A dancer who took part in Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl Halftime Show has addressed the conservative backlash his segment of the performance has come under.
Dan Santiago was seen dancing closely with fellow performer Igor Faria during one brief section of Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl set, while the Grammy-winning singer sang his Debí Tirar Más Fotos cut EoO.
Although the shot of the two men dancing together was only shown for a split-second, that certainly didn’t stop certain right-wing pundits from using it as an excuse to bash this year’s Super Bowl show.
Perhaps most notably, House Of Representatives member Andy Ogles went as far as describing the moment as “gay pornography” that “openly glorified sodomy”.
“Last night’s halftime show was a disgrace, and it mocked American families. Depicting gay pornography on prime time has no place in our culture,” Ogles claimed in a Facebook post, describing the sequence as “pure smut” and lamenting that children had been “forced to endure explicit displays of gay sexual acts, women gyrating provocatively, and Bad Bunny shamelessly grabbing his crotch while dry-humping the air” at the 2026 Super Bowl.
Dancer Dan Santiago later had his say during an interview with Them.
“I find it really sad because the performance is also bigger than that one moment, although it is really important,” he said. “I think the fact that they’re hyperfixating on that moment says more about them than it does about the performance.”
He added that both he and the man he danced with, Igor Faria, are straight, and continued: “I think it’s important for men to see that dancing like that. What I want to say is like it’s not that deep, right? Like we were just doing our job.
“And at the same time, it is that deep for us because we are doing the performance, being so comfortable in our masculinity that it wasn’t hard.”
Dan continued: “I think that queerness deserves to be seen and heard and normalised. It’s important for the world to see that masculinity doesn’t need to be toxic, and it doesn’t need to look a certain way.”
He also wrote on Instagram: “I’m proud to dance for an artist like [Bad Bunny] who uses love to diffuse so much of the hate that’s going on in the world.
“I’m proud to be a Puerto Rican from New York. To represent my people. To represent the Latin community. Our bodies. Our stories. Our joy. Seen in HISTORY.”
In his Facebook post, Ogles called for a federal investigation into this year’s Super Bowl show, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reportedly ruling that no broadcasting rules were broken with the performance.
As the six-year fight for justice for Alex Salmond continues, we thought you might like to see this clip from this morning’s Mike Graham Show, interviewing Paul McManus, the businessman and drummer in Glasgow rock band Gun who’s stepped up to fund the Salmond family’s case against the Scottish Government despite disagreeing with much of what Alex stood for politically.
We take our (hi-)hats off to him.
On 12 February, the Ministry of Justice announced plans to use predictive policing to overhaul the youth justice system. Tucked away in the 25-page document was a proposal to use “machine learning and advanced analytics” to “support early, appropriate intervention” in youth crime.
Whilst the white paper was vague on the particulars, only promising further news in the spring, a Times article went into greater detail on the plans. Beneath an inflammatory headline promising machines that would predict “the criminals of the future”, the column explained that:
Artificial intelligence (AI) could be used to predict the criminals of the future under government plans to identify children who need targeted interventions to stop them falling into a life of crime. […]
Academic research has found patterns can emerge from data collected by health visitors checking on newborn babies, although it has not been decided whether the government programme would go back so far to determine whether someone was at risk.
Now, it would be easy here to point out that this pre-crime policing is horrifyingly dystopian. It sounds like a crude mashup of phrenological skull-measuring and Minority Report.
And that’s true, it is horrifyingly dystopian. But it’s also a present reality that racialised individuals in the UK have been subject to for decades.
Regarding the AI plans, a government source stated that:
We are looking at how we can better use AI and machine learning to essentially predict the criminals of the future, but to do so ethically and morally. It’s about ensuring the data from the NHS, social services, police, Department for Work and Pensions and education is used effectively, and then using AI so you can go above and beyond what we can currently do.
This is going to be pretty transformative on how we put money and resources into prevention. We keep getting the same profiles of criminals in the justice system but we’re intervening far too late.
This isn’t about criminalising people but making sure the alarms in the system are better understood and data and AI modelling can do that much better.
Minister for youth justice Jake Richards explained further:
I’m determined to harness the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning to gain better insights into the root causes of crime. This will allow us to focus on the earliest of interventions for individuals and families, offering better outcomes for children and keeping our communities safer.
But we must hold and use this personal data carefully, and that’s why I’ve commissioned this specialist expert committee to look at the efficacy of this work, but also the ethical and legal consequences.
The Times goes on to state that data show that neurodivergent, poor, and ethnic minority kids are more likely to commit crimes. Four in every five children in youth detention are neurodivergent. Before they’re even 18, 33% of kids with a care background receive a police caution.
The article states all of this that neutral tone that only the discerning bigot’s newspaper of choice can manage. And, of course, it’s a deeply misleading abuse of the truth.
In reality, these marginalized kids are the ones who are more likely to be picked up by police, cautioned, or prosecuted. Police profile their arrestees – they have a (racist, discriminatory) idea of who a criminal is, and then police people accordingly. And surprise surprise, the people treated as criminals keep getting arrested.
That’s a world away from being “more likely to commit crime”.
Whilst AI decision-making is sometimes perceived as unbiased and emotionless, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Rather, it simply hides the – very human – biases in its training dataset behind a veneer of cold ‘fairness’.
In her report on AI biases in policing, the UN’s Ashwini K.P. – special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism – specifically called out predictive policing. Back in 2024, Ashwini explained that:
Predictive policing can exacerbate the historical over policing of communities along racial and ethnic lines. Because law enforcement officials have historically focused their attention on such neighbourhoods, members of communities in those neighbourhoods are overrepresented in police records. This, in turn, has an impact on where algorithms predict that future crime will occur, leading to increased police deployment in the areas in question. […]
When officers in overpoliced neighbourhoods record new offences, a feedback loop is created, whereby the algorithm generates increasingly biased predictions targeting these neighbourhoods. In short, bias from the past leads to bias in the future.
However, as I mentioned earlier, this feedback loop isn’t a problem specific to AI itself. Rather, it’s inherent to the very idea of pre-crime policing – and it’s an oppression that racialised individuals in the UK have been dealing with for decades.
Take, for example, the Met Police’s ‘Operation Trident’ of the 1990s. This sought to prevent gang-related violence in London, and instead resulted in the mass racial profiling of Black youth. An Amnesty International report on Trident’s ‘Gangs Matrix’ database stated that:
The type of data collection that underpins the Gangs Matrix focuses law enforcement efforts disproportionately on black boys and young men. It erodes their right to privacy based on what may be nothing more than their associates in the area they grow up and how they express their subculture in music videos and social media posts. Officials in borough Gangs Units monitor the social media pages and online interactions of people they consider to be ‘at risk’ of gang involvement, interfering with the privacy of a much larger group of people than those involved in any kind of wrongdoing.
Later, in 2003, the UK government created the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy. Ostensibly, it seeks to prevent people from being radicalised into extremist ideologies. In reality, it disproportionately targets Muslims – including Muslim children – for surveillance and hostile treatment as a dangerous ‘other’.
Then, in 2023, the Shawcross Review of Prevent baselessly claimed that the strategy should target Muslims to an even greater degree, rather than far-right extremism. In itself, this was a perfect microcosm of bias-confirmation in action. At the time, the Canary’s Maryam Jameela wrote that:
Pre-crime strategies like Prevent presume full agency and power at all times, for all Muslims. In order for such a thing to happen, there needs to be a cultural belief that Muslims are figures of suspicion because they always hold the potential to be terrorists. Underpinning this presumption is that Islam itself harbours something sinister. Repeated governments have, over the years, created a culture of criminalisation that only views Muslims as being in a constant state of pre-crime.
Now, and for all Jake Richards’ protestations that his AI plans will use data ethically to create better outcomes for children, it certainly sounds like more of the same discriminatory dross. We’ve seen already what these people’s ethics and care look like.
There is no way to predict criminality that isn’t driven by our previous biases – machine learning or not. All that this ‘new’ strategy can do is push yet more marginalised youth into the no-man’s-land of pre-criminality. And all the while, vulnerable kids will be shown directly that their every move was always already under scrutiny.
Featured image via the Canary
Keir Starmer has called himself a “common sense merchant” in a bizarre defence amid speculation another government U-turn is on the way.
The prime minister appeared to be on the cusp of losing his job last week over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to be the ambassador to the US, despite his ties to dead paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Frustration over that move was compounded when it emerged he had also elevated his former comms chief, Matthew Doyle, to the House of Lords even though he had known links to a convicted sex offender, too.
Mandelson has quit the Labour Party and Doyle had the party whip suspended.
But, the two scandals – combined with Labour’s declining poll ratings and extensive policy U-turns – meant it briefly looked like Starmer was going to be kicked out of No.10.
While he narrowly held on, BBC Radio 2 presenter Jeremy Vine reminded Starmer that he could be taking another political risk by flirting with the idea of a social media ban for those under-16 after initially saying he had no intention to impose such a block.
“It then takes its place with this list of U-turns,” Vine said in an interview with the PM. “Grooming gangs, the measurement of government debt, trans rights, the two-child benefit cap, the WASPI women, winter fuel payments – the famous one – sickness and benefits cuts, national insurance, income tax thresholds, unfair dismissal of new workers, inheritance tax on farmers, business rates for pub U-turn, digital ID cards… that’s 13!”
Starmer replied: “I think most people listening would say on under-16s on social media, just get it right.
“There are no easy answers, but I’m a pragmatist, I’m a common sense merchant –”
Vine laughed and said: “Then why announce something if you’re going to change your mind?”
Starmer said a consultation was needed, as “no government in the UK has grappled with this before” adding: “I’m absolutely clear in my mind that we’ve got to take action.”
The prime minister continued: “Yes of course political opponents will say this and that – what I’m concerned about is the teenagers online who are looking at stuff they shouldn’t be looking at.
“My job is to make sure we get them to a safer place. Frankly, whatever it takes to get there –”
“Call it a U-turn,” Vine cut in. “Voters they vote for something and expect you to do it.”
The presenter also pointed out: “You’ve had 600 days or there about as prime minister, it’s been absolutely hectic. What do you most regret about those 600 days?”
Starmer deflected by trying to talk about what he thinks has done well, including the UK’s leading role on the international stage and the fall in NHS waiting lists.
He then added: “No government gets things 100% right.”
Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com
Last week I conducted focus groups among former Labour voters in the Gorton & Denton constituency to see what was on their minds as they prepared to vote in the by-election later this month.
There were mixed feelings about the decision to block Andy Burnham from standing as Labour’s candidate. Several said they had wanted him to stay as Mayor: “He’s done a good job, and he’s visible. He’s fought for us;” “I was like, I want him to stay for Greater Manchester. I don’t think his job is done here. It wasn’t about holding him back from Westminster and challenging Keir Starmer, it was more of the local ‘let’s make Manchester great’.”
Even so, they would have wished him well on his return to parliament: “I’d be quite happy for him to move on and share all that good work with the rest of the UK;” “He’s a very savvy operator and he would have taken that into the halls of Westminster. Let’s face it, Gorton and Levenshulme, Tameside, these places, then majority of politicians down in Westminster couldn’t pick them out on a map. He would have given the interests of those people more clout.”
“It’s quite evidently self-preservation… and now we’re going to get a Reform MP”
Some had positively wanted him to have the chance to mount a leadership challenge, without which they saw no chance for Labour at the next election: “I wanted him to get into power because I think Labour are a dead duck at the moment with Starmer. And I thought, maybe he can change things” (though others argued there was no guarantee that this would work: “I don’t think he could turn it around because Labour, the entity of the Labour Party, has lost its way”).
Whatever they thought about the chances of a Labour revival, nobody believed the reasons given for blocking Burnham: “I think they’ve cut their nose off to spite their face there because Starmer has obviously done it for self-preservation;” “He hasn’t got the party’s best interests at heart making a decision like that;” “They talk about money, but the Labour machine can make one phone call and raise the funds for that. It’s quite evidently self-preservation. He’s taken a ‘you problem’ and made it a ‘me problem’, and now we’re going to get a Reform MP.”
“We’re working harder and harder for less and less”
The Mandelson scandal, together with the Labour government’s record since the election, hardly created an ideal backdrop to the by-election. Though some said 18 months was not long, the sense of disappointment was unmistakeable. “When they came in, he was like, ‘we’re going to get rid of the sleaze, we’re going to be down the line’. And we’ve hit this already;” “It’s not so much the scandals for me. It’s the fact that they got a huge majority based on change, and what have you got?”
The groups felt nothing affecting them had changed for the better since they elected Labour or showed any signs of doing so. They detected no real plan to deal with the problems facing the country: “I would have expected him to work on energy bills and the cost of living. My and my husband’s wages have gone up, but we’re worse off than before because of the cost of everything. We’re working harder and harder for less and less;” “Fair enough, it might take a bit of time, but there’s no real indication that anything’s going to improve. That’s the problem;” “They’re winging it.”
“The leader that can’t lead, the decision maker that shies away from making decisions”
Though they debated whether Keir Starmer should be replaced imminently, few had any confidence in his ability to bring about meaningful change, or to win the next election for Labour: “He’s a cerebral thinker, and I really liked that about him. He didn’t get involved in that jokey pantomime that they cosplay at in the Houses of Parliament. But he’s suddenly become this leader that can’t lead, the decision maker that shies away from making decisions;” “I don’t think this is the moment for him to go. But he’s pissed me off royally;” “I don’t think he’s going to win anything. They need to make the move now to give whoever comes in enough time to steady the ship a little bit”. There was a widespread feeling that the problem went beyond the party leadership: “I feel like they’re beyond broken, if I’m completely honest. From someone who’s been Labour throughout my whole life, I feel like they need to go back to the fundamentals and reestablish what they’re about.”
“It seems like there’s someone who’s got my interests at heart”
For many of our 2024 Labour voters, the by-election was an opportunity to show how they felt about the Starmer government, and Reform UK were the ideal vehicle for doing so. However, most of those intending to back Reform spoke as though it was more than a one-off protest vote: “It’s just a party that kind of represents people who want to work hard and that there will be a reward for that. Whereas with Labour all the hard work just gets taken away from you. It seems like there’s someone who’s got my interests at heart and the effort I put in;” “I’ve had to look elsewhere because I can’t bring myself to vote Labour again. You’ve got to blame Labour for the rise of Reform, because Labour kicked the working man in the teeth. And then all it takes is a Reform wolf-whistle.” The absence of a track record did not deter these voters: “It’s for a brighter future, and we can see hope. And we’ve come to the conclusion that Labour is not giving us that hope. So if there is a glimmer of hope, it’s Reform that makes sense;” “It just feels like we’ve got nothing to lose.”
Reform’s Matt Goodwin was the best known of the by-election candidates in our groups: “He’s a host on GB News. Bit of an intellectual;” “He’s said some awful things but he’s a good communicator, he’s quite intelligent. I’ve seen him canvassing around, so he’s out there and they have put a big gun forward. His name came straight to my mind, and I still can’t think of the Labour candidate’s name.”
“I can’t bring myself to vote Labour again because of the way everything’s gone”
For some of our anti-Reform participants, the priority was to “stop the Farage bandwagon,” though by this stage our participants had no clear picture of which party was best placed to do so. Some said they would reluctantly stick with Labour in an effort to keep Reform out, but this was not a good enough reason for everyone – these others would rather vote positively for something, and didn’t want Labour to take their support for granted: “It’s that split between voting tactically and being authentic, and I have to be authentic. I can’t bring myself to vote Labour again because of the way everything’s gone;” “Something’s got to change with them for me. You can’t just keep relying on my vote.” Only one participant had any clear view about Angeliki Stogia, the Labour candidate: “She’s terribly middle class, although she cracks on, she’s not”.
Responding to Starmer’s campaign statement “It’s Labour versus Reform, and we will fight for renewal, for inclusive communities and bringing people together, and for true patriotism against the plastic patriotism of Reform,” one said: “It’s very well and good and poetic what Keir said there. But I think, show me, don’t tell me. In the last couple of years, I don’t think they’ve really shown me that they give a shit.”
“He’s visible and he’s a credible alternative”
Among these disgruntled Labour voters not tempted by Reform there was considerable interest in the Green Party: “They have been more of a possibility for me recently than ever. They’ve always been seen as a bit of a wasted vote. Whereas now with Zack Polanski, he’s credible. He’s visible and he’s a credible alternative.” Like our potential Reform voters, those attracted to the Greens wanted to do more than vote tactically or register a protest: “We never take that risk and try someone else. I would rather take that risk than stay safe and vote Labour;” “I wouldn’t like to think that was my main reason, to stop somebody else. I’d like to think it was because I believed in what I was voting for a hundred per cent.” Some had heard of Hannah Spencer, though most could not remember her name (and some had heard that one of the candidates was a female plumber but couldn’t remember which party she represented.
Focus groups are clearly not a quantitative exercise, but it was notable that whichever party they intended to support (and with a couple of weeks of campaigning still to go) most of our participants expected Reform to win the by-election, possibly by some margin: “I don’t think it’s going to be as close as people think. I think there are going to be secret Reform votes as well.” Some said this expectation actually made it easier for them not to stick with Labour: “Reform are going to win. That’s why I’m voting Green. I would rather fail and know I’d been true to myself than vote tactically.”
Let it never be said that Cardi B doesn’t know how to laugh at herself.
On Friday night, the Grammy-winning performer brought her Little Miss Drama tour to Paradise, Nevada, where she came a cropper during a rendition of her song Thotiana.
After running into some difficulty during a choreo section involving a metal chair, Cardi found herself tumbling backwards, and completing the rest of her verse flat on her back.
Upon finishing the song, she had a great one-liner for those in the audience, quipping: “That was the government.”
The WAP performer’s comment was a reference to the recent back-and-forth she had with the White House.
On the first night of her tour in Palm Desert, California last week, Cardi assured those in attendance: “Bitch, if ICE comes in here, we gon’ jump they asses.
“I’ve got some bear mace in the back! They ain’t taking my fans, bitch. Let’s go.”
Responding in a post on X, the US Department of Homeland Security said: “As long as she doesn’t drug and rob our agents, we’ll consider that an improvement over her past behaviour.”
Cardi has insisted she’s “not proud” of her past conduct, after previously admitting to drugging and robbing men earlier in her life when she was still working as a stripper.
Less than two hours after the DHS’ post, Cardi fired back to the White House: “If we talking about drugs let’s talk about Epstein and friends drugging underage girls to rape them. Why y’all don’t wanna talk about the Epstein files?”
When footage of her fall became more widely shared on social media, Cardi later joked: “Can someone put a community note on this? This video is clearly AI.”
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time in recent history that Cardi has been caught on camera hitting the deck – only to come back with a hilarious retort.
On Super Bowl Sunday, she was filmed in California giving “a lap dance” to a robot, but wound up falling down when she stumbled over her towering heels.
One of London’s last local newsagents has been forced to close, after Transport for London (TFL) raised its rent by over three times. Brixton News has operated within Brixton tube station for 36 years, until TFL skyrocketed their rent from £40,000 a year to £125,000.
Pritesh Patel, who owns and runs the kiosk with his brother, told The Londoner that the lease was originally £8,000 a year in 1990. Since then, it’s increased every three years.
Patel told The Londoner:
at some point, in five to ten years, we would have got to a point where we’d have to say, ‘we’ve got to walk away’, because the rents would’ve just kept increasing.
He explained that their profits aren’t enough to keep up with ever-increasing rents. Despite being a newsagent’s, most of their income comes from drinks and snacks. Which is also a sad statement about the decline of print media.
Patel said
You can’t pay stupid rent when you’re taking that.
While Brixton News stood alone until closure, it wasn’t always that way. When they first moved in there was also a record store, a camera and photo shop, a cafe, and dry cleaners within the ticket hall. Upstairs used to be home to an arcade which housed a Chinese supermarket, hairdressers, and a pharmacy.
This all changed in 2000 when TFL kicked out all of the businesses as part of the station’s redevelopment. Though the arcade upstairs has remained closed and empty. Brixton News was only allowed to stay because TFL shut the ticket hall, so passengers needed a place to top up their Oyster cards in person.
TFL have insisted that the rent hike was to accommodate an increase in premises size. This doesn’t appear to be something the Patels wanted or the kiosk needed.
TFL told The Londoner that they:
have the opportunity to increase the size of the retail unit currently occupied by the newsstand, and asked Pritesh in January 2024 if he’d be interested in the larger space. He decided not to stay, and we wish him all the best in his future endeavours and would welcome him elsewhere on our estate.
So basically, rather than keep a longstanding business in the station, they’re going to increase it anyway to see who else they can attract. Probably a big business that can afford the ridiculous rent.
Patel said:
I’ve interacted with nearly everyone in the area at some point: sometimes I’ve done them a favour, and we’ve chatted, we’ve talked. It’s just having somewhere you can come and have a conversation. Something local.
Because it’s more than just a kiosk, Brixton News is a focal point for the community of Brixton. Having been there so long, Pritesh knows the faces and the regulars. In turn, customers told The Londoner about their sadness at the shop’s closure.
As London increasingly becomes a hollowed-out shell of faceless corporations, local run businesses that the community can trust are vital.
There’s no justification for taking away such an integral part of the community. Except for the fact that for a conglomerate like TFL, community gets in the way of profits. So instead of connection and sense of belonging, they see something that needs to be stamped out. Which is an absolutely vile way to run a company which is literally supposed to connect London.
Featured image via the Canary
The moment we saw the first trailer for Netflix’s new documentary Reality Check, exploring the highs and lows of America’s Next Top Model, we knew we were going to be glued to it once it actually began streaming.
Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model features contributions from a series of former Top Model contestants, as well as judges, including Tyra Banks herself, reflecting on some of the show’s biggest controversies.
However, the doc also raises issues more casual fans might not be aware of, including one contestant’s allegation that she was sexually assaulted on camera during filming, and another claiming she was made to take part in a photo-shoot reminiscent of gun violence, despite producers being aware that she’d previously lost a family member in a shooting.
Since Reality Check premiered on Monday, many critics have said it will make for essential viewing for those who enjoyed America’s Next Top Model during its original run, although many also questioned just how probing it is as a documentary.
A three-star review in The Guardian said that Tyra “comes across as a real piece of work” in Reality Check, but laments that the documentary does the former Top Model contestants a “disservice by persistently framing Top Model as a product of its time”.
“For a show about beauty, Top Model was always ugly – but Reality Check’s conclusions are only skin deep,” they opined.
Metro gave the documentary the same score, with its critic admitting that it made them question “how I ever enjoyed [America’s Next Top Model] at all” due to its issues “ranging from the offensive to the disturbing”.
However, Metro’s review also agreed that “Reality Check doesn’t quite feel like the reckoning we were promised”, claiming there’s “nothing more shocking or revelatory here than the scenes from the show itself, which offer a depressing insight into what we were prepared to inflict on people for the sake of entertainment”.
In The Telegraph’s four-star review, it’s similarly pointed out that Reality Check is not “exactly an exposé, because we could all see that it was a hot mess”.
“But you will still goggle at this reminder of what ANTM served up each week for our entertainment,” the piece adds.
Australian outlet Mamamia called Reality Check a “must-watch”, with its review stating: “For her part, Banks has a few apologies to share, but overall, she reverts to the ‘times were different’ defence a bit too often to come across as fully accountable for her actions.”
New York magazine also published a review branding the show “both predictable and unsatisfying”, and criticising the “frustrating lack of contrition from most of the interviewees in the Netflix series”.
“If ANTM began with good intentions, then this docuseries demonstrates how quickly a show – and its creators – can be corrupted by success. Not that Banks sees it this way, even now,” they wrote.
Meanwhile, HuffPost US culture reporter Njera Perkins criticised Netflix’s three-part series for doing “very little to take those behind the show to task for the lasting harm inflicted on contestants in the name of entertainment”.
“To its detriment, Inside America’s Next Top Model relies more on aggrieved contestants to address the show’s controversies instead of holding those responsible accountable,” she wrote.
“Rather than focusing on where the show ultimately went wrong, the docuseries seems more interested in taking a nostalgic walk down memory lane.”
All three episodes of Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model are now streaming on Netflix.
A group of Muslims, Jews, Christians and people of no religious faith will display placards outside the Supreme Court and the Home Office, in an act of peaceful civil resistance to injustice. They are calling for an end to the Genocide and an end to the government’s appeal of the judicial review ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action was illegal and disproportionate.
They stand as a group outside the Supreme Court at 1pm and the Home Office at 2pm on Monday 16 February.
As a multi-faith group, Unity Against Genocide stands in solidarity with the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Unity Against Genocide is standing in part to counter a narrative that seeks to divide us and silence opposition to the genocide.
Participants also continue to stress that the UK’s complicity in the continuing genocide of Gaza and annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem must stop.
They support the thousands of people arrested after displaying signs in the Defend Our Juries campaign for the de-proscription of Palestine Action.
The Judicial Review ruled in favour of Palestine Action on 13 February. However the government has stated that it will appeal this decision.
Unity Against Genocide will stand outside the Home Office to send a clear message to Shabana Mahmood, that this appeal will be met by continued and escalated protest against the proscription of Palestine Action, and the unwarranted curtailment of free speech and for our right to jury trials.
Unity Against Genocide is separate from the group Defend Our Juries, which has taken regular action since the ban on Palestine Action was enforced. But the activists have taken a stand in solidarity against increasingly oppressive government legislation.
Unity Against Genocide demands that the government:
Unity Against Genocide acts to hold the UK government accountable for war crimes. And it demands an end to the corrupting influence of Israeli lobbyists and their proxies on UK government policy.
Since 7 October 2023, over 71,000 Palestinians have been killed; some estimates give a far higher figure. While Hamas has released all hostages, Israel continues to detain nearly 10,000 Palestinians, including children and medical workers, most without charge.
Israel has violated the ceasefire more than 1,200 times, reduced Gaza to rubble, and escalated illegal settlement expansion and settler violence in the West Bank, displacing thousands and killing dozens.
In the UK, those who speak out against the gross human rights violations being committed by Israel continue to face growing censure. Journalists, academics, healthcare workers, teachers, and authors, among the many Jewish critics of Israel and Zionism, have been disciplined, dismissed, surveilled, and criminalised.
Criticism of Israel, or of the settler colonialist ideology pursued by its leadership, is being increasingly conflated with antisemitism by those seeking to silence dissent and erase legitimate political debate.
Dishonestly conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is clearly being deployed as a means of weaponising antisemitism and creating a tool to silence legitimate criticisim and condemnation of atrocities being committed by Israeli operatives.
Groups like Unity Against Genocide and Defend Our Juries are not the cause of increased antisemitism and Islamophobia; it is due to the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
There is a significant and growing number of Jewish people who define themselves as non- or anti-Zionist. They do not believe that Israel’s systematic commission of crimes against humanity have anything to do with Israel’s right to self-defence or protecting Jews in the diaspora.
The Jewish people taking part in this action say, loudly and clearly, “Not in our name!” To suggest, as some seek to do, that there is but one Jewish community and that community is composed entirely of supporters of Zionism, settler colonialism, illegal occupation, illegal annexation, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homeland, infanticide, and genocide is, in itself, anti-Semitic.
Muslim people taking part in the action are standing in solidarity with those who have for decades in the UK been disproportionately stigmatised and targeted by terrorism legislation, being subjected to mass surveillance, ‘Prevent’ referrals, and policing that treats whole communities as inherently suspect. Presented as neutral security measures, these laws have normalised Islamophobia and caused lasting harm to Muslim communities.
We are witnessing a terrifying erosion of civil liberties in the UK. The continued imprisonment of the Filton 24, prolonged detention without trial, and the criminalisation of peaceful protest, mark a ratcheting up of authoritarianism and repression by the state.
Nasreen Ahmed:
As a Muslim I feel a strong responsibility to stand to stand against the genocide, especially when my government is complicit. If we do not continue to speak up, there is a real danger that all Palestine solidarity activism in the UK will be criminalised.
Mike Laywood:
It is so important as a Jew to not only be supporting Palestine Action and opposing genocide, but to be acting together with Muslims and Christians.
Rajan Naidu (75, Quaker):
It is our responsibility, as people who want justice and peace for all, to do all in our power, peacefully and determinedly, to end the genocide being inflicted on the Palestinian people of Gaza and the West Bank by the occupying forces of the State of Israel.
I concur with this statement, re Palestine Action, from Quakers in Britain.
The proscription of a direct-action protest group continues a worrying trend of state repression against dissent including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023. The UK is the only country in western Europe to have its civic freedom classed as “obstructed” by Civicus.
Featured image via Defend Our Juries
There’s nothing worse than grabbing a towel from your airing cupboard, only to find it smells about a thousand years old. (Nobody wants to get out of the shower and rub that across their clean body.)
But it turns out that musty, damp smell usually occurs because detergent hasn’t been washed out of the towel properly in the past.
When detergent or fabric conditioner isn’t rinsed out fully, it can create a greasy film that traps sweat and oils in the fibres, resulting in that unmistakable smell.
And thankfully, there’s a fairly easy way to get rid of it.
A simple trick to stop towels from smelling unpleasant is to add half a cup of bicarbonate of soda to your wash to neutralise odours, according to Lottomart.
This pantry staple, which doubles up as a natural deodoriser, can be bought for as little as 60p, making it an incredibly cost-effective solution.
If you haven’t got bicarb to hand, you can also use two or three cups of white distilled vinegar in your wash to help strip away dirt and any bad smells.
Adding a few drops of tea tree or eucalyptus oil to your wash can also help to neutralise any odours. According to The Spruce, experts agree that these oils are best for deodorising and disinfecting laundry – especially sportswear.
And while you might often stick to a 30-degree wash as it’s better for the planet, your pennies and your clothes; sometimes sticking towels on a hot wash (think 60 degrees) can help strip away any detergent build-up, as well as nasty bacteria.
Just remember to avoid overloading the washing machine, as towels need space to move freely for proper rinsing.
Lastly, if you’re tempted to use fabric softener on your towels, experts generally advise against it. Professional cleaner Ann Russell previously noted that using fabric softener makes towels less absorbent – and essentially leaves them unable to do their job.
Labour’s supporters ended up in a battle over their by-election posters outside the Green Party office in Gorton and Denton, HuffPost UK understands.
With ten days to go until the electorate in the Greater Manchester constituency head to the ballot box to choose their new MP, Labour and the Greens continue their bitter fight over the left-wing vote against Reform UK’s rise.
Two terraced properties encapsulated this war perfectly over the weekend, as supporters for the two rival parties decorated the neighbouring houses with ads for different campaigns.
An advert for Labour candidate Angeliki Stogia was put up on the wall next to the Green Party offices by the neighbour, HuffPost UK understands.
But the Green Party later pointed out that fresh photos showing support for their candidate Hannah Spencer were put in the window of the same building, just below Stogia’s poster – supposedly by tenants of the same property.
Andrew Western – Labour’s political lead for the by-election and Stretford and Urmston MP – said the advertising for Stogia right next to the Greens HQ was a sign that it was over for the party.
“The writing’s literally on the wall,” he told HuffPost UK. “Even the Greens’ neighbours know only Labour can beat Reform.
“It’s time Zack Polanski stopped misleading voters and woke up to the fact that a vote for the Greens just risks letting Reform’s Tommy Robinson-backed candidate in through the back door.
“Only a vote for Labour’s Angeliki Stogia can bring people together in Gorton and Denton and stop Matthew Goodwin from driving a wedge through communities in Manchester.”
However a Green Party spokesperson said the property’s inhabitants still back their party.
They told HuffPost UK: “The landlord put it up, yet the tenants have Green posters in the window. It’s a sign of the state of politics now – Labour prioritises landlords and Greens prioritise tenants.
“Labour know this election is now Reform versus Green but of course they don’t want to lose too badly and they’re fighting for every vote, even if that means Reform win.”
The by-election is currently a three-horse race between Stogia, Spencer and Reform UK’s candidate Matt Goodwin.
Both the Greens and Labour have pitched themselves as the only way to stop the rise of right-wing Reform.
Big Tech enters cricket ecosystem as ICC partners Google ahead of T20 WC | T20 World Cup 2026
SpaceX’s mighty Starship rocket enters final testing for 12th flight
Mia Brookes misses out on Winter Olympics medal in snowboard big air
U.S. BTC ETFs register back-to-back inflows for first time in a month
Luxman Enters Its Second Century with the D-100 SACD Player and L-100 Integrated Amplifier
The Final Warning: XRP Is Entering The Chaos Zone
Blockchain.com wins UK registration nearly four years after abandoning FCA process
Bhutan’s Bitcoin sales enter third straight week with $6.7M BTC offload
Pippin (PIPPIN) Enters Crypto’s Top 100 Club After Soaring 30% in a Day: More Room for Growth?
Prepare: We Are Entering Phase 3 Of The Investing Cycle
Kirk Cousins Officially Enters the Vikings’ Offseason Puzzle
Ethereum Enters Capitulation Zone as MVRV Turns Negative: Bottom Near?
The strange Cambridgeshire cemetery that forbade church rectors from entering
Crypto Speculation Era Ending As Institutions Enter Market
Barbeques Galore Enters Voluntary Administration
Ethereum Price Struggles Below $2,000 Despite Entering Buy Zone
Why was a dog-humping paedo treated like a saint?
Man dies after entering floodwater during police pursuit
BlackRock Enters DeFi Via UniSwap, Bitcoin Stages Modest Recovery
UK construction company enters administration, records show
![“I’ve Never Seen A Setup Like This Before” Matt Hougan [NEW Bitcoin and Crypto Prediction 2026]](https://wordupnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/1771250244_maxresdefault-80x80.jpg)
