UK counter-terror cops have arrested twelve people over an alleged far-right threat against an Islamic event in Suffolk, England. The arrests took place mostly in southern and eastern England with one individual detained in Greater Manchester.

On 13 July, the Counter Terrorism Police (CTP) had said:

The investigation, which is extreme right-wing terrorism-related, is connected to a suspected threat directed towards an Islamic event held at Shrubland Hall, Suffolk over the weekend (9-12 July).

Due to the concerns over the possible threat, and as a precaution, advice was provided via Suffolk Police to the organisers of the UK Ijtima event to close the event slightly earlier than planned on Sunday, 12 July. There is not believed [to] be any wider threat to the public connected to this matter.

NEW: 12 people have been arrested after a suspected far-right threat forced an Islamic event at Shrubland Hall in Suffolk to close early over the weekend pic.twitter.com/W2HnbUUPio

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) July 13, 2026

CTP’s Commander Helen Flanagan said:

After becoming aware of a potential serious threat towards the Islamic event in Suffolk, we have moved extremely quickly to make a number of arrests in various locations across the country.

Flanagan also thanked the organisers for cooperating with police and noted the news “may be concerning”:

to the public and particularly those in the Muslim community, given that we believe the intended target was an Islamic event.

But as we have shown, we will not hesitate to act if there is any potential threat, no matter who or what the potential target may be. I’m also pleased to say that although the event ended slightly earlier than planned, it nevertheless passed off safely.

She added:

Sadly, this activity is a stark reminder that the threat level in the UK is at ‘severe’, so we urge the public to remain vigilant and report anything if it doesn’t look or feel right.

Suffolk arrest 11 men and one woman

Eleven of the twelve people arrested were men. They were aged between 27 and 60, and all but one suspect was arrested in the south and east of England. Police have said:

Eight men [A-H] have all been arrested and detained under section 41 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 and remain in police custody at this time.

Three other men [J-L] were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to murder, and a woman [I] was arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender.

Advertisement

Of those, one person [J] has since been released on bail, while the other three [I, K and L] remain in police custody at this time.

Suffolk police assistant constable Alice Scott from Suffolk Constabulary said:

We understand that the arrests and the context behind them may well cause some concern amongst our local communities. To provide some level of reassurance we will have a visible police presence in the area of Shrubland Hall over the coming days and we welcome local people to speak to us on the matter if they wish to.

Scott said “a major incident” was declared early Sunday morning. The authorities initiated “a multi-agency response”:

to ensure a safe and properly co-ordinated departure from the event of the 15,000 attendees. The major incident status was withdrawn earlier today (Mon).

Adding:

This was a complex and fast moving scenario with the priority of all the agencies working together to ensure the safety of all the attendees. The Suffolk Resilience Forum wants to thank the organiser and attendees for remaining calm in very difficult circumstances, and we can reassure the public that everyone left the location safely.

US-British commentator Mehdi Hasan noted this was just the latest threat to British Muslims:

“Twelve people have been arrested over an alleged right-wing terror threat to an Islamic event at a country estate in Suffolk, police said.”

Another threat against Muslims in the UK: https://t.co/c96kuxWYfo

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) July 13, 2026

Advertisement

Another X user said “Islamophobia is a disease”:

Counter terrorism has arrested 12 British patriots suspected of planning an attack against Muslims at an Ijtima event in Suffolk.

Islamophobia is a disease that has infected broken Britain…. It must be cured. https://t.co/TNHIn8Dehi

Advertisement

— Zara Hussain (@zarahussain999) July 13, 2026

Another social media user pointed out that anti-immigrant public figures who’d been very vocal about the alleged 9 July murder of right-wing politician Ann Widdecombe had so far been very quiet on the latest arrests:

As the entire Reform cult scream terrorism over a murder where there is yet to be any statement of terrorism there is a profound silence about the 12 arrests in relation to right wing terrorism this weekend

Terror police hold 12 for 'threats' to Suffolk mansion's Islamic event…

— dave lawrence (@dave43law) July 13, 2026

Police said:

The investigation is being led by officers from CTP London, with support from colleagues in the Eastern Region Special Operational Unit (ERSOU), CTP North West and CTP South East.

Between the Widdecombe case and this sudden spate of arrests there are now two new major counter-terror investigations underway in the UK. Time will tell what the police turn up, but the difference in legacy media coverage is notable.

Featured image via the Canary 

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Evidence in the Undercover Policing Inquiry recently revealed that BAE Systems, the UK’s largest arms company, offered the Metropolitan police money to spy on anti arms trade campaigners.

This followed the 1996 Seeds of Hope Ploughshares action which caused £1.4m worth of damage to Hawk aircraft. Four women were acquitted of criminal damage charges on the basis they were preventing a greater crime by taking action to stop BAE Systems exporting the aircraft to Indonesia for use in war crimes against people in East Timor.

The information emerged during the questioning of former detective chief inspector Dell on 1 July 2026. Dell managed the Special Demonstration Squad / Special Duties Squad (SDS) between 2001-2005. And he worked on C-squad – the Special Branch department that dealt with protest – prior to this.

During questioning about the links between private companies and police spies, Dell stated:

I remember someone on C-squad telling me that BAE Systems had suffered another attack…BAE had offered the Branch money to finance so resources could be put into this.

Dell denied that Special Branch took the money, stating:

Even though the Branch could well have done with the money, they made the offer to the commissioner, obviously, and it had to be declined.

It appears likely that this refusal led BAE Systems to take matters into its own hands. The Seeds of Hope action took place in 1996, and by 1997, BAE Systems had embedded its own corporate spy, Martin Hogbin, at Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT). Hogbin remained at CAAT until 2003.

Cops worked for BAE Systems anyway

However, this also didn’t stop the SDS spying on CAAT throughout this period. HN3, cover name “Jason Bishop”, was also authorised to target CAAT. Former detective sergeant Ron Gilbertson, HN49, stated that Bishop was:

authorised to target CAAT because the group was known to hold protests and demonstrations, which had the potential to result in serious public disorder.

Bishop also targeted Disarm DSEI, the coalition group organising against the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair. And he was close friends with CAAT’s media coordinator, Emily Apple.

However, documents revealed in the Inquiry show that anti arms trade campaigners weren’t targeted because of the threat they posed to public order, but because their protests:

could influence the financial wellbeing of the state.

Apple said:

BAE Systems went to extraordinary lengths to spy on anti arms trade campaigners, and intrude into our lives. This is a private company essentially prepared to bribe the police for information about its critics.

There are serious questions that the Inquiry needs to investigate about the complicity between successive governments, the police, and arms companies to repress our right to protest in order to protect a trade that is complicit in multiple genocides and human rights abuses.

However, it’s important to remember that this is not historical. The power of the arms trade to influence both government and policing policy is in evidence today.

Advertisement

This is shown clearly in the proscription of Palestine Action, with documents detailing meetings Elbit Systems had, not just with the Home Office but with the attorney general’s office, about how to crack down on protesters.

Successive governments have tried to label our protests as unlawful or undemocratic. However, it is the arms trade, the government, and the police that are profoundly undemocratic, repeatedly subverting the law to repress, surveil and harass our protests.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Animal welfare charity FOUR PAWS UK is calling on the government to back mandatory animal welfare labelling legislation. It has published a report that reveals widespread confusion on supermarket shelves and growing public demand for a simpler, more transparent system.

A special event in parliament on 9 July launched the report. It included a pop-up supermarket aisle where parliamentarians saw how regulated welfare labels could transform the way we shop.

The report highlights a fragmented labelling landscape. Shoppers currently have to navigate a patchwork of assurance logos and welfare claims. And there’s often no clear information on how animals were bred, reared or slaughtered.

FOUR PAWS UK found that consumers are increasingly expressing concern for animal welfare. But they don’t have the tools needed to make informed choices between products. Unlike price or ingredients, animal welfare cannot be verified at the point of purchase. And this means consumers must rely entirely on the information presented on packaging.

Terms such as “farm fresh” and “responsibly sourced” can appear reassuring. But they provide little tangible information about stock density, housing conditions, access to pastures, or other factors that have a meaningful impact on an animal’s quality of life.

Method of Production labelling

FOUR PAWS UK argues the solution is mandatory Method of Production (MoP) labelling across all animal products. Under the proposals, labels would clearly identify the housing systems in which animals were kept and be supported by validated welfare indicators. This would create a consistent and trustworthy framework for consumers, retailers and farmers alike.

The report cites evidence from the egg sector that demonstrates how clear MoP labelling can improve consumer understanding. This has influenced purchasing decisions, contributing to the long-term shift away from caged egg production.

There is also strong public support for reform. A 2025 FOUR PAWS UK survey found that almost 80% of respondents support MoP labelling on animal products sold in supermarkets. The same research found four in five people also support banning cages for farmed animals. And two-thirds support ending barn systems where animals are raised exclusively indoors.

Emily Wilson, head of programmes at FOUR PAWS UK states:

Most people assume the information on a food label tells them something meaningful about the life an animal led. Too often, that simply isn’t the case. When shoppers are standing in front of a supermarket shelf, they should be able to tell, at a mere glance, the difference between one product and another.

The public have made it clear that animal welfare matters to them, but are being asked to make decisions on inconsistent, confusing and misleading claims. Consumers deserve honest, straightforward information.

Farmers who are already investing in higher welfare deserve recognition for the standards they’re setting. Most importantly, animals deserve a system that encourages a better standard of life.

Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael is chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee. He wrote the foreword for the report, hosted the launch and chaired an expert panel discussion with representatives from farming, certification and retail sectors. He added:

People have a right to know how the food they buy was produced. The current landscape is clouded with marketing spin and meaningless messages, which only do a disservice to shoppers and the many farmers who are already investing in raising standards.

The government has an opportunity to deliver a practical reform, with benefits for consumers, producers and animals alike.

The market has failed so the government needs to step up

FOUR PAWS UK is calling on the government to bring forward mandatory MoP labelling legislation. And it’s urging MPs from all parties to support measures that improve transparency, reward higher welfare farming and give consumers the information they are demanding.

Voluntary approaches alone cannot deliver the consistency and market-wide coverage needed to drive genuine change. While assurance schemes do play an important role, coverage remains uneven and significant gaps exist across imports, processed foods and food service settings.

Without a common standard, farmers investing in better standards have to compete on a Wild West-like playing field, against products using ambiguous welfare claims. We need to level this playing field and bring in mandatory legislation that applies consistently across domestic and imported products, processed foods and food service settings.

You can download and read the report in full here. For more information email FOURPAWS@thephagroup.com

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Source link

On 13 July, activists disrupted Manchester and Glasgow offices housing Chubb Insurance. It was part of a coordinated campaign to pressure genocide-complicit corporations to sever ties with apartheid Israel.

Campaigners believe that Chubb Insurance offers Employers’ Liability Insurance to UAV Engines Limited. UAV is a subsidiary of Elbit Systems, which arms the Israeli occupation with 85% of its weapons.

Palestine Resistance Collective (PRC) occupied the Manchester office lobby with banners and a model of Elbit Systems’ quadcopter drone.

Meanwhile, Mothers Against Genocide Scotland held a family-friendly demonstration outside the Glasgow office with banners and music, engaging with the public as they passed by.

As workers arrived for the day, they had to walk through the protests and confront their corporation’s role in genocide. Some reportedly appeared shocked.

Chubb under pressure

In the last few months, Chubb has also faced numerous direct action hits across the country. Actionists have locked on outside, broken windows and covered buildings in red paint.

Last year, campaigners claimed victory when Allianz and Aviva stopped providing Employee Liability Insurance to Elbit, following sustained protest activity. Since Chubb took on this role, it has become the focus of many groups who believe sustained protest activity will again force the insurer to sever ties.

A member of Palestine Resistance Collective, who coordinated the action in Manchester, stated:

Isreal is expanding its plans of systematic land theft and murder at a never seen before scale. Whilst a myth of a ceasefire exists, Chubb Insurance is in the background drooling at the sight of money to be made off the bombs, missiles and drones dropping on tents.

Chubb Insurance will learn the hard way, akin to its cousin corporations, Allianz, Aviva and AXA who were forced to abandon their genocidal ventures.

Andrew Taylor for Boycott Bloody Insurance explained:

Chubb is profiteering from the ethnic cleansing happening in Gaza and the West Bank. Its insurance enables Elbit Systems to continue to battle-test its weapons on Palestinian civilians.

Research by Boycott Bloody Insurance uncovered that Chubb maintains a high position in terms of underwriting the risk of weapons manufacturers with ties to the genocide. Chubb has achieved the worst possible score for any insurer across a variety of key issues.

This includes insuring companies such as Lockheed Martin, Elbit Systems, and multiple suppliers of the F-35 fighter jet parts, which are also used by the occupiers to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in their native land.

Featured image supplied

By The Canary

Source link

Olly Robbins, former permanent under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, has begun a legal challenge of Starmer’s decision to sack him over his supposed role in the appointment of Peter Mandelson, disgraced ambassador to the US.

Starmer sacked Mandelson after details of his friendship and extensive communications with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein became public knowledge.

The PM blamed Robbins for failing to let him know that concerns were raised during Mandelson’s security vetting for the ambassadorial position. Starmer sacked the then-head of the Foreign Office on 16 April.

‘Dismissive approach’ to vetting

On 21 April, Robbins published a letter he wrote to Emily Thornberry MP, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. He noted that he was seeking advice about his dismissal. Further, regarding Mandelson’s appointment, he claimed that there was:

[a] dismissive approach to DV (developed vetting) from Number 10 Downing Street (No 10) for the remainder of the process. Nonetheless, despite this atmosphere of pressure, the department completed DV to the normal high standard.

The very next day, 22 April, Starmer claimed during PMQs that there was “no pressure existed whatsoever” around Mandelson’s vetting. As such, some commentators argued that the PM had misled parliament.

Casting further doubt on Starmer’s claims to ignorance, on 23 April, it emerged that the PM sent a text to Mandelson on the night of his appointment:

You’ll be brilliant in challenging circumstances. And after many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side. I really look forward to that.

‘A rash response to a media story’

In a statement given on 13 July, Robbins’ union — the FDA, which represents civil servants — issued a statement confirming that he had requested a judicial review of his dismissal. The union urged the prime minister to admit his mistake, which it held was:

based on a grievous misunderstanding of how the national security vetting (NSV) system worked and a rash response to a media story.

The FDA also argued that:

Rather than being under a duty to tell ministers about the process leading up to the vetting decision, Olly was under an obligation not to.

The process is independent of government ministers, who are only informed of the final outcome.

In his submissions to the court, Robbins claimed there was “no fair procedure” in the decision. He further argued that Starmer:

has no statutory authority to dismiss the head of the diplomatic service.

‘I bring this action reluctantly’

The former Foreign Office chief stated that: 

I bring this action reluctantly. It would have been unnecessary if the prime minister had simply apologised for his mistake and made amends for the distress and cost it has caused me and my family.

Instead, I now have to ask the courts to determine that the prime minister’s decisions were unlawful, unreasonable and to quash them.

Advertisement

In June, both the Guardian and the Independent reported that Andy Burnham’s team has been in talks to appoint Robbins to as national security adviser in a new administration. Jonathan Powell, the current adviser, is rumoured to quit the post in the near future.

Robbins held his position at the head of the Foreign Office for just over a year. However, he has previously worked as both the UK’s chief Brexit negotiator and deputy national security adviser.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

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=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”7b116e6c-c831-4f0a-a2a9-f455cb6f4276″}).render(“6a550e1ee4b0107f0db7063a”);});

Source link

Source link

Source link

The European Union has pulled a procedural trick to ram through “Chat Control 1.0” (CC1). CC1 suspends normal EU privacy laws so that tech platforms can ‘mass-scan’ users’ private messages for government.

European Parliament members had already rejected the proposal twice because of the dangers it poses to privacy. The proposal is what MEPs term a “legislative zombie” – defeated repeatedly but resurrected over and over until it gets through.

So the EU tabled it again, but this time as an “urgent procedure”. Instead of the usual absolute majority (50% plus one of MEPs voting) required to pass or defeat it, this meant that blocking it required an absolute majority of all MEPs, whether or not they were present to vote.

Democracy bypassed

The proposal was again strongly rejected, by 314 votes to 276. However, many MEPs had already gone on holiday for the summer recess, or were otherwise unable to attend. This meant the opposition lacked the total required to defeat the proposal: 360 votes.

As a result, the ‘defeat’ didn’t count. The ‘majority of the total’ only applied in one direction – a vote to reject CC1. It wasn’t required in order for the measure to pass.

Fake ‘safeguard’

In order to con some MEPs into supporting the proposal or abstaining, the legislation was amended to exclude messages sent under supposed ‘end to end encryption’.

However, the EU council – dominated by government ministries to whom privacy is an unwanted inconvenience – is expected to remove the amendment before the legislation is enacted in its final form after the summer recess.

Assault on free expression

CC1 forms part of a wholesale assault by the EU – and the UK government – on freedom of speech, freedom of protest, and journalism they don’t like.

The EU has just passed a law making it a criminal offence to share any content – even entirely factual content – from Russian broadcaster RT (formerly Russia Today), for example. But more than anything, CC1 is part of an assault on speech and protest defending the human rights of Palestinians and opposing Israel’s crimes.

The UK government has extended its anti-democratic war on protest by expanding the Terrorism Act to apply to any organisation the government decides to ‘designate’. The ‘designation’ makes it a criminal offence even to use information from a designated group, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Again, truth is no defence – and journalists have no exemption. Instead, they can try to defend themselves – in court – against charges under the legislation by claiming they had a “reasonable excuse” for journalistic purposes. They will still have to bear the cost and expense of legal defence against prosecution.

Cui bono

All of these anti-democratic, anti-freedom measures are intended to have two main beneficiaries: Israel, first and foremost; and Ukraine, or at least the Ukraine war.

By invading private discussions, governments can more easily disrupt and criminalise attempts to organise protests, information campaigns and direct action. These efforts aim to raise public awareness of Israel’s crimes and the realities of Nazi-riddled Ukraine. State-corporate media will either ignore these, or actively cover them up, so independent journalism has to be silenced.

By combining an assault on private speech with a war on public speech and journalism, those in power hope to protect criminal states and their ‘wars’ – and the elites that benefit from, or act for, them.

The UK is no longer a functional democracy, if it ever was. The EU is clearly doing its best to rush down the same path.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link