We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

Spring has only just sprung, which means it’s time for that tricky edge-of-winter transitional dressing.

You know how it is – you leave the house in the morning, and it’s freezing. Then by lunch, you’re sweating your life away, but when you head home for the day, it’s chilly again.

And heaven help you if you stay out past sunset and forget a good coat!

But one of the best things about this time of year is that the weather is suddenly a lot more flat-shoe friendly, what with the fact that there’s (usually) no more snow or ice to waddle your way through, and a lot less need for thick cosy socks.

If you’re looking for a little flat shoe shopping inspo, here are some of the best flats on the high street right now that are perfect for chic gals about town.

Callum Price is Director of Communications at the Institute of Economic Affairs, and a former Government special adviser. 

When I was a child, I used to play Playmobil ‘cowboys and Indians’ with a friend every day at the after-school club (we were about 6 and it was the early 2000s, yet to be made aware of the cultural insensitivities this threw up). One day, my friend didn’t want to play anymore, because the club got a new SEGA Megadrive, which was obviously far more entertaining. I was gutted and rather petulant about it – until I too embraced the wonders of the SEGA Megadrive.

I was reminded of this recently when Ed Davey decided to use his intervention at PMQs as the war in the Middle East unfolded to take aim at those who have moved to Dubai and paid less in UK tax as a result.

Davey probably thought he was making a very sensible and patriotic point. Why should those who have left our shores be recipients of our support?

At first glance there is some instinctive logic to this. They aren’t paying in to the coffers, so why should they be able to take out of them?

However, as many others have pointed out, there are a range of problems with this logic; not least that no-one argued that those we evacuated from Sudan or Afghanistan at times of crisis should foot their own bill.

Not only that, but our entire welfare state system is built on the premise that it is there for British citizens when they need it. In an ideal world, everyone pays into it when they can, and gets out of it what they must. It might feel strange to consider RAF repatriation flights part of the welfare state, but the logic stands just the same.

If we want to be stricter about deciding who benefits from the Treasury’s coffers based on who contributes, then I’m sure many Conservative Home readers would happily partake. But it would surprise me if those who are using the Middle East crisis to take aim at ‘tax avoiders’ in Dubai would share those sympathies.

So, what is really behind the animosity directed at those who have emigrated to Dubai?

On the surface, it seems like a primarily aesthetic debate. The Dubai Deanos vs the British Patriots. To the former Dubai is a safe haven of sunny beaches and a (much) lower tax burden, much preferable to Broken Britain. To the latter, it’s a gauche and cultureless desert that could only appeal to the uncivilised.

I admit to personally being closer to the latter than the former on purely aesthetic grounds, but 240,000 Brits have moved there for something – friends and relatives among them. Can we not accept that people might seek to use their agency to go and find a better life for themselves and their families, even if it might not be our own version of a better life?

When we scratch beneath the surface it appears that many can’t, political elites and otherwise, which is a damning illustration of their attitude to prosperity. It is a sort of Dubai Derangement Syndrome; embracing decline because prosperity is gauche. The belief that having the gall to do something radical to improve your lot in life is an act of vile self-interest, and fundamentally un-British. Taking radical action to achieve something better is beyond the pale. We have it good enough and we should be happy about it.

It is the same philosophy that leads politicians to crow about ‘1.5 per cent growth, the fastest in the G7’ as a major victory: a broad comfort with mediocrity. It is managed decline, with a patriotic spin; accepting a lesser lot to spite those who have dared stray from the accepted path.

But we shouldn’t decry ambition, we should venerate it. In the week that Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations celebrates its 250th anniversary, we should remember just how important self-interest is to a functioning economy, we don’t create wealth or deliver prosperity without it. So why make villains of those who are demonstrating these values?

On the contrary, we should be doing all that we can to get them back, so they can achieve their aims in Britain and we can bask in the reflective benefits of their ambition. Dubai has a lot going for it inherently; so does Britain. But we can do significantly better in the disputed ground in between, by fixing our fundamental economic problems.

If people were more able to easily find fulfilling employment, keep more of the money they earned from it, and spend it on more than just their energy bills and replacing the phone that got stolen at the bus stop, then Dubai and its competitors might become relatively less appealing. After all, at six years old I was able to embrace the SEGA Megadrive to keep playing with my friend – and it turned out to be quite fun too.

Mr. Davey, you may not like what Dubai has to offer, but don’t tarnish those who do with the brush of ‘tax exiles’ and ‘washed-up old footballers’. If we were able to attract their like and their ambition, instead of scaring them away, we would all feel the benefits.

Who was William Willett?

Why did the UK adopt BST?

In a rational, decent world, Keir Starmer would already be toast — politically at least. Among the limited new files released, a briefing document reveals that Starmer knew about Mandelson’s Epstein ties, prior to his appointment as UK ambassador. Starmer knew. Furthermore, we have the receipts which challenge his sorry not sorry excuse of “having believed Mandelson’s lies.”

Starmer knew

He knew Mandelson was, and, had remained, “particularly close” to serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein long after Epstein’s conviction for paedophilia. He knew that Mandelson had set up a meeting between Epstein and Tony Blair. Moreover, he also knew that appointing Mandelson would be a disaster if it got out:

And it proves that Starmer flat-out lied when, after the renewed Mandelson scandal broke, that he “would never have appointed” Mandelson “had I known.”

In the public record

Of course, we knew he knew. The key facts about Mandelson and Epstein had been in the public domain long before the Epstein file release showed Mandelson leaking state information to his paedophile pal. These include:

• Mandelson and Epstein’s closeness began well over 20 years before Starmer got into Number 10 and appointed him. Notably, Mandelson immediately set up the Epstein-Blair meeting.

• Their contact continued years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.

• Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s New York house in 2009.

And much more.

Protected by status

In a sane world, yet another confirmation of how much Starmer knew about Mandelson and Epstein would end the paedophile-protecting Brylcreemed blancmange. But it’s not a sane world. Instead, Starmer’s status as a “long-time servant of the security state” has protected him repeatedly. This is true through Savile. It is also true through the non-prosecution of Church of England paedophile John Smyth.

Through ‘beergate‘, through the decision not to prosecute the police murderer of Ian Tomlinson, through the Post Office scandal, through Assange. Through the endless paedophile and covered-up sex abuse scandals. Through dodgy apartment loans and donations for his son’s ‘study break’.

Starmer is not ‘teflon.’ He is widely loathed, and the cost of his dishonesty is the already threadbare legitimacy of the Labour party. Still, the political axe won’t swing until he’s outlived his usefulness to those driving the country toward fascism.

Featured image via the Canary

The High Court has ordered former footballer Joey Barton to pay TV sports pundit and former England footballer Eniola ‘Eni’ Aluko almost £340,000 in libel compensation and costs. A first instalment of £100,000 plus interest must be paid by 24 March, though the court gave him a week to apply for a ‘variation’ in the timing.

Aluko sued Barton over a flood of posts on the X social media platform in a “deliberately targeted public campaign of vilification [and] an attack on multiple aspects of her life and personality”. Barton accused Aluko of “cynically [seeking] to exploit her status as an alleged victim of racism and bullying”. Barton has now accepted that he mounted a harassment campaign against his victim.

Aluko said simply that she is “glad it’s the end.”

Barton has been convicted twice for violent crimes. He was also convicted in 2025 of six counts of malicious communications for his abusive messages concerning Aluko and others about TV host Jeremy Vine.

Featured image via the Canary

Illustration by Tracy Worrall

11 min read6 min

Steps hang from the cliff leading to nowhere; fencing, too, curves into thin air while the skewed foundations of what was once a house slide down a sandy slope to the Suffolk sea.

This is Thorpeness, or what is left of it. The village is being eaten by the waves at a far faster rate than anyone expected and becoming emblematic of the increasing challenge of coastal erosion.

“On New Year’s Eve, we were dancing on those rocks in the garden,” says Roger Hawkins, the owner of a home apparently doomed to follow its neighbours, pointing to shoreline rubble. “The next morning, we were literally watching them fall into the sea.”

Hawkins and others at the water’s edge face not only losing their uninsurable homes but liability for the costs of demolition – and even a requirement that they first conduct a bat survey.

Thorpeness is a genteel sort of a place, notable for a boating lake, proximity to a nuclear power station, and a history of having been developed into an elite holiday resort full of mock Tudor houses. 

When local MP Jenny Riddell-Carpenter was first contacted by residents about coastal erosion, it was, she recalls, a relaxed conversation with everyone expecting five to 10 years to prepare for any damage.

Just eight months later, the local council is battling to save a second line of houses from falling into the sea. “The speed of it has been quite devastating,” Riddell-Carpenter says. In the last year, 28m of the cliff at Thorpeness has fallen away, forcing 10 properties – a mix of first and second homes – to be demolished in just four months. According to East Suffolk council (ESC), in some places as much as 16m of the shoreline has been lost in just the last four weeks.

Those working on the issue believe that the phenomenon should be a wake-up call for government. According to the Environment Agency, there are currently 3,500 homes at risk of coastal erosion across England in the period up to 2055. But that is not the full story. “The Environment Agency has told me the number will be much higher once there is a reassessment,” Riddell-Carpenter says. “People will need to be rehoused. We need to have an adaptive policy for rehousing these people. We need to prioritise that.”

Land loss due to climate change-accelerated coastal erosion is unavoidable

Advertisement

Experts blame a combination of rising sea levels and increased storm frequency – both attributed to climate change. “Climate-change accelerated coastal erosion will continue for centuries, increasing the rate and extent of landscape change,” says Larissa Naylor, professor of geomorphology and environmental geography at the University of Glasgow.

“Land loss due to climate change-accelerated coastal erosion is unavoidable,” she adds. The East Coast of England has been particularly affected in recent years, with easterly winds battering the coast.

The House has visited Thorpeness on a grey and windy day towards the end of February. Picking our way down the shingle beach with Riddell-Carpenter and Karen Thomas, the strategic lead for coastal management adaptation for ESC, we pass a sign on the shore, warning visitors: “Stay away. Beach closed.”

“We’ve got 250-60 properties at erosion risk according to the current risk map,” Thomas says. While government funding has recently been made available for adaptive measures, such as managed retreat or rerouting roads deemed at risk, Thomas argues there is still a policy-sized gap for those at risk of erosion.

Currently, the council has a duty to rehouse those who have lost their main home and have no ability to buy or rent another. Thomas explains that the council currently has a map of the most at-risk homes, but there is currently an 18-month waiting list for social housing across the whole East Suffolk council area. 

While the pressure on social housing as a result of the erosion in Thorpeness has not been acute so far, the housing team is currently developing a new policy to give priority to those at very imminent erosion risk and embed planning for erosion. This would give the team the flexibility to be able to re-house people quickly if needed.

“Thorpeness is caught between the old way of doing the coast, which is you can keep putting stuff in front of things, and the new way of doing things, which is, if we can move people away from risk, that would be preferable. 

“In the middle, there are a few communities that do not benefit from either of those two options, and the best that we could do as a council was offer them demolition,” Thomas says.

“You’re still going to have to incentivise people to move or take it seriously, because no one’s going to move until they absolutely have to, because no one’s offering them anything.”

A Defra spokesperson told The House: “Coastal erosion is an extremely challenging impact from climate change, and we will always support coastal communities to adapt where the forces of nature make long-term defence impossible.

“This government is determined to make a difference and over the last two years more than £600m has been invested in protecting communities from sea and tidal flooding as well as coastal erosion.

“To help the communities that are most at risk, a £30m pilot scheme is underway to take further practical action including considering selective property purchases.”

One seemingly unfair aspect of the problem is how quickly your money can literally fall off a cliff. “There’s no compensation if you lose your home,” Riddell-Carpenter explains. Technically, homeowners actually need to cover the demolition of their home if it has been identified as high-risk. Thomas says the costs of demolition exceed the amount that can be claimed from Defra’s Coastal Assistance Grant (£6,000), therefore the majority of the bill must be footed by individuals or the council.

The House understands that the Environment Agency is looking at increasing the current figure after both Riddell-Carpenter and ESC raised concerns that the current compensation is inadequate.

For now, ESC has managed to fund the gap. But Thomas explains that Thorpeness is not an isolated incident. Just up the coast in Corton, Thomas says, there are a lot more houses at erosion risk. Thomas explains that council demolition costs are not sustainable for the number of homes at erosion risk, so it will be a challenge if there is no additional assistance from the government.

In Corton, Thomas and the council are already thinking about what the opportunities might be for new housing, or temporary housing. She also raises the possibility of renting the property out to those working on the nearby Sizewell site to make money before it is knocked down.

The costs for taking down a home extend beyond simple demolition. Utilities must be disconnected, and properties surveyed for asbestos, even bats. Thomas explains that the challenges have been exacerbated by the nearby construction work on a £40bn nuclear power plant at Sizewell C.

“There are challenges around trying to get someone to do a bat survey, it’s really difficult because there aren’t a lot of bat survey specialists, and they’re all tied up with Sizewell.”

The cost of demolition has also been pushed up by Sizewell – getting machinery to the site is more complicated because of the project. “We’ve just got the perfect storm of getting vehicles here, getting the right expertise in,” Thomas explains.

Riddell-Carpenter mentions that there is a question over whether those benefiting from the shoreline economically could have a role to play in contributing financially towards the council’s current work.

When The House visits Thorpeness, the council is trying to plan ahead, aiming for a natural cliff line with the second row of houses across the road remaining. Ultimately, the council wants to end up with a wide beach that will become a natural defence. With a good beach, Thomas explains, erosion will be close to one metre a year.

But it is just a temporary fix. “The houses on the other side of the road might have 15 to 30 years, but you might only have five, if we’re unable to manage this the way that we’d like to.”

After leaving the beach, The House visits resident Roger Hawkins’ home, after seeing it from the beach. Hawkins was one of those who contacted Riddell-Carpenter in May last year when the threat facing the homes on the front still seemed like a far-off worry.

Hawkins explains that the house, which he designed, is now 20 years old. It was originally a second home, but his wife has recently retired, and they had hoped to make it their permanent residence.

Hawkins is now spearheading several protective works to, as he puts it, “buy time” for both his property and around 24 others. In total, the works will cost £500,000, funded 50:50 with the council and privately. Hawkins hopes the move will buy two to five years, by which point the rate of erosion may have stabilised.

Under the current non-statutory Shoreline Management Plans, defences can be installed in a way that allows managed realignment of the coast, but cannot have any negative impact on communities elsewhere along the shoreline.

While Hawkins is facing a worst-case scenario, unable to insure the home he could lose, there is a sense that such resources and expertise would not be available to all communities.

After leaving Hawkins, The House walks down North End Avenue, where the houses on the frontline have been demolished and the second line on the other side of the road stands resolute, for now.

The avenue feels almost haunted by the ghosts of the now-demolished homes. Garden gates and walls remain standing, now marking the entrance to nothing but compact muddy earth, and the remnants of some garden paving.

On our return, Riddell-Carpenter says that she would like to see the government allow communities to be more agile in their response. “Have a pot of money, let the community access it, let us lead the adaptation,” she urges.

Our conversation pauses when the MP stops and points out two apparent “doom tourists” ignoring a “Road Closed” sign and heading down a forbidden path past demolition sites. “It’s really infuriating that people are travelling to this part of the country to have a look at what is going on. Let people have their dignity. Their home is being pulled down,” she bristles.

Thorpeness is the first in a long line of communities that are going to be affected

Advertisement

Another policy hole, as Riddell-Carpenter sees it, is the fact that there is “nothing in law” about not declaring a property as at risk of coastal erosion when it is sold. “People have tried to sell their homes and not too long ago some were bought. That needs to change,” she says, adding that this is something she is pushing the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on.

As The House says goodbye to Riddell-Carpenter, she reflects that Thorpeness “is the first in a long line of communities that are going to be affected” by coastal erosion.

“I think this has shone a light on [the fact that] we’re not getting away from climate change.

“The whole system needs to be relooked at, just to make sure, are we doing enough to support our communities? I would argue at the moment, we’re not. That’s because we weren’t expecting it to happen this fast. Where can we make lessons learned?”

Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden is seeing a similar problem 352 miles away, in her constituency in South Devon. In the village of Torcross, intensifying storms and higher waves are buffeting the community. While there is an Environment Agency sea defence wall in place, Voaden says it “is clearly not enough to protect the homes now that the beach has eroded and dropped by several metres”.

Currently, around 20 homes are being affected, with several more directly behind those. “The houses are very badly damaged and it’s not clear whether people will be able to go back into them. The waves race up the wall and crash down on the top of the houses, blasting out windows and raining shingle down on the rooftops.”

Voaden says the incident raises difficult questions over who should be responsible. For some, their properties were bought when erosion “wasn’t even a conversation” and “for them to lose everything feels deeply unjust”. She says we need to start thinking seriously at a national government level about how coastal erosion is managed and who is responsible for what.

“The long term is still a big unknown, with climate change effects likely to intensify. But for now we need to bolster the defences we have, protect those homes and give people the time to make long-term decisions.” 

Anand Menon argues that while the UK government speaks more freely about the economic impact of Brexit and its ambitions for closer ties to the EU, its red lines will limit what it is able to achieve.

Something is changing in the politics of Brexit. Not that long ago, open discussion of the economic impact of leaving the EU was frowned upon. More recently, the government has been significantly more forthright. Rachel Reeves has repeatedly emphasised the costs of Brexit. And now, rumours abound that she’s going to double down on that theme in her forthcoming Mais lecture.

Let’s be clear. Having a government that is willing to be honest about the impact of such a significant policy decision marks real progress. Whatever you think about Brexit, self-delusion over its implications is not what the country needs from its political leaders.

Equally, however, there is a curious disjuncture in government thinking on this. Simply put, their current position seems to consist of emphasising the significant costs that have been incurred thanks to our decision to leave the EU, whilst being equally forceful in ruling out the steps that would be needed to reduce these.

By this I of course mean the continued insistence by Ministers that their red lines – on the customs union, the single market and on freedom of movement – remain as fixed as they were when they were added to the Labour manifesto two years ago.

Let me place this in context. The OBR continues to argue that the medium-term impact of Brexit will be in the order of 4% of GDP, while a number of other economists propose a significantly higher figure. By way of contrast, John Springford of the Centre for European Reform has estimated the value of the deals currently being negotiated at around 0.1% of GDP. The government’s own figures suggest it might be of the order of 0.3%.

Putting two and two together, then, the government thinks it has found a way of doing something far more ambitious than the current reset while respecting its own red lines.

The chosen mechanism seems to be ‘alignment’. As Joël Reland expertly outlines, the tone with which this government has begun to discuss the prospect of dynamic alignment with EU rules marks a striking departure from anything we have heard post-Brexit. Keir Starmer’s government, it would seem, prioritises economic gain over the potential pitfalls inherent in being a rule taker.

The problem is that the EU is not as enthusiastic. Not because there is any principled objection to selective alignment. Supposed EU resistance to what it dubs ‘cherry picking’ was always something of a myth. Indeed, the UK-EU summit last May was a cherry picker’s dream. The EU agreed to start negotiations on selective UK participation in those bits of the single market relating to agriculture, emissions trading and electricity.

Selective alignment, in other words, is fine – as long as it suits the EU. And one crucial reason why these three areas are being prioritised is that they all help in addressing some of the thorny issues created by Northern Ireland’s unique status under the Protocol.

Beyond these sectors, however, things become far trickier. Of course the UK wants carve outs. Squaring the circle of the need for growth and the existence of those pesky red lines demands them. But on the EU side there is genuine concern about the UK enjoying too many of the benefits of the single market without accepting the obligations that come with membership. Equally, there is no shortage of EU firms that rather enjoy their UK competitors struggling to trade in the single market.

Over and above all this there is the politics. There is simply no incentive for EU leaders to help a country that has left the club flourish economically. Not least given that many of them face populist opponents who, whilst they may no longer call for exit from the EU, would certainly prefer it to be less intrusive. A Britain that serves as a salutary warning of the economic cost of being outside is no bad thing in this regard.

And a final issue is conjunctural. We’re negotiating with the EU at the very moment when the member states are embarking on what promise to be rather bad-tempered negotiations over the EU’s seven-year budget. If the fate of the negotiations over SAFE are anything to go by, one side-effect of this will be to encourage them to see the UK as a potential cash cow that might help smooth those internal discussions.

So, the problem the government faces is that the EU might not be too keen to give them what they want. One obvious solution would be to offer in return something the EU is keen to have. At the moment, however, it is hard to see what this might be (I can’t see Starmer and co offering freedom of movement any time soon). Trading security cooperation for economic concessions is a non-starter, not least because the member states know as well as we do that such cooperation is in our interest too.

So as Rachel Reeves stands up to speak, she should be wary of the danger of over promising and under delivering. Yes, Brexit has had a significant impact on our economy. But it is precisely those aspects of it that are causing the most harm to which the government is determined to cling that have exerted the largest impact. Some honesty is better than none. But there is a way to go.

By Anand Menon, Director, UK in a Changing Europe.

The wins for Palestine activists and advocates keep stacking up. Yesterday, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court threw out an appeal by British government which, again, has failed to criminalise Kneecap rapper Mo Chara for holding a bit of cloth. A final decision on whether Óg Ó hAnnaidh – the rapper’s real name – will stand trial on 26 September has not been reached.

Three-nil to Kneecap

“Three-nil to Kneecap,” the rapper announced to a crowd of supporters outside the court. This is the latest legal victory in a series of significant rulings issued in favour of Palestine Action, six of their activists, and BDS Belfast campaigners – against the British state.

The ‘controversial’ cloth the West Belfast man allegedly unfurled at a gig in 2024 was the flag of the proscribed group Hezbollah. A judge initially threw out the case against the Kneecap rapper in September 2025, based on a technical failure of the prosecution. For ‘summary only’ offences – namely minor crimes heard before a magistrate – the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must authorise cases to proceed within six months of the alleged offence – a deadline which had passed in this case.

However, since Britain is a country that doesn’t understand what free speech is, waving the wrong sort of flag can get you done under anti-terror laws. In such cases the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and Attorney General must give their consent to proceed. The Attorney General didn’t do this within the six month timeframe. Consequently, the case was rendered null.

Justice system proves it can count to six

Seems pretty open and shut. However, such is the Zionist-bought Labour government’s determination to go after anything vaguely anti-genocide. They decided to expose themselves to further embarrassment by appealing.

That resulted in Wednesday’s High Court ruling. Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Linden ruled that Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring had been correct in his initial September 2025 decision. In their judgement, as they said:

It follows that no written charge was issued within 6 months of 21 September 2025 and the judge was right to hold that he had no jurisdiction to try any summary only offence alleged to have been committed on that date.

In other words, the government was too late to hand its homework in. The justices did not investigate why the government made this cock-up. Today’s ruling represents the third occasion in which Kneecap have defeated attempts by the war criminals of the Labour party to criminalise them.

In June 2025, the Metropolitan Police dropped their plans to charge Mo Chara for 2023 comments in which he called, in jest, for people to “kill your local MP”.

In an Instagram post following their latest win, the band said:

Get in!!!!!!

Kneecap: 3
Brit Govt: 0

The worlds biggest terrorists are the leaders of the British state.

Free Palestine
Free the 6 counties

Advertisement

They celebrated the win with a press event at Conway Mill in West Belfast, a former mill now used mainly to support local artistic, cultural, and political work.

Mo Chara – No one in that court thinks I’m a terrorist

The group have been clear and been on the record saying:

We do not, and have never, supported Hamas or Hezbollah.

Speaking about the legal handling of his case, Ó hAnnaidh said:

This entire process was never about me, never about any threat to the public and never about terrorism… it was always about Palestine.

Your attempts to label me a terrorist have failed because I was right and, yet again, Britain was wrong.

Advertisement

He told Al Jazeera:

There wasn’t one prosecutor or one individual in that courtroom that thinks I’m a terrorist.

He asked:

What pressure is the British government being put under. From where? Is it from America, is it from Israeli lobbyists? Why are they pursuing this so hard?

Needless to say, these are rhetorical questions.

A ‘vassal’ of the US

Britain is a vassal state of the US empire, an already pseudo-democracy made even more so by the fact that its 70 million people have their will overridden by Washington.

Even minor acts of independence are quickly followed by acquiescence to US power. Starmer pushed back slightly against British involvement in the latest torrent of American war crimes in Iran, only to join in pretty quickly thereafter.

The government is also bought off by Zionist money, with huge numbers of MPs taking cash from Labour Friends of Israel. That has been partly responsible for Britain’s enthusiastic participation in the Zionist entity’s holocaust in Gaza.

These are the reasons why they’ve pursued lawfare against those repulsed by British crimes. Crimes committed using British people’s taxes, then followed up with a legal assault using the same pool of money, which could be better spent on healthcare and education.

The force Mo Chara allegedly backed, Hezbollah, are attempting to impose a cost on so-called ‘Israel’ for its latest display of barbarism in Iran.

In response, the land thieves have engaged in further mass murder in Lebanon. They have killed over 500 people since the start of the Iran assault, and displaced 100,000.

It is this horror that the British government is backing, proving they are the real terrorists, no matter how many failed prosecutions they deploy to try and invert this truth.

Featured image via the Canary