team has made this year for one of his chosen candidates, according to campaign finance reports.

The super PAC has funneled more than $827,000 on voter phone calls and text messages for Graham ahead of her tough GOP runoff battle with Rep. Ralph Norman on Tuesday, according to a Federal Election Commission report made public on Monday.

It’s yet another sign that Trump is focusing his efforts on propelling Graham — a political newcomer — to victory, after holding a rare in-person political rally with her on Friday. And it’s a notable spend given MAGA Inc.’s ongoing absence from other battleground races this cycle, even as Republicans have been pushing the president and his team to spend heavily this fall to help counter Democrats’ massive fundraising advantage.

As of last week, the super PAC had reported over $403 million in fundraising.

The money for Graham is just the second time MAGA Inc. has spent on a race this year. The group in March shelled out nearly $18,000 for now-Rep. Clay Fuller (R-Ga.), who was running in the special election to replace former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

And in late 2025, MAGA Inc. threw roughly $1.7 million into phone calls for Tennessee Republican Matt Van Epps, who won the special election to replace retired Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.).

Spokespeople for MAGA Inc. and the White House did immediately respond to requests for comment.

Should Graham become the Republican nominee in South Carolina on Tuesday, it will be in large part thanks to Trump, who expended serious political and financial capital to help her win. Her victory would also help reaffirm Trump’s influence in Republican primaries after a string of losses for his preferred candidates in states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Iowa.

Jessica Piper contributed to this report.

Source link

MPs, academics, and other leading Black figures have signed a Good Law Project letter agreeing with the demands of students for action against Cambridge University vice-chancellor Deborah Prentice for her role in the events that lead to the death of Cambridge professor Jason Arday.

Arday was hounded by British ‘mainstream’ press in a campaign triggered by Nathan Cofnas, an Israel-supporting white-supremacist and ‘racial scientist’. Long before Arday’s death, Cofnas’s colleagues at Ghent University had written to the university detailing his unfitness for his role. He has now been suspended, but defended by the Trump regime and far-right ‘academics’, and given space by the Wall Street Journal to portray himself as the victim.

Earlier today, 24 August 2026, the Cambridge Black Alumni and Students’ Collective (CBASC) demanded action from the university to protect students and staff from racist pile-ons and an independent investigation into Arday’s death:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Cambridge Black Alumni & Student Collective (CBASC) (@camblackasc)

In just the few hours since then, at the time of writing, well over 120 leading, mostly Black figures have signed GLP’s letter supporting CBASC’s demands.

The letter was drafted by Lester Holloway, who had alerted the Guardian that its coverage was endangering his friend Arday’s life. The paper ploughed on anyway. The letter reads:

To: Lord Chris Smith, Cambridge University Chancellor

The students of the University of Cambridge demand the immediate resignation of Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice and support an independent investigation into the conduct of senior leadership.
Ten days ago, on the 14th of August, tragically and preventably, Professor Jason Arday died.

A sustained campaign consisting of 249 articles published through major national news outlets over 22 days was launched against Professor Jason Arday. During this period, the university, under the Vice Chancellor’s leadership, failed in its responsibility to safeguard Professor Arday and other racialised and marginalised members of the University. The Vice-Chancellor’s misconduct and mishandling contributed significantly to the preventable death of Professor Arday.

The University initially defended Professor Arday against what it deemed a “vile smear campaign”. However, four days prior to his death, the Vice-Chancellor bowed to public pressure and launched an investigation into Professor Arday. Her statement was a screeching u-turn which abandoned an academic being attacked in connection with his appointment by the University, describing this as a “troubling case” and later an “aberration”.

Advertisement

What exactly was the support, we would like to know, that the University provided to Professor Arday after his resignation? Can the Vice-Chancellor confirm that the University did not encourage Professor Arday to resign?

Her silence around the racist nature of this public campaign in the three gruelling weeks of public scrutiny immensely harmed the well-being of Professor Arday and Black students and staff across the University.

This speaks to a wider pattern of harm towards the Black community being ignored by the Vice-Chancellor. In 2024, 58 formal complaints were lodged with the University of Cambridge about Nathan Cofnas following his racist views about Black intellectual ability. Following an investigation, these complaints were dismissed. These dismissals, we believe, prioritised appeasing the right wing media above the protection of the University of Cambridge’s own scholars who had documented profound mistrust from those experiencing racism.

The Vice Chancellor has severely failed to uphold the legislatively mandated commitment to freedom from discrimination. Instead, her statements fuelled the racially motivated campaign targeting Professor Arday. Despite multiple reported warnings that Professor Arday needed to be safeguarded, the Vice-Chancellor and senior leadership of the University repeatedly ignored concerns raised by those closest to him, exacerbating the risk to his life.

Advertisement

The Vice-Chancellor’s statements on 11th and 14th August, the latter published only hours before his death, did not express any concern for Professor Arday’s wellbeing.

The Vice-Chancellor’s demonstrated actions and inaction directly contributed to the tragic and preventable death of a beloved professor. We have lost confidence in her stewardship of this university, and her ability to enact the necessary change that needs to happen.

Along with the Vice-Chancellor’s immediate resignation, we concur with the demands raised by the Cambridge Black Alumni and Student Collective, dated 24 August, as necessary next steps to accountability, justice and healing.

The letter form does not display all those who have signed, but among those who are visible at the time of writing are MPs Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Diane Abbott, former MP Claudia Webbe, author Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, Prof Sir Patrick Vernon and former police chief Leroy Logan.

Add your own signature here.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

The reputation of AI companies is currently in the toilet, and with good reason. These tech tycoons told us their product would eliminate all our jobs, and that it might even wipe us out as a species. What did we get in return? A product which failed to live up to the grandiose claims, and AI data centres which have put all sorts of strains on local communities. Now, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is admitting he was wrong to threaten us all with the end of the world:

Oh golly jee and what absolute turd burglar of a person started that trend. Oh it was you Sam! It was you….

""I think AI will probably, most likely, sort of lead to the end of the world." -Sam Altman 2015 https://t.co/ZFTuY08bUu

— ArRENCEAI (@ArRENCEAI) August 23, 2026

Advertisement

If you’ve not followed the generative AI boom, you’re probably wondering how they got so off track with their messaging. It seems obvious to most that threatening Armageddon would not make for a long-term sales strategy. To explain why it worked for a while, we need to explain the underlying economics.

OpenAI: messaging

The big problem for these companies isn’t whether their products are useful; it’s whether they can make money. Generative AI is incredibly expensive to run, which is why they subsidised the cost with cheap subscriptions. Earlier this year, AI companies upped the costs to more closely match the reality. This led to business horror stories like the following:

Uber handed its 5,000 engineers an AI coding assistant in December. By April, the company had blown through its entire AI budget for all of 2026, with two thirds of the year still to go.

Cheap, basic AI has gotten almost free over the past few years. But almost no company builds… https://t.co/rTlWgZECa7

— Anish Moonka (@anishmoonka) May 24, 2026

Microsoft Bans Claude Code After AI Costs More Than The Humans It Replaced

— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) June 1, 2026

OpenAI and Anthropic subsidised cheap subscriptions through hundreds of billions in investor money. Eventually, these investors will want to see some sort of return on their investment, but that will require AI companies to make a profit. Currently, this can’t happen without some sort of miraculous new discovery which makes it cheaper to run.

This – in part- is why the world has been “slow” to adopt AI. It’s because when companies and individuals have adopted it, the results have been mixed. And this was true even before the prices became prohibitively expensive.

Doomsaying

Getting back to the ‘end of the world’ messaging, the theory is AI companies played up the potential of AI running amok to attract investors. CEOs like OpenAI’s Altman tried to convince the world that generative AI would one day evolve into Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – a machine which could think for itself (unlike generative AI, which generates content based on probabilities – often ‘hallucinating‘ as a result). The threat of AGI was that it might go rogue and kill us all; the promise was that it would replace all human labour, grossly enriching those who invested early.

Altman played up the threat to remind investors of the hope. In doing so, he attracted hundreds of billions in investor money. The problem is that this vast influx of cash hasn’t led to a viable product. And now, Altman is left with terrible reputational damage and a technology that costs too much to run to profit from.

OpenAI boss: “I was wrong”

The following is what OpenAI boss Altman said in a recent interview (emphasis added)

I thought when we got to GPT-4, which was back in 2023, that very quickly after that there was going to be much more disruption, software businesses up for grabs right away, than it turned out to be.

I think I was wrong about a few things, but one in terms of the speed: the economy just has so much inertia.

Advertisement

People keep doing the same things, buying from the same company, wanting to use their tools the same way. I think this is actually a positive in many ways, and it’s going to make this big transition go smoother and slower. I’m grateful for it.

But it means we’ve all been too ambitious on timelines. Even with this incredible technology, society and the economy will adapt more slowly.

Altman blames the “inertia” of the economy for the slow uptake of his product. The reality is that the companies which moved quickest on generative AI are among those which suffered the worst consequences:

Klarna was one of the first to go all-in on AI, replacing 700 customer service staff last year.

Now CEO @klarnaseb says they focused too much on cost and hurt quality, so they’re investing in humans again and will let customers talk to real people. https://t.co/zJifpUfSzJ

— Sheel Mohnot (@pitdesi) May 11, 2025

It’s definitely true that some businesses have found uses for AI. Even before OpenAI and Anthropic jacked up the prices, though, many companies were struggling to show any return on investment from AI services. And this is unworkable for a product which is supposed to replace all human labour.

PR nightmares

Here’s another example of the sort of wrong-headed messaging that Altman was putting out:

I can’t imagine why public support for data centers plummeted https://t.co/QBRd0i4xJL

— K. (@IbaraEleven) August 22, 2026

Do you want a world in which your children are so mindless that they have to pay Silicon Valley to do their thinking for them? Of course you don’t.

Another problem AI has is that although you can technically use it to replace human labour, the results are often substandard. Graphic design is one area in which you can visually see the downgrade:

Who the fuck saw this and was like “hell yeah, print that shit” https://t.co/LgkrXeNrdF

— SorryHat 𝕬𝖙𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖓𝖊𝖞 𝖆𝖙 𝕲𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖙 𝕷𝖆𝖜 (@sorry_hat) August 24, 2026

Companies aren’t just using AI to get rid of employees either; they’re also using it to screw over customers:

Why would an airline CEO announce this publicly, given the backlash that will likely result?

It's to signal to the other airlines that this is the plan going forward. It's how corporations collude out in the open while everyone pretends we still have a competitive maket. https://t.co/sTkQGvptSm

— 99% Johnny Graz (@jvgraz) August 24, 2026

Advertisement

The many problems of AI have fed into a backlash against data centres in the US. This is particularly focussed on AI data centres which use considerably more electric and water. They also cause other problems, as Benn Jordan detailed:

The following is an example of how the tech world is reacting to the backlash against data centres:

This is what data center developers are saying all across Michigan. It's condescending and it's going over like a lead balloon. 

Michiganders don't need some California billionaires telling us what to do, and we aren't buying their false promises. pic.twitter.com/m4vcYUyU6p

— William Lawrence (@WeWill2026) August 23, 2026

Advertisement

Blowing bubble

The problem for Altman is that he sold generative AI to investors on the understanding that it would be the most valuable technology to ever exist. Now, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that this likely won’t be the case. And as such, it’s hard to see how companies like OpenAI can maintain their value.

With so much of the US stock market buoyed up by AI, the bubble bursting will be significant:

The AI stock market bubble is close to $80 trillion, approximately 2.5x larger than 2000 dot-com bubble.

To give you an idea of the scale of this bubble; if the stock market were to crash back to long-term averages, it would be equivalent to a $300,000 loss per U.S. household. pic.twitter.com/mywiD6rqld

— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) August 22, 2026

The lesson from all this is that we can’t structure our economic systems around the promises of liars.

Featured image via Joel Saget

By Willem Moore

Source link

Jewish anti-genocide activist Tony Greenstein was dramatically acquitted on Friday as the UK state attempted to brand him a terrorist. Greenstein triumphed after giving his own “historic” closing speech. He triumphed despite the attempts of the prosecutor and judge to limit his defence and keep the jury in ignorance of the full facts.

“Bile and venom” from the judge, says Greenstein

And now, he has moved from being the defendant to going on the offensive – and his first target is trial judge Sarah Plaschkes. Typical of Greenstein, he does not pull any punches. In a new article, he accuses the judge of:

Spew[ing Bile & Venom as Her Determination to Have Me Convicted was Thwarted.

Ever willing to tweak the Israel lobby’s nose, Greenstein adds that “the Zionists are furious” at the mere two hours it took the jury to return a unanimous not-guilty verdict.

And while human rights group CAGE described Greenstein’s win “affirms supporting Palestine liberation is not a crime”, Greenstein says he began the week not knowing whether he’d return a free man or be locked up for up to fourteen years. And with the altriusm typical of the humanitarian movement that opposes Israel’s genocide, he was thinking ahead to ensure the vulnerable were not left unsupported:

When I set out from Brighton for Kingston-upon-Thames last Monday, I was not sure that I would be coming back anytime soon. I made sure to turn off my electrical appliances.

In the weeks leading up to the trial I had made elaborate arrangements for others to continue the appeal for the Al Tafawk Children’s Centre in Jenin. It would have been devastating if the children of Al Tafawk were to suffer because of my ‘crimes’.

A trusted friend was given full access to my email account and she also had a key to my flat and hence access to my computer. I also ensured that before I went into the dock for what could be my last appearance that I handed my phone to another friend. I also said goodbye to two of my children, James and Ellie, who were in the public gallery.

But then he returns to the judge, whom he  – and a few paragraphs haven’t softened him. This time, he takes aim at her bad grace – even when she knew the jury had sided with Greenstein, she couldn’t resist trying to dismiss his closing speech:

Plaschkes was one of the most unpleasant and dishonest people I’ve ever had the misfortune to encounter.

When the jury returned she made an extraordinary statement, fully knowing the jury’s verdict. She said that she had considered citing me for contempt of court but had decided against it as my speech was the ‘ramblings of an old man.’ She was sure that the jury’s decision had not been affected by my speech!

Advertisement

For a moment I thought that maybe they had found me guilty after all but when a jury returns after just 2 hours 11 minutes, it is very likely that they have all agreed on a not guilty verdict. When asked their verdict the foreman of the jury pronounced ‘not guilty.’ It was, as you can imagine, an immense relief. Plaschkes exited the court full of fury signifying nothing apart from her own humourless and vapid character. It was like a bad smell disappearing.

Systemic bias

Then Greenstein turns his fire on bias – not just in the judge, but the whole system arrayed against him and the anti-genocide movement:

Plaschke’s Bias

Her bias was truly appalling. Back in January at what was supposed to be the hearing, Plaschkes had turned down our application for the prosecution to be declared an abuse of process.

Section 117 (2A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 states that for an offence relating to a country outside the UK, a prosecution may only proceed with the consent of the Attorney General. However Attorney General, Richard Hermer excused himself, on the grounds of a conflict of interest.

Advertisement

Sarah Sackman – the Solicitor General Who Authorised My Prosecution – Dedicated Zionist – But No Bias According to the Reactionary LJ Edis of the Court of Appeal – Sackperson proves that Labour Zionism is no different from its Likud variant

Day Three of Tony Greenstein’s trial

It therefore fell to the Solicitor-General, Sarah Sackman, to consent. The only problem was that she had been Vice-Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement from 2015 to 2024. She had also attacked me personally in an article in the Jewish News, March 16, 2016. She had co-authored an article with Mike Katz, attacking me as a ‘problematic figure’ i.e. I was anti-Semitic.

It was obvious that Sackman was biased and could not approve my prosecution. Plaschkes disagreed. The Court of Appeal judges, headed by LJ Edis found (para. 57) that ‘A fair minded and informed observer… would not, in our judgment conclude that there was a real possibility that she was biased in taking the only reasonable option open to her.’ One wonders what world Edis and company live in.

Advertisement

And he found that this bias spilled very directly into the trial proceedings:

But no, Plaschkes found procedural reasons for excluding nearly all of my previous articles from the Bundle handed to the jury.

Again the Court of Appeal agreed with her decision. I openly accused her from the dock of trying to rig the trial and contrary to her instructions I referred to the articles throughout my testimony until it became clear to the Jury that Plaschkes and the Prosecution were trying to obtain a wrongful conviction by foul means.

Sir Stephen Sedley – Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge and anti-Zionist

Dishonesty is hard wired into how most judges behave. Like a fish the judiciary rots from the head down. Unlike in previous decades we have no judicial giants like Tom Bingham, Patrick Devlin, Johan Steyn, Lord Philips, Sir Stephen Sedley and Lord Peter Taylor who presided over Hillsborough disaster inquiry. The latter four being Jewish.

Advertisement

In a naturally lengthy article, Greenstein dissects not just the trial and case, but their wider significance in a society facing a state onslaught on human and civil rights. And he gives lengthy, practical advice for those who offend it and find themselves in its legal crosshairs for opposing genocide and crimes against humanity – though some of it is potentially at odds with typical legal advice. Here is the first part:

i. Consider carefully your solicitor’s advice, if you are arrested, to do a No Comment interview. The reason why is that the interview is read into the record of the court and this is an unparalleled opportunity to put your case direct to the jury. Of course in my case it was edited down from about 35 to a dozen pages. The Prosecution did their best to reduce what I had to say but even they could not manage to exclude what I had to say. Plaschkes of course went along with all the edits bar one – then the Prosecution suggested replacing one question but leaving the answer intact thus providing an answer to a question that was excluded!!

If you are confident enough in what you have to say and articulate enough really think through whether or not it will help you. Remaining silent will enable the Prosecution to draw ‘adverse inferences’ from your silence. Your answers to the Police interrogator will be read in court, often edited but it will enable you to get your case across if there is a prosecution.

ii. Prepare for your cross-examination carefully. This is your opportunity to get your case across. Don’t accept the framework of the Prosecution. When they ask ‘did you do A on the Nth day of whenever’ make sure you paint a wider picture and put it into context. If they ask you do you support Hamas don’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Start off by explaining that Hamas was the elected government of the Palestinians. That they are a resistance group that Israel and the West has demonised. Always set the scene.

iii. If the judge tells you not to be political don’t just accept the reprimand. When I was told this, repeatedly, I responded that genocide is political. The proscription itself is political. The definition of terrorism is so wide that the government has massive discretion as to who is proscribed as a terrorist organisation and who is not.

Advertisement

iv. Prosecuting people for what they say rather than what they have done is inherently political. I accused Plaschkes from the dock of trying to rig the trial.

v. Put the Prosecution and Judge on trial. Accuse them of turning a blind eye to Apartheid and Genocide and turn the spotlight on Israel.

vi. If – and I say if, you feel confident enough, then take the final closing speech to the jury. There will be pressure on you not to but remember your barrister will not be able to mention the Bushell’s case nor that of judges who have backed the idea that some laws need to be set aside when they provide for an unjust outcome. You are not there to satisfy your legal team. They are there to help you. Take charge of the case and challenge your barrister/solicitor.

vii. When Plaschkes warned me that she would intervene in my speech I retorted that Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice dictates that judges should not interrupt a litigant in person’s closing speech unless absolutely necessary, favoring corrections during the summing-up instead.

Advertisement

Archbold is the practitioner’s bible. It is highly authoritative: Even though it is not legally binding, Archbold is treated with immense respect. It has been in continuous publication since 1822. Judges and barristers rely on it daily in the Crown Court to quickly look up criminal procedures, sentencing guidelines and case law

After analysing the principles and dangers involved, Greenstein also explains why he chose to give the closing speech himself: he has faced trial before and knows that barristers might give judges too much respect when they try to shut down a line of argument. And he combines this with derision for both the ‘mainstream’ media and the Israel lobby that has gone into meltdown since his win:

When I observed left-wing barristers buckling under the dictat of Judge Michael Chambers KC in Wolverhampton, I made a decision when I was arrested that I would take the closing speech.

Media coverage has been variable. It has been greeted with delight by the activist media but largely ignored by the bourgeois press and the ruling class stenographers.

Brighton and Hove News which is a far-right-wing rag that supports the Zionists carried news of my being admonished by the judge two days ago when I was told that the court was not a political forum but for some reason it has failed to report my acquittal! Clearly the verdict of the jury must have upset their nasty little liar of an editor Jo Wadsworth.

Advertisement

The Jewish Chronicle chose to focus, not on my acquittal but on the Judge’s attack on me! The BBC’s article was fair enough without carrying anything about my anti-genocide stance.

But perhaps the sweetest of all the reactions was the fury of Heidi Bachram, the non-Jewish Zionist snout. She is someone who follows in the footsteps of the informers who betrayed Jews hiding from the Nazis during the Holocaust.

The full article includes much more detail of Greenstein’s experience, his trial thinking and the landscape in which the whole farce-turned-victory unfolded. Read his account of the historic case in full here.

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Reform UK has found itself in a strange position this year. On the one hand, it’s very keen to criticise the actions of the past Tory government. On the other, it’s welcomed Tory politicians who caused the issues they’re now complaining about. This situation is compounded by the fact that ex-Tories like Suella Braverman keep wading into the debate themselves:

Not sure "Why didn't you undo the stupid decision I took" is exactly the gotcha Suella thinks it is… https://t.co/BcaYaLl86k

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) August 23, 2026

Pure prejudice

Firstly, we should explain how this all started for Suella Braverman – namely with the following video:

Just another day in @JamesCleverly’s constituency.

Unless we get a Reform government, every town in Britain will look like this. pic.twitter.com/y38AnAlKQt

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) August 23, 2026

Advertisement

As Reform UK Exposed highlighted:

Nigel Farage has posted this video with no credit. Want to know why? Because it was filmed by ‘Free Speech Shell’, a hard-right ‘auditor’ and Tommy Robinson collaborator.

[Nigel Farage]  and [Reform UK] are in bed with the hard-right again, because everything else they’ve got has failed.

Tory James Cleverly also responded, noting:

By Willem Moore

Source link

The US Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, wrote an opinion piece for the Financial Times in which he threatened an “economic D-Day” for Iran, but Yanis Varoufakis has interpreted the bizarre rhetoric as a sign that Washington is not just panicking but has slipped into outright despair.

Bessent: panicking

This all happened while Bessent’s efforts to calm the sell-off in US treasuries failed.

President Trump has dismantled Iran’s military capabilities, destroyed nearly 100 percent of its military factories, and buried its nuclear program.

We are now entering the endgame. At dawn begins an economic D-Day — the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against…

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) August 23, 2026

Advertisement

Bessent used Pascal’s Wager to warn Iran’s trading partners that sticking with Tehran is a bad bet. If the US follows through, they will be isolated. “Any nation that serves as a financial artery of a withering regime should expect to share in its isolation,” he said.

Goodness gracious! For Scot Bessent to enlist Pascal’s Wager in the Financial Times against Iran, Washington must be in the psychological state that lies just beyond panic: despair. https://t.co/yM3pFtytRc

— Yanis Varoufakis (@yanisvaroufakis) August 23, 2026

Efforts to calm bond markets slammed

Bessent said Iran’s “enablers” were purchasing and transporting its oil, moving its finances through exchange houses and free trade zones, welcoming its flights, and turning a blind eye to seaborne fuel transfers and the illicit use of their banks, all while “concealing” the extent of their “complicity.”

The same FT just on Saturday 22 August had slammed Bessent’s efforts to calm the US bond markets, saying:

Bessent’s running battle with the bond market is starting to look like his boss’s war in Iran — started by his own hand with a tangled set of objectives, an underestimated opponent and an implausible path to victory.

Financial Times:

“Scott Bessent’s running battle with the bond market is starting to look like his boss’s war in Iran — started by his own hand with a tangled set of objectives, an underestimated opponent and an implausible path to victory. And like the conflict in the Middle… pic.twitter.com/gTmzj3OGOU

— JaguarAnalytics (@JaguarAnalytics) August 22, 2026

Last week, Bessent tried to calm the US bond markets by announcing the Treasury would double its buybacks of long-dated debt. But the intervention offered only “temporary relief.”

Blatant act of lawlessness

Iran’s foreign minister, Araghchi, said the new sanctions package is like watching “some movie playing over and over again,” Al Jazeera reported.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the new US sanctions package, likely to be unveiled Monday, is like watching the ‘same movie playing over and over again’.

He added that the ‘bullying’ under Trump is no different from that under previous US administrations. pic.twitter.com/gXjNoGqZIE

Advertisement

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) August 24, 2026

Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi told CNN that this new pressure campaign on Iran will likely result in “counterescalation” by Iran – not surrender. He said that Trump’s maximum pressure was supposed to break Iran eight years ago, and the blockade was supposed to do the same four months ago.

Told @cnn that we have been here before: Trump’s maximum pressure was supposed to break Iran 8 years ago. The blockade was supposed to break Iran four months ago.

Trump’s D-day pressure will squeeze Iran, but Tehran’s most likely response is counterescalation – not surrender pic.twitter.com/IfTbes9Tcj

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) August 24, 2026

Advertisement

The New York Times, in an article, quoted Wu Xinbo, a leading American studies scholar at Fudan University in Shanghai who advises China’s foreign ministry, as saying about the “economic D-Day” threats:

This threat reveals how desperate the Trump administration has become on the issue of Iran.They issue this threat, not because they think it is workable, but because they have no other options.

NYT also noted that China is Iran’s largest trading partner and has for decades defied Western sanctions by buying up to 90% of Iran’s oil exports.

China has also supplied Iran with technology and raw materials for its missile and drone programs. The paper said China feels confident it can resist the pressure, in part because it can squeeze US “critical mineral supplies” and has “stockpiled months worth of oil” to withstand the loss of Iranian crude.

Iran still controlling Hormuz

Bloomberg’s Abeer Abu Omar reported that the IRGC has “scenarios laid out” for any US economic isolation plan.

She said while Iran’s oil exports are “virtually at zero” due to the US naval blockade,  it will take about six months for Iran to feel real pressure.

She added that Iran still “asserts dominance over the Strait of Hormuz,” where vessel traffic is “very close to zero.”

She also noted that “the Houthis are forcing Saudi Arabia to take the French routes through Africa” to avoid danger in the Red Sea.

By Nandita Lal

Source link

The British Army has published an update on its new Ground Based Surveillance Radar (GBSR). A small detachment of artillery soldiers has been testing the system on the Canadian prairie alongside local troops. What the MOD media department did not mention was that the AI-capable radar is made by the genocide-linked Israeli firm Elbit Systems UK.

The article published on 25 April describes the training mission:

53 Air Assault Battery, 5th Regiment Royal Artillery is using the new Ground Based Surveillance Radar (GBSR) as part of a network of sophisticated sensors working together to win the fight on Exercise Rhino Bizz.

The system, the army said, was delivered:

to the Catterick-based unit in late 2025. It is used to track the location and movement of soldiers and vehicles on the ground, and aircraft and drones in the air. It can also be used for fall of shot correction, working with artillery and mortars to track exactly where rounds are landing, and correct their aim, destroying the target quicker.

The training exercise also tested integration of the AI-powered targeting gear:

Troops tested the recce-strike concept of fighting, bringing together surveillance, reconnaissance and strike platforms in an AI-enabled network able to identify and destroy targets faster and further.

One staff sergeant described the AI capabilities as a “hive mind”:

Once one sensor picks up something, we can direct all the other sensors onto that track and really build up a clear picture of what it is and what it’s doing – and then decide what we want to do about it. Using AI to merge and interpret all the data speeds that process from minutes to seconds, and that gives us a headstart on the enemy.

What can possibly go wrong?

Elbit UK, an Israeli firm

All pretty standard fare for a military exercise in the vast training areas the UK borrows from the Canadian government. But the connection to Israel and its arms industry went unmentioned in the piece.

Arms industry publications have reported with the full details for years. Defence Today wrote in November 2025:

Elbit Systems UK (ESUK) has delivered the first Ground Based Surveillance Radar (GBSR) systems to the British Army’s Royal Artillery following successful live fire trials earlier this year.

The initial delivery comprises 55 radar units along with associated support solutions and is part of a contract awarded by the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) in May 2023 for a total of 90 portable GBSR systems, with an option for an additional 40 units.

 Israel Defence reported on 17 March 2025:

Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of Israeli Defense giant Elbit Systems is in the process of delivering Ground-Based Surveillance Radar (GBSR) units to the British Army. These radars are deployed to detect threats at short and medium ranges on the front line.

And as far back as May 2023, Army Recognition reported:

Elbit Systems UK has been awarded a contract from the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to provide a series of Ground-Based Surveillance Radar (GBSR) systems, manufactured and developed in the UK and Europe, to the British Armed Forces to support front-line threat detection for a range of end-users.

The British government published details of the contract in 2023; you can access those here.

Israeli genocide firms

Campaign against the Arms Trade (CAAT) describes Elbit as:

Israel’s largest arms producer, and the 24th biggest arms producer globally.

Elbit’s UK wing has:

a workforce of over 680. Elbit has several further subsidiaries located across 16 sites in the UK. Elbit’s UK companies export globally, particularly to Israel. Elbit UK Ltd has obtained two UK military export licenses to the country since 2021.

Elbit products include drones, surveillance equipment and border security gear. Israel uses them in Gaza, The Occupied Territories and Lebanon. The British Army’s website reminds its soldiers they are:

subject to the law wherever they are serving.

This does not seem to extend to the purchase and use of equipment made by genocide-linked arms firms with headquarters in Israel.  Clearly, the UK should stop selling arms to Israel. That’s not controversial. But the UK also needs to stop buying occupation-tested military equipment from the settler-colonial state too.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

According to newly released data, graduate jobs have dropped by nearly 50%. AI is among the given explanations for this drop; as are rising costs. Regardless of what’s most at fault here, though, this clearly isn’t a sustainable situation if it’s accurate:

‘The number of graduate jobs has fallen almost in half in the past year, according to new figures, as employers cut entry-level roles in favour of AI and battle rising costs’ – BBC https://t.co/dKT0XhBtyn

— Mark Williamson (@markrwilliamson) August 24, 2026

Data

The data in question comes from the job site Adzuna. As reported by the BBC:

Jobs website Adzuna said it had just 8,383 graduate vacancies listed in July, down from 15,397 at the same point last year.

Adzuna also found competition among job seekers across all levels is rising, with an average of 2.14 job seekers per vacancy in July, up from 1.93 a year earlier.

Adzuna is a search site for jobs. The service allows you to search every job site at once, with roles showing up in one easy-to-scroll list:

Adzuna is an aggregator, meaning most jobs aren’t directly uploaded to the site. As such, there could be other reasons why graduate jobs from sites like Indeed or TotalJobs aren’t pulling through. We’ve seen no suggestion this is happening here; at the same time we can’t confirm it isn’t. We also can’t confirm employers haven’t simply shifted their recruitment efforts to means other than job sites.

We aren’t the only ones to be suspicious anyway:

This is considered the most reliable data source for the top 100 graduate recruiters, and shows vacancies down 5.1% year-on-year for the 3rd year running. Interestingly though, grads from a small group of Russell Group plus are still highly targeted. https://t.co/howjH1l6nk

— Natasha Porter OBE (@NPorter_) August 24, 2026

The 5.1% figure mentioned above was for 2025, with High Fliers writing:

Two-fifths of the country’s top employers recruited fewer graduates in 2025 and recruitment fell in ten out of fifteen key industries & business sectors. Employers’ latest recruitment targets show that there are likely to be even fewer graduate jobs available in 2026 – a further decrease of 0.5% compared with last year. Graduate recruitment at the UK’s leading employers has now slumped by 24.5% since 2022 – a larger reduction than was recorded during the pandemic in 2020 or in the ‘Great Recession’ of 2008-2009, when graduate vacancies fell by 12.3% and 23.3% respectively.

A drop of 50% would suggest we’re in a period of employment uncertainty which is twice as bad as the Great Recession.

The final thing we’ll note here is that the Office for National Statistics has used Adzuna as a data source as recently as 2024. In other words, the site has served as a trusted source of data in the past.

Freefall

People are justifiably worried about generative AI taking their jobs. After all, the AI companies themselves have warned us that’s what’s going to happen. As we’ve reported in the past, however, many companies have ended up rowing back on their AI initiatives. In part this was because many of them failed to realise any observable return on investment. This problem became more obvious this year when OpenAI and Anthropic jacked up their prices:

Microsoft Bans Claude Code After AI Costs More Than The Humans It Replaced

— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) June 1, 2026

In other words, even if UK companies are hiring fewer graduates because of AI right now, that’s not necessarily a sustainable situation.

The other side to this story which is gaining attention is the following, as reported by the BBC:

Businesses have said employer national insurance and minimum wage hikes have made hiring more expensive, particularly for junior staff.

This is leading to coverage like the following:

Worst Graduate Jobs Market on Record: "This Is Exactly What Labour Were Warned About"

Vacancies for university leavers collapse by 45 per cent to the lowest level ever recorded…https://t.co/yCnO9i9BC1

Advertisement

— Conservative Post (@ConsPost) August 24, 2026

Employers and right-wingers will seize on any opportunity to claim that paying people a fairer wage is a travesty. This isn’t to say well-meaning moves can’t have negative consequences, but it is certainly reason to be suspicious of how this data is being reported.

Big problems with AI

Regardless of whether it’s a 50% drop or less than that, and whether it’s due to AI, there are clearly problems in the job market. As ever, the right will tell you that the only solution is to abolish tax for the rich and to mandate in-work poverty for the rest of us. The battle is convincing the broader public it’s in their best interests for things to improve for them – not for our increasingly bloated 1%.

Featured image via Gatot Adriansyah (Canva Image Library)

By Willem Moore

Source link