Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Politics

Disney’s Live-Action Moana Trailer: Dwayne Johnson’s Wig Is A Distraction

Published

on

Disney's Live-Action Moana Trailer: Dwayne Johnson's Wig Is A Distraction

Following the mixed success of recent offerings Snow White, Lilo & Stitch and the Lion King prequel Mufasa, Moana is the latest animated Disney movie to be getting a live-action remake.

Less than a decade on from the release of the original animated movie, a new live-action version of Moana is hitting cinemas this summer – with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson reprising the role of Maui from the original films for this latest take on the hit franchise.

On Monday evening, Disney shared a first-look trailer of the studio’s new spin on Moana, depicting the former WWE performer in character as Maui for the first time, having lent his voice to the demi-god in the original animated musical.

Advertisement

And while the reaction to the clip has been pretty mixed, one thing people are more or less unanimous on is the absolute jump-scare presented by Johnson’s hairpiece.

Yes, Johnson’s transformation into Maui includes a hefty body suit and a long flowing wig, the latter of which it’s fair to say that people aren’t exactly convinced by…

Hundreds of millions of dollars wasted so Dwayne Johnson can don a terrible wig and deliver the same lines but with worse timing. New low for the corporate slopmongers. Can’t even make it past the two min mark of this trailer, I don’t need to see anything from the last 19 seconds https://t.co/81kEzT6Zlc

— Schaffrillas (@Schaffrillas) March 23, 2026

The weirdest thing about Disney live action remakes is the entire film is still animated with the exception of close up shots of a handful of human actors lol https://t.co/y4KcUA7Xim

— CAMELCAST OFFICIAL (@CAMELCASTOff) March 24, 2026

Advertisement

Director Thomas Kail also opened up to Entertainment Weekly about transforming The Rock into Maui.

We knew that it had to be something that could have real lift to it,” he said of Johnson’s wig. “Because you’re doing this on the water, ‘what does it look like wet?’ is a real conversation when you’re making Moana.

“That one weighs seven pounds more with all the water in it for all those hours a day.”

Johnson added that one of the biggest unexpected challenges “that I had to work through very quickly” were presented by the prosthetics and wigs he wore in the movie.

Advertisement

“That is an additional 40 pounds on you,” he claimed. “There’s a freedom when you perform, whether it’s as an actor or singing. So that was an adjustment on how to actually work my emotions through the 40 pounds of prosthetics and hair and body that I had on me.”

Disney’s live-action Moana arrives in cinemas on 10 July.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Politics Home Article | Implementing the National Cancer Plan at pace and scale

Published

on

Implementing the National Cancer Plan at pace and scale
Implementing the National Cancer Plan at pace and scale

Anna Arent, Head of Oncology UK



Anna Arent, Head of Oncology UK
| AstraZeneca

Advertisement

The new National Cancer Plan aims to improve outcomes through earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and person-centred care. AstraZeneca urges bold, system-wide adoption of proven innovations at pace and scale to turn ambition into reality

This article has been sponsored and funded by AstraZeneca.

The publication of the new National Cancer Plan for England marks a pivotal moment for people affected by cancer. At AstraZeneca, the ambition to one day eliminate cancer as a cause of death drives every aspect of our oncology strategy. In the United Kingdom, we bring this to life through our Cancer: Project Zero.

Advertisement

This new National Cancer Plan is a necessary step toward achieving the future envisioned in Cancer: Project Zero.

The plan’s headline target – three in four people with cancer will live well for at least five years with or beyond cancer by 2035 – is ambitious. As is the more immediate goal to recover all cancer waiting times by March 2029. But can this be achieved within this parliament?

What’s powerful about this plan is that it looks to redesign care around people’s lives, through earlier diagnosis, faster treatment, and better support, so that no one’s postcode determines their outcome. This is a compelling vision.

We now need a rigorous focus on delivery and implementation; otherwise, there is a risk that rhetoric does not meet reality.

Advertisement

 

This requires embracing the enablers that will allow the NHS to meet rising demand while improving outcomes:

  • harnessing AI and digital tools to streamline and enhance processes
  • sharing data better across the system to track progress and outcomes
  • optimising patient pathways to reduce unnecessary appointments and accelerate access to treatment

At AstraZeneca, we are one of many organisations working with the NHS to deploy new ways of working and advances in technology. From partnerships in Manchester to drive earlier and faster diagnosis of lung cancers, to AI triage for multidisciplinary teams in London, we are collaborating with local system leaders to gather the evidence needed to drive change on the frontline.

But how do we ensure that promising innovations move beyond pilot schemes, where many remain trapped, and into routine practice?

Advertisement

To do this, we must foster a culture of no-regret moves. Bold decisions to adopt the innovations we know the system needs at scale and pace, supported by clear national direction and empowered local leadership. Industry, academia, and the NHS all have roles to play, but sustained political attention will be essential to maintain momentum. Parliamentarians have a unique opportunity to champion this transformation and to ensure that the commitments in the National Cancer Plan translate into action where it matters most: in the clinics, hospitals, and cancer centres you represent across the country.

That is why I invite Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords to join us on the morning of 24 March in the Churchill Room to learn more about Cancer: Project Zero and discuss how we accelerate implementation of the National Cancer Plan. This event will bring together experts, clinicians, and innovators to explore the practical steps needed to deliver the bold ambition we all share. By working together, we can ensure that this plan becomes more than a strategy on paper. We can turn it into a reality that changes lives.

To find out more about Cancer: Project Zero, please click here.


March 2026 | GB-74943

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Signs Your Work Burnout Is A ‘Competence Hangover’

Published

on

Signs Your Work Burnout Is A 'Competence Hangover'

Additional comment provided by Peter Duris, CEO of Kickresume.

Burnout is alarmingly common in UK workplaces. It’s expected to affect about 65% of workers (20% of employees have taken time off for work-related stress).

That can be caused by high workload, low pay, a lack of support, and unrealistic expectations.

But if you ask Peter Duris, CEO of Kickresume, some of those people are experiencing something called a “competence hangover,” too.

Advertisement

What is a competence hangover?

It’s a form of burnout that happens when a worker feels solely, or mostly, responsible for keeping their workplace afloat.

You might feel that standards would drop to unacceptable levels without you, or that serious mistakes would be made in your absence – leading to immense perceived pressure.

“If you feel responsible for other people’s well-being at work, you might be more likely to push yourself further, taking on extra tasks or working later, potentially to the point of burnout,” said Duris.

Advertisement

Who is most likely to get a “competence hangover”?

“You can develop this issue in any kind of job, but there are some career paths where people might be more vulnerable to a ‘competence hangover,’” Duris told HuffPost UK.

“This includes jobs where workers can find themselves under a lot of emotional strain,” like medicine, teaching, and social work.

And, Duris added, personality matters too.

Advertisement

Studies have shown that people who are highly conscientious are more likely to take on extra work, describing themselves as feeling exhausted and emotionally drained.

“Because they’re seen as reliable, these employees are often asked by managers to take on extra tasks on top of helping their coworkers. Managers should be mindful of this to avoid overloading their teams.”

How can I tell if I have a competence hangover?

Per Duris, some signs include:

Advertisement
  1. Feeling exhausted,
  2. Coming back to work after the weekend as if you haven’t had a proper rest,
  3. Struggling with decision-making can feel harder,
  4. Low creativity,
  5. Feeling resentful of coworkers.

“On the other hand, if you’re a manager who’s worried about one of your team members, it might come out in a one-to-one meeting, so make sure that you’re making time for these catch-ups,” he added.

When should I leave because of burnout?

Competence “hangovers” are a form of burnout that can make you feel like you need to switch jobs.

“Sometimes a couple of days off can help take the pressure off a bit. But people whose exhaustion is deeper than this might find themselves needing to use sick leave, or consider leaving their job,” he said.

“Even if you love your work and you’re a high performer, it’s not worth risking your wellbeing and your health.

Advertisement

If you have a supportive manager and workplace, he added, relying on the people you work with more could help to ease your stress.

“But if you can’t rely on the other people at your company to pick up the slack after you’ve been giving it your all to keep everything going – to the point that you’ve burned out – it might be time to start thinking about a change of direction,” he ended.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Farage Urged To Sack Reform Candidate After Insulting Remarks

Published

on

Farage Urged To Sack Reform Candidate After Insulting Remarks

Nigel Farage has been urged to sack Reform’s mayoral candidate after he compared a Jewish community group to “Islamists on horseback”.

Chris Parry, who is standing to be the mayor of Hampshire, made the shocking comment about members of a Jewish neighbourhood safeguarding group called Shomrim.

His remarks came hours after an arson attack on ambulances run by a Jewish charity, Hatzola, in North London, which works alongside Shomrim.

Parry, who previously courted controversy for claiming deputy prime minister David Lammy should “go home” to the Caribbean, reposted a post on X, asking: “Can Christian’s [sic] in Britain set up their own police and patrol certain neighbourhoods?”

Advertisement

Parry added: “Remember that these cosplayers have no more jurisdiction or legal authority than ordinary citizens.”

After another user questioned the mayoral candidate over the depiction of Shomrim, he wrote: “They are a community organisation, not a legal entity. It’s the same with Islamists on horseback. But if it offends you, I’ll remove it.”

He later told the Guardian: “Most people on X commenting seem to be confusing various community action groups with the real police. Keen that people understand that.”

The retired rear admiral is set to stand in the Hampshire and the Solent mayoral election in 2028.

Advertisement

A Labour Party spokesperson hit out at the Reform party leader for keeping Parry on.

They said: “Nigel Farage should have done the right thing and booted Chris Parry out of Reform UK months ago. He’s previously made a huge number of appalling and racist comments and faced no action – he simply isn’t fit to be a candidate for public office.

“All politicians should be standing squarely with the Jewish community in the face of appalling antisemitism – particularly after the despicable antisemitic attack in Golders Green last night.

“The fact Nigel Farage has repeatedly failed to take any action against Chris Parry shows how far he’s willing to drag politics into the gutter. Labour will always stand with the Jewish community and continue working to ensure they are not subjected to racism, discrimination, or violence.”

Advertisement

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Max Wilkinson also lashed out at Parry’s remarks.

He said: “Nigel Farage should act now to drop Chris Parry as Reform’s Hampshire mayoral candidate. These remarks were deeply insensitive, insulting and not befitting of someone who wants to hold public office.

“At a time when we are all thinking of the Jewish community after such a disturbing attack, these comments will compound the pain so many people are already feeling.”

Reform UK has been contacted for comment.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The House Article | Well-aimed World Cup drama still misses: Liam Conlon reviews ‘Saipan’

Published

on

Well-aimed World Cup drama still misses: Liam Conlon reviews 'Saipan'
Well-aimed World Cup drama still misses: Liam Conlon reviews 'Saipan'

Ireland manager: Steve Coogan (centre) as Mick McCarthy |
Image by: Alamy / © Sunrise Films / Courtesy of: Everett Collection 


5 min read

This depiction of the dramatic fallout between the Republic of Ireland’s team captain and its manager during the 2002 World Cup makes for a decent film – but sadly fails to capture how it sparked a civil war among fans

Advertisement

At the turn of the 20th century, the two most successful parties of Irish politics, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, emerged from the Irish Civil War. They were divided not by class but by their different stances on whether to accept the Anglo-Irish Treaty and a limited form of independence from British rule. This binary shaped Irish governance for a century, effectively turning the two parties into rival pillars of the state that alternated power, until their historic coalition a few years ago.

But at the turn of the 21st century, it was events that took place on a small Pacific island which did more to divide Irish public opinion than any domestic political event. Roy Keane’s walkout from the Republic of Ireland squad during their 2002 pre-World Cup training camp in Saipan started off as an argument about standards but quickly became something much bigger. The events that led to his departure are captured in a new film – Saipan – available now to stream online.

Roy Keane Saipan
Ireland captain: Éanna Hardwicke as Roy Keane |

Image by: Alamy / © Sunrise Films / Courtesy of: Everett Collection 

Keane, then Ireland and Manchester United captain, and at the peak of his influence as a global star, felt the facilities in Saipan were amateurish to the point of disrespect. Training pitches were at Sunday league levels, the catering akin to school dinners, equipment including footballs missing, and travel arrangements chaotic. In typical Keane style, he did not keep his concerns private. He went public in an explosive interview with the Irish Times, criticising the preparation in blunt, unforgiving terms.

Advertisement

As a portrayal of what happened in Saipan, it is a solid docufilm

Mick McCarthy, the Ireland manager, saw it differently. To him, this was a player who thought he was above everyone else, undermining the team days before a World Cup that they had fought so hard collectively to qualify for. Saipan centres on the rising tensions and subsequent breakdown in the relationship between Keane and McCarthy. McCarthy, played by Steve Coogan, confronts Keane on a number of occasions and as the film progresses the arguments turn deeply personal. It culminates in a confrontation in front of the squad where simultaneously McCarthy sends Keane home and the captain quits.

As a portrayal of what happened in Saipan, it is a solid docufilm. What it oversimplifies are the years of tension between Keane and the out-of-touch Football Association Ireland (FAI). It was the FAI, more than McCarthy, who were responsible for the unprofessional facilities and preparations. And what the film misses completely is what I think became the most interesting aspect of the saga: the reaction in Ireland and among the global diaspora. 

Advertisement

The World Cup in 2002 is the first I can remember following, along with my Irish dad and grandparents in London. Qualifying was a major achievement for Ireland, having knocked out the Netherlands in the group stage.

Steve Coogan Saipan
Ireland manager: Steve Coogan as Mick McCarthy

Image by: Alamy / © Sunrise Films / Courtesy of: Everett Collection 

There was hope and excitement at the qualification, but the fallout from Saipan – and whether you were with Roy or against him – was polarising. It split families, friends, pubs and workplaces for years after. In the days that followed his departure, there were incidents of fans defacing 7UP billboards across Ireland featuring Keane, leading to their removal (ironically, the slogan of the advertising campaign he fronted was “there’s no substitute”). 

One side saw Keane as Ireland’s greatest ever player and the ultimate professional, who was simply holding a poorly run association to account. The other viewed him as selfish, abandoning his country on the biggest stage. The team eventually made the last 16, which only added another layer to the debate: had Keane been a disruptive force, or had his absence forced unity?

Saipan filmIn this depiction Coogan brings presence to Mick McCarthy, reflecting both the steadiness of the Yorkshireman and the simmering frustration of a manager under siege. Éanna Hardwicke, who plays Roy Keane, certainly captures the infamous volatility of the captain, but his performance occasionally lapses into a one-dimensional portrayal, conveying everything with intensity.

It took a century for the historic divides between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to subside when they entered a coalition in 2020. The debate over whether Keane was right or wrong to walk away from Saipan may still divide Irish public opinion a century on. There is much to explore in that, including the national conversation it started on the relationship between individual excellence and collective responsibility. This is a decent film, but it would have been greatly enhanced with a portrayal of that societal response at home.

Liam Conlon is Labour MP for Beckenham and Penge

Advertisement

Saipan

Directed by: Glenn Leyburn & Lisa Barros D’Sa

Broadcaster: Available to rent on Amazon Prime & Apple TV

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Slovenian Golob set to maintain support of Palestine after win

Published

on

Slovenian Golob set to maintain support of Palestine after win

The centre-left Freedom Movement party led by incumbent Slovenian prime minister Robert Golob eked out marginally more votes than its main rival, the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDP), in the Sunday March 22 national election. That’s despite the apparent involvement of an Israeli spy firm attempting to undermine the government through use of secret recordings.

Figures are still shifting as votes are counted and recounted, but it appears Golob managed to secure around 28.5% of the vote, with the rival SDP leader Janez Janša getting around 28%. Golob has been leading a three party coalition since 2022.

Slovenian PM demands European action against Zionist spying

The election in the nation of two million people reached the European mainstream last week, when Golob contacted president of the European Commission (EC) Ursula von der Leyen. The senior EC figure has been dubbed ‘Ursula Fond of Lying‘ due to her contortions to back Zionist atrocities, but Golob tried his luck nonetheless, reporting the underhand manoeuvres of an Israeli surveillance company. He sought to inform the commission of:

…alarming information regarding what appears to constitute a grave instance of foreign information manipulation and interference currently unfolding in the Republic of Slovenia. Recent media reports informed the public of a private Israeli intelligence company Black Cube engaging in “mercenary surveillance” as a part of a coordinated operation to manipulate the Slovenian electoral processes by targeting political figures via illegal surveillance and so-called “smear” operations.

Such interference by a foreign private company poses a clear hybrid threat against the European Union and its Member States, which negatively impacts or potentially threatens our common values, procedures and political processes.

Advertisement

He concluded:

Black Cube is known for their smear campaigns with one goal: to undermine the trust of the citizens in the democratic processes by releasing falsified corruption allegations at precisely planned times, in this case, just before the general elections. These activities pose a threat to national security and influence democratic elections.

Zionist spy called for engineering epidemics in Gaza

Golob said Black Cube operatives had been in Slovenia four times in the previous six months. Politico has an in-depth report, saying a:

…private jet that landed on a freezing December day was carrying Dan Zorella, CEO of Black Cube; Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council; and two other men, according to the authorities, who allege they were engaged in “covert surveillance and wiretapping.”

The reports describes the recordings made:

The tapes show prominent Slovenian figures apparently discussing corruption, illegal lobbying and the misuse of state funds.

The figures involved do not appear to have been publicly named for legal reasons. As for the Black Cube men, Eiland is a particularly vile figure. He demanded that so-called ‘Israel’ engineer disease outbreaks during the Zionist holocaust in Gaza, saying:

Advertisement

After all, severe epidemics in the southern Gaza Strip will bring victory closer and reduce casualties among IDF soldiers. This is not cruelty for cruelty’s sake, since we do not support suffering on the other side as an end, but as a means…

We must not, simply must not, adopt the American narrative that gives us ‘permission’ to fight only Hamas fighters instead of doing the right thing – fighting against the opposing system in its entirety, because it is precisely the civilian collapse that will bring the end of the war closer.

This amounts to a clear call for the war crimes of collective punishment and biological warfare.

Exports from ‘Palestine Laboratory’ cause harm globally

Golob’s government has shown clear Palestinian sympathies. The country recognised Palestinian statehood in May 2024. The government brought in a bill that banned the import of goods from the Occupied Palestinian Territories (though ‘Israel’ itself is also occupied Palestinian land, of course).

Golob’s coalition banned all arms trading with the criminal Zionist pseudo-state. They also banned the hideous war criminals Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich from entering Slovenia. It is clear there was ample reason for Black Cube to try and undermine those in power. Golob has accused opposition leader Janša of being part of the Zionist plot. He admitted meeting Eiland, though Politico state “he could not recall on which date“.

Advertisement

The scandal represents yet another instance of the global scourge the Zionist land theft project represents, as it undermines democracy across the globe. Politicians in Britain and the United States have been bought off with Zionist cash, with predictably pro-genocide policies emerging as a result.

It also highlights once more the Palestine Laboratory, where the Zionist entity deploys weapons and spying techniques on Palestinian test subjects to murder them and violate their privacy. The Zionist military and surveillance industrial complex then inflicts the results of these vile experiments on populations across the world, making a tidy profit as it goes.

The Slovenian population have resisted this malign influence, and it will require continued votes for pro-Palestinian parties elsewhere to permanently end the corrosive reach of ‘Israeli’ meddling.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Hillsborough survivors and bereaved families hurt by Keir Starmer

Published

on

Hillsborough survivors and bereaved families hurt by Keir Starmer

Keir Starmer has betrayed the Hillsborough families and survivors again — as he was always going to do — along with all those others who lost loved ones through injustice or state mismanagement causing disasters.

Starmer has never made a promise he wasn’t ready to break and only ever used Hillsborough law for cover and misdirection. While he claimed he would pass the law, which will impose a ‘duty of candour’ on public bodies and officials, in Labour’s first session of government, he was writing for the Murdoch S*n that smeared and vilified the Hillsborough victims.

He was despised and condemned for even saying the word ‘Hillsborough’ because of it.

Yet he still continued to write for that filthy rag again and again. Not just write for it, but attend its parties, chum around with its senior staff, allow its hacks into Labour’s 2022 conferencein Liverpool, the city that lost 97 people in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster — and appointed Murdoch’s pawns as senior advisers.

Advertisement

So, of course, he was always going to break his promise to pass the law in this parliament, and that’s exactly what he has done. But Hillsborough campaigners and other bereaved families are not having it.

Hillsborough: Families have ‘suffered enough’

They have accused him, entirely rightly, of “insulting” their loved ones and them by refusing to introduce the law as he promised. And they are entirely unimpressed with his excuse that he had to delay the law to add an amendment to add security service operatives to those bound by the law. Horseshit.

Passing it now and then adding to it later would be just as easy, and the security services have for years had their arm deeper up Starmer’s nether regions than a vet up the horse that did the shit.

Starmer’s lackeys pulled the bill in January. He couldn’t be clearer that he doesn’t care a fig for the families of those killed at Hillsborough, in the Manchester Arena bombing, victims of the Post Office and Windrush scandals, or any others. They have all signed a letter to Starmer accusing him of protecting those involved in “denial, defensiveness and cover-ups”.

Advertisement

The letter goes on:

The fact that Hillsborough law has still not been reintroduced to parliament is an insult to all of us who have been working so hard to get to this point. It has undermined our trust in this government to do what they said they would and make this legacy project a reality.

We hope that, going forward, you, the prime minister, and your government will listen to the people Hillsborough law is meant to protect and not those it is meant to protect us from. We have suffered enough.

It will be a forlorn hope, unless somehow Starmer is dragged kicking and screaming into keeping that thing to which he is most allergic: a promise.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Israel UEFA complicity upheld by Irish football

Published

on

Israel UEFA complicity upheld by Irish football

Joanna Byrne, chairperson at Drogheda United football club, has been dismissed by the club’s American owners, the Trivela Group over her principled opposition to Israel. The shameful decision follows remarks she made in February calling on the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) to not play their Nations League fixture against so-called ‘Israel’.

In a terse statement on Monday March 23, Trivela Group said the following on Drogheda’s website:

Trivela Group can confirm that, pursuant to its authority as sole shareholder of Drogheda United FC, Joanna Byrne has been removed by Trivela Group as a director of the Club.

At this time, the Board of Directors consists of Benjamin Boycott, Marc Koretzky, Barton Lee, and club CEO Rian Wogan. Mr. Boycott for the time being, will serve as the sole Chairperson, and the club will look to appoint a local director and Co-Chair in due course.

Once again, we thank Ms Byrne for her longstanding and ongoing dedication to the Club and its success.

Advertisement

Israel defended: ‘cold, underhand move’

Byrne also serves as a Sinn Féin TD, representing Louth in the Dáil. In a statement released Monday on her Facebook page, she responded to her dismissal, describing it as a:

…cold, underhand move by Trivela, initiated in the dark of the night, which was planned and co-ordinated without any consultation with me. This is symptomatic of the way they do business.

The controversy began on 12 February 2026 when Byrne, in her role as Sinn Féin spokesperson on Culture, Communications and Sport, made a statement denouncing the appalling decision of the FAI to go ahead with the 4 October fixture against the Zionist entity’s national team. She said:

In November, the FAI voted to submit a motion to UEFA to ban Israel from its European club and international competitions. That was the correct moral and principled position to take.

Therefore, I am extremely angry and dismayed that the FAI have confirmed they will play against Israel.

It appears that their morals, and principled position, was only on paper – not in actions where it counts.

Advertisement

She contrasted UEFA’s treatment of the settler-colony with the response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine, saying:

There are double standards here from UEFA. Russia was expelled from all club and international competitions by UEFA in 2022 following their brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine. The same principle should be applied to Israel.

Byrne concluded:

Israel is an apartheid state who have engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide. Their behaviour cannot be accepted or normalised.

They should be treated the same as Apartheid South Africa was, and be banned and boycotted by all.

Trivela Group had privately indicated to Byrne in mid-February that they expected her to resign for these entirely laudable statements. Her opinions are shared by most of the Irish public, and a majority of the nation’s professional footballers. She refused to comply, however, saying:

Advertisement

I stand over those comments. They were made from a deeply held belief in equality, human rights and the power of sport to take principled positions – as it has done many times in history.

Amoral profiteers running cherished sporting institutions

The Trivela Group operate a multi-club ownership (MCO) model. Apart from Drogheda, Trivela own Silkeborg in Denmark, Walsall FC in England, and Trivela FC in Togo. They have previously fallen foul of their own model, resulting in Drogheda being unable to play in the 2025/26 UEFA Conference League, as Silkeborg had also qualified for the same competition. UEFA’s rules forbid multiple clubs under the same owner from competing in the same tournament.

The American outfit appear to practice a form of football extractivism in Africa, grooming talented players there, before farming them out to European clubs they own. They can then potentially be sold on for a big fee to European giants, cutting the original African club out of any profits.

They attempt to present themselves as kindly benefactors, acting as “thoughtful stewards of talent and resources”. Given the bitter experience of profiteering US owners, it would be naive to believe this shit. Walsall supporters expressed their dissatisfaction last month, suggesting:

…the club’s immediate sporting objectives are being subordinated to wider ownership priorities.

This is a glaring reminder of how capitalism outrageously violates basic democratic principles. Football clubs are typically historic, deeply cherished centres of a community. Yet the will of tens of thousands of people can be overridden by one rich arsehole if the latter owns the club.

Advertisement

The disgraceful treatment of Byrne proves Trivela’s moral vacuity, as they choose to stand with an apartheid genocidal entity rather than with those who oppose it. The one useful thing they’ve done is maintain a CEO – Ben Boycott – whose name reminds us of the necessary course of action needed against loathsome corporate ghouls and the Zionist entity itself.

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Decriminalising abortion is nothing to fear

Published

on

Decriminalising abortion is nothing to fear

The House of Lords voted last week to back MPs’ plans for abortion reform. This reform – an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill – would (partly) decriminalise abortion. It would take abortion out of the English and Welsh criminal law for women in relation to their own pregnancies, and would lead to a pardon for women who have been prosecuted under the existing laws governing abortion.

This is an important moment. Abortion has been criminalised ever since the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 made it a crime to procure or induce a miscarriage. It is true that during the 1950s and 1960s there was growing awareness that women needed access to abortion, which resulted in the Abortion Act 1967. But this did not decriminalise abortion. Rather, it made an exception if certain conditions were met: that a pregnancy is less than 24 weeks gestation, two doctors are willing to sanction it, and it is carried out on specially licensed premises.

Since the 1960s, abortion has become simpler and safer, with medication to end pregnancy now readily available. Medical and public opinion has changed, too. As a result, abortion law has been interpreted more liberally and medical regulations have changed, where possible under existing law.

Advertisement

But despite all this, criminal sanctions, a living legacy of the 19th-century Offences Against the Person Act, still haunt the provision of abortion services today. As it stands, nurses can be trained to carry out minor surgery, but not abortions, because the law prohibits it. A doctor can certify an abortion in his or her surgery, but cannot prescribe the pills to cause one, because GP surgeries aren’t licensed to do so. A midwife might give medication to assist in a miscarriage, but cannot give the same drug to bring about abortion.

The legal absurdities are especially pronounced when it comes to providing abortion pills by post – a practice that became necessary during the Covid lockdowns but has continued afterwards. So a woman’s home is now licensed as a ‘class of place’ where she can take the pills. But she still can’t get them from a GP because a GP surgery isn’t licensed as a class of place for abortion pills to be prescribed.

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Please wait…

Advertisement
Advertisement

Given all this, surely it makes sense to support the decriminalisation of abortion? Why not allow abortion to be regulated by the same laws and standards that apply to other medical procedures?

Yet instead of focussing on what the abortion-law reform is actually about, most of the coverage of the Lords vote has obsessively zeroed in on the subject of late abortions – that is, abortions carried out weeks from birth. This is despite the fact that the number of late abortions carried out each year is vanishingly small. What’s more, it’s unlikely to be increased by changes in the law for one very good reason – namely, that women really do not want to have late abortions.

In 2023, the most recent year for which we have complete figures, there were almost 280,000 abortions in England and Wales. Of these, more than 248,000 (89 per cent) were within the first nine weeks of gestation. Less than two per cent were between 20 and 24 weeks. This shows, unsurprisingly, that only a tiny number of women request abortions in the later stages of pregnancy.

Advertisement

To imagine that, without a time limit, women would be aborting babies in the final months is a gruesome fantasy. It assumes that women are perverse creatures without morals or rational judgement. The isolated few cases in which women have been prosecuted for self-abortion late in pregnancy only stick in our minds because they are so exceptional.

The best person to answer the question of whether to have an abortion should be the woman who has to live with the consequences. That’s why this reform is important. The law is now set to be framed in a way that will allow women to make decisions about pregnancy for themselves and accept the consequences that come with that privilege.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

How the abortion lobby lost the plot

Published

on

How the abortion lobby lost the plot

I am pro-choice. Always have been. So why do I feel so uncomfortable about last week’s vote in the House of Lords to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales? For me, that vote, and even more strikingly the discussion around it, corroborated a concern I’ve had for some time. Which is that the abortion issue is less and less one of individual autonomy and instead is morphing into yet another manifestation of the voguish misanthropy of our times. One feels compelled to ask whether abortion rights today are underpinned by a love of liberty or a fear of life.

The unelected peers of the second chamber voted in favour of an amendment introduced to the Crime and Policing Bill by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi last year. The amendment decriminalises abortion for women. So any woman who terminates her pregnancy outside of the legal framework – for example, after the 24-week limit – will no longer face prosecution. The bill to which this amendment was added was passed by 379 to 137 votes in the House of Commons last year. Last week, the House of Lords batted back certain peers’ worries about the abortion amendment and gave their imperious nod to the bill.

There are things here that should unsettle even people of a pro-choice persuasion. The first is the manner in which this sweeping tweak to abortion law was pushed through. The amendment is to the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which outlaws abortion. The 1967 Abortion Act was itself an amendment to the 1861 Act, with its stipulation that abortion is still an offence but it can be justified in certain circumstances. The new amendment, snuck in through the Crime and Policing Bill, is far more dramatic – it completely removes women from the criminal framework so that there are no circumstances in which a woman will face investigation or reprimand for self-inducing a miscarriage.

Advertisement

For such a substantial amendment to longstanding law to be attached to a general crime bill feels like a slap in the face to the public. You will forgive me for not celebrating the approval of an amendment none of us was ever invited to discuss by peers none of us ever voted for. It brings the pro-choice movement into disrepute when it engages in what will look to many people like an establishment stitch-up. It is not dissimilar to the ‘assisted dying’ issue – another idea Labour MPs are feverishly pursuing despite it not being in their manifesto. Perhaps us plebs are too dim to appreciate the finer moral details of questions of life.

The underhand manner in which the abortion amendment was enacted is mirrored in the intolerance of some of its advocates. Their bristling hostility towards the moral objections of Christians, traditionalists and other everyday Britons has shocked me. To infer ignorance or sexism on the part of these objectors strikes me as profoundly unfair, not to mention undemocratic. These people are not women-haters or fools – they merely disagree with you. They disagree that there should be no consequences for a pregnant woman who intentionally induces a miscarriage outside of the rules, for example very late in her gestation. They are allowed to think this. The sad thing is that there has been no forum in which such mortals have been free to air their objections.

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Please wait…

Advertisement
Advertisement

Another concern I have is the ethical contortionism of the amendment. It only decriminalises abortion for pregnant women. Doctors and other medical professionals who assist or perform an abortion outside of the legal framework – most notably, a late abortion – could still be criminally liable. So in essence, society still says an unauthorised late abortion is a morally objectionable thing, but the woman who arranges it will be free from reprimand while the person who carries it out will not. This will feel morally illogical to many people.

Worse, it threatens to enshrine inequality in the law. It threatens to infantilise women. To absolve women of criminal culpability for a self-induced miscarriage, while maintaining criminal culpability for those who aid them, projects a childish status on to pregnant women. They are seen as less criminally responsible for the termination they have expressly sought out than the professionals who assent to that termination. So an abortion that takes place outside of the legal framework is still potentially a crime, but only for certain participants.

Advertisement

This brings us to what I consider to be the key problem with the amendment – does society think it is wrong to intentionally induce a miscarriage very late in pregnancy? Yes or no? Many of us accept that there are circumstances in which an abortion beyond the 24-week limit should be permissible. Unquestionably when the mother’s life is at risk. And arguably in cases of severe fetal abnormality. But I thought we had decided – collectively, democratically – that the termination of a late-gestation healthy fetus that could survive outside of the womb was unethical? Was I wrong?

If we did decide that, it seems entirely reasonable to me that the person who incites or enacts this thing that society has decreed to be wrong should face consequences. I entirely agree that compassion is preferable to incarceration. I don’t want women jailed. But it is ridiculous to deny that the decriminalisation of all self-induced terminations creates a structure of permission for behaviour that society had collectively ruled to be immoral and, until five minutes ago, criminal.

I agree with the pro-choice side when it baulks at the dystopic vision put forward by pro-lifers of women around the country terminating their pregnancies five minutes before birth. Late abortion is an incredibly traumatic thing. It is not a ‘right’ most women want. And yet there is dishonesty on both sides. Alongside the fearmongering about an epidemic of home-done infanticides, there is the other side’s unwillingness to grapple with the size of this moral shift and the unjust perversity of excluding the public from its enactment.

Advertisement

In a sense, the most pressing issue is not that women will abort fetuses that could very easily survive outside of the womb. It’s that they are allowed to. There will be no punishment (for them, anyway). The pro-choice side can dress this up as a mere technical tweak as much as it likes. But to many people – who are not idiots – it feels like a profound moral turn. Is it not the right of a society to say that beyond a certain point – that point being viability – you are not permitted to destroy fetal life? And more importantly, to enforce that moral judgement through law? Otherwise what is law? Decoration?

I am very liberal on a woman’s right to choose. I agree women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy prior to 24 weeks. I support women’s right to access pills-by-post for early terminations. I believe in self-government for everyone, including pregnant women. But I am going to say the thing my side is too often reluctant to say: it is morally wrong to opt to destroy a life that could survive outside of the womb. Because in such a circumstance, you are not only asking society to help you become un-pregnant, you are also asking it to do something it would never normally do: end a viable life. Our abortion framework still says such an act is wrong, and yet it will no longer punish it. So it’s not that wrong. That’s what the political class is saying. And that’s a big deal. For all of us, even those who own no ermine robes.

Here’s my chief concern – the only time the cultural establishment gets excited about ‘freedom’ these days is when it regards the end of life. They cheer ‘the right to die’. They oppose punishment for the ending of viable fetal life. The same elites who don’t trust us to vape or to say ‘Bollocks to the Koran’, who jealously police our thoughts, our speech, our consciences and our social interactions, suddenly morph into John Stuart Mill when it comes to ending or preventing human life. We are well within our rights – our real rights – to ask if this is misanthropy in the drag of autonomy. Is this pro-chocie or is it anti-human? I have my thoughts.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

2028 Dems reject AIPAC

Published

on

2028 Dems reject AIPAC

Democrats eyeing White House runs in 2028 are preemptively breaking up with AIPAC.

Sen. Cory Booker, who received donations bundled by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as late as December, told POLITICO that he’s sworn off the group’s funds (and other PAC money). California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he never has and “never will” take donations from the group. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) vowed last week that he “wouldn’t take AIPAC money” anymore. A spokesperson for Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said he has “never taken money or solicited support from AIPAC,” while a spokesperson for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said “AIPAC has never contributed to Gov. Beshear and they’re never going to. Ever.”

Their retreat underscores how rapidly AIPAC has become a bogeyman for Democrats seeking to criticize the Israeli government, particularly with the Netanyahu administration’s involvement with President Donald Trump’s operation in Iran. Many former AIPAC-friendly Democrats see the historically bipartisan group as becoming more and more aligned with Netanyahu’s right-wing government in recent years. Its emergence as an early touchstone in the shadow 2028 presidential primary reflects a calculation among leading Democrats that liberal voters’ hard shift away from the longtime U.S. ally will stick.

“This is going to be a huge flashpoint in the primary throughout 2027 and into 2028,” said veteran Democratic strategist Mark Longabaugh, who advised Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid. “The constitution of the party just in the makeup of the voters has changed dramatically. The politics of Israel has changed dramatically.”

Advertisement

Recent AIPAC critics also include some Jewish Democrats who had previously supported the organization or received its backing.

After AIPAC poured $22 million into Illinois primaries last week to mixed results, Gov. JB Pritzker, a billionaire who does not accept outside funds, accused the group of becoming pro-Trump and said he wants no part of the group he once donated to. A spokesperson for Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) pointed to a podcast in which she said she swore off AIPAC’s support in 2022.

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel — a supporter of Israel whose father is Israeli and who previously held dual citizenship with the country, but who has also been a longtime critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — told POLITICO he “need not worry about AIPAC’s support. It will not be forthcoming.”

Democrats cited a variety of reasons for rejecting AIPAC’s cash. Booker said it was part of a broader pledge he made at the start of the year to swear off all PAC money going forward. “I don’t believe we should be accepting any PAC money at all from anybody,” he told POLITICO on Friday.

Advertisement

Gallego likened taking the group’s backing to “endorsing what’s happening right now” in Iran and Gaza while appearing on POLITICO’s “The Conversation.”

And progressives like Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who have been highly critical of the Israeli government and have repeatedly sparred with AIPAC, have accused the group of targeting their campaigns and long rejected its financial aid. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) bluntly told POLITICO: “I don’t take their money, they’re running ads against me.”

Other potential White House aspirants attempted to dodge the question. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), for instance, said he has “individuals who support me” when asked if he would reject AIPAC’s backing. Several more did not respond when reached through spokespeople, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), and Govs. Wes Moore of Maryland and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

That so many Democrats declined to comment on the organization suggests that AIPAC still has some influence in Democratic politics. And the big-spending group can still help its preferred candidates to victory even as its name has become mud in Democratic primaries, as evidenced by its wins last week in two of the four Illinois House races where it spent big. But it’s also telling that no potential 2028 candidate openly embraced the group.

Advertisement

AIPAC and its allies hit back, accusing Democrats who are giving the group the cold shoulder of trying to silence pro-Israel voices within the party. They vowed to continue intervening in Democratic primaries to promote their interests. Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, said “efforts to push pro-Israel Democrats out of the political process are alarming and fundamentally undemocratic.”

Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, acknowledged the “difficult environment” the lobby is navigating after Gaza and with the war in Iran. But, he said, “we aren’t going to be deterred in ensuring that pro-Israel voices are heard in federal elections.”

“We are going to work with mainstream Democrats across the party to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship, and that includes presidential contenders,” Dorton said. “We’re going to remind everybody about the millions of pro-Israel Democratic voters who are part of the political process in federal elections.”

Top Democrats’ rush to rebuff AIPAC comes amid a party-wide grappling over how to handle Israel, after the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Gaza was found to have cost Harris votes in 2024 and as polls show Democratic voters continuing to sour on Israel as it aids the U.S. intervention in Iran. An NBC News poll this month showed 57 percent of Democrats view Israel negatively, a dramatic shift from when just 35 percent held a negative view of the country after Hamas attacked it on Oct. 7, 2023. A Quinnipiac University survey earlier this month showed 62 percent of Democrats felt America is too supportive of Israel.

Advertisement

Democrats eyeing 2028 have been publicly repositioning on Israel for months as Gaza reemerges as a flashpoint in midterm primaries. And their criticisms of Israel and its allies in the U.S. are growing sharper as the war in Iran escalates with no clear off-ramp from Trump.

Newsom earlier this month likened Israel to an “apartheid state” and said the U.S. should reconsider military support for Israel. Pritzker has long been a supporter of Israel and has advocated for a two-state solution, but recently told the New York Times that he’s “challenged” by current geopolitics because the U.S. is supporting Israeli policies “that I don’t think the majority of Americans believe in and I don’t think a majority even of Israelis believe in.”

Shapiro, who’s similarly been a longtime supporter of Israel and a two-state solution, has also criticized Netanyahu and Trump’s enabling of his agenda in recent podcast appearances. But he cautioned that denying Israel’s right to exist could lead to “permanent war.” A spokesperson for Shapiro said the Pennsylvania governor “has been clear that Donald Trump is failing to hold Netanyahu accountable” while also positing that “Israel has a right to exist in security as a Jewish state, and we must find a path to peace in the Middle East that includes a safe homeland for the Palestinian people.”

Leading progressives, including Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna, have gone further — accusing the Netanyahu administration of perpetuating genocide in Gaza and pushing to stop U.S. arms sales to the country.

Advertisement

But Democrats on both ends of the ideological spectrum have argued there are bigger issues around Israel than AIPAC. Shapiro, on a podcast last year, said putting Democrats on record over AIPAC was a “shortcut” for asking their views on Israel and a two-state solution. “Demanding answers on those questions is more important than ‘hey, what about this lobbying group or that lobbying group,’” he said.

Khanna, in a message to POLITICO on Monday, said, “What matters more is the clarity of calling what happened a genocide and stopping military sales to Israel used to kill civilians in Gaza and Lebanon.”

Still, progressive groups such as MoveOn and Justice Democrats are plotting how to make taking AIPAC money a red line for those vying to be the party’s next standard bearer.

“We’re going to be demanding that anyone who deserves to get the Democratic nomination not only doesn’t take AIPAC support or donations, but actively speaks out against this lobby,” said Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi.

Advertisement

In a sign of the volatile and complex politics surrounding Israel, some Democrats who are shutting the door to AIPAC donations are declining to call on their would-be rivals to do the same.

Pritzker, asked by POLITICO last week whether Democratic presidential candidates should accept AIPAC funding, criticized the flood of special-interest money in campaigns in general but cast taking PAC cash as “a matter of values” for each candidate. Murphy said “everybody will make their own decision about it.”

And Booker went so far as to call the AIPAC pile-on “problematic.”

“There are Iranian Americans that bundle money. There are Turkish Americans that bundle money. There are a lot of ethnic groups that bundle money, and often for things that I don’t agree with. But somehow AIPAC seems to be drawing a lot of attention, and that’s problematic to me,” Booker said. “[AIPAC] is not the problem in America. The problem in America is money in politics.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025