Former Attorney General Pam Bondi is recovering from treatment for thyroid cancer, just weeks after leaving the Justice Department.

Bondi told CNN she had surgery a few weeks ago and is still undergoing treatment, but is “doing well.”

President Donald Trump ousted Bondi in April, having criticized her for failing to bring lawsuits against his perceived political foes. She had also faced bipartisan criticism over her handling of documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Bondi, who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee on Jeffrey Epstein on Friday, will also be joining the administration’s Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The council, announced in March, will provide recommendations to Trump on “strengthening American leadership in science and technology.”

“Pam has been an enormously valuable asset to the president’s team, and I’m thrilled for her and for all of us that she’s going to remain involved in confronting some of the most important issues the administration faces,” Vice President JD Vance said in a statement.

Bondi did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Source link

Yesterday, Skwawkbox predicted that the ‘mainstream’ media (MSM) and Israel lobby would struggle to find anything to use against new Green party Makerfield by-election candidate Sarah Wakefield. It wasn’t a compliment. But Wakefield’s apparent silence on important issues like Gaza means that the ‘MSM’ is, as predicted, scraping right through the bottom of the barrel.

So far, it’s had to pick on the blandest things imaginable — like wanting fairer farming. Their narrative of the Green Party is as dull as it is revealing.

MSM panic at “decolonising” pledges

The Murdoch Times has dedicated a whole, quite lengthy article and two reporters to produce a hit piece on Wakefield’s wish to “decolonise farming”. Presumably the hoped-for outcome is that Makerfield voters will not bother to check what this means and will conclude Wakefield is ‘woke’.

But she explained what it means. The Times even has to quote her — but only after quite a few paragraphs of putting “decolonial” and “decolonised” in speech marks as though it’s self-evidently whacky. And it turns out to be nothing wild or ‘out there.’ Or even really hers. The food charity the Green party candidate runs shared a report by someone else, US “activist” Caroline Sumlin. She wrote that:

To decolonise food is to rethink our relationship with it and take a fairer, more connected, holistic approach.

GREEN CANDIDATE WANTS FAIRER FOOD wouldn’t make the right kind of moral-panic headline. But it would be a lot more accurate. And fair. But it seems the Murdoch press doesn’t often trouble itself too much with such things.

Maternity leave?!

But if the Times went through the barrel bottom, the Mail decided to turn mole and dig a tunnel for itself. The right-wing rag’s horrified headline blared that “disgruntled” Green party supporters are actually campaigning for Labour candidate Andy Burnham. Because, you see, Wakefield is… drum roll… on maternity leave. In other words, she recently had a baby and is doing what she’s legally entitled to. How dare she? The drivel was written by a woman, shamefully.

The Mail might not have realised we’re well into the twenty-first century. It’s certainly fighting tooth and nail to try to drag us back to the good old days of the birch and hanging. But these days MPs can even breast feed – dun dan dah! – in the Commons chamber. And Green party supporters don’t get “disgruntled” at the thought of a woman helping the human species. Not even if she takes maternity leave. And they certainly don’t go campaigning for the enemy over it.

Skwawkbox took an impromptu poll of the likelihood of the Mail’s claim being accurate. These were the results:

And even the ‘fail’ can’t sustain the horror much beyond the headline. It turns out that if any Greens are “disgruntled” at all, it has nothing to do with Wakefield’s pregnancy. Instead, supposedly some Greens don’t want the party to run in the by-election at all, in case Reform wins.

If that’s true, maybe some of them haven’t quite thought through how little Burnham intends to change anything compared to the awful Keir Starmer.

Having voiced no discoverable opinion on Israel’s genocide, occupation, mass murder, land theft, warmongering and torture is not exactly a selling point. But it is kind of amusing watching the right (of all rosette colours) and its media embarrassing themselves in their scrabble for something to attack her with.

Featured image via

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Source link

Historically, people in Britain said there is ‘nothing certain but death and taxes.‘ At this point, the third inevitability we can add is ‘disgraced war criminal Tony Blair will stick his oar in, and the media will describe it as an ‘unprecedented intervention.”

In the latest instance of this, Blair has returned to take aim at Labour hopeful Andy Burnham:

The ghost of Tony Blair continues to haunt Labour. Coming up for 20 years since he left Downing Street he has been tainted not just by his illegal wars but his lucrative work for despots. Imagine if Clement Attlee who left office in 1951 had continued to offer unsolicited advice into the 70s.

— Gerry Hassan (@gerryhassan.bsky.social) 2026-05-26T21:28:06.189Z

Advertisement

Experience

The Independent’s editorial opens with two of the worst written sentences in journalistic history — both structurally and substantively:

One of the reasons why Sir Tony Blair was Labour’s longest-serving and, certainly in domestic matters, most successful prime minister is that, both while preparing for power and then while in it, he possessed an obvious youthful wisdom. Now, almost two decades after he left Downing Street, and in his most dramatic intervention yet, he brings that same wise counsel, tempered by experience, to bear on his party’s current travails.

This stream-of-consciousness gibberish reads like it was written at gunpoint, with Blair holding the gun.

Look, we’re not going to argue Blair isn’t experienced. The problem is the things he’s experienced in are:

• Thatcherism
• War crimes
• Severing the Labour Party from its working class base.
• Creating an opening for politicians like Wes Streeting, Luke Akehurst, and Liz Kendall.

45 minutes from Manchesterism

We should note that while some are describing the Blair essay as a direct attack on Burnham, there is disagreement about who or what he’s talking about:

In his 5000+ word essay Tony Blair calls Andy Burnham, among other things, “delusional” and “dangerous.” Extraordinary intervention here: https://t.co/nxxB7ZzPuC https://t.co/k4r6pRHoIS

— Alex Wickham (@alexwickham) May 26, 2026

Blair’s writing is also bad, but less tortured than the Independent’s. The section which the media is interpreting as an attack on Andy Burnham is this:

the alternative which thinks the answer is moving even further left on taxes, spending and welfare, spun with a rehash of the far-left critique about nothing good coming out of the last ‘40 years’ of ‘neo-liberalism’, which presumably includes the last Labour government.

We don’t know why he has to ‘presume’ this. He could literally confirm it by checking a calendar or simply by remembering. He’s also the poster child of neoliberalism, which the Canary’s Ed Sykes explains is:

very much the modern machine for class warfare, and it has been for decades (particularly since Margaret Thatcher’s time in power, in Britain). It’s all about austerity (cutting public spending), privatising public resources, freeing companies from regulations, and turning citizens into competitors rather than communities. Even many mainstream economists have condemned it as a failed economic model that deepens inequality, undermines democracy, slashes living standards (especially for the poorest people and younger generations) while only serving the interests of the richest.

Blair’s essay includes criticism of Labour’s workers’ rights laws and plans to uplift the minimum wage. The neoliberal mindset is that anything which is good for workers is bad for business, and that businesses doing well is all that matters.

Given that most Britons are workers rather than business owners, it’s hard to see how the country is doing ‘better’ when it’s only a minority of ultra-wealthy capitalists who experience any meaningful improvement.

Genuinely amazed that some people are praising Tony Blair’s intervention. Labour’s problems – and the problems facing the country – are a direct result of his failure to understand how his messianic New Labourism was simply not delivering for vast swathes of working Britain.

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) May 27, 2026

The following chart shows how Blair and his centrist colleagues won big in 1997 and then lost more and more voters over time. Jeremy Corbyn reversed this trend in 2017 before losing all that by backing a second Brexit referendum. Even then, Corbyn still outperformed Brown and Miliband in terms of the number of voters as opposed to the percentage. His performance was also stronger than what Starmer achieved in 2024.

“Perennial delusion”

Continuing with his perceived attack on Burnham, Blair said:

It is one thing when in opposition to indulge this perennial delusion that when we lose seats to the right the country is really signalling it wants Labour to move left; it is dangerous to do it in government.

The problem with what Blair is saying is that it’s a completely dishonest account of what’s happening. Who could have guessed, coming from the guy who dragged us into an illegal war based on lies?

As HG reported for the Canary:

YouGov’s new study of the 2026 local elections shows that only 46% of Labour voters from 2024 who went to the polls remained loyal to the party. More previous voters backed the Green Party (22%) than voted for Reform (6%).

In comparison, the Conservatives retained 55% of their vote, with 33% switching to Reform.

Here’s that visualised:

YouGov's study of the 2026 local elections shows that just 46% of 2024 Labour voters who went to the polls remained loyal to the party, with more backing the Greens (22%) than Reform UK (6%) two weeks ago

The Conservatives retained 55% of their 2024 voters, with 33% switching to… pic.twitter.com/hK6CleMQrj

— YouGov (@YouGov) May 21, 2026

Blair will voice the lie that Labour is losing more voters to the right and the establishment media will repeat it, because these people are liars.

Saying all this, there was one point Blair made which we don’t fully disagree with.

Cometh the hour, whereth the plan?

The point in which Blair is half right is this:

Trying to force the prime minister out before we know what policy direction we’re bringing in, is not a serious way of conducting ourselves.

And this:

It is because we don’t have a worked-out, coherent plan for the country in a fast-changing world and are in the wrong political position from which we can devise one and win a second term.

Burnham has been plotting to replace Starmer for some time now, as we’ve reported. Given this, we assumed he must have some sort of strategy for governing. As we’ve seen in the past few weeks, however, he’s flip-flopping all over the place:

• Burnham ‘to support’ Mahmood’s racist immigration changes.
• Burnham is silent on wealth taxes — not a promising sign from potential PM.
• Andy Burnham’s role with Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank just shows he’s more of the same.
• Burnham WON’T back proportional representation this parliament.
• Shapeshifting Burnham ditches trans rights to panic-grab Reform votes.
• Burnham slammed for saying he won’t renationalise Thames Water.

Blair might be worried that Burnham isn’t right-wing enough, but there is no substantive left-wing policy platform coming from Burnham right now. Really, there isn’t any substantive platform whatsoever.

It seems instead that he’s just another politician who thinks they’ll do a better job simply by making better day-to-day decisions.

The radical centre

In his essay, Blair also said:

There are two epochal changes happening in the world today – one geopolitical, the other technological – and Britain is not prepared for either.

They require radical change in policy, system of government and politics.

Advertisement

The best political space from which this can be achieved is what I call the Radical Centre.

The centre – properly defined – is where you put policy first and politics last. So, you begin with the question: what is the right answer? And only once you have that do you engage in the political task of persuading people of it.

For examples of this mindset in practice, see Blair’s support for:

• Western military intervention
• Digital ID
• Privatisation and needlessly-costly private financing initiatives

In case you didn’t notice, these are all things which the public hates.

In a way, Blair’s dedication towards his own beliefs is admirable, and it’s a quality many politicians lack. The problem is Blair’s beliefs are rancid.

All this aside, we do think Blair should return to the ‘Radical Centre’. We’re all made from stars, after all, and where better to send him than the centre of the sun?

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

There are many people attached to the Labour Party who have argued the Greens should do the ‘decent thing’ and stand down in the Makerfield by-election. The counter-argument to this is why would they? And as the Greens’ deputy leader Mothin Ali has now said:

If Burnham can't win an election without the Greens giving him an easy ride, how's he going to beat Reform in a general election?

— Mothin Ali (@MothinAli) May 26, 2026

Put up or shut up

The Makerfield race may be the most decisive by-election in British electoral history. If Andy Burnham wins, he will almost certainly replace Keir Starmer as the PM. In other words, we’re essentially having a US-style presidential race that’s being decided by a single borough in Wigan.

Current polling from Survation suggests Labour is leading:

BREAKING | Burnham leads in Makerfield…

… by just 3pts

Labour: 43% (-2)
Reform: 40% (+8)
Restore: 7% (+7)

Poll: @Survation, 18-22 May (+/- vs GE2024) pic.twitter.com/nkLcrXQs8P

Advertisement

— Stats for Lefties (@LeftieStats) May 23, 2026

This was before the Green Party had an official candidate, with said candidate being Sarah Wakefield:

"Vote in hope" – Greens announce Sarah Wakefield as new Makerfield candidate

Wakefield represents something of a 'safe' candidate for the Greens – which will stave off the Zionists but frustrate many others, writes @skwawkbox https://t.co/qAI9kbdeBchttps://t.co/qAI9kbdeBc

Advertisement

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) May 27, 2026

Wakefield is the Green Party councillor for Deansgate, having recently been elected to the position. Our own Skwawkbox wrote of her:

Wakefield represents something of a ‘safe’ candidate for the Greens in Makerfield. Unlike Kennedy, she appears to have been relatively silent on Israel and its genocide in Gaza. This deprives the UK Israel lobby of an opportunity to attack her, but will also frustrate the many who will want to support a clear anti-genocide candidate in the by-election.

Given the demographics of Makerfield, it’s likely not the case that having strong opinions about the genocide would benefit her — although we always encourage such opinions, of course. The Greens’ position on other hot topics could cut through enough to trim down Burnham’s vote, if they put some effort in.

Leader Zack Polanski said the following about Wakefield:

It's time to end Rip off Britain.

For too long we've had people in charge of the decisions that affect our lives in the pockets of the super rich.

The Green Party have two vested interests – protecting communities and our planet.

Advertisement

It's time to tax the super rich. https://t.co/KVb00hiaai

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) May 26, 2026

Burnham has no such plan to tax the rich. In fact, the more we’ve looked into it, the more it seems like Burnham has no plan full stop:

• Burnham ‘to support’ Mahmood’s racist immigration changes.
• Burnham is silent on wealth taxes – not a promising sign from potential PM.
• Andy Burnham’s role with Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank just shows he’s more of the same.
• Burnham WON’T back proportional representation this parliament.
• Shapeshifting Burnham ditches trans rights to panic-grab Reform votes.
• Burnham slammed for saying he won’t renationalise Thames Water.

Despite this, there’s some reporting to suggest that the Greens are scaling back their campaign:

.@TheGreenParty takes the moral high ground

It knows Greens are unlikely to win in Makerfield & the number one priority is to defeat Reform UK

Greens will run scaled-back campaign but will push Burnham to pledge a democratic voting system of PR. Bravo!https://t.co/dJpsZzgVDy

— Peter Tatchell (@PeterTatchell) May 27, 2026

Advertisement

As the Guardian reported:

The Greens have decided to devote only limited resources to next month’s Makerfield by-election, the Guardian has learned, in a potentially significant boost to Andy Burnham’s chances of winning the seat.

The party is instead expected to focus more on the by-election for the Greater Manchester mayoralty, which will be triggered if Burnham is returned to parliament, senior Green figures have said.

This would explain why the party is running a candidate who can simply return to her council position once the race is over. And to be fair, it might arguably be smarter to go for broke on the Greater Manchester mayoral race, should Burnham vacate the position. The question is whether this sort of tricksy behaviour will wash with members.

Which is it, Greens?

So are the Greens laying down to let Burnham in? Or are they taking the fight to Labour, as Ali suggests here:

The Greens are the party of the working class. We are not here to play tag along to Starmerism with a northern accent.

— Mothin Ali (@MothinAli) May 25, 2026

If the Greens are standing down to let Burnham in, what happens when he’s PM?

Do they half-arse every race moving forwards to not disturb his premiership?

We know senior Greens like Caroline Lucas wanted the party to stand down because Burnham supports proportional representation. This is something he’s now admitted he wouldn’t introduce this parliament, though, and there’s no way of guaranteeing he would put it in Labour’s next manifesto — especially not if his government seems likely to benefit from not doing so.

While the senior politicians are thinking like politicians, however, the members are thinking like fighters:

Here we go, centrist Greens doing their best to stop the Green Party growth in its tracks https://t.co/gOnhlovB2D

— Mrs Gee (@earthygirl011) May 27, 2026

The Greens’ membership hasn’t trebled because Zack Polanski made a habit of backing down. And the party would do well to remember that.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

British police have charged seven people for holding signs saying ‘globalise the intifada‘. This comes after Keir Starmer asked police forces to prosecute people using the phrase back in December 2025.

Keir Starmer called the phrase an example of “extreme racism”. However, the reality is that the British state is just reacting to Israel being under pressure – this time, by oppressing the Arabic language, specifically, the word ‘intifada’.

Intifada

The term intifada ( ةضافتنا) comes from the Arabic root n-f-ḍ, which means “to shake off,” “to rise up”, or “to rid oneself of something burdensome”. In modern Arabic, the term has been used to describe uprisings, revolts or popular movements against injustice and domination. Importantly, the word itself does not inherently denote violence; rather, it signifies a collective act of resistance or refusal.

The phrase became popular globally because of its association with the history of Palestine, particularly the First Intifada from 1987 to 1993. This uprising emerged because of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza after 1967.

The First Intifada consisted of mass civil resistance: strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, refusal to pay taxes, and community self-organisation. At the time, it was widely understood by human rights organisations as a popular grassroots revolt against an illegal military occupation.

The Second Intifada, from 2000 to 2005, was triggered by increasing IOF violence and its extensive use of live ammunition against Palestinian demonstrators. Human rights organisations documented the IOF’s widespread use of lethal force against unarmed protesters.

Armed resistance was the Palestinians’ response to, rather than an initiation of, violence. Importantly, armed resistance is perfectly legal under international law.

As a result, in some Western media outlets and political discourses, the term ‘intifada’ became narrowly associated with violence and terrorism. However, this removes it from both its broader semantic meaning and the legal and political context of military occupation. Crucially, this was not the dominant way that Arabic speakers have viewed or used the term.

Arabic speakers also widely use the word ‘intifada’ to refer to other uprisings, protests, and anti-authoritarian movements. The phrase is not exclusive to Palestine or intrinsically tied to armed struggle.

Free speech

Now, the British Prime Minister is essentially attempting to further criminalise free speech and political protest by banning the phrase. Why? because the British government is complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Police forces started treating the phrase as self-evidently antisemitic. Of course, this is not because a group of world-class linguists have debated the case and come to a conclusion, as you might expect. It’s simply because the political mood demands it.

As Jamal Awar previously wrote for the Canary:

antisemitism has once again been shamefully weaponised to justify the repression of Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular.

After the Bondi Beach attack, the Metropolitan Police and the Greater Manchester Police announced that chanting the phrase could lead to arrest. They did not create or cite a new law, and did not clarify a legal threshold. Instead, the cops relied on that age-old police tactic – vibes and fear.

Expert opinion

Recently, Dr Abdul Bashid Shaikh, a lecturer in Islamic Studies, and Mustapha Sheikh, a professor of Islamic Thought and Muslim Societies, both from the University of Leeds, published a paper on the term ‘intifada’. Before publication, over two dozen well-known scholars read and endorsed it.

Their expert opinion maintains that:

there is no evidential basis for treating references to intifada in these contexts as encouragement of terrorism or violence. Academic analysis demonstrates that attempts to conflate the term with jihadist violence represent a category error that collapses distinct political, historical and ideological phenomena.

They also state that claiming the phrase is antisemitic is purely political, rather than racial or religious. This is reinforced by the fact that many Jewish individuals and organisations participate in these demonstrations, and they explicitly reject that the term is antisemitic. The paper added:

interpretation of the term as inherently antisemitic likewise cannot be sustained without abstracting it from its linguistic meaning, historical plurality and social context.

They conclude:

On this basis, and consistent with established principles of UK public order jurisprudence, the use of the term intifada in the circumstances examined falls within the domain of lawful political expression that democratic societies have traditionally sought to protect. To construe it otherwise would require a decontextualised and speculative reading of political speech, with significant chilling implications for freedom of expression and the legitimate articulation of dissent.

Western narrowing through a ‘counter-terror’ lens

In the context of Palestine, the intifada was not just a one-off uprising, but an “institutionalized condition of collective resistance”. It was a shared political formation.

However, Western media has narrowed and redefined the phrase through the lens of counter-terrorism and public order. This means they have removed its linguistic roots and used it as a proxy for violence or terrorism.

It has turned a political descriptor into a presumed threat, meaning police now treat it as inherently suspect and dangerous regardless of context, intent or accompanying conduct. Of course, this plays right into the hands of Israel and zionists around the world, who will do anything to criminalise Palestinian resistance.

Feature image via Annice Lyn/Getty Images

By HG

Source link

The world’s top-earning sportsmen are making billions, according to Forbes’ annual list of the world’s highest-paid athletes. Their earnings reflect ballooning sponsorship deals, investments, and commercial rights.

Mega contracts, lucrative brand deals, and sponsors

Portuguese star Cristiano Ronaldo topped the list with a total income of $300 million, driven by a mega contract with Saudi Arabian club Al Nassr and lucrative endorsement deals.

Lionel Messi came in fifth globally with $140 million, maintaining his position among sport’s highest-paid athletes. He also retains a strong commercial profile off the pitch.

The report confirmed that the total income of the top ten athletes exceeded $1.4 billion in one year — the highest total in the history of Forbes’ ranking — reflecting a major transformation that transcends the boundaries of sport itself.

Football’s oil money boom

Forbes reported that the 2026 list also included LeBron James, who came in fourth in basketball with $137.8 million, while Japan’s Shohei Ohtani came in fifth in baseball with $127.6 million. Stephen Curry ranked sixth in baseball with about $125 million.

Frenchman Karim Benzema came eighth in football with $110 million, and American Kevin Durant came ninth in basketball with $103.8 million. The top ten is completed with a wide sporting diversity.

The report also indicated the continued influence of the Saudi Pro League in reshaping the global salary market, by attracting first-class stars and raising the wage ceiling in football.

Top athletes earn record $1.4bn

According to Forbes, the top ten athletes collectively made more than $1.4 billion in one year — the highest total in the history of the rankings.

The average age of athletes on the list was 37, the highest in Forbes’ history. This reflects the continued dominance of veteran stars at the top of the financial table, despite the rise of a new generation of talent.

The report pointed out that athletes’ sources of income no longer depend only on salaries, but also on personal branding, advertising contracts, investments, and social media platforms, which have become key drivers of modern sports wealth.

Featured image via Richard Pelham

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=8b034f64-513c-4987-b16f-42d6008f7feb”;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”8b034f64-513c-4987-b16f-42d6008f7feb”,”mediaId”:”4c2615b8-caae-4d5a-bab7-30953fac6785″}).render(“6a1702d7e4b0457678e5ac1f”);});

Source link

Reform UK’s candidate in the Makerfield by-election is one Robert Kenyon. So far, Kenyon has attracted a great deal of criticism for the things he’s said in the past and the things he’s saying right now. Kenyon isn’t the only one talking nonsense, however, with his party joining in too:

He was a Lance Corporal in the Army Reserves. Stop trying to make it out as anything more than it is.

He’s also a sexist and a perv. pic.twitter.com/O2Urc8Q0J2

— Reform Party UK Exposed (@reformexposed) May 26, 2026

Reform gets territorial

As Reform Exposed notes above, Kenyon was a member of the Army Reserves — what we once called the Territorial Army. This is how the actual Army describe the reserve force on their website:

The Army Reserve is the largest of the UK’s Reserve Forces. It is a vital component of the Army, providing essential mass, unique capabilities, and a diversity of skills critical to meeting the Army’s commitments.

Army Reservists volunteer to serve alongside regular soldiers with an annual training obligation of either 19 or 27 days.

So the Army Reserves is like the Scouts but for adults. So the Man’s Brigade, essentially.

At the same time, it’s not all fun and games. We did deploy reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the BBC reported, this gave them the opportunity to:

fight — and die — alongside comrades from the regular Army

Not much of an opportunity if you ask us; especially when we’re talking about one clearly illegal war and another which we ultimately lost.

All things considered, then, an Army Reserve could find themselves in a position in which they’re honourably ‘serving’ their country. For that to happen, of course, the UK would have to involve itself in a war in which we weren’t:

1. The aggressors.
2. Acting at the behest of US oil conglomerates.

As most of us know, the wars of the 21st century have not ‘served’ Britain whatsoever. And even if you think our recent military history was anything other than a series of murderous mistakes, there’s no evidence Kenyon served anyway:

Hi Lee, how many tours of duty has he done? https://t.co/LxCTaQoJjT

— Dr Iain Darcy (@doctoriaindarcy) May 26, 2026

Fine, where has Kenyon served

— Dr Iain Darcy (@doctoriaindarcy) May 27, 2026

In his own words

In the Reform video at the top, Kenyon says:

I joined the Army Reserves in 2020 and I absolutely loved my time in the Army Reserves.

This seemingly confirms that he didn’t get deployed anywhere — that, or he just loves getting shot at. Kenyon continued:

I was in the Royal Engineers, I was a combat close support engineer. My grandad was in the Navy, he got sunk twice during the war

My grandad was also in the Royal Navy during World War II. I’m not sure how many times he was sunk, and even if I did, I probably wouldn’t lead with that information out of respect.

Kenyon also said:

Imagine going away for four years for your country, that would have been horrendous conditions and imagine going in the Navy in the Second World War.

Much like Kenyon, we can also only imagine, because we’ve never actually been to war.

A final thing to note is that Brits have to fantasise about WWII because it was the last time we were clearly anything like ‘the good guys.’

If you really want to ‘serve’ your country, do it by ensuring young lads don’t have to die for the benefit of ExxonMobil.

Clean hands

To be entirely fair, the fact that Kenyon didn’t serve in Iraq shouldn’t be a criticism. The issue is that Reform is pretending he’s something he isn’t because the party thinks it will appeal to voters.

Should you be the sort of voter in question, by the way, remember that Kenyon is also the guy who said this:

But the guy who boasted he wanted to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's a******e passed with flying colours. https://t.co/JGhTe28x7S

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) May 26, 2026

Featured image via Reform UK

By Willem Moore

Source link

As the climate crisis made itself all too evident across the UK with searingly high temperatures, climate activists occupied the lobby of the UK headquarters of Federated Hermes.

They called on the company to stop funding the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). This is a massive ‘carbon bomb’ expected to generate 379 million tonnes of CO2 in its lifetime.

The activists from Cut The Ties to Fossil Fuels entered the lobby of Federated Hermes handing out leaflets to staff and displaying banners saying “EACOP is a Carbon Bomb”.

Outside they painted windows with the slogan “DROP EACOP” and stuck oily money over them, as well as setting off smoke flares and holding banners demanding that Federated Hermes Drop EACOP.

The action is part of a global week of action “Kick Polluters Out’ called for by impacted communities in Uganda and Tanzania.

Federated Hermes – financing the climate crisis

Federated Hermes is a leading investor in TotalEnergies, the principal partner in the controversial project to extract oil from underneath Lake Albert in Uganda and build the nine hundred mile pipeline to the Port of Tanga, Tanzania for export.

As part of Climate Action 100+, Federated Hermes claims to be engaging with TotalEnergies in order to convince it to adopt a transition strategy aligned with the Paris Agreement.

Yet TotalEnergies regularly raises its oil and gas production targets, reduces its investments in sustainable energies and has refused to let their shareholders vote on their climate plan.

TotalEnergies is still by far the biggest shareholder in EACOP. In spite of this TotalEnergies is Federated Hermes’ number one fossil fuel investment.

The International Energy Agency has said that there can be no new oil and gas production if we are to reach Net Zero by 2050 and stay within survivable climate boundaries.

Present at the action, Caroline Hartnell, a grandmother from London, said:

Federated Hermes are hypocrites, EACOP is a ‘Carbon Bomb’ expected to generate 379 million tonnes of CO2 in its lifetime.

EACOP is displacing 100,000 people across Uganda and Tanzania, threatening both the Lake Victoria basin, a water source which is relied on by more than 40 million people, as well as putting at risk critical wildlife reserves supporting elephants, chimpanzees and lions.

Advertisement

Shocking levels of violence and intimidation have been inflicted on the people in the path of the pipeline, including rapes and arson attacks. We demand Federated Hermes immediately divests from TotalEnergies, the leaders of this disastrous project and Cuts the Ties to Fossil Fuels.

The EACOP project has been condemned by the European Parliament, citing the wrongful imprisonment of human rights defenders and the arbitrary suspension of NGOs opposed to
the project, by the UN and groups such as Human Rights Watch who accuse it of devastating people’s livelihoods and exacerbating the global climate crisis.

Global Witness has also criticised the project, exposing a climate of intimidation and harassment aimed at silencing criticism of the pipeline. To date 30 major insurance firms and over 40 banks have publicly ruled out financing or insuring the controversial project.

Also at the action, Clare Finn, a retired solicitor from Brighton, said:

The world’s problems are clear to see; conflicts, displacement, exploitation, genocide, ecological breakdown and existential changes to our climate. These crises are intersectional and they share a common root; the systems of power that value private profit over people and planet.

At the heart of this toxic system sits the fossil fuel industry and we are here to call out Federated Hermes and all who fund and support this life sapping industry. We act in solidarity with everyone in the path of EACOP whose lives are being ruined by reckless corporate greed. Cut the Ties to fossil fuels!

Trust Chikodzo, Kick Polluters Out coordinator, Magamba Network, said:

Right now people in Nairobi are burning barricades over fuel prices while TotalEnergies counts record profits from war and chaos.

The Global South is not collateral damage, we are being bled dry so money flows abroad. We have the sun, the wind, the minerals, what we need is to finance people-powered systems and kick these polluters out.

Featured image via Cut The Ties to Fossil Fuels

By The Canary

Source link