xavierarnau via Getty Images

1. They may struggle with complex family dynamics

2. They may deal with family ‘hierarchies’

3. They may crave the attention they didn’t get growing up

Holger Leue via Getty Images

4, They may struggle to set boundaries

5. Or they may crave more connection

6. They may struggle to form an individual identity

middelveld via Getty Images

7. They may present with generational trauma

It was at 25-years-old that Kemi Badenoch joined the Conservative Party – for the partying. “Socialising, drinks, hanging out with other young people,” she recalls, and it was how she eventually met her husband, Hamish, at the Dulwich and West Norwood Conservative Club.

Two decades on, she is drafting policy for that same cohort and attempting to make the party’s youth wing – the Young Conservatives – fun again. The sort of thing a 25-year-old Kemi might actually have turned up to.

Over the weekend the party unveiled its New Deal for Young people, with Badenoch vowing to cut student loan interest and boost apprenticeships. The thinking, one Tory source insists, is not “cynical politics” but to “do what is right for the country”.

“Yes, young people are not our traditional voters but we have got to move away from thinking about whether this hits the core voter demographic with policy and instead focus on whether it deals with systemic issues.”

It builds on the back of other policies like scrapping stamp duty – and, I’m told, “you can expect more… our direction of travel speaks for itself”, with this referred to as only Step 1.

“We knew we were dealing with a tricky one given when Plan 2 came in but it demonstrates we  are not going to shy away from dealing with issues people are facing just because it happened under the old Tory Party. We are going to right some wrongs.”

Policy chief Neil O’Brien, who has had a big hand in the new approach, made as much clear when pressed by Sophy Ridge on Sky. Asked whether the original policy had been a mistake, he said yes – and that he would apologise to students burdened with loan debts.

A member of CCHQ source frames it more broadly: “It comes down to what the core values are that we hold true: aspiration, being a contributing member of society, having barriers to growth and opportunity removed – anything we see that get in the way of that, we’re going to go after.”

A forthcoming report from Next Gen Tories leans heavily on the same themes: aspiration, wealth creation – particularly housing and infrastructure – and community. The argument is that the party must offer more than a narrow economic pitch; it must articulate a case for civic life too.

Next Gen Tories’ James Cowling, tells me: “We’re massively heading in the right direction. Kemi’s recognised that we need to restore the link between hard work and rewards. The next big step is a serious plan for housing and infrastructure, which will make us the only serious party in UK politics.”

There has been increased engagement from CCHQ with the group around policy announcements like cutting student loan interest, and a sense that the party has understood the intellectual arguments for change.

As another Tory source tells me, there is a political incentive as “more in detail polling shows that high earners in their 30s and 40s are low hanging fruit” for the party to go after.

It is alongside this policy push that an effort has been made to reenergise the Young Conservatives, the party’s official youth section – 120 years since the party’s first youth wing was launched. One CCHQ staffer admits the organisation had “rather been abandoned”. When Fred Lynam – who works between CCHQ and Badenoch’s parliamentary office, and has been spearheading the latest efforts – checked the website earlier last year, it still featured photographs of former leader Rishi Sunak.

There are now signs of life: a newly formed national management executive held its first meeting earlier this month. Some branches – in Camden and Barnet, at UEA and in Norfolk – were already active, but there was little structure. Badenoch has made a point of engaging, attending London drinks and a pub event at conference. I’m told she “wants it to be fun”.

The age cap has been lifted from 25 to 30 to widen the pool. More resources and professional support are being channelled in from HQ. There is talk of changing the image to show that the YCs are populated by “normal people”.

A new committee has been formed, with Kevin Ghateh elected as the interim-chair. He tells me that “if it’s an environment full of young people, we want it to be that way – not pretend to be anything else,” hence throwing parties like their one at Christmas with DJs and karaoke, and an event this weekend where they have booked out a nightclub in Birmingham til 2am.

Hugo Rasenberg, the group’s comms and social media member, adds: “We want a cultural change within the organisation to make it open and accessible, not people turning up in a three-piece suit.”

He sees a chance to “seize the obvious gap in the market” politically. “Young people are more aspirational than ever,” Rasenberg says, “it has taken until the past 12 months for the party to wake up to that”.

Ghateh thinks there has been a “key difference in before and after” Badenoch took the reigns “when it comes to engagement with the YCs”.

“It’s definitely a good start. It has been quite rare for the party to actually be developing policy for young people. I just hope there’s more.”

Festus Akinbusoye was the Conservative Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner from 2021 to 2024.

The architectural serenity of Westminster offers a rare vantage point from which to observe the escalating friction defining modern London. While this borough where I live has maintained a commitment to fluid movement, our neighbours have succumbed to an orthodoxy that treats the city as a static laboratory rather than a vibrant economy.

The proliferation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) – especially in our poorest boroughs, has evolved from a well-intentioned environmental trial, into a religion of automated enforcement that disproportionately penalises those who can least afford the price of admission to our roads.

The human cost of this experiment is most visible in the levels of unpaid fines. Recent data published in the Telegraph reveals a deepening crisis of legitimacy in the capital, with barely 60 per cent of the Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for LTN infractions over the last five years being settled by motorists. This widespread non-compliance suggests that we are not witnessing a wave of casual lawbreaking, but rather a profound grassroots rejection and anger toward a policy that feels predatory rather than protective. For a delivery driver in a place like Newham where I grew up, or a tradesman in Tower Hamlets where I went to school – boroughs consistently ranked within the most deprived 10 per cent of local authorities in England; a single camera-generated fine could represent a significant portion of their daily take-home pay.

There is however an uncomfortable paradox at the heart of the “quiet streets” movement: the displacement of congestion from affluent residential enclaves onto the arterial boundary roads where the working poor reside and take buses.

Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, whose advocacy following the tragic death of her daughter Ella, has become a cornerstone of the clean air debate. She has rightly raised concerns, and warned that current LTN strategies risk becoming a whitewash if they merely move the problem around the corner, which they do. When traffic is funnelled onto main roads, it is the residents of social housing blocks and the commuters waiting at bus stops who inhale the concentrated fumes of idling vehicles.

The economic paralysis resulting from these barriers is quantifiable. The Tom Tom Traffic Index has consistently crowned London the slowest capital city in the world, with drivers losing up to 141 hours to congestion annually. It now takes an average of 3 minutes and 38 seconds to travel just 1km (0.6 miles) in central London. The worst period in 2025 was during the train strikes.

There is data also directly linking the slowdown in traffic in London to increasing installation of LTNs. It is however surprising to note efforts made by the Mayor’s office to suppress evidence which showed that LTNs did not reduce car use as was initially promised. I wonder why. Cars do not simply vanish from existence because of flower boxes installed on roads.

These disruptive schemes have devastating effects on the public transport network that the Mayor claims to champion. Data highlighted by the London Assembly Conservative Group shows that bus speeds have plummeted in areas where LTNs have been implemented without adequate mitigation; turning a simple cross-town journey into a gruelling endurance test for those with the patience of a biblical Job.

There is also a direct cost to the public purse for this. As bus journeys take longer due to congestion, passenger numbers are falling too. Why take a bus when you can get to your destination faster through other modes of travel? The Mayor is now subsiding London’s buses to the tune of £1.2 billion a year.

This is more than a transportation and ideological issue, it is also an assault on the social mobility of the capital. The “laptop class” may enjoy the newfound silence of their ‘walled’ cul-de-sacs, but the electrician navigating a labyrinth of bollards to reach a job site, or the night-shift nurse whose commute has doubled in distance is paying a hidden tax on their time and productivity.

Small businesses, already reeling from inflationary pressures, find their supply chains strangled and their customer footfall eroded by a design that treats the economy as an afterthought. Rather than pursuing a policy of managed immobility, we should be investing in the technological and natural solutions that provide clean air without social exclusion.

We must pivot from restrictive, punitive measures that disproportionately squeeze lower-income households toward a strategy built on common-sense and innovation. Instead of “barricaded zones” and daily fines, a truly progressive vision prioritises the rapid expansion of green canopies to act as natural carbon sinks and the roll-out of AI-driven traffic management to dissolve congestion without blocking trade. Investment in infrastructure for electric commercial fleets and making public transport much more reliable, safe, and efficient should be key areas of focus – not more LTNs.

The burgeoning rebellion on our streets from Hackney to Lambeth; Tower Hamlets to Ealing, and the mounting legal challenges against these schemes should serve as a warning to policymakers. People are fed up with all these punishing restrictions and punitive measures.

Enough is enough.

Bradley Fage is a Senior Researcher at City Hall Conservatives and a current School Governor.

New polling released last month reveals a striking and largely overlooked reality – the Conservative Party is now only the fifth most popular party among teachers. It is one of the most alarming political findings I have seen in years. The data suggests that a historic eight in ten teachers would vote for parties on the left of British politics, even Reform now poll ahead of the Conservatives.

For anyone who cares about the future of our education system, this should serve as a wake-up call.

For decades, teachers have overwhelmingly backed Labour and other left-wing parties. But this has not always been a simple left versus right narrative. In the late 1970s, around 60 per cent of primary teachers and 45 per cent of secondary teachers planned to vote for Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives. The profession was once far more politically competitive. These voters can be won back with the right policies for schools – and Labour’s offer has not kept pace.

Schools are facing their biggest challenges in a generation. There are more than 400 fewer full-time equivalent teachers than in 2023, over 100 private schools have closed since Labour’s “schools tax”, and recruitment and retention continue to deteriorate. At the same time, smartphones, social media, and online culture are reshaping classroom life at extraordinary speed. Behavioural standards are harder to maintain. Authority is more fragile. The demands on teachers grow year by year.

As a school governor and former chair, I have seen these pressures first hand. Conversations in governing body meetings are no longer just about improvement and aspiration, but about staffing gaps, budget strain and how to manage the growing complexity of pupil behaviour in a digital age.

And yet the political conversation feels strangely muted, with little in the way of decisive, practical solutions.

Teachers are not searching for ideology. They are searching for certainty, protection and policies that allow them to do their jobs well. That is where the Conservatives are beginning to make a serious case.

First, smartphones in schools. Constant access to devices undermines attention, disrupts lessons, and fuels behavioural problems. Years of non-binding Department for Education guidance have failed to shift the dial. Under the leadership of Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott, the Conservatives have backed a clear, enforceable smartphone ban – giving schools legislative backing rather than leaving heads and teachers to fight this battle alone. This is not about control for its own sake; it is about restoring calm, focus and authority in classrooms. Labour, by contrast, has largely sidestepped the issue, offering little beyond warm words for guidance that many teachers regard as ineffective.

Second, school autonomy. Labour’s proposed Schools Bill risks capping the size of successful schools, preventing popular and high-performing institutions from expanding while effectively steering pupils towards weaker alternatives. At a time when pupil numbers are falling and schools should be adapting flexibly to demand, this approach appears counterproductive. Conservatives have pushed back against such restrictions, defending the principle that good schools should be allowed to grow. Teachers want the freedom to lead thriving institutions without being suffocated by bureaucracy – and that freedom matters.

Finally, Labour’s decision to impose VAT on private schools – often described as the “schools tax” – risks destabilising the wider education system. Many teachers rely on private schools for additional employment, specialist training or professional collaboration. Early indications point to school closures and pupil displacement, placing additional strain on an already stretched state sector. A policy designed to draw political dividing lines does little to improve classroom conditions. Conservatives, by contrast, argue for strengthening the system without creating new pressures elsewhere.

The lesson is clear.

Teachers are not voting Conservative – not yet. But the argument for doing so is stronger now than at any point in a generation. While Labour and the Greens rely on historic loyalties and rhetorical positioning, Conservatives are advancing concrete proposals: enforceable rules on smartphones, protection for school autonomy, and maintaining private provision as a choice for parents and pupils.

For teachers, the choice is becoming less ideological and more practical. Which policies will make classrooms safer, schools stronger and the profession sustainable?

If you care about certainty in your classroom, freedom for your school and serious answers to the challenges education now faces, it may be time to reconsider old assumptions. The Conservative Party is no longer simply an alternative – it is positioning itself as the only party offering the clearest response to the problems teachers confront every day.

The Metro newspaper is owned by DMG Media, which is the same company that owns the Daily Mail. Unlike with the Daily Mail, DMG seems to have no confidence in the Metro’s ability to sustain an audience, which is why they give it out for free on public transport (making money via adverts).

Anyway, would you be surprised to learn that Metro put out a highly dubious story about the Green Party on 21 February?

Hi @brookesdavies1

I’m trying to locate a source for your claims about the Green Party advocating for primary school children to be taught to use drugs.

Ditto, the comment about linking up with cartels.

Advertisement

The best I can find is some unreferenced gossip from the Telegraph and an… https://t.co/EHGwg4FfuO

— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) February 22, 2026

Green party smears: are these journalists on drugs?

The reporter Brooke Davies describes herself as follows on the Metro site:

News reporter specialising in London-based stories, with a particular emphasis on crime, policing, prisons and justice.

According to her Twitter bio, Davies is also a stalwart of the sewer that is Mail Online.

In the opening section to the Metro article, reporter Davies writes:

The Green Party has called for primary school children to be taught how to safely consume drugs.

In their newly revealed policy proposals, the party, led by Zack Polanski, wants to legalise crack cocaine, heroin and date-rape drug GHB for recreational use.

They also want to create a ‘direct partnership’ between South American cartels to introduce a sustainable supply in the UK.

The policy also adds children ‘starting in primary school’ should be taught how to take drugs in Personal, Social and Health Education lessons, the Daily Mail reports.

Advertisement

The way the second paragraph is introduced suggests that teaching kids how to smoke rock is part of the “newly revealed policy proposals”. If that’s the case, they must have written this new policy using some sort of invisible ink.

Oh, and there’s something else too. The third line suggests the Green Party would seek to work with South American drug cartels. This obviously couldn’t happen, because these cartels are considered criminal enterprises in their home countries – i.e. any attempt to work with them would incite an international incident.

As you can see above, political commentator Don McGowan took issue with all this, writing:

I’m trying to locate a source for your claims about the Green Party advocating for primary school children to be taught to use drugs.

Ditto, the comment about linking up with cartels.

Advertisement

The best I can find is some unreferenced gossip from the Telegraph and an unnamed ‘Labour source’.

Please, could you let me know where this information came from? Genuine request.

Thank you.

He’s since followed up with this:

I asked for a source from Brookes Davies, but none was forthcoming, so I found it myself.

The quotes that she used in her piece about the [Green Party] drugs policy were from a local website belonging to the South Tyneside Greens in 2019.

Whether you are a Green voter or not, this type of underhand, dirty tricks journalism should have no place in politics.

Taking clearly out of date lines from a regional party website and passing them off as current is really manipulative.

Sitting alongside the Metro’s sister paper, the Daily Mail, their smear campaign yesterday announced that Hannah Spencer had a ‘£1.2 million property empire’.

Advertisement

This distraction and unproven headline is trying to push focus to Matt Goodwin.

Goodwin has been under huge pressure recently, with accusations of Russian money links and misogynistic and borderline fanatical ideas about women and their abilities to have children.

I digress, but it’s really important to know that these two mainstream media outlets are misleading the public.

I’m currently finishing an article about political influence in the media, and it couldn’t be more timely — the week of one of the most highly publicised by-elections in history.

Advertisement

Keep an eye out for that, but this is Brookes Davies’ source.

Unreliable? Yes.
Downright devious? Also, yes.

Drug deaths have risen every year for 13 years.

That’s 13 years of a failed “war on drugs”.

Labour should be looking at legalisation, control and regulation – not playing politics with people’s lives.

Advertisement

This is a public health crisis. Treat it like one. Not a game. pic.twitter.com/5jwmPgkY80

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) February 21, 2026

Drug wars

As we reported yesterday, it’s not just the media smearing the Greens on the issue of drugs; it’s also Reform and Labour:

Labour is asking you to imagine what it must be like to live in a country where drugs are plentiful and easy to get hold of. The problem is we already live in a country where drugs are plentiful and easy to get hold of.

Also:

There’s an obvious parallel to all this, and it’s the Prohibition Era in the United States. During that time, they made it illegal for citizens to drink alcohol. Did that stop people drinking?

No, of course not.

But it did give organised crime access to fast, easy cash, and this is precisely what’s happened here with drugs.

Drug laws have never stopped people from using drugs.

They’ve stopped people from using drugs safely.

It’s time to legalise *and* regulate. https://t.co/5gQgR1yf5l

Advertisement

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) February 2, 2026

And we added:

To be clear, the Greens aren’t saying you should be able to buy smack from a vending machine. They’re proposing a system in which drugs are treated seriously, but are available for people to partake of in a controlled fashion. Under Keir Starmer, you can buy crack from a guy called ‘Spez’ and OD under a motorway bridge.

Which sounds more grown up to you?

Unfortunately, the British establishment is allergic to acknowledging the decades-long failures they oversaw. And because they know their arguments don’t hold up, they smear, and smear, and smear.

Featured image via Barold

A coalition of independent beauty brands is uniting against corporate giants whose profit-first mentality is hurting consumers. They’ve called out these behemoths for pedalling “ultra-processed” beauty products, viewing this as analogous to highly processed fast food. They insist consumers deserve better.

Independent beauty brands Neve’s Bees, Lyonsleaf, Husk & Seed, Shade All-Natural Sunscreen, have teamed up with the sustainability-focused media platform Live Frankly to spotlight toxic products under the ‘clean girl’ aesthetic. They are doing this as part of their new campaign, launched today.

The independents skin care providers aren’t alone in this mission. We wrote about Lush’s products and their diligent use of natural ingredients and zero-tolerance policy toward chemicals. Others are likely to follow suit.

‘Clean beauty’

Live Frankly aim to expose the cocktail of chemicals hidden in skin care regimes, arguing the the world is abandoning ‘clean beauty’ for a ‘scientifically-minded’ approach. While ingredients like peptides, retinol, and hyaluronic acid are touted for their benefits, Live Frankly points out that “science” has been reduced to a marketing tool with benefits falsely exaggerated.

In an open letter to the industry as part of their campaign, which launches today, they wrote:

These ingredients are not just being marketed as effective, but as essential for anti-aging. Anti-aging being the indisputable goal since before the dawn of early commercial beauty brands, when both Elizabeth Arden and her rival Helena Rubinstein preyed on women’s fear of aging, with Rubinstein reportedly telling the press in 1930: “Women have a duty to keep young.”

Women have faced relentless pressure to look a certain way and never age. Often, they feel anxious and confused about where to start. This campaign reminds us that health comes before beauty – and that health itself is beautiful.

Live Frankly spoke with Emma Dawes of the Soil Association for her perspective:

I disagree with that word anti-aging, everybody ages and it shouldn’t be looked upon negatively.

So, my personal view might be different to what the cosmetic industry or the Soil Association view could be, but I would say these ingredients have some functions, but maybe not as much as brands make out.

Advertisement

They state that one brand particularly notorious for this is the Ordinary, whose ‘ethos’ tagline is “Grounded in science. Driven by purpose.”

Their bestselling serum, Hyaluronic Acid 2% + B5 (with Ceramides), for example, is proven to target signs of aging and claims to deliver instant and
long-lasting hydration. Their testing shows results over four weeks – on 32 people.

Referring to the Ordinary’s well received ‘Periodic Fable’ – a parody of the scientific table that claims ‘dispel common beauty myths’ – chemist Julie Macken of Neve’s Bees describes it as a crafty market ploy.

A scientific table with zero science’, as it says in its heading, is exactly what it is. It’s very clever marketing but it’s also
faux-transparency and a smokescreen for all the ingredients they’re not talking explicitly about. I feel like
that little boy shouting ‘But, the emperor’s got no clothes on!’ Why can’t anyone else see this?’.

Choose water-free skincare

To combat false advertising, the Live Frankly-backed campaign educates consumers on what their true skin needs, as protection against the allure of glitzy marketing campaigns. They draw attention to underhanded practices such as the bacteria-promoting preservatives, emulsifiers, and stabilisers big beauty brands use in their products – effectively diluting them to maximise profits.

In their letter, Live Frankly write:

The impacts of preservatives are still being discovered, but so far Parabens have been linked to hormone malfunction, obesity, and possibly increased risk of breast cancer.
Plus, when applied to skin, preservatives don’t differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ bacteria, so they are likely to compromise the skin’s microbiome. Just like a healthy gut, a healthy skin microbiome is said to help your immune system and defend against inflammation, irritation, and conditions like eczema.

The microbiome is also impacted by the emulsifiers that are required to blend oil and water and thickeners to create desirable textures. Other additives include fragrance stabilisers such as phthalates, which mimic human hormones and are linked to fertility issues, early puberty, and some cancers.

These “can and are likely to be derived from petrochemicals,” explains Dawes. They can interfere with natural oils and disrupt the barrier, leaving skin prone to dehydration and environmental stressors.

To combat this in a much simpler way for consumers, this group of forward-thinking beauty brands recommend one thing. Specifically, they advise consumers to avoid those with water in the ingredients:

If your skin constantly dries out, no matter how religiously you moisturise, then the problem could be your ultra-processed skincare products. Not you or your skin.

At this point, we could list ingredients to avoid but we’ve done that before. Let’s be honest, it’s a long list and deciphering ingredients listed on creams pretty much requires a chemistry degree.

Advertisement

So what if, instead of reading labels, there was a simpler option? One approach is to look for water-free skincare products. When brands don’t add water, they don’t need preservatives, emulsifiers or stabilisers. When it comes to moisturisers and sunscreen, this usually means choosing a balm, salve or oil rather
than a cream or lotion.

As women, we’re tired of walking down the beauty aisle feeling confused, overwhelmed, and unsure of what’s worth our money.

In the middle of a cost-of-greed crisis, every purchase counts. We work hard for our money and deserve real value — not clever marketing and over processed formulas. We’ve learned to be mindful about the food we put in our bodies, so it’s time we extended the same care to what we put on our skin.

Featured image via the Canary

Keir Starmer’s Labour Party have been accused of anti-semitism as a result of their latest Green Party smear:

official Labour account now caricaturing a Jewish rival as a sinister svengali type. https://t.co/ysOf5SKGhd pic.twitter.com/5GX6ynNzYw

— bat020 (@bat020) February 22, 2026

There are some complexities to this, but one thing is clear: if Labour had portrayed a Jewish politician like this under Jeremy Corbyn, the British media would have covered it 24 hours a day for a year.

Svengali

The commenter above points to the Wikipedia Svengali article, which carries the following image of an actor playing the character:

Svengali was an evil Jewish hypnotist, with the highlighted Wikipedia article noting:

Svengali is a character in the novel Trilby which was first published in 1894 by George du Maurier. Svengali is a Jewish man who seduces, dominates and exploits Trilby, a young orphan girl working in Paris, and makes her into a famous singer.

Additionally:

In the novel, Svengali transforms Trilby into a great singer by using hypnosis. Unable to perform without Svengali’s help, Trilby becomes entranced.

This is how History Today describe the character:

Svengali is one of those rare literary creations that becomes shorthand for a kind of behaviour: in this case, mesmeric control over another.

So here’s the thing; Zack Polanski was actually a hypnotist. As such, there’s an argument to be made that people should be able to portray him as a stereotypical hypnotist, even if it does resemble an anti-semitic caricature.

Here’s the other thing; between 2015 and 2019, the British establishment decided anything which even remotely looked like anti-semitism should be treated as the gravest hate crime of the century.

Now, the media is churning out stuff like this:

This caricature of Zack Polanski in the daily mail is pretty fucking dodgy isn’t it? pic.twitter.com/cVbzkWWwAO

— Godspeed You Black Tamperer (ft Maya) (@twlldun) December 29, 2025

And Reform are knocking out images like this:

#Reform in #Brighton have posted, reposted and spread this #Antisemitic meme, in reference to @ZackPolanski, a Jewish man, which is clearly directly based on a #Nazi poster from 1937.

Comments welcome from anyone wanting to defend #Reform using actual #Nazi propaganda. pic.twitter.com/nxfzIc5sv3

— John O’Connell (@jdpoc) November 3, 2025

Shameful

We said in the Corbyn years that the media and Labour right were using concocted anti-semitism smears to attack the anti-Zionist movement.

Now, the people we warned you about have made it crystal clear; they never cared about anti-semitism beyond their ability to use it as a cudgel.

Featured image via X

Content warning – this article discusses domestic and sexual violence. Reader discretion is advised.

Dean Lewis has blocked journalists across his social media accounts for covering the growing number of abuse allegations against him. Meanwhile, he is refusing to refund fans who, understandably, no longer wish to attend his shows.

Island Records Australia dropped Lewis from their roster, meaning he is now an independent artist.

But despite this, the US leg of his tour resumed on January 5 in Salt Lake City, Utah. This is after he postponed it last year due to illness.

Since then, hundreds more women and girls have come forward on social media with a wide range of abuse allegations. From domestic abuse and sexual assault to messaging underage girls with extreme content – it has become clear that Lewis has an ever-growing raft of allegations against him.

Previously, an insider who worked closely with Dean Lewis told the Canary that Island Records Australia covered up accusations about him grooming young fans. The people closest to Lewis then attempted to silence the women with cease-and-desist letters.

Dean Lewis avoiding fans

Now, his team are denying hundreds of fans refunds.

He also turned off the resale option on Ticketmaster. This allows fans to resell tickets if they can no longer attend a gig, and is used by most artists.

@nathalie.maaria he’s not sorry it happened, he’s sorry the public found out‼️ #canceled #deanlewis #statement #foryou #viral ♬ original sound – Aster

According to the BBC:

In cases where allegations have been made against an artist, consumers are not legally entitled to their money back. Ticket holders would only be entitled to a refund if the organiser cancels, moves or reschedules the event.

However, in similar cases in the past when there have been allegations of abuse or misconduct, artists have postponed or even cancelled their tours.

TikTok videos show that Ticketmaster have now partially refunded some fans’ meet-and-greet experiences with Lewis. This is because the VIP package changed. This means it no longer includes the intimate pre-show performance, Q&A session, and the group photo with Dean.

Essentially, Dean appears to be avoiding one-on-one or small-group interactions with fans. I wonder why that might be, Dean?

@strangercakes It’s the fall of an empire… #deanlewisdrama #deanlewistour #deanlewis #refund @evie rose @Truthtok ♬ original sound – N3RO

One fan told the Canary that after publicly showing support for Dean’s victims, he blocked her, and then she quickly received an email telling her that her tickets for his upcoming show had been cancelled.

She told the Canary:

Fans of Dean Lewis have been blocked and received messages saying our tickets are no longer valid.

It made me feel very very sad.

I truly barely said anything on the situation other than being sad and for people to stop bashing the girls so I don’t know why I got removed.

Another fan, who received two similar emails, told the Canary:

We thought we got refunded for the shows. AXS still aren’t doing refunds, but I think we got blacklisted from the shows. Me, [name redacted] and [name redacted] all got refunds last night. We had previously requested refunds, but they told us no. So we didn’t request them again.

I had a ticket for Denver, and two days ago I got this email and it said my order has been cancelled , sorry for any inconvenience. Which means they’ve realised I bought a ticket.

Advertisement

I think they thought I was gonna show up and blacklisted me. One of the girls has never even posted anything about the situation, but he knows shes friends with us.

She had her tickets cancelled for both Los Angeles and Denver.

Proving his guilt

Whilst covering this story, I realised that Dean Lewis had blocked me on both TikTok and Instagram. This is after I previously covered the allegations against him:

But it’s not just me – Dean (or his team!) is blocking hundreds of former fans for speaking out, questioning his behaviour, and even just showing support for his victims.

@tpwk_mikaela Let’s see how many people he will block today #deanlewis #canceled #blocked #fyp #fypシ ♬ Piano famous song Chopin Deep deep clear beauty – RYOpianoforte

It seems that Lewis is afraid that he can no longer control the narrative, after his pathetic excuse of a statement in November.

@truthfulparody Blocking fans, ticket holders and journalists?🤪 Unfortunately for Dean Lewis he can’t control the narrative and delete or block the “comment section” in person at his upcoming shows which are starting tomorrow 🤯 #foryou #trendingnow #deanlewis #viral #tour ♬ original sound – Wildlinglady

Incriminating himself

The Canary put these allegations to Dean Lewis and his team, and the response we received was nothing short of damning.

They specifically requested that we publish the whole email response. However, in order to do that, we would be breaking several UK defamation laws.

The response starts by questioning my own journalistic credentials:

While you are not known to us professionally, we are fully aware of you personally, including your former status as an enthusiastic fan of Dean Lewis and your close association with [name redacted] and others now acting in concert with her.

Any suggestion that your approach to Mr Lewis is neutral or journalistic is noted and firmly rejected.

I am a gold-standard NCTJ-qualified journalist with a Masters (distinction) in journalism. It included several media law exams – which means Dean Lewis, you (and your money) do not scare me.

The Canary is not a ‘neutral’ news organisation – it never has been. We stand in solidarity with victims, survivors, and all those who have experienced injustice. We do not bow down to the rich, powerful, or self-righteous people who think they can throw their money and weight around to silence victims.

The response then goes on to say:

You will not be surprised to learn that we have been monitoring [name redacted] activities for some time. Her recent conduct — facilitated and amplified by your correspondence — constitutes a coordinated campaign of harassment, defamation, and tortious interference, among others. The conduct also appears to breach multiple platform policies and applicable laws across several jurisdictions. As such, we have retained an international legal team and are actively preserving evidence.

But here’s the thing – it’s only harassment and defamation when it’s not true. And the Canary has seen the evidence – the screenshots, the texts, the photos of injuries, the obsession with having young girls call him ‘daddy’. We don’t publish hearsay; we publish facts which we can back up.

If your response when young women accuse you of violence is to go on the attack and cry harassment – I think I can see where the problem is.

It continues:

In recent months, [name redacted] has cultivated a substantial social-media following [social media handle redacted] by publishing salacious and unverified allegations concerning Mr Lewis and profited from it, before subsequently removing and republishing materially similar content via alternate burner accounts. This blatant bait-and-switch strategy is designed to aggregate followers, propagate false narratives, evade platform enforcement, and profit from calculated reputational harm. Your participation in this ecosystem is noted.

The reality is that the aforementioned social media users (and several others) published voice recordings, texts, and photos from Lewis. They then received cease-and-desist letters, which the Canary has seen. The social media users in question then temporarily removed or hid social media posts until they had taken legal advice.

We have removed the next paragraph of their response because it contains unverified claims and is potentially defamatory.

Threatening the Canary

The response ends:

In response to your questions: you are free to publish as you see fit, entirely at your own risk and that of your publication. Relevant individuals at The Canary have been copied for their awareness.

We formally request that this letter be published in full alongside any article. In any event, we expressly reserve all rights, including the right to publish this correspondence independently ourselves and to rely upon it in any legal or regulatory proceedings without further notice.

Sincerely,

Dean Lewis Management Team

I think that was a threat to both the Canary and me.

Any defamation trial would involve us providing the evidence that our claims are “substantially true” – so try your luck. At least you can’t lose your AirPods in a prison cell.

Feature image via Cera/Unsplash