Politics
Charlotte Salomon: The Conservatives are right to defend childhood online and draw the line at 16
Charlotte Salomon has worked in political communications, and was a Conservative candidate at the 2024 Election she is now studying for the bar.
We have built a comforting story around the idea of “digital natives”.
Teenagers, we’re told, are born into technology. They understand it instinctively. They are quicker, sharper, more adaptable than the adults trying to supervise them. And so we reassure ourselves that parents can manage it at home, that the state should keep out, that young people will figure it out.
It is an attractive argument. Some say it’s a Conservative one. I disagree.
Being a digital native does not mean being digitally protected. It does not mean understanding how data is harvested, how algorithms profile behaviour, or how consent operates in law.
Fluency is not comprehension. And confidence is not consent.
That is where this debate really starts.
Kemi Badenoch is right to argue that under-16s should not be on social media. It is no surprise that public support is growing. But beneath the surface of this debate lies something deeper that we cannot afford to ignore. This is not just about screen time, culture, or whether teenagers spend too many hours indoors. It is about data. It is about law. And it is about whether we are prepared to keep pretending that children are giving “informed consent” to systems they do not, and cannot, truly understand.
When Parliament set the digital age of consent at 13 under the Data Protection Act 2018, it chose the lowest age permitted under Article 8 of the UK GDPR. Thirteen. From that birthday onwards, a child can legally consent to the processing of their personal data by online services without parental involvement.
At the time, this was presented as pragmatic. Children were already online. The law needed to reflect reality. But the digital world of 2018 is not the digital world of 2026. And even then, we were asking the wrong question.
Under UK GDPR, consent must be “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous.” That is not a soft standard. It requires an individual to understand what data is collected, how it is used, who it is shared with, and what rights they retain.
Now ask yourself honestly: when was the last time you read a privacy policy in full? (No judgment). Consent fatigue is real, and all of us have succumbed to it at one time or another.
Now picture a 13-year-old inside an ecosystem engineered around infinite scroll, dopamine spikes, dark patterns, loot boxes, manufactured FOMO and relentless peer validation.
If we are going to talk seriously about social media and the online world, we have to understand the wider architecture of data-driven design. These platforms are not neutral public squares. They are commercial systems engineered to maximise engagement, harvest behavioural data and refine algorithmic targeting.
Children do not just use these platforms. They are manipulated to generate value for them.
They provide data they knowingly share: names, photos, messages. They emit data traces they never see: location metadata, device fingerprints, patterns of behaviour. And most significantly, they become the subject of inferred data created through algorithmic profiling. That is where the real power lies. Platforms do not simply observe behaviour. They model it. They predict it. They shape it. They monetize it.
A 13-year-old cannot meaningfully assess what it means for an AI system to construct a long-term psychological profile about them, one that influences what content they see, which products they are shown, which insecurities are targeted and which emotional triggers are most effective.
That is not informed consent. It is behavioural modelling at scale, wrapped in a tick box.
And here is where we find a deeper inconsistency in our laws.
Under contract law, minors lack full capacity. We recognise that a child should not be bound into complex commercial arrangements because they may not understand the implications.
In medical law, we go further still. We do not rely purely on age. We assess maturity under the principle of Gillick competence. We test whether there is real understanding.
Yet online, we allow a 13-year-old to bind themselves to opaque data processing agreements longer than most mortgage documents.
Why is digital autonomy treated as less serious than medical autonomy?
The uncomfortable answer is economic. Data is profitable. Children are valuable markets. Capture attention early and you shape habits that can last a lifetime. And the most dangerous part is that it is largely invisible. Data extraction does not look like harm. Algorithms do not arrive with warning labels. There is no obvious moment of damage, no visible bruise.
But after a while, the consequences begin to surface. Rising anxiety. Broken sleep. Thinning attention spans. Children who feel constantly watched, compared and judged. The NHS has opened clinics for gaming disorders. Schools report collapsing concentration. Parents describe children who simply cannot disengage.
We are getting something wrong.
It is to the Conservatives’ credit that this is now being confronted directly. Kemi Badenoch’s position recognises something simple and profoundly conservative: childhood is a protected category in British law. We draw lines around it. We set boundaries. We accept that some freedoms require maturity. So, where is everyone else?
Yes, some will call this paternalistic. But we are paternalistic in every serious area of childhood. We regulate. We set age limits. We draw lines. We do it because we understand developmental reality. We should do it here because we understand technological reality too.
The Conservative pledge to ban social media for under-16s is not radical. It is responsible. It is not nanny state politics. It is proportionate, measured, and in step with international peers. And it restores coherence to a legal framework that currently rests on a polite fiction.
A serious country protects its children. Not just in the physical world, but in the digital one too.
If we cannot draw a boundary around childhood online, then we have quietly decided that profit matters more than protecting children.
That is not a conservative position. And it is not one we should accept.
Led by Donkeys activists have turned the gardens in front of Buckingham Palace into a memorial to Virginia Giuffre, the best-known survivor of serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein was close to former prince Andrew. He and, especially, his enabler and fellow Israel asset Ghislaine Maxwell were frequent guests at the palace, often off the books and bypassing security.
Justice activists and the public have been highly critical of the Windsor family’s slowness to act against Andrew and only then when forced to by revelations from documents from the official investigation into Epstein. The family paid a significant amount to keep his crimes out of the public view. Andrew was arrested on his birthday in February 2026 for leaking sensitive information to Epstein – but not for his alleged crimes against trafficked girls and women.
Giuffre is officially supposed to have died by suicide at her home in Australia, shortly after a mysterious car accident. Her family and others have pointed out holes in that story. She said publicly in 2019 that she would never choose suicide. No doubt the presence of her likeness and story outside the palace is something Charles and his minders will not welcome.
One of the creators of the installation said:
She’s wasn’t here to see the arrest of Prince Andrew, but don’t let the world EVER forget Virginia Giuffre.
Former prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein tried to silence and SMEAR her. But she demanded justice against her abusers. She NEVER gave in.
So we just installed this right outside Buckingham Palace. Welcome to the Virginia Giuffre Memorial Garden.
Featured image via Instagram
Professional victim Nigel Farage is whining that Reform’s recent loss in Gorton and Denton is the result of cheating. Never mind for the moment that Manchester is historically a left-wing heartland, whilst Farage’s party is on the far right. It was definitely cheating though.
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, the Reform leader is still banging on about alleged family voting in Gorton and Denton. Now, however, he’s also accusing overseas voters from the Commonwealth as having tipped the by-election.
Meanwhile, Hannah Spencer MP – the Green’s victorious by-election candidate – has accused Farage of emulating his hero Trump in crying election fraud. Which, let’s be honest here, is clearly what’s happening.
Farage is a Poundland Trump
Writing for the upstanding British fascist’s newspaper of choice, Farage began:
For years, I warned of the looming threat of sectarian voting. Naturally, of course, I was derided by the political establishment and accused of spouting outrageous hyperbole.
My generation grew up witnessing the violent horrors of sectarianism in Northern Ireland and the impact it had.
But most believed it could never come to England.
That was until the last general election, when four pro-Gaza Independent MPs were elected to Parliament. Then, finally, everybody woke up to those dangers.
This is almost so brilliant that I don’t know where to start. First, on a purely historical note, sectarianism is a centuries-old fixture of English political life. Those monasteries didn’t dissolve themselves now, did they?
Even limiting the scope to Northern Ireland-related sectarianism, that also very famously came to England.
But Farage isn’t actually talking about sectarianism, is he? Rather, Farage is talking about Muslims; he’s just too much of a weasel to say it directly. We can see this from his definition of sectarianism being ‘some MPs are pro-Gaza now’.
(Quick reminder – Israel is still committing genocide, and the UK has a legal duty to oppose it).
‘Let’s be frank’: he made it up
The Reform leader acknowledged that his tantrum would be “viewed as sour grapes”. However, he bravely soldiered on:
What happened last Thursday at the Gorton and Denton by-election, in which the Green Party emerged victorious in a historically Labour stronghold, was the most glaring example yet of what happens if we’re not careful about the impact of mass immigration and the legitimacy of those who can vote in our elections.
Because let’s be frank: Reform UK won the Gorton and Denton by-election among British-born voters.
Absolutely fucking incredible. An extraordinary claim, given that Farage hopefully hasn’t seen a breakdown of the votes by demographic. You know, given that that would be a deeply illegal violation of voter anonymity.
So what is it that makes the Reform leader so certain? Well, he explains:
What makes me so certain of saying this is that the raw figures are so stark: 10 per cent of the overall constituency were born in Pakistan. […]
There were 14 wards that made up the constituency and in ten of them, more than 20 per cent of people were born abroad.
In one ward, Longsight, 48 per cent of the population are foreign-born.
Yes, that’s roughly how many people in these areas weren’t born in the UK. But Farage’s claim was about how they voted. You don’t think he might be… making things up about people from other countries, do you? What kind of person would do something like that?
Commonwealth voting
Farage then swings around to his unexpected new pet peeve: the British Empire:
But the issue that is most astonishing, and, frankly, is not discussed enough, is the right for Commonwealth citizens to vote in UK elections. […]
If you come into this country from a Commonwealth nation such as Pakistan, provided you can prove that you normally reside at a property within a constituency, through Commonwealth rights you get the right to vote.
As a result, the thousands of those who voted Green last Thursday are not actually British citizens.
Again, absolutely fascinating claim. I’d love to know where Farage got all of his data about who voted for the Greens, and by what means. The source needs reporting to the Electoral Commission.
Family voting, again
Farage also swung back to complaining about “extraordinarily dishonest behaviour” in polling stations:
Democracy Volunteers, a group of election observers who check that voting processes are being followed correctly, claimed last week that in 68 per cent of the polling stations they surveyed in Gorton and Denton, they witnessed what they described as ‘family voting’.
This is a process where people are walking into booths with their relatives, many of whom speak little or no English, and watch over them as they vote for the ‘right’ candidate.
Make no mistake: This practice must be outlawed.
This practice was outlawed, three years ago. It was called the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. It’s one of the reasons why groups like Democracy Volunteers monitor polling stations.
Now, if family voting is happening, it needs to be taken seriously. However, there’s a few problems with Farage’s claim here.
First and foremost, Democracy Volunteers made absolutely no claims about the alleged family voting being among Muslims. Nor, for that matter, did they claim that the votes went to the Greens. Farage has, once again, jumped to the conclusion that Muslims are doing illegal things with absolutely no basis.
Second, if sectarianism is such an issue, why would all of these supposedly hyper-conservative Muslims force their families to vote for a left-wing woman from a party led by a gay Jewish bloke? After all, all the Reform candidate ever did was claim Muslims are terrorist sympathisers. Surely he deserved the Muslim vote?
And third, it’s odd that Democracy Volunteers’ claims of family voting were flatly contradicted by the polling station staff themselves.
Wannabe Trump-lite prick
Meanwhile, the Green’s newest MP – Hannah Spencer – called Farage’s pathetic display out for what it is:
Everyone’s vote is equal. Farage today is talking racist nonsense and is trying to sound like his hero Donald Trump who also tried to deny the results of an election he lost.
Farage doesn’t even know who voted for Reform, it’s a secret ballot and he spent hardly any time in the constituency. Farage has insulted the people of my constituency by saying people who voted Green don’t work. We won by appealing to everyone, including Reform voters, and his party were shown the door.
Farage is blatantly laying the groundwork to claim that future elections have been stolen. It’s the same tactic that his mate Trump used to incite the January 6th Capitol riot.
Utterly specious claims of electoral fraud are a method of voter suppression. Once you can make the public doubt the democratic process, you can throw out any election result that doesn’t suit you.
This tactic is, at its heart, fascist. It’s cheap, it’s dirty, and it’s Nigel Farage all over – pathetic little Trump fanboy that he is.
Featured image via the Canary
The General Medical Council (GMC) is continuing its shameful collusion with the Israel lobby by again trying to remove the medical licence of British-Palestinian surgeon Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah.
For the 11th time.
In January 2026, Abu-Sittah defeated the tenth attempt by UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) and the GMC to have him struck off. UKLFI has been described as one of the two main Israel lobby “apartheid apologist” groups, alongside front-group ‘CAA’. His supposed ‘offence’ has been to speak out about what he saw as a volunteer doctor in Gaza: Israel’s genocide, war crimes, and the suffering, injury and death of its Palestinian victims.
This, according to UKLFI and the GMC, discriminated against his Jewish patients – itself a grossly antisemitic claim given the prevalence of Jewish people among opponents of Israel’s crimes.
‘Politically acceptable’ harassment
But the GMC, to its indelible disgrace, has now appealed the tribunal’s decision to dismiss its tenth attack. This is forcing Abu-Sittah to again crowdfund for legal costs – this time estimated to be around £150,000. He said of the GMC’s decision:
When the MPTS rejected the allegations, I felt that a two-year period of continuous harassment and attempts to undermine my credibility, including my evidence before the ICC and ICJ, had finally come to an end.
What the GMC is saying is that it will keep going until it gets the decision it deems politically acceptable.
The significant cost of pursuing this appeal, borne by fee-paying GMC members, raises serious questions about the degree of external political pressure being exerted on the regulator.
I do not, and have never, supported violence against civilians. The allegations made against me were rejected by the tribunal and, in my view, form part of a broader attempt to discredit my professional and humanitarian work.
He added that he has received an “outpouring of support” from Jewish colleagues.
McCarthyite foreign interest group
UKLFI, whose name makes clear it serves the interests of a foreign power, has attacked everything from a display of plates painted by Palestinian children to Netflix — is well known for its attempts to suppress pro-Palestinian speech and solidarity, particularly in the NHS and in the media-cultural sector.
It recently intimidated a gallery owner into ending a smash-hit art show.
UKLFI has forced the resignation of a university museum director for daring to host a display by technical experts who exposed Israeli lies during the genocide.
Despite being thoroughly discredited, the genocide-shielding group UK Lawyers for Israel still managed to persuade the General Medical Council to pursue a lawfare-style antisemitism complaint against Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah.
The surgeon has incensed Israel’s apologists by…
— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) March 2, 2026
It tried to force Tower Hamlets Council in London to take down Palestinian flags put up by residents in solidarity with Gaza, by claiming that local Jewish residents felt threatened.
Along with its fellow apartheid apologist group, the so-called ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ (CAA), UKLFI has fallen foul of regulators. CAA has been subjected to regulatory action for its political smears and humiliated in court for false accusations against comedian Reginald D Hunter. UKLFI is currently being investigated for vexatious threats.
Featured image via the Canary
The latest season of Bridgerton has received widespread praise for its touching coming out scene, which sees Benedict opening up to Sophie about his sexuality.
Luke Thompson’s character was confirmed to be queer during the show’s third run, where he was seen engaging in trysts with both men and women.
Benedict is Bridgerton’s first openly queer lead character, and his coming out scene took the show’s writers into new territory.
“I am capable of caring for you, just as I have cared for women I have known who are of the Ton,” he told Yerin Ha’s character, Sophie, in season four’s sixth episode, which premiered on Netflix last week.
“Just as I have cared for some men whom I have known intimately,” he added. “And I refuse to be at all ashamed about that.”
Since the episode’s release, showrunner Jess Brownell has explained why it was “hugely important” to her that this scene be included.
“I think any queer person knows that no matter who you end up with, queerness is a part of your identity,” Jess told Business Insider. “It never goes away. And I think one of the messages of this show every season is that the only way to truly be loved is to be your true self.”
After Benedict’s coming out, Sophie assures him: “Love is always a thing to be proud of. The world needs more of it.”
But to Jess, there was never any doubt about how the character would react.
“Sophie is someone who’s been through so much and has lived in the downstairs world and been friends with people of all different classes,” she claimed. “And I do think she’s probably encountered people of different sexualities.”
Before the series was released, Jess stressed that it was “really important” to her that Benedict’s queerness remain a key part of his character, including after he began to pursue a romantic relationship with a woman.
“There is a really harmful and untrue stereotype that bisexual men are actually just gay men. More often, we see bisexual men ending up in media in homosexual-presenting relationships,” Jess told Variety last year.
“And it felt fresh and important to see a bisexual man ending up in a heterosexual-presenting relationship and still owning the fact that he is still queer.”
Benedict is not the only queer character in the world of Bridgerton.
Jess has previously said that Hannah Dodd’s Francesca will enter a same-sex relationship in a future season.
At the end of Bridgerton’s third outing, Francesca is introduced to her husband John’s female cousin, Michaeala Stirling.
Fans of Julia Quinn’s Bridgerton book series will know that in the novels, this character is written as a man called Michael, with whom Francesca finds love after John suddenly dies.
However, he has been gender-swapped for the TV adaptation, with Michaela being played by Masali Baduza.
All four seasons of Bridgerton are available to watch on Bridgerton now.
Rachel Reeves looked as though she was enjoying herself as she took aim at Labour’s political opponents while delivering her Spring Statement.
With no new policies to announce, the chancellor decided to use a decent chunk of her time at the despatch box attacking Reform UK, the Conservatives and the Green Party.
“The Tories left our country, our people and our allies exposed: They had no plan and no intention to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence,” she said.
“Reform would go one step further by ditching our allies and siding with Russia, while the Green Party wants to take us out of Nato and jeopardise our alliances.
“So let me be clear: It is Labour and only Labour that can provide social justice, national security and fiscal responsibility.”
In another section, she dismissed Reform as “a Tory tribute act” following the defections of the likes of Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman.
“They may have changed the colour of their rosettes, but the British people won’t forget that they are the exact same people that wrecked our public services and wrecked our public finances in the last Tory government,” she said.
“The same people, the same policies and the same disastrous outcomes for working people.”
But behind the political knockabout, the chancellor must know that the fate of the UK economy – and perhaps even the Labour government – depends on the outcome of the latest war in the Middle East.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) may have forecast that inflation will come down, but that was before the US and Israel’s bombing of Iran sparked an energy crisis which has seen gas prices soar in the past 48 hours.
If that ends up feeding through into people’s bills, Labour will pay a huge political price.
The same goes for the OBR’s forecasts on economic growth, as well as government borrowing and national debt.
A prolonged conflict in the Middle East, and the accompanying economic turmoil which would ensue, would blow another huge hole in the already-stretched public finances.
With unemployment set to be higher than expected this year and the tax burden set to hit another post-war high, yet more economic uncertainty is the last thing the chancellor needs.
“This government has the right economic plan for our country,” Reeves insisted.
“A plan that is even more important in a world that in the last few days has become yet more uncertain.
“With the unfolding conflict in Iran and the Middle East, it is incumbent on me and on this government to chart a course through that uncertainty, to secure our economy against shocks and protect families from the turbulence that we see beyond our borders.”
She may have talked a good game, but the chancellor knows that events thousands of miles away have the potential to destroy her economic plans and plunge the government into political crisis they may not recover from.
Israel’s ground invasion of Lebanon appears to be underway as US-Israeli aggression threatens to pull the entire region into open war. Israel mobilised 100,000 reservists on 2 March and issued threats to civilians. Hezbollah, their primary adversary in southern Lebanon, has said the age of patience is over.
Hezbollah is a Shia political party and paramilitary force. It is distinct from the Lebanese army and has seats in the country’s parliament. The US and Israel launched unprovoked attacks on Iran on 28 February. Hezbollah is a regional ally of the Iranian regime.
Middle East Eye (MEE) reported on 3 March that Israeli forces had pushed deeper into Lebanon:
In a statement on Tuesday, Katz said that he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had authorised the army to “advance and hold additional dominant terrain in Lebanon”.
He said the aim was to “prevent the possibility of direct fire on Israeli communities”.
MEE added
The Lebanese group began launching rockets at northern Israel on Monday, which it said was in retaliation for the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Israel responded with heavy air strikes in southern Lebanon and in Beirut’s southern suburbs, killing dozens and triggering a fresh wave of displacement.
Hezbollah said the ‘era of patience’ is over:
BREAKING: Hezbollah official says’ era of patience has ended’
🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/ZGG7iEbuuE pic.twitter.com/9v5ITQrPCf
— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) March 3, 2026
And there were reports an Israel tank was hit by a guide missile near the border:
Israeli media reported that an Israeli tank was struck by a guided missile along the border with #Lebanon. pic.twitter.com/NtkSPBfamz
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) March 3, 2026
Displacement crisis
Reports suggest locals are fleeing north in droves. The Intercept’s Seamus Malekafzali warned:
The whole displacement crisis has become a footnote amidst all of this.
Almost everyone I know in Lebanon is posting appeals to find housing for their relatives, or relatives of friends, who have become displaced from south Lebanon and south Beirut amidst the intense IDF attacks. The whole displacement crisis has become a footnote amidst all of this.
— Séamus Malekafzali (@Seamus_Malek) March 3, 2026
Israel has also intensively bombed Beirut:
Israel claims it is responding to Hezbollah firing rockets into its territory on 2 March:
Yesterday, Hezbollah chose to join the Iranian regime in their terrorist fight against Israel.
Today, they have begun to see the consequences. pic.twitter.com/shNsoo85Ec
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) March 3, 2026
In theory, Hezbollah breached a US-brokered ‘ceasefire’ with Israel which had held since their last war in 2024. In practice, the US has given Israel carte blanche to strike Lebanon ever since. Israel has done so constantly since the deal was struck.
You can read about the secretive Israel-US ‘side letter’ pact here. And our extensive coverage of Israel’s ceasefire breaches here.
Let it be open war
Middle East Observer reported Hezbollah is moving to a war footing:
⚡️🚨 Deputy Head of the Political Council of Hezbollah, Mahmoud Qomati:
The enemy wanted it to be an open war, so let it be an open war pic.twitter.com/vRUE4eTy07
— Middle East Observer (@ME_Observer_) March 3, 2026
The Lebanese government has also banned Hezbollah’s “military activities”:
#Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun says the decision to ban #Hezbollah’s military activities is “irreversible,” as the Iran-backed movement claimed responsibility for new attacks targeting Israeli positions.https://t.co/qBhrAV36M7
— Al Arabiya English (@AlArabiya_Eng) March 3, 2026
And Lebanese forces in the south have been seen pulling out in anticipation of an Israeli assault:
⚡️🚨 Under the orders of the Lebanese Government, The Lebanese Army withdraws from borderpoints to allow the safe entry of the Chosen People of God’s army and the occupation of Lebanese territory. The Lebanese Government consider the lives of Israeli soldiers as sacred and worth… pic.twitter.com/IeakWNTafS
— Middle East Observer (@ME_Observer_) March 3, 2026
The legacy media seems to be mincing its words about Israel’s actions. Associated Press (AP) reported on 3 March:
The Israeli military said it has sent additional troops into southern Lebanon and took new positions on several strategic points close to the border, while Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency said the Lebanese army was evacuating some of its positions along the border.
They posted on X:
The Israeli military says soldiers are operating in southern Lebanon as part of a broader effort to increase security for residents in northern Israel near their shared border. It says troops are positioned at several points near the border in what it described as a “forward
But Middle East historian and author Assal Rad put more plainly:
So many words to avoid saying invasion. https://t.co/oPE4CG08H8
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) March 3, 2026
Israel is now bombing Iran and Lebanon at the same time. It’s genocidal assault on Gaza and the West Bank is also still underway. Opening a new front in the war will stretch the settler-colonial state further, but only time will tell what the long term implications are.
Featured image via the Canary
The BBC’s Nick Robinson has asked a guest whether anti-war protests should be “allowed to go ahead” or treated as some kind of treason.
Robinson is a former Tory student president and has a long record as an establishment mouthpiece. In 2017, he blamed the collapse of public trust in ‘mainstream’ journalism on left independent media. In the run-up to that year’s general election, he projected faux-horror that Jeremy Corbyn should say that police cuts – and Britain’s foreign military interventions – were making Britons less safe. He also misquoted Corbyn and then tried to cover it up.
BBC stooge
Robinson is also craven on the topics of Israel and Islamophobia. After the Bondi beach attack in 2025, he scrambled to make clear that he hadn’t really meant to “equalise the suffering of Muslims and Jews”. And in 2024, when he slipped and asked then-foreign secretary David Cameron about Israel’s “attacks and murders” in Gaza, he rushed to X to make clear that:
I should have been clearer that I was not expressing my own view let alone that of the BBC when I used the words “murders”.
But he wasn’t finished. He also wanted to remind his critics that he had also pressed Cameron on the UK “support[ing] Israel in confronting Iran”:
In this 15 minute long interview I asked the Foreign Secretary why ministers had supported Israel militarily; why they didn’t go further & support Israel in confronting Iran.
That’s not how protests work, Nick
Which brings us to this morning, 3 March 2026. Robinson interviewed British-Iranian actor Elika Ashoori. He asked her, with no apparent sense of shame or embarrassment, whether protests against the (illegal) war on Iran should be “allowed to go ahead”:
Ashoori has publicly propagated US-Israeli talking points that the people of Iran celebrated Israel’s murder of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and his family, despite abundant evidence of mass protests against the murder both in Iran and internationally. She claims to be anti-war. But she didn’t slap Robinson down and tell him not to be such a warmonger and stooge for the terror states that are attacking her country.
No. Instead, she appeared to agree with Robinson’s proposition, implying that attacking Iran was the only option because the “situation” of the Islamic Republic has been “ignored for so long”:
I have been against war all my life. But the war has happened and the reason it has happened is because this situation has been ignored for so long.
In response to Robinson asking her to agree that she wants the Islamic Republic “destroyed”, however, she did at least note that its destruction would not lead to democracy. But, she did not contradict his suggestion of a ban and appeared to endorse it by saying that people should be “studying” Iran instead of protesting against the attacks.
The Starmer regime continues to wage war on freedom of speech and protest in the UK. This applies nowhere more than against speech and protest against Israel’s murders and land theft. Establishment stooges and enablers are all too happy to smooth the path for both kinds of war.
Featured image via the Canary
Green Party leader Zack Polanski has slammed prime minister Keir Starmer’s weakness as war criminals Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu wage war on Iran. He rightly said the UK overwhelmingly opposes the reckless, unprovoked, regime-change war. But establishment voices, including Reform’s Nigel Farage, think differently.
Zack Polanski, “The majority of people in this country do not want our UK bases used by US military (to attack Iran)”
“Starmer can’t stand up to Trump” pic.twitter.com/6AFkt608KG
— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) March 2, 2026
The UK opposes US-Israeli terror in Iran
As is often the case, it seems the far right wants war and everyone else doesn’t. Even Labour voters, despite the flailing leadership of Trump–bootlicker Keir Starmer, oppose it:
Britons likewise oppose the government’s decision to allow US aircraft to use UK airbases to launch attacks against missile sites in Iran
Support: 32%
Oppose: 50% pic.twitter.com/ZQylMG6yQv— YouGov (@YouGov) March 2, 2026
So that’s half the people surveyed that oppose US-Israeli terror in Iran, which has already killed 555 people (including “about 180 young children”). And while many people want the UK to step carefully to avoid provoking the volatile Trump or appearing to support Iran’s government, they’re pretty confident that the UK should just stay out of it.
Israel-lover and posh-boy Trump-imitator Nigel Farage, however, unsurprisingly seems to think the UK should waste money and risk lives on another unwinnable conflict abroad. But considering the amount of opposition in British society to such military interventions, some suggest this position could end up being a problem for Farage:
Farage’s commitment to backing UK involvement in another US led war could prove to be his biggest mistake yet. https://t.co/Hr2O0ZWc1b
— Sangita Myska (@SangitaMyska) March 2, 2026
The establishment media doesn’t seem to be far behind either. It’s already debating, for example, whether the increasingly authoritarian Labour government should ban anti-war protests:
https://t.co/vdwzickt9Q pic.twitter.com/9qeUXVLFgT
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 3, 2026
The Green Party – the UK’s main opposition to Reform in the polls – has been clear in its opposition of Trump’s illegal attacks on Iran. And as Polanski has said, political reactions show the choice voters face:
Reform are the party of foreign wars and high bills.
The Greens want de-escalation and energy security through renewables.
Solar and wind prices don’t fluctuate when rogue US presidents launch illegal bombing campaigns.
The choice is stark. Reform are the party of foreign wars and high bills.
The Greens want de-escalation and energy security through renewables.
Solar and wind prices don’t fluctuate when rogue US presidents launch illegal bombing campaigns. https://t.co/NwAAcehJir
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) March 3, 2026
There’s little faith that Starmer will stand up to Trump. But the Greens have been pushing him to anyway:
.@Keir_Starmer when you were running for Labour leader you promised to introduce this legislation to stop the UK being dragged into illegal wars – it’s time to show you were serious about that. https://t.co/0QTUeu97ki
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) March 3, 2026
If the UK really doesn’t want another repeat of disastrous past interventions, we need to say loudly and clearly: we do not want this war! And we need to make sure the government can’t ignore our voices again.
Featured image via the Canary
From “shrekking” to breadcrumbing, ghosting, and “situationships”, there are an awful lot of ways for daters to make the mire of dating even muddier.
That can be true of “stashing,” too, which happens when one partner effectively hides the other from their inner circle.
Speaking of the phenomenon in a YouTube video, relationship coach Susan Winter said that being “stashed” is akin to being a “sidechick”.
What does “stashing” look like?
It means “you’re kept at a distance” from your partner’s friends and family, Winter explained.
Maybe, she wrote, “You’ve been seeing your date for a while, but never met his or her friends. You rarely go out together”.
Perhaps your partner keeps your relationship a secret from their colleagues and/or family.
Or they could keep your presence off their social media – a move some think could be a way to maintain the appearance of being single, while reaping the benefits of companionship.
The Guardian wrote that “stashing” can feel “humiliating”.
Indeed, writing to Reddit’s r/relationship_advice, site user u/em_79 s, who believed she’d been “stashed”, said, “it’s killing me feeling like my boyfriend is so ashamed of me that he can’t invite me to gatherings or even introduce me to a single person in his life”.
Basically, if you’ve been “stashed,” your partner maintains a level of plausible deniability about your relationship, whether they mean to or not.
What should I do if I’ve been “stashed”?
Winters said communication is key, especially if your feelings are hurt.
“I would talk about it. I would say, ’Here’s what I’m experiencing… we see each other three, four times a week… I don’t know any of your friends or family. This is making it very unexciting for me to continue.”
She added that stashing can often show a “lack of respect”, however, and urged “we should feel that our partner is proud of us”.
If chatting to your partner doesn’t help the issue, experts think it might be time to consider letting your “stasher” go.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered her second Spring Statement on Tuesday afternoon. (Alamy)
4 min read
As expected, Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement was a relatively low-key affair — but there was a major elephant in the room in the form of conflict in the Middle East.
On Tuesday, the Chancellor made a House of Commons speech on the state of the economy, which contained no new policy announcements.
It had been no secret that the government had wanted this year’s Spring Statement to be low on drama, with Treasury sources telling PoliticsHome in the run-up to today that the aim was for little excitement, in contrast to the chaos of the November Budget, which saw a U-turn on income tax and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) accidentally disclose details of government policy before Reeves could announce them to MPs.
The Labour government has sought to stress the importance of economic stability at a time of international tumult.
“My plan is the right one; I’m in no doubt about how great the rewards we can be if we stay the course,” Reeves told MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
“Stability in our public finances; interest rates and inflation falling; living standards rising; more children lifted out of poverty; more appointments in our NHS; more investment in our infrastructure; a growing economy; and more money in the pockets of working people.
“These are the right choices.”
However, while there were some signs of green shoots in the UK economy, the latest OBR forecasts, published on Tuesday, also highlighted some of the challenges facing the government, not least how war in the Middle East could soon impact prices in the UK.
What did we learn in the Spring Statement?
One piece of good news for the Labour government is that borrowing is expected to fall from 5.2 per cent of GDP in 2024-25 to 1.6 per cent in 2030-31, according to the OBR. This is faster than the independent watchdog previously forecast in November.
Inflation is also expected to continue coming down, from 3.5 per cent in 2025, to 2.3 per cent in 2026, to 2 per cent in 2027.
You can expect the Keir Starmer government to make a big deal of this projection, with tackling the cost-of-living being a key part of its agenda.
In less positive news, however, the OBR expects growth to remain broadly unchanged overall between now and 2030, at levels which the Chancellor herself admits she is determined to outperform. Growth has been downgraded from 1.4 to 1.1 in 2025 by the OBR, before hitting levels slightly higher than expected later in the forecast period.
The watchdog also said that unemployment would continue to rise and hit 5.3 per cent later this year, driven by a fall in demand for new hires. However, the level is expected to decrease every year until reaching 4.1 per cent in 2030.
Reeves told MPs: “I’m not satisfied yet with these forecasts; I know that the economy is not yet working for everyone, and that the deep economic scars left by the party opposite [Conservatives], and their mates in Reform, are still blighting the lives of too many people.”
The latest data on welfare spending will also provide a headache for Reeves. According to the OBR, welfare spending will rise by nearly 6 per cent to £330bn this year, driven by pensions and health-related benefits. It is expected to hit £407bn in 2030-31.
The government tried to reform benefits last year but was forced to abandon the plans in the face of a large Labour backbench rebellion.
The elephant in the room
Crucially, the OBR analysis was carried out before the eruption of war in the Middle East, meaning its economic projections could quickly become out of date.
The watchdog itself acknowledged this uncertainty in its report published on Tuesday, writing: “Conflict in the Middle East, which escalated as we were finalising this document, could have very significant impacts on the global and UK economies.”
The escalating conflict in the region, centred on Iran, has already resulted in major spikes in global energy prices. These rises could later be felt by consumers in the UK in ways similar to when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered significant inflation. UK wholesale gas prices had risen by around 100 per cent in the last 48 hours at the time of writing.
Reeves told MPs the government’s emphasis on economic stability was “even more important” given the rapid developments in the Middle East.
“It is incumbent on me and on this government to chart a course through that uncertainty, to secure our economy against shocks and protect families from the turbulence that we see beyond our borders,” the Chancellor said.
Bitcoin slides 3% as assets rout; Gold smashes to $5K on oil fears
Bombshell Spring Picks: The Top 5 Must-Haves at Fashion Bomb Daily Shop Including a Bruce Glen Croissant Cropped Rugby Polo, Lime Green Keylows Bodycon Dress + More!
Buckingham Palace turned into memorial garden by activists
-
Politics5 days agoITV enters Gaza with IDF amid ongoing genocide
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Iris Top
-
Politics8 hours agoAlan Cumming Brands Baftas Ceremony A ‘Triggering S**tshow’
-
Tech3 days agoUnihertz’s Titan 2 Elite Arrives Just as Physical Keyboards Refuse to Fade Away
-
Business7 days agoTrue Citrus debuts functional drink mix collection
-
NewsBeat6 days agoCuba says its forces have killed four on US-registered speedboat | World News
-
Sports4 days ago
The Vikings Need a Duck
-
NewsBeat3 days agoDubai flights cancelled as Brit told airspace closed ’10 minutes after boarding’
-
Tech7 days agoUnsurprisingly, Apple's board gets what it wants in 2026 shareholder meeting
-
NewsBeat6 days agoManchester Central Mosque issues statement as it imposes new measures ‘with immediate effect’ after armed men enter
-
NewsBeat3 days agoThe empty pub on busy Cambridge road that has been boarded up for years
-
NewsBeat2 days ago‘Significant’ damage to boarded-up Horden house after fire
-
NewsBeat3 days agoAbusive parents will now be treated like sex offenders and placed on a ‘child cruelty register’ | News UK
-
NewsBeat7 days agoPolice latest as search for missing woman enters day nine
-
Entertainment1 day agoBaby Gear Guide: Strollers, Car Seats
-
Business6 days agoDiscord Pushes Implementation of Global Age Checks to Second Half of 2026
-
Business5 days agoOnly 4% of women globally reside in countries that offer almost complete legal equality
-
Tech4 days agoNASA Reveals Identity of Astronaut Who Suffered Medical Incident Aboard ISS
-
Politics3 days ago
FIFA hypocrisy after Israel murder over 400 Palestinian footballers
-
Crypto World7 days agoEntering new markets without increasing payment costs