Labour MP Karl Turner has repeatedly raised alarm bells warning that the government’s proposed reforms to jury trials will hurt ordinary people.

Leading a group of up to 80 Labour MPs opposing the reforms, Turner persuaded them to abstain from the vote, securing a good faith agreement with ministers that they would allow a rebel MP to sit on the scrutiny committee.

However, unsurprisingly, the government has apparently reneged on this agreement made in good faith, with chief whip, Jonathan Reynolds, rejecting the two MPs proposed by Turner: Rachael Maskell and Stella Creasy.

According to the Telegraph, Turner said:

A very large number are now saying that we should not have abstained because we cannot trust the Government to act in good faith.

As usual, Labour denies that Turner secured any deal to influence who gets a seat at the table. Instead, ministers appointed Yasmin Qureshi who is referred to in the Telegraph as a “known and vocal critic” of the jury reforms.

A Labour source is cited as saying:

Karl getting to decide individual members of the bill committee was not part of any conversations he has had with government ministers or the whips.

It is not in any way fair to say this is a bad faith decision. We selected [Ms Qureshi] in good faith.

Nevertheless, Karl Turner will continue to oppose this dreadful reform.

Jury trials could be scrapped for crimes likely to attract a shorter prison sentence

Ministers have been accused of reneging on an offer to Labour MPs who are opposed to a reduction in the number of jury trials @DavidLammy @KarlTurnerMP @sarahsackman @TheCriminalBar @JamesDRossiter @thebarcouncil @RachaelMaskell @stellacreasy @TheLawSociety @DannyShawNews…

— Charles Hymas (@charleshymas) March 22, 2026

‘Dishonest’

Justice secretary, David Lammy, is working to restrict the human rights of defendants in criminal cases which would typically receive less than three years in prison. This has been widely condemned by lawyers, with some even calling for Lammy’s resignation. The condemnation followed Lammy’s appalling comparison of a three-year prison sentence to seeing a consultant for a “scraped knee”.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) enshrines the right to a fair trial, including the right to a jury, to protect citizens from potential state oppression and to uphold justice. Yet David Lammy now asks us to accept that scrapping jury trials will somehow deliver swifter justice.

A claim which is disputed as “deception”, as barrister, Michael Mansfield, highlighted to Sky News.

This is the very reason I have described the governments line from the very outset as “dishonest”. Mike Mansfield describes it as a “deception”. https://t.co/w0cQNx7eyw

— Karl Turner MP (@KarlTurnerMP) March 23, 2026

Nevertheless, the dishonesty doesn’t end there. Adding insult to injury, this refusal to allow a proposed ‘rebel MP’ on to the committee follows the government’s egregious move to restrict access to legal advice for concerned MPs from Socialist Lawyers for Labour (SLL).

Karl Turner also led the charge then and said:

The policy position of the SLL is that these measures are a terrible mistake, are unworkable and must be stopped, but they have been blocked from sharing that position with Labour MPs in a briefing of the sort which one would expect it to be able to make.

The Canary reported on the devastating impact this will have on the perception of justice if these reforms go ahead, particularly for the rights of women and girls who are failed by the justice system.

Labour MP, Charlotte Nichols, had also shared her own traumatic experience as a survivor of rape. This principled intervention came in order to counter the cynical attempts by the government to use the very real pain of rape survivors to trample over the legal rights and freedoms of defendants.

When Nichols spoke up in the House of Commons against the bullying tactics used against her and other women, she incredulously said:

If we have concerns about this bill, it is because we have not been raped or because we don’t care enough for rape victims.

‘Scrutiny isn’t a luxury’

Speaking on jury trial reforms, Liverpool Riverside MP, Kim Johnson, told the Canary the strength of opposition is “palpable”.

She said:

The fact that Lammy has not included any critical voices from his own benches is very revealing. The strength of opposition to the jury proposals is palpable.

Blocking critical voices confirms the government is not confident in its own arguments, and instead of negotiating with the large numbers of concerned MPs, they are choosing to sideline us. Instead of trying to find solutions, this will only deepen existing concerns that our voices are not being listened to.

Scrutiny isn’t a luxury – it’s the foundation of democratic law-making.

If we are serious about justice, then we must be serious about scrutiny and that means listening to, not side-lining, those raising concerns about the proposed changes to our jury system.

Johnson is absolutely bang on; scrutiny only scares those who have something to hide. If the Starmer government genuinely believed this policy benefited the country and its citizens, they wouldn’t be so eager to avoid scrutiny.

Criticism is not a threat, it is essential. After all, it exposes blind spots and strengthens decision-making, forming a cornerstone of any healthy democracy.

Featured image via the Canary

The late Mohamed Fayed pictured in 2008 | Image by: Jeff Moore / Alamy

3 min read28 min

The crimes of Mohammed Fayed in gross abuse of his power, and the alleged crimes of those connected with him, are horrific.

There is evidence that over the course of decades Fayed systemically used his power within Harrods to select, groom, and sexually abuse girls and women. There are further allegations which remain under investigation relating to his other business interests including Fulham Football Club and House of Fraser.

This is not a case of one bad apple. The abuse that took place was enabled by systems within and outwith Harrods. Survivors were subjected to invasive medical tests by doctors, they were moved from place to place, their families were intimidated, and the police failed to investigate complaints.

And now for the first time a link to Jeffrey Epstein has come to light, with a survivor reporting being trafficked by Epstein to London for Fayed. Perhaps it is no surprise: two predators, operating at the same time, using their powerful positions and institutional links to do so.

Fayed and Epstein may be dead – but their systems, institutions, and many enablers live on. And crucially so do the survivors of their crimes. Several hundred women have come forward already in relation to the abuse of Mohammed Fayed – and certainly there will be more who have not yet chosen to speak.

This is why last year we established the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Survivors of Fayed and Harrods to be their voice in Parliament. We have met dozens of survivors over the past 12 months and pay tribute to their tenacity and strength.

And now for the first time a link to Jeffrey Epstein has come to light, with a survivor reporting being trafficked by Epstein to London for Fayed

We also know how hard it can be for survivors to put their trust into another institution after decades of being let down. To that end we have spent some months now working with survivor networks, putting in place best practice standards, and establishing a framework of trust which we do not take for granted. The APPG is also working closely with The Survivors Trust to make sure we are working in a safe way – bearing in mind the trauma that survivors have suffered.

There was one underlying message that came through from the APPG’s recent consultation with survivors: there is a web of implicated individuals and institutions which must be investigated fully. And this can only be achieved by framing the police investigation into crimes of trafficking; alongside a statutory public inquiry.

This is the drum beat that the APPG will be playing over the months and years to come. In the short term we are hearing the concerns of survivors in relation to the redress scheme and the ongoing investigations of the Metropolitan police and IOPC and will be pushing for answers. We are also pleased to be facilitating engagement with the minister for safeguarding and the Prime Minister.

Many parliamentarians will either represent survivors in their constituencies, or simply feel the utter outrage at the crimes which have taken place. Please join the APPG and support its work. Fayed’s crimes were abhorrent – but so were the actions of those who enabled him and covered it up. Indeed, we don’t yet know the extent of the enterprise. But let this be the institution that stands with survivors in their campaign for justice.

Wendy Chamberlain, Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife, and Dave Robertson, Labour MP for Lichfield, are co-chairs of the APPG for Survivors of Fayed and Harrods

The last faint hope of any remotely positive or at least interesting outcome of May’s election just left the building.

It wasn’t MUCH of a hope, and it’s absolutely no surprise in the wake of the comically shambolic, belief-defyingly inept farce that has been the birth of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s fringe-of-the fringe Your Party, but all the same its extinguishing means the next two months will be even more of a waste of time than they looked like being.

Frankly, readers, we may as well not bother having an election at all.

Firstly because it’d save a fortune. A whopping 40 MSPs are standing down at the election, and they’ll all be eligible for redundancy payments (called “resettlement grants”), and some will also be eligible for additional payments for standing down as ministers or officeholders – we reckon Alison Johnstone, the current Presiding Officer, will score the biggest payday, picking up a tidy £105,706.

Most will trouser the maximum (£77,710), and the total will be in the region of £2.65 million. That’s a heck of a wedge for hard-pressed taxpayers to be laying out just because people have voluntarily decided they don’t want their jobs any more. (It’s not like we’re SAVING anything from their redundancies, because their roles will be taken over by new gravy-seekers.)

But it’s small beer compared to the overall cost of the election, which will be in the region of £50 million. The 2026-27 budget allots £37m for the election specifically, but there are various other costs and contingencies that come on top.

So what will we get for this £53m? Well, more of the same. While there’s actually a fairly wide range of possible arithmetical outcomes, they all amount to the same thing. There is zero doubt that the SNP will form the “new” government, and zero prospect of them doing anything differently.

(The best-case scenario for the SNP is probably around 66 seats, a one-party majority, backed up with double-digit Greens. The absolute worst-case is maybe 50, which would still be double anyone else, and there’d be no credible way for anyone else to get enough support to form a government.)

The Unionist parties will rearrange the deckchairs, swapping a bunch of Labour and Tory MSPs for Reform ones, but all will be equally irrelevant. Polling (which is all over the shop) suggests that Reform, Labour and even the Greens are in the running for second place, but who other than themselves actually cares? (There is no “official opposition” at Holyrood.)

Independence? Don’t make us laugh. Less than a quarter of SNP voters even think it’s a pressing issue, and no other party’s voters are interested in the constitution either. Everyone knows it’s a dead political duck and only political pundits and (during the campaign) candidates are forced for professional reasons to pretend otherwise.

A “pro-independence” majority now looks all but a certainty with the collapse of Your Party Scotland, and an SNP-alone majority is a possibility, but neither outcome would be any different to a minority and more to the point, everyone knows it. Whatever the result, the SNP will bleat pitifully at Keir Starmer for another referendum, Starmer will tell them to sod off, and they’ll scuttle away happily to bag another five years’ wages.

So why are we bothering with six more weeks of wretched, transparent pretence that anything about this election matters? Nothing will change except the names on the paycheques. We’d be as well just carrying on as we are, and if anyone wants to stand down we’ll just have a by-election. The only real losers would be Reform, but pretty much everyone seems to hate them anyway so there wouldn’t be much of a protest.

Of course, we’d still be left with a useless government almost nobody likes. Barely half of SNP voters think the party’s record has been even fairly good in anything but the vague, unmeasurable “standing up for Scotland”.

And almost six in ten of them are unwilling to even say John Swinney is “honest”, let alone have faith in him to turn the country around.

But they understandably don’t think any of the other halfwits applying for his job are any better. Hilariously, the least unpopular political leader in Scotland is the Lib Dem UK leader Ed Davey, who gets a negative approval rating of only -9, mainly because 57% of Scots can’t be bothered to have an opinion of him at all.

(Swinney gets -17 in seventh place, just below Russell Findlay and Malcolm Offord on -16 each, and Anas Sarwar gets a brutal -31, although he’ll be pleased to be only seven points behind Nicola Sturgeon. Nigel Farage and Keir Starmer tie for last on -52, so it’s not looking good Prime Minister-wise for the UK for the next nine years. Poor old Humza Yousaf, meanwhile, doesn’t even get a look-in.)

Last night STV called this “the scunnered election”, but we think a better word is “accursed”, because like COVID-19 it’s a plague nobody wants but that we’re all going to have to grit our teeth and endure anyway, at enormous cost to the public purse, to gain nothing.

The Six Nations is over and the World Cup isn’t until June. If you’ve been thinking of taking a lengthy holiday somewhere with no internet access, readers, there’s never been a better time than now.

The full list of nominations at the 2026 TV Baftas is as follows…

Three of Calais Appeal’s members, La Capuche Mobilisée, Utopia 56 & Refugee Women’s Centre, are launching a crowdfunder to purchase urgently needed tents for people stuck at the France-UK border.

Every year, tens of thousands of people on the move spend time at the France-UK border whilst seeking to claim asylum in the UK. In Calais and Dunkirk, at any one time there are around 2,000 people having to sleep outside, in tents or under tarpaulins.

Tent stocks running low

At the end of a winter marked by harsh weather conditions, stocks are currently so limited that single men have to wait up to two weeks to receive a tent through Calais Appeal’s organisations.

This situation of material precarity gets even worse with frequent evictions, which the UK government funds. During these, the French authorities take people’s personal belongings (including tents and sleeping bags) away.

As long ago as 2020, the Canary was reporting that living conditions in Calais could be driving refugees to attempt crossing the channel to the UK.

Utopia 56 works in Calais and Dunkirk with the most vulnerable groups, particularly unaccompanied minors. It distributes emergency supplies such as tents, sleeping bags and other essential items.

Refugee Women’s Centre, also active in Calais and Dunkirk, focuses on supporting women and families. It combines material aid, access to hygiene and medical care, and psychosocial support.

Finally, La Capuche, an association which started in January 2025, distributes tents and runs a free clothing shop where people can choose their own clothes. It also manages a recently established community laundry system.

The goal of this crowdfunder is to raise €10,000, which would allow Calais Appeal to buy 1,000 tents, costing €10 / £9 each. Reaching this target will allow Calais Appeal to continue distributing tents for another month.

Chip in here if you can.

Featured image via Calais Appeal / La Capuche Mobilisée

1. It turns out Miley Cyrus almost missed out on the role of Hannah Montana completely

2. Miley Cyrus had a surprising revelation about dating a fellow child star during her Hannah Montana days

Jim Smeal/BEI/Shutterstock

3. Miley Cyrus also had a great story about how Taylor Swift came to write music for the Hannah Montana movie

4. Miley Cyrus was also reunited with another fellow Disney alum in the Hannah Montana special: Selena Gomez

5. The Hannah Montana special also featured an unexpected appearance from Chappell Roan

6. Of course, the Hannah Montana special featured plenty of musical performances, but this rendition of The Best Of Both Worlds is what fans have really been waiting for

7. And in case you’re wondering, yes, Miley Cyrus can still Hoedown Throwdown with the best of ’em

What changes can help to reduce the risk of a heart attack?

Don’t “overlook” tiny-seeming changes

3 min read9 min

They will do so amid a turbulent context for trade, the rules that govern it, and international relations more broadly. President Trump’s tariffs, growing protectionism elsewhere, and the fall-out from wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have injected considerable volatility into the global system. It is a challenging time for those of us who support free trade.

This global instability has generated acute challenges for the rules-based system for trade. In response to President Trump’s tariffs, there has been a growing proliferation of so-called ‘mini deals’ as countries scramble to mitigate the impact on their economies. The UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD) is one such example. The EPD is a strange beast – it is not legally binding, only covers a handful of sectors, mixes specific commitments with more aspirational ones, has only partially been implemented, and does not appear to be compatible with WTO rules on non-discrimination. When the International Agreements Committee, which I have recently joined as Chair, examined the EPD, we warned that the Government “should be wary of implicitly supporting the dismantling of the system in this way.” And whilst the EPD was clearly borne of pragmatism, it is far from clear that it will offer businesses the stability they crave.

Yet the UK is far from alone in pursuing a realpolitik approach with the US; several others, including the EU, have signed similar “deals”. And in parallel, the growing importance of the services sector and digital economy, historically neglected in traditional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) but vital for the UK’s economic growth, has contributed to a growth in sector-specific agreements. Taken together, these developments throw debates about WTO reform into sharp relief.

The UK’s approach to trade agreements is also evolving. In the immediate aftermath of Brexit, the focus was on FTAs, but since then there has been a move away from FTAs and towards a broader suite of trade instruments – embedded in the current Government’s Trade Strategy. As trade minister in the last Government, I signed dozens of non-binding Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs). Many of these were symbolic, but there is a growing trend to use these for more substantive commitments.

To make sense of these shifting sands, my Committee has recently launched a new inquiry into the future of rules-based trade and the UK’s use of trade instruments. We encourage anyone with knowledge or experience in this area to come forward and share their views, so that we can undertake our duty of scrutiny effectively and make impactful recommendations to the Government in the report we will produce.

While questions about different types of trade agreement may seem academic, they also have important scrutiny implications for Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the current system for scrutiny of international agreements in the UK is that scrutiny is triggered by the form of a treaty and the process the Government chooses to follow, rather than its substance. This has detrimentally affected scrutiny in the past, including with important non-trade treaties, such as with Rwanda on asylum seekers. The Government has signed up to enhanced scrutiny procedures for FTAs, but if it intends to sign up to more and more substantive trade commitments through other vehicles, that will have implications for Parliament’s ability to scrutinise these commitments. As the only Committee in Parliament which scrutinises treaties as routine, the hope for our Committee is that our new inquiry will complement our wider scrutiny work – and underline the case for reforms to the treaty scrutiny process.