On 25 February, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) is launching a publicly searchable database.

Otherwise known as ‘Britain’s Index of Repression,’ it catalogues instances where UK institutions and craven bodies have used the law. More specifically, it shows how Israel-adjacent groups are using legal means to stifle Palestine solidarity.

Unsurprisingly, a quick search for UK Lawyers for Israel brings back 128 results. It seems that what the Canary has known all along is becoming public knowledge.

The nefarious lobbyists at UK Lawyers for Israel have and remain to be actively involved in repressing British civil liberties. Only, they’re batting for the wrong team — by which we mean a hostile, foreign state.

In their own words, plucked from their website, the UK Lawyers for Israel, describes it’s remit as follows:

We use the law to counter attempts to undermine, attack and delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis, and supporters of Israel.

‘Unregulated law firm’

ELSC have long advocated for those facing persecution for expressing solidarity with Palestinians, arguing that legal interventions by Israel-aligned lobby groups have led to:

institutional action against Palestine solidarity in schools, workplaces, universities and beyond.

The database is a work in progress and it is possible that there have been other depraved interventions that aren’t yet in the database. The items that are searchable, as the ELSC points out, is just what they are able to verify at present — suggesting that pro-Israel interventions are possible much higher.

Their post in full reads:

This is why ELSC, alongside the Public Interest Law Centre, filed a formal complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against the Director of UK Lawyers for Israel.

Our complaint sets out serious breaches of professional standards, including the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) designed to intimidate and silence Palestine Solidarity.

Advertisement

We further call on the SRA to investigate whether UK Lawyers for Israel is operating as an unregulated law firm and to bring it under formal regulatory oversight.

Lawfare must not be used to silence Palestine solidarity.

Stating that the new index represents the legal centre’s ‘push back’ on repression on behalf of a genocidal state, they added that:

Anti-Palestinian repression in Britain is not accidental. It is structural and systemic.

Our new report shows how repression works to depoliticise solidarity, forcing the movement onto the defensive, draining resources, and fracturing collective power.

Advertisement

The goal is bigger still: to erase Palestinian history and struggle from public consciousness.

Referring to the report being released on the 25th, they finished:

We will expose the architecture of repression, from universities to workplaces, cultural institutions to public space.

We are making this resource public so the movement can understand it, challenge it, and make it undeniable.

The ELSC will livestream the launch and invites those who want a first look to register their interest on their website.

Repression at Kings College London

The Canary wrote earlier this month about a mass walkout at Kings College London (KCL), protesting Usama Ghanem’s indefinite suspension. Ghanem is an Egyptian student at KCL who has had his student visa revoked. To make matters worse, he now faces deportation to Egypt, putting his life at risk.

We wrote:

Organisers say Usama’s case is part of a broader crackdown targeting pro-Palestine staff and students, including disciplinary action and intimidation. At KCL, more than twenty students – primarily students of colour – have faced disciplinary procedures linked to Palestine activism. However, far-right and Zionist groups have repeatedly targeted demonstrators on campus.

A KCL staff member talked about the broader context of Usama’s suspension. They noted that the college:

“escalated disciplinary action against pro-Palestine students, closed down hard-won fora on divestment and the reconstruction of Gaza’s education system, rejected all divestment demands, and unilaterally introduced new protest restrictions.

Advertisement

At the same time, it has failed to challenge Zionist and fascist groups like Stop the Hate and Betar, allowing them to intimidate and assault staff and students with impunity.”

Eyes open

British society is no longer blind to the fact that our freedom of speech faces institutional attack. Those same institutions answer to Keir Starmer who, as we’ve reported before, has chosen Israel at every turn.

Even the far-right have long expresses concerns that free speech is being curtailed. But no to call out blatant attacks on universal civil liberty and the unspoken institutional veto against anyone opposing the murder of innocent men, women and children in Gaza.

As British citizens, we need to ask ourselves ‘why are some people more outraged about limits on hateful speech than about our ability to object to mass murder’?

Once the ELSC releases its Index of Repression, those in power are no longer able to deny this reality. The layers of secrecy keeping people misinformed and beguiled by political trickery have been stripped back.

Feature image via Barold/the Canary

“This is not a ‘job done’ solution; we need to go further”

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest following the revelations in the Epstein files is invariably a gigantic embarrassment for the parasitic royal family. And, calls are growing for answers over the royal family’s support of Andrew over the years.

Historian Tessa Dunlop slammed the Royal Family’s choice to refrain from offering any apology to the British public in the Mirror. Dunlop pointed out that the privileged family could have paid attention to the disgraced prince’s apparent abuse of power.

Confronting Andrew’s ‘weaponised‘ use of his Royal privilege to shut down the allegations towards him, she exposed the lack of humility and accountability being shown by his silver-spoon family.

A point which was similarly made on Question Time to Fiona Bruce. No surprises, Bruce attempted to deflect the point:

Lady with purple scarf, “We watched the Queen, bless her, we did adore her”

“But she tried to bail Andrew out and pay off the Epstein trafficked victim, Virginia Giuffre”

“I think it’s all been way to slow”

“They royal family are trying to do the minimum”

“And plaster over… pic.twitter.com/3sFIZPOudi

Advertisement

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) February 20, 2026

Epstein files show we must ‘hold powerful men to account’

In an opinion piece for the Mirror, Dunlop welcomed the ‘unprecedented move’ to arrest the former prince. She reminded us once again of the sex-pest’s relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the victims who will be paying close attention. However, highlighting the shameful response by the Royal’s to continually use their privilege to protect the former prince, she underscored the message sent to victims everywhere that elites are not held to the same legal standards as everybody else.

She wrote:

So while reports confirm that in an unprecedented move, the former prince was arrested this morning on suspicion of misconduct in a public office, let’s not fool ourselves that Andrew is no longer royal. It was precisely because of his privileged position the former Prince was ‘anointed’ trade envoy in the first place – a sop to the late Queen from the Blair Administration in 2001 after a difficult royal decade.

Challenging the royals to show the same courage as the victims of powerful men, Dunlop added:

For far too long Andrew has been able to weaponise his royal privilege to push back against his accuser and to protect himself from legal scrutiny. Today he remains in police custody on potential charges of misconduct in a public office, but so many questions remain unanswered.

We still don’t know where the money came from that paid off Virginia Giuffre in 2022, when she accused Andrew of sexual assault under New York’s Child Victim’s Act, or how much the royal family knew about Andrew’s activities with Epstein more broadly. The latter’s female accusers have done so much to move this story forward and hold powerful men to account, surely it is time that our royal family also stepped up to the plate?

She concluded:

The late Queen protected her son Andrew, the institution of monarchy batted away questions concerning the Duke of York’s alleged misconduct since 2011 and Buckingham Palace was the address from which Andrew platformed his lies on the BBC in 2019.

Beyond what happens to their ‘ex-royal’ brother, surely the least the Royal Family can do is apologise for consistently turning a blind eye to former Duke of York’s extensive abuse of power.

Sympathy for powerful men

Narinder Kaur’s post on X highlights that there is no shortage of examples of influential figures expressing sympathy for powerful men facing allegations. They often focus more on the personal discomfort or “tragedy” of the accused than on the seriousness of the claims.

What many of these reactions tend to share is a striking disregard for victims. There has been a consistent failure, whether deliberate or not, to centre the experiences and suffering of those who may have been harmed through this shady web of the elite.

Trump on Prince Andrew’s arrest –

“I think it’s a shame… very sad… bad for the royal family.”

Not a word about the victims. Not a word about accountability. pic.twitter.com/h8xmWj3Ttd

— Narinder Kaur (@narindertweets) February 19, 2026

Advertisement

Psychotherapist Lucy Beresford argued on Sky News that seeing a powerful man face the full force of the law – just like any ordinary citizen – can have a profoundly positive impact on victims everywhere. It reinforces the idea that justice applies equally, regardless of status or privilege:

‘Powerful moment, almost a sense of karma that you could see someone who had so much power, has now been treated like the rest of us.’

Psychotherapist @LucyBeresford talks to @MattBarbet & @LeahBoleto about how Epstein’s victims might be feeling. pic.twitter.com/THOl7eAEeP

— Sky News (@SkyNews) February 20, 2026

Empathy for harm caused, not for the ‘fall from grace’

Dunlop’s intervention strengthens the point that victims will once again suffer as a result of the royal family’s continued avoidance tactics. In turn, they refuse to fully address the allegations against Andrew, and those against his close pal, convicted paedophile Epstein. As a result, victims are left feeling diminished and abandoned by justice.

We wrote yesterday:

Mountbatten-Windsor is currently in police custody amid searches of multiple properties as part of the criminal inquiry. The Epstein files have raised serious concerns about the scale of this sinister web of elitist men. This has prompted widespread demands for full transparency and accountability for sexual abuse against women and girls.

However, this pattern underscores how far more precedence is given to economic interests and institutional power over justice for victims and accountability for abusive men.

Undoubtedly, the Royal Family feel discomfort around this issue. But that discomfort pales in comparison to the serious trauma experienced by victims of sexual abuse. Shamefully, the monarchy deepens that trauma by showing palpable disinterest in the harm powerful men cause.

Another reminder that they will never be on our side.

For more on the Epstein Files, please read:

Featured image via the Canary

Bed rotting can actually be good for you, if done properly

How to bed rot in a healthy way

Help and support:

Green leader Zack Polanski is being heavily criticised over an interview with LBC’s Iain Dale. Polanski was asked if Zionism – the explicitly colonialist ideology of the settler-state of Israel – was racist. He insisted that at its origin, it was not racist. Rather, he argued, it was Benjamin Netanyahu’s version of Zionism which was.

This is flat wrong. But it’s also a teachable moment. Polanski’s critics were very frank about why. As Saul Staniforth pointed out:

It {Zionism] was always racist:

Iain Dale asks @ZackPolanski, do you think zionism is racist?

Zack says the idea of zionism initially was to make sure there was a peaceful place for the Jewish people, but the version of zionism under Netanyahu is definitely racist. No. It was always racist (1/4) pic.twitter.com/V0z2OeEq3w

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 18, 2026

Advertisement

Polanski faces opposition

He wasn’t alone in saying Polanski was incorrect. As author Shanice McBean argued, Zionism is “inherently racist” and a form of ethnic supremacy:

Zack is wrong on this. The idea of a Jewish majority state – which necessarily requires removing competing ethnic groups – is inherently racist in practice. You can empathise & contextualise Holocaust survivors becomimg attached to the idea of Israel without denying this reality. https://t.co/HE83B5xRcx

— Shanice 😈 🇵🇸 🏳️‍⚧️ (@Shanice_OM) February 19, 2026

McBean said:

We also need to get better at separating the idea of a practice, or an ideology, or a structure being racist from the deliberately individualising, personalising, and moralising accusation of being “a racist”.

Adding:

It doesn’t follow that everyone who participates in a racist structure, or society, or ideology is “a racist”. We are all part of a racist global political economy, for example, where Black and brown people are hyper exploited. Doesn’t make every Westerner “a racist”.

Your Party MP Zarah Sultana also commented on Zionism, thought she did not directly address Polanski. Sultana, never one to mince words about imperialism, urged people to “speak plainly”:

Zionism is racism, and it has been since its foundation.

She called for a single democratic Palestinian state:

After witnessing Israel’s genocide against Palestinians, the least we can do is speak plainly: Zionism is racism, and it has been since its foundation.

We must be proudly anti-Zionist.

That means fighting for a single democratic Palestinian state from the river to the sea, with…

Advertisement

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 19, 2026

There is no ‘liberal’ Zionism

Lawyer Francis Awaritefe weighed in too. He urged Polanski to read more deeply about the founding principles of the Zionist movement:

Zack Polanski has either not read deeply about the history of Zionism — or he’s being a disingenuous liberal Zionist.

Zionism is — and has always been a racist, genocidal endeavour. https://t.co/Vz1rmxM0kA pic.twitter.com/JznXeXnceR

— Francis Awaritefe (@FrancisAwartefe) February 20, 2026

Advertisement

Rashid Khalidi’s seminal The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine is available free here, for anyone – including Polanski – who may wish to brush up.

And another X user said the idea that Zionism only became racist recently – under Netanyahu – missed basic but very important facts about the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land over long decades:

13,000 Palestinians were killed in 1948 alone as Zionists went on a gleeful murder-rape rampage across Palestinian cities and villages, over 500 of which were destroyed. 750,000 Palestinians were expelled, their homes literally stolen. But sure under Netanyahu it all got bad https://t.co/jia2Mwk1J1

— Nate Bear (@NateB_Panic) February 19, 2026

Zionism has always been an ethno-supremacist ideology

His comments have left people asking serious questions. Polanski is a left-wing party leader in a time of genocide. On many occasions, he has moved people with the vision he’s offering. And on the whole he has appeared reasonably solid on Palestine.

But his comments on LBC let him down and they need to be clarified. Liberal Zionism – which is the position he appeared to be expressing on LBC – is still Zionism. And it’s a misnomer. One cannot be a ‘liberal’ ethno-nationalist. It may be that Polanski is trying to keep both the old centrist base of the Green Party and its newer socialist members on side.

But this is a point of principle.

The core problem of Zionism is not that it has somehow lately been captured by Israeli fascists. The problem is not Netanyahu or any other individual. The problem is that from its very inception Zionism was a racist and settler colonial program. The natural end point of such a project is genocide. As we are seeing before our eyes.

We must have the courage and knowledge to confront that truth head-on. And we expect anybody who wants to be a leader on the left to do the same.

Featured image via X

The scandal of Keir Starmer’s closest supporters spying inconvenient journalists rolls on – and the ‘mainstream’ media are finally paying attention.

The ‘Labour Together’ sabotage outfit undermined Labour’s general election campaign, brought down Jeremy Corbyn, and conned members into choosing Starmer to replace him. But it was also using undeclared donations to spy on journalists that threatened to expose its actions.

Starmer and his former chief of staff

The Canary first revealed months ago that Labour Together had paid investigators to spy on and intimidate author Paul Holden and former Mandela minister Andrew Feinstein. It was ignored by the ‘MSM’. But in February 2026 the group’s spying on two Murdoch journalists was exposed – and suddenly the corporate media took notice.

Labour Together was run by Starmer’s now-former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney then, when McSweeney moved into Starmer’s office, by Josh Simons. Simons is now a Starmer front-bencher – and reacted to the ‘news’ of the spying by saying he was “surprised” and “furious”. Unsurprisingly, his reaction was dishonest nonsense – he had personally participated in the smear campaign on the back of the spying by APCO, a company run by the wife of another disgraced Starmeroid.

The Guardian reported that despite being apparently “surprised” and “furious,” Simon:

had been personally involved in naming them to British intelligence officials and falsely linking them to pro-Russian propaganda.

Simon’s spokesperson told the Guardian the claims weren’t true. But, this time even the Guardian bothered to keep investigating, having seen emails written by SImon himself.

Labour Together shady work

A key plank of Labour Together’s attempt to nobble the journalists exposing it was to link them to establishment bugbear Russia. And, of course, Simons was personally involved in writing to British intelligence services falsely linking both the Murdoch hacks and – especially – Paul Holden to Russia. Holden was in the process of writing his landmark book The Fraud, which subsequently exposed Labour Together’s and Starmer’s dishonesty and dark tactics.

In January 2024, Simons received a 58-page report from APCO after paying the company £36,000 to spy on journalists. He then approached spy agency officials to accuse the journalists of a “coordinated effort to discredit” Labour Together” to undermine Starmer, and Holden of living with a woman with “suspected links to Russian intelligence”.

Every word that has been written about Labour Together has since been shown to be true.

The group’s contract with APCO promised the payment for:

a body of evidence that could be packaged up for use in the media in order to create narratives that would proactively undermine any future attacks on Labour Together.

Labour Together has also been shown to have been monitoring the Canary, which it had tried and failed to destroy – and Skwawkbox, which at the time was a separate site.

Starmer’s connections to such underhand tactics run deep. A firm run by his Israeli spy has also been exposed paying journalists to publish pro-Starmer content.

Read the Canary’s serialisation of Holden’s book here.

Featured image via the Canary

(Alamy)

4 min read1 hr

In new polling on the public mood around the NHS, published by the Prosperity Institute, maternity care was an issue of specific focus. The particular importance of the issue is obvious, given how significantly a couple’s or a mother’s experience of birth can touch their lives.

It is concerning then that a full half of the public are now, by instinct, worried about the state of NHS maternity care. Yet it is no surprise, given the sheer number of headlines about NHS trusts failing in this area. Back in September, the government announced that 14 NHS trusts in England were having their maternity services examined as part of a rapid review.

Behind the decision to review these trusts lie stories such as the death of nine babies at Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust between 2020-23 due to “missed opportunities”.

Such stories — as well as high-profile outliers, such as the Lucy Letby scandal — undoubtedly stick in the minds of current and prospective parents and are arguably an underappreciated factor in our declining birth rates, as people avoid or delay having children due to concerns about care.

Anxiety around childbirth is understandable, but it is damning that this anxiety is only reinforced and not assuaged by reality. The initial 50 per cent of worried voters rises to 59 per cent when pollsters share the facts of care.

What kind of facts could have this effect? There are plenty to choose from.

For instance, out of 131 NHS maternity units inspected by the Care Quality Commission between August 2022-24, not one was rated ‘outstanding’; 47 per cent were ‘requires ‘improvement’, and 18 per cent ‘inadequate’.

Another example: over the last decade, in 21st-century Britain, maternal mortality rates have increased by 20 per cent.

There is a surprising divide between the generations in attitudes to maternity care. Among 25 to 34 year olds — the group currently making most use of maternity services — 68 per cent think NHS maternity services are going well or very well. This contrasts with just 38 per cent of 45-54 year olds and 25 per cent of 65+ year olds.

One might imagine that older groups would have a better view of care, basing their views on memories of when they had their own children roughly 20-40 years ago, at a time before the decline in care that has marked the last decade and a half.

Younger women, by contrast, are those most exposed to current dysfunction and so should, one imagines, have a worse view of services. But older voters remain exposed to the system via younger relatives and can track the decline in standards. The young, however, have never known anything different.

Defenders of the health service may cite marked improvements for infants, such as rates of stillbirths, neonatal mortality, and perinatal mortality, all of which are significantly better than during the 1990s. However, these areas have plateaued since the 2010s despite peer nations continuing to improve, and there is a pervasive sense that although things may have improved for children, they have gotten worse for mothers. Older voters seem to have noticed this. This suggestion that more exposure leads to lower opinions of care is also borne out in the fact that 48 per cent of men think NHS care is going well, compared to just 37 per cent of women.

What do voters think needs to be done? A common trend across Prosperity’s new polling is that voters are rejecting the idea that the solution to NHS failures is simply more funding. 46 per cent instead blame poor management, with only 24 per cent blaming funding and only 9 per cent blaming staff.

Serious problems have bred serious concerns, and it seems that the public is willing to countenance serious solutions.

Rhys Laverty is Editorial and Research Director at the Prosperity Institute