New global analysis reveals 790 recorded attacks in 2025 against people raising concerns about business-related risks and harms. This is the highest figure in the past five years, equivalent to more than two attacks per day on average. And it includes 53 deaths.

The Business and Human Rights Centre published the research. It records attacks against people speaking out about corporate conduct across 80 countries and almost every sector. These range from multinational technology firms and mining corporations to renewable energy companies and agricultural producers.

In 2025, the companies and / or projects linked to the highest number of attacks were:

• The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (oil and gas).
• Grasberg mine (mining).
• Leonardo (defence).
• Cobre Panamá (mining).
• Dinant (agribusiness).

160 companies linked to attacks

Those who experienced attacks raised human rights concerns about 160 companies headquartered in 37 countries. This points to the very clear human cost of irresponsible business practice.

Companies headquartered in China (47 attacks), USA (43), UK (41), France (41), Tanzania (40) and Uganda (40) were connected with attacks more frequently than companies from any other countries.

Meanwhile, industries connected with land use and environmental harm continue to be the most dangerous. Mining, fossil fuels and agribusiness are connected to the highest number of attacks.

There was a significant proportion of lethal violence, with 53 people killed for speaking out against corporate conduct.

Overall, the most common tactic was judicial harassment (52%), including arrests, detention, criminalisation and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs see powerful individuals or corporations misusing legal action to silence, intimidate and financially exhaust critics.

Christen Dobson, co-head of the Civic Freedoms & Human Rights Defenders Programme, said:

The attacks we recorded in 2025 point to a story about global power: who holds it, how it is exercised and what happens when people challenge it.

Those speaking out against corporate risks and harms are often portrayed as obstacles to progress when, in reality, they are its architects. They are leaders in protecting our natural environments, democracies and the health of our planet. They are our early warning systems: they expose risks before they become crises, they defend ecosystems before they collapse, and they challenge injustices before they become entrenched.

When people raising concerns about corporate harms are attacked – through intimidation, legal threats, or physical violence – these are not a series of isolated incidents, but a global pattern of retaliation against people exercising freedom of expression and advocating for rights-respecting economies.

These voices also provide vital information to businesses, without which companies and their investors risk remaining unaware about the risks embedded within their supply chains.

This often leads to increased risk of conflict, delays and financial losses, which could be avoided by ensuring respect for human rights and working towards shared prosperity with people affected by their operations.

Advertisement

The increasing overlap between governments exploiting national security rhetoric to violate rights and corporate influence on governments, amplified by digital technologies used to restrict civic space, is heightening risks worldwide.

And it’s highlighting the urgent need for companies to adopt and implement zero-tolerance policies for attacks on those speaking against corporate harm.

The energy transition at risk

The findings are particularly significant for companies and investors involved in the energy transition. 42 attacks were against those raising concerns about at least one of the nearly 300 mines used for transition mineral mining.

Two of the top five projects or companies associated with the highest number of attacks in 2025 were mines extracting copper, which is used in wind turbines, solar panels, electrical grid infrastructure and electric vehicle charging stations and motors.

Mining has consistently been the most dangerous sector, with 181 attacks recorded in 2025 against people speaking about abuses. Only five mining companies have a policy commitment to zero tolerance for attacks, with none of these policies meeting expected criteria.

Meanwhile, people safeguarding the environment are among those most at risk, which jeopardises an energy transition that is fair and inclusive for all. An overwhelming majority of attacks (75%) targeted people protecting the climate, land and environment, while Indigenous Peoples experienced 30% of attacks, despite making up just six per cent of the global population.

Hannah Matthews, Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders researcher and database coordinator, said:

Fast tracking business projects without meaningfully consulting with people affected is a key driver of increasing conflict, losing public trust and derailing the just energy transition.

Sustainability and long-term value depend on a fundamental fact: operating in environments where defenders are attacked, civic freedoms are restricted and democracy is weakened significantly increases risk, undermines market stability, and erodes the conditions businesses depend on to thrive.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

The CIA used a car bomb to kill a mid-level cartel leader in Mexico’s capital, insiders claim. The US foreign intelligence agency is pursuing clandestine operations as part of president Donald Trump’s war on so-called ‘narco-terrorists’. In reality, the operations are about extending US control over the Americas.

Cartel boss Francisco Beltran was killed by an explosion on 28 March:

Video and pictures of the attack on March 28 show a quick burst of flames with the car continuing to roll forward, drifting off the highway.

The CIA has called accusations it was involved “false and salacious reporting”, which

serves as nothing more than a PR campaign for the cartels and puts American lives at risk.

Yet two CIA officers were killed in Mexico in April 2026. They were returning from a raid on a drugs lab in Chihuahua.

CNN said of the recent car bombing:

Mexican authorities have maintained extreme secrecy around the explosion, but multiple sources tell CNN that the attack was a targeted assassination, facilitated by CIA operations officers. An explosive device had been hidden inside the vehicle, the State of Mexico’s Attorney General told CNN.

Sowing chaos in Mexico

The US outlet quoted several figures familiar with the operation. They contradicted the official CIA response.

One said:

The lethality of their operations has been seriously ramped up. It’s a significant expansion of the kind of thing the CIA has been willing to do inside Mexico.

A former CIA officer said the US was trying to sow chaos through unattributable actions:

They definitely wanted this incident to create the question in everyone’s mind of, ‘Who did this?’

While Mexican journalist Jose Cardenas commented:

We have been living in anarchic war for many months in Sinaloa. But attacks like this, if confirmed, in an area near the country’s capital, well, I have never heard of anything similar.

In February, the killing of a senior cartel boss Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes led to widespread fighting across several Mexican states. Mexican security forces reportedly pulled the trigger, but CIA intelligence supported the operation. Here is the Canary report on that mission.

Conflating drug trafficking and terrorism

The US has increasingly tried to frame drug trafficking in the same category as terrorism. The new US counter-terrorism strategy reaffirms this:

Last year, I rightfully designated the deadly cartels as terrorist organizations, and began using the strength and power of the U.S. military to stop and destroy their operations.

This approach was also used to justify the 3 January attack on Venezuela. That action saw president Nicolas Maduro kidnapped and taken to New York for trial. The same narrative is still being used to justify illegal drones strikes on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. To date, 193 people have been killed at sea since September 2025.

As the Canary reported on 6 January:

The US justice department classified the Cartel De Los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) alongside ISIS and Al-Qaeda in November. 43 days later, the US has effectively admitted the organisation does not exist – at least not as a cartel in any conventional sense.

Adding:

The fact is, Cartel De Los Soles was always shorthand for high-level government corruption in Venezuela. It’s use goes back to the 1990s. The ‘suns’ refer to a rank insignia worn by grifting senior military officials. Which means the US classified a slang term in the same category as actual terror groups.

In reality, the Trump administration is aggressively pursuing hemispheric control. One writer has described this as building a ‘homeland empire’.

Trump’s homeland empire

Trump’s plan is driven by US decline, but also the increasing synergy between law enforcement, military and intelligence aims. This process is powered by the fascistic impulses of the US war on terror.

Historian Nikhil Pal Singh warned in a recent piece for Equator:

familiar analytical frameworks which rely on the distinction between foreign and domestic realms, normality and legality, policing and war, cannot provide the ‘world picture’ we need to grasp what’s happening here.

Instead, Trump:

conflates immigrants, drugs and free trade as sources of weakness coming from outside, “poisoning the blood of our country”.

Ultimately, Singh argued, Trump has combined:

the archaic geopolitics of a settler empire to the modern legal frameworks devised by his liberal predecessors.

US operations in South America are continuing under the name ‘Operation Total Extermination’. Canada, Cuba and Greenland have all been threatened with intervention or annexation. If not for the disastrous Iran war, Trump might already have acted. US rhetoric about continental politics has centred on drugs. But scratch the surface and you’ll find the same old colonial ambitions.

Featured image via N+

By Joe Glenton

Source link

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has released official figures for how many people have managed the move from legacy benefits to Universal Credit. They are, of course, trying to paint a pretty picture of the people they’ve supported. But the figures speak for themselves on how many have been left with less – or worse, with nothing.

DWP celebrates people losing money

If you were to take the media and politicians’ word for it, you’d think that welfare was ‘out of control’ and Universal Credit claimants have ‘increased significantly’ because nobody wants to work. But, as the DWP eventually had to admit, the reason for this is, of course, that over 2 million people were forced to migrate from legacy benefits to Universal Credit.

Back in February, I reported for the Canary that the DWP had celebrated stripping over 360,000 of their legacy benefits, as they announced the closure of Employment Support Allowance and Housing Benefit.

As I wrote at the time:

They bragged:

“Over 1.9 million people now better supported to find good, secure jobs as the Government moves customers off outdated benefits and on to Universal Credit.”

Considering ESA was a benefit for disabled people who couldn’t work as much or at all, it’s absolutely gross that the focus here is on work. But it doesn’t come as a surprise from the department that wants to force disabled people into work by any means necessary.

Well, now with the updated figures for completing the move to Universal Credit, we can see just how many people have lost their benefits. Not only that, but how many are worse off after being forced to move to Universal Credit.

DWP’s own figures show how screwed vulnerable people are

The DWP’s own stats show that, between July 2022 and the end of March 2026, 2,353,319 claimants were sent migration notices, or 1,822,374 households. Of that, 1,992,161 people in 1,580,239 households made a claim for Universal Credit and 1,131 people in 1,073 households are still going through the process.

This means that 360,030 people in 241,064 households did not manage to make a claim in the three-month period DWP imposed. That’s 15% of claimants and 13% of households that lost their vital support.

As the Canary has previously reported, making the move to Universal Credit is especially difficult for chronically ill and disabled people, who struggle with stress and lack the energy to fill in excessive forms.

An internal report also showed that some disabled claimants often had very little understanding of what they were being asked to do. As a result, many didn’t manage to claim Universal Credit and lost their legacy benefit.

The National Association of Welfare Rights Workers told Work and Pensions committee chair Debbie Abrahams that:

These claimants will all have long-term health conditions and/or disabilities, and their legacy benefits are likely to be their only source of income. A failure to migrate to universal credit therefore carries a high risk of destitution, rapid deterioration in their health, and even death.

Those who claimed still lost

The stats also showed how many people had managed to apply for ‘transitional protection’. This is awarded to even out the fact that many may lose money when switching benefits. But not everyone managed to do this. Of the number of 1,531,860 households eligible for protection, just 814,703 were awarded it.

This means that 717,157 households did not receive transitional protection and will have lost money by moving to Universal Credit.

What’s notable is we aren’t told in the report why people didn’t get the protection. As they were already eligible, this is presumably a problem of not contacting the DWP in time. And this again shows that, by putting a strict 3-month time-limit on claimants, many did not have enough time to jump through all of the DWP’s hoops.

But what’s really interesting is that, for the rest of the stats in the report, the DWP have provided individual and household figures; for transitional protection, they’ve only provided households affected. This means we don’t know how many individual claimants were affected, which could’ve been a lot higher than 43%.

It was previously discovered by Policy in Practice that around 200,000 households lost around £59.54 a week. That’s over £230 a month that people are just expected to do without.

DWP is a failure of an organisation

There are many things the DWP could’ve done differently here. Their system could be easier to navigate and phonelines easier to get through to. They could’ve made transitional protection a part of the main application that you didn’t have to apply separately for. But owt to save a few quid

The DWP are trying to market these stats as a good thing, but all they show, once again, is how much of a failure of an organisation they are.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link

Greta Thunberg and Gary Lineker have joined over 245 public figures in defending Misan Harriman in an open letter organised by the Good Law Project.

This follows targeted attacks from pro-Israel bad actors, with the letter calling out this:

dishonest smear campaign.

Harriman sits as chair of the Southbank Centre and has earned a significant amount of respect from the British public during his career. He earned this respect and solidarity due to his principled positions on many cultural and societal issues in the UK.

Moreover, Harriman has been outspoken against the genocide on Gaza and has regularly confronted issues of injustice.

Now, Harriman has fallen prey to the Zionists’ well-worn tool of labelling people as antisemitic for exposing the dishonesty, cruelty, and barbarity of Israel. Subsequently, calls from right-wing, pro-Israel MPs to have him sacked from his position are facing huge, record-breaking pushback from the British public in complaints to IPSOS.

Instead, this widely supported letter and the public in general are making it clear that lessons have been learned following prior false antisemitism witch-hunts.

Harriman told the Guardian: “We have reached the point where truth itself is being crushed by the very institutions that are supposed to uphold it"https://t.co/MpGGtncN8D

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) May 13, 2026

Advertisement

Misan Harriman offered valuable critique

The right-wing, billionaire-interested mainstream press and pro-Israel lobby groups have once again been hard at work. This time, their mission is to smear influential figure Misan Harriman. With shameful, defamatory pieces put out by the Telegraph, informed by Tory MPs and far-right pundits, they are making clear that they intend to destroy Harriman’s career as he has obviously, and rightfully, tweaked some Zionist nerves.

Harriman has posted criticism of mainstream media coverage after the Golders Green attacks, in which the Muslim victim has seemed to garner little attention. Following the local elections wins by Reform UK, he posted a video discussing how deadly, sinister events like the Holocaust come to pass:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Misan Harriman (@misanharriman)

Quoting the renowned Jewish human rights activist and academic Susan Sontag, Harriman’s ‘controversial’ video which irritated Reform MP Robert Jenrick said:

She said when thinking about the Holocaust, 10% of people in any population are cruel no matter what, and 10% is merciful no matter what and the other – this is important – the other remaining 80% could be moved in either direction.

It’s such a profound way to look at us. In the context of yesterday’s election result it is something which I think is really topical.

Clearly, Harriman, and Sontag, tweaked a nerve amongst the right-wing, Zionist bought political establishment and pressure groups. With their sights now set on Harriman, they are now pursuing a typical defamatory and discriminatory agenda of labelling people as antisemitic.

Harriman’s offence: opposing genocide and mass murder and questioning why Muslim lives matter so little in the West.

Far right newspapers are trying to run a smear campaign against Misan Harriman. We can't let them.
Add your name to the open letter, and stand against hate and division. https://t.co/jCT8IyHyoe via @goodlawproject

— Andrew Feinstein (@andrewfeinstein) May 13, 2026

4,322 signatories: “We stand for truth and justice.”

Nevertheless, it is beautifully apparent that these allegations will not stick without a good public showdown. Celebrities, activists and the general public are making it abundantly clear that hoodwinking and witch-hunts will no longer work. After all, identifying the true enemies of the working class, civil rights, and frankly humanity itself has become pretty damn easy, given how many masks have slipped since 7 October 2023.

4,322 people, and counting, have signed this open letter confronting the smear head on, saying:

We, the undersigned, come together in solidarity with Misan Harriman, photographer, filmmaker, and advocate. We are deeply concerned about the dishonest smear campaign orchestrated by the Telegraph and the Mail…

The purpose of the smear campaign, which we repeat is entirely without foundation in fact, is to traduce and marginalise Misan. And it is intended to send a message to others that if they speak out, they will be subject to harassment and threats.

We believe that safeguarding freedom of expression is essential to a healthy democracy. And that trying to silence responsible critics of Israel by smearing them as antisemitic does not protect Britain’s Jewish community.

They powerfully finish:

We stand against all forms of hate speech, violence and discrimination.

We stand for truth and justice.

Advertisement

We stand with Misan Harriman.

Mark Ruffalo also spoke up for Harriman on his social media. The Marvel star joined his post on Instagram in which he spoke about the lack of interest from the MSM to actually recognise the huge number of principled, and devoted, anti-Zionist Jews who have joined protests against the genocide on Gaza:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Misan Harriman (@misanharriman)

The public isn’t falling for it this time

This disgusting smear campaign has only pushed solidarity with Palestinians further into the spotlight. Ironically, this gross campaign is actually reinforcing the understanding that confronting and opposing oppressive states, structures, and societies is absolutely the right thing to do.

Going further, his decision to quote a Jewish human rights activist who discussed how disastrous, sinister and hugely fatal events like the holocaust come to pass speaks volumes. It also underscores how baseless the antisemitism smears truly are.

With many Jewish activists and public figures calling out this smear campaign against Harriman, bad actors are simply exposing their own antisemitism in the process.

Therefore, we at the Canary urge you to sign this letter from the Good Law Project and join Thunberg, Lineker and fellow British citizens in defending humanity, decency and international law.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

Source link

This is a graph of how many seats each party won in last week’s supposedly “proportional” Scottish Parliament election, compared to how many they would have won if the electoral system had been actually proportional.

The SNP and Greens are now over-represented by 37% and 50% respectively, while the Unionist parties are all under-represented compared to their vote share by (left to right) 26%, 19%, 20% and 23%.

“Pro-indy” parties have 73 seats (57%) rather than the 52 seats that their 40.8% vote share should have earned, while Unionist parties have 56 seats (or 43%) when they should have 69 for their 56% of the vote.

(The other 4% of the vote was scattered among 24 other parties or independents, with 1.8% going to identifiably pro-independence candidates, increasing the total “pro-indy” vote to 42.6%, fully 10 points short of current polling for independence itself.)

Advertisement

It is, therefore, a little bit of a stretch to present the refusal of the UK government to grant a second independence referendum on the basis of the results as an outrage against “democracy”. If an outrage against democracy has taken place, it happened last Thursday.

The over-representation of the indy side is a combination of the unbalanced First Past The Post system that elects more than half of MSPs, and of pro-indy voters splitting their votes, mostly between the SNP and Greens, despite the SNP urging its voters to cast both votes for the SNP.

The differences between each party’s constituency and list votes are instructive.

SNP LIST VOTE
29% lower than constituency vote

Advertisement

LABOUR LIST VOTE
16% lower

REFORM LIST VOTE
6% higher

CONSERVATIVE LIST VOTE
0.001% lower

LIB DEM LIST VOTE
17% lower

Advertisement

GREEN LIST VOTE
612% higher

That’s not a typo at the end – the Green list vote was more than six times their constituency vote, because they’re not really a proper party like the others and only ran in half-a-dozen constituency seats.

Had each party’s list vote share matched its constituency one, the results would have come out like this, according to the Devolved Elections seat projector.

The “pro-indy” parties would have fallen one short of a majority. The other way round (constituencies adjusted to the same as the list vote), the result would have been very different.

Advertisement

Tilting in favour of the list vote would have produced 81 seats for the “pro-indy” parties, an increase of 17. Which is a stark illustration of what was already blindingly obvious to everyone even within touching distance of sanity or arithmetical competence – “both votes SNP” is an absolutely cretinous strategy if what you want is a majority of pro-indy MSPs.

The reason such a majority was achieved this year was because of the 250,000 SNP voters who didn’t also vote SNP on the list, not the 625,000 who did.

Now, that’s a purely statistical argument, not a political one, because a “pro-indy” majority of MSPs will make absolutely no difference to anything in terms of securing independence. We know that for a fact because there’s been one for every single day since the indyref, but it has achieved nothing whatsoever.

But don’t worry! The same imbeciles who came up with that plainly demonstrable proven serial failure of a plan have another one for you!

Advertisement

Hooooooooo boy. Let’s just assess that one for a moment, shall we?

Firstly, as this site explained three and a half years ago, using a Westminster election rather than a Holyrood one as a plebiscite is monstrously stupid for a whole raft of reasons. The media coverage will treat Scotland as an afterthought because it’s only 8% of the country, and you’ll lose the heavily indy-favouring 16/17-year-olds and EU citizens who can vote in the latter but not the former.

(In fact, treating any single election as the plebiscite is dumb. It should simply be standing SNP policy that ANY time a majority of Scottish voters vote for parties whose manifesto says that a vote for them will be taken as a vote for independence, a clear and indisputable democratic mandate has been achieved. Of course it never will be, because the SNP is pathologically jealous of other indy parties’ votes.)

Using a UK election also prevents voters from separating the issues of the plebiscite and normal politics (because they only have one vote), whereas in a Holyrood vote you can say that the constituency vote is for independence and the list vote is for the actual election.

Advertisement

But secondly, you really do have to be an Olympic-class moron to imagine that the SNP are likely to be MORE popular in 2029 than they are now.

They’ve been in power for 19 years already, have record low approval ratings and have been haemorrhaging members and voters for the last half-decade. They won because the opposition was divided four ways, not because anybody likes them. Their vote share at this election dropped from 44% in 2021 to less than 33%. They’ve just elected loads of hopelessly inexperienced new MSPs. There’s a huge budget crisis thundering down the line towards them.

We’ve just had an election in which the SNP swore blind voting SNP would lead to a “100% guaranteed” referendum, and offered the electorate all manner of ludicrous bribes, yet over a third of independence supporters still refused to vote for the party.

In three years time the SNP can only conceivably be less popular than it is now, and the Greens are a pretend party who won’t be running candidates in the vast bulk of Scottish seats. The chances of achieving 50% of the Scottish vote in that election are less than zero. (They’d be doing miraculously well to get 35%.)

Advertisement

The infantile idea that the bogeyman of Nigel Farage as PM would be enough to boost that vote by half again is embarrassing. We were told the same about Boris Johnson, and about Liz Truss, and about Brexit, and about COVID and about Theresa May’s refusal to grant a Section 30 order, and etc etc etc. It never transpired. The dial never moved an inch.

The prospect of a Reform government in Westminster was baked into THIS election, Swinney never shut up about Reform, and it still only got the SNP constituency vote to 38%. There is NO chance, not a ghost of a crumb of an atom of a hope, that the SNP can secure 50% of the Scottish vote in the 2029 UK election. Even the indy movement’s very thickest dungwits know that in their hearts.

So why they’re urging us to rush headlong to what would be an utterly catastrophic defeat, well, you’d have to ask them, because we can’t unhinge our minds far enough to put ourselves in their shoes.

There is no pot of gold waiting for us in three years’ time, only the sort of pot you used to find under the bed, full of the stuff they’re talking.

Advertisement

Source link

Source link

Diane Abbott just responded perfectly to media fear-mongering about a possible contest to replace Keir Starmer as prime minister.

Diane Abbott: The markets are no reason to keep Starmer

Speaking to Sky‘s Cathy Newman about replacing Starmer, Abbott said:

I want there to be a proper, properly organised selection process and we’ll see who emerges.

Newman then injected a hint of fear, claiming:

And that will take weeks and weeks. And meanwhile the bond markets will go into a hissy fit.

But Abbott replied that:

British politics and British parliament can’t be run at the behest of the bond markets.

Newman, however, wasn’t going to leave it there. And she added:

We’re all going to be pretty poor if we don’t pay heed to the markets, though, aren’t we?

Abbott answered with the mic drop:

If the British government is gonna be completely dominated by the bond market, MPs might as well go home.

She also suggested that there are different ways to deal with economic change. Rather than continuing with welfare cuts, for example, she argued that Labour could always stabilise finances by putting less money into the pockets of the arms industry.

The corporate media always backed Starmer. We need to dump both of them!

The exchange on Sky certainly looked like an attempt by a corporate media outlet to take some heat off Starmer when he’s at his weakest point. And that’s hardly surprising. Because elite propagandists in the media got firmly behind Starmer early on. Then, despite his obvious awfulness, many of them endorsed him in the 2024 election.

Starmer’s predecessor Jeremy Corbyn had been a threat to establishment interests. That’s why the corporate media waged a brutal propaganda war against Corbyn and his supporters. And it’s why Starmer – the fraud representing the millionaire-funded campaign to replace Corbyn – brought elite propagandists a sigh of relief.

Much like Newman, Starmer loyalists are now trying to convince us all to avoid ‘playing games’ by pushing for Starmer’s removal. But that is the height of hypocrisy considering all of their efforts to sabotage Labour’s electoral chances under Corbyn.

Oh…*now* 'it's not a game'? https://t.co/VEpVmJakP5 pic.twitter.com/TIVJASTnnT

— Mrs Gee (@earthygirl011) May 12, 2026

Right-wingers in the media and Labour led a long campaign to defeat Corbyn. First, there was the 2016 chicken coup, trying to blame Corbyn for Brexit. Then, there was the sabotage (via strategic diversion of funds, for example) of the 2017 election to stop Corbyn’s Labour winning.

All throughout, meanwhile, was endless bullying from the media.

Today, Starmer is the least popular prime minister ever, and almost no one thinks he’s been doing a good job:

While the Labour Party is divided over his future, just 11% of Britons believe Keir Starmer has been a great or even good prime minister so far

Great/good PM: 11%
Average PM: 25%
Poor/terrible PM: 58%

2024 Labour voters
Great/good PM: 22%
Average PM: 36%
Poor/terrible PM: 36% pic.twitter.com/E1QW2XrIqg

Advertisement

— YouGov (@YouGov) May 12, 2026

And as Abbott told Newman, he’s now coming out of:

the most disastrous local authority election result in living memory

Nonetheless, some in the media still want you to think it’s best to just let Starmer continue.

As Abbott rightly said on Sky, though, we need to ignore media fear-mongering about replacing Starmer.

If the profits of obscenely wealthy individuals are the only thing that matters, they could just openly set up a corporate dictatorship already. But that’s not yet (fully) the case. So when people like Starmer don’t serve their constituents or country, we absolutely should hold them to account. And they absolutely should lose their jobs.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

Well, well, well. It looks like Zarah Sultana has forced an apology out of celebrity bigmouth Katie Hopkins:

Please retweet. https://t.co/CMpwjVpJhn

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) May 13, 2026

Didn’t Hopkins once say she would never apologise for anything?

How the whitey has fallen

Hopkins apology reads in full:

On behalf of their client, Zara Sultana, Bindmans Media and Information Law Practise Group requires that I publish the following statement on X, and that such statement must be clearly visible and pinned to my profile for a continuous period of no less than 24 hours:

“On 30 March 2026, I published a post on my X account addressed to Zarah Sultana in which I stated that she encourages and incites violence and is friends with terrorists.

Those statements are false. I was wrong and offer my sincere apologies to Ms Sultana for the harm and distress caused to her.”

Advertisement

It is my very great pleasure to do this, and I reiterate my sincere and repeated offer to meet with Miss Zara Sultana in person to resolve our differences.

Why did Hopkins accuse of Sultana of being “friends with terrorists”? Because Sultana is a British Muslim and supported this country’s political prisoners, whereas Hopkins has repeatedly expressed white-supremacist beliefs, including:

• Referring to refugees and migrants as “cockroaches”;
• Promoting the ‘white genocide’ conspiracy;
• Calling for a “final solution” to the UK’s Muslim population (mirroring Hitler’s ‘final solution’ to Germany’s Jewish population);
• Working with other white supremacists.

Apologetics

As noted, this is what Hopkins said in the past:

I have never apologised for anything I’ve said. I find it very disappointing when people apologise. You should have the positive moral attitude to stand by what you say,

We’d suggest Hopkins must be very disappointed in herself, but let’s face it, she probably doesn’t give a shit. This Z-list grifter will say and do anything to get attention, and finally that’s caught up with her.

Well done, Zarah Sultana, for not taking any shit from this pathetic racist.

Featured image via Si Chun Lam (Wikimedia)

By Willem Moore

Source link

Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly and Stanley Tucci as Nigel | Image by: FlixPix / Alamy

3 min read11 min

Capturing an industry reshaped by AI and social media, I was wrong to doubt the wisdom of making a sequel – this love letter to fashion is as compelling as ever

Advertisement

I was nine when the first The Devil Wears Prada film came out and – having spent most of my teenage years dreaming of and working towards a place in the fashion industry – to this day one of the first things people outside fashion ask me is: “Is it really like The Devil Wears Prada?” And honestly, while it’s an early 2000s film made for entertainment, parts of it do show the industry in a very real light. That real light being that the fashion industry is very tough yet brilliant.

It’s an industry that encapsulates you. You have to not just work in it but live it – because its consumers, readers and followers do. The people I worked alongside are some of the most resilient, commercially minded and driven people I know, and in fashion there is no path to success without teamwork, leaning on others’ talents and hard work to create an end product.

I developed a level of resilience working in fashion that I need every single day in Westminster. The first film conveyed that – yes, as an exaggerated, watchable version – but the speed at which you need to make decisions, the competitiveness and the absolute love of the art you are creating: that is real.

Advertisement

Almost two decades have passed since that first film. By the time I went to study fashion, technology was already profoundly changing the industry. When I graduated during Covid, the world of the runway and the head office felt distant and uncertain. So, when I heard a sequel was coming, I was sceptical. Could it capture a fashion industry reshaped by social media, one where print media is no longer the primary source of fashion news, where AI informs buying decisions and Gen Z dictates the trends?

Andy has a love story in the film. But she didn’t need one

I am glad to say I was wrong to doubt it. The second film is honest about the changes the industry has faced rather than retreating into the romanticised version of fashion that exists in the public’s imagination. 

Advertisement

It shows fashion as it is today and, crucially, it shows that fashion is quick to adapt. The world has changed, but the passion has not. The film carries a raw affection for the industry – an affection and protectiveness I recognise, and that I bring with me when I advocate for it in Parliament.

Andy has a love story in the film, but she didn’t need one. The real love story is the relationships you build when you are working with people to create something you love, and hoping others will love it too. That is what keeps people in this industry through the hard years. That is what the sequel chooses to celebrate.

The clothes are beautiful. The characters are as compelling now as they were then. But what makes this film worth your time is that it shows the industry the way those of us inside it have always known it: demanding, commercial, creative and brilliant. The Devil Wears Prada 2 is, more than anything, a love letter to fashion. And it’s one the industry deserves.

Rosie Wrighting is Labour MP for Kettering

The Devil Wears Prada 2

Directed by: David Frankel

Venue: General cinema release

Advertisement

Source link