Barry Keoghan has opened up about why we won’t be seeing him in the new season of Peaky Blinders.

Earlier this year, the Oscar nominee played Tommy Shelby’s grown-up son Duke in the stand-alone Peaky Blinders movie The Immortal Man.

However, in the upcoming reboot of Peaky Blinders, set around a decade after the events of the Immortal Man, the character of Duke has been recast for a second time, with Jamie Bell taking over the role in the upcoming episodes.

During a new interview with Variety, Barry explained that he “loved making the movie”, describing the process as an “incredible” one, he confirmed it was his decision not to carry on in the role of Duke, but would not share any more about his reasoning.

Advertisement

“I pick projects quite specifically,” he said. “I carefully, cautiously pick because I just want to enjoy, and I want to heal, I want to tell, I want to find, I want to explore. I want to discover all of those things while I’m making a movie with people who are like-minded.”

Joining Jamie in the new episodes will be Stranger Things star Charlie Heaton will also be joining the line-up in a lead role, along with James Bond star Lashana Lynch and Downton Abbey’s Jessica Brown Findlay.

He is the third actor to play Duke Shelby after Barry, who took it over from Bafta rising star winner Conrad Khan during the show’s original run.

An official synopsis for the new season of Peaky Blinders previously teased: “Britain, 1953. After being heavily bombed in WWII, Birmingham is building a better future out of concrete and steel.

“In a new era of Steven Knight’s Peaky Blinders, the race to own Birmingham’s massive reconstruction project becomes a brutal contest of mythical dimensions.

Advertisement

“This is a city of unprecedented opportunity and danger: with the Shelby family right at its blood-soaked heart.”

Creator Steven Knight also enthused: “I’m thrilled to be announcing this new chapter in the Peaky Blinders story.

“Once again it will be rooted in Birmingham and will tell the story of a city rising from the ashes of the Birmingham blitz. The new generation of Shelbys have taken the wheel and it will be a hell of a ride.”

Source link

Sir Ian McKellen has revealed he finally got the chance to watch himself in Cats – and he doesn’t quite understand what all the hate was about.

The six-time Olivier winner was among the star-studded cast of Tom Hooper’s ill-fated adaptation of the classic stage musical, which was savaged by critics upon its release in 2019.

Back in 2024, Sir Ian claimed that he’d still not had the chance to watch Cats all the way through, but during a more recent interview with Magic, he revealed he’d recently been won over by the movie when he caught it by mistake.

“The other day, I did chance upon myself singing in the film of Cats,” he recalled. “And I played through the song and I thought, ‘well, that’s better than what most people thought of the film – what was wrong with that?’.”

Advertisement

When the interviewer pointed out that she “didn’t hate Cats”, he responded: “Who knows – maybe other people will be allowed to discover it.”

“But,” the Oscar nominee continued. “I did make the mistake of reading the comments after.

“I’m my own worst, or best, critic. There are very, very few performances I’ve given that I would give a big tick to.”

During an interview with USA Today, Sir Ian said that he and co-star Dame Judi Dench had a “lovely time” making Cats.

He claimed at the time: “I haven’t actually seen the complete version of the film – I saw it before we had ears and tails put on.

Advertisement

“It probably would’ve been better if they hadn’t had those additions.”

Sir Ian was previously full of praise for Cats when he told his social media followers that he’d watched a “final cut” in December 2019.

The Lord Of The Rings star wrote on Facebook: “A confession: I’ve never been a fan of cats. Dogs for me every time, to look at and be friends with. But I’ve just seen the final cut of the imminent Cats movie and I’m a convert.”

Other members of the Cats cast have been less effusive about the film, with James Corden and Rebel Wilson raising eyebrows at the 2020 Oscars when they appeared on stage dressed as their characters to mock the movie’s special effects – getting on the wrong side the Visual Effects Society in the process.

Advertisement

Source link

Source link

Zack Polanski may have underpaid council tax on his houseboat in London, but he “apologises sincerely for the unintentional mistake”.

The Times originally broke the story, which hinged on the supposition that Polanski and his partner had spent the last three years living, primarily, on a houseboat in the Lee Valley Marina in Waltham Forest.

If the boat was their main residence, the pair should have been paying council tax on it. This appears not to have been the case. However, if it wasn’t their main residence, Polanski shouldn’t have been registered to vote in the area. In fact, this could even be a breach of electoral law.

The Green leader’s team told the Times that he only lived on the boat “occasionally”. They also said that Polanski’s council tax was “included in the rent he pays his landlord” on the property (likely) in Hackney. This is irrelevant to any potential tax on the boat itself.

Zack Polanski and some Nancy Drew shit

Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, broke down further points in the case:

• Mr Polanski was registered to vote at a bungalow next to the Marina. Nine people were registered at that address – most of them didn’t live there, but lived on boats moored at the marina, and used the bungalow as a postal address (presumably given the practical difficulty of getting post delivered to a boat).
• Mr Polanski is currently registered to vote in Hackney, but doesn’t appear to have been registered there during the three years he owned the boat – at that time he was solely registered to vote at the marina (which is in Waltham Forest).
• He told The Times that he rented a room as a lodger at an unstated other property (believed to be in Hackney).
• A local launderette collected Mr Polanski’s laundry every two-to-three weeks (and local sources have told us that it was an amount of laundry suggesting regular occupation, not just occasional visits).
• We understand from local sources that Mr Polanski was frequently seen in the area around the marina.
  Another narrowboat at the marina was at one point registered for council tax. Mr Polanski’s boat never was.

Pointing out that Neidle is a card-carrying Labour Party member here would be a cheap shot. It’s also irrelevant – he’s right about the tax parts.

We will, however, gladly poke the absolutely sterling detective work here. It seems to have involved walking around the marina asking launderette owners about the politician’s very literal dirty laundry. That’s some real-life Nancy Drew shit.

The gotcha…

Neidle went on:

Polanski’s team originally gave two responses.

First, they said that he “stays there only occasionally”. That contradicts the other known facts. It also suggests Mr Polanski breached electoral law, by registering to vote somewhere where he was not in fact resident. That’s potentially a criminal offence. We don’t think that’s what happened – we think his team misled The Times.

Advertisement

We’d be terribly interested whether “the other known facts” includes the reckonings of the launderette owner and the passersby in the Marina area. Just, you know, out of purely academic interest.

While we’re at it, the same also goes for whether calling the boat “our amazing home” in an advert counts as admission of residence. Or if that’s, you know, a turn of phrase in an advert.

That being said, and for the avoidance of doubt – if Polanski owes council tax, he should damn well pay it. However, he’s already said that he intends to:

Until relatively recently, Zack was living on a houseboat, which came with its own unique practical circumstances and considerations. He has immediately taken steps to pay any council tax he may be found to owe.

Zack apologises sincerely for the unintentional mistake.

Advertisement

For security reasons, we do not comment publicly on Zack’s address. There have recently been two serious incidents which have been reported to the police and are under investigation.

Selective reporting at the BBC

Likewise, Neidle also wrote that:

Discussions of politicians’ tax mistakes are often accompanied by calls for police investigations and prosecutions. In this case, and most others, such calls would be misplaced. There is no reason to believe that Mr Polanski’s failure to pay council tax was intentional or dishonest.

Somehow, the likes of the BBC managed to quote Polanski saying the underpayment was unintentional, but left out the same statement from Tax Policy Associates. It’s funny, that.

In a similar vein, the national broadcaster left out the amount that Polanski underpaid by. This is odd, because the Beeb was very much concerned with the £40,000 that Labour’s Angela Rayner missed on her stamp duty. Fortunately, that information was also available in Neidle’s analysis:

We expect the boat and mooring would be in Band A, meaning a total council tax for three years of around £4,000.

Again – £4,000 isn’t nothing, we’re glad it’s getting paid if it needs paying, etc etc.

However, it’s also a hell of a lot less than Farage’s tens-of-thousands tax dodge, i.e., buying his Clacton house in his partner’s name. Or Farage’s £5m undeclared ‘gift’ for security purposes. Or Farage getting paid for GB News work via a company he owns in order to avoid income tax.

Sound the alarms

It’s not so much the content of the Times story, or even the BBC’s recount of it, that’s pissing us off.

Rather, it’s the fact that the establishment media are desperately scraping the barrel for a smoking gun on a desperately inoffensive, lib-turned-leftist, Zionist-turned-anti-Zionist politician.

Meanwhile, commentators from Kuenssberg to Starmer have tried to compare him to far-right Farage for being… popular? Sound the alarm, somebody please – the devil has entered British politics.

If Polanski were any more of a picturesque caricature we’d genuinely think he was fictional. Did you know he’s meant to have lived on a houseboat with his boyfriend until recently?

Featured image via the Canary

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

Source link

Samsung has hit back at allegations made by Dua Lipa and her legal team claiming that the brand used her likeness in its packaging without permission.

Last week, the electronics company found itself at the centre of a $15 million (around £11 million) lawsuit filed by Dua, claiming that it had used a copyrighted image of the Grammy winner in the packaging of its TV sets.

The Future Nostalgia singer accused Samsung of using her assumed endorsement as a way of marketing their products, for which she was seeking millions in damages.

Her lawyers also claimed that Dua had previously contacted Samsung to complain about the packaging as far back as June 2025, requesting that they stop, to no avail.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, Samsung issued a statement denying that they did not have permission to feature Dua in the packaging of its products.

“Ms. Lipa’s image was used in 2025 to reflect the content of our third-party partners that are available on Samsung TVs and was originally provided by a content partner for our free streaming service Samsung TV Plus,” they said in a statement (as reported by Deadline).

“The image was used only after receiving explicit assurance from the content partner that permission had been secured, including for the retail boxes. Given this assurance, we deny any allegations of intentional misuse.

“Samsung has great respect for Ms. Lipa and the intellectual property of all artists. We have actively sought and remain open to a constructive resolution with Ms. Lipa’s team.”

Advertisement

The image in question is of Dua backstage at the Austin City Limits musical festival, where she performed live in 2024.

Dua’s team previously claimed that she is the sole owner of the photo and that she had not granted permission for its use.

HuffPost UK has contacted Dua Lipa for additional comment.

Source link

Recent assaults on railway workers at the busy London Liverpool Street station have prompted action by local RMT representatives, to curb the dangers faced by staff.

Two serious attacks have taken place recently, following the union’s high profile day of action against assaults at the end of April.

RMT regional organiser Kathy Mazur has convened a meeting of local British Transport Police and management to address issues of concern, around safe staffing, police presence and an end to lone working.

She said:

Greater Anglia management must take this situation seriously and act in the best interests of our members who are fearing going into work due to the threat of assault and abuse.

Our campaign for action against assaults and for safer workplaces for railway workers will continue until we see drastic improvements to the current status quo.

If management fail to make tangible progress, we are prepared for a sustained campaign where we cannot rule out industrial action.

Speaking previously about the Action Against Assaults campaign, RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey said:

This campaign is one of the most important the union has ever undertaken and we require significant action to improve the day to day lives of our members who fear being assaulted at work.

Public transport must be a space where passengers feel welcome and our members feel safe.

Advertisement

That needs enforcement both legally and through proper resourcing of authorities like the British Transport Police with safe staffing levels on the transport network.

I have had reports of our members being seriously assaulted, all for just doing their jobs professionally and being of significant help to passengers during extremely busy travel environments.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

The jury had not signed up for a fourth week, but here we were. In the trial of Majid Freeman, also known as Majid Novsarka, Judge Andrew Smith KC continued to remind the jurors that they were under no time pressure. But the impasse had now continued for days.

Judge refuses to alter his instructions

After the court clerk had been sworn in once more on Monday morning and the jury had left the room to continue their deliberations, the prosecution asked the judge if he would consider altering his instructions to the jury.

He asked the judge whether he’d allowing them to consider the lesser charge of “expressing support for a proscribed organisation (Hamas)”, rather than the more significant charge of “inviting support” that they had originally sought.

With considerable time and resource already expended by the Crown on the trial, there were signs of growing pressure to secure a conviction.

But the judge was unmoved. He was “extremely uncomfortable” with the prospect of making such a change, he responded, having already given them detailed and precise guidance on the route to deciding on the charges before deliberations had commenced.

Reduced jury

Even with the provision of time, the jury was now reduced from its original 12 to 10.

One juror had been discharged during the trial for personal reasons, whilst a second left at the end of the agreed-upon three weeks. Now, a third juror informed the judge that he would have to leave by Wednesday.

With nine jurors stipulated as the minimum for a conviction, this would render a unanimous decision the only possible route to a verdict.

No conviction

By mid-morning, the jury returned. They had not managed to break the deadlock. They simply could not agree. Novsarka would be free to go, for now.

A hung jury was declared. The prosecution immediately sought a retrial, which the judge set for September 2027. The charges, and a maximum of fifteen years in prison, remain on the table. But Novsarka would be returning to his family.

On the steps outside Birmingham Crown Court, Novsarka addressed the crowd of supporters that had continued to show. He thanked:

every single person who stood with me, who came to court … who refused to let this case be ignored.

Freeman defiant

Novsarka portrayed the result in a positive light, pointing out that:

after almost a month, a jury of my peers could not agree that I am guilty of any crime.

He also struck a defiant tone at the prospect of returning to the stand in 16 months, saying that he would:

face [the] retrial with the same clarity, the same conscience, and the same conviction I have carried from the very beginning.

Hind Rajab’s name mentioned in court

It is possible that this trial marked the first time Hind Rajab’s name was uttered in a British courtroom.

Hind would have turned eight last week. Instead, she was brutally murdered as a five year-old girl, alongside six members of her family and two paramedics coming to her rescue, by the Israeli military in Gaza. The phone call between Hind and the Palestinian emergency services had been played in court:

I’m so scared, please come. Come take me. Please, will you come?

No trials for war criminals

At the end of April, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that they would not open an investigation into ten British nationals accused of crimes against humanity through their participation in the Gaza genocide.

It is inevitable that any new jury in the Majid Freeman case will have to relive the horrors of that genocide once more. The defendant said outside Birmingham Crown Court on Monday:

I welcome the opportunity of a retrial, because it means the evidence of what Israel has done to Gaza, the brutality, the systematic destruction of an entire people, will once again be placed before a jury of the British public. Let them see it again. Let the world be reminded again.

Featured image via 5 Pillars

By The Canary

Source link

More than 40 Holocaust survivors and their descendants have sent an open letter to lame-duck PM Keir Starmer. The letter condemns him for linking attacks on Jews with pro-Palestine marches. It also demands action to put right his smear and end his promotion of the antisemitic idea that all Jews support genocidal Israel.

The letter also addresses his soon-to-be-former home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, and shameless Met Police commissioner Mark Rowley. It deplores Starmer’s weaponisation of Jewish fears and safety to attack UK freedoms – a tactic likely to increase antisemitism. It reads:

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to you as Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors of the Holocaust.

We have noted that you have expressed support for the banning of pro-Palestine marches and protests following the recent attacks on Jewish people and property. Your statements have given the impression that you agree with those who call these marches “hate marches” and who claim that they are a source of antisemitism and an incitement to violence against Jews.

Advertisement

The Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have made similar statements and we are copying this letter to them.

While we condemn the attacks that have taken place against Jewish people and property, we reject the notion that these attacks result from demonstrations in support of the Palestinian people and in protest against the crimes of the Israeli government and its armed forces.

We and numerous other Holocaust survivor descendants have participated in almost every one of the national marches for Palestine. We have stood under the banner “Holocaust Survivor Descendants against Gaza Genocide” and we have individually worn placards that clearly identified us as Holocaust survivors or descendants of survivors.

Never once have we experienced the slightest hostility from the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators who have marched past us. On the contrary, just like the thousand or more Jews who march as part of the Jewish Bloc, we have been shown nothing but solidarity and even poignant displays of affection.

Advertisement

The only hostility we have experienced has been from the small but over-amplified pro-Israel counter-demonstrations, whose participants have clearly resented our presence. Yet their offensive and even racist language has largely been without consequence.

We therefore strongly oppose any attempt to instrumentalise the attacks on Jewish people in order to further restrict the right to protest, in particular in relation to Palestine. Not only would this be a further assault on all our freedoms, but it could also lead to resentment against Jews if it appears that this repression is happening because of a disingenuous and opportunistic exploitation of concerns for Jewish safety and prioritising this over the safety of other groups who also suffer violent attacks.

The Jewish community is not one homogeneous bloc. Many Jews, including those in our group, condemn Israel’s crimes in Gaza and elsewhere. We resent that you should even consider preventing us from expressing that condemnation, even as Jews and as Holocaust survivors and descendants of Holocaust survivors.

There is a real danger that the anger caused by Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people and others in the region leads in some cases to wholly inexcusable attacks on Jewish people in the UK. If you genuinely wish to reduce the danger of this occurring, then further restricting the right to protest against these crimes is not the answer. Instead, we urge you to publicly acknowledge that Israel is not acting on behalf of all Jews and that its crimes are condemned by many Jewish people in Britain and around the world.

Advertisement

Yours sincerely,

Holocaust Survivors

Doctor Agnes Kory, Child survivor of the Holocaust in Hungary

Stephen Kapos, Child survivor of the Holocaust in Hungary

Advertisement

Descendants of Holocaust Survivors

Mark Etkind, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Poland

Carolyn Gelenter, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Poland

Professor Emerita Miriam David, Daughter of Holocaust survivors from Germany and Hungary

Advertisement

Ann Jungmann, Daughter of Holocaust survivors from Germany

Daniel Vulliamy, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Austria

Professor Emeritus Richard Wistreich, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Poland

Rachel Richardson, Granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor from Germany

Advertisement

Professor Emeritus Robert Reiner, Son of Holocaust survivors from Hungary

Erica Levy, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Germany

Miranda Pinch, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Czechoslovakia

Professor Yosefa Loshitzky, Daughter of survivors of the Holocaust in Poland

Advertisement

A M Poppy, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from the Netherlands

Colonel (Retd) Christopher Romberg, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Austria

Peter Frankental, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Poland

Charlotte Reynolds, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Austria

Advertisement

Sylvia Finzi, Daughter of Holocaust survivors from Italy and Germany

Professor William Schabas, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Poland

Elizabeth Morley, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Hungary

Sonja Linden, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Germany

Advertisement

Vicky Moller, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Czechoslovakia

Talora Leigh, Great-granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor from Poland

Tony Whiteson, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Poland

Karel Michael Schling, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Czechoslovakia

Advertisement

Eva Turner, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Czechoslovakia

Perdita Heller, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Austria

Professor Anne Karpf, Daughter of Holocaust survivors from Poland

Helen Martins, Daughter of Holocaust survivors from Germany

Advertisement

Anthony Gimpel, Son of Holocaust survivors from Germany and Austria

Oliver Rakocevic, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Poland

Mike Brecher, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Germany

Andrew Feinstein, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Austria

Advertisement

Amanda Sebestyen, Granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor from Hungary

Glenn Bassett, Grandson of Holocaust survivors from Austria

Peter Perrett, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Austria

Caroline Hearst, Daughter of Holocaust survivors from Germany

Advertisement

Peter Hall, Son of Holocaust survivors from Austria

Doctor Mark Smith, Son of a Holocaust survivor from Germany

Charlotte Monro, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Czechoslovakia

Helen Marks, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Poland

Advertisement

Angie Eden, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Austria

Doctor Diana Warner, Daughter of a Holocaust survivor from Germany

Lola Karpf, Granddaughter of Holocaust survivors from Poland

“Zionist without qualification” Starmer will, of course, have no interest in acting. Given today’s resignations and calls for Starmer to quit, he is unlikely to be in a position to do so. He hasn’t even had the spine yet to sack Mahmood despite her call for him to step down.

Featured image via Wikipedia

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Far-right US president Donald Trump had a busy mid-January 2026. US special forces had just kidnapped Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro. Canada, Mexico, Cuba and other nations were also on the agenda if Trump was to be believed. And so was Greenland…

Trump officially backed down on annexing the arctic island – a semi-autonomous Danish territory (or a colony, for short) – at the World Economic Forum (WEF) summit in Davos. That was on 21 January 2026. By late February, Israel had led Trump into a disastrous war with Iran. Greenland seemed forgotten…

Today, 12 May, it has been revealed that NATO ally Denmark and the US have actually been negotiating a deal for three US bases in Greenland “since mid-January”.

The talks have been kept quiet, but the BBC has now reported:

The US has been holding regular negotiations with Denmark to expand its military presence in Greenland, according to multiple officials familiar with the discussions, with talks between both sides progressing in recent months.

Adding:

US officials are seeking to open three new bases in the south of the territory, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, as they work to resolve a diplomatic crisis sparked by President Donald Trump when he threatened to seize Greenland by force.

It does beg questions… What was all the fuss about? Why has Denmark conceded quietly? And what are the implications of giving the bullying Trump what he wants?

Danish and US agreements

Both the White House and Denmark have confirmed talks are under way. Negotiating teams have met five times since January. A tight-lipped Danish official said:

There is an ongoing diplomatic track with the United States. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will not go into further details at this time.

The BBC said:

The bases would be in southern Greenland and primarily focus on surveillance of potential Russian and Chinese maritime activity in an area of the northern Atlantic between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom known as the GIUK Gap.

Trump’s imperial plan, the November 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), had a strong focus on ‘hemispheric control’ over the Americas. Here’s the Canary write-up of some of its white-supremacist framing.

The NSS said the US would step away from hostility to China and Russia – and be less involved military in the Middle East. Trump’s more isolationist vision was quickly derailed after Israel led the fumbling US president into a poorly planned attack on Iran.

At the time, Trump may also have been over-confident after military success in the Venezuela raid. And he was under severe pressure over revelations about his links to the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The BBC reported:

The two sides have not formally agreed to anything yet and the final number of bases could change, the sources said. One of the new bases would likely be located in Narsarsuaq, on the site of a former US military base that housed a small airport.

Adding:

Any other new military bases would likely also be located on sites in Greenland that have existing infrastructure such as airfields or ports, which could be upgraded at a lower cost than building new facilities, analysts said.

The outlet also reported that talk of the US annexing or seizing Greenland by force had not come up in the negotiations. It said the talks had been a “delicate diplomatic effort” led by Michael Needham, a senior state department official.

Greenland PM Jens-Frederik Nielsen said Tuesday 12 May at a meeting in Copenhagen that the US had:

taken some steps in the right direction.

Why fight when you can negotiate?

The BBC pointed out that Greenland was once home to many US bases:

The US currently has one military base in Greenland, down from approximately 17 military facilities during the height of the Cold War. Pituffik Space Base is located in northwestern Greenland – it monitors missiles for NORAD but is not configured to conduct maritime surveillance.

It seems Trump’s plan for hemispheric control is proceeding after all. It is very much Trump’s blustering style to bully those who oppose him in a bid for a better deal. That clearly failed with Iran. But with Denmark, it has had some effect. In Venezuela, where the post-Maduro regime has proven to be much more pliable, Trump’s belligerence has also paid off.

One former US defence official said:

Why threaten an ally with a military operation or invasion when what you want is something that could be negotiated quite easily?

While retired US general Glen VanHerck, who once led Northern Command (Northcom), said:

Wherever the US and our allies leave a vacuum, that vacuum is often filled by China and Russia.

This kind of view is not uncommon in US strategic circles. The (rather arrogant) suggestion is that anywhere where the US is not dominant, nothing exists but a ‘vacuum’. This kind of arrogance colours US foreign policy even under Democratic presidencies – though it has taken a severe beating in regard to Iran.

The problem for Denmark – and NATO – is that having gained ground through threats, Trump is prone to demanding more. The fact that Greenland is effectively a Danish colonial possession, whose indigenous people were subject to centuries of dispossession, is also unresolved here. And, unlike the negotiations the negative environmental, political and social impact of US overseas bases is no secret.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link