The boss of one of the UK’s biggest education unions – the University and College Union (UCU) – faces a hearing by statutory regulator the Certification Officer.

Whistleblowers have given evidence that Jo Grady used union resources, staff, and software to rig her own re-election. Grady won the March 2024 election by just 182 votes out of 114,310 members – 0.157% – on a 15.1% turnout. UCU union blocked any recount and would not allow candidates to attend the count.

UCU allegations

Two other 2024 candidates, Vicky Blake (Leeds) and Prof Ewan McGaughey (King’s College London), have asked the Certification Officer (CO) to order a re-run of the election. They say that O’Grady breached breached union rules and should be ordered to step down. The hearing takes place today, 10 February 2026.

UCU rules on the election of officers, executive members, and trustees expressly prohibited the use of union resources for campaigning. This includes staff, social media and email lists:

However, UCU whistleblowers came forward to the applicants with evidence that the rules had been broken. Certification Officer Stephen Hardy will review the evidence today.

Key complaints include that:

• Grady instructed UCU’s senior management WhatsApp group that “every single decision we make/thing we do has to be seen through the… lens… [of] Re-elect GS [general secretary]”.
• Grady said she would “destroy” people in the union who opposed her.
• According to witnesses, staff were repeatedly told by Grady and senior managers that their work should focus on re-electing her and that jobs were at risk if she lost. In her initial witness statement to the Certification Officer, – before WhatsApp screenshots came to light – Grady “vehemently” denied it.
• UCU’s social media accounts and mass email lists were used for campaigning by Grady, far beyond the four emails to members permitted to each candidate, including around 13 additional emails from Grady to the membership. Grady is also accused of using union property, a union contractor and union software to produce and host campaign videos.
• Candidates had unequal access to put their case to members: Grady spoke alone at events at Bristol, Aberdeen, and Northumbria, which were advertised to members using official union email lists, where other candidates were not invited.

‘Basic principle’

Under UK law, union members can ask the Certification Officer (CO) to determine whether union rules have been breached. If breaches are found, the CO can make enforcement orders to address them. Potential remedies include a declaration that rules were breached and an order to rerun an election.

Blake said:

This case is about the basic principle that union elections must be run fairly and in line with the rules that apply to everyone. Members need to be confident that union resources are not used to give any candidate an unfair advantage, and that staff who raise concerns are protected, not punished.

McGaughey said:

We are bringing this case because UCU members have a right to a union that works for them, not a union used by an incumbent to enrich herself. We are members of trade unions to improve each other’s working lives, and transform society, with fair pay, equality and democracy. The WhatsApp messages showing Grady ordering UCU staff in the middle of a dispute to get herself re-elected shows how far we must go to rebuild universities and further education for good.

For further information, or to share relevant evidence in confidence about the conduct of the 2024 election, please contact [email protected] and [email protected].

Featured image via the Canary

Claudia Webbe is an ally of Jeremy Corbyn and a former Labour MP. On 9 February, she criticised a Your Party (YP) group said to represent Black members. The group in question is the Your Party Black Network (YPBN):

Black members helped build Your Party.

We’re reclaiming our narrative from @YPBlackNetwork. Your theft of our identity ends here. Your weaponisation of Black struggle ends here. You do not speak for us.

We are shutting this down. See our statement here👇🏾 pic.twitter.com/rWSWBgOZkY

— Claudia Webbe (@ClaudiaWebbe) February 9, 2026

Advertisement

In response, figures on the other side of YP have accused Webbe of being factional in the opposite direction. That’s quite a choice, given Webbe is calling out anti-Black racism.

Your Party ‘Unauthorised account’

The attached statement reads:

STATEMENT FROM BLACK MEMBERS OF YOUR PARTY

For Immediate Release – 8 February 2026

Re: Unauthorised Account @YPBlackNetwork

Advertisement

We, the undersigned Black members of Your Party – the majority of us Black women who have dedicated years to building genuine representation within our movement – issue this statement with deep concern and disappointment.

We do not recognise, endorse, or authorise the account @YPBlackNetwork to speak on our behalf.

This account, launched just days ago, does not represent the Black membership of Your Party. It appears to have been established not to advance the interests, voices, or struggles of Black communities, but to weaponise Black identity in service of narrow factional disputes.

This is unacceptable.

Advertisement

The appropriation of Black identity for sectarian political gain is a form of exploitation. It diminishes the genuine work of Black activists, organisers, and members who have fought – often against significant resistance – for authentic representation and meaningful change.

We call out this account for:

Misappropriation – Using the name and implied authority of Black members without consent or mandate

Misrepresentation – Purporting to speak for a community it does not represent

Advertisement

Misinformation – Creating a false impression of grassroots Black organising where none exists

Exploitation – Treating Black identity as a political prop to be deployed in internal battles

To be clear: our Blackness is not a factional tool. Our communities face real challenges – structural racism, health inequalities, economic injustice, and persistent underrepresentation. These struggles deserve serious, accountable leadership, not anonymous accounts serving ulterior agendas.

We urge all members, supporters, and the wider public to treat any pronouncements from this account with appropriate scepticism. If you wish to engage with Black members of Your Party, seek out those who have earned trust through years of visible, accountable work in our communities.

Advertisement

We remain committed to genuine representation, honest dialogue, and building a party that truly serves all its members – not one where Black identity is co-opted for factional convenience.

Signed – YP Black Sisters

Claudia Webbe
Anna Rothery
Andrea Gilbert
Moira Samuels

Val Watson
Cheryl McLeod
Khadijah Thompson
Sophia Mangera

Advertisement

Torkwase Holmes
Mel Mullings
Tracey Hylton

The account under scrutiny state on their X profile:

YPBN is a member-led grassroots network. Our aims include mobilising support for YP and resolving disputes between competing visions within YP to forge unity.

YPBN has since responded to the allegations against them:

Terrible Claudia, I am both grieved and vexed. Thou claim’st to speak for many, even for all Black members, yet thy scroll bears but eleven names. Eleven! Call not a teacup an ocean, nor a whisper a mandate.@ClaudiaWebbe @melesentially @Ana_Zardoshti @JamesGilesRBK https://t.co/2Ecn1ElUOv

— Your Party Black Network (@YPBlackNetwork) February 10, 2026

Advertisement

They earlier stated:

O pain, when ex-Labour right-wingers
Seek to infect thy noble party,
Yet cry “socialist” with coward tongues.
The haters hiss; the potato still must turn.

Stand with the roots.
Vote Grassroots.
@Grassroots_Left

Others have noted the issues of having representative groups in a party which is divided in a multitude of ways:

I’m mostly in support of having organised sections being a coloured migrant, but the flip side of this is that it can easily result in policing of divergent views and viewing the recognised group as authentic and dissident voices as troublemakers.

As in Labour. https://t.co/PS3mWD1tgu

Advertisement

— Nader Shah the Diaspora Destroyer 🇵🇸🍁 (@ShinMarginalScr) February 9, 2026

1891. YP update. A row over the presumably unofficial YP Black Network (poss claimed here 2 b close 2 GL?) from what may be a TM position in the ongoing CEC slate battle https://t.co/60r4HDCb6f

— Charlie Mansell (@charliemansell) February 9, 2026

Featured image via Parliament / The Herald (YouTube)

A leading academic on social security has slammed a new anti-benefit fraud advert released by communities minister Gordon Lyons. A brief glimpse of the fear-mongering crap can be seen here. The ad features a searchlight seeking out dishonest claimants, with a dramatic voiceover declaring:

Benefit fraudsters are being identified, caught, and prosecuted.

Ciara Fitzpatrick, who is a senior lecturer in law at Ulster University (UU), specialises in the study of social security. Speaking on X, she denounced:

…a tax-payer funded ad campaign against benefit fraud despite stats released today suggesting that allegations have increased by 40% since the publication of the names of those convicted.

She asked the reasonable question of:

…why spend thousands on an ad campaign [?] In my view, it’s an appalling use of funds.

Her first point is in reference to a move in 2025 by the Democratic Unionist Party’s (DUP) Lyons to restart the practice of naming those convicted of benefit fraud. This coincided with Lyons ramping up rhetoric. He urged people to tout on their neighbours if they suspect wrongdoing.

Fraud panic is an attempt to distract from inequality

Of course, these moves have a clear dual ideological purpose. Firstly, publicising names of those convicted, then starting a song and dance about it, inflates the size of benefit fraud in the public imagination.

In reality it constitutes a mere 2.5% of total benefit spending. There are far fewer cases resulting in prosecution. This is a more solid indicator of actual guilt. Furthermore, this directs people away from looking at much more serious cases of defrauding the public purse. For example, tax evasion is a major issue.

Not to mention diverting people from taking a critical look at capitalism itself. Our entire economic system is one big theft scheme. It is based around bosses stealing a hefty chunk of the value workers produce every day.

Secondly, asking the average taxpayer to grass up their next door neighbour is a convenient way of undermining class solidarity. See the person beside you as a potential enemy, we’re told, rather than the actual enemies faced by the vast majority. These enemies include employers who overwork and underpay us. They also include landlords who steal half our pay check, and politicians that do the bidding of both the above.

People Before Profit’s (PBP) Gerry Carroll made a similar point, saying in response to Lyons:

This is a tried and tested DUP tactic; to whip up fear and suspicion in local communities and turn neighbour against neighbour, in order to distract from the party’s own political failures on tackling poverty, the housing crisis and widening inequality.

Lyons made a speech in Stormont coinciding with the ad’s release, and boasting about the results of his change in tack:

In an early and visible sign of my intent, last year I reintroduced the departmental practice of naming those who were found guilty in the courts. Since doing so, my department has seen anonymous fraud referrals from members of the public rise to 9,857 at the end of [Jan 2026] compared with the total year end figure of 6,353 for 2024/25. It is clear that as a result of my leadership on these issues, benefit fraud is now clearly on the public agenda.

To the annoyance, I’m sure, of some in this chamber, I will keep highlighting the issue and keep it as a priority for the department.

Lyons has been demanding an increase in the department’s £16.7 million budget for tackling fraud and error in the benefits system. He claimed discussions had been ongoing with Westminster. The aim was that a portion of money recovered would be kept by Stormont. This indicates that Starmer’s stingy regime is encouraging the DUP approach.

Money for increased clampdown, but not to relieve poverty

Mark Durkan of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) asked what was actually being done to help people, rather than seeking further forms of punishment. He said:

While some people do abuse the system, this system itself abuses people. Tens of thousands of genuine claimants struggle with a complex, slow and punitive system where genuine mistakes can lead to sanctions, and now sack cloth and ashes too.

How much of that £16.7 million has been spent chasing fraudsters and how much has been spent to reduce the stress and suffering caused by a system that creates errors and hardship?

A reminder that, as an example of current benefits available, Jobseeker’s Allowance in the Six Counties is a pitiful £72.90 per week for those under 25, and £92.05 for those 25 or over. Despite how we are dishonestly told migrants flock to Britain for its generous benefits system, it in fact lags far behind the rest of Europe. UU’s Fitzpatrick also flagged how those on benefits are facing the prospect of discretionary support being gutted. This is leaving the most desperate fully exposed.

Online, commenters contrasted the DUP’s keenness to clamp down on benefits cheats with their lax approach to the massive fraud that took place under the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme. That debacle saw half a billion lost, often into the pockets of big agricultural players. The DUP ignored whistleblowers drawing attention to the money being stolen.

Nobody wants benefit fraud, but we are seeing unprecedented levels of society’s wealth hoarded by the top 0.1%. Rather than a focus on reclaiming relative pennies in an already ungenerous benefits system, the emphasis should be on taking back the billions hoarded by those at the very top.

Featured image via the Canary

Nigel Farage is going after work-from-home, in a hypocritical attempt to make it look like he’s ever worked a day in his life.

🚨 WATCH: Nigel Farage calls for an end to working from home and the focus on work-life balance

“People aren’t more productive working from home – it’s a load of nonsense. They’re more productive being with other fellow human beings” pic.twitter.com/UpjNoh7ZHX

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 9, 2026

Of course, Nigey isn’t telling us that he previously employed his wife to work from home.

Nigel isn’t telling you that his ex-wife worked from home when she worked for him.

He also won’t tell you that the majority of Reform UK roles are hybrid. https://t.co/JwNz63f690

— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) February 10, 2026

To make matters more infuriating, Reform UK also happens to employ people who work from home.

As the Independent previously reported, Reform UK advertised for its South Central regional director as:

home working with occasional travel within the region.

Hilariously, it advertised this role online only days after Nigel Farage promised that no Reform-run council would allow anyone to work from home.

Excellent discovery by @ThisOneAgain123 to spot that despite wanting to scrap your Work From Home, Farage’s Reform are hiring their own staff with work from home arrangements. pic.twitter.com/aXRZ2PGzPI

— Tory Fibs (@ToryFibs) February 10, 2026

Farage said that people with jobs related to climate change, diversity, or anyone working from home:

all better really be seeking alternative careers very, very quickly.

Farage is leading a party of millionaires

Of course, Reform UK are not out to bat for ordinary working people. Whilst they might claim they are, what we need to remember is that the only people who benefit from office-based work are those who own the offices, i.e. rich people.

Populist announces a deeply unpopular idea.

The only people who benefit from a return to office based work, are those who own the offices.
Reform are a party for the millionaires, not the working people.

— LeftSideOfHistory (@leftsidehist) February 9, 2026

When offices sit empty, the rich lose money. And oh, what a terrible shame that is.

The amount of white-haired folks in that audience; positively giddy at the prospect of dictating how *I* should work and earn – to pay all my taxes – to fund their ironclad pension hikes and fortnightly dawdle down to the GP.
Least self-aware generation there’ll ever be. https://t.co/hcr7MrCnQY

— James (@JamesFl) February 9, 2026

Advertisement

Additionally, it’s the right-wing shit rag newspapers that are peddling the anti-work-from-home bullshit. Again, fewer people on foot near offices means they lose their precious millions.

The only other people who don’t like work-from-home are those who can’t.

The only against WFH are those who cant.
I use less petrol, means I can use my lunch break to get the kids, saving me money, I dont have the shite daily conversations meaning I get more work done. I am infact more productive in every aspect of my life due to being able to WFH https://t.co/oUu8pGxaXg

— CMF (@Ohffs1984) February 10, 2026

And why have Reformers managed to pack a Monday afternoon rally to the brim? Shouldn’t they all be, erm, in an office?

Nothing says ‘people should be in the office’ like a packed Reform rally on a Monday afternoon. https://t.co/iCM5TDrybS

— Has Ahmed (@HasAhmed_) February 9, 2026

Accessibility matters

A Reform government would push even more disabled and chronically ill people into work.

Importantly, working from home allows some disabled people to hold down a job. Farage’s attempts to end work-from-home whilst also claiming to want more disabled people to have jobs are contradictory and bullshit. If he actually cared about disabled people, he would be encouraging work-from-home, or work from wherever the hell you want to, as long as the work gets done.

Farage is a hypocrite. And basically, you can’t work from home unless it serves him and his pumped-up little agenda.

Feature image via Mint/YouTube

Okay, I am sick of writing about this ‘Amelia’ AI schoolgirl now. But yet again, it appears a far-right group has adopted this fake child as some kind of mascot.

Although this time, it’s a group of women. Odd.

We’re fed up of the safety of women and girls being sacrificed for the comfort of migrant men.

WE ARE ALL AMELIA! The movement has just begun. pic.twitter.com/p7QtuPtLVy

— Women’s Safety Initiative (@WomenSafety_UK) February 7, 2026

Advertisement

Why are you cosplaying as a literal schoolgirl?

You see, the issue I have with the far right using Amelia as some kind of mascot is where this avatar came from.

Amelia is a purple haired goth girl, and she wasn’t born in some racist WhatsApp group. She was created by the government to be a part of a video game called Pathways which taught kids about extremism.

Oh, and she’s a fucking college-aged child. 16 to 18 years old. Yet the amount of knuckle-draggers on the internet sexualising her is absolutely disgusting:

Amelia’s emergence over the last week was explosive, injecting a sexually charged, romantic energy into British nationalism. AI image generation enables ownerless memetic characters to be collaboratively generated faster than ever before. Amelia was the first to step through this… pic.twitter.com/NAbBxERJOw

— John Carter (@martianwyrdlord) January 17, 2026

Advertisement

#Amelia #ai pic.twitter.com/yJeFEizMXU

— ASHURA (@Ashura_GG) February 2, 2026

She’s meant to be a fucking child. Yet here we see the Women’s Safety Initiative cosplaying as her and drinking a pint.

Come on girls, do better. When you put yourself under a banner of protect all women, surely you shouldn’t be masquerading as a fucking child whilst doing so?

Let’s look a little deeper at who is in that video

On closer inspection, you can see the founder and director of Women’s Safety Initiative, Jess Gill, right there in the video. And she loved it:

“Anon, why didn’t I see you at the mass deportation protest?” https://t.co/j9QjnYEwUA pic.twitter.com/W2wV53Y2k3

— Jess (@jessgill03) February 7, 2026

Bit weird.

Jess, who claims to be British but hates everything about British food, has become a polarising figure at demonstrations. I mean, surely if you’re going to attend a demo to ‘protect our women’ with the racist Pink Ladies, you wouldn’t be happy to share a space with ex-Reform MP and known wife beater James McMurdoch?

Well done to the Pink Ladies in Chelmsford today.

This brave lot are standing up for the safety of women and girls. The shame of course is that they shouldn’t be having to do this at all.

Advertisement

“I’m not far right. I’m worried about my kids” pic.twitter.com/8ZlhHk1eTk

— James McMurdock MP (@JMcMurdockMP) November 22, 2025

Now you’re cosplaying as an underage teen girl and quaffing pints?

Using women’s rights for political clout

As a woman, I am absolutely sick to fucking death of the far right using women’s safety as a weapon.

I don’t get it guys. When 97% of rape claims have not even been brought to charge, why are these women playing dress up as a kid? And a goth kid at that? I thought you hated bright coloured hair?

Can we stop dressing up as heavily sexualised kids as some kind of icon and actually focus on the absolute state of policing? Rape is borderline legal in the UK now when you look at conviction rates, and it pisses me off that these far right women don’t actually give a fuck. The only time they care about women is when they’re whipping up hatred against migrants.

Using attacks against women to hide your racism is fucking disgusting.

Featured image via X

You’d think that Blairites would be wary of ex-military personnel. After all, Tony Blair unites most War on Terror veterans on one thing only: a deep contempt for Tony Blair. But this isn’t the whole picture when it comes to Labour.

In recent days, ex-special forces soldier-turned-defence minister Alistair Carns has been touted a possible replacement for Keir Starmer. Starmer is currently hanging on to power by a thread after revelations about Peter Mandelson’s friendship with serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

Someone has even reportedly registered a webpage for Carns’ leadership bid, according to the centrist New Statesman. The paper describes Carns as a “dark horse”, adding that:

Supporters believe that his background as a colonel in the Royal Marines will help Labour win back support it has lost under Starmer.

And this is the key point. It is Carns’ background as a colonel in the Royal Marines that makes him a good shout. Not his commitment to democracy, or ethics in public life, or his values. He may have all of these, but Carns is appealing to some on the basis of his military credentials. That reveals something important which well-meaning socialists may miss about the nature of the Labour Party…

Labour party’s military fetish

Carns’ main draw is the nonsensical view that a former military man could sort out Britain’s political mess.

If I even need to say it again, there is nothing about military service which guarantees someone will be a good MP. At least no more than someone being a good nurse, or binman, or, God forbid, journalist.

I mean…have we already forgotten about Johnny Mercer? And let’s not forget the track record of the British military in Iraq — an abject failure and a stain on Blair and new Labour.

But weird soldier fetishism isn’t new and often rears its head. I first noticed it with Labour security minister Dan Jarvis, a former Parachute Regiment officer who served in Afghanistan.

Jarvis’ military credentials were routinely flaunted as if they qualified him to lead the country — even during the Corbyn days. And almost always by people, including journalists, who’d never worn a uniform.

Now there are all kinds of explanations for this. I enjoy the lowbrow ones. For example, Blairites are basically fantasist dweebs who read too many Andy McNab books. Or perhaps the authoritarian nature of the military appeals to their own Stalinist leanings. Or it could be a residual sense of our own imperial history that makes some  yearn for the power and status which accompanied those times.

These might all be true in part. But I also think that soldier-worshipping holds up a mirror to the Labour Party. It reminds me of a passage in Richard Seymour’s book ‘Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics‘ (2016).

Seymour asked, at a time when Labour’s future was being fought over, if the Labour Party is Marxist (we can laugh now)? Or is it, as Tony Blair said at the time, built on some sort of dusty English Methodism.

Seymour’s answer is that it was neither:

What seems to have more enduring significance for the distinctive shape and trajectory of the Labour Party is its origins in Victorian Liberalism.

This offers a far better explanation of why the party is so in love with militarism and war. It’s because the party is still operating on Windows 1870.

Seymour goes on:

In fact, whatever else changed about the Labour Party in this era, one of its abiding attributes was to be the priority it accorded to the interests of the ‘nation’, and the deference it accorded to extant constitutional arrangements and military commitments.

He adds that:

Those Labour MPs who, today, find simply unthinkable the break-up of the United Kingdom, the repudiation of Trident, and the end of the ‘special relationship’ with the United States, are in fact authentic legatees of their party’s traditions.

The truth is, Starmer and his allies, are right in their assessment that the Labour Party — a militarist party of capital and empire — is theirs by right. And with this in mind, why wouldn’t centrists get excited about Carns as a candidate?

While it might seem a little out of date, that book is worth picking up ten years on. Because it leaves you in no doubt that the Labour Party was never ours to begin with. And, in all honesty, given it is wedded to empire to the degree that it is, why the hell would you even want it anyway?

Featured image via the Canary

Once again, Reform have publicly shit the bed, and this time it’s over Bangor University. Well, more specifically, the Bangor Debating and Political society, but that didn’t stop Reform’s head of policy Zia Yusuf threatening the whole fucking uni:

Bangor University have banned Reform and called us “racist, transphobic and homophobic”.

Bangor receives £30 million in state funding a year, much of which comes from Reform-voting taxpayers.

I am sure they won’t mind losing every penny of that state funding under a Reform… pic.twitter.com/piUPlBzEcY

— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) February 9, 2026

Advertisement

Very normal behaviour there, Yusuf.

Well done Bangor, you’ve pissed off Reform

Personally, I would like to say well done to the debate society. But members of Reform massively shit the bed over it, including wannabe councillor Nick Pritchard:

The only issue I have with Pritchard kicking off is why in the name of hell does anyone care about the opinion of a man who “fabricated allegations” about a local resident trying to procure someone to shoot him?

Pritchard, mate, you’re in no position to debate anyone.

And of course Richard Tice spat his dummy out about it:

Simple

In line with our values, if Bangor Uni does not believe in free speech, then British taxpayers should not have to fund them.

Perhaps remove all government funding and no student loans for Bangor students

Advertisement

The phone will ring very soon https://t.co/3ZmtmbXea8

— Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧 (@TiceRichard) February 10, 2026

This is the same Tice who recently claimed we should ban children with sensory issues from wearing ear defenders in school.

Not a man who should be commenting on anything educational, it seems.

’30p Lee’ Anderson, meanwhile, made it clear that Reform are making threats:

This gives me a great idea on how to save the taxpayer £30 million.

We’re coming for you. https://t.co/QRu61qJCG0

— Lee Anderson MP (@LeeAndersonMP_) February 10, 2026

I mean, all the evidence is there

Credit where credit is due, Labour MP for Bangor Claire Hughes called out Reform for being pathetic.

Reform offer nothing but division.

Fancy accusing Bangor University of “banning” Reform and issuing threats. All because a debating society turned them down…?

Pathetic. We will fight them all the way. https://t.co/XLXKl0yTQI

— Claire Hughes (@clairehughesBA) February 9, 2026

Threatening to remove funding to a university purely because one of their societies called you racist is absolutely wild. Especially when Reform absolutely seem to be racist: e.g. when Reform MP Sarah Pochin complained there were too many Black and Asian people in adverts.

I think this is a case of ‘there’s no smoke without fire’. And the embedded racism in Reform is an inferno.

All of this screaming about free speech, but Reform have to learn that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequence.

Featured image via Bangor University PigeonCowSheepGoatBaaa (Wikimedia)

Urgh, I already hated Kid Rock, because he’s always seemed like a greasy nonce. Now, a newly resurfaced clip seems to confirm it:

BREAKING: Disturbing video of Kid Rock has resurfaced, as he wonders why American men were waiting for the then-14 year old Olsen twins to turn 18. “if there’s grass on the field, play ball!”

That’s who MAGA supports. https://t.co/qrEJw40Spr

— Really American 🇺🇸 (@ReallyAmerican1) February 10, 2026

And shit like this makes me so fucking angry.

Has anyone even listened to Kid Rock’s lyrics?

How the hell did people not pick up on this? In 2001, for the kids film Osmosis Jones, Rock sang the following on track ‘Cool Daddy, Cool’:

Young ladies, young ladies. I like ’em underage see? Some say that’s statutory but I say it’s mandatory.

Excuse me, but what the fuck?

It’s not just actual confirmation that Rock is attracted to children, but also how the fuck were these lyrics allowed in a kids film?

How many checks did this pass? How many executives listened to these exact lyrics and thought ‘oh yeah, they’re perfect for a kids film‘.

Rock was 30 years old at the time.

Reminder that Kid Rock did a song for a children’s cartoon where he said he liked underage girls https://t.co/dUjiEJGbXo pic.twitter.com/7nY8X0Fd5k

— evan loves worf (@esjesjesj) February 12, 2025

Stop platforming these predators

Kid Rock has been in the news because he performed at Turning Point USA’s Superbowl half-time alternative. As we reported, Rock’s performance did not go down well:

all that build up for a man that couldn’t lip sync to his own song :/ https://t.co/dm3i7ESawi

— matt (@mattxiv) February 9, 2026

Advertisement

Viewership numbers:

Bad Bunny – 127 million
Turning Point – 5 million

Let’s all take a moment to point and laugh at their puny safe space LOLOL 😂🫵🏾

— Isaiah Martin (@isaiahrmartin) February 9, 2026

It’s incredibly evident by the viewing numbers that people weren’t impressed with the predator-packed halftime show. Who wants to watch a saggy old nonce pretending to sing?

But cancelling people such as Rock isn’t enough. We need to be actively rejecting these losers in a bigger way.

There’s no room for predators in music or in politics, and it’s time to get them out.

Featured image via needpix

Military tech firm Palantir are hosting a lavish party at the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to celebrate their massive new contract. The firm’s founders, who have expressed far-right and anti-democratic views, seemed pleased at having penetrated the highest echelons of the British state. And their takeover has disgraced Labour politician Peter Mandelson’s fingerprints all over it.

In a bizarre twist, the head of MI5 just warned about Chinese infiltration of British universities. But not a word was uttered about how a CIA-linked, Trump-aligned military data firm has penetrated British military and health infrastructure.

The Times reported on 10 February 2026:

Senior military officers and civil servants have been invited to the evening reception in Mayfair on Wednesday to mark the company’s £241 million three-year deal to “boost military AI and innovation”.

As well as UK military contracts, Palantir has also penetrated the National Health Service (NHS). And both the Labour and the previous Conservative government have gladly invited them in.

An invitation seen by The Times said:

Join us for an evening reception as we reflect on our decade-long support of the armed forces, thank those who have been part of the journey and look towards an ever more ambitious new chapter — one that will deliver cutting-edge data and AI capabilities to UK defence, establish London as our European defence headquarters, and see investment in British innovation, jobs and national security.

Other military and arms firms like Babcock will also demonstrate their wares at the event.

Palantir have a Mandelson link

Disgraced peer Peter Mandelson was a key architect of the deal. The Guardian described the situation succinctly:

Palantir, a $300bn company that provides military technology to the Israel Defense Forces and AI-powered deportation targeting for Donald Trump’s ICE units, has UK government contracts worth more than £500m. Global Counsel, a lobbying company Mandelson co-founded and part-owns, also works for Palantir.

UK PM Keir Starmer, who is hanging on by a thread over allegations he knew about Mandelson’s links to Epstein before making him US ambassador, visited Palantir HQ in February 2025. That meeting was allegedly brokered by Mandelson:

But there is no formal record of what was said. The Foreign Office says it holds no emails confirming the arrangements.

Defence secretary John Healey has defended the £240m deal. Palantir has up to £500m in UK contracts overall:

Peter Mandelson has no influence on any MoD contracts. The Palantir decision was mine.

Adding:

did not appear in the prime minister’s register of visits and came to light later in subsequent disclosures.

The Times reported:

Palantir was and still is a client of Global Counsel, the lobbying firm that Mandelson co-founded. His shares are in the process of being divested and Mandelson would not have financially benefitted from the deal, it is understood.

Thiel and Karp

Alex Karp and Peter Thiel are the most prominent figures at Palantir. Both Karp and Thiel are linked to Donald Trump. Their politics are openly far-right. And now they have access to great swathes of the British state, including defence and health. In a bizarre twist, Palantir’s UK chief is Louis Mosley – grandson of British fascist leader Oswald Mosley.

As Action on Armed Violence‘s Iain Overton warned on April 2025:

But make no mistake: Palantir is no neutral software vendor. It is the digital vanguard of a globalised military-industrial complex that sees citizens not as people to be protected, but as data points to be mapped, managed — and monetised. It’s own tag line (according to a series of posters recently put up in University campuses) is “We build to dominate.”

And let’s be clear, this is no mere tech firm. Palantir is another example of the imperial boomerang, born out of the War on Terror and the CIA:

Palantir grew rich off the back of the post-9/11 security state, with seed funding from the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel. It developed its tools in tandem with US intelligence, border enforcement, and drone warfare programmes.

Overton added:

It helped track “terrorists” abroad, surveil migrants at home, and model crime in cities riddled by systemic inequality.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has railed against Palantir’s role in the NHS:

And advocacy group, the Citizens, is currently lobbying for a full debate on Palantir’s UK contracts:

Despite the company’s deep embedding in government systems, there has been no comprehensive scrutiny of costs, data governance, ethical risks or national sovereignty.

They also warned:

Internationally, Palantir has been linked to controversial immigration enforcement in the US, criticised for its role in military operations in Gaza, and rejected by authorities in Switzerland over data and dependency concerns.

The British government, shaky as it is, seems absolutely determined to keep Palantir onboard. The situation is frankly bizarre. For example, the head of MI5 has just issued a warning that Chinese intelligence is trying to infiltrate British universities. Ken McCallum also announced a £3m round of measures to secure UK educational institutions. Yet Palantir, a foreign firm with deep links to the intelligence agencies of the current crackpot US regime, has taken over parts of the UK’s critical defence infrastructure and services – and been paid handsomely for the pleasure.

Featured image via the Canary