What does “going low-contact” mean?

Why might someone go low-contact?

What should I do if someone has gone low-contact with me?

An inquiry into the deaths of at least 30 people who drowned while trying to cross the English Channel in 2021 has found that emergency services could have prevented the deaths.

On November 24, 2021, the dinghy they were travelling on started to fill with water and capsized. To date, it is the deadliest small boat disaster on record in the English Channel.

Only two of the people on board survived. Emergency services found them nearly 12 hours after they called for help.

In total, authorities found 27 bodies and confirmed another four people were missing.

Channel crossing: a damning inquiry.

The inquiry found that staff numbers across the national network at HM Coastguard were “above what was required”. However, the recommended seasonal staffing at MRCC Dover is three operational staff for search and rescue. Importantly, this number “was not satisfied”. The inquiry found:

 The only fully qualified staff member working in the search and rescue team at MRCC Dover that night was the Search and Rescue Mission Co-ordinator (SMC). The two others in the SMC’s team that night were trainees: one was partially qualified but deemed to be operational, and the other was non operational.

Shockingly, these staffing pressures meant that the SMC was unable to take a break. This:

unsurprisingly left him feeling overwhelmed and fatigued. The short staffing also resulted in an absence of appropriate supervision for the non-operational trainee, who was called on to undertake operational tasks.

Moreover, both Border Force Maritime and the RNLI lacked sufficient resources to deal with the situation.

Despite a seemingly healthy number of surface assets available on the night of 23 to 24 November 2021, HM Coastguard and Border Force were reluctant to deploy more than one, as this would have reduced the availability of an already insufficient number of assets on the following day.

A surveillance aircraft that should have provided “critical intelligence” also did not launch due to poor weather. Of course, there was no contingency plan.

Additionally, authorities missed calls and texts from the boat, or did not follow them up. This, combined with the widely held belief that the people on the boat were exaggerating their distress, meant that the coastguard underestimated the urgency of the situation.

To make matters worse, HM Coastguard did not inform the helicopter searching the area to look for people in the water. The report states:

There were problems with the search undertaken by the helicopter R163. Based on the drift analyses commissioned by the MAIB, it is likely that the area covered by R163’s search contained the swamped small boat. However, its search was not effective for locating a swamped small boat or people in the water. R163 was not tasked to incident ‘Charlie’ specifically and was not informed by HM Coastguard that it was to locate a sinking small boat or people in the water. The captain of R163 told the Inquiry that if he had been informed that there were people in the water, “that does change things”. Instead, R163 was tasked to look for the multiple small boats that were believed to be in a similar area.

Ultimately, authorities and emergency services could have prevented all of the deaths. The inquiry report concludes:

As the analysis makes clear, the flaws in HM Coastguard’s decision-making were systemic. In particular they are attributable to the inordinate pressure on HM Coastguard staff at MRCC Dover handling search and rescue for small boats, the absence of effective supervision of those staff, the limitations of the remote working model to assist them, and the belief which had developed among HM Coastguard personnel that callers from small boats regularly exaggerated their level of distress.

Featured image via Channel 4 News/ YouTube

This article contains graphic details of rape and sexual assault.

The latest tranche of Epstein documents have provided further evidence that he was not only a vile paedophile, he was also an appalling racist. We’ve previously covered Epstein’s sickening fantasies about using the supposedly “superior gene pool” of himself and the children he raped to create a “super-race”.

However, the new files provide further evidence of his eugenicist views. In an email to linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky, the now-dead former financier suggested that Black people are less intelligent than others:

The test score gap amongst African-Americans is well documented. 20 years of testing. Many countries. James Watson had some of his private views made public and hence his dismissal from society. He told me that after one sentence he became an un-person. Making things better might require accepting some uncomfortable facts. You told me that.

Epstein – racist views and racist friends

James Watson was a Nobel Prize winner alongside Francis Crick, Maurice Wilkins, and Rosalind Franklin following their discovery of DNA. He was also a horrible racist. He said:

There’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites in IQ tests. I would say the difference is genetic.

Watson described himself as “gloomy” regarding Africa’s prospects due to his claim that:

…all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.

Epstein appeared to indicate in another email that he was meeting Watson for breakfast. A white supremacist podcaster called Jean-François Gariépy also says Epstein gave him $25,000.

Epstein was of course a major backer of the world’s leading racist endeavour, the genocidal land theft project that is so-called ‘Israel’. He was a likely Mossad spy and has been pictured wearing an Israeli Genocide Forces sweatshirt. He was also a close friend of former ‘Israeli’ prime minister Ehud Barak. It is alleged Barak was the man who Virginia Giuffre alleged raped her “more savagely than anyone had before”.

Former ‘Israeli’ PM bemoans “quality” of African and Arab people

Now, in a newly released audio recording, Barak can be heard in conversation with Epstein. Adding an extra layer of racism to his already racist desire to have new arrivals to ‘Israel’ steal Palestinian land, Barak talks of controlling the “quality” of these aspiring land thieves. He says:

…we can control the quality much more effectively than our ancestors, or the founding fathers of Israel, could deal with the waves. [It] was a kind of salvation wave from North Africa, from the Arabs, from wherever.

They took whatever came, just to save people. Now we can be selective.

Note the use of “whatever”, rather than “whoever”, as if Black and Arab people are just convenient objects to pad out the settler-colony’s demographics. Rather than what he clearly sees as sub-standard material, the Nazi instead wants another “one million Russians”.

A number similar to that came to invade historic Palestine in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Given it’s a conversation with a child rapist, Barak – being the sickening creep he is – inevitably turns the conversation in a smutty direction, saying:

I think that many will prefer it to be Belorussians [who arrive]. Many young, handsome girls will come. Tall, thin.

This is the only moment Epstein can be heard in the recording, letting out a chuckle.

Zionism is a fundamentally racist ideology

Of course, this all makes sense, given Zionism is a fundamentally racist project at its core. It grants one ethnic group exclusive rights to land they have no claim on, as they exterminate the native inhabitants. The racism which Barak espouses has just been an additional stain on top of that underlying bigotry.

Historian Avi Shlaim has recounted his early experiences of racism as an Arab Jew upon his family’s arrival from Iraq. Ethiopian Jews who arrived in the Zionist pseudo-state were sterilised, so they couldn’t outnumber the preferred white population. Arab people in ‘Israel’ are denied the same provision of services as their Jewish counterparts, including access to bomb shelters.

It’s not only racism that the Zionist entity shares with Epstein. It is also a vehicle for mass sexual abuse. Paedophiles have used the apartheid colony as a means of evading justice elsewhere. The most senior figures in the Zionist government have refrained from deporting such individuals.

Palestinian children are routinely sexually assaulted in the brutal prison system run by the terrorists in West Jerusalem. Children are “hit or touched on the genitals”, with 69% being strip searched.

Palestinians have recounted systematic sexual abuse in the ‘Israeli’ system of torture camps. Those kidnapped describe being raped with dogs, iron bars and batons. Tamer Qarmut was kidnapped from Gaza in November 2023. He described his abuse:

He [the guard[ shoved a wooden stick up my anus, left it there for about a minute, and pulled it out. Then he shoved it back in, even harder, and I screamed at the top of my lungs. After a minute, he pulled the stick out again, told me to open my mouth, pushed the stick into my mouth and forced me to lick it.

Knesset members have defended the right to rape kidnapped Palestinians. They even staged a violent protest at a torture centre when it appeared rapists may be held to account for their crimes.

The Zionist entity is effectively Epstein in ‘state’ form. A project of massive racism, violence and sexual abuse, allowed to continue its crimes way beyond the time it should have been held to account.

Featured image via the Canary

Reform UK and its leader Nigel Farage are no party of the people. Their emerging Epstein links show how their relationships with unaccountable transnational ruling elites let them play politics on easy mode. What has changed is that we’re starting to see more and more receipts.

If Farage’s outfit knows one thing it is money. A privately-educated banker himself, Farage has always played the tweed populist while making money moves behind the scenes. For example, this virulent critic of Muslims and Islam was in the Middle East last week ago courting UAE billionaire’s for donations.

But there is more. Property tycoon billionaire and Reform treasurer Nick Candy has now been revealed as an associate of late child-rapist, Zionist, and fascist Jeffrey Epstein.

Reform have an Epstein problem

As Skwawkbox reported recently, the Epstein files name Candy in relation to Epstein. There was even an email talking about Candy’s property firm selling a London flat for Epstein.

The emails appear to show, among other things, that Epstein was a fan of Candy, that Candy and Epstein appear to have swapped phone numbers through a third party, spoke directly – and that disgraced Labour grandee Peter Mandelson was also in the mix.

You should read the full report here.

A former Tory donor, Candy shifted to Reform UK in 2024 and now serves as their treasurer. He even promised the party a massive sum to support their bid for office. Even far-right tech baron Elon Musk – another Epstein associate – approved of the move.

Candy’s job is to elicit money for the nativist party whose officials have spent the last week dodging questions on Epstein. One even threatened to storm out of a TV interview when pushed on the party’s connections to Epstein.

Needless to say the full extent of Candy’s – and his financial dealings – with Epstein are still hazy. Yet the pair’s apparently rather collegiate relationship tells a story.

Questions to answer

Tax expert and economist Richard Murphy drew out some of the contradictions in the Reform UK/Epstein relationship.

Murphy wrote on 5 February:

In December 2024, Candy announced that he had quit the Conservatives and would “become the treasurer for Reform UK”. He then joined Nigel Farage and Elon Musk at a strategy meeting at Donald Trump’s Florida mansion, the latter two of whom also appear in the Epstein files.

Adding:

The trio’s names all appear in a tranche of three million documents released by the US Department of Justice last Friday

Murphy rightly noted:

Appearing in the Epstein files is not an indication of wrongdoing.

But as he pointed out questions remained. And that no Reform MP seemed to have attended the debate on Epstein and Mandelson on 4 February:

That is true, but questions still need to be asked about this and about why, apparently, no Reform MP thought it appropriate to be in the Commons yesterday. Why could that be?

But what are we to make of it all? Because treating Epstein as an aberration, rather than a product or expression of a system, rather misses the point.

Global transnational elites

Epstein was many things. And by all credible accounts every single one of those things was reprehensible. He was a prolific (and prolifically self-serving) operator in international affairs: connector, deal-maker, and schmoozer. Epstein was one figure in an amoral network of transnational elites, dealing in information and brokering power.

He traded in what he and his vile cohorts considered nothing more than property, be it human (his sex-trafficked victims seem to be regularly sidelined in all this) or inanimate. His own politics were clearly of the furthest right.

Ultimately men like these – and they are overwhelmingly men – want to make a world in their own image. With that in mind organisations like Reform UK  – led by people with bottomless reserves of base viciousness, bigotry and ambition –  are going to have a profound appeal for powerful, hyper-rich grotesques like Epstein.

The core truth is Reform UK aren’t popular, they’re just connected. They’re the electoral wing of a propertied global cartel. Underneath the pint-swilling, faux-populist trappings they represent an identifiable set of class interests. Those interests, as it happens, are the same values as tech barons, billionaires, bankers and property tycoons, petro-lords and bought-and-paid-for politicians and abusers whose names are all over Epstein’s gruesome files.

Featured image via the Canary

Piers Corbyn, brother of Jeremy Corbyn, is officially on the ballot for the Your Party Central Executive Committee (CEC) in elections ending 5 January. This is despite Piers’s links to various conspiracy theories.

A pale imitation of his younger brother

Corbyn passed the ballot with 103 votes as an independent yesterday. Since then, people have raised their concerns:

Piers Corbyn is a climate change denier who has been protesting outside refugee hotels alongside fascists of late. The fact that he’s allowed to be in YourParty, nevermind that he has been endorsed for its CEC by 102 London members, is shocking. https://t.co/jZBIpwk87p

— Adam Ramsay (@AdamRamsay) February 4, 2026

Piers has a long history of controversial beliefs, having been very active in the anti-vax movement, leading to his arrest on several occasions. He didn’t stop there, going on to harass NHS workers, accusing them of murder. He also turned up at a drag story time in Brighton screaming “Your parents were straight!”

To be fair, some of the above is kind of tame compared to the time Piers was arrested on suspicion of inciting arson.

Observers have also clocked Piers holding signs saying ‘Stop the Boats’ outside of migrant hotels:

🇬🇧🚨 PIERS CORBYN, brother of JEREMY CORBYN, has arrived at the Bell MIGRANT Hotel in Epping to offer his support.

“I’m here to support the campaign to close this hotel. The boats should be STOPPED. The government is using this CRISIS to bring in DIGITAL ID. We don’t need… https://t.co/536Yj9lkek pic.twitter.com/O7rqq12SVK

— VoxPopuli (@vpopulimedia) August 8, 2025

Advertisement

Just yesterday, he tweeted this:

AND now:
Zach Polanski the conman.
Fact: Man-Made ClimateChange does Not Exist – Download https://t.co/qXisckHYmJ https://t.co/OsYEcRbTUO pic.twitter.com/xulHiKnylA

— Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) February 3, 2026

Do you see what we’re getting at here?

Is this really who Your Party wants?

The presence of Piers on the ballot poses a significant question for Your Party members.

Will the membership reject his toxic brand of conspiracy-led politics?

Or, will Piers find a powerful new platform for his controversial views?

It all feels a bit ‘nepo sibling’ to us.

Featured image via Daily Record

Neva Novaky is Surrey Area Deputy Chairman and was a candidate in the 2019 General Election. 

As a small state, low tax Conservative, I can see why some fellow Conservatives have been tempted by Reform. However, I have no intention of joining them. My reasons are not rooted in tribal loyalty but in judgement, delivery and national interest.

Reform will not deliver low taxes. They claim to be a low-tax party but that is already being tested – and found wanting – in the five councils they control.

 Residents of Derbyshire, North Northamptonshire, West Northamptonshire and Leicestershire Council’s, are seeing their council tax increase by the maximum of 5 per cent allowed by law. Kent residents face a 3.99 per cent increase. This is a huge betrayal of the public given they were elected on a promise to cut council taxes, whatever Farage claims.

They are also now backtracking on the £90 billion of tax cuts they promised in their manifesto. In autumn of last year, Nigel Farage said that his party now felt that substantial tax cuts were not realistic.

Reform also announced they are against the two-child cap.

They did not propose a tax cut to support families but defended a government hand out. They put the emphasis on the state giving you back the money you pay them in the first place after taking a cut, rather than allowing you to keep more of your own hard-earned money. This is socialism dressed up as populism.

Then there is Farage’s track record as an elected official for over 20 years – he was a Member of the European Parliament from 1999 to 2020 and there was one single issue that he stood for – UK’s departure from the EU. Yet, it was not Farage, the Brexit Party or UKIP that delivered Brexit or even the intellectual arguments in favour of it. We did that as Conservatives in government.

During his 20+ years representing the UK in the European Parliament, he also did not influence EU legislation or arguably do the job he was paid to do. Outside of plenary sessions where he played to the UK media, he did not do the committee work so as to even try and defend the UK’s national interest in the policy-making process. His attendance was notoriously bad. Meanwhile, Conservative MEPs did the job at hand! They were present at votes and negotiations at all levels (committee and plenary) and worked hard to defend our national interest.

He’s had questions around his expenses throughout his time in the European Parliament and they don’t make me confident that Reform would be a safer pair of hands if in charge of the treasury.

During his time as an MEP, Farage and the group he co-chaired faced various spending scandals. From 2004 till 2019, he co-chaired a European Parliament group of MEPs. Farage was personally found to have not respected rules on staff funding and had his salary cut for 10 months to compensate for it.

His political group’s EU wide alliance had to repay their full 2016 grant of €1.1 million.

While Farage’s team in the EU did underline that they were under higher scrutiny on their public spending for politically motivated reasons, this was also the case for Conservatives. The reality is that decisions taken by Farage and under his watch left him and his European grouping vulnerable. Farage is responsible for at least some of those decisions and indirectly responsible for what happened on his watch.

Then of course there is Russia.

Reform’s weak stance on Russia is not in our national interest – amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, threatening the freedoms we fought so hard for decades before, it is difficult not to see Reform’s history and stance on Russia through the lens of national security. Last year, a UK court found Nathan Gill guilty of accepting bribes to promote a pro-Russian narrative. Gill was a former MEP in Farage’s party under his leadership and briefly head of Reform in Wales.

Furthermore, Farage’s voting record on Russia speaks volumes. In October 2019 before leaving the EU, while we were supporting European efforts to take stronger action against Russian propaganda, Farage and his MEPs were opposing it.

Farage did make a public statement last year finally criticising Putin, saying he was a “very bad dude”. However, that was after he had once said Putin was the politician he most admired and repeated the Russian propaganda after the invasion of Ukraine that the West was to blame for provoking Putin. Everyone is allowed of course to change their minds, but historical statements speak to Reform’s inability to make sound judgements in the interest of national security.

Reform’s track record and that of Farage demonstrate to me that my political values will not be better fulfilled by them. This is not about tribalism – after all, Winston Churchill changed parties. It is about making sure that a potential trade is a trade up. As Edmund Burke argued, those in public office fail the public when the sacrifice sound judgement for an applause. Reform are good at playing for applause but they fail the test of sound judgement and delivery needed to lead Great Britan.

I am sad to see some Conservatives who were unsuccessful in fulfilling their aspirations in my party join Reform. There may be a lesson for us on how to manage aspiration and treat teamwork as a key skillset needed from those in public office. After all, national interest must come before ego.

Those leaving because they fear Reform would beat them, my advice is, do not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. With elections three years away, there is everything to fight for.